|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2021 0:20:58 GMT
The survival of the soul after death is the transition of one phenomenon, the soul, from one context of being to another. Considering context defines the phenomenon the change of context is the emptiness of both the soul and the context in themselves thus resulting in the aforementioned change.
The soul is thus a boundary of change where it exists as a changing entity where one thing is expressed through variation. This variation is the one phenomenon, the soul, existing in new and different forms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 15, 2021 17:40:52 GMT
How an idea can be docomposited? I can't even imagine anything like that. Surely, we can tell anything what firstly come into our minds, but it can't be with an idea. It is a monolith, not a module. Hell contain souls; not "souls contain hell". A line can be broken down to a series of further lines. A circle can be broken down to angles. A concept such as a cow can be broken down to legs, head, utter, etc. I understand you perfectly. I think I got exactly your idea. And at the same time I cannot agree with that. There's something that barriers it. The wholeness. We can extract many things from ideas - so I confirm it - but those parts are not parts in a usual sense. It's like a tree growing from a little tree or a fruit of it. It's like a nut that grows and transforms to a tree. It is not what can be called parts in usual sense. Besides, any mechanically tied things can be separated easily, but the act of separation doesn't belong to that thing (which is being extracted). When we're dealing with something whole, then the process can give us something: it's like with a pregnant woman, or an idea of pregnancy. So, all of the ideas work like organism, not like material subsistence. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 15, 2021 17:44:14 GMT
A line can be broken down to a series of further lines. A circle can be broken down to angles. A concept such as a cow can be broken down to legs, head, utter, etc. I understand you perfectly. I think I got exactly your idea. And at the same time I cannot agree with that. There's something that barriers it. The wholeness. We can extract many things from ideas - so I confirm it - but those parts are not parts in a usual sense. It's like a tree growing from a little tree or a fruit of it. It's like a nut that grows and transforms to a tree. It is not what can be called parts in usual sense. Besides, any mechanically tied things can be separated easily, but the act of separation doesn't belong to that thing (which is being extracted). When we're dealing with something whole, then the process can give us something: it's like with a pregnant woman, or an idea of pregnancy. So, all of the ideas work like organism, not like material subsistence. But along the timeline each phase of development of an organism is a part. It is a part in the respect it is a point of change from one state into another. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 15, 2021 18:07:02 GMT
I understand you perfectly. I think I got exactly your idea. And at the same time I cannot agree with that. There's something that barriers it. The wholeness. We can extract many things from ideas - so I confirm it - but those parts are not parts in a usual sense. It's like a tree growing from a little tree or a fruit of it. It's like a nut that grows and transforms to a tree. It is not what can be called parts in usual sense. Besides, any mechanically tied things can be separated easily, but the act of separation doesn't belong to that thing (which is being extracted). When we're dealing with something whole, then the process can give us something: it's like with a pregnant woman, or an idea of pregnancy. So, all of the ideas work like organism, not like material subsistence. But along the timeline each phase of development of an organism is a part. It is a part in the respect it is a point of change from one state into another. As Hegel said: an eye can exists by itself and for itself. The Spirit is needed there. Indeed, it doesn't seem to be a fair argument for comparing organic parts with not-organic. A soul, the life, the universe, a person, a statement, a family - all of that and more - something that cannot just break to many pieces easily and with no efforts. These are whole notions, and an idea is one of the central to them. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 15, 2021 18:09:35 GMT
But along the timeline each phase of development of an organism is a part. It is a part in the respect it is a point of change from one state into another. As Hegel said: an eye can exists by itself and for itself. The Spirit is needed there. Indeed, it doesn't seem to be a fair argument for comparing organic parts with not-organic. A soul, the life, the universe, a person, a statement, a family - all of that and more - something that cannot just break to many pieces easily and with no efforts. These are whole notions, and an idea is one of the central to them. The development of an idea follows the same nature as that of an organism. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 15, 2021 18:53:25 GMT
The survival of the soul after death is the transition of one phenomenon, the soul, from one context of being to another. Considering context defines the phenomenon the change of context is the emptiness of both the soul and the context in themselves thus resulting in the aforementioned change. The soul is thus a boundary of change where it exists as a changing entity where one thing is expressed through variation. This variation is the one phenomenon, the soul, existing in new and different forms. What is a SOUL? How do you know that? What sort of context defines a soul? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 15, 2021 21:34:41 GMT
The survival of the soul after death is the transition of one phenomenon, the soul, from one context of being to another. Considering context defines the phenomenon the change of context is the emptiness of both the soul and the context in themselves thus resulting in the aforementioned change. The soul is thus a boundary of change where it exists as a changing entity where one thing is expressed through variation. This variation is the one phenomenon, the soul, existing in new and different forms. What is a SOUL? How do you know that? What sort of context defines a soul? 1. It is the action of thought and memory. 2. I know through self reflection where thought and memory form a loop. This loop results in a form. This form results in being. 3. The body in which the soul inhabits defines the soul. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 16, 2021 15:34:38 GMT
What is a SOUL? How do you know that? What sort of context defines a soul? 1. It is the action of thought and memory. . 2. I know through self reflection where thought and memory form a loop. This loop results in a form. This form results in being. 3. The body in which the soul inhabits defines the soul. So, you are obviously implying that body and soul are two different things, and, I suppose (from the Platonic tradition), two different kinds of things, since thought, for example, is intangible, invisible. etc. -- non-physical. Phenomenogically I am with you, and I would include affects/feelings as objects found through reflection. However, ontologically we are totally separate, for you REIFY what we call the soul in its multifarious nature. Reification is the sin of the Orphico-Platonists. More universally, it is the sin of pre-philosophical men, for whom, as Plato discovered, reality is in itself the way it is sensed-perceived. Indeed, when we see a red apple, we attribute redness to the apple, and the sound of a falling tree to the tree itself -- obviously since a singing man is a sounding man. (Reification, I say, is not an arbitrary human process; it is based on our acquaintance with humans, with ourselves.) // Obviously "soul" is an encapsulating classifying concept and is thought as if it were a substance, whereas it is only an object [res/rei] of our reflections.... |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 19, 2021 6:29:58 GMT
The soul comes from the concept in Hebrew called nephesh (the neck region of a living body) so even the oragens of the Western semantic concept that everybody seems to be juggling back and forth in this thread was it's self just a concept and not the actual "thing" .... The imagination of man is like a Wild Horse and our awareness is like a one-legged Cowboy without a rope trying to catch it
it will just run circles around us all day long inventing different things for us to bicker about and contemplate and waste our time with.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 21, 2021 19:24:36 GMT
1. It is the action of thought and memory. . 2. I know through self reflection where thought and memory form a loop. This loop results in a form. This form results in being. 3. The body in which the soul inhabits defines the soul. So, you are obviously implying that body and soul are two different things, and, I suppose (from the Platonic tradition), two different kinds of things, since thought, for example, is intangible, invisible. etc. -- non-physical. Phenomenogically I am with you, and I would include affects/feelings as objects found through reflection. However, ontologically we are totally separate, for you REIFY what we call the soul in its multifarious nature. Reification is the sin of the Orphico-Platonists. More universally, it is the sin of pre-philosophical men, for whom, as Plato discovered, reality is in itself the way it is sensed-perceived. Indeed, when we see a red apple, we attribute redness to the apple, and the sound of a falling tree to the tree itself -- obviously since a singing man is a sounding man. (Reification, I say, is not an arbitrary human process; it is based on our acquaintance with humans, with ourselves.) // Obviously "soul" is an encapsulating classifying concept and is thought as if it were a substance, whereas it is only an object [res/rei] of our reflections.... The act of reflection is in itself an aspect of the soul. The soul reflects and this reflection is what enables us to know the soul exists considering reflection is the act of thought and memory mirroring the phenomenon in which it observes. Mirroring is an action of repetition of a phenomenon with this mirroring being pure action. The soul as pure action is the soul as mirroring. We know the soul exists becauseits ability to self reflect and form a loop. This loop is the guiding form of reflection with this loop being the form through which the soul exists. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 21, 2021 19:25:32 GMT
The soul comes from the concept in Hebrew called nephesh (the neck region of a living body) so even the oragens of the Western semantic concept that everybody seems to be juggling back and forth in this thread was it's self just a concept and not the actual "thing" .... The imagination of man is like a Wild Horse and our awareness is like a one-legged Cowboy without a rope trying to catch it it will just run circles around us all day long inventing different things for us to bicker about and contemplate and waste our time with. Concepts are things as we observe things and we observe the concept. |
|
