And, again, this: So too there are certain properties peculiar to being as such, and it is about these that the philosopher has to investigate the truth.-An indication of this may be mentioned: dialecticians and sophists assume the same guise as the philosopher, for sophistic is Wisdom which exists only in semblance, and dialecticians embrace all things in their dialectic, and being is common to all things; but evidently their dialectic embraces these subjects because these are proper to philosophy.-For sophistic and dialectic turn on the same class of things as philosophy, but this differs from dialectic in the nature of the faculty required and from sophistic in respect of the purpose of the philosophic life. Dialectic is merely critical where philosophy claims to know, and sophistic is what appears to be philosophy but is not.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.4.iv.html On Mar 8, 5:46 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Arch, much of such notion derives from observation that specific > individuals, at birth, are imbued with great knowledge, that is, > knowledge prior to that which can be attained through environmental > influence. Einstein did not believe in immortality nor the existence > of a soul, however, he does not offer anything other than personal > opinion to negate the notions, accordingly, for him, we humans are > relegated to earthly existence without, I guess, any meaning to life. > In opposition I suggest that the soul is corollary to dream states, > past life regressions, astral and other projections of human spirit. > Our consciousness, in and of itself, may be the physical > representation of soul and therefore has evidential value. I don't > recognize any religious affiliation with soul and see it as > independent of theocracy. Therefore I can bypass atheistic rejection > of theistic notion and recognize the possibility of the soul. As with > thought, soul is not a materialistic energy that can be measured with > scientific instrumentation and is not something you can see, touch, > package or taste. This is where the scientific view falls off the > ledge. When it comes to matters of the mind, out of body experience > or life after death, science has not the means for examination or > observation. Within these parameters it is only possible to accept > soul entity as a theory unless of course one, such as myself, has > personal experiences of soul symptom, as with the many accounts of out > of body, past life experiences, etc. As much as there is no proof > that there is, there is no proof that there isn't. > Perhaps we should have several wet fish slapping! > > On Mar 8, 5:44 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Notions of soul remind me of failed scientific concepts - collapsing > > as the wet fish slaps in the sound of one hand calpping/ > > > On 8 Mar, 04:44, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "...Life is much more than "Planet Earth"." - SD > > > > Yes SD, for some, it is. > > > And, if you missed the drift of my post, it was a riff on fran's post. > > > While not quite irony, you did seem to grasp my pointing out about the > > > use of specific words and language when addressing such things. > > > > On Mar 7, 7:39 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I also agree that the concept of life is > > > > superfluous<<<Orn > > > > > The concept of life is superfluous? > > > > > Again, there is not question that there is no need for such positing. > > > > <<Orn > > > > > I think the "key" word here is "need", which clearly was not a part or > > > > portion of any soul posit. > > > > > You don't have a soul because you need one, you just have one. > > > > > You don't have a physical body because you need one, you just have > > > > one. Look in the mirror, you are there! Not because you "Need" to be > > > > there but because you just are, just as your soul IS. > > > > > I think the key word should simply be "acceptance", so that we can > > > > move on. > > > > > “..But none of this needs some kind of immaterial soul to hold it > > > > together….” – <<<fran Absolutely correct yet again! : - ) <<<Orn > > > > > We don't "Need" to live, to exist, to be human, to be physical, but we > > > > are! > > > > > “…With the simple use of a magnet I can scramble it all…” – fran > > > > > No kidding? Yeah well I wasn't born yesterday and for sure the > > > > technology is not the point. I guess you think that human technology > > > > in data storage is the ultimate technology in "ALL" of the universe. > > > > > My point was that if we pea brain humans can develop such > > > > technologies, then what technologies might exist beyond our > > > > comprehension. Obviously it seems beyond the comprehension of some. > > > > > Life is much more than "Planet Earth". > > > > > On Mar 7, 4:30 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > “…I don't need to call it a soul, because I regard this concept as > > > > > superfluous, much as I regard the concept of God as superfluous. ..” > > > > > fran > > > > > > I agree fran. I also agree that the concept of life is > > > > > superfluous….along with all concepts. However, we can only see as much > > > > > of reality as our notions about that reality can provide. > > > > > > “…I don't see the need to posit any part of what I am as being due to > > > > > knowledge and understanding which my "soul" has accumulated throughout > > > > > many lifetimes….” – fran > > > > > > Again, there is not question that there is no need for such positing. > > > > > This is common rebuttal language and misses the mark so obviously. > > > > > Need has nothing to do with soul, life, etc. All of it ‘is’….and, here > > > > > I will posit that it all ‘is’ based on an ultimate purpose. > > > > > > “..But none of this needs some kind of immaterial soul to hold it > > > > > together….” – fran > > > > > > Absolutely correct yet again! : - ) > > > > > > “…With the simple use of a magnet I can scramble it all…” – fran > > > > > > “…The soul, whatever it may or may not be, is not subject to this sort > > > > > of analysis or discourse…” – fran > > > > > > Yep…an analogy is but an analogy. How the heck could one scramble > > > > > one’s entire being? Difficult to imagine. > > > > > > And, of course, all notions aside, there is either gnosis or there > > > > > isn’t. There is theosis or there isn’t. By ‘is’ in these examples, I > > > > > mean one knows it or one doesn’t. It isn’t for debate. > > > > > > On Mar 7, 9:27 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 Mrz., 14:17, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I could even be Albert Einstein in my next life. Or Helen of > > > > > > > Troy. Or > > > > > > > my own grand-dad. <<<fran > > > > > > > > No fran, that is not how it works, you cannot commandeer the soul > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > someone else. You can only be "you" forever, from here in on out > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > from then on. Even in space time, would you challenge the > > > > > > > possibility > > > > > > > that the soul could retain its integrity? Soul is your being, > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > essence in life, you are who you are because of your soul. > > > > > > > There seem to be things you see clearly, Slip, that I don't see at > > > > > > all > > > > > > - or maybe it's the other way round. I am who I am because I am who > > > > > > I > > > > > > am; my consciousness, my experiences, my mind, my body and brain, my > > > > > > memories, my relationships with others. A unity which I experience > > > > > > as > > > > > > me. I don't need to call it a soul, because I regard this concept as > > > > > > superfluous, much as I regard the concept of God as superfluous. > > > > > > > You, fran, can see the difference when you go out and about in the > > > > > > world around > > > > > > > > you. There is obviously a huge difference between you and many > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > people, and when you ask why is that, which you have at times, > > > > > > > you can > > > > > > > simply attribute it all to the fact that your soul has accumulated > > > > > > > knowledge and understanding throughout many lifetimes. > > > > > > > I don't see the need to posit any part of what I am as being due to > > > > > > knowledge and understanding which my "soul" has accumulated > > > > > > throughout > > > > > > many lifetimes. I am the product of the life I have lived over the > > > > > > past almost 49 years, starting with the unique genetic mix of my > > > > > > conception, moving through the development of my body and > > > > > > consciousness and all that I have experienced in that time, > > > > > > everything > > > > > > continuously interacting with everything else. I am not who I was > > > > > > ten > > > > > > years ago, nor who I will be - if I'm still around - in ten years > > > > > > time. Yet there is continuity here, a continuity consisting of my > > > > > > consciousness in continual dialogue with my memory and in the > > > > > > perception of those around me, along with a biological continual > > > > > > development (even if few of the molecules are still the same after > > > > > > ten > > > > > > years). But none of this needs some kind of immaterial soul to hold > > > > > > it > > > > > > together. > > > > > > > It's rather > > > > > > > > simple really. As I said earlier, in this day and age when we > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > microwaves and space travel, computers, cell phones, dvd, cd, > > > > > > > etc, I > > > > > > > find it hard to believe the disbelief in this theory. > > > > > > > In other words, we can store gobs of information on a piece of > > > > > > > plastic > > > > > > > but we can't have a soul? > > > > > > > The analogy doesn't work, Slip, in my opinion. We don't store the > > > > > > information on plastic but rather on a magnetic stripe (or an or a > > > > > > chip on the plastic), where binary code is laid down according to > > > > > > particular magneto-electrical processes. Even if I don't understand > > > > > > all the science or engineering involved, I am acquainted with the > > > > > > basic principles and, if I had the inclination, could learn more > > > > > > about > > > > > > the details. With the simple use of a magnet I can scramble it all. > > > > > > The same goes for various techniques involved in modulating the > > > > > > frequency of particular forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as > > > > > > is > > > > > > the case in microwave ovens and cell phones. They are physical > > > > > > phenomena, explainable by science. On a cd or dvd, "data are stored > > > > > > as > > > > > > a series of tiny indentations known as “pits”, encoded in a tightly > > > > > > packed spiral track molded into the top of the polycarbonate layer. > > > > > > The areas between pits are known as “lands”. Each pit is > > > > > > approximately > > > > > > 100 nm deep by 500 nm wide, and varies from 850 nm to 3.5 µm in > > > > > > length., The spacing between the tracks, the pitch, is 1.6 µm. A CD > > > > > > is > > > > > > read by focusing a 780 nm wavelength (near infrared) semiconductor > > > > > > laser through the bottom of the > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
