> 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, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com"
>
>
>
> <l...@rdfmedia.com> 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 <123...@gmail.com> 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 <bryan...@gmail.com> 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 -
0 comments:
Post a Comment