Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Possible SPAM] Re: [Pythagorean-L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought

Expand Messages
  • Larry D. Rafey
    Divine Cause Finally ... a concept that makes perfect sense! Yes. I must agree with you on this point. It is entirely consistent with what I know of the
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      
                                    'Divine Cause' 
      Finally ... a concept that makes perfect sense! Yes. I must agree with you on this point. It is entirely consistent with what I know of the philosophies of both Plato and Pythagoras (and Aristotle, for that matter).
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 4:02 PM
      Subject: Re: [Possible SPAM] Re: [Pythagorean-L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought

       

      Hi, i must ease your conversation by saying that
      logos in ancient Greek means three things
      1) speaking and when it is between 2 persons is dialogue (dia+logue=logos)
      2) logic
      3) cause

      in philosophy of Plato which is based on Pythagoras logos is the logic cause.
      Everything is a result of a cause, and this cause is based in logic, and this logic cause is divine. So divine cause is logos or in other words Gods are the cause of everything.

      Porphyrius a Neoplatonic philosopher said in his work "Peri agalmatwn" (About statues)
      that the Greeks choose to represent Gods in human form on statues because they say that the laws of Cosmos are based on logic and Gods represent these laws.
      So they select a symbol for Gods that represent the most logic being on earth and this being is human. So Gods are logic and their symbol is the human form.

      In this way the word logos means the "logic cause" that is based on it the Cosmos (universe) and in a polytheistic system this logos is the Gods.
      In Christianity, a monotheistic system has the same expresion in John 1:1
      "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

      This sentense includes the concept of philosophy of divine logos = God that was explained above. The translation of this verse for word Logos is Word but is not accurate the original word is "logos" so the verse goes like this
      "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God."

      So Logos is the God or Gods and means that Gods are pure logic.

      We can find out that Gods are logos=logic and from another writer Plutarhus from his work
      "De facie in orbe lunae" which he says that when a human dies the first thing that happens is the first death which is the separation of soul from the body and it is placed on earth.

      Then there is the second death, which is the separation of logos (th first part of soul) from the other parts and it is palced under the moon.

      After the second death the human logos ascends to Ethereal plane near Gods or it continues until One in a union with every God and finally with One.

      So if human soul has inside logos this divine part of soul unites with Gods-Logos cause is the same entity.


       

      --- Στις Σάβ., 31/10/09, ο/η Larry D. Rafey <rafey@gdsys. net> έγραψε:

      Από: Larry D. Rafey <rafey@gdsys. net>
      Θέμα: Re: [Possible SPAM] Re: [Pythagorean- L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought
      Προς: Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com
      Ημερομηνία: Σάββατο, 31 Οκτώβριος 2009, 17:01

       

       
      'Logos,' in this case, would seem to imply a unity not existing prior to creation.  Therefore, all that preceded creation was without unity (alogos) and therefore beyond rational description.  (???)
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: A.C.B.
      Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:29 PM
      Subject: [Possible SPAM] Re: [Pythagorean- L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought

       

      Eriugena, tough assignment even for Goethe.

      --- On Thu, 10/29/09, James McKinnon <metatron121@ yahoo.com> wrote:

      From: James McKinnon <metatron121@ yahoo.com>
      Subject: Re: [Pythagorean- L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought
      To: Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com
      Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 2:05 PM

       

      Traditionally, Bereshith, or En Arche is interpreted to refer to a state that transcends anything relative, and certainly before anything happened.
      That the Logos might be in that, and be that, and the same as that is not inconsistent.
      Naturally to say be, in, or the same, are relative references and fall short of accuracy.  It's the problem of trying to describe something that transcends the limits of language. 
      Anyway, I think Goethe would have done well to read Eriugena.
       
      Salus,
      James 
       

      --- On Thu, 10/29/09, A.C.B. <ballasac@yahoo. com> wrote:

      From: A.C.B. <ballasac@yahoo. com>
      Subject: Re: [Pythagorean- L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought
      To: Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com
      Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 5:54 AM

       


      "It says: 'In the beginning was the Word.'
      Already I am stopped. It seems absurd.
      The Word does not deserve the highest prize,
      I must translate it otherwise
      If I am well inspired and not blind.
      In the beginning was the Act."

      (Goethe,Faust, 1224-29)

      --- On Thu, 10/29/09, Wayne <wayne_92587@ yahoo.com> wrote:

      From: Wayne <wayne_92587@ yahoo.com>
      Subject: [Pythagorean- L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought
      To: Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com
      Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 4:15 AM

       


      --- In Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com, "Larry D. Rafey" <rafey@...> wrote:
      > Rafey

      --- In Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com, "Larry D. Rafey" <rafey@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Wayne,
      > I understand exactly what you are implying here. One of the amazing characteristics of nature is that it can be correctly interpreted using a variety of schemes.
      > Rafey

      I do not believe that the word Nature, as in the Nature of the Material, Physical, World of Reality can be used in reference to Logos.

      In the Material World of Reality 1+1=2, simply meaning the two quantities are the same, equal.

      When it comes to Logos it can be said that Logos, that the Word, is God, but it can not be said that God is the Word, is Logos; The word being God understood to have material existence, the Word that is God, Logos, has no material substance, is Immaterial,

      If in speaking of God it is said that God is the Word, then the word God that is being spoken of is not Logos, then it is not the Word that is God that is being spoken of.

      Those that speak of Logos, the Word that is God, as being masculine
      (Masculinity being representative of a Material, Physical Reality) are not speaking of Logos, the Word that is God.

      Those that Speak of Tao, Reason, as being born of Nature are not speaking of the True Way, Spirit, Nature, of Tao, Reason; Tao, Reason being born of Heaven and Earth, the Material and the Immaterial, Mind and Body, Spirit and Flesh, Yin and Yang.

      It could be said that Tao, Reason, is the Logos, the Word, made manifest to so as to walk under the Sun, the Sun being the Light unto the World, The World of Reality, the Material World Reality, Reality as seen in the Light of Day.

      Tao, Reason, being born of Flesh and Blood.

      It is in the Blood, meaning in the Heart.

      What is, in the Blood, in the Heart, of Man, the Law, the Single True Nature, of the Universe, of the Reality of Everything, T.O.E., Logos, the Word that is God, Boundlessness, Freedom of Motion, the desire to be Free to do as One Will.

      Tao, Reason, is Man's Salvation, The Rule of Law born of Reason allowing Man to being the Chaos to order, allowing Man to step out of the Chaos born of Cause and Effect, to allow Man to know the difference between Absolutely Good Knowledge and Absolutely Bad Knowledge, Absolutely Bad Knowledge mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge having a Dual Quality, also known as the Knowledge of Good and Evil, is known to be guileful.

      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Wayne
      > To: Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com
      > Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:38 PM
      > Subject: [Pythagorean- L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com, "A.C.B." <ballasac@> wrote:
      > >
      > > If Tao is illusion and Logos is Tao, how then does Logos become flesh? Is Tao Logos or is Logos Tao? Is the "truth" in the East or in the West?
      > >
      >
      > Tao is not an Illusion, nor is Logos.
      >
      > Tao is not an Illusion, nor is Logos, although Logos does not exist as a Material, Physical Reality in sense of the word Reality; Reality existing independent of our Ideas concerning it, being readily apparent, Universal in Nature, Measurable as to momentum and or location in Time and or Space..
      >
      > However if either Tao or Logos is spoken of, given a Name, then both the Name and that which is spoken of in reference to Tao or Logos is not True, is duplicitous, Guileful, is not a Reality, doe not exist independent of the Mind, is a Illusion, an abomination, is just so much Babel, Hog Wash, Blaspheme.
      >






      Χρησιμοποιείτε Yahoo!
      Βαρεθήκατε τα ενοχλητικά μηνύ ματα (spam); Το Yahoo! Mail διαθέτει την καλύτερη δυνατή προστασία κατά των ενοχλητικών μηνυμάτων
      http://login. yahoo.com/ config/mail? .intl=gr

    • Wayne
      ... Fine to give you interpretation as to the meaning of De Facie in Orbe Lunae but what is the literal Translation.
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com, Demosthenes K <demosthenes_s@...> wrote:

        > "De facie in orbe lunae" which he says that when a human dies the first thing that happens is the first death which is the separation of soul from the body and it is placed on earth.


        Fine to give you interpretation as to the meaning of "De Facie in Orbe Lunae" but what is the literal Translation.
      • jensav55
        ... One ought not, however, I believe, at least in a philosophical context, use apophatic statements in such a fashion that the negation in them loses its
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com, James McKinnon <metatron121@...> wrote:
          >
          > Well, using the apophatic method when attempting statements about the ineffable we like to say things like, More than Good, More than Beautiful.  There comes a point in our attempts to make positive statements about deity that we begin to make negative statements anyway.  We stop saying that the Logos is this or that, and often begin saying simply what the Logos is not. 
          >  
          > To say, The One, is not really a positive statement because of the inherently ineffable nature of The One, so in essence we have only said what it is not. 
          >  

          One ought not, however, I believe, at least in a philosophical context, use apophatic statements in such a fashion that the negation in them loses its force. I mean that what is prior to logos IS in a very real sense "alogos", just not in a privative sense; and when Platonists say that the One is not one, they do not, I would argue, still mean that the One is one entity, just in some exalted fashion. To do this would render the negation mere hyperbole, at best, or nonsense at worst. There would be no good reason to say that such an entity "is not one" if one simply meant, as it were, "one entity which rejects being labeled as one." Rather, the One is the unique qua unique, which is conceptually prior to universality and particularity, and is not other than EACH unique unit. Or so I would argue.


          Edward Butler
          http://henadology.wordpress.com/
        • Wayne
          ... When God breathed his breath into man s nostrils it was the Word, the Logos, the spirit of God that was made manifest a living Soul, the Word, the Logos
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com, Demosthenes K <demosthenes_s@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi, i must ease your conversation by saying that
            > logos in ancient Greek means three things
            > 1) speaking and when it is between 2 persons is dialogue (dia+logue=logos)
            > 2) logic
            > 3) cause
            >
            > in philosophy of Plato which is based on Pythagoras logos is the logic cause.
            > Everything is a result of a cause, and this cause is based in logic, and this logic cause is divine. So divine cause is logos or in other words Gods are the cause of everything.
            >
            > Porphyrius a Neoplatonic philosopher said in his work "Peri agalmatwn" (About statues)
            > that the Greeks choose to represent Gods in human form on statues because they say that the laws of Cosmos are based on logic and Gods represent these laws.
            > So they select a symbol for Gods that represent the most logic being on earth and this being is human. So Gods are logic and their symbol is the human form.

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


            When God breathed his breath into man's nostrils it was the Word, the Logos, the spirit of God that was made manifest a living Soul, the Word, the Logos alive in the Flesh Body of Man; Logos being made manifest in the Heart of Man is in Man's Blood.

            Logic, Reason, is the result of the Two, the mind and body, the spirit and the flesh, speaking with one Voice.

            Logic, Reason, born of logos alone, Monergism, Spiritualism, is the cause of the down fall of man; One of the Two, the Flesh Body laid to rest, placed in the grave, Man dead in the Flesh, man becomes illogical.

            When Man he and she began to speak in a single, rather than One voice, the Rational Mind acting as a Singularity, an individuality, in the archaic sense of the Word, as an indivisible Singularity, as the Whole, as the only, the Single source of Man's Knowledge of Reality, the Single source of Man's World of Reality, the Rational Mind acting independent of Mans' Empirical Sense of Reality, independent of the senses of the Flesh Body, results in rationalization, in Irrationality.

            Logos made Flesh and Blood, although being of Two Minds, Man Speaking with One Voice is Rational, sensible, reasonable, Logical.
          • Wayne
            ... Question? What Time in History did negative numbers become part of the equation?
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 1, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com, James McKinnon <metatron121@...> wrote:
              >
              > Well, using the apophatic method when attempting statements about the ineffable we like to say things like, More than Good, More than Beautiful.  There comes a point in our attempts to make positive statements about diety that we begin to make negative statements anyway.  We stop saying that the Logos is this or that, and often begin saying simply what the Logos is not. 
              >  
              > To say, The One, is not really a positive statement because of the inherently ineffable nature of The One, so in essence we have only said what it is not. 
              >  
              > I think this might go along with what you're attempting.
              >  
              > Salus,
              > James


              Question?

              What Time in History did negative numbers become part of the equation?
            • Wayne
              ... One is a Singularity that has value, substance, One being a positive integer. Zero, O, is representative of a Solitary Singularity, a Singularity that is
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 1, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com, "jensav55" <epb223@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com, James McKinnon <metatron121@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Well, using the apophatic method when attempting statements about the ineffable we like to say things like, More than Good, More than Beautiful.  There comes a point in our attempts to make positive statements about deity that we begin to make negative statements anyway.  We stop saying that the Logos is this or that, and often begin saying simply what the Logos is not. 
                > >  
                > > To say, The One, is not really a positive statement because of the inherently ineffable nature of The One, so in essence we have only said what it is not. 
                > >  
                >
                > One ought not, however, I believe, at least in a philosophical context, use apophatic statements in such a fashion that the negation in them loses its force. I mean that what is prior to logos IS in a very real sense "alogos", just not in a privative sense; and when Platonists say that the One is not one, they do not, I would argue, still mean that the One is one entity, just in some exalted fashion. To do this would render the negation mere hyperbole, at best, or nonsense at worst. There would be no good reason to say that such an entity "is not one" if one simply meant, as it were, "one entity which rejects being labeled as one." Rather, the One is the unique qua unique, which is conceptually prior to universality and particularity, and is not other than EACH unique unit. Or so I would argue.
                >
                >
                > Edward Butler
                > http://henadology.wordpress.com/





                One is a Singularity that has value, substance, One being a positive integer.

                Zero, O, is representative of a Solitary Singularity, a Singularity that is relative to Nothing, that has no numerical Value, worth, that has no substance, a Singularity that exists alone in the Emptiness of Time and Space, a Solitary Singularity being immaterial; Zero being a Singularity, an individuality in the Archaic sense of the Word, an indivisible Singularity, is not subject to the Relativity of Time and Space, the Chaos of the Material World of Reality, is Divine.

                Zero, O, being the integer preceding One, being Monas, En Arch, was identified before the Idea of negative things than go lower than zero was accepted, Zero being an even number that is neither positive of negative, Zero, O, being the only natural number not to be Positive, Zero being greater than a negative but less than a positive, is not something of substance, is not relative, has no numerical value, worth, is meaningless, is Immaterial, is a Reality that does not exist Independent of our thoughts, our Ideas, our conjecture, our speculation, our Theory concerning it.

                >
              • James McKinnon
                Keep meditating, it will go away. ... From: Wayne Subject: [Possible SPAM] Re: [Pythagorean-L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 1, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  "Keep meditating, it will go away."

                  --- On Sun, 11/1/09, Wayne <wayne_92587@...> wrote:

                  From: Wayne <wayne_92587@...>
                  Subject: [Possible SPAM] Re: [Pythagorean-L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought
                  To: Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Sunday, November 1, 2009, 1:40 PM

                   


                  --- In Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com, James McKinnon <metatron121@ ...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Well, using the apophatic method when attempting statements about the ineffable we like to say things like, More than Good, More than Beautiful.  There comes a point in our attempts to make positive statements about diety that we begin to make negative statements anyway.  We stop saying that the Logos is this or that, and often begin saying simply what the Logos is not. 
                  >  
                  > To say, The One, is not really a positive statement because of the inherently ineffable nature of The One, so in essence we have only said what it is not. 
                  >  
                  > I think this might go along with what you're attempting.
                  >  
                  > Salus,
                  > James

                  Question?

                  What Time in History did negative numbers become part of the equation?


                • Larry D. Rafey
                  Riddle: 4 people are in a room. 7 people leave it. How many people must enter the room before it is considered empty? The (+) and (-) signs in mathematics
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 1, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                      Riddle: 4 people are in a room. 7 people leave it. How many people must enter the room before it is considered empty?
                    The (+) and (-) signs in mathematics designate both magnitude and direction to numbers. Negative numbers as such were long a point of contention among mathematicians, however negatives were actually used as solutions to otherwise insoluable problems at least as long ago as the 7th century. But it was the advent of the use of the number line ( which I believe was a later extrapolation from Archimedes lever) that gave a geometric meaning to such a solution (essentially a solution involving motion to the left of a designated real number in space) and therefore gave it acceptability.
                     Zero represents a 'window' of sorts in that it is from the 'origin' or zero point on the continuum or within a 3- or 4-dimensional grid from which all magnitudes and directions may be observed ... even through infinity.
                     Rafey
                     
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Wayne
                    Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 3:40 PM
                    Subject: [Possible SPAM] Re: [Pythagorean-L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought

                     



                    --- In Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com, James McKinnon <metatron121@ ...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Well, using the apophatic method when attempting statements about the ineffable we like to say things like, More than Good, More than Beautiful.  There comes a point in our attempts to make positive statements about diety that we begin to make negative statements anyway.  We stop saying that the Logos is this or that, and often begin saying simply what the Logos is not. 
                    >  
                    > To say, The One, is not really a positive statement because of the inherently ineffable nature of The One, so in essence we have only said what it is not. 
                    >  
                    > I think this might go along with what you're attempting.
                    >  
                    > Salus,
                    > James

                    Question?

                    What Time in History did negative numbers become part of the equation?

                  • Demosthenes K
                    Hi, The English translation is Plutarch, On the Apparent Face in the Orb of the Moonand i think the link above has the text, but i didn t check it for that, i
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 2, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi,

                      The English translation is

                      Plutarch, On the Apparent Face in the Orb of the Moon

                      and i think the link above has the text, but i didn't check it for that, i just wanted to find the English translation for your information.

                      In this work near the end there is info about myth for the moon and the souls.

                      --- Στις Κυρ., 01/11/09, ο/η Wayne <wayne_92587@...> έγραψε:

                      Από: Wayne <wayne_92587@...>
                      Θέμα: [Possible SPAM] Re: [Pythagorean-L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought
                      Προς: Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com
                      Ημερομηνία: Κυριακή, 1 Νοέμβριος 2009, 20:29

                       



                      --- In Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com, Demosthenes K <demosthenes_ s@...> wrote:

                      > "De facie in orbe lunae" which he says that when a human dies the first thing that happens is the first death which is the separation of soul from the body and it is placed on earth.

                      Fine to give you interpretation as to the meaning of "De Facie in Orbe Lunae" but what is the literal Translation.



                      Χρησιμοποιείτε Yahoo!
                      Βαρεθήκατε τα ενοχλητικά μηνύ ματα (spam); Το Yahoo! Mail διαθέτει την καλύτερη δυνατή προστασία κατά των ενοχλητικών μηνυμάτων
                      http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr
                    • Demosthenes K
                      Your description and use of words Logos remind me christian theology am i right? ... Áðü: Wayne ÈÝìá: [Possible SPAM] Re:
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 2, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Your description and use of words Logos remind me christian theology am i right?

                        --- Στις Κυρ., 01/11/09, ο/η Wayne <wayne_92587@...> έγραψε:

                        Από: Wayne <wayne_92587@...>
                        Θέμα: [Possible SPAM] Re: [Pythagorean-L] Re: Taoism, the I-Ching, and Pythagorean thought
                        Προς: Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com
                        Ημερομηνία: Κυριακή, 1 Νοέμβριος 2009, 23:19

                         



                        --- In Pythagorean- L@yahoogroups. com, Demosthenes K <demosthenes_ s@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi, i must ease your conversation by saying that
                        > logos in ancient Greek means three things
                        > 1) speaking and when it is between 2 persons is dialogue (dia+logue=logos)
                        > 2) logic
                        > 3) cause
                        >
                        > in philosophy of Plato which is based on Pythagoras logos is the logic cause.
                        > Everything is a result of a cause, and this cause is based in logic, and this logic cause is divine. So divine cause is logos or in other words Gods are the cause of everything.
                        >
                        > Porphyrius a Neoplatonic philosopher said in his work "Peri agalmatwn" (About statues)
                        > that the Greeks choose to represent Gods in human form on statues because they say that the laws of Cosmos are based on logic and Gods represent these laws.
                        > So they select a symbol for Gods that represent the most logic being on earth and this being is human. So Gods are logic and their symbol is the human form.

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

                        >When God breathed his breath into man's nostrils it was the Word, the >Logos, the spirit of God that was made manifest a living Soul, the Word, the >Logos alive in the Flesh Body of Man; Logos being made manifest in the >Heart of Man is in Man's Blood.

                        In Greek mythology Godess Athena breath into man divine esence and Promytheus give the gift of fire which he has stolen from Gods

                        Athena is the Godess of wisdom and for Greeks logic is a divine wisdom

                        Fire of Prometheus is providence of Gods.

                        Logos also is a part of human soul according to Plato

                        So far the christian theology which uses the words Logos, breath etc is the same with ancient Greek mythology besides the changing of persons of myth.


                        >Logic, Reason, is the result of the Two, the mind and body, the spirit and >the flesh, speaking with one Voice.

                        >Logic, Reason, born of logos alone, Monergism, Spiritualism, is the cause >of the down fall of man; One of the Two, the Flesh Body laid to rest, placed >in the grave, Man dead in the Flesh, man becomes illogical.

                        In ancient Greek religion there is no down fall of man, only projection of Gods that create other entities and matter. And material plane is a school for souls for learning virtue.

                        According to Socrates Man is not the vessel of soul (body)  but that it leads the body which is soul and inside soul the divine logic (Logos)

                        So Man can not be illogical but only ignorant. And according to myth this has the next explanation.

                        In Hades the souls which is going to reincarnate and be born again in matter they drink from the water of "Lithi" which means oblivon.

                        According to myth this is necessary for the human for those who live in excellence to forget the pleasure so not to want go back to Hades

                        and for those who suffer not to feel the pain of life.

                        So by drinking the water of Lithi they forget their past condition and they are ready to reborn.

                        Thats why knowledge Socrates said is a recall and man even he knows everything canot remeber it.

                        So Logos inside body is like to sleep and man is his soul and not the body



                        >When Man he and she began to speak in a single, rather than One voice, the >Rational Mind acting as a Singularity, an individuality, in the archaic sense >of the Word, as an indivisible Singularity, as the Whole, as the only, the >Single source of Man's Knowledge of Reality, the Single source of Man's >World of Reality, the Rational Mind acting independent of Mans' Empirical >Sense of Reality, independent of the senses of the Flesh Body, results in >rationalization, in Irrationality.

                        >Logos made Flesh and Blood, although being of Two Minds, Man Speaking >with One Voice is Rational, sensible, reasonable, Logical.



                        Χρησιμοποιείτε Yahoo!
                        Βαρεθήκατε τα ενοχλητικά μηνύ ματα (spam); Το Yahoo! Mail διαθέτει την καλύτερη δυνατή προστασία κατά των ενοχλητικών μηνυμάτων
                        http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr
                      • Wayne
                        ... Without Translation De Facie in Orbe Lunae is pretty obvious but I looked it up at Whikipedia just to be sure. If Man depended upon De Facie in Orbe
                        Message 11 of 19 , Nov 2, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com, Demosthenes K <demosthenes_s@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hi,
                          >
                          > The English translation is
                          > Plutarch, On the Apparent Face in the Orb of the Moonand i think the link above has the text, but i didn't check it for that, i just wanted to find the English translation for your information.
                          >
                          > In this work near the end there is info about myth for the moon and the souls.


                          Without Translation "De Facie in Orbe Lunae" is pretty obvious but I looked it up at Whikipedia just to be sure.

                          If Man depended upon "De Facie in Orbe Lunae" Moon Light as his and her single source of Light, enlightenment, Man would have become lost almost immediately, which is exactly what happened.
                        • Wayne
                          ... I believe in the Reality of Myth. I believe that there is a great deal of lost knowledge in myth, religion, simply because we speak in tongues; Language
                          Message 12 of 19 , Nov 2, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com, Demosthenes K <demosthenes_s@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Your description and use of words Logos remind me christian theology am i right?
                            >
                            > --- Óôéò Êõñ., 01/11/09, ï/ç Wayne <wayne_92587@...> Ýãñáøå:

                            I believe in the Reality of Myth.

                            I believe that there is a great deal of lost knowledge in myth,
                            religion, simply because we speak in tongues; Language being just so much Babel because we speaking in metaphors, our words becoming gibberish, loosing there original meaning.

                            I believe that before the Moment of Creation the Reality of Everything was Absolute, the Measurement of the Reality of Everything was based upon Zero.

                            Keeper of the Holy Grail, Lord of the Ring----->O

                            Amen! Ra!
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.