Sorry for the delay in posting this message.

Lance Fletcher, group owner
-------------------------------------

With regard to living things:
If the whole exists before the parts, then until the whole is fully
actualized, mustn't the whole be some kind of non-corporeal substance? I
cannot see any way to call oneself an Aristotelian, or neo-Aristotelian, (if
that is meant to include his metaphysics, which I think it must) without
admitting to non-physicalism. Is the foregoing justifiable?
John

   ----------

ÿØÿà

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, Dan Mihai- Marian <dan_mihai_marian@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks for your answers. I have a minimal understanding of Aristotle's
ontology. I want to take my BA in philosophy with a thesis on Aristotle, so I
need the classical comentators; this is why I'm asking about Jaeger,
Trendelenburg, Prantl, Zeller, Bonitz; I don't speak German but I would like to
read those authors, so that is why I would like to know if there are any
translations in the languages that I have mentioned earlier.
>
> I'm going to try to find the Taylor's book on Aristotle.

Here's a helpful link to Taylor's ideas on the philosophy of Plato!!

Steve L.
>
> http://www.arcamax.com/philosophy/b-1377
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Learnard <alchent01@...>
> To: aristotle-met <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2009 1:44:59 PM
> Subject: [aristotle-met] thomas taylor
>
>
>
>
>
> Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle By Thomas Taylor
> Amazon.com - $34.16
>
> In four books, in which his principal physical and metaphysical dogmas are
unfolded; and it is shown, from indubitable evidence, that his philosophy has
not been accurately known since the destruction of the Greeks. The insufficiency
also of the philosophy that has been substituted by the moderns for that of
Aristotle, is demonstrated.
> Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle
> By Thomas Taylor
> Translated by Thomas Taylor
> Published by Kessinger Publishing, 2003
> ISBN 0766159817, 9780766159815
> 612 pages
>
> Just got this book and it is the most readable book and seems to transmit
Aristotle's ideas in a manner beyond the words. Thomas Taylor penetrated ideas
in Greek Philosophy more deeply that anyone I have found and uncovered things
that no one else seems to hve noticed.
>
> Steve Learnard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Thanks for your answers. I have a minimal understanding of Aristotle's ontology.
I want to take my BA in philosophy with a thesis on Aristotle, so I need the
classical comentators; this is why I'm asking about Jaeger, Trendelenburg,
Prantl, Zeller, Bonitz; I don't speak German but I would like to read those
authors, so that is why I would like to know if there are any translations in
the languages that I have mentioned earlier.

I'm going to try to find the Taylor's book on Aristotle.




________________________________
From: Stephen Learnard <alchent01@...>
To: aristotle-met <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2009 1:44:59 PM
Subject: [aristotle-met] thomas taylor





Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle By Thomas Taylor
Amazon.com - $34.16

In four books, in which his principal physical and metaphysical dogmas are
unfolded; and it is shown, from indubitable evidence, that his philosophy has
not been accurately known since the destruction of the Greeks. The insufficiency
also of the philosophy that has been substituted by the moderns for that of
Aristotle, is demonstrated.
Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle
By Thomas Taylor
Translated by Thomas Taylor
Published by Kessinger Publishing, 2003
ISBN 0766159817, 9780766159815
612 pages

Just got this book and it is the most readable book and seems to transmit
Aristotle's ideas in a manner beyond the words. Thomas Taylor penetrated ideas
in Greek Philosophy more deeply that anyone I have found and uncovered things
that no one else seems to hve noticed.

Steve Learnard







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle By Thomas Taylor
Amazon.com - $34.16

In four books, in which his principal physical and metaphysical dogmas are
unfolded; and it is shown, from indubitable evidence, that his philosophy has
not been accurately known since the destruction of the Greeks. The insufficiency
also of the philosophy that has been substituted by the moderns for that of
Aristotle, is demonstrated.
Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle
By Thomas Taylor
Translated by Thomas Taylor
Published by Kessinger Publishing, 2003
ISBN 0766159817, 9780766159815
612 pages

Just got this book and it is the most readable book and seems to transmit
Aristotle's  ideas in a manner beyond the words.  Thomas Taylor penetrated ideas
in Greek Philosophy more deeply that anyone I have found and uncovered things
that no one else seems to hve noticed.

Steve Learnard

--- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, "dan_mihai_marian" <dan_mihai_marian@...>
wrote:
>
> I am a beginner in Aristotle and I am need to know if the german comentators
of Aristotle from 19 century are translated in one of the next languages:
1.French 2. English 3. Spanish 4. Italian. I´m talking about, of course, about
Trendelenbug, Prantl, Zeller, Jaeger, Bonitz etc.
>
> So i would be very grateful if someone could give me a complete biliography on
Aristotle´s methaphisics.
.................................................
Here are two places to look for the most accurate translations of Aristotle and
Plato's writings

Steve Learnard
>
http://www.arcamax.com/philosophy/b-1377-2


Thomas Taylor on Aristotle


http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=5vhyW_ICKHkC&dq=Thomas+Taylor,+Philosophy\
+of+Aristotle&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=JXUPG_WSc5&sig=WnLxqkw-eORz4Tx3\
bRckLzci-GE#PPA5,M1

I am a beginner in Aristotle and I am need to know if the german comentators of
Aristotle from 19 century are translated in one of the next languages: 1.French
2. English 3. Spanish 4. Italian. I´m talking about, of course, about
Trendelenbug, Prantl, Zeller, Jaeger, Bonitz etc.

So i would be very grateful if someone could give me a complete biliography on
Aristotle´s methaphisics.

Herman B. Triplegood wrote:

> Darwin's theory of natural selection is not only a "mechanistic"
> hypothesis regaring the emergence of species, but also
> a "teleological" hypothesis as well. The teleology is obvious. It is,
> to put it quite simply, the survival of the more fit, the better
> adapted.

That's not sufficient for teleology. Aristotle himself explicitly states
in Physics II.8 that the "survival of the fittest" explanation of
organic generation is *opposed* to his own teleological explanation, not
compatible with it at all. Such an explanation was proposed in his time
by Empedocles.

We should read what Aristotle actually said in Physics II.8 instead of
discussing in the abstract what Aristotle would or would not have said.

> The teleological aspect of Darwin's theory, the normative sense of
> adaptation, ought not to be underestimated.  Now, it just makes sense,
> from an Aristotelian point of view, that where there is a telos there
> is also a moving cause, some kind of a pattern of activity, a
> process, which makes that telos actually happen, and also vice versa,
> where there is an activity, especially an organic activity, there is
> a teleology at work there in the moving cause. Something, not just
> anything, is coming to be.

The teleology there wouldn't be in the "survival of the fittest" aspect
simply, but rather in the direction of the underlying mechanisms at work
- here, the subatomic laws that govern the molecules of DNA so that they
replicate as they do consistently. But then, nature isn't acting for the
"good" anymore, as Aristotle maintains in Physics II.8. Subatomic laws
and tendencies are what they are independently of whether the atoms in
question are part of a living organism and help it grow and develop in a
helpful manner. It has nothing to do with the "good" at all.

> How, I ask, is a law of nature NOT a final cause? It IS normative, is
> it not?

Yes, but not for the good at all. In the theory of evolution, the good
occurs consistently not because it is good, but because the subatomic
laws are what they are and do what they do quite independently of
whether they're part of an organism.

   We say that falling bodies OBEY the law of gravity, just as
> we now say that the gemesis process of organisms OBEYS the law of the
> survival of the better adapted organism by means of a mechanism of
> natural selection that, as it were, takes advantage of the natural
> indeterminacies involved in the physical encoding and transmission of
> genetic information from one generation to the next. This does NOT
> mean that it is all merely accidental. It is, in point of fact, quite
> intentional. What, after all, is DOING the adapting here? The
> organisms? Or the genesis process? That, to me, is the intriguing
> question that was brought up by Hegel. So, how is all of this NOT
> deeply teleological? And, even SCIENTIFICALLY so?

Yes, but not for the good at all.

> Just a closing thought. What if adapatation is all there really is to
> evolution? Well, consider this. There may be more to the idea of
> adaptation than a result of a mere accident. The very thought of
> adaptation ties into the thought of integrity, and that, right there,
> is a thought that has as much application to ethics and politics as
> it does to biology. We should not be too quick to dismiss the cogency
> of the thought of adaptation, itself, as a fundamental teleology of
> nature, because it leads, quite naturally, organically, and even
> biologically, to a foundational thesis of ethics.

For Aristotle, human ethics depends on a fixed human nature, not an
evolving one - on a human nature that is definitively and permanently
*different* from that of other animals, as Aristotle himself makes quite
clear in Nich. Ethics I.7 where he defines human happiness as activity
according to reason *precisely because* that is what definitively
distinguishes human nature from any other (plant or animal). Aristotle
is the most anti-evolution philosopher who ever lived.

Joe:

I would say that is absolutely the case, from Aristotle's
perspective. But the efficient cause isn't the whole story. Maybe it
might help if we consider for a moment that the efficient cause is
the moving cause; it is the cause we find in the activity, the
process, as distinguised from the other three.

If a change happens, such as we see in natural selection, all four
modes of causality are necessarily involved in that change. There is
the form, the matter, the activity, and finally, the very nature of
the organism that is involved, where, here, the nature is to be
understood normatively, or, if you want to say it this way,
teleologically.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is not only a "mechanistic"
hypothesis regaring the emergence of species, but also
a "teleological" hypothesis as well. The teleology is obvious. It is,
to put it quite simply, the survival of the more fit, the better
adapted. The mechanism was, at Darwin's time, not very clearly
understood. That there was some kind of a mechanism involved in
breeding was not in doubt. What Darwin really clinched was the
universality of that mechanism with regard to the origin and the
disappearance of species over time on a vast scale.

The teleological aspect of Darwin's theory, the normative sense of
adaptation, ought not to be underestimated. Now, it just makes sense,
from an Aristotelian point of view, that where there is a telos there
is also a moving cause, some kind of a pattern of activity, a
process, which makes that telos actually happen, and also vice versa,
where there is an activity, especially an organic activity, there is
a teleology at work there in the moving cause. Something, not just
anything, is coming to be.

What modern science clues in on is something that even Aristotle, I
think, certainly realized, and that is once you get a grip on the
moving cause, the "how it happens" you are now in a better position
to more fully explain that phenomenon. With an account of the moving
cause, you can really sink your teeth into the phenomenon. Modern
science has done just that. And, as a matter of fact, the other three
aspects of causality are not as downplayed as we might think. What is
rejected by modern science is a naive nursery school kind of
interpretation of causality, especially of final causality, that does
not really even resemble Aristotle.

How, I ask, is a law of nature NOT a final cause? It IS normative, is
it not? We say that falling bodies OBEY the law of gravity, just as
we now say that the gemesis process of organisms OBEYS the law of the
survival of the better adapted organism by means of a mechanism of
natural selection that, as it were, takes advantage of the natural
indeterminacies involved in the physical encoding and transmission of
genetic information from one generation to the next. This does NOT
mean that it is all merely accidental. It is, in point of fact, quite
intentional. What, after all, is DOING the adapting here? The
organisms? Or the genesis process? That, to me, is the intriguing
question that was brought up by Hegel. So, how is all of this NOT
deeply teleological? And, even SCIENTIFICALLY so?

Okay, so, according to Aristotle, the activity IS the fundamentum. It
is prior. That is what Aristotle has in mind, at Metaphysics Book
Theta 1049b5 where he says that actuality is prior to possibility.
The activity, the energeia, is the actual process of undergoing,
which fulfills, or not, the potentiality, the dunamis. Aristotle's
analysis of form and matter ultimately recognizes the fundamental
identity of form and activity. Where there is form, there is
activity, and vice versa as well. Activity is, at bottom, physiology,
in the broadest possible sense of the term.

But, on the other side of the coin, the telos, how the fundamentum IS
the form and matter undergoing what it is undergoing, what it is a
becoming into, is not unimportant. It is, in fact, absolutely
essential, and there is something to be said, I think, for the
interpretation of Aristotle's final cause in terms of an ousia, of an
essence or a nature, as well as of a substance, an individual
substantial form. The term ousia wasn't just ambiguous. It was rich.

Aristotle is actually quite Platonic about this. But he has his
scientific eye, the interest of a student of nature, on the Form as
it is exhibited in nature, something that was less of a concern for
Plato who was mostly interested in the visibility of the Form in
ethics and politics. The two men can actually complement each other
quite well. There is really no need for a Plato-Aristotle antagonism
here.

The point is, I think, not to think all of this one-sidedly. If we
take Aristotle seriously, all FOUR causes have to be present in an
adequate metaphysical account, otherwise there really is no account,
and excluding any one of them is NOT an option. An over emphasis on
any one of them would necessarily be a distortion. So, if we want to
ask about the rather astonishing success modern science has had with
explanations according to the moving cause, we best not forget that
the matter and the form, as well as the normative role that is played
by the essential nature, or the phusis, the telos, simply cannot be
excluded from such an assessment.

Just a closing thought. What if adapatation is all there really is to
evolution? Well, consider this. There may be more to the idea of
adaptation than a result of a mere accident. The very thought of
adaptation ties into the thought of integrity, and that, right there,
is a thought that has as much application to ethics and politics as
it does to biology. We should not be too quick to dismiss the cogency
of the thought of adaptation, itself, as a fundamental teleology of
nature, because it leads, quite naturally, organically, and even
biologically, to a foundational thesis of ethics.

The fact that the meanings of the terms become necessarily equivocal
is not as big a problem as we might think. It is actually an INSIGHT,
not a problem! Aristotle, and Plato, both address the issue of
equivocity. It is profoundly important to metaphysical thinking. You
can't think metaphysically without it. And that, right there, is one
of the things that shows HOW metaphysics is so very different from
science.

Hb3g

--- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, uncljoedoc@... wrote:
>
>
>
> In the interests of discussing the metaphysics of Aristotle, I ask
the following question:
>
> I am interested in the 'first cause' of 'modification' of species
by means of natural selection. When a species is naturally modified
in the sense of descent with modification has the modification been
the effect of some efficient cause?
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Natural selection implies the selection of a small part of the whole in order to
observe and to comment on it with the mind.  The mind can only observe
impressions that take time to be recorded.  Observation moves the object under
scrutiny and only sees what was.  It sees the object’s existence in the past.

The original infinite idea is carrying the future idea of infinite possibility
and is therefore fixed and unchangeable by any type of selection.  Once the
selection of that we wish to observe is made then life is breathed into a
portion of the infinite possibility and the selection lives out its life in time
until we make additional selections from the whole idea

Steve Learnard

Soran Mardini wrote:
> There is nothing more naive than the darwiniste hypothesis of natural
selection.
> Natural selection does not exist.

Then do you say that artificial selection does not exist?  Do you deny
that men have deliberately bred many varieties of plants and animals?

Regards,
Bob Taylor

 

I am very grateful for that reply. I am very much taken with the topic of the
mode of thinking behind the theory of natural selection as presented by Darwin.I
am only interested in the very inception of an idea that things changing in time
are then selected for by a spatial ecological condition. I admit I want the
thinking to be challenged as best as possible. What I want is to understand the
theory as to how it has become a means of explaining. It is very powerful, such
minds as Freud picked up on it within a decade of its publication. Freud thought
it a way of understanding 'the world' and he said it inspired him to become a
doctor. William James wrote that it was a 'triumphal achievement' of explanation
involving two 'cycles of causation', one physiological and another
environmental.

I was hoping to see how Darwin's theory of natural selection, or better, the
mode of explaining that it represents, fares under scrutiny of the thought of
Aristotle. Can it be criticized from the standpoint of Aristotles causes? Any
feedback is appreciated. I read Aristotle from time to time, and I could follow
a discussion about this.

Joe



YOU WROTE:



>>>>There is nothing more naive than the darwiniste hypothesis of natural
selection.
Natural selection does not exist. Seeing the logic of it it does not allow
anything for the
origin of a species nore for its life-cycle nor for that matter the different
forms and structures of species.
By tracing the first cause and the contro
lling factor you arrive at what you are looking for presumably as the efficient
motor!
Soran 

--- En date de : Jeu 31.7.08, uncljoedoc@... <uncljoedoc@...> a
écrit :

De: uncljoedoc@... <uncljoedoc@...>
Objet: [aristotle-met] efficient cause
À: aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com
Date: Jeudi 31 Juillet 2008, 5h16

In the interests of discussing the metaphysics of Aristotle, I ask the following
question:

I am interested in the 'first cause' of 'modification' of species by means of
natural selection. When a species is naturally modified in the sense of descent
with modification has the modification been the effect of some efficient cause?

Joe



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There is nothing more naive than the darwiniste hypothesis of natural
selection.
Natural selection does not exist. Seeing the logic of it it does not allow
anything for the
origin of a species nore for its life-cycle nor for that matter the different
forms and structures of species.
By tracing the first cause and the controlling factor you arrive at what you are
looking for presumably as the efficient motor!
Soran 

--- En date de : Jeu 31.7.08, uncljoedoc@... <uncljoedoc@...> a
écrit :

De: uncljoedoc@... <uncljoedoc@...>
Objet: [aristotle-met] efficient cause
À: aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com
Date: Jeudi 31 Juillet 2008, 5h16








In the interests of discussing the metaphysics of Aristotle, I ask the following
question:

I am interested in the 'first cause' of 'modification' of species by means of
natural selection. When a species is naturally modified in the sense of descent
with modification has the modification been the effect of some efficient cause?

Joe

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
















      
_____________________________________________________________________________
Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail.yahoo.fr

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In the interests of discussing the metaphysics of Aristotle, I ask the following
question:

I am interested in the 'first cause' of 'modification' of species by means of
natural selection. When a species is naturally modified in the sense of descent
with modification has the modification been the effect of some efficient cause?



Joe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Right!
Ä° am not so sure to be able to Reawaken metaphysics..
Ä°t needs Resurection..
for it is dead and well buried...
Unless .. you demand fondamental real questions (and hope are not still dead)
like:
How come  there is a planet that rotates on its axis tilted at 23.5 dg. with
a precise
rotation and is making an orbit of 920 million km around the sun in nearly 365
ds.?
What keeps it in orbit and what is the origin of this phenpmenon?
Why at all this phenomenon?
What is life and where did come from?
How come there are cords and how did they come together to constitute
our unıverse?
Ä°f the universe needs to be precisely ordered who does the job?
Ä°f you are busy with your family and money making, television and a new
car.. forget about it...
Soran Mardini
--- En date de : Mer 9.7.08, Herman B. Triplegood <hb3g@...> a écrit :

De: Herman B. Triplegood <hb3g@...>
Objet: [aristotle-met] Aristotle Old and New
À: aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mercredi 9 Juillet 2008, 10h56






This list has been inactive for several months. I figured I would drop
in and see if I can stir up any interest in reawakening the
conversation on the Metaphysics.

Hb3g

















      
_____________________________________________________________________________
Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail.yahoo.fr

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This list has been inactive for several months. I figured I would drop
in and see if I can stir up any interest in reawakening the
conversation on the Metaphysics.

Hb3g

Dear Timothy
'God'
Please look up fnalities...Aristotle  4causes on net
Souran
--- physisvnomos <physisvnomos@...> a écrit :

> Mr. Mardini,
>
> Forgive me, Soran, but your comments are of interest
> and I am plagued
> by ignorance; what is meant by the term "external
> finality"?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Timothy E. Kennelly
>
>
> --- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, Soran Mardini
> <souranmardini@...> wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Kennelly
> > No personal jest is made. Far from this...
> > Ý consider only ideas and concepts.
> > What worries me a lot are assumptions of proofs
> and
> > evidences for or against the existance of an
> "external
> > finality".. We simply have no empiric knowledge..
> > Unless you can produce the contrary
> > Sincerely
> > Souran
> > --- physisvnomos <physisvnomos@...> a écrit :
> >
> > > Mr. Mardini,
> > >
> > > I simply asked a question, nothing more. It is
> not
> > > intended to be a
> > > tendentious question.
> > >
> > > Timothy E. Kennelly
> > >
> > > --- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, Soran
> Mardini
> > > <souranmardini@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Absolute Rubbish,
> > > > Give me one , one single evidence only
> > > > even a sign, an indice, anything...
> > > > Souran
> > > > --- John Barone <vespatian75@> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > Mr Kennelly, I believe that what you say
> > > certainly a
> > > > > valid theory easily reconcilable to
> Aristotelian
> > > > > thought. I don't know if Aristotle or
> Aquinas
> > > ever
> > > > > articulated such a theory, but certainly it
> > > could be
> > > > > seen as consistent with their views. More
> > > > > importantly it is in its own right a
> perfectly
> > > valid
> > > > > way to look at the relation of the Creator
> and
> > > the
> > > > > Cosmos.
> > > > >       Thank you for sharing it with me
> > > > >        John Barone
> > > > >
> > > > > physisvnomos <physisvnomos@> wrote:
> > > > >           Mr. Barone,
> > > > >
> > > > > What in the text makes you so confident that
> > > theos
> > > > > is not acting in
> > > > > time or creating time? I have seen this
> argument
> > > > > more than once, but
> > > > > am uncertain regarding its truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Timothy E. Kennelly
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, John
> > > Barone
> > > > > <vespatian75@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually there is no miracle. To put it in
> > > more
> > > > > familiar language
> > > > > it seems to me that Aristotle is saying we
> live
> > > in a
> > > > > contigent world
> > > > > in which every event has its cause. But what
> > > about
> > > > > the universe
> > > > > itself? Either the universe had a beginning,
> and
> > > in
> > > > > that case what
> > > > > was the cause of its beginning or, as
> Aristotle
> > > > > believed, it was
> > > > > eternal but in that case what was the cause
> of
> > > its
> > > > > eternal motion?
> > > > > Aristotle believed that logic required an
> > > unmoved
> > > > > mover or as I
> > > > > prefer to call it an uncaused cause even if
> > > motion
> > > > > was eternal. It is
> > > > > important that we understand that this
> argument
> > > is
> > > > > not a temporal
> > > > > question but a question of being. Aquinas
> > > inspired
> > > > > by the Torah
> > > > > referred to God as that being whose essence
> is
> > > to
> > > > > exist and so is the
> > > > > ground for a contigent universe. God is "I
> am
> > > who
> > > > > am", to use the
> > > > > biblical phrase.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Soran Mardini <souranmardini@> wrote:
> Lance
> > > > > > Lamda, yes.
> > > > > > The whole metaphysics as well as the
> physics
> > > are
> > > > > based
> > > > > > on the notion that from the "phenomenon of
> > > > > mouvement"
> > > > > > Arsito leaps , by a miracle, to a God,
> > > perfect,
> > > > > > immovable and eternal as well as good
> > > !!!!!????
> > > > > > We think we are reading the Torah, don't
> we???
> > > > > > Souran
> > > > > > --- Lancelot Fletcher <lrfletcher@> a
> écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Souran,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you referring to Aristotle's
> > > introduction of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > notion of a Prime Mover
> > > > > > > in Metaphysics lamda? Can you say
> precisely
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > passage you find puzzling
> > > > > > > and say what it is that makes you find
> this
> > > > > > > perplexing?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lance Fletcher
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Soran Mardini <souranmardini@>
> > > > > > > > Reply-To:
> <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:34:43 +0200
> > > (CEST)
> > > > > > > > To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Subject: [aristotle-met] (unknown)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have some difficulty to understand
> > > > > Aristotle's
> > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > of view of the relationship between
> the
> > > > > mouvement
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the sudden, unexpected appearance of a
> > > God!!
> > > > > > > > Can you help bridge the gap?
> > > > > > > > Souran
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
__________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse
> mail !
> > > > > Copiez
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible
contre les messages non sollicités
http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail

Mr. Mardini,

Forgive me, Soran, but your comments are of interest and I am plagued
by ignorance; what is meant by the term "external finality"?


Regards,

Timothy E. Kennelly


--- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, Soran Mardini
<souranmardini@...> wrote:
>
> Mr. Kennelly
> No personal jest is made. Far from this...
> Ý consider only ideas and concepts.
> What worries me a lot are assumptions of proofs and
> evidences for or against the existance of an "external
> finality".. We simply have no empiric knowledge..
> Unless you can produce the contrary
> Sincerely
> Souran
> --- physisvnomos <physisvnomos@...> a écrit :
>
> > Mr. Mardini,
> >
> > I simply asked a question, nothing more. It is not
> > intended to be a
> > tendentious question.
> >
> > Timothy E. Kennelly
> >
> > --- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, Soran Mardini
> > <souranmardini@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Absolute Rubbish,
> > > Give me one , one single evidence only
> > > even a sign, an indice, anything...
> > > Souran
> > > --- John Barone <vespatian75@> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Mr Kennelly, I believe that what you say
> > certainly a
> > > > valid theory easily reconcilable to Aristotelian
> > > > thought. I don't know if Aristotle or Aquinas
> > ever
> > > > articulated such a theory, but certainly it
> > could be
> > > > seen as consistent with their views. More
> > > > importantly it is in its own right a perfectly
> > valid
> > > > way to look at the relation of the Creator and
> > the
> > > > Cosmos.
> > > >       Thank you for sharing it with me
> > > >        John Barone
> > > >
> > > > physisvnomos <physisvnomos@> wrote:
> > > >           Mr. Barone,
> > > >
> > > > What in the text makes you so confident that
> > theos
> > > > is not acting in
> > > > time or creating time? I have seen this argument
> > > > more than once, but
> > > > am uncertain regarding its truth.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Timothy E. Kennelly
> > > >
> > > > --- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, John
> > Barone
> > > > <vespatian75@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually there is no miracle. To put it in
> > more
> > > > familiar language
> > > > it seems to me that Aristotle is saying we live
> > in a
> > > > contigent world
> > > > in which every event has its cause. But what
> > about
> > > > the universe
> > > > itself? Either the universe had a beginning, and
> > in
> > > > that case what
> > > > was the cause of its beginning or, as Aristotle
> > > > believed, it was
> > > > eternal but in that case what was the cause of
> > its
> > > > eternal motion?
> > > > Aristotle believed that logic required an
> > unmoved
> > > > mover or as I
> > > > prefer to call it an uncaused cause even if
> > motion
> > > > was eternal. It is
> > > > important that we understand that this argument
> > is
> > > > not a temporal
> > > > question but a question of being. Aquinas
> > inspired
> > > > by the Torah
> > > > referred to God as that being whose essence is
> > to
> > > > exist and so is the
> > > > ground for a contigent universe. God is "I am
> > who
> > > > am", to use the
> > > > biblical phrase.
> > > > >
> > > > > Soran Mardini <souranmardini@> wrote: Lance
> > > > > Lamda, yes.
> > > > > The whole metaphysics as well as the physics
> > are
> > > > based
> > > > > on the notion that from the "phenomenon of
> > > > mouvement"
> > > > > Arsito leaps , by a miracle, to a God,
> > perfect,
> > > > > immovable and eternal as well as good
> > !!!!!????
> > > > > We think we are reading the Torah, don't we???
> > > > > Souran
> > > > > --- Lancelot Fletcher <lrfletcher@> a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Souran,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you referring to Aristotle's
> > introduction of
> > > > the
> > > > > > notion of a Prime Mover
> > > > > > in Metaphysics lamda? Can you say precisely
> > > > which
> > > > > > passage you find puzzling
> > > > > > and say what it is that makes you find this
> > > > > > perplexing?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lance Fletcher
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Soran Mardini <souranmardini@>
> > > > > > > Reply-To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:34:43 +0200
> > (CEST)
> > > > > > > To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Subject: [aristotle-met] (unknown)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have some difficulty to understand
> > > > Aristotle's
> > > > > > point
> > > > > > > of view of the relationship between the
> > > > mouvement
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > the sudden, unexpected appearance of a
> > God!!
> > > > > > > Can you help bridge the gap?
> > > > > > > Souran
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail !
> > > > Copiez
> > > > > > vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail !
> > Copiez
> > > > vos mails vers
> > > > Yahoo! Mail
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at
> > Yahoo!
> > > > Autos.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la
> > meilleure
> > protection possible contre les messages non
> > sollicités
> > > http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure
protection possible contre les messages non sollicités
> http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail
>

Mr. Kennelly
No personal jest is made. Far from this...
Ý consider only ideas and concepts.
What worries me a lot are assumptions of proofs and
evidences for or against the existance of an "external
finality".. We simply have no empiric knowledge..
Unless you can produce the contrary
Sincerely
Souran
--- physisvnomos <physisvnomos@...> a écrit :

> Mr. Mardini,
>
> I simply asked a question, nothing more. It is not
> intended to be a
> tendentious question.
>
> Timothy E. Kennelly
>
> --- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, Soran Mardini
> <souranmardini@...> wrote:
> >
> > Absolute Rubbish,
> > Give me one , one single evidence only
> > even a sign, an indice, anything...
> > Souran
> > --- John Barone <vespatian75@...> a écrit :
> >
> > > Mr Kennelly, I believe that what you say
> certainly a
> > > valid theory easily reconcilable to Aristotelian
> > > thought. I don't know if Aristotle or Aquinas
> ever
> > > articulated such a theory, but certainly it
> could be
> > > seen as consistent with their views. More
> > > importantly it is in its own right a perfectly
> valid
> > > way to look at the relation of the Creator and
> the
> > > Cosmos.
> > >       Thank you for sharing it with me
> > >        John Barone
> > >
> > > physisvnomos <physisvnomos@...> wrote:
> > >           Mr. Barone,
> > >
> > > What in the text makes you so confident that
> theos
> > > is not acting in
> > > time or creating time? I have seen this argument
> > > more than once, but
> > > am uncertain regarding its truth.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Timothy E. Kennelly
> > >
> > > --- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, John
> Barone
> > > <vespatian75@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually there is no miracle. To put it in
> more
> > > familiar language
> > > it seems to me that Aristotle is saying we live
> in a
> > > contigent world
> > > in which every event has its cause. But what
> about
> > > the universe
> > > itself? Either the universe had a beginning, and
> in
> > > that case what
> > > was the cause of its beginning or, as Aristotle
> > > believed, it was
> > > eternal but in that case what was the cause of
> its
> > > eternal motion?
> > > Aristotle believed that logic required an
> unmoved
> > > mover or as I
> > > prefer to call it an uncaused cause even if
> motion
> > > was eternal. It is
> > > important that we understand that this argument
> is
> > > not a temporal
> > > question but a question of being. Aquinas
> inspired
> > > by the Torah
> > > referred to God as that being whose essence is
> to
> > > exist and so is the
> > > ground for a contigent universe. God is "I am
> who
> > > am", to use the
> > > biblical phrase.
> > > >
> > > > Soran Mardini <souranmardini@> wrote: Lance
> > > > Lamda, yes.
> > > > The whole metaphysics as well as the physics
> are
> > > based
> > > > on the notion that from the "phenomenon of
> > > mouvement"
> > > > Arsito leaps , by a miracle, to a God,
> perfect,
> > > > immovable and eternal as well as good
> !!!!!????
> > > > We think we are reading the Torah, don't we???
> > > > Souran
> > > > --- Lancelot Fletcher <lrfletcher@> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > Souran,
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you referring to Aristotle's
> introduction of
> > > the
> > > > > notion of a Prime Mover
> > > > > in Metaphysics lamda? Can you say precisely
> > > which
> > > > > passage you find puzzling
> > > > > and say what it is that makes you find this
> > > > > perplexing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lance Fletcher
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: Soran Mardini <souranmardini@>
> > > > > > Reply-To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:34:43 +0200
> (CEST)
> > > > > > To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: [aristotle-met] (unknown)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have some difficulty to understand
> > > Aristotle's
> > > > > point
> > > > > > of view of the relationship between the
> > > mouvement
> > > > > and
> > > > > > the sudden, unexpected appearance of a
> God!!
> > > > > > Can you help bridge the gap?
> > > > > > Souran
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
__________________________________________________________
> > > > > > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail !
> > > Copiez
> > > > > vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
__________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail !
> Copiez
> > > vos mails vers
> > > Yahoo! Mail
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at
> Yahoo!
> > > Autos.
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > removed]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la
> meilleure
> protection possible contre les messages non
> sollicités
> > http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail
> >
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible
contre les messages non sollicités
http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail

Mr. Mardini,

I simply asked a question, nothing more. It is not intended to be a
tendentious question.

Timothy E. Kennelly

--- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, Soran Mardini
<souranmardini@...> wrote:
>
> Absolute Rubbish,
> Give me one , one single evidence only
> even a sign, an indice, anything...
> Souran
> --- John Barone <vespatian75@...> a écrit :
>
> > Mr Kennelly, I believe that what you say certainly a
> > valid theory easily reconcilable to Aristotelian
> > thought. I don't know if Aristotle or Aquinas ever
> > articulated such a theory, but certainly it could be
> > seen as consistent with their views. More
> > importantly it is in its own right a perfectly valid
> > way to look at the relation of the Creator and the
> > Cosmos.
> >       Thank you for sharing it with me
> >        John Barone
> >
> > physisvnomos <physisvnomos@...> wrote:
> >           Mr. Barone,
> >
> > What in the text makes you so confident that theos
> > is not acting in
> > time or creating time? I have seen this argument
> > more than once, but
> > am uncertain regarding its truth.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Timothy E. Kennelly
> >
> > --- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, John Barone
> > <vespatian75@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually there is no miracle. To put it in more
> > familiar language
> > it seems to me that Aristotle is saying we live in a
> > contigent world
> > in which every event has its cause. But what about
> > the universe
> > itself? Either the universe had a beginning, and in
> > that case what
> > was the cause of its beginning or, as Aristotle
> > believed, it was
> > eternal but in that case what was the cause of its
> > eternal motion?
> > Aristotle believed that logic required an unmoved
> > mover or as I
> > prefer to call it an uncaused cause even if motion
> > was eternal. It is
> > important that we understand that this argument is
> > not a temporal
> > question but a question of being. Aquinas inspired
> > by the Torah
> > referred to God as that being whose essence is to
> > exist and so is the
> > ground for a contigent universe. God is "I am who
> > am", to use the
> > biblical phrase.
> > >
> > > Soran Mardini <souranmardini@> wrote: Lance
> > > Lamda, yes.
> > > The whole metaphysics as well as the physics are
> > based
> > > on the notion that from the "phenomenon of
> > mouvement"
> > > Arsito leaps , by a miracle, to a God, perfect,
> > > immovable and eternal as well as good !!!!!????
> > > We think we are reading the Torah, don't we???
> > > Souran
> > > --- Lancelot Fletcher <lrfletcher@> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Souran,
> > > >
> > > > Are you referring to Aristotle's introduction of
> > the
> > > > notion of a Prime Mover
> > > > in Metaphysics lamda? Can you say precisely
> > which
> > > > passage you find puzzling
> > > > and say what it is that makes you find this
> > > > perplexing?
> > > >
> > > > Lance Fletcher
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > From: Soran Mardini <souranmardini@>
> > > > > Reply-To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:34:43 +0200 (CEST)
> > > > > To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: [aristotle-met] (unknown)
> > > > >
> > > > > I have some difficulty to understand
> > Aristotle's
> > > > point
> > > > > of view of the relationship between the
> > mouvement
> > > > and
> > > > > the sudden, unexpected appearance of a God!!
> > > > > Can you help bridge the gap?
> > > > > Souran
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > > > > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail !
> > Copiez
> > > > vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> >
> > > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez
> > vos mails vers
> > Yahoo! Mail
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo!
> > Autos.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure
protection possible contre les messages non sollicités
> http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail
>

The appearance of the "uncertainty principle" is due to the existence of the
imaginary number "i", square root of minus 1. "i", may be invented by Gauss, has
any real physical meaning?

Soran Mardini <souranmardini@...> wrote:          Can you stop please using
empty terminology
Time is simply unknown (einstein:a ray of matter?)
utter words....
Matter is even less unknown
Until when we pretend to knowledge...
Souran
--- chungchi hsu <chungchihsu2000@...> a écrit :

> Dear Stephen:
>
> This is called "uncertainty principle". It is
> after we have observers or consciousness.
>
> Chungchi Hsu
>
> Stephen Learnard <alchent01@...> wrote:
> Looking at the nature of time it has been
> recently defined as bundles of energy that are
> attached to an observable ( as a result of the
> energy projected from the observer's attention)
> giving it the duratiion in existence for the
> observer to attain understanding at which moment the
> time energy is released and the time or substqance
> of creation can be reprogammed from possibility by
> the witness consciousness.
>
> Steve Learnard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> chungchi hsu
> between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible
contre les messages non sollicités
http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail





chungchi hsu

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

NOTE:
IN REFLECTED LIGHT,
THE EFFECT CAN BE
INVERSED.

                                S.L.E.







  ^
|
|
SUPPRESSION OF THE PARANORMAL
CHANNEL BY THE PHOTON INTER-
ACTION INCREASES IN THIS
DIRECTION IN PROPORTION TO THE
SPECTRAL LUMINOUS EFFICIENCY








WAVELENGTH (NANOMETERS)

Fig. 8.  Photon quenching of the paranormal


  (A)  WEAKLY OBJECTIVE REGION
(B)   STRONGLY OBJECTIVE REGION






PHOTON QUENCHING OF THE PARANORMAL
(TIME) CHANNEL

    The photon interaction constitutes a time-differentiating operator imposed
upon L3T dimensionally (Minkowskian reality), which results in the creation of
L3 dimensionality (objective, spatial reality).  Aristotle's three laws of
logical thought are based on primitive observation, which in turn is in
one-to-one correspondence to the situation where the photon interaction has been
imposed and the time dimension destroyed, resulting in a classical or objective
or spatial reality.  Hence all our present logic, science, and mathematics are
based upon this particular arrangement.  As shown by the two-slit experiment, if
the photon interaction is not allowed to occur, a fundamental particle refuses
to behave in a classical, objective, spatial object manner; instead, it behaves
in a nonclassical, nonobjective, wave manner if the time element interacts with
it.
    Mental phenomena occupy the same time dimension as do physical phenomena;
however, the spatial dimensions of mental objects do not ordinarily occupy or
intersect the spatial dimensions of physical objects.  However, the time
dimension is recognized by physics as objective; therefore, since the mind
occupies at least one real objective dimension, it is objective rather than
subjective.  This suggests a model whereby mind is a real L3T  Minkowskian
four-space world, but one whose three spatial dimensions lie orthogonal to and
outside the ordinary world's three spatial dimensions.  The mindworld and the
physical world then have in common the same time dimension.  Dynamic movements
in each world (mind and matter) result in an exceedingly small crosstalk being
projected into the other world, a crosstalk so small as to be virtual and
normally unmeasurable.  Establishing one-to-one coherence between crosstalk from
a mindworld constitutes the creation of a biological organism.  The crosstalk
from the mindworld and a physical structure in the ordinary world to the
physical world has previously been labeled inception by me, and a mechanism
whereby such a minute psychokinetic effect on matter can be amplified to a
macroscopically observable level, or even beyond, has been derived.  Thus a
fundamental mechanism whereby tulpoid activity (projections from the collective
unconscious materializing into the ordinary physical world, in a format
determined by the collectively higher levels of unconsciousness in the race,
national group, culture, subculture, and personal unconsciousness) is developed
and explained.
     Before the intervention of the photon interaction, four-dimensional reality
thus has a great deal of tulpoid dither riding upon its time dimension as a
minute modulation.  The photon interaction invokes a time-differentiating
operation, stripping away or suppressing the time dimension, resulting in a
spatial reality or objective reality being perceived or observed, and in the
process separating mind and body by destroying the only common connection or
channel.  Because of the time-squelching action of the photon interaction, we do
not see time or the mind in our ordinary physical observation.  Also, we do not
see the incessant stream of tulpoid activity that bathes the time channel.
     The time channel is thus the mental channel and the paranormal channel.  The
photon interaction is the destroyer or squelcher of the paranormal channel. 
Apparently the squelch effect of light is not linear or constant, but is a
variable and a function of the frequency of the light being utilized.  From a
synthesis of a variety of data in diverse fields, the following hypothesis has
been arrived at to fit the experimental evidence:  The quenching of the
hyperchannel (the paranormal channel or the time channel) by photon interaction
is proportional to the spectral luminous efficiency of the eye of the average
human observer in the interval from the infrared to the ultraviolet.  Thus the
form of the paranormal squelching effect of the photon interaction is given by
the operator € where
                                           € = m E T
and where m is a parameter which varies as some function of frequency.  This
hypothesis specifies m over the region from the ultraviolet to the infrared.  In
other regions of the frequency spectrum, the form of m must be determined by
experiment.
     There are several experiments which fit the hypothesis:
      1.  The induction of death and disease patterns from test cells to
environmentally shielded healthy cells by Soviet scientists.a
      2.  The invoking of specific tulpa living forms and photographing them in
the in- visible state with infrared film by Trevor James Constable.b
      3.  The visible light revival of appreciable fractions of cells killed with
ultraviolet light and kept in the dark - dormant, unreproducing, for up to
twenty-four hours.
      4.  Ingo Swann's precise differentiation of the visible light spectrum
(frequency region) where psychic seeing (similar to remote viewing) is blacked
out.
      5.  The Fox and Miller experiments, in which cell-like protein forms that
reproduce (i.e.  are "living") are generated when a primeval soup in the
laboratory is bathed in ultraviolet light and exposed to strong electrical spark
discharge (strong bioenergy collections).

Steve

Can you stop please using empty terminology
Time is simply unknown (einstein:a ray of matter?)
utter words....
Matter is even less unknown
Until when we pretend to knowledge...
Souran
--- chungchi hsu <chungchihsu2000@...> a écrit :

> Dear Stephen:
>
>   This is called "uncertainty principle". It is
> after we have observers or consciousness.
>
>   Chungchi Hsu
>
> Stephen Learnard <alchent01@...> wrote:
>           Looking at the nature of time it has been
> recently defined as bundles of energy that are
> attached to an observable ( as a result of the
> energy projected from the observer's attention)
> giving it the duratiion in existence for the
> observer to attain understanding at which moment the
> time energy is released and the time or substqance
> of creation can be reprogammed from possibility by
> the witness consciousness.
>
> Steve Learnard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> chungchi hsu
>  between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible
contre les messages non sollicités
http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail

Steve
Utter words void of meaning and reference...
Please wake up...
Souran
--- Stephen Learnard <alchent01@...> a
écrit :

> Looking at the nature of time it has been recently
> defined as bundles of energy that are attached to an
> observable ( as a result of the energy projected
> from the observer's attention) giving it the
> duratiion in existence for the observer to attain
> understanding at which moment the time energy is
> released and the time or substqance of creation can
> be reprogammed  from possibility by the witness
> consciousness.
>
> Steve Learnard
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible
contre les messages non sollicités
http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail

Absolute Rubbish,
Give me one , one single evidence only
even a sign, an indice, anything...
Souran
--- John Barone <vespatian75@...> a écrit :

> Mr Kennelly, I believe that what you say certainly a
> valid theory easily reconcilable to Aristotelian
> thought. I don't know if Aristotle or Aquinas ever
> articulated such a theory, but certainly it could be
> seen as consistent with their views. More
> importantly it is in its own right a perfectly valid
> way to look at the relation of the Creator and the
> Cosmos.
>       Thank you for sharing it with me
>        John Barone
>
> physisvnomos <physisvnomos@...> wrote:
>           Mr. Barone,
>
> What in the text makes you so confident that theos
> is not acting in
> time or creating time? I have seen this argument
> more than once, but
> am uncertain regarding its truth.
>
> Regards,
>
> Timothy E. Kennelly
>
> --- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, John Barone
> <vespatian75@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Actually there is no miracle. To put it in more
> familiar language
> it seems to me that Aristotle is saying we live in a
> contigent world
> in which every event has its cause. But what about
> the universe
> itself? Either the universe had a beginning, and in
> that case what
> was the cause of its beginning or, as Aristotle
> believed, it was
> eternal but in that case what was the cause of its
> eternal motion?
> Aristotle believed that logic required an unmoved
> mover or as I
> prefer to call it an uncaused cause even if motion
> was eternal. It is
> important that we understand that this argument is
> not a temporal
> question but a question of being. Aquinas inspired
> by the Torah
> referred to God as that being whose essence is to
> exist and so is the
> ground for a contigent universe. God is "I am who
> am", to use the
> biblical phrase.
> >
> > Soran Mardini <souranmardini@...> wrote: Lance
> > Lamda, yes.
> > The whole metaphysics as well as the physics are
> based
> > on the notion that from the "phenomenon of
> mouvement"
> > Arsito leaps , by a miracle, to a God, perfect,
> > immovable and eternal as well as good !!!!!????
> > We think we are reading the Torah, don't we???
> > Souran
> > --- Lancelot Fletcher <lrfletcher@...> a écrit :
> >
> > > Souran,
> > >
> > > Are you referring to Aristotle's introduction of
> the
> > > notion of a Prime Mover
> > > in Metaphysics lamda? Can you say precisely
> which
> > > passage you find puzzling
> > > and say what it is that makes you find this
> > > perplexing?
> > >
> > > Lance Fletcher
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: Soran Mardini <souranmardini@...>
> > > > Reply-To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:34:43 +0200 (CEST)
> > > > To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: [aristotle-met] (unknown)
> > > >
> > > > I have some difficulty to understand
> Aristotle's
> > > point
> > > > of view of the relationship between the
> mouvement
> > > and
> > > > the sudden, unexpected appearance of a God!!
> > > > Can you help bridge the gap?
> > > > Souran
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
__________________________________________________________
> > > > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail !
> Copiez
> > > vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________________
>
> > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez
> vos mails vers
> Yahoo! Mail
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo!
> Autos.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>  between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible
contre les messages non sollicités
http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail

Dear Stephen:

   This is called "uncertainty principle". It is after we have observers or
consciousness.

   Chungchi Hsu

Stephen Learnard <alchent01@...> wrote:
           Looking at the nature of time it has been recently defined as bundles
of energy that are attached to an observable ( as a result of the energy
projected from the observer's attention) giving it the duratiion in existence
for the observer to attain understanding at which moment the time energy is
released and the time or substqance of creation can be reprogammed from
possibility by the witness consciousness.

Steve Learnard






chungchi hsu
  between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Looking at the nature of time it has been recently defined as bundles of energy
that are attached to an observable ( as a result of the energy projected from
the observer's attention) giving it the duratiion in existence for the observer
to attain understanding at which moment the time energy is released and the time
or substqance of creation can be reprogammed  from possibility by the witness
consciousness.

Steve Learnard

Mr Kennelly, I believe that what you say certainly a valid theory easily
reconcilable to Aristotelian thought. I don't know if Aristotle or Aquinas ever
articulated such a theory, but certainly it could be seen as consistent with
their views. More importantly it is in its own right a perfectly valid way to
look at the relation of the Creator and the Cosmos.
       Thank you for sharing it with me
        John Barone

physisvnomos <physisvnomos@...> wrote:
           Mr. Barone,

What in the text makes you so confident that theos is not acting in
time or creating time? I have seen this argument more than once, but
am uncertain regarding its truth.

Regards,

Timothy E. Kennelly

--- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, John Barone <vespatian75@...>
wrote:
>
> Actually there is no miracle. To put it in more familiar language
it seems to me that Aristotle is saying we live in a contigent world
in which every event has its cause. But what about the universe
itself? Either the universe had a beginning, and in that case what
was the cause of its beginning or, as Aristotle believed, it was
eternal but in that case what was the cause of its eternal motion?
Aristotle believed that logic required an unmoved mover or as I
prefer to call it an uncaused cause even if motion was eternal. It is
important that we understand that this argument is not a temporal
question but a question of being. Aquinas inspired by the Torah
referred to God as that being whose essence is to exist and so is the
ground for a contigent universe. God is "I am who am", to use the
biblical phrase.
>
> Soran Mardini <souranmardini@...> wrote: Lance
> Lamda, yes.
> The whole metaphysics as well as the physics are based
> on the notion that from the "phenomenon of mouvement"
> Arsito leaps , by a miracle, to a God, perfect,
> immovable and eternal as well as good !!!!!????
> We think we are reading the Torah, don't we???
> Souran
> --- Lancelot Fletcher <lrfletcher@...> a écrit :
>
> > Souran,
> >
> > Are you referring to Aristotle's introduction of the
> > notion of a Prime Mover
> > in Metaphysics lamda? Can you say precisely which
> > passage you find puzzling
> > and say what it is that makes you find this
> > perplexing?
> >
> > Lance Fletcher
> >
> >
> > > From: Soran Mardini <souranmardini@...>
> > > Reply-To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:34:43 +0200 (CEST)
> > > To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [aristotle-met] (unknown)
> > >
> > > I have some difficulty to understand Aristotle's
> > point
> > > of view of the relationship between the mouvement
> > and
> > > the sudden, unexpected appearance of a God!!
> > > Can you help bridge the gap?
> > > Souran
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez
> > vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers
Yahoo! Mail
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





  between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mr. Barone,

What in the text makes you so confident that theos is not acting in
time or creating time? I have seen this argument more than once, but
am uncertain regarding its truth.


Regards,

Timothy E. Kennelly

--- In aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com, John Barone <vespatian75@...>
wrote:
>
> Actually there is no miracle.  To put it in more familiar language
it seems to me that Aristotle is saying we live in a contigent world
in which every event has its cause. But what about the universe
itself? Either the universe had a beginning, and in that case what
was the cause of its beginning or, as Aristotle believed, it was
eternal but in that case what was the cause of its eternal motion?
Aristotle believed that logic required an unmoved mover or as I
prefer to call it an uncaused cause even if motion was eternal. It is
important that we understand that this argument is not a temporal
question but a question of being.  Aquinas inspired by the Torah
referred to God as that being whose essence is to exist and so is the
ground for a contigent universe. God is "I am who am", to use the
biblical phrase.
>
> Soran Mardini <souranmardini@...> wrote:          Lance
> Lamda, yes.
> The whole metaphysics as well as the physics are based
> on the notion that from the "phenomenon of mouvement"
> Arsito leaps , by a miracle, to a God, perfect,
> immovable and eternal as well as good !!!!!????
> We think we are reading the Torah, don't we???
> Souran
> --- Lancelot Fletcher <lrfletcher@...> a écrit :
>
> > Souran,
> >
> > Are you referring to Aristotle's introduction of the
> > notion of a Prime Mover
> > in Metaphysics lamda? Can you say precisely which
> > passage you find puzzling
> > and say what it is that makes you find this
> > perplexing?
> >
> > Lance Fletcher
> >
> >
> > > From: Soran Mardini <souranmardini@...>
> > > Reply-To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:34:43 +0200 (CEST)
> > > To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [aristotle-met] (unknown)
> > >
> > > I have some difficulty to understand Aristotle's
> > point
> > > of view of the relationship between the mouvement
> > and
> > > the sudden, unexpected appearance of a God!!
> > > Can you help bridge the gap?
> > > Souran
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez
> > vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers
Yahoo! Mail
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>  Check out  the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Actually there is no miracle.  To put it in more familiar language it seems to
me that Aristotle is saying we live in a contigent world in which every event
has its cause. But what about the universe itself? Either the universe had a
beginning, and in that case what was the cause of its beginning or, as Aristotle
believed, it was eternal but in that case what was the cause of its eternal
motion? Aristotle believed that logic required an unmoved mover or as I prefer
to call it an uncaused cause even if motion was eternal. It is important that we
understand that this argument is not a temporal question but a question of
being.  Aquinas inspired by the Torah referred to God as that being whose
essence is to exist and so is the ground for a contigent universe. God is "I am
who am", to use the biblical phrase.

Soran Mardini <souranmardini@...> wrote:          Lance
Lamda, yes.
The whole metaphysics as well as the physics are based
on the notion that from the "phenomenon of mouvement"
Arsito leaps , by a miracle, to a God, perfect,
immovable and eternal as well as good !!!!!????
We think we are reading the Torah, don't we???
Souran
--- Lancelot Fletcher <lrfletcher@...> a écrit :

> Souran,
>
> Are you referring to Aristotle's introduction of the
> notion of a Prime Mover
> in Metaphysics lamda? Can you say precisely which
> passage you find puzzling
> and say what it is that makes you find this
> perplexing?
>
> Lance Fletcher
>
>
> > From: Soran Mardini <souranmardini@...>
> > Reply-To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:34:43 +0200 (CEST)
> > To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [aristotle-met] (unknown)
> >
> > I have some difficulty to understand Aristotle's
> point
> > of view of the relationship between the mouvement
> and
> > the sudden, unexpected appearance of a God!!
> > Can you help bridge the gap?
> > Souran
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________________
> > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez
> vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
>
>
>

__________________________________________________________
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail





---------------------------------
  Check out  the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Lance
Lamda, yes.
The whole metaphysics as well as the physics are based
on the notion that from the "phenomenon of mouvement"
Arsito leaps , by a miracle, to a God, perfect,
immovable and eternal as well as good !!!!!????
We think we are reading the Torah, don't we???
Souran
--- Lancelot Fletcher <lrfletcher@...> a écrit :

> Souran,
>
> Are you referring to Aristotle's introduction of the
> notion of a Prime Mover
> in Metaphysics lamda? Can you say precisely which
> passage you find puzzling
> and say what it is that makes you find this
> perplexing?
>
> Lance Fletcher
>
>
> > From: Soran Mardini <souranmardini@...>
> > Reply-To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:34:43 +0200 (CEST)
> > To: <aristotle-met@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [aristotle-met] (unknown)
> >
> > I have some difficulty to understand Aristotle's
> point
> > of view of the relationship between the mouvement
> and
> > the sudden, unexpected appearance of a God!!
> > Can you help bridge the gap?
> > Souran
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
_____________________________________________________________________________
> > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez
> vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
>
>
>



      
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail