As evidenced from my postings, I do not limit myself to my brain and thinking, and I am a huge promoter of the faculty of intuition. Is, or was philosophy as originally practiced, an operation of the whole human being, or confined to the "thinking" of those who taught? If we deny the existence of the Soul, simply because it is not tangible, or capable of being seen by ones physical eyes, must we deny its reality?

Was the teaching of Plato actually limited to his brain and thinking, or did it seem like it was limited because the only way to convey what one "Knows" is by using words and symbols that the brain can possess? That is, when one reads the words of Plato, do these words represent the only means he had of conveying what he "Knew", and perhaps what he "Knew" was in actuality more Esoteric in nature... but the Esoteric nature of what he "Knew" could not be spoken, written, or transmitted via his physical faculties?

How can we know, one way or the other? I suggest the ONLY way to "know" cannot be known via ones brain and thinking. Despite what philosophy has become over a few thousand years, I believe it was not originally meant to be limited to, or to limit those pursuing it to, the Left-Hemisphere of the brain and thinking. I believe we as human beings, have two ways to communicate: One is by using the brain and thinking. The other is by use of intuition, and this faculty of intuition allows one to use the physical expression of another as merely "symbols" that "point to" or "stand for" that which a person "Knows", but cannot convey via his words.

Is there a "readiness" that once reached, allows one to awaken to higher truths, like climbing a ladder, each rung presents a seemingly new view of life....that, until one has ascended this rung, one cannot "know" what others standing on that higher rung can "know"?

Peace

1. bio-chemically the veil between the living and the non-living is extremely complex conversion. Thus, if you are just referring to life in general, or more specifically to Eukaryotic organisms, and again more specifically to humans and to a Man and his thoughts well the 'animating' energy would come from the mitochondria in cellular activity allowing for the necessary conversions and activity allowing for thought - at least as a functional substrate.

2. but, if you are referring to what animates thoughts, conceptualization and an appreciation of 'the forms' then you might ask yourself whether consciousness can be reduced, or rather, if the brain can be reduced to the mind - physical/stuff dualism...

intuition plays an important role but there is compelling evidence in support of intuition being a biologically adaptive trait so it is quite possible that it may have more physical foundations than is usually proferred... on the other otehr hand we can distinguish between types of intuition. As far as i understand you are trying to relate intuition to cocneptualization which is alright because bound by experience it is likely that there is correspondence between the two; however, philosophically, intuition is better used as term in Ethical discourse...

Ans for rungs on the ladder of experience - it is possible that it follows if one person is 'higher' he/she know what another might not but that's a pretty 1-dimensional view of the situation.

What if what animates life forms is ultimately that which animates the universe and all that is within, including living and non-living things?

Your "what if" is what is.

How insightful of you to note it.

Peace

ThoughtFox wrote:
1.

intuition plays an important role but there is compelling evidence in support of intuition being a biologically adaptive trait

"Compelling evidence" of a faculty that cannot be demonstrated physically? Interesting. But, I suspect it is what I refer to as Delusional Thinking, which is a process I refer to as DM=SI.

Perhaps. I was discussing but you haven't clarified so i will go head:

If your implying that intution is something more immediate, more primal than say basic degrees of awareness and various degrees of consiousness then we are talking about quite a wide spectrum in which intution functions. I'm pretty sure intuition could be 'demonstrated' but i don't know how far that could be reduced to the physical.

I think you highlighted the problem right there in inverted commas for me. It was "compelling" because it seems to me quite convincing that it can be explained as a biologically adaptive trait - i didn't claim absolute certainty regarding the matter.