Thanks for the reference and link. Aristotle's views as well Socratic and Platonic philosophies evolved into modernist versions, however, considering that soul theory is as evolutionary, I would say their views are as relevant today as they were in their time. There is much to be sorted out.
On Mar 8, 10:00 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
