Binyamin Tsadik;25614 wrote:
Oneness does not mean an absence of division.
You must train your mind to stop thinking physically.
No I don't must anything.
And yes, classically, it does. One is One! Period. Indivisible. Irreducible. As I have stated.
The mind is a physical thing, dualistic in nature, and cannot in itself conceive of Oness/monism/perfect symmetry!
Perhaps you have a different 'experience' of Oneness? Would you care to define 'Oneness' as you/he uses it?
My experience (and that of all the mystics throughout the millennia, not to mention modern physics) validates Oneness as I have offered. You/he must have a different definition? Love to hear it.
Look at a clock, or a Computer, or a Human Being.
All of these examples are One but comprise of several parts working together. It is the fact that all of these parts work together that makes it one.
So, you are speaking from a completely mundane understanding. A car is 'one' car, composed of many parts. So? It seems unworthy of a philosophy context in discussing such a mundane concept.
The Soul discussed here is a unity that comprises of several different powers.
I would have to see good definitions and evidences.
RE: Evidence for the Soul
I was not speaking about the higher souls in this section, I was just clarifying that the Soul the RAMBAM is speaking about is the "Nefesh" Which is the bodily soul.
That isn't evidence, it is a definitional example; there were 12,000 souls at the ballgame. In that context, 'people' are interchangeable with 'souls'. Mundane, so?
The evidence of this is that you are reading what I am writing right now.
This is evidence in support of my definition of soul; Consc9ious Perspective. That is the complete set. Perhaps there are many 'subsets' on a continuum, from the obvious and the mundane to the arcane, the Oneness that is 'experienced' in 'enlightenment'....
Read carefully the 5 powers of the Soul and see that they exist.
That these five 'qualities' are called of the soul is a personal slant. TThese 'qualities' can be attributed to commonly mundane features without getting all about the 'soul'. Unless your definition is merely of the body as soul. They all describe the body and bodily functions. Dividing them and attributing them as divisions of a 'soul' seems unnecessary and poorly evidenced as such. Unless by 'soul' you mean 'body'.
There is evidence for each of the 5 powers.
Of course there is evidence of these five qualities, in and of themselves, with simple biological explanations. To hoo-doo-ize them with all this 'soul' talk seems ... 'strained' at best.
Just know that this soul is the soul that is found in all animals.
You cannot tell me to 'just take your word for something', to "just know
" this or that. I 'know' nothing.
Make a point, support it rationally, logically, with evidence, and I will examine your point, critically and thoughtfully, and come to my own (conditional) understanding.
I can play that same game; "just know
that I am god..." capisce'?
Please link me to some science that speaks of 'soul' in animals, or people, for that matter. Mystically speaking, there is no 'soul' in anything/anyone, we ARE soul. Anything 'more' is, solely, ego!
It is the soul that is connected with our animal body.
Common misunderstanding derived from the fallacies of western philosophical errors from Aristotle onward. And to support this erroneous nonsense requires ever greater complexities, do to the ever appearing paradoxes that error manifests.
Now the RAMBAM asks "Which parts of the soul can we change? Which part can we control?"
All ego, ego, ego! "We control"?? Really!
Are you 'attached' to the thoughts of your Rom Bom? Are you a 'believer', and do you identify with his thoughts. If so, I cannot discuss this further, as long hard experience has taught me that discussing a believer's beliefs will be fruitless for all concerned. Try telling a Xtian that Jesus probably never actually walked the earth, or a Jew tha Moses was most likely fictional, or the 300 years of slavery in Egypt probably never happened, or the parting of the Red (mistranslated from 'Reed Sea', if I remember corectly. Much shallower..) Sea. One will reference history and archeological evidence or lack of, and the other will wave his bible and get all emotional, and then kill you. We do kill and die for beliefs quite easily, dont we?
Ball's in your court...