Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Neocon's Seminar Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (989)	6/16/2004 11:44:52 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 1112

My addendum crossed paths with your post. I will wait to see if you have further comments on what I just put up before writing more.......

To: TimF who wrote (989)	6/16/2004 2:01:08 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1112

If you want to talk about an ‘I’ you must talk about it as something that is constant but that is impressed by dynamic and transient experiences. Experience becomes the force by which the I may be changed, moved, transferred, perceived, and processed. You either have to assume the existence of soul or not. If not, then the I is a temporal evolving aspect of self that is central to experience. For the sake of clarity it is best to refer to the term (soul) in its traditional sense. That is, not bound by temporal limitations. If you assume the existence of a soul, then you enmesh the notion of temporal with non-temporal. Experience becomes the presentation of events and processes that are essentially enmeshed with a soul, that is constant; not being created or evolved but expressed in transcendental forms. The question then becomes, is the temporal an expression of the soul? Does the temporal exist only in the presence of eternal soul? Does the eternal soul require a temporal presentation for the sake of awareness? sorry for butting in... again.