Re: Proust review: Whitman

[armando baeza]

I decided this many years ago"
I feel the i arrive at my initial design through my soul, because  
there seem to
require very little conscious effort arrive at those mysterious  
choices we make,
that ultimately become the basis for the final and fundamental work  
that the
mind helps us the carry it to it's end.
mando
On Nov 23, 2008, at 8:58 AM, William Conger wrote:

We should decide if the issue is about soul or mind.  I think soul  
is less essential than mind because if we didn't think, we wouldn't  
be aware of the concept of soul. But then if we didn't feel, we  
wouldn't be aware at all. So feeling is the fundamental state, then  
mind, then soul.  I think this is what Whitman thought, too and if  
so, he's a step ahead of the neurologists...and into a place they  
can't go.

WC


--- On Fri, 11/21/08, armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Proust review: Whitman
To: aesthetics-l@mh.databack.com
Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, November 21, 2008, 9:11 PM
All art is done by what we assume to know at the present, I
like to
think we
are individual things among other individual things, so if
anybody
can clarify
things, i want to know. What i think I know, is that every
thing in
the whole
universe is connected as one. We may ones of many little
ones that make
bigger ones. Maybe there is a big thing that is the
totality of all
humans,and
each of us is just things the make the big thing itch at
times.
mando


On Nov 21, 2008, at 11:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 11/20/08 8:21:11 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Regarding the body/mind, if the mind is embodied,
then what are
the limits
of the body?  Skin surface in?  Do we include
bodily fluids and
wastes as
part
of the body?  Do we include speech?  Do we include
things thrown
from the
body? Where does the body begin and end?  These
may seem like
ridiculous
questions but if there is a soul that is
co-existent with the body
or at one
with
it, then we need to know the extension of the
body, or the soul.

(1) Dualists tend to take a position about
consciousness that they
are -- or
should be -- a bit uncomfortable with: It exists in
time, but has no
extension. I.e. it doesn't exist in
"space". This is rather like
the position
of those
who believe in mind-independent
"abstractions" like "justice",
"evil",
"categories", "qualities",
"essences", etc. -- those alleged
entities are also
accepted as having no extension.

(2) You all many times have heard my mantra that all
notion is
indeterminate,
indefinite, multiplex, and transitory. Add this: So
are all "material"
things. We tend to think that when we
"indicate" an object -- like
someone's
body,
or even a rock --   we're citing a stable,
discrete, unitary
object, the
contents of which are determinate and distinctly
bounded.
Linguistically, we
feel
there is a "correspondence" of some kind
between the word/name and
such an
object. William's good questions show that all
these assumptions,
though
usually
serviceable, are fundamentally unsound.



**************
One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social
networks,
and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com
today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/
100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?redi
r=http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp
%26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)