Sweet can't wait to read it mate.
On Jun 6, 10:14 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 1, 1:08 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > It is finished then Pat? > > Not quite. I have to finish the 'Conclusion' section and finish off > an appendix that offers advice to specific countries and I'd like to > add a glossary. Once those are done, I'll start re-reading it from > the top and add or modify as I go. When that's finished, repeat that > step and THEN it should be done. 2-3 months max!!! First person I > ran into who did publishing of any kind already has a draft copy for > reading and is practically begging me to let him publish it. So...all > is going very well indeed. Cheers!! > > > > > On May 31, 1:53 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On May 18, 11:09 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It get harder than even the following standard philosphy Lee: > > > > Since a Cartesian substance is a thing that is ontologically > > > > independent (Principles I:51–52), a complete thing is an ontologically > > > > independent thing. When we clearly and distinctly perceive mind and > > > > body to be complete, we know that they are substances. When we still > > > > clearly and distinctly perceive them to be substances after clearly > > > > and distinctly perceiving them apart from each other, we know that > > > > they are not the same substance under different descriptions. On this > > > > view, Descartes holds that mind and body are ontologically independent > > > > substances, and their distinctness consists in their ability to > > > > continue to exist even after God separates them.[36] > > > > As you might remember, in my theory, thre is only energy. Yet that > > > energy works on three different levels: the physical, consciousness > > > and the purely abstract. This represents three ways of energy > > > expressing itself as a different Cartesian 'substance', even though, > > > in fact, it is all the same substance. A simple half-twist and a turn > > > around a dimensional corner and the underlying string can work in > > > three ways at once. Descartes and I agree on most things and this is > > > another, although I have the advantage of all the science after Rene!! > > > > > An alternative interpretation of Descartes on the real distinction > > > > between mind and body reads the distinction as consisting in the > > > > ontological independence of mind and body, but not in their > > > > separability.[37] Descartes holds that a sufficient condition for > > > > establishing a real distinction between two things is clearly and > > > > distinctly perceiving them to be non-identical substances (“Synopsis > > > > of these following six Meditations,” AT 7:13, CSM 2:9; Fourth Replies, > > > > AT 7:221–223, CSM 2:156–58). If so, he holds that the substantiality > > > > of two non-identical substances does not consist in their being > > > > separable but is just an indication of their separability.[38] On this > > > > view, mind and body are separable for Descartes; it's just that their > > > > separability is a consequence of the (different) fact that they are > > > > really distinct.[39] > > > > > A third reading of the Cartesian real distinction stresses the > > > > difficulty in making room for unactualized possibilities in Descartes' > > > > system. The reading also highlights that Descartes holds that our > > > > clear and distinct perceptions are veridical but says (in his proof of > > > > real distinction) that God can bring about whatever we clearly and > > > > distinctly perceive. Descartes is clear in other texts that the reason > > > > why he mentions God's power in the proof of real distinction is to > > > > remind us that no matter how unlikely we think it is that our > > > > intimately united minds and bodies could also be really distinct, God > > > > has enough power to have made all of our clear and distinct > > > > perceptions veridical. > > > > Yup and I can put the physics behind his assertion. And, will do so > > > (have done so!!) in my book. I do give Descartes a lot of credit in > > > my book with respect to picking up where he left off. > > > > > I'd rather swim in your sea mate! Science gets like this in its > > > > conceptions. It's seriously entertained that distance is a complex > > > > illusion. > > > > > On May 18, 11:05 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Duality and non duality. It's a hard one to get the head around. > > > > > > I belive that Ik on kar, that duality is indeed an illusion, but it's > > > > > a bit one way and a bit the other. > > > > > > If God has granted us free will, that is the freedom to choose God or > > > > > not, then that points towards non duality, but does it really? > > > > > > I see it like water. The sea is the whole, the ik on kar, but it is > > > > > made up of individual drops. We are both the individual drops and the > > > > > whole. > > > > > > On May 18, 10:14 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I have no religion. But I studied and grew up as a Hindu. > > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:40 AM, the taoist shaman > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > RP ---what is the name of your religion > > > > > > > > RP Singh wrote: > > > > > > >> In duality there is the relationship of the observer and the > > > > > > >> observed > > > > > > >> , the knower and the known , that is , there are two. In > > > > > > >> Non-Duality > > > > > > >> there is only One and the world which is dualistic in nature , > > > > > > >> remains > > > > > > >> what it is , just an illusion - i.e. subject to birth and death. > > > > > > >> God > > > > > > >> ,Reality or Atman is Non-Dual and duality is just its > > > > > > >> expression.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
