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

Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation

Expand Messages
  • Kathryn Evans
    Excellent; thank you Thomas! Co-creative agency, yes indeed, Kathryn ... From: Thomas Mether To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010
    Message 1 of 29 , Dec 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Excellent; thank you Thomas!

      Co-creative agency, yes indeed,

      Kathryn


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Thomas Mether
      To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 PM
      Subject: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation



      List,

      I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of defenders of a "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant physicalist paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial Self (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and Moreland's Body and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of what is variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic dualism).

      The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a neuroscientist friend and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and psychologists. It defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research evidence supporting the model.

      Here is the info with publisher's blurb.

      Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With CD containing F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality (1903) and selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ( 2009).
      Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily Williams Kelly (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael Grosso (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
      Publisher Description
      Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative
      'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.


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





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Curt Steinmetz
      A little known, but extremely valuable, document in the debate over the physicalist view of the mind is an essay written by none other than Thomas Henry
      Message 2 of 29 , Dec 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        A little known, but extremely valuable, document in the debate over the
        "physicalist" view of the mind is an essay written by none other than
        Thomas Henry Huxley back in 1870 titled "On Descartes' 'Discourse
        Touching the Method of Using One's Reason Rightly and of Seeking
        Scientific Truth'".

        Here is a link to the full essay:
        http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE1/DesDis.html

        Huxley's position is quite simple, and, in my opinion, irrefutable:
        "that all our knowledge is a knowledge of states of consciousness."
        Indeed, Huxley does not stop there: "'Matter' and 'Force' are, as far as
        we can know, mere names for certain forms of consciousness."

        Also, it is quite enlightening to acquaint oneself with the
        "physicalism" of the ancient Stoic and Epicurean schools, whose
        physicalism extended to physicalist explanations for such things as
        souls and Gods. Julia Annas' little book, "The Hellenistic Philosophy of
        Mind" is an excellent source on this point:
        http://books.google.com/books?id=IS6M5dGyKtcC

        Curt Steinmetz

        On 11/30/10 3:46 PM, Thomas Mether wrote:
        > List,
        >
        > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of defenders of a "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant physicalist paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial Self (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and Moreland's Body and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of what is variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic dualism).
        >
        > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a neuroscientist friend and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and psychologists. It defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research evidence supporting the model.
        >
        > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
        >
        > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With CD containing F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality (1903) and selected contemporary reviews. Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ( 2009).
        > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily Williams Kelly (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael Grosso (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
        > Publisher Description
        > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative
        > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • gregshaw58
        Thomas and List, I know the authors of Irreducible Mind quite well and I can tell you this book is a treasure trove of fascinating data and analysis. The
        Message 3 of 29 , Dec 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Thomas and List,

          I know the authors of Irreducible Mind quite well and I can tell you this book is a treasure trove of fascinating data and analysis. The authors are scientists, psychologists primarily, who are unwilling to accept the physicalist reductionism of consciousness seen in popular authors like Dennett. These authors have been inspired by F.W.H. Myers, a British classical scholar and colleague of William James; Myers was fascinated with paranormal phenomena and tried to make sense of it using a Platonically inspired framework. The study of paranormal events, synchronicity, telepathy, etc., is virtually shunned in most academic circles today, but the Kellys and the other authors bring a rigorous and careful methodology to examine these phenomena. I would be surprised, indeed, if the members of this list could not recount several events in their lives that could not be explained using our standard materialistic approach. I would encourage us to get copies of this rather gigantic book (now affordable in paperback). Why? Because the one aspect of the later Platonic tradition we do not discuss or even study a great deal is the fact that the later Platonists had a body that "we" don't believe in: the ochema, subtle body, augoeides, pneumatic body....they had various ways to describe it ... and, after Plotinus, they virtually all recognize it as important, even vital to their lives as philosophers. Much of the psi phenomena explored by Irreducible Mind seems impossible to our culture but would have been entirely explicable to Iamblichus, Proclus, and others because they recognized that the subtle body functions in ways and has capabilities different than the physical body.

          We scholars of Platonism might well pay more attention to ground-breaking research in the paranormal because it represents, I think, a way of recovering an element of the world of the Platonists that we miss by focusing exclusively on their metaphysics. In sum, it is through the subtle body that we experience and participate in the paranormal and synchronistic. How? Difficult to say, but I think that the authors of Irreducible Mind are daring to build a bridge out of reductionist materialism, one that arrives in a world with which the later Platonists were familiar. I believe they have something valuable for us and we for them.

          Along with this excellent book I would also recommend Jeffrey Kripal's Authors of the Impossible. It includes a fine chapter on the work of F.W.H. Myers.

          G Shaw

          --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...> wrote:
          >
          > List,
          >  
          > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of defenders of a "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant physicalist paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial Self (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and Moreland's Body and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of what is variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic dualism).
          >  
          > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a neuroscientist friend and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and psychologists. It defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research evidence supporting the model.
          >  
          > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
          >  
          > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With CD containing F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality (1903) and selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ( 2009).
          > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily Williams Kelly (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael Grosso (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
          > Publisher Description
          > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative
          > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
          >  
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Melanie M
          This sounds very much like Democritus s view taken in his lost On Images, preserved in Plutarch. Not necessarily a material reality, but certainly a physical
          Message 4 of 29 , Dec 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            This sounds very much like Democritus's view taken in his lost On Images, preserved in Plutarch. Not necessarily a material reality, but certainly a physical one. Dodds has a nice explanation of this in his essay "Supernormal Phenomena in Classical Antiquity" (ANCIENT CONCEPT OF PROGRESS, pp. 159-176), the section on Telepathy and Clairvoyance. Democritus' treatise, according to Dodds, argued a physically-mediated telepathy, but also explains dreams this way (and Plutarch states that Epicurus did not agree with him on this...) It makes pragmatic sense to me - because we are in a body, things of this sort may be physically mediated.

            --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Curt Steinmetz <curt@...> wrote:
            >
            > A little known, but extremely valuable, document in the debate over the
            > "physicalist" view of the mind is an essay written by none other than
            > Thomas Henry Huxley back in 1870 titled "On Descartes' 'Discourse
            > Touching the Method of Using One's Reason Rightly and of Seeking
            > Scientific Truth'".
            >
            > Here is a link to the full essay:
            > http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE1/DesDis.html
            >
            > Huxley's position is quite simple, and, in my opinion, irrefutable:
            > "that all our knowledge is a knowledge of states of consciousness."
            > Indeed, Huxley does not stop there: "'Matter' and 'Force' are, as far as
            > we can know, mere names for certain forms of consciousness."
            >
            > Also, it is quite enlightening to acquaint oneself with the
            > "physicalism" of the ancient Stoic and Epicurean schools, whose
            > physicalism extended to physicalist explanations for such things as
            > souls and Gods. Julia Annas' little book, "The Hellenistic Philosophy of
            > Mind" is an excellent source on this point:
            > http://books.google.com/books?id=IS6M5dGyKtcC
            >
            > Curt Steinmetz
            >
            > On 11/30/10 3:46 PM, Thomas Mether wrote:
            > > List,
            > >
            > > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of defenders of a "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant physicalist paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial Self (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and Moreland's Body and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of what is variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic dualism).
            > >
            > > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a neuroscientist friend and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and psychologists. It defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research evidence supporting the model.
            > >
            > > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
            > >
            > > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With CD containing F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality (1903) and selected contemporary reviews. Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ( 2009).
            > > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily Williams Kelly (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael Grosso (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
            > > Publisher Description
            > > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative
            > > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
          • Dan Hartjes
              Group:  I am writing in response to Greg Shaw s comment ...the later Platonists had a body that we don t believe in: the ochema, subtle body, augoeides,
            Message 5 of 29 , Dec 2, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
                Group:


               I am writing in response to Greg Shaw's comment "...the later Platonists had a body that "we" don't believe in: the ochema, subtle body, augoeides, pneumatic body....they had various ways to describe it ... and, after Plotinus, they virtually all recognize it as important, even vital to their lives as philosophers. Much of the psi phenomena explored by Irreducible Mind seems impossible to our culture but would have been entirely explicable to Iamblichus, Proclus, and others because they recognized that the subtle body functions in ways and has capabilities different than the physical body.

              We scholars of Platonism might well pay more attention to ground-breaking research in the paranormal..."

               This group tends to carry on discussion focussed on words and tends
               to miss out on the reality Greg Shaw points to. I would like to add to
               his pertinent remark that there are many individuals who have seen
               this reality and go on to describe the spiritual dimension to human
               existence which, I believe, Plato hinted at. In that time, the teachings
               of the mystery schools were kept hidden and Plato was an initiate of
               the mystery teachings. The teachings go on to say that there is more
               than one subtle body. The mind is not the brain, it is the brain which
               the mind uses to think much the same way that we use a motor vehicle
               to move around. We do not move directly but indirectly through the
               motion of the vehicle. The subtle bodies by the way are also called
               vehicles. Confer with Vedantin philosophy for Eastern correspondences.
                     -Dan Hartjes












              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Thomas Mether
              Greg,   I know a number of people who describe themselves as Neoplatonists who are serious practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism because there seems to be a
              Message 6 of 29 , Dec 2, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Greg,
                 
                I know a number of people who describe themselves as Neoplatonists who are serious practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism because there seems to be a "lack" of a "practice tradition" for Neoplatonism. A few claim, I think credibly, to have direct experience with some of the phenomena you list. They regard the metaphysics more like a yeast or alchemical ferment to awaken and sustain contemplative seeing than a "model".
                Apparently, this is part of what is meant by "right view" in the Buddhist Eightfold Path as _one_ component of a practice in realization. So, I sympathesize with your sentiments and point. Thomas
                 

                --- On Wed, 12/1/10, gregshaw58 <gregshaw58@...> wrote:


                From: gregshaw58 <gregshaw58@...>
                Subject: [neoplatonism] Re: Book Recommendation
                To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 8:52 PM


                 





                Thomas and List,

                I know the authors of Irreducible Mind quite well and I can tell you this book is a treasure trove of fascinating data and analysis. The authors are scientists, psychologists primarily, who are unwilling to accept the physicalist reductionism of consciousness seen in popular authors like Dennett. These authors have been inspired by F.W.H. Myers, a British classical scholar and colleague of William James; Myers was fascinated with paranormal phenomena and tried to make sense of it using a Platonically inspired framework. The study of paranormal events, synchronicity, telepathy, etc., is virtually shunned in most academic circles today, but the Kellys and the other authors bring a rigorous and careful methodology to examine these phenomena. I would be surprised, indeed, if the members of this list could not recount several events in their lives that could not be explained using our standard materialistic approach. I would encourage us to get copies of this
                rather gigantic book (now affordable in paperback). Why? Because the one aspect of the later Platonic tradition we do not discuss or even study a great deal is the fact that the later Platonists had a body that "we" don't believe in: the ochema, subtle body, augoeides, pneumatic body....they had various ways to describe it ... and, after Plotinus, they virtually all recognize it as important, even vital to their lives as philosophers. Much of the psi phenomena explored by Irreducible Mind seems impossible to our culture but would have been entirely explicable to Iamblichus, Proclus, and others because they recognized that the subtle body functions in ways and has capabilities different than the physical body.

                We scholars of Platonism might well pay more attention to ground-breaking research in the paranormal because it represents, I think, a way of recovering an element of the world of the Platonists that we miss by focusing exclusively on their metaphysics. In sum, it is through the subtle body that we experience and participate in the paranormal and synchronistic. How? Difficult to say, but I think that the authors of Irreducible Mind are daring to build a bridge out of reductionist materialism, one that arrives in a world with which the later Platonists were familiar. I believe they have something valuable for us and we for them.

                Along with this excellent book I would also recommend Jeffrey Kripal's Authors of the Impossible. It includes a fine chapter on the work of F.W.H. Myers.

                G Shaw

                --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...> wrote:
                >
                > List,
                >  
                > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of defenders of a "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant physicalist paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial Self (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and Moreland's Body and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of what is variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic dualism).
                >  
                > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a neuroscientist friend and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and psychologists. It defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research evidence supporting the model.
                >  
                > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
                >  
                > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With CD containing F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality (1903) and selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ( 2009).
                > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily Williams Kelly (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael Grosso (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                > Publisher Description
                > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative
                > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
                >  
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >











                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Thomas Mether
                Hi Kathryn,   The direction I m thinking of reading up on is Henry More and Myers.   I m thinking of digging out my Henry More. Myers is credited with saying
                Message 7 of 29 , Dec 2, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Kathryn,
                   
                  The direction I'm thinking of reading up on is Henry More and Myers.
                   
                  I'm thinking of digging out my Henry More. Myers is credited with saying that reading More inspired his "aha" moment for his mind-brain theory when More was discussing subtle bodies.
                   
                  Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by definition simply a volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be organic (have functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More argued, there can be a spiritual organic body. In some criticism of Descartes where the issue of how an unextended substance interacted with an extended substance, apparently More said that a fundamental animation as the immediate feeling of aliveness had extension in its term and subject at its source (spirit body as animated extended term and soul as subjective source). I have Myers book. Guess I will have to read it alongside More to see if I can find what might be the "aha" passage. Thomas
                   

                  --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...> wrote:


                  From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...>
                  Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                  To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:47 PM


                   




                  Excellent; thank you Thomas!

                  Co-creative agency, yes indeed,

                  Kathryn

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Thomas Mether
                  To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 PM
                  Subject: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation

                  List,

                  I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of defenders of a "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant physicalist paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial Self (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and Moreland's Body and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of what is variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic dualism).

                  The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a neuroscientist friend and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and psychologists. It defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research evidence supporting the model.

                  Here is the info with publisher's blurb.

                  Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With CD containing F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality (1903) and selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ( 2009).
                  Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily Williams Kelly (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael Grosso (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                  Publisher Description
                  Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative
                  'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.


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

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











                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Michael Plaisance
                  Yasas all,   I am unfamiliar with this book, but my interest is now peaked.  One of the crucial points of thought for myself has always been Ennead One and
                  Message 8 of 29 , Dec 2, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yasas all,
                     
                    I am unfamiliar with this book, but my interest is now peaked.  One of the crucial points of thought for myself has always been Ennead One and the Animate Being.  What is it that constitutes the human/life experience.  Up until now, I've held that the phenomenon of life is a result of the uniting of opposites (matter with soul).  I've come to this from the observation that in the natural world, life and energy are created through the union of opposites; i.e. man and woman and gravity/electricity.  The idea that mind and body are another part of that paradigm seems to coincide and may bring me a better insight.  I will most definitely be reading this book soon.  Thank you for the suggestion.
                     
                    Xariete,
                     
                    Museos




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Clark, Stephen
                    Some may be interested in a recent paper of mine, in which I make use of the Tibetan parallel. Charms and Counter-Charms: Conceptions of Philosophy: Royal
                    Message 9 of 29 , Dec 2, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Some may be interested in a recent paper of mine, in which I make use of the Tibetan parallel.

                      Charms and Counter-Charms: Conceptions of Philosophy: Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplementary Volume 65, ed.Anthony O�Hear (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 2010), pp.215-31

                      Stephen Clark

                      ________________________________
                      From: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com [neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Mether [t_mether@...]
                      Sent: 02 December 2010 22:21
                      To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Re: Book Recommendation



                      Greg,

                      I know a number of people who describe themselves as Neoplatonists who are serious practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism because there seems to be a "lack" of a "practice tradition" for Neoplatonism. A few claim, I think credibly, to have direct experience with some of the phenomena you list. They regard the metaphysics more like a yeast or alchemical ferment to awaken and sustain contemplative seeing than a "model".
                      Apparently, this is part of what is meant by "right view" in the Buddhist Eightfold Path as _one_ component of a practice in realization. So, I sympathesize with your sentiments and point. Thomas


                      --- On Wed, 12/1/10, gregshaw58 <gregshaw58@...<mailto:gregshaw58%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

                      From: gregshaw58 <gregshaw58@...<mailto:gregshaw58%40yahoo.com>>
                      Subject: [neoplatonism] Re: Book Recommendation
                      To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
                      Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 8:52 PM



                      Thomas and List,

                      I know the authors of Irreducible Mind quite well and I can tell you this book is a treasure trove of fascinating data and analysis. The authors are scientists, psychologists primarily, who are unwilling to accept the physicalist reductionism of consciousness seen in popular authors like Dennett. These authors have been inspired by F.W.H. Myers, a British classical scholar and colleague of William James; Myers was fascinated with paranormal phenomena and tried to make sense of it using a Platonically inspired framework. The study of paranormal events, synchronicity, telepathy, etc., is virtually shunned in most academic circles today, but the Kellys and the other authors bring a rigorous and careful methodology to examine these phenomena. I would be surprised, indeed, if the members of this list could not recount several events in their lives that could not be explained using our standard materialistic approach. I would encourage us to get copies of this
                      rather gigantic book (now affordable in paperback). Why? Because the one aspect of the later Platonic tradition we do not discuss or even study a great deal is the fact that the later Platonists had a body that "we" don't believe in: the ochema, subtle body, augoeides, pneumatic body....they had various ways to describe it ... and, after Plotinus, they virtually all recognize it as important, even vital to their lives as philosophers. Much of the psi phenomena explored by Irreducible Mind seems impossible to our culture but would have been entirely explicable to Iamblichus, Proclus, and others because they recognized that the subtle body functions in ways and has capabilities different than the physical body.

                      We scholars of Platonism might well pay more attention to ground-breaking research in the paranormal because it represents, I think, a way of recovering an element of the world of the Platonists that we miss by focusing exclusively on their metaphysics. In sum, it is through the subtle body that we experience and participate in the paranormal and synchronistic. How? Difficult to say, but I think that the authors of Irreducible Mind are daring to build a bridge out of reductionist materialism, one that arrives in a world with which the later Platonists were familiar. I believe they have something valuable for us and we for them.

                      Along with this excellent book I would also recommend Jeffrey Kripal's Authors of the Impossible. It includes a fine chapter on the work of F.W.H. Myers.

                      G Shaw

                      --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > List,
                      >
                      > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of defenders of a "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant physicalist paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial Self (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and Moreland's Body and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of what is variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic dualism).
                      >
                      > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a neuroscientist friend and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and psychologists. It defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research evidence supporting the model.
                      >
                      > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
                      >
                      > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With CD containing F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality (1903) and selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ( 2009).
                      > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily Williams Kelly (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael Grosso (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                      > Publisher Description
                      > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative
                      > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >

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





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • John Dillon
                      ... How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a vast hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can presumably shake hands
                      Message 10 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Hi Kathryn,
                        >  
                        > The direction I'm thinking of reading up on is Henry More and Myers.
                        >  
                        > I'm thinking of digging out my Henry More. Myers is credited with saying that
                        > reading More inspired his "aha" moment for his mind-brain theory when More was
                        > discussing subtle bodies.
                        >  
                        > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by definition simply a
                        > volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be organic (have
                        > functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More argued, there
                        > can be a spiritual organic body. In some criticism of Descartes where the
                        > issue of how an unextended substance interacted with an extended substance,
                        > apparently More said that a fundamental animation as the immediate feeling of
                        > aliveness had extension in its term and subject at its source (spirit body as
                        > animated extended term and soul as subjective source). I have Myers book.
                        > Guess I will have to read it alongside More to see if I can find what might be
                        > the "aha" passage. Thomas
                        >  
                        >
                        > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                        > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
                        >
                        > From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                        > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> >
                        > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                        > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:47 PM
                        >
                        >  
                        >
                        > Excellent; thank you Thomas!
                        >
                        > Co-creative agency, yes indeed,
                        >
                        > Kathryn
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: Thomas Mether
                        > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 PM
                        > Subject: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                        >
                        > List,
                        >
                        > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of defenders of a
                        > "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant physicalist
                        > paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial Self
                        > (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and Moreland's Body
                        > and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of what is
                        > variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic dualism).
                        >
                        > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a neuroscientist friend
                        > and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and psychologists. It
                        > defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research evidence
                        > supporting the model.
                        >
                        > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
                        >
                        > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With CD containing
                        > F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality (1903) and
                        > selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ( 2009).
                        > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily Williams Kelly
                        > (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael Grosso
                        > (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                        > Publisher Description
                        > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind
                        > holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by
                        > physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated
                        > recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however,
                        > demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not only
                        > incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a
                        > variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some
                        > cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms.
                        > Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence,
                        > memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death
                        > experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical'
                        > states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further
                        > show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an
                        > alternative
                        > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a
                        > century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed
                        > further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover,
                        > ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective
                        > conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and
                        > neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons
                        > concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >

                        How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a vast
                        hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can presumably shake
                        hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                        strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato there is
                        virtually no Œmind-body¹ problem is that he ragred the body somewhat in this
                        way ‹ a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues, stacked end
                        to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Curt Steinmetz
                        ... The ancient Stoic view was that anything that exists must be a body , while at the same time, they held that all bodies everywhere throughout the Cosmos
                        Message 11 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 12/3/10 12:06 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:
                          > <snip>
                          >
                          > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by definition simply a volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be organic (have functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More argued, there can be a spiritual organic body.<snip>


                          The ancient Stoic view was that anything that exists must be a "body",
                          while at the same time, they held that all bodies everywhere throughout
                          the Cosmos interact with all other bodies at all times. The Stoic
                          explanation of how this works is very similar to what is called
                          "interpenetration" in Mahayana Buddhism, a concept especially associated
                          with the Hua Yen (Avatamsaka) Sutra.

                          In his book on Plotinus, Lloyd Gerson refers to what he deems "the truly
                          bizarre Stoic doctrine of the total interpenetration of bodies. This is
                          the doctrine that there can and do exist certain mixtures of bodies [of
                          which the Cosmos itself is an example] such that each part of the
                          mixture is coextensive with each other. All parts are present in any
                          part, regardless of how small. The principle point of this doctrine
                          seems to have been to explain the presence of active soul-body or pneuma
                          everywhere in the type of body that is the passive recipient of the
                          active principle." [p. 114]

                          Gerson takes Plotinus' side, however, and presents the Stoic view only
                          in the context of explaining how Plotinus' rejection of it is convincing
                          (to Gerson). A view more sympathetic (if you will) to the Stoic position
                          is found in "Senecan Drama and Stoic Cosmology" by Thomas G. Rosenmeyer,
                          especially his chapters 4 & 5: "Body, Tension, and Sumpatheia", &
                          "Krasis, The Flame and the Moist".

                          Curt Steinmetz
                        • gregshaw58
                          Curt, Thanks for the references, Buddhist, Stoic, and Plotinian. The notion of interpenetration of subtle bodies is one that intrigues me. I checked Gerson s
                          Message 12 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Curt,

                            Thanks for the references, Buddhist, Stoic, and Plotinian. The notion of interpenetration of subtle bodies is one that intrigues me. I checked Gerson's "Plotinus" and found your reference on page 133, not 114. Perhaps I have a different edition.

                            thanks,

                            gshaw

                            --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Curt Steinmetz <curt@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > On 12/3/10 12:06 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:
                            > > <snip>
                            > >
                            > > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by definition simply a volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be organic (have functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More argued, there can be a spiritual organic body.<snip>
                            >
                            >
                            > The ancient Stoic view was that anything that exists must be a "body",
                            > while at the same time, they held that all bodies everywhere throughout
                            > the Cosmos interact with all other bodies at all times. The Stoic
                            > explanation of how this works is very similar to what is called
                            > "interpenetration" in Mahayana Buddhism, a concept especially associated
                            > with the Hua Yen (Avatamsaka) Sutra.
                            >
                            > In his book on Plotinus, Lloyd Gerson refers to what he deems "the truly
                            > bizarre Stoic doctrine of the total interpenetration of bodies. This is
                            > the doctrine that there can and do exist certain mixtures of bodies [of
                            > which the Cosmos itself is an example] such that each part of the
                            > mixture is coextensive with each other. All parts are present in any
                            > part, regardless of how small. The principle point of this doctrine
                            > seems to have been to explain the presence of active soul-body or pneuma
                            > everywhere in the type of body that is the passive recipient of the
                            > active principle." [p. 114]
                            >
                            > Gerson takes Plotinus' side, however, and presents the Stoic view only
                            > in the context of explaining how Plotinus' rejection of it is convincing
                            > (to Gerson). A view more sympathetic (if you will) to the Stoic position
                            > is found in "Senecan Drama and Stoic Cosmology" by Thomas G. Rosenmeyer,
                            > especially his chapters 4 & 5: "Body, Tension, and Sumpatheia", &
                            > "Krasis, The Flame and the Moist".
                            >
                            > Curt Steinmetz
                            >
                          • dgallagher@aol.com
                            Fascinating thread on all accounts. Not responding to Curt per se here, but rather the overall corpus of discussion. Another provocative juxtaposition in
                            Message 13 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Fascinating thread on all accounts. Not responding to Curt per se here,
                              but rather the overall corpus of discussion. Another provocative
                              juxtaposition in this vein is, in my opinion, Enneads VI.6.10 and Proclus PT Book 3,
                              ch. 18.

                              What are the ontological and metaphysical meanings of "comprehension"?
                              What is the distinction between intellect knowing itself and a self-generated
                              unity of all things/bodies?

                              Proclus: "For the cause of bound imparts that which is uncoordinated with
                              other things; and an exempt transcendency. For that which comprehends,
                              says Timaeus, all such animals as are intelligible, will not be the second with
                              any other; since again, it would be requisite that there should be another
                              animal about it. Hence that which comprehends in one all intelligible
                              animals is a whole. But everywhere whole is referred to bound, and parts to
                              infinity." PT 3.18

                              Plotinus: "In general, then, it must be accepted that everything, whatever
                              it is, which is predicated of something else came to it from something else
                              or is the active actuality of the thing of which it is predicated. And if
                              it is of such a kind as not to be sometimes present and sometimes not, but
                              to be always with that thing, if that thing is substance, it also is
                              substance, and what it is predicated of is no more substance than it is; but if
                              one does not grant it substance, at least it belongs to the real beings and
                              exists. And if that thing could be thought of without its actual activity,
                              that activity could none the less be simultaneous to it, but ranked later
                              by us in our thought. But if it cannot be thought except along with what
                              is predicated of it, as “man” cannot be thought without the “one”, it is
                              either not posterior to but co-existent with it, or prior to it, so that
                              the thing may exist through the activity; but we maintain that the one and
                              number are prior." 6.6.10

                              If that "ranked later by us in our thought" is necessarily comprehended by
                              it's predicated prior, must "that" not be the actual actuality of the
                              prior; that is "that which comprehends in one all intelligible animals is a
                              whole"? In other words, are the distinction of the whole and its parts
                              constituted by us through our thought; a by-product, so to speak, of predication;
                              a distinctionless distinction?

                              David



                              In a message dated 12/3/2010 7:21:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                              curt@... writes:




                              On 12/3/10 12:06 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:
                              > <snip>
                              >
                              > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by definition
                              simply a volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be
                              organic (have functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More
                              argued, there can be a spiritual organic body.<snip>

                              The ancient Stoic view was that anything that exists must be a "body",
                              while at the same time, they held that all bodies everywhere throughout
                              the Cosmos interact with all other bodies at all times. The Stoic
                              explanation of how this works is very similar to what is called
                              "interpenetration" in Mahayana Buddhism, a concept especially associated
                              with the Hua Yen (Avatamsaka) Sutra.

                              In his book on Plotinus, Lloyd Gerson refers to what he deems "the truly
                              bizarre Stoic doctrine of the total interpenetration of bodies. This is
                              the doctrine that there can and do exist certain mixtures of bodies [of
                              which the Cosmos itself is an example] such that each part of the
                              mixture is coextensive with each other. All parts are present in any
                              part, regardless of how small. The principle point of this doctrine
                              seems to have been to explain the presence of active soul-body or pneuma
                              everywhere in the type of body that is the passive recipient of the
                              active principle." [p. 114]

                              Gerson takes Plotinus' side, however, and presents the Stoic view only
                              in the context of explaining how Plotinus' rejection of it is convincing
                              (to Gerson). A view more sympathetic (if you will) to the Stoic position
                              is found in "Senecan Drama and Stoic Cosmology" by Thomas G. Rosenmeyer,
                              especially his chapters 4 & 5: "Body, Tension, and Sumpatheia", &
                              "Krasis, The Flame and the Moist".

                              Curt Steinmetz





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Thomas Mether
                              Hello John,   You write:   How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a vast hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram
                              Message 14 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hello John,
                                 
                                You write:
                                 
                                How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a vast
                                hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can presumably shake
                                hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato there is
                                virtually no Œmind-body¹ problem is that he ragred the body somewhat in this
                                way ‹ a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues, stacked end
                                to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                 
                                I suggest that another factor is teleological concepts, formal and final causes, were part of the "natural" and "presupposed" conceptual equipment and experience of people before Descartes. The mind-body problem became acute when the body became conceived of as a mechanism and the relation of mind to body was an extrinsic one of mutual externality related by efficient cause or God's coordination. Given Descartes framework, materialists
                                changed the Cartesian view where it is body as a mechanism of a certain organization that
                                produces mind. A live and dead body are still "body". 
                                 
                                Before Descartes, under teleological views, apart from its principle and formal cause -- the soul -- the body is just potency with the possibility of being actualized and substantial by a soul. In effect, the body depends on the soul to be real as body. In effect, only animated bodies are really bodies. 
                                 
                                In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is flipped around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of, given the self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the origins and constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the explanation problem less acute.
                                 
                                Several years ago, Manfred Frings suggested that the phenomenological concept of lived body that philosophers such as Merleau Ponty and Paul Ricoeur derived from Max Scheler's concept of lived body (der Leib) in contrast to the physical body (der Korper) might have come partly to Scheler, maybe via Eucken, from Rudoph Steiner's concept of spiritual bodies that acquire a "chemical-physical crust" or externalized "crystalline crust".
                                In any respect, he noted they probably didn't realize that for Scheler the physical body (der Korper) only exists as such in dependence on the lived body (der Leib). Anyway, if this is true, what came to mind when you spoke of Plato's geometric shapes/volumes was Steiner's "crystalline crust" and Scheler's view that the physical body (der Korper) only becomes such animated by the lived bodiliness (Leiblichkeit) of the lived body (der Leib).
                                Both Merleau Ponty and Ricoeur picked up on Scheler's anti-physicalist argument that the lived body cannot be explained in terms of the physical body, but I think Frings was saying, they didn't bite the Scheeler bullet that the physical body is only such due to the lived body animating it. A whirlwind stirs up the geometric crystalline dust and becomes coated by it while animating it into a body.
                                 
                                Thomas



                                --- On Fri, 12/3/10, John Dillon <jmdillon@...> wrote:


                                From: John Dillon <jmdillon@...>
                                Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 5:16 AM


                                 



                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Hi Kathryn,
                                >  
                                > The direction I'm thinking of reading up on is Henry More and Myers.
                                >  
                                > I'm thinking of digging out my Henry More. Myers is credited with saying that
                                > reading More inspired his "aha" moment for his mind-brain theory when More was
                                > discussing subtle bodies.
                                >  
                                > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by definition simply a
                                > volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be organic (have
                                > functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More argued, there
                                > can be a spiritual organic body. In some criticism of Descartes where the
                                > issue of how an unextended substance interacted with an extended substance,
                                > apparently More said that a fundamental animation as the immediate feeling of
                                > aliveness had extension in its term and subject at its source (spirit body as
                                > animated extended term and soul as subjective source). I have Myers book.
                                > Guess I will have to read it alongside More to see if I can find what might be
                                > the "aha" passage. Thomas
                                >  
                                >
                                > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
                                >
                                > From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> >
                                > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
                                > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:47 PM
                                >
                                >  
                                >
                                > Excellent; thank you Thomas!
                                >
                                > Co-creative agency, yes indeed,
                                >
                                > Kathryn
                                >
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: Thomas Mether
                                > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
                                > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 PM
                                > Subject: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                >
                                > List,
                                >
                                > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of defenders of a
                                > "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant physicalist
                                > paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial Self
                                > (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and Moreland's Body
                                > and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of what is
                                > variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic dualism).
                                >
                                > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a neuroscientist friend
                                > and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and psychologists. It
                                > defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research evidence
                                > supporting the model.
                                >
                                > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
                                >
                                > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With CD containing
                                > F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality (1903) and
                                > selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ( 2009).
                                > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily Williams Kelly
                                > (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael Grosso
                                > (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                                > Publisher Description
                                > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind
                                > holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by
                                > physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated
                                > recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however,
                                > demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not only
                                > incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a
                                > variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some
                                > cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms.
                                > Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence,
                                > memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death
                                > experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical'
                                > states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further
                                > show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an
                                > alternative
                                > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a
                                > century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed
                                > further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover,
                                > ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective
                                > conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and
                                > neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons
                                > concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >

                                How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a vast
                                hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can presumably shake
                                hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato there is
                                virtually no Œmind-body¹ problem is that he ragred the body somewhat in this
                                way ‹ a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues, stacked end
                                to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD

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











                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Thomas Mether
                                Curt, Greg, John and List,   In Vedanta and Buddhism, it is the collective karma (the moral consequences of past actions) of a group of sentient beings
                                Message 15 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Curt, Greg, John and List,
                                   
                                  In Vedanta and Buddhism, it is the collective karma (the moral consequences of past actions) of a group of sentient beings together that creates a type of world appropriate to their karma. In the Ayurveda that both religions share, the "mutual interpermeation and mutual nonobstruction" of spiritual bodies becomes "mutually impenetrable and mutually obstructive" physical bodies because their collective karma is one of mutual opposition and obstruction. Physical worlds, elements, and bodies, as mutually repelling and obstructing is a karmic consquence of a prior morally problematic karma of mutually repelling and obstructing souls. Due to karma, speaking of two of the trigunas of sat, rajas, and tamas, all things can tend to be truthful (satya) and be true being (sat) as their dispositional quality (sat) that makes them mutually nonobstructive or they can tend toward false-ignorance and inertia as their dispositional quality (tamas).
                                   
                                  There are three bodies and five sheaths.
                                   
                                  The real body is the causal body or karana-sarira. Note that the word karana means cause but is another form of the word karma. So, in Tantric Buddhism and in Vainavaist Vedanta, this is the subliminal karmic disposition body or alaya-sarira that produces the karmic consequence bodies/worlds. Depending on the karmic dispositions that make up the karana-sarira, its sheath is either the awakened janamayakosa (or bodhimayakosa -- enlightened sheath) or the ajantamayakosa (ignorance sheath). In terms of both sheaths, they are two forms of anandamayakosa (bliss sheath) which is either enlightened karuna (compassion) or grasping desire (tanha).
                                   
                                  The rest of the bodies are moral consequence bodies. They are "destiny-bodies" as karmic outcomes. Note, destiny can either be fall or enlightenment. Thus, taking on lower bodies is destiny of fall. Developing an indestructible enlightenment body transforms the causal body itself into the destiny-body or body of free total-self-making or autonomy.
                                   
                                  The next one down is the subtle body or suksma sarira. It is also the linga sarira or index body becomes the moral vices and virtues, depending on one's karma, are visibly manifested in it. The subtle body is the direct manifestation and reflection of moral/karmic character. The subtle body is the embodiment of the soul (another implication of the index aspect) with three sheaths. These are the vijnanamayakosa (consciousness or noetic sheath), the manomayakosa (mind or dianoetic sheath), and the pranamayakosa (the vital or animating sheath).
                                   
                                  If one has really bad karma, one has another karma-consequence body which is the stula-sarira or dense-gross body. It is created out of the tamasic (the darkness, inertia, ignorance, and mutually obstructing, mutually predatory tending aspects of the elements, and hence, it is crystallized out of the mutually destructive -- hence mortal - entropic-towards death, contradiction, degeneration factors do to the moral karma of mutual obstruction in the causal body) tending elements of mutual opposition, mutual repelling, and hence, dense and solid and impenetrable elements. As such, the stula-sarira has for its sheath the anamayakosa or 'food sheath" (actually the mutual cannibalizing sheath as Schopenhauer realized or the food-chain sheath or self and mutual predatory sheath).
                                   
                                  The idea is that existence is relations of mutual interdependence and co-production that is either the stuff of karuna (compassion) that renders existence as one of mutual inter-penetration and mutual interpermeation or it is the stuff of tanha (selfish grasping) that renders existence into the hellish form of mutual interdependence and co-nourishing as mutual-eating of each other.
                                   
                                  So, physical obstruction, density and impenetrability are crystallized manifestations of the same bad moral and karmic properties.
                                   
                                  Now, in the ascent or return, the causal body or karana sarira itself becomes the divya-sarira -- destiny-divine body) that can manifest at will a deifed subtle body that is now the vajradeha (diamond body). 
                                   
                                  Outside university, I formally studied Vedanta in the US and in Bihar India and Huayen Buddhism (in California -- there is a huge Chinese Buddhist Huayen and Tai'tai monastery north of San Francisco).
                                   
                                   

                                  --- On Fri, 12/3/10, gregshaw58 <gregshaw58@...> wrote:


                                  From: gregshaw58 <gregshaw58@...>
                                  Subject: [neoplatonism] Re: Book Recommendation
                                  To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                  Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 9:53 AM


                                   



                                  Curt,

                                  Thanks for the references, Buddhist, Stoic, and Plotinian. The notion of interpenetration of subtle bodies is one that intrigues me. I checked Gerson's "Plotinus" and found your reference on page 133, not 114. Perhaps I have a different edition.

                                  thanks,

                                  gshaw

                                  --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Curt Steinmetz <curt@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > On 12/3/10 12:06 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:
                                  > > <snip>
                                  > >
                                  > > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by definition simply a volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be organic (have functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More argued, there can be a spiritual organic body.<snip>
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > The ancient Stoic view was that anything that exists must be a "body",
                                  > while at the same time, they held that all bodies everywhere throughout
                                  > the Cosmos interact with all other bodies at all times. The Stoic
                                  > explanation of how this works is very similar to what is called
                                  > "interpenetration" in Mahayana Buddhism, a concept especially associated
                                  > with the Hua Yen (Avatamsaka) Sutra.
                                  >
                                  > In his book on Plotinus, Lloyd Gerson refers to what he deems "the truly
                                  > bizarre Stoic doctrine of the total interpenetration of bodies. This is
                                  > the doctrine that there can and do exist certain mixtures of bodies [of
                                  > which the Cosmos itself is an example] such that each part of the
                                  > mixture is coextensive with each other. All parts are present in any
                                  > part, regardless of how small. The principle point of this doctrine
                                  > seems to have been to explain the presence of active soul-body or pneuma
                                  > everywhere in the type of body that is the passive recipient of the
                                  > active principle." [p. 114]
                                  >
                                  > Gerson takes Plotinus' side, however, and presents the Stoic view only
                                  > in the context of explaining how Plotinus' rejection of it is convincing
                                  > (to Gerson). A view more sympathetic (if you will) to the Stoic position
                                  > is found in "Senecan Drama and Stoic Cosmology" by Thomas G. Rosenmeyer,
                                  > especially his chapters 4 & 5: "Body, Tension, and Sumpatheia", &
                                  > "Krasis, The Flame and the Moist".
                                  >
                                  > Curt Steinmetz
                                  >











                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Curt Steinmetz
                                  ... One advantage that the Buddhist approach has is that it does not appear to be concerned with physical v. non-physical dualism to any great extent (if at
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 12/3/10 10:53 AM, gregshaw58 wrote:
                                    > Curt,
                                    >
                                    > Thanks for the references, Buddhist, Stoic, and Plotinian. The notion of interpenetration of subtle bodies is one that intrigues me. I checked Gerson's "Plotinus" and found your reference on page 133, not 114. Perhaps I have a different edition.

                                    One advantage that the Buddhist approach has is that it does not appear
                                    to be concerned with physical v. non-physical dualism to any great
                                    extent (if at all). Physicalism is an interesting issue, but one that is
                                    easily over-emphasized in a "can't see the forest for the trees" sort of
                                    way, in my opinion.

                                    As far as the reference to Gerson goes, I was using the 1998 Psychology
                                    Press edition, which is the one that can be perused on googlebooks:
                                    http://books.google.com/books?id=O1KB4IjKuOwC

                                    Strangely, the index of that edition states that mention of the "Stoic
                                    doctrine of total interpenetration" is to be found on page 133. Even
                                    stranger is the fact that this index (in the googlebooks version) is
                                    clickable, and if you click and go to page 133, there is no mention of
                                    Stoicism or interpenetration at all.

                                    I am definitely going to be checking out the works that you, Thomas and
                                    others have mentioned. I have to admit that I am very unfamiliar with
                                    Myers and with this more recent crop of non-materialist psychologists
                                    like the Kellys.

                                    Curt
                                    > gshaw
                                    >
                                    > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Curt Steinmetz<curt@...> wrote:
                                    >> On 12/3/10 12:06 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:
                                    >>> <snip>
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by definition simply a volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be organic (have functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More argued, there can be a spiritual organic body.<snip>
                                    >>
                                    >> The ancient Stoic view was that anything that exists must be a "body",
                                    >> while at the same time, they held that all bodies everywhere throughout
                                    >> the Cosmos interact with all other bodies at all times. The Stoic
                                    >> explanation of how this works is very similar to what is called
                                    >> "interpenetration" in Mahayana Buddhism, a concept especially associated
                                    >> with the Hua Yen (Avatamsaka) Sutra.
                                    >>
                                    >> In his book on Plotinus, Lloyd Gerson refers to what he deems "the truly
                                    >> bizarre Stoic doctrine of the total interpenetration of bodies. This is
                                    >> the doctrine that there can and do exist certain mixtures of bodies [of
                                    >> which the Cosmos itself is an example] such that each part of the
                                    >> mixture is coextensive with each other. All parts are present in any
                                    >> part, regardless of how small. The principle point of this doctrine
                                    >> seems to have been to explain the presence of active soul-body or pneuma
                                    >> everywhere in the type of body that is the passive recipient of the
                                    >> active principle." [p. 114]
                                    >>
                                    >> Gerson takes Plotinus' side, however, and presents the Stoic view only
                                    >> in the context of explaining how Plotinus' rejection of it is convincing
                                    >> (to Gerson). A view more sympathetic (if you will) to the Stoic position
                                    >> is found in "Senecan Drama and Stoic Cosmology" by Thomas G. Rosenmeyer,
                                    >> especially his chapters 4& 5: "Body, Tension, and Sumpatheia",&
                                    >> "Krasis, The Flame and the Moist".
                                    >>
                                    >> Curt Steinmetz
                                    >>
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Thomas Mether
                                    PS, In light of the sketch below in terms of the stuff of the universe is constituted by moral qualities, perhaps a few words on Brahman might be
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      PS, In light of the sketch below in terms of the "stuff" of the universe is constituted by moral qualities, perhaps a few words on Brahman might be interesting. In its verbal root, it means "to grow, empower, make great" which in neuter form has the substantive noun stem -man added. It is cognate to our word brag and the Norse word for poetry. It has the sense of being a "true boast". It was originally used as a term applied to mantras (prayers, chants) in the Rgveda to indicate that a particular mantra was inspiring, enobling, a catchy turn of phrase, a great-oneliner, or powerfully awakening or sustaining seeing (dhih - vision) as a rhetorical evocation of seeing. Later, it was applied to the mutual relations of beings that made up existence to the extent they positively reinforced the strength and vitality of being (sat) over nonbeing (asat); in effect, being's boast or self-affirmation over nonbeing. In the process, brahman became personified as the
                                      priestly god Brhaspati (great-making prayer personified) who later became the creator god Brahma. In Vedanta, brahman becomes the absolute but what westerners often miss is the absolute is still a moral quality/force -- life-enhancing or being-strengthening or great-making prayer.
                                       
                                      Parallel with the development of the concept of brahman is the development of the concept of creation as food. We either become augmenting and nurturing "food" through the tapas (yogic heat and detached effort as inner sacrifice) and the world-creating sacrifice in a manner that makes being great -- brahman -- or we become mutually destructive and mutually feeding food. One of the roots for the idea of karmayoga originates in the food discussions in the Upanisads. I think it was T.S. Eliot that had a similar image of heaven and hell as a grand banquet with extremely long tableware. Heaven was each feeding others across the table; hell was each trying to feed themselves. That's close to the Vedic idea.
                                       
                                       

                                      --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...> wrote:


                                      From: Thomas Mether <t_mether@...>
                                      Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Re: Book Recommendation
                                      To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 10:52 AM


                                       



                                      Curt, Greg, John and List,
                                       
                                      In Vedanta and Buddhism, it is the collective karma (the moral consequences of past actions) of a group of sentient beings together that creates a type of world appropriate to their karma. In the Ayurveda that both religions share, the "mutual interpermeation and mutual nonobstruction" of spiritual bodies becomes "mutually impenetrable and mutually obstructive" physical bodies because their collective karma is one of mutual opposition and obstruction. Physical worlds, elements, and bodies, as mutually repelling and obstructing is a karmic consquence of a prior morally problematic karma of mutually repelling and obstructing souls. Due to karma, speaking of two of the trigunas of sat, rajas, and tamas, all things can tend to be truthful (satya) and be true being (sat) as their dispositional quality (sat) that makes them mutually nonobstructive or they can tend toward false-ignorance and inertia as their dispositional quality (tamas).
                                       
                                      There are three bodies and five sheaths.
                                       
                                      The real body is the causal body or karana-sarira. Note that the word karana means cause but is another form of the word karma. So, in Tantric Buddhism and in Vainavaist Vedanta, this is the subliminal karmic disposition body or alaya-sarira that produces the karmic consequence bodies/worlds. Depending on the karmic dispositions that make up the karana-sarira, its sheath is either the awakened janamayakosa (or bodhimayakosa -- enlightened sheath) or the ajantamayakosa (ignorance sheath). In terms of both sheaths, they are two forms of anandamayakosa (bliss sheath) which is either enlightened karuna (compassion) or grasping desire (tanha).
                                       
                                      The rest of the bodies are moral consequence bodies. They are "destiny-bodies" as karmic outcomes. Note, destiny can either be fall or enlightenment. Thus, taking on lower bodies is destiny of fall. Developing an indestructible enlightenment body transforms the causal body itself into the destiny-body or body of free total-self-making or autonomy.
                                       
                                      The next one down is the subtle body or suksma sarira. It is also the linga sarira or index body becomes the moral vices and virtues, depending on one's karma, are visibly manifested in it. The subtle body is the direct manifestation and reflection of moral/karmic character. The subtle body is the embodiment of the soul (another implication of the index aspect) with three sheaths. These are the vijnanamayakosa (consciousness or noetic sheath), the manomayakosa (mind or dianoetic sheath), and the pranamayakosa (the vital or animating sheath).
                                       
                                      If one has really bad karma, one has another karma-consequence body which is the stula-sarira or dense-gross body. It is created out of the tamasic (the darkness, inertia, ignorance, and mutually obstructing, mutually predatory tending aspects of the elements, and hence, it is crystallized out of the mutually destructive -- hence mortal - entropic-towards death, contradiction, degeneration factors do to the moral karma of mutual obstruction in the causal body) tending elements of mutual opposition, mutual repelling, and hence, dense and solid and impenetrable elements. As such, the stula-sarira has for its sheath the anamayakosa or 'food sheath" (actually the mutual cannibalizing sheath as Schopenhauer realized or the food-chain sheath or self and mutual predatory sheath).
                                       
                                      The idea is that existence is relations of mutual interdependence and co-production that is either the stuff of karuna (compassion) that renders existence as one of mutual inter-penetration and mutual interpermeation or it is the stuff of tanha (selfish grasping) that renders existence into the hellish form of mutual interdependence and co-nourishing as mutual-eating of each other.
                                       
                                      So, physical obstruction, density and impenetrability are crystallized manifestations of the same bad moral and karmic properties.
                                       
                                      Now, in the ascent or return, the causal body or karana sarira itself becomes the divya-sarira -- destiny-divine body) that can manifest at will a deifed subtle body that is now the vajradeha (diamond body). 
                                       
                                      Outside university, I formally studied Vedanta in the US and in Bihar India and Huayen Buddhism (in California -- there is a huge Chinese Buddhist Huayen and Tai'tai monastery north of San Francisco).
                                       
                                       

                                      --- On Fri, 12/3/10, gregshaw58 <gregshaw58@...> wrote:

                                      From: gregshaw58 <gregshaw58@...>
                                      Subject: [neoplatonism] Re: Book Recommendation
                                      To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 9:53 AM

                                       

                                      Curt,

                                      Thanks for the references, Buddhist, Stoic, and Plotinian. The notion of interpenetration of subtle bodies is one that intrigues me. I checked Gerson's "Plotinus" and found your reference on page 133, not 114. Perhaps I have a different edition.

                                      thanks,

                                      gshaw

                                      --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Curt Steinmetz <curt@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > On 12/3/10 12:06 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:
                                      > > <snip>
                                      > >
                                      > > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by definition simply a volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be organic (have functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More argued, there can be a spiritual organic body.<snip>
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > The ancient Stoic view was that anything that exists must be a "body",
                                      > while at the same time, they held that all bodies everywhere throughout
                                      > the Cosmos interact with all other bodies at all times. The Stoic
                                      > explanation of how this works is very similar to what is called
                                      > "interpenetration" in Mahayana Buddhism, a concept especially associated
                                      > with the Hua Yen (Avatamsaka) Sutra.
                                      >
                                      > In his book on Plotinus, Lloyd Gerson refers to what he deems "the truly
                                      > bizarre Stoic doctrine of the total interpenetration of bodies. This is
                                      > the doctrine that there can and do exist certain mixtures of bodies [of
                                      > which the Cosmos itself is an example] such that each part of the
                                      > mixture is coextensive with each other. All parts are present in any
                                      > part, regardless of how small. The principle point of this doctrine
                                      > seems to have been to explain the presence of active soul-body or pneuma
                                      > everywhere in the type of body that is the passive recipient of the
                                      > active principle." [p. 114]
                                      >
                                      > Gerson takes Plotinus' side, however, and presents the Stoic view only
                                      > in the context of explaining how Plotinus' rejection of it is convincing
                                      > (to Gerson). A view more sympathetic (if you will) to the Stoic position
                                      > is found in "Senecan Drama and Stoic Cosmology" by Thomas G. Rosenmeyer,
                                      > especially his chapters 4 & 5: "Body, Tension, and Sumpatheia", &
                                      > "Krasis, The Flame and the Moist".
                                      >
                                      > Curt Steinmetz
                                      >

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











                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Robert Wallace
                                      Dear all, Thomas, thanks for your fascinating exposition of Brahman etc. ... However, who explains (in detail) the origins and constitution of the body from
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dear all,

                                        Thomas, thanks for your fascinating exposition of Brahman etc.

                                        You contrast "bottom-up" to "top-down" strategies:

                                        >> In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                        >> seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                        >> "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                        >> seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                        >> now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is
                                        >> flipped around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of,
                                        >> given the self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the
                                        >> origins and constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the
                                        >> explanation problem less acute.

                                        However, who explains (in detail) "the origins and constitution of the
                                        body from the mind"? Plato does this, as Prof. Dillon suggests, in the
                                        Timaeus. Hegel does it in his Encyclopedia. Maybe Whitehead does it. I
                                        hope that someone is at work on a readable version for modern
                                        audiences!!

                                        Plus there needs to be a Prologue that shows why the
                                        "teleology" (appeal to the Good) involved in such projects is
                                        rationally unavoidable, rather than just a pre-Darwinian fantasy. See
                                        Republic books iv-vii; Hegel's Science of Logic. A more readable
                                        version of these would also be very helpful!

                                        Best, Bob



                                        On Dec 3, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:

                                        > Hello John,
                                        >
                                        > You write:
                                        >
                                        > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                        > vast
                                        > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                        > presumably shake
                                        > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                        > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                        > there is
                                        > virtually no �mind-body� problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                        > in this
                                        > way � a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                        > stacked end
                                        > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                        >
                                        > I suggest that another factor is teleological concepts, formal and
                                        > final causes, were part of the "natural" and "presupposed"
                                        > conceptual equipment and experience of people before Descartes. The
                                        > mind-body problem became acute when the body became conceived of as
                                        > a mechanism and the relation of mind to body was an extrinsic one of
                                        > mutual externality related by efficient cause or God's coordination.
                                        > Given Descartes framework, materialists
                                        > changed the Cartesian view where it is body as a mechanism of a
                                        > certain organization that
                                        > produces mind. A live and dead body are still "body".
                                        >
                                        > Before Descartes, under teleological views, apart from its principle
                                        > and formal cause -- the soul -- the body is just potency with the
                                        > possibility of being actualized and substantial by a soul. In
                                        > effect, the body depends on the soul to be real as body. In effect,
                                        > only animated bodies are really bodies.
                                        >
                                        > In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                        > seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                        > "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                        > seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                        > now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is flipped
                                        > around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of, given the
                                        > self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the origins and
                                        > constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the explanation
                                        > problem less acute.
                                        >
                                        > Several years ago, Manfred Frings suggested that the
                                        > phenomenological concept of lived body that philosophers such as
                                        > Merleau Ponty and Paul Ricoeur derived from Max Scheler's concept of
                                        > lived body (der Leib) in contrast to the physical body (der Korper)
                                        > might have come partly to Scheler, maybe via Eucken, from Rudoph
                                        > Steiner's concept of spiritual bodies that acquire a "chemical-
                                        > physical crust" or externalized "crystalline crust".
                                        > In any respect, he noted they probably didn't realize that for
                                        > Scheler the physical body (der Korper) only exists as such in
                                        > dependence on the lived body (der Leib). Anyway, if this is true,
                                        > what came to mind when you spoke of Plato's geometric shapes/volumes
                                        > was Steiner's "crystalline crust" and Scheler's view that the
                                        > physical body (der Korper) only becomes such animated by the lived
                                        > bodiliness (Leiblichkeit) of the lived body (der Leib).
                                        > Both Merleau Ponty and Ricoeur picked up on Scheler's anti-
                                        > physicalist argument that the lived body cannot be explained in
                                        > terms of the physical body, but I think Frings was saying, they
                                        > didn't bite the Scheeler bullet that the physical body is only such
                                        > due to the lived body animating it. A whirlwind stirs up the
                                        > geometric crystalline dust and becomes coated by it while animating
                                        > it into a body.
                                        >
                                        > Thomas
                                        >
                                        > --- On Fri, 12/3/10, John Dillon <jmdillon@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > From: John Dillon <jmdillon@...>
                                        > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                        > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 5:16 AM
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Hi Kathryn,
                                        > >
                                        > > The direction I'm thinking of reading up on is Henry More and Myers.
                                        > >
                                        > > I'm thinking of digging out my Henry More. Myers is credited with
                                        > saying that
                                        > > reading More inspired his "aha" moment for his mind-brain theory
                                        > when More was
                                        > > discussing subtle bodies.
                                        > >
                                        > > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by
                                        > definition simply a
                                        > > volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be
                                        > organic (have
                                        > > functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More
                                        > argued, there
                                        > > can be a spiritual organic body. In some criticism of Descartes
                                        > where the
                                        > > issue of how an unextended substance interacted with an extended
                                        > substance,
                                        > > apparently More said that a fundamental animation as the immediate
                                        > feeling of
                                        > > aliveness had extension in its term and subject at its source
                                        > (spirit body as
                                        > > animated extended term and soul as subjective source). I have
                                        > Myers book.
                                        > > Guess I will have to read it alongside More to see if I can find
                                        > what might be
                                        > > the "aha" passage. Thomas
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                        > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                        > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> >
                                        > > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                        > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                        > >
                                        > > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:47 PM
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Excellent; thank you Thomas!
                                        > >
                                        > > Co-creative agency, yes indeed,
                                        > >
                                        > > Kathryn
                                        > >
                                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                                        > > From: Thomas Mether
                                        > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                        > >
                                        > > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 PM
                                        > > Subject: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                        > >
                                        > > List,
                                        > >
                                        > > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of
                                        > defenders of a
                                        > > "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant
                                        > physicalist
                                        > > paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial
                                        > Self
                                        > > (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and
                                        > Moreland's Body
                                        > > and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of
                                        > what is
                                        > > variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic
                                        > dualism).
                                        > >
                                        > > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a
                                        > neuroscientist friend
                                        > > and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and
                                        > psychologists. It
                                        > > defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research
                                        > evidence
                                        > > supporting the model.
                                        > >
                                        > > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
                                        > >
                                        > > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With
                                        > CD containing
                                        > > F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality
                                        > (1903) and
                                        > > selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
                                        > Inc. ( 2009).
                                        > > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily
                                        > Williams Kelly
                                        > > (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael
                                        > Grosso
                                        > > (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                                        > > Publisher Description
                                        > > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and
                                        > philosophy of mind
                                        > > holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are
                                        > generated by
                                        > > physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have
                                        > dominated
                                        > > recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however,
                                        > > demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not
                                        > only
                                        > > incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence
                                        > for a
                                        > > variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult,
                                        > and in some
                                        > > cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional
                                        > physicalist terms.
                                        > > Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical
                                        > influence,
                                        > > memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-
                                        > death
                                        > > experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and
                                        > 'mystical'
                                        > > states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The
                                        > authors further
                                        > > show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an
                                        > > alternative
                                        > > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced
                                        > over a
                                        > > century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and
                                        > developed
                                        > > further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory,
                                        > moreover,
                                        > > ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally
                                        > effective
                                        > > conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge
                                        > physics and
                                        > > neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-
                                        > minded persons
                                        > > concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
                                        > >
                                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                        > vast
                                        > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                        > presumably shake
                                        > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                        > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                        > there is
                                        > virtually no �mind-body� problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                        > in this
                                        > way � a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                        > stacked end
                                        > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >

                                        Robert Wallace
                                        website: www.robertmwallace.com (The God Within Us)
                                        email: bob@...
                                        phone: 414-617-3914










                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Thomas Mether
                                        Bob, The first step, I think, in resurrecting teleology is to ask whether there are wholes that are greater than the sum of their parts in contrast to mere
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Bob, The first step, I think, in resurrecting teleology is to ask whether there are wholes that are greater than the sum of their parts in contrast to mere mechanical aggregates. Now when people do affirm that, including muddled physicalists that have just been "set-up" in that dialog move, they have tacitly committed themselves to formal causes. It just remains to draw out the implications of that commitment. That gets us to design, I think and have argued in these dialogs, to teleology.
                                           
                                          Whitehead? There is a major problem of personal identity over time. The prior actual occasion of yourself does not survive its culminating completion. You are the descendant of your dead predecessors - not them. Each momentary phase of yourself dies only to be remembered by a subsequent momentary self causally down stream, so to speak. Pols addressed this in his book on Whitehead as a critical commentary. Christian Williams raised it as an issue for Christianity in his book. Paul Weiss criticized this aspect of Whitehead and thought the solution was re-introducing substance; I'm not sure it works but I haven't read Weiss thoroughly. A friend of the family, Blanshard claimed Weiss could be seen as a cross between Whitehead and Royce -- which makes me think I may be underestimating Weiss. But my reading in Whitehead, confirmed by these philosophers criticisms of his thought on this point, is he is kind of a nihilist in terms raised by Dr. McCoy in the
                                          original Star Trek about transporters. The me that materializes on the planet surface may sincerely believe it is me but I (his predecessor) may have be annihilated in the process. Spock, of course, had no feeling about it one way or another.

                                          --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Robert Wallace <bob@...> wrote:


                                          From: Robert Wallace <bob@...>
                                          Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                          To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                          Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 12:44 PM


                                          Dear all,

                                          Thomas, thanks for your fascinating exposition of Brahman etc.

                                          You contrast "bottom-up" to "top-down" strategies:

                                          >> In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem 
                                          >> seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a 
                                          >> "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it 
                                          >> seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived 
                                          >> now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is 
                                          >> flipped around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of, 
                                          >> given the self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the 
                                          >> origins and constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the 
                                          >> explanation problem less acute.

                                          However, who explains (in detail) "the origins and constitution of the 
                                          body from the mind"? Plato does this, as Prof. Dillon suggests, in the 
                                          Timaeus. Hegel does it in his Encyclopedia. Maybe Whitehead does it. I 
                                          hope that someone is at work on a readable version for modern 
                                          audiences!!

                                          Plus there needs to be a Prologue that shows why the 
                                          "teleology" (appeal to the Good) involved in such projects is 
                                          rationally unavoidable, rather than just a pre-Darwinian fantasy. See 
                                          Republic books iv-vii; Hegel's Science of Logic. A more readable 
                                          version of these would also be very helpful!

                                          Best, Bob



                                          On Dec 3, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:

                                          > Hello John,
                                          >
                                          > You write:
                                          >
                                          > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a 
                                          > vast
                                          > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can 
                                          > presumably shake
                                          > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                          > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato 
                                          > there is
                                          > virtually no Œmind-body¹ problem is that he ragred the body somewhat 
                                          > in this
                                          > way ‹ a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues, 
                                          > stacked end
                                          > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                          >
                                          > I suggest that another factor is teleological concepts, formal and 
                                          > final causes, were part of the "natural" and "presupposed" 
                                          > conceptual equipment and experience of people before Descartes. The 
                                          > mind-body problem became acute when the body became conceived of as 
                                          > a mechanism and the relation of mind to body was an extrinsic one of 
                                          > mutual externality related by efficient cause or God's coordination. 
                                          > Given Descartes framework, materialists
                                          > changed the Cartesian view where it is body as a mechanism of a 
                                          > certain organization that
                                          > produces mind. A live and dead body are still "body".
                                          >
                                          > Before Descartes, under teleological views, apart from its principle 
                                          > and formal cause -- the soul -- the body is just potency with the 
                                          > possibility of being actualized and substantial by a soul. In 
                                          > effect, the body depends on the soul to be real as body. In effect, 
                                          > only animated bodies are really bodies.
                                          >
                                          > In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem 
                                          > seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a 
                                          > "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it 
                                          > seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived 
                                          > now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is flipped 
                                          > around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of, given the 
                                          > self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the origins and 
                                          > constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the explanation 
                                          > problem less acute.
                                          >
                                          > Several years ago, Manfred Frings suggested that the 
                                          > phenomenological concept of lived body that philosophers such as 
                                          > Merleau Ponty and Paul Ricoeur derived from Max Scheler's concept of 
                                          > lived body (der Leib) in contrast to the physical body (der Korper) 
                                          > might have come partly to Scheler, maybe via Eucken, from Rudoph 
                                          > Steiner's concept of spiritual bodies that acquire a "chemical-
                                          > physical crust" or externalized "crystalline crust".
                                          > In any respect, he noted they probably didn't realize that for 
                                          > Scheler the physical body (der Korper) only exists as such in 
                                          > dependence on the lived body (der Leib). Anyway, if this is true, 
                                          > what came to mind when you spoke of Plato's geometric shapes/volumes 
                                          > was Steiner's "crystalline crust" and Scheler's view that the 
                                          > physical body (der Korper) only becomes such animated by the lived 
                                          > bodiliness (Leiblichkeit) of the lived body (der Leib).
                                          > Both Merleau Ponty and Ricoeur picked up on Scheler's anti-
                                          > physicalist argument that the lived body cannot be explained in 
                                          > terms of the physical body, but I think Frings was saying, they 
                                          > didn't bite the Scheeler bullet that the physical body is only such 
                                          > due to the lived body animating it. A whirlwind stirs up the 
                                          > geometric crystalline dust and becomes coated by it while animating 
                                          > it into a body.
                                          >
                                          > Thomas
                                          >
                                          > --- On Fri, 12/3/10, John Dillon <jmdillon@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > From: John Dillon <jmdillon@...>
                                          > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                          > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 5:16 AM
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Hi Kathryn,
                                          > >
                                          > > The direction I'm thinking of reading up on is Henry More and Myers.
                                          > >
                                          > > I'm thinking of digging out my Henry More. Myers is credited with 
                                          > saying that
                                          > > reading More inspired his "aha" moment for his mind-brain theory 
                                          > when More was
                                          > > discussing subtle bodies.
                                          > >
                                          > > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by 
                                          > definition simply a
                                          > > volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be 
                                          > organic (have
                                          > > functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More 
                                          > argued, there
                                          > > can be a spiritual organic body. In some criticism of Descartes 
                                          > where the
                                          > > issue of how an unextended substance interacted with an extended 
                                          > substance,
                                          > > apparently More said that a fundamental animation as the immediate 
                                          > feeling of
                                          > > aliveness had extension in its term and subject at its source 
                                          > (spirit body as
                                          > > animated extended term and soul as subjective source). I have 
                                          > Myers book.
                                          > > Guess I will have to read it alongside More to see if I can find 
                                          > what might be
                                          > > the "aha" passage. Thomas
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                          > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                          > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> >
                                          > > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                          > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                          > >
                                          > > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:47 PM
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Excellent; thank you Thomas!
                                          > >
                                          > > Co-creative agency, yes indeed,
                                          > >
                                          > > Kathryn
                                          > >
                                          > > ----- Original Message -----
                                          > > From: Thomas Mether
                                          > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                          > >
                                          > > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 PM
                                          > > Subject: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                          > >
                                          > > List,
                                          > >
                                          > > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of 
                                          > defenders of a
                                          > > "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant 
                                          > physicalist
                                          > > paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial 
                                          > Self
                                          > > (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and 
                                          > Moreland's Body
                                          > > and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of 
                                          > what is
                                          > > variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic 
                                          > dualism).
                                          > >
                                          > > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a 
                                          > neuroscientist friend
                                          > > and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and 
                                          > psychologists. It
                                          > > defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research 
                                          > evidence
                                          > > supporting the model.
                                          > >
                                          > > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
                                          > >
                                          > > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With 
                                          > CD containing
                                          > > F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality 
                                          > (1903) and
                                          > > selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 
                                          > Inc. ( 2009).
                                          > > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily 
                                          > Williams Kelly
                                          > > (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael 
                                          > Grosso
                                          > > (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                                          > > Publisher Description
                                          > > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and 
                                          > philosophy of mind
                                          > > holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are 
                                          > generated by
                                          > > physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have 
                                          > dominated
                                          > > recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however,
                                          > > demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not 
                                          > only
                                          > > incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence 
                                          > for a
                                          > > variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, 
                                          > and in some
                                          > > cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional 
                                          > physicalist terms.
                                          > > Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical 
                                          > influence,
                                          > > memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-
                                          > death
                                          > > experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 
                                          > 'mystical'
                                          > > states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The 
                                          > authors further
                                          > > show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an
                                          > > alternative
                                          > > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced 
                                          > over a
                                          > > century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and 
                                          > developed
                                          > > further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, 
                                          > moreover,
                                          > > ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally 
                                          > effective
                                          > > conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge 
                                          > physics and
                                          > > neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-
                                          > minded persons
                                          > > concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
                                          > >
                                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          > >
                                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          > >
                                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a 
                                          > vast
                                          > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can 
                                          > presumably shake
                                          > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                          > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato 
                                          > there is
                                          > virtually no Œmind-body¹ problem is that he ragred the body somewhat 
                                          > in this
                                          > way ‹ a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues, 
                                          > stacked end
                                          > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >

                                          Robert Wallace
                                          website: www.robertmwallace.com (The God Within Us)
                                          email: bob@...
                                          phone: 414-617-3914










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



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

                                          Yahoo! Groups Links








                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Kathryn Evans
                                          Dear All, Yes, it s interesting how there is always a human need to tell ourselves these stories over again in a new contemporary voice, hopefully one that
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dear All,

                                            Yes, it's interesting how there is always a human need to tell ourselves
                                            these stories over again in a new contemporary voice, hopefully one that
                                            makes the "practice" of writing, reading, and "ascending to the Good"
                                            through these stories/intellectual exercises more accessible to the
                                            contemporary reader.

                                            In our Prologues then, how are we to declare the contemporary relevance of
                                            practicing Brahman (as Thomas described it), or soul-making, through poetry,
                                            myth, philosophy, and other forms of intellectual "play"? The violent rift
                                            occurring now in the Academy--between the Sciences and the Humanities--can
                                            be seen as an expression of our collective "fall" into gross materiality
                                            (read stula-sarira or mutual predatory sheath). People who practice the
                                            Humanities naturally want to reassert the value of our work: for us it's a
                                            matter of experiencing what some categorize as "play" or "fantasy" instead
                                            as a valuable "work" essential to humankind.

                                            Humanities rely heavily on words to work their magic, to translate ineffable
                                            thoughts and ideas into meaningful contemporary written works that can be
                                            shared among humankind as a living wisdom. So instead of describing
                                            Neoplatonism for instance as "lacking a practice," we can take another
                                            look--as is happening on this list--in order to discern that the written
                                            works are the path to the practice and are themselves the practice.
                                            Sometimes people receive a practice through the material transmission, via a
                                            living Master, of a word/mantra to repeat with eyes closed. Sometimes people
                                            receive a practice through the material transmission of receiving a physical
                                            book to read. Sometimes people receive a gnosis of that same wisdom without
                                            the vehicle of a physical Master or a physical book: through having the idea
                                            of a form for instance. The middle scenario of transmitting wisdom through
                                            the words of a book (in some physical form) is where the Academic teacher's
                                            power resides.

                                            My point is that in an Academic setting, the student practices the study of
                                            Neoplatonism through receiving words from a physical book in some form:
                                            whether textbook, computer screen, or teacher's spoken words. So the
                                            function of the Humanities in Academic education is precisely that it makes
                                            even the most inexpressible, ineffable, interpenetrating wisdom of humanity
                                            accessible to the contemporary generation through physical, effable words.
                                            The most practical Academic knowledge is in fact taught through the
                                            Humanities, because it teaches that knowledge which interpenetrates all
                                            levels of human existence, and through the vehicle of words becomes the
                                            wisdom carried forward by the next generation.

                                            Poetry, myth, and philosophy (the practice of Brahman) have a long history
                                            of engendering delight through the instruction of their interpenetrating
                                            wisdom. What is necessary perhaps is to literally write and speak the words
                                            which describe how Neoplatonism, for instance, expands the students' joy of
                                            being through intellectual exercise--a real skill/work that requires
                                            practice, and one that empowers them to go out and contribute other good
                                            works to humankind. Perhaps people who teach in the Humanities need to
                                            continually practice in the textbooks and in the classroom the "Prologue,"
                                            literally explaining the "so what?" "who cares?" "what does it mean" and
                                            "why does it matter?" Of course wisdom is available to students through
                                            transmissions outside the Academic classroom setting, but without the
                                            delight part of formal education through Humanities you might as well drop
                                            the term University and call it Trade School.

                                            Thomas, you've most likely read a translation of Patanjali's Yoga-sutras,
                                            but the translation by James Houghton Woods for The Harvard Oriental Series
                                            is a particularly scholarly and detailed one I'd recommend. The Yoga-System
                                            of Patanjali: Or the Ancient Hindu Doctrine of Concentration of Mind. Delhi:
                                            Motilal Banarsidass, 1977 (and it's probably been reprinted since then).
                                            "Now, by the yogin who has recognized the power of the word to express the
                                            thing,
                                            28. Repetition of it and reflection upon its meaning [should be made].
                                            The repetition of the Mystic Syllable, and reflection upon the Icvara who is
                                            signified by the Mystic Syllable. Then in the case of this yogin who thus
                                            repeats the Mystic syllable and reflects upon its meaning, mind-stuff
                                            attains to singleness-of-intent, and so it hath been said,
                                            'Through study let him practice yoga;
                                            Through yoga let him meditate on study.
                                            By perfectness in study and in yoga
                                            Supreme Soul shines forth clearly.' [. . .]" (Book I: Concentration or
                                            Samadhi, Verse 28 and Commentary)


                                            It seems evident from this thread that Academics who study Neoplatonism are
                                            continuing to "retranslate" Neoplatonic texts in terms of practice as well
                                            as theory, even to the extent of describing how to intellectually practice
                                            specific passages (sutras if you will) for spiritual gnosis. This is not
                                            outside of Academic purvue, but is part-and-parcel of it.

                                            Kathryn

                                            Kathryn LaFevers Evans
                                            Independent Researcher



                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "Robert Wallace" <bob@...>
                                            To: <neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:44 AM
                                            Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation


                                            Dear all,

                                            Thomas, thanks for your fascinating exposition of Brahman etc.

                                            You contrast "bottom-up" to "top-down" strategies:

                                            >> In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                            >> seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                            >> "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                            >> seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                            >> now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is
                                            >> flipped around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of,
                                            >> given the self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the
                                            >> origins and constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the
                                            >> explanation problem less acute.

                                            However, who explains (in detail) "the origins and constitution of the
                                            body from the mind"? Plato does this, as Prof. Dillon suggests, in the
                                            Timaeus. Hegel does it in his Encyclopedia. Maybe Whitehead does it. I
                                            hope that someone is at work on a readable version for modern
                                            audiences!!

                                            Plus there needs to be a Prologue that shows why the
                                            "teleology" (appeal to the Good) involved in such projects is
                                            rationally unavoidable, rather than just a pre-Darwinian fantasy. See
                                            Republic books iv-vii; Hegel's Science of Logic. A more readable
                                            version of these would also be very helpful!

                                            Best, Bob



                                            On Dec 3, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:

                                            > Hello John,
                                            >
                                            > You write:
                                            >
                                            > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                            > vast
                                            > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                            > presumably shake
                                            > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                            > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                            > there is
                                            > virtually no Omind-body¹ problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                            > in this
                                            > way < a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                            > stacked end
                                            > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                            >
                                            > I suggest that another factor is teleological concepts, formal and
                                            > final causes, were part of the "natural" and "presupposed"
                                            > conceptual equipment and experience of people before Descartes. The
                                            > mind-body problem became acute when the body became conceived of as
                                            > a mechanism and the relation of mind to body was an extrinsic one of
                                            > mutual externality related by efficient cause or God's coordination.
                                            > Given Descartes framework, materialists
                                            > changed the Cartesian view where it is body as a mechanism of a
                                            > certain organization that
                                            > produces mind. A live and dead body are still "body".
                                            >
                                            > Before Descartes, under teleological views, apart from its principle
                                            > and formal cause -- the soul -- the body is just potency with the
                                            > possibility of being actualized and substantial by a soul. In
                                            > effect, the body depends on the soul to be real as body. In effect,
                                            > only animated bodies are really bodies.
                                            >
                                            > In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                            > seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                            > "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                            > seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                            > now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is flipped
                                            > around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of, given the
                                            > self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the origins and
                                            > constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the explanation
                                            > problem less acute.
                                            >
                                            > Several years ago, Manfred Frings suggested that the
                                            > phenomenological concept of lived body that philosophers such as
                                            > Merleau Ponty and Paul Ricoeur derived from Max Scheler's concept of
                                            > lived body (der Leib) in contrast to the physical body (der Korper)
                                            > might have come partly to Scheler, maybe via Eucken, from Rudoph
                                            > Steiner's concept of spiritual bodies that acquire a "chemical-
                                            > physical crust" or externalized "crystalline crust".
                                            > In any respect, he noted they probably didn't realize that for
                                            > Scheler the physical body (der Korper) only exists as such in
                                            > dependence on the lived body (der Leib). Anyway, if this is true,
                                            > what came to mind when you spoke of Plato's geometric shapes/volumes
                                            > was Steiner's "crystalline crust" and Scheler's view that the
                                            > physical body (der Korper) only becomes such animated by the lived
                                            > bodiliness (Leiblichkeit) of the lived body (der Leib).
                                            > Both Merleau Ponty and Ricoeur picked up on Scheler's anti-
                                            > physicalist argument that the lived body cannot be explained in
                                            > terms of the physical body, but I think Frings was saying, they
                                            > didn't bite the Scheeler bullet that the physical body is only such
                                            > due to the lived body animating it. A whirlwind stirs up the
                                            > geometric crystalline dust and becomes coated by it while animating
                                            > it into a body.
                                            >
                                            > Thomas
                                            >
                                            > --- On Fri, 12/3/10, John Dillon <jmdillon@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > From: John Dillon <jmdillon@...>
                                            > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                            > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 5:16 AM
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > Hi Kathryn,
                                            > >
                                            > > The direction I'm thinking of reading up on is Henry More and Myers.
                                            > >
                                            > > I'm thinking of digging out my Henry More. Myers is credited with
                                            > saying that
                                            > > reading More inspired his "aha" moment for his mind-brain theory
                                            > when More was
                                            > > discussing subtle bodies.
                                            > >
                                            > > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by
                                            > definition simply a
                                            > > volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be
                                            > organic (have
                                            > > functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More
                                            > argued, there
                                            > > can be a spiritual organic body. In some criticism of Descartes
                                            > where the
                                            > > issue of how an unextended substance interacted with an extended
                                            > substance,
                                            > > apparently More said that a fundamental animation as the immediate
                                            > feeling of
                                            > > aliveness had extension in its term and subject at its source
                                            > (spirit body as
                                            > > animated extended term and soul as subjective source). I have
                                            > Myers book.
                                            > > Guess I will have to read it alongside More to see if I can find
                                            > what might be
                                            > > the "aha" passage. Thomas
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                            > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                            > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> >
                                            > > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                            > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                            > >
                                            > > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:47 PM
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > Excellent; thank you Thomas!
                                            > >
                                            > > Co-creative agency, yes indeed,
                                            > >
                                            > > Kathryn
                                            > >
                                            > > ----- Original Message -----
                                            > > From: Thomas Mether
                                            > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                            > >
                                            > > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 PM
                                            > > Subject: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                            > >
                                            > > List,
                                            > >
                                            > > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of
                                            > defenders of a
                                            > > "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant
                                            > physicalist
                                            > > paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial
                                            > Self
                                            > > (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and
                                            > Moreland's Body
                                            > > and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of
                                            > what is
                                            > > variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic
                                            > dualism).
                                            > >
                                            > > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a
                                            > neuroscientist friend
                                            > > and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and
                                            > psychologists. It
                                            > > defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research
                                            > evidence
                                            > > supporting the model.
                                            > >
                                            > > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
                                            > >
                                            > > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With
                                            > CD containing
                                            > > F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality
                                            > (1903) and
                                            > > selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
                                            > Inc. ( 2009).
                                            > > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily
                                            > Williams Kelly
                                            > > (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael
                                            > Grosso
                                            > > (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                                            > > Publisher Description
                                            > > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and
                                            > philosophy of mind
                                            > > holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are
                                            > generated by
                                            > > physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have
                                            > dominated
                                            > > recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however,
                                            > > demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not
                                            > only
                                            > > incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence
                                            > for a
                                            > > variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult,
                                            > and in some
                                            > > cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional
                                            > physicalist terms.
                                            > > Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical
                                            > influence,
                                            > > memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-
                                            > death
                                            > > experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and
                                            > 'mystical'
                                            > > states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The
                                            > authors further
                                            > > show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an
                                            > > alternative
                                            > > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced
                                            > over a
                                            > > century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and
                                            > developed
                                            > > further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory,
                                            > moreover,
                                            > > ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally
                                            > effective
                                            > > conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge
                                            > physics and
                                            > > neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-
                                            > minded persons
                                            > > concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
                                            > >
                                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            > >
                                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            > >
                                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                            > vast
                                            > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                            > presumably shake
                                            > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                            > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                            > there is
                                            > virtually no Omind-body¹ problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                            > in this
                                            > way < a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                            > stacked end
                                            > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                            >
                                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >
                                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >

                                            Robert Wallace
                                            website: www.robertmwallace.com (The God Within Us)
                                            email: bob@...
                                            phone: 414-617-3914










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



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

                                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          • Robert Wallace
                                            Well, Thomas, I think you know what savvy materialists will reply to your question about wholes and parts: No, wholes are not greater! I doubt that this sort
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Well, Thomas, I think you know what savvy materialists will reply to
                                              your question about wholes and parts: No, wholes are not greater! I
                                              doubt that this sort of materialism can really make sense of the
                                              sciences, other than (supposedly) physics, but with their back against
                                              the wall, they say that physics is all they care about anyway. What
                                              they generally _aren't_ willing to say is that they really don't care
                                              whether their opinions are objectively true or false, or whether their
                                              life is objectively good or bad. Thus they seem to pursue something in
                                              their own lives that their theory apparently can't account for. (All
                                              that it can account for is their pursuing instrumental usefulness for
                                              "survival" or the like.) And their caring about and pursuing objective
                                              truth and objective goodness constitutes a kind of reality (a greater
                                              whole, if you like) that their theory doesn't provide for. This (I
                                              think) is the key "ad hominem" point of Republic iv-vii, and of
                                              Hegel's Science of Logic.

                                              I said "maybe" Whitehead, because I haven't found just this argument
                                              in Process and Reality. And I'd be surprised if there's a good
                                              substitute for it, anywhere. But I don't know that there isn't.

                                              Best, Bob

                                              On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Thomas Mether wrote:

                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Bob, The first step, I think, in resurrecting teleology is to ask
                                              > whether there are wholes that are greater than the sum of their
                                              > parts in contrast to mere mechanical aggregates. Now when people do
                                              > affirm that, including muddled physicalists that have just been "set-
                                              > up" in that dialog move, they have tacitly committed themselves to
                                              > formal causes. It just remains to draw out the implications of that
                                              > commitment. That gets us to design, I think and have argued in these
                                              > dialogs, to teleology.
                                              >
                                              > Whitehead? There is a major problem of personal identity over time.
                                              > The prior actual occasion of yourself does not survive its
                                              > culminating completion. You are the descendant of your dead
                                              > predecessors - not them. Each momentary phase of yourself dies only
                                              > to be remembered by a subsequent momentary self causally down
                                              > stream, so to speak. Pols addressed this in his book on Whitehead as
                                              > a critical commentary. Christian Williams raised it as an issue for
                                              > Christianity in his book. Paul Weiss criticized this aspect of
                                              > Whitehead and thought the solution was re-introducing substance; I'm
                                              > not sure it works but I haven't read Weiss thoroughly. A friend of
                                              > the family, Blanshard claimed Weiss could be seen as a cross between
                                              > Whitehead and Royce -- which makes me think I may be underestimating
                                              > Weiss. But my reading in Whitehead, confirmed by these philosophers
                                              > criticisms of his thought on this point, is he is kind of a nihilist
                                              > in terms raised by Dr. McCoy in the
                                              > original Star Trek about transporters. The me that materializes on
                                              > the planet surface may sincerely believe it is me but I (his
                                              > predecessor) may have be annihilated in the process. Spock, of
                                              > course, had no feeling about it one way or another.
                                              >
                                              > --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Robert Wallace <bob@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > From: Robert Wallace <bob@...>
                                              > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                              > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 12:44 PM
                                              >
                                              > Dear all,
                                              >
                                              > Thomas, thanks for your fascinating exposition of Brahman etc.
                                              >
                                              > You contrast "bottom-up" to "top-down" strategies:
                                              >
                                              > >> In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                              > >> seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                              > >> "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                              > >> seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                              > >> now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is
                                              > >> flipped around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of,
                                              > >> given the self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the
                                              > >> origins and constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the
                                              > >> explanation problem less acute.
                                              >
                                              > However, who explains (in detail) "the origins and constitution of the
                                              > body from the mind"? Plato does this, as Prof. Dillon suggests, in the
                                              > Timaeus. Hegel does it in his Encyclopedia. Maybe Whitehead does it. I
                                              > hope that someone is at work on a readable version for modern
                                              > audiences!!
                                              >
                                              > Plus there needs to be a Prologue that shows why the
                                              > "teleology" (appeal to the Good) involved in such projects is
                                              > rationally unavoidable, rather than just a pre-Darwinian fantasy. See
                                              > Republic books iv-vii; Hegel's Science of Logic. A more readable
                                              > version of these would also be very helpful!
                                              >
                                              > Best, Bob
                                              >
                                              > On Dec 3, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > Hello John,
                                              > >
                                              > > You write:
                                              > >
                                              > > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                              > > vast
                                              > > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                              > > presumably shake
                                              > > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is
                                              > anything
                                              > > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                              > > there is
                                              > > virtually no �mind-body� problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                              > > in this
                                              > > way � a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                              > > stacked end
                                              > > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                              > >
                                              > > I suggest that another factor is teleological concepts, formal and
                                              > > final causes, were part of the "natural" and "presupposed"
                                              > > conceptual equipment and experience of people before Descartes. The
                                              > > mind-body problem became acute when the body became conceived of as
                                              > > a mechanism and the relation of mind to body was an extrinsic one of
                                              > > mutual externality related by efficient cause or God's coordination.
                                              > > Given Descartes framework, materialists
                                              > > changed the Cartesian view where it is body as a mechanism of a
                                              > > certain organization that
                                              > > produces mind. A live and dead body are still "body".
                                              > >
                                              > > Before Descartes, under teleological views, apart from its principle
                                              > > and formal cause -- the soul -- the body is just potency with the
                                              > > possibility of being actualized and substantial by a soul. In
                                              > > effect, the body depends on the soul to be real as body. In effect,
                                              > > only animated bodies are really bodies.
                                              > >
                                              > > In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                              > > seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                              > > "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                              > > seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                              > > now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is flipped
                                              > > around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of, given the
                                              > > self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the origins and
                                              > > constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the explanation
                                              > > problem less acute.
                                              > >
                                              > > Several years ago, Manfred Frings suggested that the
                                              > > phenomenological concept of lived body that philosophers such as
                                              > > Merleau Ponty and Paul Ricoeur derived from Max Scheler's concept of
                                              > > lived body (der Leib) in contrast to the physical body (der Korper)
                                              > > might have come partly to Scheler, maybe via Eucken, from Rudoph
                                              > > Steiner's concept of spiritual bodies that acquire a "chemical-
                                              > > physical crust" or externalized "crystalline crust".
                                              > > In any respect, he noted they probably didn't realize that for
                                              > > Scheler the physical body (der Korper) only exists as such in
                                              > > dependence on the lived body (der Leib). Anyway, if this is true,
                                              > > what came to mind when you spoke of Plato's geometric shapes/volumes
                                              > > was Steiner's "crystalline crust" and Scheler's view that the
                                              > > physical body (der Korper) only becomes such animated by the lived
                                              > > bodiliness (Leiblichkeit) of the lived body (der Leib).
                                              > > Both Merleau Ponty and Ricoeur picked up on Scheler's anti-
                                              > > physicalist argument that the lived body cannot be explained in
                                              > > terms of the physical body, but I think Frings was saying, they
                                              > > didn't bite the Scheeler bullet that the physical body is only such
                                              > > due to the lived body animating it. A whirlwind stirs up the
                                              > > geometric crystalline dust and becomes coated by it while animating
                                              > > it into a body.
                                              > >
                                              > > Thomas
                                              > >
                                              > > --- On Fri, 12/3/10, John Dillon <jmdillon@...> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > From: John Dillon <jmdillon@...>
                                              > > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                              > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                              > > Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 5:16 AM
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Hi Kathryn,
                                              > > >
                                              > > > The direction I'm thinking of reading up on is Henry More and
                                              > Myers.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > I'm thinking of digging out my Henry More. Myers is credited with
                                              > > saying that
                                              > > > reading More inspired his "aha" moment for his mind-brain theory
                                              > > when More was
                                              > > > discussing subtle bodies.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by
                                              > > definition simply a
                                              > > > volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be
                                              > > organic (have
                                              > > > functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More
                                              > > argued, there
                                              > > > can be a spiritual organic body. In some criticism of Descartes
                                              > > where the
                                              > > > issue of how an unextended substance interacted with an extended
                                              > > substance,
                                              > > > apparently More said that a fundamental animation as the immediate
                                              > > feeling of
                                              > > > aliveness had extension in its term and subject at its source
                                              > > (spirit body as
                                              > > > animated extended term and soul as subjective source). I have
                                              > > Myers book.
                                              > > > Guess I will have to read it alongside More to see if I can find
                                              > > what might be
                                              > > > the "aha" passage. Thomas
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                              > > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
                                              > > >
                                              > > > From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                              > > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> >
                                              > > > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                              > > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:47 PM
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Excellent; thank you Thomas!
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Co-creative agency, yes indeed,
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Kathryn
                                              > > >
                                              > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                              > > > From: Thomas Mether
                                              > > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 PM
                                              > > > Subject: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                              > > >
                                              > > > List,
                                              > > >
                                              > > > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of
                                              > > defenders of a
                                              > > > "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant
                                              > > physicalist
                                              > > > paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial
                                              > > Self
                                              > > > (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and
                                              > > Moreland's Body
                                              > > > and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of
                                              > > what is
                                              > > > variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic
                                              > > dualism).
                                              > > >
                                              > > > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a
                                              > > neuroscientist friend
                                              > > > and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and
                                              > > psychologists. It
                                              > > > defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research
                                              > > evidence
                                              > > > supporting the model.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With
                                              > > CD containing
                                              > > > F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality
                                              > > (1903) and
                                              > > > selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
                                              > > Inc. ( 2009).
                                              > > > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily
                                              > > Williams Kelly
                                              > > > (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael
                                              > > Grosso
                                              > > > (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                                              > > > Publisher Description
                                              > > > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and
                                              > > philosophy of mind
                                              > > > holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are
                                              > > generated by
                                              > > > physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have
                                              > > dominated
                                              > > > recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however,
                                              > > > demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not
                                              > > only
                                              > > > incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence
                                              > > for a
                                              > > > variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult,
                                              > > and in some
                                              > > > cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional
                                              > > physicalist terms.
                                              > > > Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical
                                              > > influence,
                                              > > > memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-
                                              > > death
                                              > > > experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and
                                              > > 'mystical'
                                              > > > states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The
                                              > > authors further
                                              > > > show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by
                                              > an
                                              > > > alternative
                                              > > > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced
                                              > > over a
                                              > > > century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and
                                              > > developed
                                              > > > further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory,
                                              > > moreover,
                                              > > > ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally
                                              > > effective
                                              > > > conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge
                                              > > physics and
                                              > > > neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-
                                              > > minded persons
                                              > > > concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > > >
                                              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > > >
                                              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                              > > vast
                                              > > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                              > > presumably shake
                                              > > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is
                                              > anything
                                              > > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                              > > there is
                                              > > virtually no �mind-body� problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                              > > in this
                                              > > way � a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                              > > stacked end
                                              > > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                              > >
                                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > >
                                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > Robert Wallace
                                              > website: www.robertmwallace.com (The God Within Us)
                                              > email: bob@...
                                              > phone: 414-617-3914
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              > ------------------------------------
                                              >
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >

                                              Robert Wallace
                                              website: www.robertmwallace.com (The God Within Us)
                                              email: bob@...
                                              phone: 414-617-3914










                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Robert Wallace
                                              Dear Kathryn, Yes, I think we are carrying on a sort of intellectual Yoga here. God knows, we (I, at any rate) need it. Best, Bob ... Robert Wallace website:
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Dear Kathryn,

                                                Yes, I think we are carrying on a sort of intellectual Yoga here. God
                                                knows, we (I, at any rate) need it.

                                                Best, Bob

                                                On Dec 3, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Kathryn Evans wrote:

                                                >
                                                > Dear All,
                                                >
                                                > Yes, it's interesting how there is always a human need to tell
                                                > ourselves
                                                > these stories over again in a new contemporary voice, hopefully one
                                                > that
                                                > makes the "practice" of writing, reading, and "ascending to the Good"
                                                > through these stories/intellectual exercises more accessible to the
                                                > contemporary reader.
                                                >
                                                > In our Prologues then, how are we to declare the contemporary
                                                > relevance of
                                                > practicing Brahman (as Thomas described it), or soul-making, through
                                                > poetry,
                                                > myth, philosophy, and other forms of intellectual "play"? The
                                                > violent rift
                                                > occurring now in the Academy--between the Sciences and the
                                                > Humanities--can
                                                > be seen as an expression of our collective "fall" into gross
                                                > materiality
                                                > (read stula-sarira or mutual predatory sheath). People who practice
                                                > the
                                                > Humanities naturally want to reassert the value of our work: for us
                                                > it's a
                                                > matter of experiencing what some categorize as "play" or "fantasy"
                                                > instead
                                                > as a valuable "work" essential to humankind.
                                                >
                                                > Humanities rely heavily on words to work their magic, to translate
                                                > ineffable
                                                > thoughts and ideas into meaningful contemporary written works that
                                                > can be
                                                > shared among humankind as a living wisdom. So instead of describing
                                                > Neoplatonism for instance as "lacking a practice," we can take another
                                                > look--as is happening on this list--in order to discern that the
                                                > written
                                                > works are the path to the practice and are themselves the practice.
                                                > Sometimes people receive a practice through the material
                                                > transmission, via a
                                                > living Master, of a word/mantra to repeat with eyes closed.
                                                > Sometimes people
                                                > receive a practice through the material transmission of receiving a
                                                > physical
                                                > book to read. Sometimes people receive a gnosis of that same wisdom
                                                > without
                                                > the vehicle of a physical Master or a physical book: through having
                                                > the idea
                                                > of a form for instance. The middle scenario of transmitting wisdom
                                                > through
                                                > the words of a book (in some physical form) is where the Academic
                                                > teacher's
                                                > power resides.
                                                >
                                                > My point is that in an Academic setting, the student practices the
                                                > study of
                                                > Neoplatonism through receiving words from a physical book in some
                                                > form:
                                                > whether textbook, computer screen, or teacher's spoken words. So the
                                                > function of the Humanities in Academic education is precisely that
                                                > it makes
                                                > even the most inexpressible, ineffable, interpenetrating wisdom of
                                                > humanity
                                                > accessible to the contemporary generation through physical, effable
                                                > words.
                                                > The most practical Academic knowledge is in fact taught through the
                                                > Humanities, because it teaches that knowledge which interpenetrates
                                                > all
                                                > levels of human existence, and through the vehicle of words becomes
                                                > the
                                                > wisdom carried forward by the next generation.
                                                >
                                                > Poetry, myth, and philosophy (the practice of Brahman) have a long
                                                > history
                                                > of engendering delight through the instruction of their
                                                > interpenetrating
                                                > wisdom. What is necessary perhaps is to literally write and speak
                                                > the words
                                                > which describe how Neoplatonism, for instance, expands the students'
                                                > joy of
                                                > being through intellectual exercise--a real skill/work that requires
                                                > practice, and one that empowers them to go out and contribute other
                                                > good
                                                > works to humankind. Perhaps people who teach in the Humanities need to
                                                > continually practice in the textbooks and in the classroom the
                                                > "Prologue,"
                                                > literally explaining the "so what?" "who cares?" "what does it mean"
                                                > and
                                                > "why does it matter?" Of course wisdom is available to students
                                                > through
                                                > transmissions outside the Academic classroom setting, but without the
                                                > delight part of formal education through Humanities you might as
                                                > well drop
                                                > the term University and call it Trade School.
                                                >
                                                > Thomas, you've most likely read a translation of Patanjali's Yoga-
                                                > sutras,
                                                > but the translation by James Houghton Woods for The Harvard Oriental
                                                > Series
                                                > is a particularly scholarly and detailed one I'd recommend. The Yoga-
                                                > System
                                                > of Patanjali: Or the Ancient Hindu Doctrine of Concentration of
                                                > Mind. Delhi:
                                                > Motilal Banarsidass, 1977 (and it's probably been reprinted since
                                                > then).
                                                > "Now, by the yogin who has recognized the power of the word to
                                                > express the
                                                > thing,
                                                > 28. Repetition of it and reflection upon its meaning [should be made].
                                                > The repetition of the Mystic Syllable, and reflection upon the
                                                > Icvara who is
                                                > signified by the Mystic Syllable. Then in the case of this yogin who
                                                > thus
                                                > repeats the Mystic syllable and reflects upon its meaning, mind-stuff
                                                > attains to singleness-of-intent, and so it hath been said,
                                                > 'Through study let him practice yoga;
                                                > Through yoga let him meditate on study.
                                                > By perfectness in study and in yoga
                                                > Supreme Soul shines forth clearly.' [. . .]" (Book I: Concentration or
                                                > Samadhi, Verse 28 and Commentary)
                                                >
                                                > It seems evident from this thread that Academics who study
                                                > Neoplatonism are
                                                > continuing to "retranslate" Neoplatonic texts in terms of practice
                                                > as well
                                                > as theory, even to the extent of describing how to intellectually
                                                > practice
                                                > specific passages (sutras if you will) for spiritual gnosis. This is
                                                > not
                                                > outside of Academic purvue, but is part-and-parcel of it.
                                                >
                                                > Kathryn
                                                >
                                                > Kathryn LaFevers Evans
                                                > Independent Researcher
                                                >
                                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                                > From: "Robert Wallace" <bob@...>
                                                > To: <neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com>
                                                > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:44 AM
                                                > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                >
                                                > Dear all,
                                                >
                                                > Thomas, thanks for your fascinating exposition of Brahman etc.
                                                >
                                                > You contrast "bottom-up" to "top-down" strategies:
                                                >
                                                > >> In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                                > >> seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                                > >> "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                                > >> seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                                > >> now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is
                                                > >> flipped around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of,
                                                > >> given the self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the
                                                > >> origins and constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the
                                                > >> explanation problem less acute.
                                                >
                                                > However, who explains (in detail) "the origins and constitution of the
                                                > body from the mind"? Plato does this, as Prof. Dillon suggests, in the
                                                > Timaeus. Hegel does it in his Encyclopedia. Maybe Whitehead does it. I
                                                > hope that someone is at work on a readable version for modern
                                                > audiences!!
                                                >
                                                > Plus there needs to be a Prologue that shows why the
                                                > "teleology" (appeal to the Good) involved in such projects is
                                                > rationally unavoidable, rather than just a pre-Darwinian fantasy. See
                                                > Republic books iv-vii; Hegel's Science of Logic. A more readable
                                                > version of these would also be very helpful!
                                                >
                                                > Best, Bob
                                                >
                                                > On Dec 3, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > Hello John,
                                                > >
                                                > > You write:
                                                > >
                                                > > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                                > > vast
                                                > > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                                > > presumably shake
                                                > > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is
                                                > anything
                                                > > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                                > > there is
                                                > > virtually no Omind-body� problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                                > > in this
                                                > > way < a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                                > > stacked end
                                                > > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                                > >
                                                > > I suggest that another factor is teleological concepts, formal and
                                                > > final causes, were part of the "natural" and "presupposed"
                                                > > conceptual equipment and experience of people before Descartes. The
                                                > > mind-body problem became acute when the body became conceived of as
                                                > > a mechanism and the relation of mind to body was an extrinsic one of
                                                > > mutual externality related by efficient cause or God's coordination.
                                                > > Given Descartes framework, materialists
                                                > > changed the Cartesian view where it is body as a mechanism of a
                                                > > certain organization that
                                                > > produces mind. A live and dead body are still "body".
                                                > >
                                                > > Before Descartes, under teleological views, apart from its principle
                                                > > and formal cause -- the soul -- the body is just potency with the
                                                > > possibility of being actualized and substantial by a soul. In
                                                > > effect, the body depends on the soul to be real as body. In effect,
                                                > > only animated bodies are really bodies.
                                                > >
                                                > > In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                                > > seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                                > > "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                                > > seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                                > > now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is flipped
                                                > > around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of, given the
                                                > > self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the origins and
                                                > > constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the explanation
                                                > > problem less acute.
                                                > >
                                                > > Several years ago, Manfred Frings suggested that the
                                                > > phenomenological concept of lived body that philosophers such as
                                                > > Merleau Ponty and Paul Ricoeur derived from Max Scheler's concept of
                                                > > lived body (der Leib) in contrast to the physical body (der Korper)
                                                > > might have come partly to Scheler, maybe via Eucken, from Rudoph
                                                > > Steiner's concept of spiritual bodies that acquire a "chemical-
                                                > > physical crust" or externalized "crystalline crust".
                                                > > In any respect, he noted they probably didn't realize that for
                                                > > Scheler the physical body (der Korper) only exists as such in
                                                > > dependence on the lived body (der Leib). Anyway, if this is true,
                                                > > what came to mind when you spoke of Plato's geometric shapes/volumes
                                                > > was Steiner's "crystalline crust" and Scheler's view that the
                                                > > physical body (der Korper) only becomes such animated by the lived
                                                > > bodiliness (Leiblichkeit) of the lived body (der Leib).
                                                > > Both Merleau Ponty and Ricoeur picked up on Scheler's anti-
                                                > > physicalist argument that the lived body cannot be explained in
                                                > > terms of the physical body, but I think Frings was saying, they
                                                > > didn't bite the Scheeler bullet that the physical body is only such
                                                > > due to the lived body animating it. A whirlwind stirs up the
                                                > > geometric crystalline dust and becomes coated by it while animating
                                                > > it into a body.
                                                > >
                                                > > Thomas
                                                > >
                                                > > --- On Fri, 12/3/10, John Dillon <jmdillon@...> wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > From: John Dillon <jmdillon@...>
                                                > > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                                > > Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 5:16 AM
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Hi Kathryn,
                                                > > >
                                                > > > The direction I'm thinking of reading up on is Henry More and
                                                > Myers.
                                                > > >
                                                > > > I'm thinking of digging out my Henry More. Myers is credited with
                                                > > saying that
                                                > > > reading More inspired his "aha" moment for his mind-brain theory
                                                > > when More was
                                                > > > discussing subtle bodies.
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by
                                                > > definition simply a
                                                > > > volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be
                                                > > organic (have
                                                > > > functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More
                                                > > argued, there
                                                > > > can be a spiritual organic body. In some criticism of Descartes
                                                > > where the
                                                > > > issue of how an unextended substance interacted with an extended
                                                > > substance,
                                                > > > apparently More said that a fundamental animation as the immediate
                                                > > feeling of
                                                > > > aliveness had extension in its term and subject at its source
                                                > > (spirit body as
                                                > > > animated extended term and soul as subjective source). I have
                                                > > Myers book.
                                                > > > Guess I will have to read it alongside More to see if I can find
                                                > > what might be
                                                > > > the "aha" passage. Thomas
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                                > > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
                                                > > >
                                                > > > From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                                > > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> >
                                                > > > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                > > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:47 PM
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Excellent; thank you Thomas!
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Co-creative agency, yes indeed,
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Kathryn
                                                > > >
                                                > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                                > > > From: Thomas Mether
                                                > > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 PM
                                                > > > Subject: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                > > >
                                                > > > List,
                                                > > >
                                                > > > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of
                                                > > defenders of a
                                                > > > "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant
                                                > > physicalist
                                                > > > paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial
                                                > > Self
                                                > > > (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and
                                                > > Moreland's Body
                                                > > > and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of
                                                > > what is
                                                > > > variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic
                                                > > dualism).
                                                > > >
                                                > > > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a
                                                > > neuroscientist friend
                                                > > > and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and
                                                > > psychologists. It
                                                > > > defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research
                                                > > evidence
                                                > > > supporting the model.
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With
                                                > > CD containing
                                                > > > F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality
                                                > > (1903) and
                                                > > > selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
                                                > > Inc. ( 2009).
                                                > > > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily
                                                > > Williams Kelly
                                                > > > (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael
                                                > > Grosso
                                                > > > (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                                                > > > Publisher Description
                                                > > > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and
                                                > > philosophy of mind
                                                > > > holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are
                                                > > generated by
                                                > > > physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have
                                                > > dominated
                                                > > > recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however,
                                                > > > demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not
                                                > > only
                                                > > > incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence
                                                > > for a
                                                > > > variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult,
                                                > > and in some
                                                > > > cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional
                                                > > physicalist terms.
                                                > > > Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical
                                                > > influence,
                                                > > > memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-
                                                > > death
                                                > > > experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and
                                                > > 'mystical'
                                                > > > states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The
                                                > > authors further
                                                > > > show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by
                                                > an
                                                > > > alternative
                                                > > > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced
                                                > > over a
                                                > > > century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and
                                                > > developed
                                                > > > further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory,
                                                > > moreover,
                                                > > > ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally
                                                > > effective
                                                > > > conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge
                                                > > physics and
                                                > > > neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-
                                                > > minded persons
                                                > > > concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
                                                > > >
                                                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                > > >
                                                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                > > >
                                                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > >
                                                > > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                                > > vast
                                                > > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                                > > presumably shake
                                                > > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is
                                                > anything
                                                > > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                                > > there is
                                                > > virtually no Omind-body� problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                                > > in this
                                                > > way < a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                                > > stacked end
                                                > > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                                > >
                                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                > >
                                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                >
                                                > Robert Wallace
                                                > website: www.robertmwallace.com (The God Within Us)
                                                > email: bob@...
                                                > phone: 414-617-3914
                                                >
                                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                >
                                                > ------------------------------------
                                                >
                                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >

                                                Robert Wallace
                                                website: www.robertmwallace.com (The God Within Us)
                                                email: bob@...
                                                phone: 414-617-3914










                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Thomas Mether
                                                Kathryn,   I suggest that there is something to be learned from my Chinese students in San Francisco. Namely, there is something profoundly odd about getting
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Kathryn,
                                                   
                                                  I suggest that there is something to be learned from my Chinese students in San Francisco. Namely, there is something profoundly odd about "getting one's spirituality" from a modern university. Some claimed they "got it from family". Michael Chase thinks I have too high of standards that the contemporary university should educate the minimum standards of being civilized (perhaps, having to fake it, the genuine virtue takes hold because an expert faker must have developed the sensitivity and awareness - insightful empathy -- to suceed in faking it and hopefully the cumulative effect tips the scales). Even training ordinary politeness, as Comte-Sponville (in light of Bob's "Schmidt/Schmitt" I don't recall the exact last name or spelling) says who argues it is the basic virtue even if weak because it minimally requires the recognition/attention to others, might be a minimal condition.
                                                   
                                                  Anyway, if you seek Hadot's account to be put into practice, do what some of us have done. Take it outside academia and the university. Basic message, take it outside the classroom and university. I have also lived/studied on Athos and with Ishraqi. The praxis is different than too much of contemporary academics; I was struck with how too much of academic discussions are an excessive discussion of the menu's format, history ("well in an earlier version of this menu", "this current menu seems to derive from the earlier menu of ...") or clues about the food instead of about the food itself.
                                                   
                                                  Not all surfers can read and analyze books on surfing with expertise (nor a Russian staretz). Some can. Some can and have also developed the expertise to be academic experts on surfing (as a few Russian spiritual fathers). Too much of the academic expertise on surfing these days, I fear, is not the expertise of surfers and reflects not having ever been on a surfboard. I suggest that A. MacIntyre's "Disquieting Suggestion" in his After Virtue applies no only to ethics, but also, spiritual practice, mysticism, and philosophy as a spiritual practice/mysticism.
                                                   
                                                  Seek it and take it outside the university.
                                                   
                                                  Thomas
                                                   
                                                  --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...> wrote:


                                                  From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...>
                                                  Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                  To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 4:02 PM


                                                   




                                                  Dear All,

                                                  Yes, it's interesting how there is always a human need to tell ourselves
                                                  these stories over again in a new contemporary voice, hopefully one that
                                                  makes the "practice" of writing, reading, and "ascending to the Good"
                                                  through these stories/intellectual exercises more accessible to the
                                                  contemporary reader.

                                                  In our Prologues then, how are we to declare the contemporary relevance of
                                                  practicing Brahman (as Thomas described it), or soul-making, through poetry,
                                                  myth, philosophy, and other forms of intellectual "play"? The violent rift
                                                  occurring now in the Academy--between the Sciences and the Humanities--can
                                                  be seen as an expression of our collective "fall" into gross materiality
                                                  (read stula-sarira or mutual predatory sheath). People who practice the
                                                  Humanities naturally want to reassert the value of our work: for us it's a
                                                  matter of experiencing what some categorize as "play" or "fantasy" instead
                                                  as a valuable "work" essential to humankind.

                                                  Humanities rely heavily on words to work their magic, to translate ineffable
                                                  thoughts and ideas into meaningful contemporary written works that can be
                                                  shared among humankind as a living wisdom. So instead of describing
                                                  Neoplatonism for instance as "lacking a practice," we can take another
                                                  look--as is happening on this list--in order to discern that the written
                                                  works are the path to the practice and are themselves the practice.
                                                  Sometimes people receive a practice through the material transmission, via a
                                                  living Master, of a word/mantra to repeat with eyes closed. Sometimes people
                                                  receive a practice through the material transmission of receiving a physical
                                                  book to read. Sometimes people receive a gnosis of that same wisdom without
                                                  the vehicle of a physical Master or a physical book: through having the idea
                                                  of a form for instance. The middle scenario of transmitting wisdom through
                                                  the words of a book (in some physical form) is where the Academic teacher's
                                                  power resides.

                                                  My point is that in an Academic setting, the student practices the study of
                                                  Neoplatonism through receiving words from a physical book in some form:
                                                  whether textbook, computer screen, or teacher's spoken words. So the
                                                  function of the Humanities in Academic education is precisely that it makes
                                                  even the most inexpressible, ineffable, interpenetrating wisdom of humanity
                                                  accessible to the contemporary generation through physical, effable words.
                                                  The most practical Academic knowledge is in fact taught through the
                                                  Humanities, because it teaches that knowledge which interpenetrates all
                                                  levels of human existence, and through the vehicle of words becomes the
                                                  wisdom carried forward by the next generation.

                                                  Poetry, myth, and philosophy (the practice of Brahman) have a long history
                                                  of engendering delight through the instruction of their interpenetrating
                                                  wisdom. What is necessary perhaps is to literally write and speak the words
                                                  which describe how Neoplatonism, for instance, expands the students' joy of
                                                  being through intellectual exercise--a real skill/work that requires
                                                  practice, and one that empowers them to go out and contribute other good
                                                  works to humankind. Perhaps people who teach in the Humanities need to
                                                  continually practice in the textbooks and in the classroom the "Prologue,"
                                                  literally explaining the "so what?" "who cares?" "what does it mean" and
                                                  "why does it matter?" Of course wisdom is available to students through
                                                  transmissions outside the Academic classroom setting, but without the
                                                  delight part of formal education through Humanities you might as well drop
                                                  the term University and call it Trade School.

                                                  Thomas, you've most likely read a translation of Patanjali's Yoga-sutras,
                                                  but the translation by James Houghton Woods for The Harvard Oriental Series
                                                  is a particularly scholarly and detailed one I'd recommend. The Yoga-System
                                                  of Patanjali: Or the Ancient Hindu Doctrine of Concentration of Mind. Delhi:
                                                  Motilal Banarsidass, 1977 (and it's probably been reprinted since then).
                                                  "Now, by the yogin who has recognized the power of the word to express the
                                                  thing,
                                                  28. Repetition of it and reflection upon its meaning [should be made].
                                                  The repetition of the Mystic Syllable, and reflection upon the Icvara who is
                                                  signified by the Mystic Syllable. Then in the case of this yogin who thus
                                                  repeats the Mystic syllable and reflects upon its meaning, mind-stuff
                                                  attains to singleness-of-intent, and so it hath been said,
                                                  'Through study let him practice yoga;
                                                  Through yoga let him meditate on study.
                                                  By perfectness in study and in yoga
                                                  Supreme Soul shines forth clearly.' [. . .]" (Book I: Concentration or
                                                  Samadhi, Verse 28 and Commentary)

                                                  It seems evident from this thread that Academics who study Neoplatonism are
                                                  continuing to "retranslate" Neoplatonic texts in terms of practice as well
                                                  as theory, even to the extent of describing how to intellectually practice
                                                  specific passages (sutras if you will) for spiritual gnosis. This is not
                                                  outside of Academic purvue, but is part-and-parcel of it.

                                                  Kathryn

                                                  Kathryn LaFevers Evans
                                                  Independent Researcher

                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  From: "Robert Wallace" <bob@...>
                                                  To: <neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com>
                                                  Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:44 AM
                                                  Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation

                                                  Dear all,

                                                  Thomas, thanks for your fascinating exposition of Brahman etc.

                                                  You contrast "bottom-up" to "top-down" strategies:

                                                  >> In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                                  >> seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                                  >> "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                                  >> seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                                  >> now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is
                                                  >> flipped around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of,
                                                  >> given the self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the
                                                  >> origins and constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the
                                                  >> explanation problem less acute.

                                                  However, who explains (in detail) "the origins and constitution of the
                                                  body from the mind"? Plato does this, as Prof. Dillon suggests, in the
                                                  Timaeus. Hegel does it in his Encyclopedia. Maybe Whitehead does it. I
                                                  hope that someone is at work on a readable version for modern
                                                  audiences!!

                                                  Plus there needs to be a Prologue that shows why the
                                                  "teleology" (appeal to the Good) involved in such projects is
                                                  rationally unavoidable, rather than just a pre-Darwinian fantasy. See
                                                  Republic books iv-vii; Hegel's Science of Logic. A more readable
                                                  version of these would also be very helpful!

                                                  Best, Bob

                                                  On Dec 3, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:

                                                  > Hello John,
                                                  >
                                                  > You write:
                                                  >
                                                  > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                                  > vast
                                                  > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                                  > presumably shake
                                                  > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                                  > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                                  > there is
                                                  > virtually no Omind-body¹ problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                                  > in this
                                                  > way < a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                                  > stacked end
                                                  > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                                  >
                                                  > I suggest that another factor is teleological concepts, formal and
                                                  > final causes, were part of the "natural" and "presupposed"
                                                  > conceptual equipment and experience of people before Descartes. The
                                                  > mind-body problem became acute when the body became conceived of as
                                                  > a mechanism and the relation of mind to body was an extrinsic one of
                                                  > mutual externality related by efficient cause or God's coordination.
                                                  > Given Descartes framework, materialists
                                                  > changed the Cartesian view where it is body as a mechanism of a
                                                  > certain organization that
                                                  > produces mind. A live and dead body are still "body".
                                                  >
                                                  > Before Descartes, under teleological views, apart from its principle
                                                  > and formal cause -- the soul -- the body is just potency with the
                                                  > possibility of being actualized and substantial by a soul. In
                                                  > effect, the body depends on the soul to be real as body. In effect,
                                                  > only animated bodies are really bodies.
                                                  >
                                                  > In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                                  > seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                                  > "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                                  > seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                                  > now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is flipped
                                                  > around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of, given the
                                                  > self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the origins and
                                                  > constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the explanation
                                                  > problem less acute.
                                                  >
                                                  > Several years ago, Manfred Frings suggested that the
                                                  > phenomenological concept of lived body that philosophers such as
                                                  > Merleau Ponty and Paul Ricoeur derived from Max Scheler's concept of
                                                  > lived body (der Leib) in contrast to the physical body (der Korper)
                                                  > might have come partly to Scheler, maybe via Eucken, from Rudoph
                                                  > Steiner's concept of spiritual bodies that acquire a "chemical-
                                                  > physical crust" or externalized "crystalline crust".
                                                  > In any respect, he noted they probably didn't realize that for
                                                  > Scheler the physical body (der Korper) only exists as such in
                                                  > dependence on the lived body (der Leib). Anyway, if this is true,
                                                  > what came to mind when you spoke of Plato's geometric shapes/volumes
                                                  > was Steiner's "crystalline crust" and Scheler's view that the
                                                  > physical body (der Korper) only becomes such animated by the lived
                                                  > bodiliness (Leiblichkeit) of the lived body (der Leib).
                                                  > Both Merleau Ponty and Ricoeur picked up on Scheler's anti-
                                                  > physicalist argument that the lived body cannot be explained in
                                                  > terms of the physical body, but I think Frings was saying, they
                                                  > didn't bite the Scheeler bullet that the physical body is only such
                                                  > due to the lived body animating it. A whirlwind stirs up the
                                                  > geometric crystalline dust and becomes coated by it while animating
                                                  > it into a body.
                                                  >
                                                  > Thomas
                                                  >
                                                  > --- On Fri, 12/3/10, John Dillon <jmdillon@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > From: John Dillon <jmdillon@...>
                                                  > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                  > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 5:16 AM
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Hi Kathryn,
                                                  > >
                                                  > > The direction I'm thinking of reading up on is Henry More and Myers.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I'm thinking of digging out my Henry More. Myers is credited with
                                                  > saying that
                                                  > > reading More inspired his "aha" moment for his mind-brain theory
                                                  > when More was
                                                  > > discussing subtle bodies.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by
                                                  > definition simply a
                                                  > > volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be
                                                  > organic (have
                                                  > > functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More
                                                  > argued, there
                                                  > > can be a spiritual organic body. In some criticism of Descartes
                                                  > where the
                                                  > > issue of how an unextended substance interacted with an extended
                                                  > substance,
                                                  > > apparently More said that a fundamental animation as the immediate
                                                  > feeling of
                                                  > > aliveness had extension in its term and subject at its source
                                                  > (spirit body as
                                                  > > animated extended term and soul as subjective source). I have
                                                  > Myers book.
                                                  > > Guess I will have to read it alongside More to see if I can find
                                                  > what might be
                                                  > > the "aha" passage. Thomas
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                                  > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                                  > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> >
                                                  > > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                  > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:47 PM
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Excellent; thank you Thomas!
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Co-creative agency, yes indeed,
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Kathryn
                                                  > >
                                                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                                                  > > From: Thomas Mether
                                                  > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 PM
                                                  > > Subject: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                  > >
                                                  > > List,
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of
                                                  > defenders of a
                                                  > > "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant
                                                  > physicalist
                                                  > > paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial
                                                  > Self
                                                  > > (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and
                                                  > Moreland's Body
                                                  > > and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of
                                                  > what is
                                                  > > variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic
                                                  > dualism).
                                                  > >
                                                  > > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a
                                                  > neuroscientist friend
                                                  > > and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and
                                                  > psychologists. It
                                                  > > defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research
                                                  > evidence
                                                  > > supporting the model.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With
                                                  > CD containing
                                                  > > F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality
                                                  > (1903) and
                                                  > > selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
                                                  > Inc. ( 2009).
                                                  > > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily
                                                  > Williams Kelly
                                                  > > (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael
                                                  > Grosso
                                                  > > (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                                                  > > Publisher Description
                                                  > > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and
                                                  > philosophy of mind
                                                  > > holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are
                                                  > generated by
                                                  > > physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have
                                                  > dominated
                                                  > > recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however,
                                                  > > demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not
                                                  > only
                                                  > > incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence
                                                  > for a
                                                  > > variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult,
                                                  > and in some
                                                  > > cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional
                                                  > physicalist terms.
                                                  > > Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical
                                                  > influence,
                                                  > > memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-
                                                  > death
                                                  > > experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and
                                                  > 'mystical'
                                                  > > states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The
                                                  > authors further
                                                  > > show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an
                                                  > > alternative
                                                  > > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced
                                                  > over a
                                                  > > century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and
                                                  > developed
                                                  > > further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory,
                                                  > moreover,
                                                  > > ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally
                                                  > effective
                                                  > > conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge
                                                  > physics and
                                                  > > neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-
                                                  > minded persons
                                                  > > concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  > >
                                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  > >
                                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                                  > vast
                                                  > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                                  > presumably shake
                                                  > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                                  > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                                  > there is
                                                  > virtually no Omind-body¹ problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                                  > in this
                                                  > way < a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                                  > stacked end
                                                  > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >

                                                  Robert Wallace
                                                  website: www.robertmwallace.com (The God Within Us)
                                                  email: bob@...
                                                  phone: 414-617-3914

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

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

                                                  Yahoo! Groups Links











                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Thomas Mether
                                                  Kathryn,   I do think that the competence of a mystical tradition requires expert scholarship of its history to keep it on track but it is always going to
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Dec 3, 2010
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Kathryn,
                                                     
                                                    I do think that the competence of a mystical tradition requires expert scholarship of its history to keep it on track but it is always going to have an apophatic element because the experience, the experiencing of that which is experienced, is always going to be infinitely richer and inexhaustible compared to concepts that are usefully selective, simplifications,
                                                    and thereby, selectively highlight and conceal. So, the critical reading, close reading, analytic skills, interpretative skills, research skills, or otherwise as I put it, dianoetic skills are needed, even as part of a spiritual path, in varying degrees (say from competent to expert). And it takes very tough work to acquire those. But 90% of a real spiritual discipline, while depending upon the dianoetic skills outlined as a necessary factor, is both even tougher, slower going, long times discouraging, dry, learning that the moments of breakthrough "ahas" are not it -- not the point -- spiritual highs can become a distracting addiction, and maybe, through persistence, we find that the biggest obstacle is ourselves. That cannot be found in a contemporary university nor by reading lots of books expertly.
                                                     
                                                    "As part of the genuine moral life, the spiritual life is simple but hard. By contrast, studying the spiritual life is complex and difficult because in its bookish vicarious enjoyments, it evades the simple and hard. It is always an ever-present and tough choice between challenging entertainment and reality." -- David Crownfield
                                                     

                                                    --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...> wrote:


                                                    From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...>
                                                    Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                    To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 4:02 PM


                                                     




                                                    Dear All,

                                                    Yes, it's interesting how there is always a human need to tell ourselves
                                                    these stories over again in a new contemporary voice, hopefully one that
                                                    makes the "practice" of writing, reading, and "ascending to the Good"
                                                    through these stories/intellectual exercises more accessible to the
                                                    contemporary reader.

                                                    In our Prologues then, how are we to declare the contemporary relevance of
                                                    practicing Brahman (as Thomas described it), or soul-making, through poetry,
                                                    myth, philosophy, and other forms of intellectual "play"? The violent rift
                                                    occurring now in the Academy--between the Sciences and the Humanities--can
                                                    be seen as an expression of our collective "fall" into gross materiality
                                                    (read stula-sarira or mutual predatory sheath). People who practice the
                                                    Humanities naturally want to reassert the value of our work: for us it's a
                                                    matter of experiencing what some categorize as "play" or "fantasy" instead
                                                    as a valuable "work" essential to humankind.

                                                    Humanities rely heavily on words to work their magic, to translate ineffable
                                                    thoughts and ideas into meaningful contemporary written works that can be
                                                    shared among humankind as a living wisdom. So instead of describing
                                                    Neoplatonism for instance as "lacking a practice," we can take another
                                                    look--as is happening on this list--in order to discern that the written
                                                    works are the path to the practice and are themselves the practice.
                                                    Sometimes people receive a practice through the material transmission, via a
                                                    living Master, of a word/mantra to repeat with eyes closed. Sometimes people
                                                    receive a practice through the material transmission of receiving a physical
                                                    book to read. Sometimes people receive a gnosis of that same wisdom without
                                                    the vehicle of a physical Master or a physical book: through having the idea
                                                    of a form for instance. The middle scenario of transmitting wisdom through
                                                    the words of a book (in some physical form) is where the Academic teacher's
                                                    power resides.

                                                    My point is that in an Academic setting, the student practices the study of
                                                    Neoplatonism through receiving words from a physical book in some form:
                                                    whether textbook, computer screen, or teacher's spoken words. So the
                                                    function of the Humanities in Academic education is precisely that it makes
                                                    even the most inexpressible, ineffable, interpenetrating wisdom of humanity
                                                    accessible to the contemporary generation through physical, effable words.
                                                    The most practical Academic knowledge is in fact taught through the
                                                    Humanities, because it teaches that knowledge which interpenetrates all
                                                    levels of human existence, and through the vehicle of words becomes the
                                                    wisdom carried forward by the next generation.

                                                    Poetry, myth, and philosophy (the practice of Brahman) have a long history
                                                    of engendering delight through the instruction of their interpenetrating
                                                    wisdom. What is necessary perhaps is to literally write and speak the words
                                                    which describe how Neoplatonism, for instance, expands the students' joy of
                                                    being through intellectual exercise--a real skill/work that requires
                                                    practice, and one that empowers them to go out and contribute other good
                                                    works to humankind. Perhaps people who teach in the Humanities need to
                                                    continually practice in the textbooks and in the classroom the "Prologue,"
                                                    literally explaining the "so what?" "who cares?" "what does it mean" and
                                                    "why does it matter?" Of course wisdom is available to students through
                                                    transmissions outside the Academic classroom setting, but without the
                                                    delight part of formal education through Humanities you might as well drop
                                                    the term University and call it Trade School.

                                                    Thomas, you've most likely read a translation of Patanjali's Yoga-sutras,
                                                    but the translation by James Houghton Woods for The Harvard Oriental Series
                                                    is a particularly scholarly and detailed one I'd recommend. The Yoga-System
                                                    of Patanjali: Or the Ancient Hindu Doctrine of Concentration of Mind. Delhi:
                                                    Motilal Banarsidass, 1977 (and it's probably been reprinted since then).
                                                    "Now, by the yogin who has recognized the power of the word to express the
                                                    thing,
                                                    28. Repetition of it and reflection upon its meaning [should be made].
                                                    The repetition of the Mystic Syllable, and reflection upon the Icvara who is
                                                    signified by the Mystic Syllable. Then in the case of this yogin who thus
                                                    repeats the Mystic syllable and reflects upon its meaning, mind-stuff
                                                    attains to singleness-of-intent, and so it hath been said,
                                                    'Through study let him practice yoga;
                                                    Through yoga let him meditate on study.
                                                    By perfectness in study and in yoga
                                                    Supreme Soul shines forth clearly.' [. . .]" (Book I: Concentration or
                                                    Samadhi, Verse 28 and Commentary)

                                                    It seems evident from this thread that Academics who study Neoplatonism are
                                                    continuing to "retranslate" Neoplatonic texts in terms of practice as well
                                                    as theory, even to the extent of describing how to intellectually practice
                                                    specific passages (sutras if you will) for spiritual gnosis. This is not
                                                    outside of Academic purvue, but is part-and-parcel of it.

                                                    Kathryn

                                                    Kathryn LaFevers Evans
                                                    Independent Researcher

                                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                                    From: "Robert Wallace" <bob@...>
                                                    To: <neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com>
                                                    Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:44 AM
                                                    Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation

                                                    Dear all,

                                                    Thomas, thanks for your fascinating exposition of Brahman etc.

                                                    You contrast "bottom-up" to "top-down" strategies:

                                                    >> In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                                    >> seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                                    >> "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                                    >> seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                                    >> now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is
                                                    >> flipped around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of,
                                                    >> given the self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the
                                                    >> origins and constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the
                                                    >> explanation problem less acute.

                                                    However, who explains (in detail) "the origins and constitution of the
                                                    body from the mind"? Plato does this, as Prof. Dillon suggests, in the
                                                    Timaeus. Hegel does it in his Encyclopedia. Maybe Whitehead does it. I
                                                    hope that someone is at work on a readable version for modern
                                                    audiences!!

                                                    Plus there needs to be a Prologue that shows why the
                                                    "teleology" (appeal to the Good) involved in such projects is
                                                    rationally unavoidable, rather than just a pre-Darwinian fantasy. See
                                                    Republic books iv-vii; Hegel's Science of Logic. A more readable
                                                    version of these would also be very helpful!

                                                    Best, Bob

                                                    On Dec 3, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:

                                                    > Hello John,
                                                    >
                                                    > You write:
                                                    >
                                                    > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                                    > vast
                                                    > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                                    > presumably shake
                                                    > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                                    > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                                    > there is
                                                    > virtually no Omind-body¹ problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                                    > in this
                                                    > way < a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                                    > stacked end
                                                    > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                                    >
                                                    > I suggest that another factor is teleological concepts, formal and
                                                    > final causes, were part of the "natural" and "presupposed"
                                                    > conceptual equipment and experience of people before Descartes. The
                                                    > mind-body problem became acute when the body became conceived of as
                                                    > a mechanism and the relation of mind to body was an extrinsic one of
                                                    > mutual externality related by efficient cause or God's coordination.
                                                    > Given Descartes framework, materialists
                                                    > changed the Cartesian view where it is body as a mechanism of a
                                                    > certain organization that
                                                    > produces mind. A live and dead body are still "body".
                                                    >
                                                    > Before Descartes, under teleological views, apart from its principle
                                                    > and formal cause -- the soul -- the body is just potency with the
                                                    > possibility of being actualized and substantial by a soul. In
                                                    > effect, the body depends on the soul to be real as body. In effect,
                                                    > only animated bodies are really bodies.
                                                    >
                                                    > In contemporary terms, the acuteness of the explanatory problem
                                                    > seems to depend upon whether one takes a "bottom-up" approach or a
                                                    > "top-down" approach. In terms of the "bottom-up" approach, is it
                                                    > seems impossible to account for mind in terms of body (as conceived
                                                    > now) making the explanation problem more acute than if it is flipped
                                                    > around; it seems much easier to develop an explanation of, given the
                                                    > self-evident qualities of first-person subjectivity, the origins and
                                                    > constitution of the body from the mind, and thus, the explanation
                                                    > problem less acute.
                                                    >
                                                    > Several years ago, Manfred Frings suggested that the
                                                    > phenomenological concept of lived body that philosophers such as
                                                    > Merleau Ponty and Paul Ricoeur derived from Max Scheler's concept of
                                                    > lived body (der Leib) in contrast to the physical body (der Korper)
                                                    > might have come partly to Scheler, maybe via Eucken, from Rudoph
                                                    > Steiner's concept of spiritual bodies that acquire a "chemical-
                                                    > physical crust" or externalized "crystalline crust".
                                                    > In any respect, he noted they probably didn't realize that for
                                                    > Scheler the physical body (der Korper) only exists as such in
                                                    > dependence on the lived body (der Leib). Anyway, if this is true,
                                                    > what came to mind when you spoke of Plato's geometric shapes/volumes
                                                    > was Steiner's "crystalline crust" and Scheler's view that the
                                                    > physical body (der Korper) only becomes such animated by the lived
                                                    > bodiliness (Leiblichkeit) of the lived body (der Leib).
                                                    > Both Merleau Ponty and Ricoeur picked up on Scheler's anti-
                                                    > physicalist argument that the lived body cannot be explained in
                                                    > terms of the physical body, but I think Frings was saying, they
                                                    > didn't bite the Scheeler bullet that the physical body is only such
                                                    > due to the lived body animating it. A whirlwind stirs up the
                                                    > geometric crystalline dust and becomes coated by it while animating
                                                    > it into a body.
                                                    >
                                                    > Thomas
                                                    >
                                                    > --- On Fri, 12/3/10, John Dillon <jmdillon@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > From: John Dillon <jmdillon@...>
                                                    > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                    > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 5:16 AM
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Hi Kathryn,
                                                    > >
                                                    > > The direction I'm thinking of reading up on is Henry More and Myers.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > I'm thinking of digging out my Henry More. Myers is credited with
                                                    > saying that
                                                    > > reading More inspired his "aha" moment for his mind-brain theory
                                                    > when More was
                                                    > > discussing subtle bodies.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by
                                                    > definition simply a
                                                    > > volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be
                                                    > organic (have
                                                    > > functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More
                                                    > argued, there
                                                    > > can be a spiritual organic body. In some criticism of Descartes
                                                    > where the
                                                    > > issue of how an unextended substance interacted with an extended
                                                    > substance,
                                                    > > apparently More said that a fundamental animation as the immediate
                                                    > feeling of
                                                    > > aliveness had extension in its term and subject at its source
                                                    > (spirit body as
                                                    > > animated extended term and soul as subjective source). I have
                                                    > Myers book.
                                                    > > Guess I will have to read it alongside More to see if I can find
                                                    > what might be
                                                    > > the "aha" passage. Thomas
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                                    > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
                                                    > >
                                                    > > From: Kathryn Evans <kathryn-e@...
                                                    > > <mailto:kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> >
                                                    > > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                    > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:47 PM
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Excellent; thank you Thomas!
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Co-creative agency, yes indeed,
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Kathryn
                                                    > >
                                                    > > ----- Original Message -----
                                                    > > From: Thomas Mether
                                                    > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 PM
                                                    > > Subject: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                    > >
                                                    > > List,
                                                    > >
                                                    > > I've mentioned in the past that there are a growing number of
                                                    > defenders of a
                                                    > > "substance dualist" philosophy of mind against the dominant
                                                    > physicalist
                                                    > > paradigm. Some of these books include John Foster's The Immaterial
                                                    > Self
                                                    > > (Oxford), Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford), and
                                                    > Moreland's Body
                                                    > > and Soul (which, btw, is a defense not of Cartesian dualism but of
                                                    > what is
                                                    > > variously described as classical Thomist-Bonaventurean-Neoplatonic
                                                    > dualism).
                                                    > >
                                                    > > The book I am now recommending I was referred to by a
                                                    > neuroscientist friend
                                                    > > and colleague. It is by a group of neuroscientists and
                                                    > psychologists. It
                                                    > > defends the "F.W.H Myers- W. James" model with the latest research
                                                    > evidence
                                                    > > supporting the model.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Here is the info with publisher's blurb.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, With
                                                    > CD containing
                                                    > > F. W. H. Myers's hard-to-find classic 2-volume Human Personality
                                                    > (1903) and
                                                    > > selected contemporary reviews. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
                                                    > Inc. ( 2009).
                                                    > > Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Edward F. Kelly (Author) , Emily
                                                    > Williams Kelly
                                                    > > (Author), Adam Crabtree (Author), Alan Gauld (Author), Michael
                                                    > Grosso
                                                    > > (Author), Bruce Greyson (Author)
                                                    > > Publisher Description
                                                    > > Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and
                                                    > philosophy of mind
                                                    > > holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are
                                                    > generated by
                                                    > > physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have
                                                    > dominated
                                                    > > recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however,
                                                    > > demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not
                                                    > only
                                                    > > incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence
                                                    > for a
                                                    > > variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult,
                                                    > and in some
                                                    > > cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional
                                                    > physicalist terms.
                                                    > > Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical
                                                    > influence,
                                                    > > memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-
                                                    > death
                                                    > > experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and
                                                    > 'mystical'
                                                    > > states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The
                                                    > authors further
                                                    > > show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an
                                                    > > alternative
                                                    > > 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced
                                                    > over a
                                                    > > century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and
                                                    > developed
                                                    > > further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory,
                                                    > moreover,
                                                    > > ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally
                                                    > effective
                                                    > > conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge
                                                    > physics and
                                                    > > neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-
                                                    > minded persons
                                                    > > concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    > >
                                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    > >
                                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    > How about this? The physical universe is perhaps best regarded as a
                                                    > vast
                                                    > hologram, and we are holograms within it. One hologram can
                                                    > presumably shake
                                                    > hands with another hologram, without wither feeling there is anything
                                                    > strange going on. It occurs to me that the reason why for Plato
                                                    > there is
                                                    > virtually no Omind-body¹ problem is that he ragred the body somewhat
                                                    > in this
                                                    > way < a combination of basic triangles, or geometrical bodues,
                                                    > stacked end
                                                    > to end, as in the Timaeus. JMD
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >

                                                    Robert Wallace
                                                    website: www.robertmwallace.com (The God Within Us)
                                                    email: bob@...
                                                    phone: 414-617-3914

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

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

                                                    Yahoo! Groups Links











                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • Thomas Mether
                                                    Curt,   You wrote:   One advantage that the Buddhist approach has is that it does not appear to be concerned with physical v. non-physical dualism to any
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Dec 4, 2010
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Curt,
                                                       
                                                      You wrote:
                                                       
                                                      One advantage that the Buddhist approach has is that it does not appear
                                                      to be concerned with physical v. non-physical dualism to any great
                                                      extent (if at all).
                                                       
                                                      My reply: That is because, at least Mahayana Buddhism is a type of absolute idealism coupled with a phenomenalistic idealism. For the latter qualification, a close western equivalent would be Berkeley's subjective idealism where the objective world is just appearances based on your subjective karma. Part of Yogacara meditation is not just to believe that but deeply and existentially realize that experientially. Then the next phase of meditation, moving from Yogacara to Madyamika meditation is the experientially realize through meditative experience that the subjective pole of phenomenal appearances also has no indiependent reality apart from appearances. This is the move beyond the subjective idealism construal of Berkelyan idealism. B. Allan Wallace (an interesting person, a Buddhist, philosopher, and theoretical physicist) says the resulting phenomenalist idealism is a neutral monism, although the neutral monism is not neutral between mental and
                                                      physical reality, rather it is neutral between the subjective pole and objective pole of experience as the phenomenal field. Buddhism neutral monism absolute idealism, he compares to William James' radical empiricism. Mind and its phenomenal experiential correlates are interdependent poles of a single reality, namely, experience. The intentional and teleological unity of experience recognized in the phenomenological tradition (although only a functional unity and not a substantive one) of experiencer-experiencing-the-experienced-in-contextual-horizon in James' radical empiricism and Buddhism just is reality. There is nothing outside or beyond these interdependent experiential factors. In fact, as several Buddhist scholars have pointed out, one of the correct translations of one of Mahayana's philosophical self-descriptions is "Experience-Only" absolute idealism. B. Alan Wallace is attempting to argue, btw and somewhat apart from his strictly Buddhist
                                                      scholarly work, that this is also the worldview of quantum mechanics after the Aspect EPR experiments that put empirical realism to the experimental test and found that realism is experimentally disconfirmed. Or as Geshe Sopa put it, Buddhism resembles Berkeley's fully developed version of idealism except one does not need God about in the quad; instead of God, it is all of us as sentient beings, as subject poles in a collective experience-only reality that fulfill together what Berkeley's God did. Since we are all inescapeably interdependently related to each other, how we treat each other karmically creates our shared reality or the nature of our experiential loka (context, world, realm).
                                                       
                                                      Thomas
                                                       
                                                      --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Curt Steinmetz <curt@...> wrote:


                                                      From: Curt Steinmetz <curt@...>
                                                      Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Re: Book Recommendation
                                                      To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 11:05 AM


                                                       



                                                      On 12/3/10 10:53 AM, gregshaw58 wrote:
                                                      > Curt,
                                                      >
                                                      > Thanks for the references, Buddhist, Stoic, and Plotinian. The notion of interpenetration of subtle bodies is one that intrigues me. I checked Gerson's "Plotinus" and found your reference on page 133, not 114. Perhaps I have a different edition.

                                                      One advantage that the Buddhist approach has is that it does not appear
                                                      to be concerned with physical v. non-physical dualism to any great
                                                      extent (if at all). Physicalism is an interesting issue, but one that is
                                                      easily over-emphasized in a "can't see the forest for the trees" sort of
                                                      way, in my opinion.

                                                      As far as the reference to Gerson goes, I was using the 1998 Psychology
                                                      Press edition, which is the one that can be perused on googlebooks:
                                                      http://books.google.com/books?id=O1KB4IjKuOwC

                                                      Strangely, the index of that edition states that mention of the "Stoic
                                                      doctrine of total interpenetration" is to be found on page 133. Even
                                                      stranger is the fact that this index (in the googlebooks version) is
                                                      clickable, and if you click and go to page 133, there is no mention of
                                                      Stoicism or interpenetration at all.

                                                      I am definitely going to be checking out the works that you, Thomas and
                                                      others have mentioned. I have to admit that I am very unfamiliar with
                                                      Myers and with this more recent crop of non-materialist psychologists
                                                      like the Kellys.

                                                      Curt
                                                      > gshaw
                                                      >
                                                      > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Curt Steinmetz<curt@...> wrote:
                                                      >> On 12/3/10 12:06 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:
                                                      >>> <snip>
                                                      >>>
                                                      >>> Basically, what I remember is that, for More, a body is by definition simply a volume. A volume does not have to be solid. Also, a body can be organic (have functional parts - organs) without being a solid body. So, More argued, there can be a spiritual organic body.<snip>
                                                      >>
                                                      >> The ancient Stoic view was that anything that exists must be a "body",
                                                      >> while at the same time, they held that all bodies everywhere throughout
                                                      >> the Cosmos interact with all other bodies at all times. The Stoic
                                                      >> explanation of how this works is very similar to what is called
                                                      >> "interpenetration" in Mahayana Buddhism, a concept especially associated
                                                      >> with the Hua Yen (Avatamsaka) Sutra.
                                                      >>
                                                      >> In his book on Plotinus, Lloyd Gerson refers to what he deems "the truly
                                                      >> bizarre Stoic doctrine of the total interpenetration of bodies. This is
                                                      >> the doctrine that there can and do exist certain mixtures of bodies [of
                                                      >> which the Cosmos itself is an example] such that each part of the
                                                      >> mixture is coextensive with each other. All parts are present in any
                                                      >> part, regardless of how small. The principle point of this doctrine
                                                      >> seems to have been to explain the presence of active soul-body or pneuma
                                                      >> everywhere in the type of body that is the passive recipient of the
                                                      >> active principle." [p. 114]
                                                      >>
                                                      >> Gerson takes Plotinus' side, however, and presents the Stoic view only
                                                      >> in the context of explaining how Plotinus' rejection of it is convincing
                                                      >> (to Gerson). A view more sympathetic (if you will) to the Stoic position
                                                      >> is found in "Senecan Drama and Stoic Cosmology" by Thomas G. Rosenmeyer,
                                                      >> especially his chapters 4& 5: "Body, Tension, and Sumpatheia",&
                                                      >> "Krasis, The Flame and the Moist".
                                                      >>
                                                      >> Curt Steinmetz
                                                      >>
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > ------------------------------------
                                                      >
                                                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >











                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    • Thomas Mether
                                                      List, In light of Dennis , Greg s, and my discussion, there is a book that I recommend that took me a while to locate but is relevant.   It is Paul M.
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Feb 18, 2011
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        List,
                                                        In light of Dennis', Greg's, and my discussion, there is a book that I recommend that took me a while to locate but is relevant.
                                                         
                                                        It is Paul M. Blower's Exegesis and Spiritual Pedagogy in Maximus the Confessor (University of Notre Dame Press).
                                                         
                                                        I particularly like how he opens with a quote from Gregory Thaumaturgos' Panegyric on Origen.
                                                         
                                                        "...going round and surveying us, as it were, with the skill of an husbandman, and not taking notice merely of what is obvious to everyone and superficial, but digging into us more deeply, and probing what is most inward in us, he put us to the question, and proposed things to us, and listened to our replies. For whenever he detected anything in us not wholly unprofitable and useless and ineffectual, he would start clearing the soil, and turning it up and watering it. he would set everything in motion, and apply the whole of his skill and attention to us so as to cultivate us."
                                                         
                                                        As one Russian staretz put it, "until there is light in the room, you don't see the dirt. And until the dirt is illuminated, what can grow in it won't grow."
                                                         
                                                        Thomas




                                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      • dgallagher@aol.com
                                                        The treasure of great teachers, if we be blessed to be in their presence. Does their writing constitute presence after presence constitutes their writing? In
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Feb 18, 2011
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          The treasure of great teachers, if we be blessed to be in their presence.
                                                          Does their writing constitute presence after presence constitutes their
                                                          writing?



                                                          In a message dated 2/18/2011 12:38:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                                                          t_mether@... writes:




                                                          List,
                                                          In light of Dennis', Greg's, and my discussion, there is a book that I
                                                          recommend that took me a while to locate but is relevant.

                                                          It is Paul M. Blower's Exegesis and Spiritual Pedagogy in Maximus the
                                                          Confessor (University of Notre Dame Press).

                                                          I particularly like how he opens with a quote from Gregory Thaumaturgos'
                                                          Panegyric on Origen.

                                                          "...going round and surveying us, as it were, with the skill of an
                                                          husbandman, and not taking notice merely of what is obvious to everyone and
                                                          superficial, but digging into us more deeply, and probing what is most inward in
                                                          us, he put us to the question, and proposed things to us, and listened to
                                                          our replies. For whenever he detected anything in us not wholly unprofitable
                                                          and useless and ineffectual, he would start clearing the soil, and turning
                                                          it up and watering it. he would set everything in motion, and apply the
                                                          whole of his skill and attention to us so as to cultivate us."

                                                          As one Russian staretz put it, "until there is light in the room, you
                                                          don't see the dirt. And until the dirt is illuminated, what can grow in it
                                                          won't grow."

                                                          Thomas

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






                                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                        • Thomas Mether
                                                          Under guidance, yes. ... From: dgallagher@aol.com Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com Date:
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Feb 18, 2011
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Under guidance, yes.

                                                            --- On Fri, 2/18/11, dgallagher@... <dgallagher@...> wrote:


                                                            From: dgallagher@... <dgallagher@...>
                                                            Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Book Recommendation
                                                            To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                                                            Date: Friday, February 18, 2011, 12:34 PM


                                                             



                                                            The treasure of great teachers, if we be blessed to be in their presence.
                                                            Does their writing constitute presence after presence constitutes their
                                                            writing?



                                                            In a message dated 2/18/2011 12:38:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                                                            t_mether@... writes:

                                                            List,
                                                            In light of Dennis', Greg's, and my discussion, there is a book that I
                                                            recommend that took me a while to locate but is relevant.

                                                            It is Paul M. Blower's Exegesis and Spiritual Pedagogy in Maximus the
                                                            Confessor (University of Notre Dame Press).

                                                            I particularly like how he opens with a quote from Gregory Thaumaturgos'
                                                            Panegyric on Origen.

                                                            "...going round and surveying us, as it were, with the skill of an
                                                            husbandman, and not taking notice merely of what is obvious to everyone and
                                                            superficial, but digging into us more deeply, and probing what is most inward in
                                                            us, he put us to the question, and proposed things to us, and listened to
                                                            our replies. For whenever he detected anything in us not wholly unprofitable
                                                            and useless and ineffectual, he would start clearing the soil, and turning
                                                            it up and watering it. he would set everything in motion, and apply the
                                                            whole of his skill and attention to us so as to cultivate us."

                                                            As one Russian staretz put it, "until there is light in the room, you
                                                            don't see the dirt. And until the dirt is illuminated, what can grow in it
                                                            won't grow."

                                                            Thomas

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

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











                                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.