Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #098

In This Issue:

From: "Alexandre"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #97

Exegesis Digest Mon, 04 Nov 2002

From: "Alexandre"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #97
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 00:05:49 -0200

Patrice wrote:

"An impressional is a manner of inner transformation, a feeling, a qualitative energy. "

......respectfully snip ......

"...because these sensations are more and more weak with time. See the Scottish xviii th c. philosopher David Hume's theory upon, precisely the "impressions" of the consciousness. "

Well, I agree and disagree, it's a little confuse to me, but, starting with David Hume's theory :

" ABSTRACT: This paper critically examines Hume's argument against the knowledge/existence of substantival mind. This denial is rooted in his epistemology which includes a theory of how complex ideas which lack corresponding impressions are manufactured by the imagination, in conjunction with the memory, on the basis of three relations among impressions: resemblance, continuity and constant conjunction. The crux of my critique consists in pointing out that these relations are such that only an enduring, unified agent could interact with them in the way Hume describes. I note that Hume attempts to provide such an agent by invoking the activities of imagination and memory, but that it is unclear where these belong in his system. After discussing the relevant possibilities, I conclude that there is no category within the limits of his system that can accommodate the faculties and allow them to do the work Hume assigned to them. I then note that Hume's rejection of substantival mind rests upon the assumption that something like substantival mind exists; for the action of the latter is required for the proper functioning of the process of fabrication which creates the fictitious notion of substantival mind. My concluding argument is that if the existence of substantival mind is implicit in Hume's argument against substantival mind, then his argument resembles an indirect proof, and ought to be considered as evidence for, rather than against, the existence of substantival mind." ( Aaron Preston - University of Southern California) http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Mind/MindPres.htm

This site Philosophy of Mind really worth a visit: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/MainMind.htm

Hume's idea about the impressions of consciousness fail, IMO, by the above appointed fault, anyway, I'm not an expert in his philosophy.

In the other hand, to make my point I prefer to use the idea of the impressional to describe something , IMO, the thing is not new , because we have been with it's effects since immemorial times, so what change? The way we use to call them, and the disposition to talk about . What I'm looking for is a set of three elements , a tripartite theory, to explain the action of the knowledge (the voice of god?? + human nature), but , in a practical and useful manner. In this way, I can use everything to try to understand it, so I choose :

a) Geometry - Platonic solids - Octahedron; here is where we can find part of that enduring and unified agent that will bring consistence to the theory;

b) Astrology - external influences perceived by the beings - Signs and Planets. The place where lays the Cosmic Intelligence ( God intelligence ???) that's going to be used by the impressional;

c) Arcanum from Tarot - but in a bare sense - only it's necessary elements (Impressional ??). Because we don't have to reinvent the wheel. We can drain from the tradition. Think in the myth of Isis and Osiris, when she brings his parts together. This could see as the primordial role of the impressionals, from the Chaos to the Cosmos - the eight primordial Ogdoad. One will to try that never extinguishes.

Reasoning about the impressional, I thought about an analogy with computer's programs, if we have to solve a problem with the computer we will chose a program that solve that kind of problem, e.g. , The Hanoi Tower problem, if we like the computer to solve it, we must have a computer with a specific program to it , but it isn't the computer or the program with is going to do the job of solving the Hanoi Tower Problem, is the algorithm write for it, well, the intelligence is in the algorithm. Where is the role of the impressional? For my sake, the impressional is the thing that write the natural algorithm in environment (all the three realms), so if a plant is developing a new strategy to open it's petals (try and error, but, with a component to try again all the time is possible), the thing that is going to writing the instructions and brings the cosmic intelligence on it's natural algorithm to open petals is the impressional, and if it occurs under the preponderant influence of one planet, e.g., the sun , we may say that flower is a sunflower. And this reasoning can be extending for all others complex things. But ,when we reach the humans we can't follow from the beginning the thread, so , we need the take of a previous knowledge about it, and here is where the tarot Arcanum, as a more sophisticate impressional( hear I'm a little confuse and I will have to elaborate it for more time), get in. In the more complex realms we are going to need an hierarchy, and 72 kinds of different things ( gods??, Daemons??, these are more sophisticate operators, derived from the tripartite elements) to put inside the Domus of the octahedron and make this kind of science useable.

More confuse, any idea?

Dans l' attente de votre reponse, je vous prie d'agr er l'expression de mes sentiments distingu s.



End of exegesis Digest V7 #98

[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]

Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2003 their respective authors.