Proof of No Spirit Without Body

Spellbound

Spellbound

Banned
Banned
June 18 2013
Re: Richard you should add my account of a four hour PCE to your website

RESPONDENT: 1. I cannot imagine what Spirit is, so is it nothing? Sorry I just realized I been deluded for years. And I am awakening from a dream.
According to Einstein, ‘every human being experiences themself in a limited space and time.’ He was onto the truth but he was not in the actual mind, for there is no time in the actual reality, it is an eternal moment in which we live and in which we die. A single moment in time is what can only be perceived. According to Walter Russel, ‘All matter is moving accross ‘space’ to register the electrical potential at the place of its birth where it belongs.’ I don’t think he’s talking about a physical place here. Since I cannot imagine why matter would be searching for a physical place, I will therefore reject it, for it has no application to the living world itself. ?**&( I am no longer living the ‘truth’, I am actually experiencing the actual moment.
My words and thinking are clearer, and this is an account of what is called a PCE or pure consciousness experience. There is no ‘me’, ‘myself’, or ‘I’. This is the only way to effect the peace and harmony with others. It was all a big diversion ‘me’, ‘Myself’, or ‘I’ was living for years. Apparently the belief in immortality is a hope or a belief, it is therefore not actual fact. The moment is what is actual and eternal. This is a glimpse of the battle with myself ended. The ‘I’ was an illusion or entity that inhabitted this body.
2. Awakening from a dream Life is experienced and it is like a dream. I am currently experiencing the actual moment for the first time. You might notice my words or tone is changed. This is an effect of what I am experiencing – the actual. It is a moment where I am not harmful to myself in any way. I.e. I am not suffering for any sake at all. The feeling being is not messing up the moment.
Edit: I am now studying how I can keep this moment of being alive.
3. Love Agape ‘08 Love agape is heightened awareness. I do not have to suffer or feel remorse for ‘myself’ any- more. Because on this very day, I became self-less and now I can make others happy. It was on this very day – 02/06/08 – that I first experienced a PCE or pure consciousness experience without the use of a drug. I shoveled the driveway with joy and thus speed. Then I went over to my neighbor’s house and did their driveway. The wheather over here is snowing heavy, but it did not affect my decision to go out and meet others. Sharing myself with others is not a painful experience anymore. Because I am not suffering for no kind of invisible being anymore.

RICHARD: G’day No. 11, Could you provide an introductory paragraph to the above?

Such as the events leading up to – and immediately prior to – your experience; for instance, did the recent email exchange of ours play a part, invoke something, set off a train of thought, bring up something deep, profound, and so on?
Also, could you provide an afterwards paragraph ... as in how your life is experienced now as compared with before?

Last, but not at all the least, how about some descriptive words of what actually took place during your experience ... such as your ‘shovelled the driveway’ reference to 2008?

In other words, what were you doing, physically, for all of those four hours?

Regards, Richard.

grapevine.gif


June 18 2013
Re: Question to Richard ( please answer)

RESPONDENT: If the essence of who I am is formless as you say on your website, then how can you see it and describe it as a beautiful rosy pearl nestled coyly amidst the delicate fleshy tissue of its host in its shimmering nacreous shell?

RICHARD: You are obviously referring to an email exchange of ours, on this forum, over 2 & 1/2 years ago.

Purely for the sake of clarity in communication I will re-present it in full. Vis.: [...snip...].

Second, as that which is formless (as in, timeless and spaceless, ethereal and supernal, immaterial and incorporeal and so on) is not only neither existent nor non-existent, but is not neither existent nor non-existent either, then my lustrous pearl analogy serves to convey the ethereal radiant beauty of that which is devoid of any personality whatsoever – utterly non-egoic in any way, means or manner (aka, void) – and, thus, totally ‘other’, resplendently supreme, sacred and absolute. [...snip...]

RESPONDENT: Existent and non-existent are one?

RICHARD: G’day No. 11, If by ‘one’ you mean the two faces of the same coin then, yes, existent/ non-existent are one; mystical literature often mentions how the polar opposites continue to subsist (as complimentary poles) in awakenment/ enlightenment. Indeed, one of the appellations used to describe that integration of the divine/ diabolical divide upon transcendence, wherein the opposites unite without ceasing to be themselves, is the phrase ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ (coincidence of opposites).

Another term is ‘complexio oppositorum’ (union of opposites). The (mystical) experience of being both existent and non-existent, simultaneously, is a god-experience (goddess, if feminine).

But behind the god/goddess-experience (‘behind’, not beyond) is That which is not only neither existent nor non-existent, but is not neither existent nor non-existent either.

This double-negation is not just a fancy play of words but a precise depiction of that which is, essentially, ineffable (as in, no attributes to speak of).

RESPONDENT: Also, can you describe how one initiates the act of penetration into one’s being?

RICHARD: Yes, and I can do no better, for now, than to confirm the selection made by a discerning reader in an earlier post (#14009) as it is the very quote I had in mind to re-present for your appraisal.

RESPONDENT: Richard, God is real?

RICHARD: If you are using ‘real’ as it is used in actualism terminology – unlike the dictionaries I draw a sharp distinction between the word real and the word actual – then, yes, ‘God’ is real (just as all gods and goddesses are real) but is in no way, means or manner actual.

With no God (or gods and goddesses) to meddle in human affairs any longer one walks freely, as this flesh-and-blood body only, in the already always existing peace-on-earth.

Regards, Richard.
grapevine.gif

October 29 2013
Re: affective vibes are real

RESPONDENT: Richard, you asked:

[Richard]: I really do not see any way to be more clear ... how can ‘science’ – no matter what way you define it – detect and/or measure illusions (i.e., that which ‘has no existence in actuality’)? [endquote].

Who are you to say which is illusion and which is not?

RICHARD: G’day No. 11, It is not a case of [quote ] ‘who’ [endquote ] it is I am to say which is illusion and which is not but, rather, what I am ... namely: this flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans identity in toto/the entire affective faculty).

Therefore, the following is a report/ description/ explanation direct from actuality.

Vis.:

From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26 am
Subject: Re: [...] about two types of Actual Freedom

[Richard]: [...snip...]. As I said at the beginning, it is all quite simple, in actuality.
1. Feeling-beings have no existence in actuality.
2. Emotions and passions have no existence in actuality.
3. Affective vibes have no existence in actuality.
4. Psychic currents have no existence in actuality.
5. The ‘psychic network’ has no existence in actuality.
6. The psyche itself has no existence in actuality.
7. All of the above is an illusion.
8. Hence no scientific evidence for any of the above.
[...snip...].

Regards, Richard.

P.S.: Another way of saying ‘sans identity in toto/the entire affective faculty’ would be to say, for example, sans (1) feeling-being and (2) emotions and passions and (3) affective vibes and (4) psychic currents and (5) the ‘psychic network’ and (6) the psyche itself.

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listdcorrespondence/listd11a.htm#15Jun13​
 
Last edited:
Great news everyone. After confirming each selection from the above using pure contemplation and confidence in Richard's responses, 'I' partly disappeared.
 
Notice how Richard said "that which is immaterial and supernal is neither existent or non-existent" and it is "Not beyond but behind the god/ goddess experience". You can actually discover the 'I' within your brain by searching for its characteristics and make-up. I have.
 
Richard claims that not only does he have no identity or 'I' (which I find plausible), but that his happiness is aeonian and therefore neverending (this is not my experience, I don't even think it's possible to be happy all the time because that would mean one never gets tired of experiencing the same thing over and over again). Did I just refute Actual Freedom?
 
Spellbound said:
G’day No. 11, If by ‘one’ you mean the two faces of the same coin then, yes, existent/ non-existent are one [...] But behind the god/goddess-experience (‘behind’, not beyond) is That which is not only neither existent nor non-existent, but is not neither existent nor non-existent either.
Click to expand...

Existent and non-existent seem to be label errors. What should probably be meant is two different or opposite modes of existence for _X_. (Imperfect example: "Biff Steele looks like a hunk on the television screen, but on the videotape he's just a pattern of magnetized particles.") Arguably one can hijack the word nonexistence (etc) as a label to represent an unconventional usage, but this should be indicated beforehand to avoid confusion.

Nonexistence indicates the absence of a specific item in something, or the absence of a specific item in the whole of existence. The word nonexistence does not represent any kind of "is" or a state of "is-ing". It is not more fundamental than or antecedent to existence (in general) or a type of being logically prior to another type of being. It references a condition of absence in/on something: "The nonexistence of pink unicorns as naturally evolved biological organisms on Earth in the year 1800."

"Yguboodahudelopos is not a word representing something else meaningful which exists, but it exists as a non-symbolic string of letters."

"There are such things but not here; there were such things but now; there may be such things but not yet."

"Such things are possible in theory but none has ever been confirmed to exist."
 
Last edited:
C C said:
(1) Existent and non-existent seem to be label errors. What should probably be meant is two different or opposite modes of existence for _X_. ... (2) Nonexistence indicates the absence of a specific item in something, or the absence of a specific item in the whole of existence. ...
Click to expand...
On (1) I agree that that for some things there are degrees of existence shading between existing and not existing, like: It is raining vs. It is not raining. OR She is fat. vs. She is not fat; however, for some other things like: She is pregnant. vs. She is not pregnant. OR Spirit is PROVEN to exist. vs. Spirit is PROVEN to not exist.

Either a PROOF is valid or it is not valid. There is no "label error." Proof does not have "modes of existence." There may be different ways to establish a fact - prove it. E.g. Prove that solid lead is denser than solid aluminum. (Equal volumes put on a beam balance and computation of the weight / volume ratio are different proofs.)

On (2) Yes.
 
Last edited:
Billy T said:
On (1) I agree that that for some things there are degrees of existence shading between existing and not existing, like: It is raining vs. It is not raining. OR She is fat. vs. She is not fat; however, for some other things like: She is pregnant. vs. She is not pregnant. OR Spirit is PROVEN to exist. vs. Spirit is PROVEN to not exist.

Either a PROOF is valid or it is not valid. There is no "label error." Proof does not have "modes of existence." There may be different ways to establish a fact - prove it. E.g. Prove that solid lead is denser than solid aluminum. (Equal volumes put on a beam balance and computation of the weight / volume ratio are different proofs.)

On (2) Yes.
Click to expand...

Surely proof isn't even applicable to the correspondence, or the reality / validity of what they discuss. It's like a mangled language-game or labyrinth of sentences. One just picks out something, and if doesn't seem to add-up consistency-wise in that spot, make suggestions. To clarify mine:

A coin exists. Both of its faces are "something". This Richard person comparing existing / nonexisting to the two sides of a coin would really mean a coin with only one side. Since nonexistence does not reference "something"; it indicates an item being absent. [Counting the slim edge as a trick extra "side" to compensate is excluded; and the legendary Mobius coin would still be an abnormal coin status.]

Rather than try to repair the erroneous labels and misplaced associations of such a figurative analogy, one might replace the coin with a light-bulb. The latter represents the existence [of whatever]; the bulb being "on" represents one style/mode/manner/state of its be-ing; the bulb being "off" represents another style/mode/manner/state of its be-ing.

There seems to be a suggestion underlying the original coin metaphor that "existing" and "non-existing" are illusions of something more fundamental that is neither, so that the "existing" side of the coin is not redundant (never mind the LSD trip of treating "non-existing" as something). I reject that since what has potency to either affect, make possible, integrate, etc, would still qualify as existing. Thus the side of the coin labeled "existing" is redundant: the whole coin already instantiates or represents existing. But there is no whole coin (or one of normal status) since again, if the other side represents "non-existing", then the coin becomes one-sided. (Yeah, the hand of some Zen koan is probably raised in the audience. ;))
 
C C said:
... Since nonexistence does not reference "something"; ...
Click to expand...
But it does. In this case "spirit." In another case unicorns. etc. Always there is a reference referred to - being stated to not exist. You even admit this in the continuation of your sentence after the semicolon. " it indicates an item being absent." I think your self-contradiction in only one sentence is due to your thinking an item is not "something" as items are concrete and "something" also includes concepts- but that is just my guess. I'll let you try to explain why this sentence is not self contradictory.
 
Billy T said:
But it does. In this case "spirit." In another case unicorns. etc. Always there is a reference referred to - being stated to not exist. You even admit this in the continuation of your sentence after the semicolon. " it indicates an item being absent." I think your self-contradiction in only one sentence is due to your thinking an item is not "something" as items are concrete and "something" also includes concepts- but that is just my guess. I'll let you try to explain why this sentence is not self contradictory.
Click to expand...

The context of "something" was indicated beforehand with: "A coin exists. Both of its faces are 'something'." Not the word "coin" existing, but about an actual coin. Accordingly, not about two sides existing in name only, either, which then designates what "something" is confined to in that paragraph [and elsewhere]. Since this is a semi-causal conversation with other human beings on an internet forum rather than discourse with a computer or bots, other parties are expected to figure out much better than such that "A coin exists" doesn't refer to a coin existing (and its faces) as written characters, an idea of personal memory, a 2D drawing of a coin, etc.

If the meaning of what "nonexistence" symbolizes did reference the word "unicorn", then it would contradictorily be declaring that the term doesn't exist while nonetheless acknowledging its existence via the connection. Accordingly, to make sense, it is the symbol alone (nonexistence), rather than the negating property it represents, which references another symbol (like unicorn). Whereas the meaning itself of "nonexistence" (as we assign to it) does not reference "something" as in the context above, because there are no unicorns. If there were unicorns, then the meaning of nonexistence refers to them but is untrue.

If an attendant looks in a room and responds "Nobody is in there", that's not a declaration that "something" as in either a blank person or a person named "Nobody" is residing in the room.
 
Last edited:
CC,

Notice the concept is identical to the Tao. In the first paragraph, I mention how "the battle with myself has ended" in the PCE experience. I.e. the Tao is about opposing forces and opposites uniting without ceasing to be themselves. We are always in this constant struggle with ourselves. Where your only opponent is 'you' and without 'you' you emerge in constant harmony with your environment. In Tao of Jeet Kune Do for instance, Bruce Lee mentions "attack: the alive leads/ defense: sticking hands."
 
It seems that Richard is determined to prove that his website is not evil. Oops, now I strongly believe in the supertautological CTMU and God again. As for the after-life, spirit is not an illusion nor is it a biochemical entity such as emotions or passions.
 
Spellbound said:
... spirit is not an illusion nor is it a biochemical entity such as emotions or passions.
Click to expand...
If we are making a list of what spirit is not, may I add: little green apples?

Do tell what spirt is to terminate the needed additions to list of what it is not.
 
Spellbound said:
CC, Notice the concept is identical to the Tao. In the first paragraph, I mention how "the battle with myself has ended" in the PCE experience. I.e. the Tao is about opposing forces and opposites uniting without ceasing to be themselves. We are always in this constant struggle with ourselves. Where your only opponent is 'you' and without 'you' you emerge in constant harmony with your environment. In Tao of Jeet Kune Do for instance, Bruce Lee mentions "attack: the alive leads/ defense: sticking hands."
Click to expand...

There were multiple schools of Daoism, and the idea of contrary agencies doesn't seem to have become a component until the Neo-Daoist revivals and trends (hybridization with Confucianism). Extracted from the larger excerpt at bottom:

[...] The Book of Changes with its yin-yang account of change and its generational cosmology thus entered the list of Daoist texts and the Daode Jing was transformed in conventional wisdom into a detached cosmology. Wang Bi identified dao with non-being while still treating it as the source of all creation—the basic substance (which he associated with the taijiGreat ultimate of the Yijing). While the basic substance is nothing, its “function” is being—thus being depends on non-being, from which it is constantly produced as a kaleidoscopic function of an unchanging, paradoxical reality of nothing. The second famous Neo-Daoist, Guo Xiang commented on the Zhuangzi . His cosmology developed an interesting twist on that of Wang Bi. Non-being, he argued, did not, after all, exist. It was simply nothing and thus could not create anything. Simply put, there is no non-being—there is only being. And so there is no “giving rise to.” Being always was and comes of itself. It generates and changes itself constantly by the totality the interrelations among its parts.

This most resembles the "existing" and "non-existing" faces of the coin metaphor in that quoted correspondence. I'd prefer Guo Xiang's non-contradictory take above when "being" and "non-being" are treated with literal meaning.

However, Wang Bi's declaration of "non-being" as a procreating substance thus reveals that it would exist (that it would already instantiate or be a member of the most fundamental category: Existence). So to avoid conflict of definition, non-being must therefore instead be a label for a homogenous, blank or uniform style of existence (rather than truly and perversely signifying nonexistence). Whereas the label "being", in contrast, represents a heterogeneous style of existence teeming with diverse structural details. IOW, a pluralism of interdependent parts rising from (or versus) a featureless monism. Whether the pairing remains referring to rival states of a conscious-independent realm or shift to rival states of consciousness / non-consciousness that a person can have (or self / no-self, etc) is up to the practitioner's' choice I suppose.

[An alternative (but more of a far reach interpretation-wise) is that Wang Bi's non-being label signifies principles that regulate his world of becoming (being), which would not be "objects" residing in another "somewhere", but amount to spaceless, timeless "nothing" from the standpoint of consisting solely of their potency to bring about and govern the world of becoming. Their "evidence" and their style of minimal existence would be the observation and the activity of the cosmos conforming to order or physical laws of one venue or another. This goes back to Plato's most primal definition of existing as "The power to...".]

- - - - - - - -

Chad Hansen: The establishment of an authoritarian empire and the long-lived but philosophically dogmatic (Confucian) Han dynasty temporarily drained the vibrancy from Chinese philosophical thought. Classical Daoist philosophy was successfully extinguished by the imperial suppression of analytic thought. Confucian authoritarians like Xunzi argued that analysis of names leads to confusion and disorder. The substitution of the Qin ruler's superstitious search for long life through alchemy and his consequent fostering of Huang-Lao religioun combined with suppression of dialectic thought initiated China's philosophical “Dark Age.” The later substitution of Confucianism as the official orthodoxy during the Han cemented the intellectual stagnation firmly in place. Only Huang-Lao thinking remained as a live influence and archivist of Daoist texts. Its superstitions and cosmologies mingled in the emerging eclectic Han-Confucianism.

The fall of the Han some 400 years later saw the emergence of a modified worldview drawing on the perserved texts which we call Neo-Daoism (See Neo-Daoism). Its most influential writers, Wang Bi and Guo Xiang who wrote commentaries respectively on the Daode Jing and the Zhuangzi, were avowed Confucians. Their philosophy reinvested a stoic spirit which they interpreted as the point of their new-Daoism. They expressed their combination of Confucian social activity with their version of Daoist quietism in the enduring slogan “Sage within, king without.” They framed their Daoism as a kind of inner emptiness or non-commitment coupled with a meticulous conformity to one's actual role in the times—whatever fate might have it. Thus they were Confucians on the outside and Daoists inside. This elaborated, for Neo-Daoists, the concept of wu-wei (non-deeming action).

They buttressed this social stoicism with metaphysical systems focused on the puzzle of “being and non-being.” The drew this topic from one of Laozi's frequent inclusion of this pair to illustrate his contrast theory of language. Trying to figure what the background of a being and non-being contrast was formed a central issue for their “abstruse studies.” Wang Bi (ca. 300) took non-being to be the background and thus to “give rise to” being. He interpreted the Laozi alongside a Confucianized cosmological divination manual, The Book of Changes (I Ching or Yijing). The Book of Changes with its yin-yang account of change and its generational cosmology thus entered the list of Daoist texts and the Daode Jing was transformed in conventional wisdom into a detached cosmology.

Wang Bi identified dao with non-being while still treating it as the source of all creation—the basic substance (which he associated with the taijiGreat ultimate of the Yijing). While the basic substance is nothing, its “function” is being—thus being depends on non-being, from which it is constantly produced as a kaleidoscopic function of an unchanging, paradoxical reality of nothing. (The ideal Daoist-Confucian person mirrors this cosmology—an expression of being a “Sage within; king without”.)

The second famous Neo-Daoist, Guo Xiang commented on the Zhuangzi . His cosmology developed an interesting twist on that of Wang Bi. Non-being, he argued, did not, after all, exist. It was simply nothing and thus could not create anything. Simply put, there is no non-being—there is only being. And so there is no “giving rise to.” Being always was and comes of itself. It generates and changes itself constantly by the totality the interrelations among its parts. These differences in emphasis partly reflect the differences in the original texts—the Daode Jing's emphasis on wunon-being-values and the Zhuangzi's diverse pluralism and sense of freedom from any ultimate cosmic source of guidance.

Pragmatically, the two pictures were not very different. Each still had nothing at the center (Daoist sage) and being (Confucian King) around the edges, but Guo Xiang deemphasized any lines of force from non-being to being and emphasized instead the situation and contextual relations within the realm of being. Both similarly read their cosmologies as ways of viewing things that support and help achieve the shared lifestyle slogan “sage within, king without.” --Daoism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 
Last edited:
CC,

Thank you.

What do you think of this...

Something without nothing is nothing. This is because there is nothing to make it something or to contrast it with. Likely, nothing without something is also nothing for the same reason. Hence, dimensionless.
 
Spellbound said:
CC, Thank you. What do you think of this... Something without nothing is nothing. This is because there is nothing to make it something or to contrast it with. Likely, nothing without something is also nothing for the same reason. Hence, dimensionless.
Click to expand...

As the most fundamental category (since everything else requires some manner of being so as to have application, function, potency, etc) existence requires no contrast or relation to anything else. Since whatever is submitted as the latter would thereby be within existence, or be a club-member of the most all-inclusive significance of what the word "something" can signify (as in misguided "Why is there something rather than nothing?" inquiries).

I've already addressed the feasibility (or just the fact that it happens, regardless) of words like non-being, nothing, etc being recruited as somewhat confusing labels or signs for representing a special style of existing, like a featureless type of being that contrasts with an existence which sports structural details. Employed by particular philosophical systems or whatever other disciplines (if the unconventional usage is semi-official or indicated beforehand). Featureless being could as much seem a dimensionless point, since in the course of lacking distinct relational entities / components there is no measurement for distance -- no references for how big, how small.

A psychological "absence of everything" can occur just by consciousness shutting totally down, due to both cognition and even a manifestation of blank "nothingness" being amongst what is absent. Technically it wouldn't even be of psychological category during that "outage", just classified as such once consciousness returned and memory indicated a missing period of time.

Again: An ontological "absence of everything" is an item that people do reflexively conjure up as an opposite and/or provenance for "something" (like in the misguided "Why is there something rather than nothing?" refrain). But such "nothing" in its literal meaning of that usage / context would contradict itself if it's an "actual" ontological or physical circumstance (IOW, treating "nothing" as "something" existing). It's restricted to being a potentially non-functional idea that can't be realized (though it may seem ontologically purposeful to many). Can't be realized, that is, apart from whatever material substrate / pattern and phenomenal manifestation instantiates the mere idea in thoughts, writings, etc (existing in name only, without potency for the definition it represents).

Now obviously the two above are grounded in some combo of commonsense realism slash materialism (including scientifically informed materialism). Which is usually what the majority of people entertain. Dualists likewise believe in an external world that is more than just our lawfully regulated outer perceptions and the inter-subjective agreement of multiple minds / observers. Defenses or excuses for this majority or "default" view shouldn't be necessary under most circumstances, due to lack of protest arising.

But for that minority which either lacks or has suspended belief in mind-independent substances or cosmic furniture, then a psychological "absence of everything" could rise in status argument-wise. Since the experiences of consciousness then shift from being indirect realist representations of an external world to being the external world's existence itself. Yet there would still be plenty of "something" world-wise as opposed to "nothing" world-wise, as long as other minds / Leibniz-ian monads are experiencing the progression of their phenomenal continuums (concerning not only their own thoughts but especially the extrospective environment). While that manner of external cosmos would be dependent upon a distributed system of mind in general, it would nevertheless be independent of an individual mind suffering an experiential "outage" (solipsism avoided). Needless to say, such external worlds of the ultra-radical empiricists come equipped with a built-in history generating "algorithm" for nature and have manifestation-upon-demand capacities for the vast "rest of the universe" (if uninhabited by perceivers) that might (in theory) be visited directly someday. So there's always information about a "past before biological organisms and brains" to be accessed by scientific investigations. Falling out of which is also that, even if all minds suffered an experiential outage simultaneously, the same or similar formulas would restore a "reality program already in progress" once the phenomenal manifestation activities of minds/monads (whatever) were restored.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Just an addon down here, addressing a scenario where "nothing" is conflated with a lack of sensation or sensible being, but the latter is replaced by abstract residents...

Inasmuch as Plato's forms and reifications of general concepts seem declared non-spatial in today's philosophical interpretations, that's possibly one ancestor for dimensionless or immaterial affairs (as far as in Western thought, anyway.). The eternal and unchanging entities of Plato's intellectual realm (contrasted to his sensible world of becoming) would thus actually seem to be regulating principles inspired by earlier discoveries of how extended spatial figures and shapes could be alternatively expressed as quantitative formulas or symbol instructions, rules, descriptions, etc. With such phenomenal signs of language in turn hinting back at those underlying or overlying governing powers (principles, laws, templates, etc) for spatial structure. As if they did not rely on existing via such qualitative and extended representations of the world of sense. IOW, they were a formulaic "will" or "power to ___" that was immaterial in the intellectual vein, space-less; of an underlying system of reason/order not necessarily dependent upon mind or at least anything like the anthropic / biological instantiations of mind in the sensible world with its experiences of material phenomena.
 
Last edited:
All the weapons we need to locate and destroy the 'I' are in the website above.

I AM LIVING A FANTASTIC LIFE RIGHT NOW AS MY 'I' IS DISAPPEARING.

Richard's statement "sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty" really did it for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top