I don't believe that people convince other people of anything. I think people convince themselves.
My paradigm is suitable for someone who is questioning their own paradigm and may be looking for something new to replace it with. Just like Copernicus used his observations of the universe to simplify the model of the solar system.
I would agree. I think that the tension between the two does create movement which itself creates something new.
So the male/female tension is inherent in our creative process.
And there are ups and downs as there is with all movement in life (the wave).
Thanks for your insights William. I like the idea of bringing polarity (male/female) into the thought process. It is part of the essence.
If you're not interested in trying to convince other people, then you can only have conversations with people who already believe what you do.
People incorporate the ideas of others when coming to independent decisions. I'm looking for your ideas on the matter. To me it is not self-evident that a soul exists, nor is it self-evident that one does not. I'm interested in your point of view, but you won't even open the door to let me on the bus.
But the difference is that Copernicus showed the world why they should believe his model. He DID convince other people.
What movement, if I might ask? Tension retards/alters/inhibits right movement, IMO. In that respect how can any good come from it?
Inherent? Pardon me if I absolutely "disagree" if history is any judge at all. We man/mankind/ego-maniacal/autonomous brats created that retardation/alteration/inhibited real nature of those two natural paradigms; man and woman.
Yes, in all that is 'not' human, I agree and those waves you speak of would be smooth sailing had it not been for that mighty half of that dual paradigm.
I guess I'm being a bit unfair to you, Rich, after all you did predicate this thread on the "metaphysical" purpose of the soul. But to be consistent that means all I can assume is that the soul has the same metaphysical valuation as any other metaphysical concept like "cause and effect". And to this end, I should not challenge you on any non-metaphysical purpose (or existence) of the soul -- but as I intimate above I cannot assume that they exist either.
He used God to postualte the possible interaction between the two (mind and matter).
How does your notion of soul relate to your notion of mind?
What creatures or entities have a soul?
Does the soul have to be individual and immortal?
Could the soul be like energy transformed and altered but never created or destroyed?
Is personal immortality a non alterable part of your notion of soul?
Po. That is pretty much the description of the aspects of Life: Spirit, Soul, Mind, Will, Body.
You need to study the sub-definitions of the verb "to be" to understand the difference.
Rich made a predicative statement. You did not. Your use of the verb "to be" places the unicorn within a group of nonexisting things, and you make no implicit assertion to its existence independent of this group identity.
I'll change my example. "The unicorn is a white horse with a horn in the middle of its forehead". How about that one?
Although unicorns seem to be possible, they do not seem to be "actual". They fail the test of truth as correspondence to reality. Rational but not empirical.
OK but I think ones concept of "soul" and notions of "immortality or reincarnation" hinge on deeper metaphysical assumptions or philosophical speculations about ontology (ultimate reality) and epistemology (knowledge).
Matter and mind are inseparable manifestations of ultimate reality.
Ultimate reality is composed of events not of inert particles of insensate matter.
Process and creativity are primary; matter is a secondary manifestation.
but the highly detailed system you describe is too much for me (more religion than philosophy in my view).
Materialism gives a partial, incomplete and inadequate explanation of reality (experience). Materialism does not fulfill the purpose of metaphysics to integrate all of experience into a rational framework and to include ethics, aesthetics and values.
Everything (all of reality) would be part of one continuous interconnected undulating membrane.
Those process philosophers who speculate about God and immortality (primarily A.N. Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne) do not generally believe in personal immortality.
Birth is the beginning of individual experience and Death is the end of individual experience. Your experience may be preserved eternally (and perfectly) in the immortal mind of God. Your life is thus contributory, preserved and significant insofar as it contributes to the divine purpose or enjoyment.
I'll change my example. "The unicorn is a white horse with a horn in the middle of its forehead". How about that one? Isn't that sentence true? Am I supposing the unicorn exists on account of the term, "is"?
France is presently a republic, and has no king. Consider the statement "The present King of France is bald." Russell wished to answer the question: Is this statement true, false, or is it meaningless?
It does not seem to be true, for there is no present King of France. But if it is false, then one would suppose that the negation of the statement, that is, "It is not the case that the present King of France is bald," or its logical equivalence, "The present King of France is not bald," is true. But that seems no more true than the original statement.
Is it meaningless, then? One might suppose so (and some philosophers have; see below), because it certainly does fail to denote in a sense, but on the other hand it seems to mean something that we can quite clearly understand.
Bertrand Russell, extending the work of Gottlob Frege, who had similar thoughts, proposed according to his 'theory of descriptions' that when we say "the present King of France is bald", we are implicitly making three separate existential assertions:
[INDENT] 1. there is an x such that x is a present King of France (∃x(Fx))
2. for every x that is a present King of France and every y that is a present King of France, x equals y (i.e. there is at most one present King of France) (∀x(Fx → ∀y(Fy → y=x)))
3. for every x that is a present King of France, x is bald. (∀x(Fx → Bx)) Since assertion 1 is plainly false, and our statement is the conjunction of all three assertions, our statement is false.
[/INDENT]Similarly, for "the present King of France is not bald", we have the identical assertions 1 and 2 plus
[INDENT] 3a. for every x that is a present King of France, x is not bald so "the present King of France is not bald", because it consists of a conjunction, one of whose terms is assertion 1, is also false.
[/INDENT]The law of the excluded middle is not violated because by denying both "the King of France is bald" and "the King of France is not bald," we are not asserting the existence of some x which is neither bald nor not bald, but denying the existence of some x which is the King of France.
There is a second way of stating "the present King of France is not bald". Instead of substituting x in the sentence "x is not bald" as we have done above, we may negate (1) yielding "it is not the case that there exists an x and x is bald" (alternatively "it is not the case that there exists an x, therefore x is neither bald nor not bald". This sentence is true as opposed to the statement obtained by the previous method. Second, it is easier to see that it does not violate the law of excluded middle. Russell's analysis has been attacked by P.F. Strawson, Keith Donnellan and others, and it has been defended and refined by Stephen Neale.
The statement in terms of its logical structure contains several components -- I refer you to the very famous example "The king of France is bald" by Bertrand Russell (the subject of the linked article). Substitute your sentence and you'll see exactly what you're saying. (Or substitute the sentence "The soul is eternal")
Definite description - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
that has nothing to do with the term, "is". It has to do with proper names and definite descriptions. The "is" stuff is a red herring. Right answer, wrong reason.
It's confusing because with the King of France thing, we started with this: France is a republic.
We don't have any similar statement that rules out the existence of unicorns.
I'm not grasping how any of this pertains to the idea of the soul.
There is no statement ruling out the existence of soul (is there?) And the soul is not universally understood to be mythological.
Yes, what I am suggesting is that the soul is immediate - now. It is that which is learning, exploring, creating, sharing. It transcends one physical life, and the evidence that I have presented are skills that appear to evolve as a species (instincts) and in each person differently (innate characteristics). One can certainly reject all of these notions, however, for some people, it may be interesting enough to explore further. Rich
I do not see clearly how your conception of soul is different from your conception of mind, psyche or subjective experience (even culture) in general.
The soul, as I define it, is a very basic concept. It is that part of the human being that transcends a single physical life.
Why suggest a soul? Because it gives purpose and meaning to life, just like day to day existence gives meaning to a physical life, so does the soul give meaning to a transcendental life.
For example: Our probably existence tomorrow, gives meaning and purpose to what we do today. So does our probably existence in the next physical life give meaning and purpose to our physical life today.
Physical life has memories of yesterday. It is our accumulated experiences up until present in this physical life.
Where are the memories of past physical lives? They do exist:
1) Instincts: these are accumulated experiences and memories of most all living existences. Humans have evolved with their own shared instincts.
2) Inherited characteristics: these are the combination of memories of those share by a single soul and those of the parents souls.
3) Innate capabilities: these exist in all of us, since these are the sum total of everything we are up to and including present. However, some capabilities are more evolved than others because of what we did our prior lives. So some of us are better a business, or sports, or lying, or music and singing, or arts, or begging, or being able to relate to another human being (empathy). These skills are learned not only over one physical time but many, many.
Jung was said, in a taped interview, that he didn't believe there was a transcendental soul but it knew. He didn't clarify how he knew, but my guess is that it was a feeling from within.
If anyone has another way of looking at souls, I would be interested.