SUO: Re: Im/material Ir/reverence
pat hayes wrote:
>
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > pat hayes wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chris Partridge wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris [Menzel],
> > > > >
> > > > > I was not intending to suggest that there
> > > > > should be an axiomatisation of immateriality
> > > > > (or space) in the 'holes theory'. Merely that its
> > > > > 'dependence' on immateriality should be noted somehow.
> > > > > I think we both agree that the upper ontology should
> > > > > contain the material/immaterial distinction
> > > > > (if it is going to be anywhere).
> > > >
> > > > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> > > >
> > > > Chrises,
> > > >
> > > > Is this im/material distinction the same
> > > > as Aristotle's "form/matter" distinction?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Interjection by Pat:
> > >
> > > Probably not. But why did you ask?
> > > What would depend on the answer?
> >
> > Oh, My Soul.
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> > > So consider the following "Alignments of Capacities"
> > > as you read Aristotle's text:
>
> Jon, you miss my point. I have absolutely no intention
> of ever reading Aristotle. What would be the point of
> reading the thoughts of someone who lived before people
> knew any science? And as for souls, I havn't believed
> in those since the age of 4.
>
> Pat Hayes
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Dear Pat,
You are obviously having a bad day -- and believe me,
I know how bad such a day can be! -- and so I will
simply offer my commiserations and hope that you
find some consolation before the day is done.
As to reasons for reading Aristotle -- you miss my point, too --
even if it were nothing nearer to the "literal truth" than some
piece of mythology, that is to say, when read literally, as it
rarely makes sense to read it, or creative literature, or drama,
or fiction, not to mention some bits of science, too, and still,
as many literal-minded imaginations persist in reading all of it --
nay, even then it would be worth reading, if only to find written
down, in a brief spell, perhaps for the very first time, the very
things that we have believed all of our lives, without quite being
able to articulate them.
In short, the "concepts and distinctions" (CAD's) of these old folks
will effectively inform the "architectronic design" of your everyday
and your technical thinking about everything from particles to waves
to everything that is entangled in between, whether you wit it or no,
and it may just be that the only practical hope that you may have to
critically reflect on your own "Nomos", our own cultural programming,
if not perchance to escape its soothing axioms and its surlier bonds,
is to read what was writ in the codes of those programs, so long ago.
The alternative is to continue cranking out yet another taxonomy --
though I am sure that we can think of a sexier name -- much like
the ones that "Dear Old Dad", and Grandad, and so on, were wont
to crank out on their previous Generations of Machines --
or is that just Men?
As for this troubled notion of a soul --
psyche is soul and soul is psyche,
and that is all you need to know,
and it is a word that still
breathes on our lips,
whether we read them
wittingly or not.
Just A Thought,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤