LandOfShadows wrote:In an atom there is more what science labels as space/nothing then there is substance...
Not sure which science you are referring to, as it is acknowledged that there is no such thing as "nothing" in space, vaccumm experiments have shown this - that like attracts like (two metal plates moved slowly towards each other in a vacuum with no mechanism to do so) and Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) has shown via Duraks' Equation, which can describe the speed of any particle up to the speed of light, that there is the universe of atoms and the universe of anti-matter (or the sub-atomic), both of which are more or less hypothetical and are as valid in their interpretation as any hypothesis regarding an intelligible divine presence within them.
"Anti-Matter" and the use of the word "anti", is simply a term to describe something we are not sure of, however, we know it exists through certain actions of how matter is created from particles "borrowing" from an invisible "world" and when the "payment" is made back, it explodes and creates matter. The behavior of the sub-atomic world is irrational and the measurement problem shows many paradoxes, that when particles are observed, they do one thing, but when not observed, they do something else, they are absurd and limitless in absurdity, they obey non of the laws that other particles obey when they enter the physical world of matter.
One has to be careful using scientific terminology when describing something spiritual, it is advised that "science" first be defined, as science basically means the same thing as the Greek "Gnosis" - both mean knowledge and Gnosis can mean "science of things that are divine" or "science of things that are", as defined by Porphyry to distinguish from the Grecian systems - "Antique or Oriental Philosophy", but in its' ultimate sense, it means "supernal and celestial knowledge".
Thanks to Aristobulus of Paneas, a Jewish scribe from Alexandria in Egypt and his usage (or borrowing) of poets names like Homer and Hesiod to name a couple, Gnostics attribute Platos' alleged visit to Egypt as the point where Plato took all his wisdom from Egypt and became the scholar for the Alexandrians, all a pretension of course, as all Empires love to define their heritage by taking influences from all over their battle grounds.
My point being, however, is that science to me means "tried and tested to destruction to prove something is true or practical". Philosophy to me has a similar meaning, I will often take a position that is the opposite to what I may conclude, just because I want to and to see where it goes. Philosophy is not just to explain reality and agency of human beings, it is an attempt to see if we can improve it, starting with
"a world view".
Language is also a very slippery thing too, take for instance the word "Light", all platonic mystics love this word and have interpreted it to be "God" him/itself, which is where we get terms like "Enlightened" from. n the new age, there is the mixture of science and gnosis (not defined beforehand) and the use of the word "Light" again, but this time we are linking it to photon - this has not been tested or tried out to destruction, yet it is accepted as fact simply because we use the word "Light" and "Science".
One day science may find a better label for that space, and right now I label it as energy.
I recall bringing the use of the word energy up before on another forum, my work is to attempt to avoid generality and language misinterpretation, as energy can mean "everything", therefore it is tautological and is "nothing" at the same time.
Being able to explain something using an analogy does not make the thing that is defined the same at all, each thing has an ontology all its' own and has to treated on its' own terms.
Your to focused on the physical body...
I am an existentialist, therefore I affirm life in this world and everything human as normal.
I think the best way for me to define my position to you and others, is that I start from the ground up, from a much more earthly realm and from what teases the eye (matter) to look beyond into a deeper meaning/complexity and possibility, rather than attempting to work the other way around from above or the intelligible when encoding my description of reality.
"Body am I entirely and nothing besides; and soul is nothing more than a word to describe something
about the body", is what Nietzsche gives us in the epic journey of destruction and overcoming "Thus Spake Zarathustra". He brings these two concepts into a monism, which does not bring us to a meaningless state (nihilism), but rather puts more emphasis on drives, desires and something that is overall more human.
Amor Fati, or "the love of ones' fate" is his formula for affirmation of this world and the times we live in. His expression "God is Dead" is not so much to be taken as it literally seems, we should always bear in mind the aims of his work, which is for "life affirmation", to say "yes" to this world, life, reality etc. "Divinity" is simply redefined, rather than excluded and is from a more earthly source than from some intelligible realm outside of space and time, as is the case with Platos forms.
His monism of "body entirely" was addressing "the despisers of the body", idealists who look for a principle in an intelligible realm that is perfect, implying that we are merely a less and imperfect copy of a copy, this brings us to the four errors that he points out in "Ecce Homo", which means "Behold the MAN" -
1. man has never seen himself as anything but imperfect for this world
2. man attributes imaginary qualities to himself based on an ideal
3. man places himself in a false order and rank with animals and nature
4. man has invented continually, new tables of values and for a time took them to be eternal and unconditional
"If one deducts the effect of these four errors, one has deducted away humanity, humaneness and human dignity." - "
The Gay Science"
I am coming from a point of view that places humanity first before looking for a meaning, as philosophy happens
after the fact and not before.
As philosophy and spirituality are about forming a "world view", how can you have a world view without being in the world in the first place?
Fear not those who can damage the body fear those that can dam your soul, is something I recall from one of the religious books.
I do not have that perspective, I am more of the "here and now" rather than "then and what is to come", there are many issues that arise from the four errors, mainly that they place more importance on a world that can only be experienced relatively and is put across as though it is set in stone, but not only that, it creates a life that is impossible and undesirable in the physical world. It excludes the will of man, apart from the will to find meaning, but man prefers to will nothing, than will nothing at all.
The expression you have given here is typical of all religion, it is to achieve the surrender of an individuals desires and to give over the will to an external operation, especially the body, which is the source of sacrifice and martyrdom, altruism and what can be termed "slave morality" - the valuing of the other world over this one as much more important, eschatology and salvation, all ends and means confused into one discipline, anathema, resentment, turn the other cheek, meekness - all the things that make us anything but human. If these beliefs and values, mentality and morality do not stem from the active subjugation of an individual (i.e. that you are being held prisoner by another) they have no relevance to their condition.
Ultimately, people
want to believe in something mystical and above human and this is a hard thing to accept.
I feel the soul is within every atom,
After viewing your work, it seems you are very much within the pre-Socratic school of thought, a bit of Thales, a bit of Pythagoras and Herclitus, which is then mixed with Plato and Socrates too. I find that mystical beliefs can be better interpreted using the language of Plato, the forms etc.
but it's window and link to the body is via the eyes and pineal gland.
Again, Plato. He created the concept of the soul and used analogy, simile and allegory to link the faculty of sight to knowledge and wisdom and eventually, morality too, "The Good". The forms always seem to be represented in mysticism, the format is basically the same, there is a source, then something comes out of that source, it is then orphaned from that source and fragmented, it then begins to become aware of the source and seeks to return to it and the closer it gets, the more whole it becomes, until eventually, through one practice or another, will return and become whole entirely and become another being and reincarnated etc
My research is to use a technique called a "genealogy", which looks at ideas and where they come from, Gnostic metaphysics, which are basically Platos forms, are present everywhere in mysticism. The link between Eastern and Western though grows increasingly closer too.
Hence why silver would be placed over the eyes for the dead prior being turned to ash
,
Yeah, I have heard of this tradition many times before. I guess that is as valid as an interpretation as any.
I guess that may be seen as a cop out.
One thing I want you to be aware of, is that I am giving you the purpose of my study, I analyze many different belief systems and then attempt to give them the dignity of philosophy and science (if possible) to give an explanation that will be simple for people to understand, but also to introduce ideas and works that may help lead to an advancement in self created systems.
The fact that you have made any effort to think and work on what you have is credible to me in itself, you made ideas your own. I would like for you to see me not as though i am correcting you, but as an alternative perspective.
