View allAll Photos Tagged Explicator
Based on realistic medieval crane, created for Archenval project.
Explanations on the technical construction of the wheel:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The base is not complicated: it is a cross formed of round plates and round bricks 1 x 1, and assembled on a cross (Technic, Axle Hub Connector with 4 Bars)
The circle of the wheel, it is composed of four parts: "Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Clip Light - Thick Ring" of both sides, a "Plate 1 x 6," the "light clip" in opposition relative to each other, in which comes to slide "Stop with a Bar 6L Ring", and "tile 1 x 4" between the two "Light clip" to finish.
This technique allows to adjust the angle variations and thus to define different angles. Therefore, any constraint on the inter-axis.
*****************************************************************************************
Cette grue médiévale, réaliste et fonctionnelle, a été créée pour Archenval.
Explications sur la technique de construction de la roue:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
La base n'est pas compliquée : c'est une croix formée de round plates et round bricks 1 x 1 assemblées sur, justement, une croix (Technic, Axle Connector Hub with 4 Bars)
Le cercle de la roue, est lui composé de 4 pièces : "Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Clip Light - Thick Ring" de part et d'autre, d'une" Plate 1 x 6,"le "light clip" en opposition l'un par rapport à l'autre, dans lequel on vient glisser "une Bar 6L with Stop Ring" et on lisse le tout avec une tile 1 x 4 entre les deux "Light clip".
Cette technique permet de pouvoir régler l'inclinaison à donner et donc de définir des angles différents. En conséquence, aucune contrainte sur l'entre-axe.
On the 60th anniversary of the creation of Israel, approx. 200 Palestinians demonstrated in Paris from République to Barbès.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of "Palestinian Demonstration" (Recommended as a slideshow)
Demonstrators on top of the statue Place de la Nation.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of Régimes Spéciaux (Recommended as a slideshow)
Devant l'Auberge Bressane de Belluas (Ain -01), un sympathique hôtel restaurant près de Bourg-en-Bresse.
Voir les explications à:
Artur Bordalo (né en 1987), connu professionnellement sous le nom de Bordalo II (prononcé et parfois écrit Bordalo Segundo), est un artiste de rue portugais, "artiviste" autoproclamé. Son travail se compose principalement de grandes installations et de peintures murales réalisées à partir de déchets recyclés, dans le but de mettre en lumière le gaspillage et la surconsommation dans notre monde d'aujourd'hui.
Explication de l'œuvre ci-dessus par son auteur : "Une jeune chouette, qui se dégourdit les pattes, essayant d'atteindre ses objectifs. L’œuvre est divisée : un côté plus classique, conservateur, qui s’accroche aux vieux murs ; et un autre côté, plus tourné vers l’avenir. Ce côté coloré représente l'endroit où surgissent de nouvelles questions et de nouvelles idées, de nouvelles solutions et interprétations du présent, pour que tout fonctionne mieux à l'avenir. Des espaces de connaissance, d’éducation et de culture comme base d’une société évoluée et démocratique. Les plus jeunes sont l’espoir qu’à l’avenir de meilleurs choix et de meilleures décisions auront lieu – l’histoire nous l’a appris. C’est pourquoi c’est un honneur d’avoir l’opportunité d’avoir une œuvre d’art dans un lieu avec un tel environnement."
Artur Bordalo (born 1987), known professionally as Bordalo II (pronounced and sometimes written Bordalo Segundo), is a Portuguese street artist and self-described artivist. His work consists mainly of large installations and murals made from recycled trash, with the intention of highlighting waste and over-consumption in our world today.
Explanation of the work above by its author: “A Young Owl, stretching her legs, trying to reach her goals. The piece is divided: a more classic, conservative side, that’s holding on to the old walls; and another side, more directed to the future. This colourful side represents where new questions and new ideas rise, new solutions and interpretations of the Present, so that everything works better in the future. Spaces for knowledge, education and culture as the basis for an evolved and democratic society. The younger ones are the hope that in the future better choices and decisions take place – History has taught us. This is why it’s an honour to have the opportunity to have an artwork in a place with such surroundings.”
Etang Tenreuken en bordure de la forêt de Soignes - Bruxelles
Cette fois, la pêche est bonne. Toutefois, la proie fut relachée quelques instants plus tard ... Faut-il trouver une explication par la taille de la prise ?
Tenreuken pond bordering the Sonian Forest - Brussels
This time, the fishing is good. However, the prey was abandoned a few moments later ... Must find an explanation by the big size of the fish ?
Pentacon Six TL
Carl Zeiss Jena
Biometar 80 f2.8
Kodak Portra 160
The looking for analog cameras was a particularly daunting time for me. It was in "Alps Do" in the Shinjuku neighborhood I saw this Bronica, a device that some Flickr contacts use (Soreikea, thank you). HappyflightSmile and Kahori Yagi gave me a lot of advices to find this analog camera shop: Thanks a lot ! After a long time to talk with the seller, and after much detailed explanations, I started to use it. An apprehension initially, then a such comfort and a such precision have made a device that follows me everywhere. It's a mesmerizing device which makes me want to write a beautiful photographic story.
みなさん, 本当にありがとう.
Ecrivons une histoire, ensemble - Kanazawa Mai 2015
la recherche d'appareils photos argentiques fut un moment particulierement intimidant pour moi. C'est à "Alps Do" dans le quartier de Shinjuku que j'ai vu ce Bronica, un appareil que certains contacts de Flickr utilisent (merci Soreikea). Grâce à HappyflightSmile et Kahori Yagi, j'ai eu de précieuses indications pour trouver ce genre de magasin : Merci beaucoup! Après un long moment à parler avec le vendeur, et après beaucoup d'explications précises, je me suis mis à l'utiliser. Une appréhension au départ puis un tel confort et une telle précision en ont fait un appareil qui me suit partout. C'est un appareil envoûtant me donnant envie d'écrire une belle histoire photographique.
Philosophical Enthusiasms.
Unterscheidende Fragen syllogism contradiction die sich entwickelnden Prämissen Sätze steigen,
أجوبة الاستفهام هندسة العلوم العطف ذات الصلة عرضي مغالطة دون أن يلاحظها أحد,
arddangosiadau predicating cadarnhau casgliadau gweledigaethau rhythmig deallusol briodoli diffygion pwysig,
inconvenienter praedicta nomina subordinare errare premissis colligitur inferable anatomica prosyllogismi,
άφατο υποκειμενική σιωπηρή έννοιες γρήγορη ανάλυση προϋποθέτει παραστάσεις διαίσθηση παρουσίαση,
Explications artistiques descriptions sensibles mesures illimitées imagination cognitive facultés objectives,
destructieve oorzaken verondersteld kennis immense ruïnes verongelijkt vertrouwen verwacht redenaars punten,
Requisitos anapaest partes trochees condiciones trágicas funciones extremas desgracias descubrimiento incidentes,
приверженности участки изобретений возможные исторические стихи замечательные последствия действия исполнительского искусства,
擬態語の移転は、自発的な原理を制限する動きを制限する不思議な知識を提供する.
Steve.D.Hammond.
Panoràmica des de Rennes le Château (L'Aude).
El pic de Bugarach, és el cim de les Corbières; arreu es diu que en aquests llocs, hi ha pujades sembrades de llegendes, de bruixes i de tresors càtars.
www.iacobus.net/bruguera/pages/Bugarach.htm
El pico de Bugarach, es la cima de las Corbières, todos dicen que en estos lugares, hay subidas sembradas de leyendas, de brujas y de tesoros cátaros.
-------
Le Mystère de la Montagne aux Fées
Le Pic de Bugarach est le point culminant des Corbières avec 1231mètres. De nombreux témoignages (certains très anciens) font état d’apparations ou de lumières nocturnes s’ échappant ou entrant dans cette montagne. On parle d’ovnis, de lumières étranges, etc. Des satellites on détectent sous le Pic de Bugarach, d’étranges cavités ainsi qu’un immense dôme et on ignore toujours actuellement ce qui se trouvent à l’intérieur et aussi comment y accéder. Les avions survolant cette région on comme consigne de ne pas passer au dessus de cette zone, car tous les instruments se dérèglent sans aucune explication.
virtuellife.centerblog.net/1930-le-pic-de-bugarach
El misterio de la Montaña de las hadas
El Pico Bugarach es la culminación de las Corbières con 1231mètres. Muchas historias (algunas antiguas) informan de apariciones o de luces nocturnas que se escapan o entran en la montaña. Se habla de los ovnis, luces extrañas, etc. Los satélites han detectado bajo el Pico Bugarach, extrañas cuevas y una gran cúpula, y se ignora actualmente que se encuentra en el interior y también cómo acceder a ella. Los aviones que vuelan sobre esta región se les instruye a no pasar por esta zona, pues todos los instrumentos van mal sin ninguna explicación.
El misteri de la Muntanya de les fades
El Pic Bugarach és la culminació de les Corbières amb 1231mètres. Moltes històries (algunes antigues) informen d'aparicions o de llums nocturnes que s'escapen o entren a la muntanya. Es parla dels ovnis, llums estranyes, etc. Els satèl lits han detectat sota el Pic Bugarach, estranyes coves i una gran cúpula, i s'ignora actualment què es troba a l'interior i també com accedir-hi. Els avions que volen sobre aquesta regió se'ls instrueix a no passar per aquesta zona, ja que tots els instruments van malament sense cap explicació.
Johannes van Dam is currently living out his dream, performing famously in his role as the number one restaurant reviewer in Amsterdam. He works for the newspaper "Het Parool" and is currently spending his Sunday morning at a his local coffee shop reading his own review in the newspaper, smiling ruefully.
He is happy to talk to me and motions out at the rainy street. "This was a canal about 30 years ago," he nods, looking over his glasses. "Then we build road because we not need that canal anymore."
He shakes the newspaper and backhand slaps his review in a gesture of disbelief. He utters some Dutch explicative while laughing, and then stabs at his column with his finger. "This is a good review my friend!"
This looks best Large on Black
This comes from my Portraits Series
Le télescope spatial James Webb a capturé une image étonnante de Herbig-Haro 46/47 à l'aide de son instrument proche infrarouge, NIRCam .
L'image, traitée par Joe DePasquale du Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), présente une "paire étroitement liée d'étoiles en formation active" dans des détails et des couleurs brillants.
L'image comprend les pics de diffraction à six points désormais emblématiques de Webb, bien que l'on puisse affirmer qu'ils sont à huit points sur la base des lignes colorées plus courtes qui coupent horizontalement les noyaux d'étoiles.
Soit dit en passant, DePasquale explique que ces noyaux d'étoiles brillantes sont rendus sous forme de points noirs par le pipeline de traitement de Webb, ce qui signifie que lui et Pagan doivent remplir les zones noires avec du blanc à l'aide d'algorithmes spéciaux.
« Prenez un moment pour vous attarder sur le fond. Une profusion de galaxies extrêmement éloignées parsèment la vue de Webb.
Son image composite NIRCam (Near-Infrared Camera) comprend plusieurs poses, mettant en évidence des galaxies et des étoiles lointaines.
Les objets bleus avec des pics de diffraction sont des étoiles, et plus ils sont proches, plus ils paraissent gros.
Les galaxies spirales blanches et roses semblent parfois plus grandes que ces étoiles mais sont nettement plus éloignées.
Les plus petits points rouges, la spécialité infrarouge de Webb, sont souvent les galaxies les plus anciennes et les plus éloignées.
Voici donc quelques explications qui nous permettent d’un peu mieux connaître notre galaxie …
_________________________________________PdF_____
The James Webb Space Telescope captured a stunning image of Herbig-Haro 46/47 using its near-infrared instrument, NIRCam.
The image, processed by Joe DePasquale of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), features a "tightly bound pair of actively forming stars" in brilliant detail and color.
The image includes Webb's now signature six-point diffraction peaks, although it could be argued that they are eight-point based on the shorter colored lines that intersect star cores horizontally.
Incidentally, DePasquale explains that these bright star cores are rendered as black dots by Webb's processing pipeline, which means that he and Pagan have to fill in the black areas with white using special algorithms.
“Take a moment to dwell on the substance. A profusion of extremely distant galaxies dot Webb's view. His NIRCam (Near-Infrared Camera) composite image includes multiple exposures, highlighting distant galaxies and stars.
Blue objects with diffraction peaks are stars, and the closer they are, the bigger they appear.
White and pink spiral galaxies sometimes appear larger than these stars but are significantly further away.
The smallest red dots, Webb's infrared specialty, are often the oldest and most distant galaxies.
Depuis quelque temps La Corée du sud met les bouchées doubles en Origami,On connait bien sur le Maitre Wonseon Seo (RedPaper),mais voici un nouveau talent sous le nom de Jeong Jaeil.Les points forts de ses beaux modèles sont: le volume un mélange de 2D et de 3D, et de penser à fermer ses créations.
Justement normalement sur ce porc, le museau est complétement fermé, mais comme j'ai compris après comment faire pour le fermer complètement, j'ai donc modifié le modèle pour lui donner une bouche.
Je vais replié ce modèle avec un grand plaisir avec un papier plus grand.
Diagramme: www.flickr.com/photos/143234267@N08/31570629164/in/datepo...
Explication supplémentaire pour le museau: www.flickr.com/photos/143234267@N08/32118553323/in/photos...
Papier: 20 x 20cm. Papier Kraft
For some time South Korea has been working on Double Origami, We know well about Master Wonseon Seo (RedPaper), but here is a new talent under the name of Jeong Jaeil. The highlights of his beautiful models are: volume one Mixing 2D and 3D, and thinking about closing his creations.
Precisely normally on this pig, the muzzle is completely closed, but as I understood afterwards how to close it completely, I modified the model to give it a mouth.
I will fold this model with great pleasure with a larger paper.
Diagram: www.flickr.com/photos/143234267@N08/31570629164/in/datepo...
Additional explanation for the muzzle: www.flickr.com/photos/143234267@N08/32118553323/in/photos...
Pour la découvrir il vous faudra chercher le gardien de l’église et lui donner 1,50€ par personne. Il vous échangera alors cet argent contre un ticket, vous donnant accès à la Chapelle d’Or (Cappella del Coro), par une porte discrète. Vous tomberez sur des petites salles contenant des sièges dans lesquels les doges se sont assis par le passé, des fresques superbes, un polyptyque sublime… Avec une fiche d’explications en français, si besoin. Continuez votre chemin et empruntez un petit escalier qui descend… Bienvenue dans la crypte, en partie inondée, qui date du Xe siècle. Huit des plus anciens Doges de Venise reposent ici.
Ce qu’il y a de plus étonnant c’est que cette crypte est peu connue des touristes.
(Hommage à mon beau-père qui est mort hier soir)
/
To discover it you will have to look for the guardian of the church and give him 1,50 € per person. He will then exchange this money for a ticket, giving you access to the Golden Chapel (Cappella del Coro), through a discreet door. You will come across small rooms containing seats in which the doges have sat in the past, beautiful frescoes, a sublime polyptych ... With a sheet of explanations in French, if necessary. Continue your way and take a small staircase that descends ... Welcome to the crypt, partially flooded, which dates from the tenth century. Eight of the oldest Doges of Venice rest here.
What is more surprising is that this crypt is little known to tourists.
(Tribute to my father-in-law who died last night)
Prise avec mon smartphone Huawei P10
Le pont de Vroenhoven se situe à quelques mètres de la frontières avec les Pays-Bas. Un musée se trouve sous celui-ci, retraçant son histoire durant la guerre, mais également des explications sur le Canal Albert, qui passe dessous.
Le premier pont à cet endroit était un pont en arc en béton construit lors de la construction du canal Albert en 1935. Il a été détruit en 1944 par l’armée allemande qui battait en retraite. Un pont à travées a temporairement remplacé ce pont jusqu’en 1947, après quoi le pont a été reconstruit dans sa forme originale en 1947.
En 2007, la construction du nouveau pont de Vroenhoven a commencé, juste à côté de l’ancien pont existant. Le 16 janvier 2009, l’ancien pont a été détruit à la dynamite et le nouveau pont a été mis en service en juin 2010. Le remplacement du pont a permis d’élargir le goulot d’étranglement du canal, de sorte que deux navires peuvent désormais passer simultanément. Cet élargissement n’était pas possible auparavant car les piles de l’ancien pont étaient trop proches les unes des autres.
La construction du nouveau pont comprend également un espace pour un musée – le Pont de Vroenhoven, un théâtre en plein air, un mur d’escalade et un café-restaurant.
L’histoire est également dominée par la bataille pour le pont pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Ce pont a été capturé intact par les troupes allemandes lors de l’invasion du 10 mai 1940. Une douzaine de soldats belges ont été tués dans le bunker situé près du pont. Un jour plus tard, sept aviateurs belges sont tués lors de leurs attaques sur les ponts de Vroenhoven et de Veldwezelt, abattus par les canons antiaériens allemands.
The Vroenhoven Bridge is located a few meters from the border with the Netherlands. There is a museum underneath it, which tells the story of its wartime history, but also explains the Albert Canal, which runs underneath.
The first bridge at this location was a concrete arch bridge built during the construction of the Albert Canal in 1935. It was destroyed in 1944 by the retreating German army. A span bridge temporarily replaced this bridge until 1947, after which the bridge was rebuilt in its original form in 1947.
In 2007, construction began on the new Vroenhoven Bridge, right next to the existing old bridge. On 16 January 2009, the old bridge was blown up with dynamite and the new bridge was put into service in June 2010. The replacement of the bridge widened the bottleneck of the canal, so that two ships can now pass simultaneously. This widening was not previously possible because the piers of the old bridge were too close to each other.
The construction of the new bridge also includes space for a museum – the Vroenhoven Bridge, an open-air theatre, a climbing wall and a café-restaurant.
The history is also dominated by the battle for the bridge during the Second World War. This bridge was captured intact by German troops during the invasion of 10 May 1940. A dozen Belgian soldiers were killed in the bunker near the bridge. A day later, seven Belgian airmen were killed during their attacks on the bridges of Vroenhoven and Veldwezelt, shot down by German anti-aircraft guns.
Sometime in the mid nineties I was , sitting in the studio,finishing up some editing waiting for Jonny rock ( Jon Garner ) to show up and shoot his show "ground level"
Ground level was a music video platform for up and coming artists to show case their work.
From over my shoulder and into my lap there came a CD. I remember it had zebras on the cover.
Jonnys voice said "a chilly dog , what the (explicative) Dave"
And that was my introduction to Steve Kusaba .
Now 30 years later (and three hundred Steve kusaba music videos later) I have cut a music video to the song that left Jonny befuddled .
'I wanna' by Steve kusaba from the album: brothers of another realm
(And to jon Garner I must inform you the lyric is chilli burger)
Zürich Fraumünster (Frauenmünster) . Notre Dame. Swiss, Zurich: Our Lady Minster .
bell tower - Glockenturm
Places / Switzerland / Canton of Zurich / Zurich
The Fraumünster abbey /Fraumünster, ehmalige Klosteranlage
Ehemalige katholische Klosterkirche - Benediktinerinnen.
Ordo Sancti Benedicti -
Ora et labora et lege“ (lateinisch: „Bete und arbeite und lies“). Drei Gelübde legt der Benediktinermönch im Laufe seines Ordenslebens ab:
„Stabilitas“ (Beständigkeit in der Gemeinschaft),
„Klösterlichen Lebenswandel“ und
„Gehorsam“.
Als ein Motto der Benediktiner kann gelten: „Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus – Auf dass Gott in allem verherrlicht werde“.
Monasterium Thuricense (Thurgau) . 853 deutsche Gründung durch Ludwig dem Deutschen ein Enkel Karl des Grossen.
Im 11. Jahrhundert wurde die Äbtissin quasi Stadt-herrin von Zürich. Sie bekam zur Gerichtsbarkeit auch noch Zoll-, Markt-, und Münz-recht.
Bis Zwingli 1524 mit der Reformation alle Klöster auflöste und katholische Besitzungen der jeweiligen Region, hier der Stadt Zürich übertrug. Die letzte Äbtissin wurde bürgerlich und heiratete einen Ritter. Ihr ( Katherina von Zimmern ) wurde ein Brunnen - Denkmal errichtet.
Bis ins 19. jahrhundert hatten Katholiken keine Niederlassungsberechtigung im Kantonsgebiet.
1807 wurde im Münster erstmals wieder eine katholische Messe gelesen. Danach erlaubte die Zürcher Regierung den Aufbau eine katholischen Gemeinde .
*
Fünf Glasfenster (1967) im Chorraum und (1978) eine Rosette von
Moische Chazelewitsch a Schagalow aka Marc Chagall:
Tolle steuerbare Panoramen mit Orgelmusik:
Fünf Glasfenster (1967) im Chorraum von Marc Chagall:
Founded in 853 by King Louis the German, this church with ist convent was inhabited by the female members of the aristocracy of southern Germany. It enjoyed the patronage of kings and the right to mint coins in Zürich until well into the 13th century. Ownership of the church and convent passed to the city of Zürich after the Reformation.
Important architectural features include the Romanesque choir and the high vaulted transept. The nave was last renovated in 1911, following on from work to heighten the north tower and remove the south tower in the 18th century. In addition to the largest organ in the canton (5,793 pipes), its most stunning jewels are the stained glass windows: those in the north transept are by Alberto Giacometti's cousin, Augusto (1945), the five-part cycle in the choir (1970) and the rosette in teh southern transept (1978) are by Marc Chagall. There is a series of frescos by Paul Bodmer in the cloister to mark the founding of the Fraumünster.
google-celebrates-marc-chagall ...
-----
La chiesa con il convento femminile venne finanziata da re Luigi il Tedesco e abitata da donne dell'alta nobiltà del Sud della Germania. Essa godeva dei favori di re e mantenne il diritto di battere moneta a Zurigo fino al XIII secolo. Dopo la riforma protestante, chiesa e convento passarono nelle mani della città. Importanti componenti dell'edificio sono il coro romanico e la navata centrale con le sue alte volte.
La Langhaus venne ristrutturata l'ultima volta nel 1911, dopo che già nel XVIII secolo era stata allungata la torre nord e asportata la torre sud. L'ornamento più importante, oltre al grande organo a 5793 canne, è costituito dalle vetrate variopinte: la finestra nord nella navata trasversale di Augusto Giacometti, ciclo di vetrate nel coro (1945), ciclo di vetrate strutturato in cinque parti nel coro (1970) e la rosetta nella navata trasversale meridionale (1978) sono opere di Marc Chagall.
Nella via crucis si trova un ciclo di affreschi di Paul Bodmer sulla fondazione del convento.
Exif:
Digital Zoom Ratio 2.7x
Focal Length (35mm format) 114 mm
aka 307 mm digital
All on flickr
www.fluidr.com/search/all/zürich/interesting
--
My shots (~100)
i've Been Tagged By iơme♡ / You will find the Explication Here
B R I T I S H
[★] You drink a lot of tea.
[ ] You know what a brolly is.
[ ] Deal or No Deal has taken over your life.
[ ] You wanted Ben to win X Factor.
[ ] You use the word "bugger" or the phrase "bloody hell."
[★] Fish and Chips are yummy.
[★] You can eat a Full English Breakfast.
[ ] You dislike emos almost as much as you dislike chavs.
[★] It's football... not soccer.
Total : 4
A U S T R A L I A N
[ ] You wear flip flops all year.
[ ] You call flip flops "thongs", not flip flops.
[ ] You love a backyard Barbie.
[ ] You know a Barbie is not a doll.
[ ] You love the beach.
[ ] Sometimes you swear without realizing.
[ ] You're a sports fanatic
[★] You are tanned.
[ ] You're a bit of a bogan.
[ ] You have an Australian something.
Total : 1
I T A L I A N
[ ] The Sopranos is a great show.
[ ] Your last name ends in a vowel.
[ ] Your grandmother makes her own sauces.
[ ] You know how a real meatball tastes.
[★] You know Italian songs.
[★] You have dark hair and dark eye color.
[★] You speak some Italian.
[ ] You are under 5'10".
[ ] You know what an Italian horn is.
[★] Pizza/spaghetti is the best food in the world!
[ ] You talk with your hands.
Total : 4
S P A N I S H
[ ] You say member instead of Remember.
[★] You speak Spanish or some.
[★] You like tacos.
[ ] YoU TyPe lIkE ThIs On Da CoMpUtEr. a Lil Bit
[ ] You are dark skinned.
[ ] You know what a Puta is.
[ ] You talk fast occasionally.
[ ] You have had highlights or have dyed your hair.
[ ] You know what platanos are.
Total : 2
R U S S I A N
[ ] You say villain as: Vee-lon.
[★] You get short tempered.
[★] You get cold easily.
[★] Rain is fun for you.
[ ] You get into contests all the time.
[ ] You can easily make do with the cold weather.
Total : 3
I R I S H
[ ] You think beer is the best.
[★] You have a bad temper.
[ ] Your last name starts with a Mc, Murphy, O', Fitz or ends with a ley, on, un, an, in, ry, ly, y or L.
[ ] You have blue or green eyes.
[★] You like the colour green.
[ ] You have been to a St. Patty's day party.
[ ] You have a family member from Ireland.
[ ] You have red hair.
[ ] You have/had freckles.
[ ] Your family get together always include drinking and singing
Total : 2
A F R I C A N A M E R I C A N
[ ] You say nigga/nukka casually.
[ ] You have nappy hair.
[ ] You like rap.
[★] You know how to shoot a gun.
[★] You think President George Walker Bush is racist.
[★] You like chicken.
[★] You like watermelon.
[★] You can dance.
[ ] You can sing gospel.
Total : 5
A S I A N
[ ] You have slanty/small eyes.
[★] You like rice a lot.
[ ] You are good at math.
[ ] You have played the piano.
[ ] You have family from Asia.
[ ] You laugh sometimes covering your mouth.
[ ] Most people think you're Chinese.
[ ] You call hurricanes typhoons.
[ ] You go to Baulko.
Total : 1
G E R M A N
[★] You like bread.
[★] You think German Chocolate is good.
[★] You speak some German.
[ ] You know what Schnitzel is.
[★] You hate it when stupid people call you.
[★] You went to Pre-school
[ ] You're over 5'2".
Total : 5
C A N A D I A N
[ ] You like/play/played hockey.
[ ] You love beer.
[ ] You say eh.
[ ] You know what poutine is.
[★] You speak some French
[ ] You love Tim Horton's.
[ ] At one point you lived in a farm house.
[ ] You watch/watched Degrassi.
Total : 1
A M E R I C A N
[★] You hate foreigners.
[ ] You hate non-Christians.
[★] You're lazy.
[ ] You have had an abortion.
[ ] But love the penalty.
[ ] You don't read.
[ ] You shop at Wal-Mart.
[ ] You think this survey is rather biased.
Total : 2
B E L G I A N
[★] You grow some small vegetables in the yard
[★] You like french fries.
[ ] You think Belgian chocolate rules.
[ ] You know that the official best beer in the world' is Belgian.
[ ] You speak both Dutch and French
[ ] You like Belgian waffles.
[ ] You call a pub or bar a café.
[ ] You fully realize and acknowledge that your football team sucks.
[ ] You drive/own a French or German car.
[ ] You have a lot of comments on your government.
Total : 2
D U T C H
[★] You like the colour orange.
[ ] You are a football enthusiast.
[★] You often go to 'coffee shops'.
[★] You know what is meant by 'coffee shops'.
[ ] You tend to overreact and show your emotions.
[★] You have a cheerful nature.
[ ] You like the sea.
[ ] You are good at building/handiwork/projects.
[ ] You tend to favour the megalomania.
Total : 4
A R A B
[ ] You are a patriot.
[ ] You say "3ngleezy" instead of "english"
[★] You laugh at other accents, especially Egyptian.
[ ] You beckon at things with you forehead or eyes.
[★] You like seafood, especially fish, more than any other type of food.
[★] You are tanned.
[★] You have a black hair.
[★] Your last name starts with " Al " or " bin "
[ ] you like showing off, especially with new cars and clothes.
[★] You dislike reading.
Total : 6
Result : I'm a [ A R A B ]
i will tag :
Reé! - © sнσ8~αʟ8σʟσв™ - { vanessa } - خولـه ~ - Abdulla Al-Marri
Grand Portail
explications sur le portail
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbaye_de_Charlieu#L.27.C3.A9glise_...
To view more Snowdrops, please click "here"!
To view more of my images, of Anglesey Abbey, please click "here"!
Galanthus (Snowdrops; Greek gála "milk", ánthos "flower") is a small genus of about 20 species of bulbous herbaceous plants in the family Amaryllidaceae, subfamily Amaryllidoideae. Most flower in winter, before the vernal equinox (20 or 21 March in the Northern Hemisphere), but certain species flower in early spring and late autumn. Snowdrops are sometimes confused with the two related genera within Galantheae, snowflakes Leucojum and Acis. All species of Galanthus are perennial, herbaceous plants which grow from bulbs. Each bulb generally produces just two or three linear leaves and an erect, leafless scape (flowering stalk), which bears at the top a pair of bract-like spathe valves joined by a papery membrane. From between them emerges a solitary, pendulous, bell-shaped white flower, held on a slender pedicel. The flower has no petals: it consists of six tepals, the outer three being larger and more convex than the inner series. The six anthers open by pores or short slits. The ovary is three-celled, ripening into a three-celled capsule. Each whitish seed has a small, fleshy tail (elaiosome) containing substances attractive to ants which distribute the seeds. The leaves die back a few weeks after the flowers have faded. The inner flower segments are usually marked with a green, or greenish-yellow, bridge-shaped mark over the small "sinus" (notch) at the tip of each tepal. An important feature which helps to distinguish between species (and to help to determine the parentage of hybrids) is their "vernation" (the arrangement of the emerging leaves relative to each other). This can be "applanate", "supervolute" or "explicative". In applanate vernation the two leaf blades are pressed flat to each other within the bud and as they emerge; explicative leaves are also pressed flat against each other, but the edges of the leaves are folded back or sometimes rolled; in supervolute plants one leaf is tightly clasped around the other within the bud and generally remains at the point where the leaves emerge from the soil.
The Olympic torch was carried through London on Sunday, April 6th. Despite heavy security, the relay was disrupted by numerous pro-Tibet protesters, resulting in 37 arrests by the police.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of Olympic torch in London (Recommended as a slideshow)
On Nov. 5, 2008, a couple of hundred people gathered on the Champs-Elysées near the Arc de Triomphe to celebrate the victory of Barack Obama in the US presidential elections. Most of them were from the CRAN (Conseil Représentatif des Associations Noires), a French federation of pro-black associations.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of "Obama for president !" (Recommended as a slideshow)
Cette façade mérite une observation attentive, tant l’organisation, la signification et la richesse des décors répond à une volonté évidente d’inspiration et d’explication. La symbolique du chiffre 3 est omniprésente: 3 portails, 3 niveaux, jusqu’aux triangles du haut du fronton.
l’ensemble dégage une grande harmonie. Les lignes verticales sont bien accentuées, mais les trois étages, classiques dans le style roman, ne forment pas de cloisonnement horizontal rigide.
Sa décoration sculpturale est extrêmement riche et figurative, occupant tous les espaces libres sans jamais donner l’impression de surcharge. Les deux thèmes, l’Église et l’humanité se rejoignent au fronton dans l’apothéose d’un jugement dernier empreint d’espoir.
Une trentaine de petits personnages de toutes origines sociales, représentant le peuple de Dieu, s’avance vers la Vierge Marie, représentée ici dans des vêtements du XII e siècle. De par sa situation, elle est ici en position de médiatrice vers le Christ, qui la domine entouré de deux anges.
This facade deserves careful observation, as the organization, the meaning and the richness of the decorations respond to an obvious desire for inspiration and explanation. The symbolism of the number 3 is omnipresent: 3 portals, 3 levels, up to the triangles of the top of the pediment.
the whole exudes a great harmony. The vertical lines are well accented, but the three floors, classic in the Romanesque style, do not form rigid horizontal partitioning.
Its sculptural decoration is extremely rich and figurative, occupying all the open spaces without ever giving the impression of overload. The two themes, the Church and humanity meet at the pediment in the apotheosis of a last judgment full of hope.
Thirty little characters of all social origins, representing the people of God, advance towards the Virgin Mary, represented here in clothes of the twelfth century. Because of her situation, she is here in the position of mediator to Christ, who dominates her surrounded by two angels.
Giant Causeway is an amazing place but I feel I didn' stay long enough to find an interesting composition. If you're interesting to find the origins of these hexaganol building blocks, pleas have a look to the first photo of the Giant causeway I uploaded as I wrote all the explanations.
* * * * *
On voit souvent la chaussée des géants avec vue sur la mer, maisi il y a une falaise du côté opposé. Si vous voulez en savoir plus sur la formation de ces briques hexagonales faites de basalte, je vous invite à lire les explications que j'ai posté avec la première photo de la série.
The Olympic torch was carried through Paris on April 7th. Despite heavy security, the relay was seriously disrupted by numerous pro-Tibet protesters and human rights activists such as RSF, resulting in a partial cancellation of the event.
Here, at the end of the day, soccer star Pauleta, one of the torch bearers, arrives in Charléty stadium... by bus. On his side, one of the omnipresent Chinese security staff. All the last relays were canceled. Somehow, it felt like the torch was in a cage...
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of Paris torche les JO ! (Recommended as a slideshow)
Supporters of the PPP at a popular rally in Nasirabad, in the suburbs of Rawalpindi on Jan.4, 2008.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of Pakistani Elections (Recommended as a slideshow)
On January 3, 2009, 20 to 25 thousand people demonstrated in Paris to condemn the killings of Palestinians in the Gaza strip by Israel since the beginning of the offensive on Dec. 27. Similar demonstrations took place in other French cities. Spirits were high, and the organizers had a tough time maintaining order.
Incidents broke out around 5pm in St Augustin, where the rally ended, when approx. 200 to 300 people started attacking the police with stones, bottles, etc. as well as vandalizing cars, storefronts, phone booths, bus stops, etc. all the way to the Opéra. 3 or 4 cars were burnt down, others flipped upside down, and dozens had their windows smashed.
While many protesters complained and tried to stop the violence, some also attacked the photographers (sometimes physically), accused of showing the "wrong" side of the event.
Here, "protesters" are destroying a car.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of Stop the killing in Gaza ! (Recommended as a slideshow)
I find knitting patterns aren't very explicate. They will casually say "This pattern requires 4 balls of Knitting Maniac's Double Worsted (or insert brand name of your choice), when what they should say is, "this pattern requires 3 full balls Knitting Maniac's Double Worsted. You will then be required to open a fourth ball of which you will use approximately 3 yards of the yarn. After that is done we will then stop making this yarn in this particular dye lot, rendering it useless to you. You may add it to your collection of Odds and Ends. Hummmmm.....By looking at this collection of oddments I had better start knitting some more scarecrows.
On April 3, 15.000 people (according to the organizers), mostly teenagers, took to the streets again to protest against the planned reduction in the number of teachers. The demonstration was marked by constant incidents with the police from a smaller group of youths at the front, throwing bottles, cans and stones. At least a dozen were snatched by small teams of plain clothes policemen from time to time.
Here, a plain cloth policeman uses some gelatinous "tear gas" while another tries to hold on to a protester.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of Ecole en danger ! (Recommended as a slideshow)
On April 1st, 11.000 people (4.500 according to the police), mostly teenagers, took to the streets again to protest against the planned reduction in the number of teachers. Some incidents and fights forced the organizers to stop the demonstration in Sèvres-Babylone.
Here, protesters tear down a Sarkozy poster.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of Ecole en danger ! (Recommended as a slideshow)
My article and photography have been published by the British Omani Society, in their 2015 Review.
You can access it here :- www.britishomani.org/annual-review
Click on the '2015 Review', go down, the article is on pages 12/15.
It’s very easy and safe, even I can do it!
On March 31st, a group of approx. 100 people demonstrated near the headquarters of the Olympic Committee (CIO) in Paris, to demand that the olympic torch is not carried through Tibet.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of Free Tibet ! (Recommended as a slideshow)
30.000 people, many of them in wheelchairs, marched in Paris to request a decent minimum wage for handicapped people.
As I was about to take his picture, this man was overwhelmed with emotions, screaming his joy to be there :-) A very special moment...
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of "Ni pauvre, ni soumis !" (Recommended as a slideshow)
Pres du Pont de l'Europe a Strasbourg, un manifestant regarde bruler l'ancien bureau des douanes durant la manifestation du 4 avril 2009 contre le sommet de l'OTAN.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
---------------------
Je commence un nouveau blog pour photographes avec un ami (en français). Nous y mettrons des tutoriaux, des conseils, et des explications de shootings "backstage", comme pour cette série. N'hésitez pas à aller faire un tour et à donner vos avis !
---------------------
This is the last picture from the amazing studio session with Elodie.
Setup shot is still here.
Backstage video is HERE.
THANKS AGAIN TO EVERYONE. It was a great afternoon.
Strobist:
Cactus V5s as triggers.
1 LP160 @ 1/4th in Lumodi BeautyDish on the right, behind.
1 LP160 @ 1/4th in 40x60cm softbox on the left, behind.
Several flags to avoid light spills.
Canon EOS 5DmkII with EF 135mm f/2L @ 1/100th sec; f/4; iso50.
Website - Twitter - Getty - 500px - Book - ModelMayhem - Facebook - Blog
quelques explications sur mon blog ici :
www.couleursetmixedmedia.com/article-trop-sage-104104677....
A Tibetan man leaves at the end of a pro-Tibet protest in Paris on March 21.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of Free Tibet ! (Recommended as a slideshow)
Blacqueville, Normandie, France.
Thanks for your comments!
Retrouvez-moi également sur facebook (avec en prime quelques explications) : Mandraque Photographies
Seen in Paris streets during the demonstration of March 19, 2009 against Nicolas Sarkozy's politics (the "Petit Nicolas", little Nicolas, is in fact a famous comic book's character, created by Sempé and Goscinny).
___________________________________________________________________
On March 19, 2009, between 1.2 (police source) and 3 million (organizers) people demonstrated in France to protest against Sarkozy's policies and his handling of the crisis. Clashes with the riot police erupted at the end of the demonstration place de la Nation , where 300 people were arrested and 49 convicted.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of Manifestements Manifestifs de Manifestations (Recommended as a slideshow)
The general shape of the outline seems to suggest that the ancients did understand the correlation of Atlas with Bootes, particularly as the right (rear) leg of the statue would correspond to the "pointed" side on the left of the constellation outline, while the raised left-leg of the statue (on the right side as we look at Atlas) corresponds to the bent leg of the constellation. The photogarphy above shows how the general shape does seem to correlate to some degree: Yet further support for the identification of Atlas with Boötes comes from the fact that he is clearly described as having daughters, the Hesperides, whose names are given by Apollodorus as Aegle, Erythia, Hesperia, and Arethusa. While the image below is from a modern-era piece of artwork from the well-known trailblazing (and occasionally scandal-generating) artist John Singer Sargent (1856 - 1925), it incorporates ancient conventions regarding the depiction of Atlas. His 1925 depiction of the Hesperides as reclining beneath the burdened figure of their father the Titan is significant, in that the constellation Virgo is located in just such a recumbent pose in relationship to Boötes: Notice that the artist has depicted Atlas with one arm extended, and the hand of that single extended arm in a rather curious (albeit graceful) upturned angle -- exactly as if he were aware of the correspondence between Boötes and Atlas, and imagining the "pipe" of the constellation Boötes as the single extended arm of the crouching Atlas in his painting. Below is the now-familiar diagram of Boötes in relationship to Virgo which has been featured in several previous posts including this one and this one, reproduced here in order to show that Virgo in the sky reclines beneath the hulking form of Boötes in exactly the same way that John Singer Sargent has depicted his Hesperides as reclining beneath the burdened form of his Atlas: All of these correspondences, plus the fact that the constellation Hercules itself is located immediately adjacent to Boötes, makes it fairly clear that this is the section of the celestial sphere which is being allegorized in the star myth of Hercules retrieving the golden apples from the Hesperides, with the assistance of the Titan Atlas. Having established this, what does it all mean? Does identifying the players of the famous Eleventh Labor of Hercules as constellations in our night sky (constellations you can go identify this very night) somehow "rob" the myth of its grandeur, its human drama, and its air of reverence for the things of the gods (including the apples which cannot be picked by human hands and which, we are told at the end of the account, cannot remain in the world of men and women but must be taken back to the world of the gods)? While some might see it that way, I would argue the opposite: like the other myths we have examined such as the stealing of the mead of poetry from Gunnlod or the stealing of fire from the Old Man in the tipi (and like the myth of Adam and Eve plucking the forbidden fruit from the tree in the Genesis account which shares so many elements with this labor of Hercules), there are aspects of what we could call "the shamanic" in this myth. The myth involves obtaining something from the world of the gods, of "crossing over" into the divine realm and borrowing something that is "not of this earth," something that elevates Hercules at least for a time into the numinous world of the primordial powers and the gods. He takes the place of Atlas, supporting with his own human back the very axis of the heavens (and in doing so uniting the microcosm and the macrocosm, as well as "ascending" for a time to the very realm of the stars). The fact that Heracles or Hercules has an entire cycle of labors, twelve in number, also should cause us to suspect that he is in fact a figure who embodies the full cycle of the sun's annual course -- a circuit which the ancient myths imbue with spiritual significance relating to our plunge down into this incarnate life (at the fall equinox) and our mission of "raising our awareness of -- and re-integrating with -- the divine, spiritual part" of our being (symbolized by the "great turn" of the year at the low-point of the winter equinox). Thus the Heracles-cycle in general (with its twelve labors) and this story of retrieving the immortal apples of the Hesperides in particular, speak to us (in their celestial language) of the re-connection with the divine realm -- the infinite realm (which Heracles or Hercules actually accomplishes in an almost "literal" fashion in this story, when he himself takes up the burden of supporting the celestial sphere, thereby "bridging" the gap between finite earth and infinite starry sky). There is evidence that the ancient mythologies of cultures around the globe are all built on "star myths" that follow a common system of celestial allegory, and that the original purpose of all these star myths was to convey a shamanic-holographic vision of our universe and humanity's place within it a liberating vision that invites us to cross artificial barriers, and enter the "realm of seeds" to bring back information and make transformations that cannot be achieved in any other way.
In Greek mythology, Atlas (/ˈætləs/; Greek: Ἄτλας, Átlas) was a Titan condemned to hold up the sky for eternity after the Titanomachy. Although associated with various places, he became commonly identified with the Atlas Mountains in northwest Africa (modern-day Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia). Atlas was the son of the Titan Iapetus and the Oceanid Asia or Clymene. He had many children, mostly daughters, the Hesperides, the Hyades, the Pleiades, and the nymph Calypso who lived on the island Ogygia. According to the ancient Greek poet Hesiod, Atlas stood at the ends of the earth towards the west. Atlas is the Monad, the intellectual axis of the world and the solar fire, whose body symbolizes an alchemical equation. The three sisters, daughter of Atlas, who guarded the garden where the tree with golden fruits grew. By analogy, it is the symbol of Alchemy, whose garden is the pharmacopoeia. The Atlas cedar or Atlantic cedar grows as its name indicates in the... But it is even more, because of its natural properties, a symbol... or purple-black, gold speckled color in the alchemy of the Cauldron. Coin, metal, objects, symbol William Calin, Jean Arrouye, Pierre Jonin, Marie ... 106 pivot of the World, or better still like this axis of Atlas sung by Virgil.
The ancient myths of the world provide an inexhaustible supply of additional examples of the heavenly and celestial foundation of nearly every ancient scripture and sacred story. One memorable Greek myth worthy of explication to further illustrate the undeniable stellar basis of the ancient sacred corpus comes from the Twelve Labors of Heracles (Roman Hercules): the mission to retrieve the golden apples of the Hesperides (the Eleventh Labor of Heracles).
The Greek scholar Apollodorus of Athens (born around 180 BC and lived until some time after 120 BC) gives us a good version to examine, which can be found in its entirety online here, as translated by James George Frazer (1921). Below is an extended quotation of some of the pertinent details of the Eleventh Labor, which actually involved numerous other encounters by Heracles with other beings and demigods along the way (not all of which will be examined, although each could provide rich material for study and celestial unraveling). Since Frazer chooses to use the Roman form of the hero's name, we too will refer to him as Hercules for the rest of this particular discussion:
When the labours had been performed in eight years and a month, Eurystheus ordered Hercules, as an eleventh labour, to fetch golden apples from the Hesperides, for he did not acknowledge the labour of the cattle of Augeas nor that of the hydra. These apples were not, as some have said, in Libya, but on Atlas among the Hyperboreans. They were presented to Zeus after his marriage with Hera, and guarded by an immortal dragon with a hundred heads, offspring of Typhon and Echidna, which spoke with many divers sorts of voices. With it the Hepserides also were on guard, to wit, Aegle, Erythia, Hesperia, and Arethusa. [. . .][Various adventures ensue, primarily with Heracles defeating different sons of Poseidon][. . .]
And traversing Asia he put in to Thermydrae, the harbor of the Lindians. And having loosed one of the bullocks from the cart of a cowherd, he sacrificed it and feasted. But the cowherd, unable to protect himself, stood on a certain mountain and cursed. Wherefore to this day, when they sacrifice to Hercules, they do it with curses.
And passing by Arabia he slew Emathion, son of Tithonius, and journeying through Libya to the outer sea he received the goblet from the Sun. And having crossed to the opposite mainland he shot on the Caucasus the eagle, offspring of Echidna and Typhon, that was devouring the liver of Prometheus, and he released Prometheus, after choosing for himself the bond of olive, and to Zeus he presented Chiron, who, though immortal, consented to die in his stead.
Now Prometheus had told Hercules not to go himself after the apples but to send Atlas, first relieving him of the burden of the sphere; so when he was come to Atlas in the land of the Hyperboreans, he took the advice and relieved Atlas. But when Atlas had received three apples from the Hesperides, he came to Hercules, and not wishing to support the sphere he said that he would himself carry the apples to Eurystheus, and bade Hercules hold up the sky in his stead. Hercules promised to do so, but succeeded by craft in putting it on Atlas instead. For at the advice of Prometheus he begged Atlas to hold up the sky till he should put a pad on his head. When Atlas heard that, he laid the apples down on the ground and took the sphere from Hercules. And so Hercules picked up the apples and departed. But some say that he did not get them from Atlas, but that he plucked the apples himself after killing the guardian snake. And having brought the apples he gave them to Eurystheus. But he, on receiving them, bestowed them on Hercules, from whom Athena got them and conveyed them back again; for it was not lawful that they should be laid down anywhere.
This story is full of fascinating detail, as well as a certain amount of humor. First, it is fascinating to note that the story involves plucking fruit from a tree . . . plucking fruit from a tree . . . now where have we heard something about that before . . . ? (It sounds familiar somehow).
Prometheus warns Hercules that it is somehow dangerous (possibly fatal) for Hercules to pluck the apples himself (this also seems vaguely familiar for some reason . . . plucking fruit might cause one to "surely die" . . . hmmm). There is also a guardian serpent -- in this case, a dragon -- which again seems to be something I remember from another myth about fatal fruit.
Perhaps the most memorable aspect of this particular myth-sequence is the battle of wits between Hercules and Atlas. Atlas was the Titan condemned for eternity to uphold the entire sphere of the sky upon his shoulders. This was a punishment for having sided against the Olympians in the primordial battle between the Titans and the new gods.
Hercules gets himself into a tight spot when he agrees to hold up the sky while Atlas retrieves the dangerous apples: when Atlas returns, the Titan decides he kind of enjoys his newfound freedom, and announces to Hercules that the hero seems to be doing such a good job that Atlas will be taking a permanent vacation and leaving the task of holding up the sky to Hercules from now on.
Hercules slyly agrees (in the version from Apollodorus cited above), but asks for a moment in order to cut a pad for his shoulders before he gets down to the task of supporting the sphere for the rest of eternity. Atlas agrees, and relieves Hercules for a moment, at which point the hero takes the apples and departs, leaving the hapless Atlas back where he began, supporting the sky.
In some versions (at least in the wonderfully-illustrated version of the Labors of Hercules presented in the Sullivan Programmed Reading workbooks I had the pleasure of reading in elementary school during the 1970s), Hercules actually prepares to shoulder the sky again after cutting the pads for his shoulders, before Athena helpfully reminds the hero not to fall for his own trick, and advises him not to take the burden of the heavens back from Atlas now that he has the Titan back where he belongs.
In footnote number three from Frazer's 1921 translation, we see the kind of analysis found among conventional scholars, who resolutely refuse to interpret the ancient myths of the world as celestial allegory. There, we read some scholarly discussion as to where on earth these gardens of the Hesperides might be located -- along with some consternation that Apollodorus seems to have located them in "the far north" rather than in the "far west" as the name "Hesperides" would seem to imply (the word has connections to the evening star or Venus when appearing in the west, rather than when appearing in the morning in the east).
The details of the story, however, make it clear that we are dealing again with celestial allegory. The Titan who is holding up the vault of the sky in this case is none other than the hulking constellation of Boötes -- a constellation whose form is fairly close to the North Celestial Pole as well as to the Big Dipper which circles it. The fact that the constellation of Hercules is very close to Boötes (and is also located close to the North Celestial Pole around which the entire heavens revolve) and that Hercules in the story temporarily takes over the task of supporting the sky-sphere from Atlas should be enough to identify the two main actors in the myth with these two northern constellations.
The diagram below, a screenshot from the delightful browser-based Neave Planetarium program created by programmer-developer Paul Neave, shows the two constellations in relationship to one another: Note that the myth as presented by Apollodorus contains several clues which aid in the conclusion that we are dealing with the northern section of sky around which the entire celestial sphere revolves. First, of course, is the very nature of the punishment of Atlas: he is condemned to hold up what Apollodorus refers to as "the sphere" and "the sky." The best explanation for this punishment is that Atlas must be holding up the inside of the celestial sphere -- he is holding up the dome of the sky that we see when we look up into the heavens at night, a dome which revolves around a central point at the north celestial pole. Thus, he must be a constellation fairly close to the north celestial pole, and Böotes certainly qualifies. Secondly, we note that the apples in this myth are guarded by a dragon -- and there is clearly a dragon which winds its way around the north celestial pole, in the form of the constellation Draco, the Dragon. The diagram below includes the north celestial pole, and the sinuous form of Draco: I have only added the outline to Hercules in the above image: the outlines of Draco, the Big Dipper, and the Little Dipper are easy enough to see using the outlines included in the Neave Planetarium online app.
There is some reason to believe that the "tree" from which the Titan plucks the apples must be the invisible axis of the sky itself, the central "pole" around which the entire heavens turn. I present arguments in my first book, The Mathisen Corollary, that ancient myth and sacred tradition envisioned this central axis as a tall tree, which in many myths (such as the Gilgamesh epic) is cut down or otherwise unhinged to begin the motion of precession. Other evidence for this identification is presented in Hamlet's Mill.
Based upon this reading of the celestial aspects of the myth, it is possible that the golden apples themselves can be identified with the circlet of stars that make up the Corona Borealis, or Northern Crown. This constellation, allegorized in other myths as a necklace of jewels, can be seen to be located directly between the constellations of Hercules and Boötes in the first diagrams shown above. The stars of the Northern Crown certainly sparkle like golden jewels, and other myths make it clear that these golden apples were coveted by the goddesses, and we can see in the text of the myth as described by Apollodorus that these apples somehow originated from Hera but as a gift that was given away -- just as the stars of the Northern Crown are now located apart from the form of the constellation Virgo, located below Boötes. Other details in the myth as related by Apollodorus include the fact that the apples are found among the Hyperboreans (a word which means "far north" or "above north"), as well as the fact that in the supplemental adventures of Hercules, he is described as encountering a "cowherd" (the constellation Boötes is known as the Herdsman) who drives a "cart" or wagon (the Big Dipper was often described in myth as a wagon, a cart, or a "wain," as well as being allegorized in other myth as a plow). It was, in fact, almost certainly the billy-goat cart of Thor, who is associated with Jupiter (note that Thor's-day and Jove's-day are the same day: our modern Thursday), and remember that in the myth above as described by Apollodorus we have Hera giving the apples as a gift to Zeus (who is Jove and Jupiter). When Hercules sacrifices one of the oxen from this cart, the Herdsman can only curse -- and we have seen that in myths around the world, the relationship between Böotes and his cart is somehow associated with off-color speech or antics (see the discussion of the lewd dance of Uzume in the Japanese myth of Amaterasu, or the behavior of Loki when he is trying to coax a smile out of the jotun maiden Skade, both of which are described in this previous post). The outlines of both the constellation Böotes and the constellation Hercules can be envisioned as large men crouching down to support the burden of the very peak of the vault of heaven (located at the north celestial pole, which is located above both of their backs). The ancient art depicting the mighty Titan Atlas bending down to support the ponderous burden of the entire sphere often depicts him as having one knee out forward, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the shape of Boötes, who also has a prominent crooked knee on his one leg. Below is an image of the famous "Farnese Atlas," with an outline of Boötes for comparison:
According to Robert Graves's The Greek Myths, the Pelasgians believed the creator goddess Eurynome assigned Atlas and Phoebe to govern the moon.
Hyginus emphasises the primordial nature of Atlas by making him the son of Aether and Gaia.
"Atlantic Ocean" means "Sea of Atlas", while "Atlantis" means "island of Atlas".
The etymology of the name Atlas is uncertain. Virgil took pleasure in translating etymologies of Greek names by combining them with adjectives that explained them: for Atlas his adjective is durus, "hard, enduring",[8] which suggested to George Doig that Virgil was aware of the Greek τλῆναι "to endure"; Doig offers the further possibility that Virgil was aware of Strabo's remark that the native North African name for this mountain was Douris. Since the Atlas mountains rise in the region inhabited by Berbers, it has been suggested that the name might be taken from one of the Berber, specifically ádrār 'mountain'.
Traditionally historical linguists etymologize the Ancient Greek word Ἄτλας (genitive: Ἄτλαντος) as comprised from copulative α- and the Proto-Indo-European root *telh₂- 'to uphold, support' (whence also τλῆναι), and which was later reshaped to an nt-stem. However, Robert Beekes argues that it cannot be expected that this ancient Titan carries an Indo-European name, and that the word is of Pre-Greek origin, and such words often end in -ant.
Atlas and his brother Menoetius sided with the Titans in their war against the Olympians, the Titanomachy. When the Titans were defeated, many of them (including Menoetius) were confined to Tartarus, but Zeus condemned Atlas to stand at the western edge of Gaia (the Earth) and hold up the sky on his shoulders. Thus, he was Atlas Telamon, "enduring Atlas," and became a doublet of Coeus, the embodiment of the celestial axis around which the heavens revolve.
A common misconception today is that Atlas was forced to hold the Earth on his shoulders, but Classical art shows Atlas holding the celestial spheres, not a globe; the solidity of the marble globe borne by the renowned Farnese Atlas may have aided the conflation, reinforced in the 16th century by the developing usage of atlas to describe a corpus of terrestrial maps.
Atlas and the Hesperides by Singer Sargent, John (1925)
In a late story, a giant named Atlas tried to drive a wandering Perseus from the place where the Atlas mountains now stand. In Ovid's telling, Perseus revealed Medusa's head, turning Atlas to stone (those very mountains) when Atlas tried to drive him away, because Perseus, who went there accidentally and asked Atlas for hospitality, named himself a son of Zeus and a prophecy said that a son of Zeus would steal the golden apples from Atlas' orchard. As is not uncommon in myth, this account cannot be reconciled with the far more common stories of Atlas' dealings with Heracles, another son of Zeus, who was Perseus' great-grandson and who sought for the golden apples.
According to Plato, the first king of Atlantis was also named Atlas, but that Atlas was a son of Poseidon and the mortal woman Cleito. A euhemerist origin for Atlas was as a legendary Atlas, king of Mauretania, an expert astronomer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(mythology)
"Explanation"
FORD - RETRO PASSION 2018 - Chevigny St Sauveur (COTE D'OR)
Website : www.fluidr.com/photos/pat21
www.flickriver.com/photos/pat21/sets/
"Copyright © – Patrick Bouchenard
The reproduction, publication, modification, transmission or exploitation of any work contained here in for any use, personal or commercial, without my prior written permission is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved."
The Ankh represents the first key to the Mysteries “The Creation of Everything”. The Ankh means more than Life – it is the most ancient symbol of a code of sounds and primordial deities. The Ankh is actually the Names of the so called “chaos” Deities of the Khemnu or Ogdoad: Amen/Amenet, Nun/Nunet,Ku/Kukhet,Heh/Hehet. – This resolves itself to ANKH. The Ankh itself has four distinct sides and one of them is the Loop Nun/Nunet. These four pairs in were thought to be the Children of Tehuti and Maat. Both Tehuti (Vibration), Maat (Order) and the four pairs themselves have their own forces. Amen/Amenet is the hidden spark of life and its opposite , Nun/Nunet – is the primordial unformed mass and its opposite, Ku/Kukhet is the qualities of Light and its opposite, and Heh/Het is the qualities of infinity and its opposite. At some point the Eight fuse themselves together bounded by Maat and Tehuti and a Deity Ptah is formed out of this chaos – (the God Particle), he steps on a mound, Aton is formed and lands on his shoulder then The Ennead is created or the 9 deities. This is called the “First Time” or Sp Tepii, Zep Tepi, Sep Tepii, Sep Tepi. Ancient Kemet is both Scientific and Spiritual. The Mysteries System of Egypt is also both Scientific and Spiritual. To begin self mastery one must understand how everything began. A child in Ancient Egypt would be told the creation stories, I described and grow up understanding Science and Spirituality. An African Child in the Diaspora would be taught one of the Major Western Religions and grow up with religion and later learn science and have to juggle between the two. Here is the beginning key to re-orientating African Thought, Practice, Spirituality, Redemption and Self Mastery.Here we see the most common usage of the Ankh – Here is the Symbol, the N – water ripple and the KH – Placenta?. The N can be pronounced, and the KH is pronounced. The sound of its symbol begins with the A similar the extend arm glyph. This I have to check. At any rate, the ripple water identifies it with possibly water, or wave. The Placenta has obvious meanings of birth. I am currently attempting to find out why the KH symbol is the placenta. It does not look like a Placenta at all. I have found that the KH sound is used in the Mdu Ntr of the placenta so that is why the symbol is referred to as a placenta. Obviously, the Ancient Egyptians knew about the placenta and knew how to draw it – it is found in the Narmer Pallete and the Wepwawet Standard in the Step pyramid. The symbol that is known as the sieve or placenta obviously has a meaning that contributes to the placenta, but may not necessarily be the placenta.
Sekou Fortune who helped me discover the Secret of the Ankh and our new researcher Alfred “Djehuti” Thompson II – Bro. Al, made an amazing contribution while we were at the ASCAC conference in Washington in August. They discarded Gardiner’s and Budge naming of the KH sound as Placenta. They said that it could not be a Placenta for the following reasons: 1) the symbol is in equal parts 2) The people of Kemet knew how to draw a placenta 3) Cosmologically the placenta would have no place in the creation of everything – women and man were not created. 4) They challenged that symbols in relationship to the Ankh have cosmological references and the KH symbol may very well be Matter itself.
The ankh (/æŋk, ɑːŋk/; Egyptian ˁnḫ), also known as "crux ansata" (the Latin for "cross with a handle") is an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic ideograph symbolizing "life".The ankh is an oval or point-down teardrop set atop a T shape. The origin of this image is highly debated. Some have suggested that it represents a sandal strap, although the reasoning behind such a use is not obvious. Others point out the similarity with another shape known as a knot of Isis (or a tyet), the meaning of which is also obscure.The Secret of the Ankh is a pathway into the Mystery Systems. The Secret of the Ankh leads to the what is called called the God Particle or what is alled the Higgs Particle but told in mythos by the Ancient People of the Nile. The Secret of the Ankh also is in line with the Infinity Puzzle of Frank Close this where infinity (Heh) and its opposite nothingness (hehet) and Nwn (Dark Radition) and its opposite Nwnt (anti-matter) or and the resultant matter is analyzed in creation . I believe that I have decoded the Symbol of the Ankh. My findings are that the Ankh can no longer be viewed as just meaning life, but the creation of Life itself. The Cosmological Origin was first discovered by myself and my friend Sekou Fortune. I later expanded the base findings into a Blog that can be shared and read.
To summarize the concept in Part I
(1)The Ogdoad Primordial Eight are the elements that created the Divine Creator according to the Egyptians. This is taken from one of the oldest cosmologies -of Hermopolis or Khmnu.
(2) Aspects of this story are used in the creation of Ptah, Ra, Amen, Aten in the other creations stories. These all deal with just the creation of the Creator not with what existed before creation.
(3) The symbol for the Ankh is the symbol with the Circle on top of the cross hairs – followed by the Mdu Ntr sounds of N and KH.
(4) From the breakthroughs of translations we know the symbol was pronounced NKH or ANKH. The A is disputed and may have been added for convenience of pronunciation. Even if the Ankh is a triliteral – at this point there is no definitive way to show how it was pronounced.
(5) If we return to the Ogdoad, the eight pairs are Amen Amenet, Nun, Nunuet, Kek, Kekhet, and Heh, Hehet. My theory is that the symbol took the names of the Ogdoad into consideration for its pronunciation. One must remember first that the Mdu Ntr is in fact the Sacred Words of the Ntrs. So there must be some root words are sounds that were used in the beginning and will continue to be used for words describing creation.
(6) The Ankh not only is a symbol of Life but the elements that create life. These elements are the Ogdoad and the Odgoad is essential for Life. The symbol Ankh is connected to the Ogdoad and I believe it gets its name from the Odoad. This is the secret of the Ankh.
(7) I understand that there is controversy of me creating the mnemonic ANKH to represent the Khemennu (The Primordial Eight). However, in Nile Valley Cosmology it is in fact the Eight that created life. So the mnemonics do not take away from this concept even though their is no prove that the Nile Valley Africans thought this way but we can be sure the Ankh symbol is written with the water sign (N) and the (KH) – whether this meant waves and particles is another thing. This is my Theory.
Let us continue.
I want to pause here so that I can correct three important points that may come up as a criticism. First, in order to help the reader find relevant source material, I use the work Ogdoad. However, the Nile Valley Mdu Ntr term with the most primary information is Khemenu and that a scholar looking for primary resources should always look for primary material first and secondary material second. The information on the Khemenu is should ultimately be referenced from what it means in the Original Language. Here is an example, Egypt is referred to the Land of the Ancient People in which we are talking about. However, the name of the land referred in text by the people is Kemet, Ta Seti, Ta Mery. We could call the people Egyptians but they call themselves the Rmt or Kmtw.
Two – I will say that the Ankh must be re-translated to the Khemenu (The Eight, 4 pairs). and I may get criticism from those unfamiliar with primary text and say that Amun is never first because Nun was. One should always stand from a position of being well researched. At anytime, that I have to defend the order of the Khemenu, I can do so with primary sources. I will say at this time that Amun/Amunet was the primordial Wave by themselves and they created NUN. Amun/Amunet exist in at least two dimensions and their later reality becomes Eight as they now split tow Amun/Amunet, Nun/Nunet, Kek,Keket and then HeH.HeHet.
Third, I will say the symbol the Ankh is actually the Eight, the Khemenu or the European name Ogdoad and will have again criticism. I have included a letter from Dr. Mario Beatty which I use as constructive criticism. However, Amun is always hidden and we do not know if the Symbol was actually pronounced as Ankh or Nkh – So Since Amun is hidden let us make that sound invisible and pronounce the symbol NKH for these purposes. NKH is a formula that includes the Khemenu for several reasons. The reaction of the Eight creates the Light that Created Life. In addition, the Khemenu are seen holding the Symbol sometimes all Eight or sometimes just 4 or the Eight. In Addition as I will show that the Mdu Ntr of the Symbol contains the N (Wave) and the KH (particle/seive) and these are quantum physic properties of the duality of Waves and Particles. Lastly, the Khemenu appears in Precreation, Creation, Life, and Afterlife scenes in Text and in Plates.
At this time – I will not touch my original theses until I publish my work – I hope that these satisfies initial criticism and those that want to criticize I find have not read enough primary sources to rule out anything that I am saying for the Nile Valley African often renews or make better their thoughts in later text to cure what was hidden in earlier text. So the Khemenu Cosmology was made better later.
Wherever the Ankh is translated in Ancient Egypt Literature it must be re-translated with the following insight: The Ankh is the Life Code; The Egyptian’s so-called “Infinities or Chaos” Gods: Amen/Amenet, Nun/Nunet,Kuk,Kukhet, Heh/Hehet – the Ogdoad.; The Meaning of Life is no longer just a flat definition but a multi-dimensional definition of the scientific and possibly spiritual definition of how life was created itself.
First though it may appear my work is not about phonetics, not about linguistics but linguistics have some bearing. The Secret of the Ankh can be approached two ways that lead to the same result.
First I will look at the Ogdoad – the Primordial Eight and how these elements resolve themselves into Life.
Second, I will look the Mdu Ntru symbol for the sound N which is a Wave and the Mdu Ntr symbol for the sound KH which Gardiner says incorrectly is a placenta but probably matter – are key elements of the symbol ANKH or NKH – Wave plus Matter produces the elements of Life or the God Particle. This is essentially a well proven theory of Dr. Oyiboe, as part of his GAGUT -Grand Unifying Theorem. I will use Dr. Oyiboe’s expression but expand on it.
The Egyptian gods are often portrayed carrying it by its loop, or bearing one in each hand, arms crossed over their chest. The ankh appears in hand or in proximity of almost every deity in the Egyptian pantheon (including Pharaohs).There are also images of gods pouring water over the head of the pharaoh as part of a purification ritual, with the water being represented by chains of ankhs and was (representing power and dominion) symbols. It reinforces the close connection the pharaohs had with the gods in whose name he ruled and to whom he returned after death.
The ankh symbol was so prevalent that it has been found in digs as far as Mesopotamia and Persia, and even on the seal of the biblical king Hezekiah.
The symbol became popular in New Age mysticism in the 1960s.
Unicode has two characters encoding the symbol: U+2625 ☥ in the widely-supported Miscellaneous Symbols block and U+132F9 in the more recent Egyptian Hieroglyphs block.
There have been many suggestions and theories as to the origin of the ankh symbol.Pharaoh Akhenaten embraced a monotheistic religion centered on the worship of the sun disk, known as the Aten. Artwork from the time of his rule, known as the Amarna period, always includes the Aten in images of the pharaoh. This image is a circular disk with rays terminating in hands reaching down toward the royal family. Sometimes, although not always, the hands clutch ankhs.
Again, the meaning is clear: eternal life is a gift of the gods meant most specifically for the pharaoh and perhaps his family. (Akhenaten emphasized the role of his family much more than other pharaohs. More often, pharaohs are depicted alone or with the gods.
Alan Gardiner (1957) explains the hieroglyph as a depiction of a sandal-strap (ˁnḫ) which came to be read phonetically and could be used (as "rebus writing") for the similar word ˁnḫ "live", a triliteral root probably pronounced /ʕánax/ in Old and Middle Egyptian.This verb and its derivatives are likely ancestral to the Coptic words ⲱⲛϩ ōnh "to live, life" and ⲉⲛⲉϩ eneh "eternity".
One of the earliest proposals was that of Thomas Inman, first published in 1869, according to which the symbol combines "the male triad and the female unit".[6] E. A. Wallis Budge (1904) postulated that the symbol originated as the belt buckle of the mother goddess Isis.
Andrew Hunt Gordon and Calvin Schwabe, in their 2004 book The Quick and the Dead, speculated that the ankh, djed, and was symbols have a basis in "cattle culture" and with semen (thought to originate in the spine) being equated with “life”, with the ankh representing the thoracic vertebra of a bull (seen in cross section), the djed representing the sacrum of a bull's spine, and the was representing a staff made from a bull’s penis.
Crux ansata in Codex Glazier
The ankh appears frequently in Egyptian tomb paintings and other art, often at the fingertips of a god or goddess in images that represent the deities of the afterlife conferring the gift of life on the dead person's mummy; this is thought to symbolize the act of conception.[citation needed] Additionally, an ankh was often carried by Egyptians as an amulet, either alone, or in connection with two other hieroglyphs that mean "strength" and "health" (see explication of djed and was, above).[citation needed] Mirrors of beaten metal were also often made in the shape of an ankh, either for decorative reasons or to symbolize a perceived view into another world.[citation needed]
A symbol similar to the ankh appears frequently in Minoan and Mycenaean sites.[where?] This is a combination of the sacral knot (symbol of holiness) with the double-edged axe (symbol of matriarchy) but it can be better compared with the Egyptian tyet which is similar. This symbol can be recognized on the two famous figurines of the chthonian Snake Goddess discovered in the palace of Knossos. Both snake goddesses have a knot with a projecting loop cord between their breasts. In the Linear B (Mycenean Greek) script, ankh is the phonetic sign za.
The ankh also appeared frequently in coins from ancient Cyprus and Asia Minor (particularly the city of Mallus in Cilicia).[12] In some cases, especially with the early coinage of King Euelthon of Salamis, the letter ku, from the Cypriot syllabary, appeared within the circle ankh, representing Ku(prion) (Cypriots). To this day, the ankh is also used to represent the planet Venus (the namesake of which, the goddess Venus or Aphrodite, was chiefly worshipped on the island) and the metal copper (the heavy mining of which gave Cyprus its name).
Coptic Christians preserved the shape of the ankh by sometimes representing the Christian cross with a circle in place of the upper bar. This is known as the Coptic ankh or crux ansata.
The most commonly repeated explanation is that it is a union of a female symbol (the oval, representing the vagina or uterus) with a male symbol (the phallic upright line), but there's no actual evidence supporting that interpretation.
Sex, and specifically the orgasm, is more that just something that feels good and allows procreation. There are many other functions, such as the release of dysfunctional energy within the body, which can help to keep one from becoming diseased. There is the function that opens the higher chakras, and under the right conditions allows a person to begin the process of enlightenment. And further, if two people, lovers, practice sacred sex, the entire experience can lead them together into higher consciousness and into worlds beyond this plane.
In relationships, a simple sexual principle, as taught by the ancient Egyptians, can change the energy level within your body and help to bring strength and vitality into your bodies and your relationship.
The full subject in detail of Egyptian Tantra is incredibly complex, and cannot be completed in an article of this scope. But we can speak of the heart of the matter — the human ankhing experience as practiced by the ancient Egyptians.
And so, adapted for our readers from The Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life, Volume II, I offer this insight to assist two lovers — or even yourself, alone — to begin to find the higher path. This practice will not directly show you the true path. But it will increase your life-force energy, making you stronger, more alive, and more conscious. And perhaps — if you believe the Ancient Egyptians — it may lead you into eternal life.
—Drunvalo
Egyptian Sexual Energy and the Orgasm
It was believed in ancient Egypt that the orgasm was the key to eternal life, and that it was intimately connected with the chakra system. A chakra is an energy vortex connected to the entire human energy field, and the Universal Heart Chakra is the fifth of thirteen chakras. (There is also a system of eight chakras; in that system, the heart chakra is number four.) The Egyptian system held that the orgasm was intimately connected to this fifth, or Universal Heart Chakra.
First, we will explain the connection to eternal life.
Most people in the world are ignorant about what happens to their sexual energy after they have an orgasm. Usually, the energy moves up the spine and out the top of the head directly into the eighth or thirteenth chakra (same chakra, different system). In a few rare cases, the sexual energy is released down the spine into the hidden center below the feet, the point opposite the one above the head. In either case, the sexual energy — the concentrated life-force energy called prana in Hinduism — is dissipated and lost. It is similar to discharging a battery into a ground wire. It is no longer in the battery and so it is gone forever. This is what all the world's Tantric systems that I am aware of believe, that orgasm brings one a little closer to death because a person loses his or her life-force energy in the orgasm and is made weaker. But the Egyptians found long ago that it does not have to be this way.
It is for this reason that the Hindu and Tibetan Tantra systems ask the male to avoid ejaculating. Instead, they speak of these tiny invisible tubes where, when a student learns to control the orgasm and the flow of their sexual energy, the sperm migrates up to the higher centers.
Both of these systems, and also the Chinese Taoist Tantra system, are all primarily concerned with the sexual energy flow, sometimes referred to as ''sexual currents.'' They are primarily concerned with what happens as the sexual energy is moved before the orgasm, but they all have entirely different views of this energy compared to the Egyptians.
The Egyptians believed that orgasm is healthy and necessary, including the release of sperm in males, but that the sexual energy currents must be controlled in a deeply esoteric procedure that is unlike any other system. They believed that if this energy is controlled, the human orgasm becomes a source of infinite pranic energy that is not lost. They believe that the entire Mer-Ka-Ba or lightbody (the field of energy surrounding and interpenetrating the body) benefits from this sexual release. They even believe that under the right conditions the orgasm will directly lead to eternal life, and that the ankh is the key.
Egyptian ankhWhat is the ankh, and what has the ankh to do with sexual energy? It is complicated to explain, but we will simplify. First the ankh itself is a shape that looks like the figure at right.
In order to see and understand what took thousands of years for the Egyptians to grasp, we will begin with the fifth, Universal Heart Chakra. This lower heart chakra, the chakra of Unconditional Universal Love, is the first place where the energy completes itself. Each chakra has a ''direction'' associated with it, as the life-force energy rotates its way up the body in a pattern similar to the DNA molecule. In the lower heart chakra, the fifth place of a thirteen chakra system, the energy is facing the same direction as it began, and thus the circle is complete.
Energy Flow Diagrams
In the three views above, you can see how the rotation of energy either around the body, as in (a), around a circle, as in (b), or in a sine wave, as in (c), all complete themselves in five steps.
Ankh ViewsThe fifth or heart chakra is the first chakra that completes itself and has the energies of both front-to-back and left-to-right. If you could see these energies — and the Egyptians could — from above the head, as in (a), at left, they would appear as this symbol. It needs to be understood that these are actual energy lines around the body coming from the fifth chakra.
If you were to see these energies from the front view of a human, they would appear as in (b) at left. In the center of the cross there is a hidden energy line coming straight off the page and also moving in the opposite direction away from the reader.
Notice that both of the above examples are Christian symbols that come from the heart chakra. However, if you could see the same energies from the side of a human being, they would appear different than you would expect. There is another energy-flow ''tube'' there (in Chinese medicine it's called a ''meridian'') that the Egyptians discovered long ago. It looks like (c).
I find it very interesting that the Christians must have understood what we are talking about here, for on the robes of many Christian priests, at certain times of the year that are usually associated with resurrection, you will see the following symbol.
This symbol (d) shows all three views — the top, front, and side simultaneously. I believe the Christians omitted the complete loop of the ankh so that they would not directly show a connection with the old Egyptian religion, since they were breaking away from that tradition. But it is obvious that they knew.
Now that you know that this ankh energy conduit is located in the human energy field and where, you will be able to understand the reason for the Egyptians' sexual conduct, which we are about to explain.
First let me explain something about the ankh before I speak about its relationship to sexual energy. When I toured the museums in Egypt, I personally observed over 200 Egyptian rods.
Egyptian rodThese rods (pictured at right) were mostly made of wood, although other materials were sometimes used. They had a tuning fork on the bottom end, and the top end had four different types of devices that could be attached. One of these devices was in the shape of the ankh. What we found is that if you put the ankh on the top of the rod, which is like the human spine, the vibration from the tuning fork lasts a great deal longer. The energy seems to wrap around back into the rod along the curve of the ankh, moving downward as it returns, thereby sustaining the energy.
I was in Holland a couple of years ago, and there some people had made some rods out of copper with a high-quality tuning fork at the bottom and a threaded end at the top, so that different end pieces could be screwed on. I experimented with this rod. Using it without a top piece, I struck the tuning fork and timed how long it would vibrate. Then I screwed on the ankh and struck the tuning fork again. With the ankh on top, the rod vibrated almost three times longer. If you apply this idea to the human spine, you can see why the energy of the orgasm enhances the entire human system and the energy wraps itself back around and back into the human meridians.
This is the key to why the Egyptians performed the particular sexual practices we are about to explain. They found that if they had an orgasm and let it go out the top or bottom of the spine, the sexual energy was lost. But if the sexual energy was guided by consciousness to move into the ankh conduit, it would come back into the spine and continue to resonate and vibrate. The life-force energy was not lost. In actual experience, it seems to increase the energy. One does not feel depleted after sex, but rather recharged.
You can talk about it all day, but if you try it one time, you will understand. However, it is not easy to do in one test. For the first few times, the sexual energy will often shoot past the point of the fifth chakra and continue on up and out of the body. So it takes practice. Once it is learned, I doubt seriously if you would ever have an orgasm any other way. It's too powerful and feels too good. Once your body remembers this experience, it is not likely to revert back to the old way.
Instructions for the Egyptian Orgasm
Here is exactly how to achiever the ankhing associated with the human orgasm. Whatever you do sexually before the orgasm is completely up to you. I am not here to judge you — and definitely the Egyptians would not, since they believe in knowing all sixty-four sexual modes before you enter the King's Chamber to ascend to the next level of consciousness. This is their idea, but it is important to know that it is not necessary. You can reach the next level of consciousness without knowing this information. However, from their point of view, the idea of ankhing is of paramount importance in achieving eternal life. You will have to decide for yourself if it is something you wish to practice.
The moment you feel the sexual energy about to rise up your spine, take a very deep breath, filling your lungs about 9/10th full, then hold your breath.
Allow the sexual energy of the orgasm to come up your spine. But at the moment it reaches the fifth chakra (located just a couple of finger-widths above the sternum), with your willpower you must turn the flow of sexual energy 90 degrees out the back of the body. It will then automatically continue inside the ankh tube. It will slowly turn until it passes exactly through the eighth (or thirteenth) chakra, one hand-length above the head at 90 degrees to the vertical. It will then continue to curve around until it returns to the fifth chakra, where it began, only this time in the front of the body.
Even if you don't understand what was just said, it will happen automatically if you get it started out the back of the body at the fifth chakra, and it will automatically come back around to the front of the body and reconnect at the fifth chakra. You just have to make it turn 90 degrees so that it begins.
It will often slow down as it approaches its point of origin, the fifth chakra. If you can see the energy, it comes to a sharp point. When it approaches the fifth chakra from the front of the body, there is sometimes a tremendous jolt as it reconnects with this chakra again. All this takes place while you are holding your first breath.
The instant the sexual energy reconnects with its source, the fifth chakra, take in the full breath. You had filled your lungs only 9/10th full, so now you fill your lungs as completely as you can.
Now exhale very, very slowly. The sexual energy will continue on around the ankh channel as long as you are exhaling. When you reach the bottom of this breath, you will continue to breathe very deeply, but a change happens here.
It is here that, if you know the Lightbody work of the Mer-Ka-Ba, you would begin to breathe from the two poles using Mer-Ka-Ba breathing. But if you are like most people and don't know this work, then continue to breathe deeply until you feel the relaxation begin to spread throughout your body. Then relax your breath to your normal rate. Feel every cell becoming rejuvenated by this life-force energy. Let this energy reach down into the deepest physical levels of your body structure even past the cellular level. Feel how this beautiful energy surrounds your very being and brings health to your body, mind and heart.
Once the relaxation begins, slow your breath down to a normal shallow breathing.
If possible, allow yourself to completely relax or even sleep for a while afterward.
If you practice this for even one week, I believe you will more than understand. If you practice it continually, it will begin to give health and strength to your mental, emotional, and physical bodies. It will give great strength and power to your Lightbody, as well.
If for any reason this practice does not feel right, stop and return to normal. It just is not time.
It was this discovery of the secret tube that fostered the Ancient Egyptians' belief that eternal life was intimately connected to this particular energy-flow. It is this ankhing of their sexual energy through this tube, in an extremely deliberate procedure, that I have been taught to emulate.
1. The Mind-Body Problem and the History of Dualism
1.1 The Mind-Body Problem
The mind-body problem is the problem: what is the relationship between mind and body? Or alternatively: what is the relationship between mental properties and physical properties?
Humans have (or seem to have) both physical properties and mental properties. People have (or seem to have)the sort of properties attributed in the physical sciences. These physical properties include size, weight, shape, colour, motion through space and time, etc. But they also have (or seem to have) mental properties, which we do not attribute to typical physical objects These properties involve consciousness (including perceptual experience, emotional experience, and much else), intentionality (including beliefs, desires, and much else), and they are possessed by a subject or a self. Physical properties are public, in the sense that they are, in principle, equally observable by anyone. Some physical properties – like those of an electron – are not directly observable at all, but they are equally available to all, to the same degree, with scientific equipment and techniques. The same is not true of mental properties. I may be able to tell that you are in pain by your behaviour, but only you can feel it directly. Similarly, you just know how something looks to you, and I can only surmise. Conscious mental events are private to the subject, who has a privileged access to them of a kind no-one has to the physical. The mind-body problem concerns the relationship between these two sets of properties. The mind-body problem breaks down into a number of components. The ontological question: what are mental states and what are physical states? Is one class a subclass of the other, so that all mental states are physical, or vice versa? Or are mental states and physical states entirely distinct?
The causal question: do physical states influence mental states? Do mental states influence physical states? If so, how?
Different aspects of the mind-body problem arise for different aspects of the mental, such as consciousness, intentionality, the self. The problem of consciousness: what is consciousness? How is it related to the brain and the body? The problem of intentionality: what is intentionality? How is it related to the brain and the body? The problem of the self: what is the self? How is it related to the brain and the body? Other aspects of the mind-body problem arise for aspects of the physical. For example:
The problem of embodiment: what is it for the mind to be housed in a body? What is it for a body to belong to a particular subject?
The seemingly intractable nature of these problems have given rise to many different philosophical views.
Materialist views say that, despite appearances to the contrary, mental states are just physical states. Behaviourism, functionalism, mind-brain identity theory and the computational theory of mind are examples of how materialists attempt to explain how this can be so. The most common factor in such theories is the attempt to explicate the nature of mind and consciousness in terms of their ability to directly or indirectly modify behaviour, but there are versions of materialism that try to tie the mental to the physical without explicitly explaining the mental in terms of its behaviour-modifying role. The latter are often grouped together under the label ‘non-reductive physicalism’, though this label is itself rendered elusive because of the controversial nature of the term ‘reduction’.
Idealist views say that physical states are really mental. This is because the physical world is an empirical world and, as such, it is the intersubjective product of our collective experience.
Dualist views (the subject of this entry) say that the mental and the physical are both real and neither can be assimilated to the other. For the various forms that dualism can take and the associated problems, see below.
In sum, we can say that there is a mind-body problem because both consciousness and thought, broadly construed, seem very different from anything physical and there is no convincing consensus on how to build a satisfactorily unified picture of creatures possessed of both a mind and a body.
Other entries which concern aspects of the mind-body problem include (among many others): behaviorism, consciousness, eliminative materialism, epiphenomenalism, functionalism, identity theory, intentionality, mental causation, neutral monism, and physicalism.
1.2 History of dualism
In dualism, ‘mind’ is contrasted with ‘body’, but at different times, different aspects of the mind have been the centre of attention. In the classical and mediaeval periods, it was the intellect that was thought to be most obviously resistant to a materialistic account: from Descartes on, the main stumbling block to materialist monism was supposed to be ‘consciousness’, of which phenomenal consciousness or sensation came to be considered as the paradigm instance.
The classical emphasis originates in Plato’s Phaedo. Plato believed that the true substances are not physical bodies, which are ephemeral, but the eternal Forms of which bodies are imperfect copies. These Forms not only make the world possible, they also make it intelligible, because they perform the role of universals, or what Frege called ‘concepts’. It is their connection with intelligibility that is relevant to the philosophy of mind. Because Forms are the grounds of intelligibility, they are what the intellect must grasp in the process of understanding. In Phaedo Plato presents a variety of arguments for the immortality of the soul, but the one that is relevant for our purposes is that the intellect is immaterial because Forms are immaterial and intellect must have an affinity with the Forms it apprehends (78b4–84b8). This affinity is so strong that the soul strives to leave the body in which it is imprisoned and to dwell in the realm of Forms. It may take many reincarnations before this is achieved. Plato’s dualism is not, therefore, simply a doctrine in the philosophy of mind, but an integral part of his whole metaphysics.
One problem with Plato’s dualism was that, though he speaks of the soul as imprisoned in the body, there is no clear account of what binds a particular soul to a particular body. Their difference in nature makes the union a mystery.
Aristotle did not believe in Platonic Forms, existing independently of their instances. Aristotelian forms (the capital ‘F’ has disappeared with their standing as autonomous entities) are the natures and properties of things and exist embodied in those things. This enabled Aristotle to explain the union of body and soul by saying that the soul is the form of the body. This means that a particular person’s soul is no more than his nature as a human being. Because this seems to make the soul into a property of the body, it led many interpreters, both ancient and modern, to interpret his theory as materialistic. The interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy of mind – and, indeed, of his whole doctrine of form – remains as live an issue today as it was immediately after his death (Robinson 1983 and 1991; Nussbaum 1984; Rorty and Nussbaum, eds, 1992). Nevertheless, the text makes it clear that Aristotle believed that the intellect, though part of the soul, differs from other faculties in not having a bodily organ. His argument for this constitutes a more tightly argued case than Plato’s for the immateriality of thought and, hence, for a kind of dualism. He argued that the intellect must be immaterial because if it were material it could not receive all forms. Just as the eye, because of its particular physical nature, is sensitive to light but not to sound, and the ear to sound and not to light, so, if the intellect were in a physical organ it could be sensitive only to a restricted range of physical things; but this is not the case, for we can think about any kind of material object (De Anima III,4; 429a10–b9). As it does not have a material organ, its activity must be essentially immaterial.
It is common for modern Aristotelians, who otherwise have a high view of Aristotle’s relevance to modern philosophy, to treat this argument as being of purely historical interest, and not essential to Aristotle’s system as a whole. They emphasize that he was not a ‘Cartesian’ dualist, because the intellect is an aspect of the soul and the soul is the form of the body, not a separate substance. Kenny (1989) argues that Aristotle’s theory of mind as form gives him an account similar to Ryle (1949), for it makes the soul equivalent to the dispositions possessed by a living body. This ‘anti-Cartesian’ approach to Aristotle arguably ignores the fact that, for Aristotle, the form is the substance.
These issues might seem to be of purely historical interest. But we shall see in below, in section 4.5, that this is not so.
The identification of form and substance is a feature of Aristotle’s system that Aquinas effectively exploits in this context, identifying soul, intellect and form, and treating them as a substance. (See, for example, Aquinas (1912), Part I, questions 75 and 76.) But though the form (and, hence, the intellect with which it is identical) are the substance of the human person, they are not the person itself. Aquinas says that when one addresses prayers to a saint – other than the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is believed to retain her body in heaven and is, therefore, always a complete person – one should say, not, for example, ‘Saint Peter pray for us’, but ‘soul of Saint Peter pray for us’. The soul, though an immaterial substance, is the person only when united with its body. Without the body, those aspects of its personal memory that depend on images (which are held to be corporeal) will be lost.(See Aquinas (1912), Part I, question 89.)
The more modern versions of dualism have their origin in Descartes’ Meditations, and in the debate that was consequent upon Descartes’ theory. Descartes was a substance dualist. He believed that there were two kinds of substance: matter, of which the essential property is that it is spatially extended; and mind, of which the essential property is that it thinks. Descartes’ conception of the relation between mind and body was quite different from that held in the Aristotelian tradition. For Aristotle, there is no exact science of matter. How matter behaves is essentially affected by the form that is in it. You cannot combine just any matter with any form – you cannot make a knife out of butter, nor a human being out of paper – so the nature of the matter is a necessary condition for the nature of the substance. But the nature of the substance does not follow from the nature of its matter alone: there is no ‘bottom up’ account of substances. Matter is a determinable made determinate by form. This was how Aristotle thought that he was able to explain the connection of soul to body: a particular soul exists as the organizing principle in a particular parcel of matter.
The belief in the relative indeterminacy of matter is one reason for Aristotle’s rejection of atomism. If matter is atomic, then it is already a collection of determinate objects in its own right, and it becomes natural to regard the properties of macroscopic substances as mere summations of the natures of the atoms.
Although, unlike most of his fashionable contemporaries and immediate successors, Descartes was not an atomist, he was, like the others, a mechanist about the properties of matter. Bodies are machines that work according to their own laws. Except where there are minds interfering with it, matter proceeds deterministically, in its own right. Where there are minds requiring to influence bodies, they must work by ‘pulling levers’ in a piece of machinery that already has its own laws of operation. This raises the question of where those ‘levers’ are in the body. Descartes opted for the pineal gland, mainly because it is not duplicated on both sides of the brain, so it is a candidate for having a unique, unifying function.
The main uncertainty that faced Descartes and his contemporaries, however, was not where interaction took place, but how two things so different as thought and extension could interact at all. This would be particularly mysterious if one had an impact view of causal interaction, as would anyone influenced by atomism, for whom the paradigm of causation is like two billiard balls cannoning off one another.
Various of Descartes’ disciples, such as Arnold Geulincx and Nicholas Malebranche, concluded that all mind-body interactions required the direct intervention of God. The appropriate states of mind and body were only the occasions for such intervention, not real causes. Now it would be convenient to think that occasionalists held that all causation was natural except for that between mind and body. In fact they generalized their conclusion and treated all causation as directly dependent on God. Why this was so, we cannot discuss here.
Descartes’ conception of a dualism of substances came under attack from the more radical empiricists, who found it difficult to attach sense to the concept of substance at all. Locke, as a moderate empiricist, accepted that there were both material and immaterial substances. Berkeley famously rejected material substance, because he rejected all existence outside the mind. In his early Notebooks, he toyed with the idea of rejecting immaterial substance, because we could have no idea of it, and reducing the self to a collection of the ‘ideas’ that constituted its contents. Finally, he decided that the self, conceived as something over and above the ideas of which it was aware, was essential for an adequate understanding of the human person. Although the self and its acts are not presented to consciousness as objects of awareness, we are obliquely aware of them simply by dint of being active subjects. Hume rejected such claims, and proclaimed the self to be nothing more than a concatenation of its ephemeral contents.
In fact, Hume criticised the whole conception of substance for lacking in empirical content: when you search for the owner of the properties that make up a substance, you find nothing but further properties. Consequently, the mind is, he claimed, nothing but a ‘bundle’ or ‘heap’ of impressions and ideas – that is, of particular mental states or events, without an owner. This position has been labelled bundle dualism, and it is a special case of a general bundle theory of substance, according to which objects in general are just organised collections of properties. The problem for the Humean is to explain what binds the elements in the bundle together. This is an issue for any kind of substance, but for material bodies the solution seems fairly straightforward: the unity of a physical bundle is constituted by some form of causal interaction between the elements in the bundle. For the mind, mere causal connection is not enough; some further relation of co-consciousness is required. We shall see in 5.2.1 that it is problematic whether one can treat such a relation as more primitive than the notion of belonging to a subject.
One should note the following about Hume’s theory. His bundle theory is a theory about the nature of the unity of the mind. As a theory about this unity, it is not necessarily dualist. Parfit (1970, 1984) and Shoemaker (1984, ch. 2), for example, accept it as physicalists. In general, physicalists will accept it unless they wish to ascribe the unity to the brain or the organism as a whole. Before the bundle theory can be dualist one must accept property dualism, for more about which, see the next section.
A crisis in the history of dualism came, however, with the growing popularity of mechanism in science in the nineteenth century. According to the mechanist, the world is, as it would now be expressed, ‘closed under physics’. This means that everything that happens follows from and is in accord with the laws of physics. There is, therefore, no scope for interference in the physical world by the mind in the way that interactionism seems to require. According to the mechanist, the conscious mind is an epiphenomenon (a notion given general currency by T. H. Huxley 1893): that is, it is a by-product of the physical system which has no influence back on it. In this way, the facts of consciousness are acknowledged but the integrity of physical science is preserved. However, many philosophers found it implausible to claim such things as the following; the pain that I have when you hit me, the visual sensations I have when I see the ferocious lion bearing down on me or the conscious sense of understanding I have when I hear your argument – all have nothing directly to do with the way I respond. It is very largely due to the need to avoid this counterintuitiveness that we owe the concern of twentieth century philosophy to devise a plausible form of materialist monism. But, although dualism has been out of fashion in psychology since the advent of behaviourism (Watson 1913) and in philosophy since Ryle (1949), the argument is by no means over. Some distinguished neurologists, such as Sherrington (1940) and Eccles (Popper and Eccles 1977) have continued to defend dualism as the only theory that can preserve the data of consciousness. Amongst mainstream philosophers, discontent with physicalism led to a modest revival of property dualism in the last decade of the twentieth century. At least some of the reasons for this should become clear below.
2. Varieties of Dualism: Ontology
There are various ways of dividing up kinds of dualism. One natural way is in terms of what sorts of things one chooses to be dualistic about. The most common categories lighted upon for these purposes are substance and property, giving one substance dualism and property dualism. There is, however, an important third category, namely predicate dualism. As this last is the weakest theory, in the sense that it claims least, I shall begin by characterizing it.
2.1 Predicate dualism
Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and (b) are not reducible to physicalistic predicates. For a mental predicate to be reducible, there would be bridging laws connecting types of psychological states to types of physical ones in such a way that the use of the mental predicate carried no information that could not be expressed without it. An example of what we believe to be a true type reduction outside psychology is the case of water, where water is always H2O: something is water if and only if it is H2O. If one were to replace the word ‘water’ by ‘H2O’, it is plausible to say that one could convey all the same information. But the terms in many of the special sciences (that is, any science except physics itself) are not reducible in this way. Not every hurricane or every infectious disease, let alone every devaluation of the currency or every coup d’etat has the same constitutive structure. These states are defined more by what they do than by their composition or structure. Their names are classified as functional terms rather than natural kind terms. It goes with this that such kinds of state are multiply realizable; that is, they may be constituted by different kinds of physical structures under different circumstances. Because of this, unlike in the case of water and H2O, one could not replace these terms by some more basic physical description and still convey the same information. There is no particular description, using the language of physics or chemistry, that would do the work of the word ‘hurricane’, in the way that ‘H2O’ would do the work of ‘water’. It is widely agreed that many, if not all, psychological states are similarly irreducible, and so psychological predicates are not reducible to physical descriptions and one has predicate dualism. (The classic source for irreducibility in the special sciences in general is Fodor (1974), and for irreducibility in the philosophy of mind, Davidson (1971).)
2.2 Property Dualism
Whereas predicate dualism says that there are two essentially different kinds of predicates in our language, property dualism says that there are two essentially different kinds of property out in the world. Property dualism can be seen as a step stronger than predicate dualism. Although the predicate ‘hurricane’ is not equivalent to any single description using the language of physics, we believe that each individual hurricane is nothing but a collection of physical atoms behaving in a certain way: one need have no more than the physical atoms, with their normal physical properties, following normal physical laws, for there to be a hurricane. One might say that we need more than the language of physics to describe and explain the weather, but we do not need more than its ontology. There is token identity between each individual hurricane and a mass of atoms, even if there is no type identity between hurricanes as kinds and some particular structure of atoms as a kind. Genuine property dualism occurs when, even at the individual level, the ontology of physics is not sufficient to constitute what is there. The irreducible language is not just another way of describing what there is, it requires that there be something more there than was allowed for in the initial ontology. Until the early part of the twentieth century, it was common to think that biological phenomena (‘life’) required property dualism (an irreducible ‘vital force’), but nowadays the special physical sciences other than psychology are generally thought to involve only predicate dualism. In the case of mind, property dualism is defended by those who argue that the qualitative nature of consciousness is not merely another way of categorizing states of the brain or of behaviour, but a genuinely emergent phenomenon.
2.3 Substance Dualism
There are two important concepts deployed in this notion. One is that of substance, the other is the dualism of these substances. A substance is characterized by its properties, but, according to those who believe in substances, it is more than the collection of the properties it possesses, it is the thing which possesses them. So the mind is not just a collection of thoughts, but is that which thinks, an immaterial substance over and above its immaterial states. Properties are the properties of objects. If one is a property dualist, one may wonder what kinds of objects possess the irreducible or immaterial properties in which one believes. One can use a neutral expression and attribute them to persons, but, until one has an account of person, this is not explanatory. One might attribute them to human beings qua animals, or to the brains of these animals. Then one will be holding that these immaterial properties are possessed by what is otherwise a purely material thing. But one may also think that not only mental states are immaterial, but that the subject that possesses them must also be immaterial. Then one will be a dualist about that to which mental states and properties belong as well about the properties themselves. Now one might try to think of these subjects as just bundles of the immaterial states. This is Hume’s view. But if one thinks that the owner of these states is something quite over and above the states themselves, and is immaterial, as they are, one will be a substance dualist.
Substance dualism is also often dubbed ‘Cartesian dualism’, but some substance dualists are keen to distinguish their theories from Descartes’s. E. J. Lowe, for example, is a substance dualist, in the following sense. He holds that a normal human being involves two substances, one a body and the other a person. The latter is not, however, a purely mental substance that can be defined in terms of thought or consciousness alone, as Descartes claimed. But persons and their bodies have different identity conditions and are both substances, so there are two substances essentially involved in a human being, hence this is a form of substance dualism. Lowe (2006) claims that his theory is close to P. F. Strawson’s (1959), whilst admitting that Strawson would not have called it substance dualism.
3. Varieties of Dualism: Interaction
If mind and body are different realms, in the way required by either property or substance dualism, then there arises the question of how they are related. Common sense tells us that they interact: thoughts and feelings are at least sometimes caused by bodily events and at least sometimes themselves give rise to bodily responses. I shall now consider briefly the problems for interactionism, and its main rivals, epiphenomenalism and parallelism.
3.1 Interactionism
Interactionism is the view that mind and body – or mental events and physical events – causally influence each other. That this is so is one of our common-sense beliefs, because it appears to be a feature of everyday experience. The physical world influences my experience through my senses, and I often react behaviourally to those experiences. My thinking, too, influences my speech and my actions. There is, therefore, a massive natural prejudice in favour of interactionism. It has been claimed, however, that it faces serious problems (some of which were anticipated in section 1).
The simplest objection to interaction is that, in so far as mental properties, states or substances are of radically different kinds from each other, they lack that communality necessary for interaction. It is generally agreed that, in its most naive form, this objection to interactionism rests on a ‘billiard ball’ picture of causation: if all causation is by impact, how can the material and the immaterial impact upon each other? But if causation is either by a more ethereal force or energy or only a matter of constant conjunction, there would appear to be no problem in principle with the idea of interaction of mind and body.
Even if there is no objection in principle, there appears to be a conflict between interactionism and some basic principles of physical science. For example, if causal power was flowing in and out of the physical system, energy would not be conserved, and the conservation of energy is a fundamental scientific law. Various responses have been made to this. One suggestion is that it might be possible for mind to influence the distribution of energy, without altering its quantity. (See Averill and Keating 1981). Another response is to challenge the relevance of the conservation principle in this context. The conservation principle states that ‘in a causally isolated system the total amount of energy will remain constant’. Whereas ‘[t]he interactionist denies…that the human body is an isolated system’, so the principle is irrelevant (Larmer (1986), 282: this article presents a good brief survey of the options). This approach has been termed conditionality, namely the view that conservation is conditional on the physical system being closed, that is, that nothing non-physical is interacting or interfering with it, and, of course, the interactionist claims that this condition is, trivially, not met. That conditionality is the best line for the dualist to take, and that other approaches do not work, is defended in Pitts (2019) and Cucu and Pitts (2019). This, they claim, makes the plausibility of interactionism an empirical matter which only close investigation on the fine operation of the brain could hope to settle. Cucu, in a separate article (2018), claims to find critical neuronal events which do not have sufficient physical explanation.This claim clearly needs further investigation.
Robins Collins (2011) has claimed that the appeal to conservation by opponents of interactionism is something of a red herring because conservation principles are not ubiquitous in physics. He argues that energy is not conserved in general relativity, in quantum theory, or in the universe taken as a whole. Why then, should we insist on it in mind-brain interaction?
Most discussion of interactionism takes place in the context of the assumption that it is incompatible with the world’s being ‘closed under physics’. This is a very natural assumption, but it is not justified if causal overdetermination of behaviour is possible. There could then be a complete physical cause of behaviour, and a mental one. The strongest intuitive objection against overdetermination is clearly stated by Mills (1996: 112), who is himself a defender of overdetermination.
For X to be a cause of Y, X must contribute something to Y. The only way a purely mental event could contribute to a purely physical one would be to contribute some feature not already determined by a purely physical event. But if physical closure is true, there is no feature of the purely physical effect that is not contributed by the purely physical cause. Hence interactionism violates physical closure after all.
Mills says that this argument is invalid, because a physical event can have features not explained by the event which is its sufficient cause. For example, “the rock’s hitting the window is causally sufficient for the window’s breaking, and the window’s breaking has the feature of being the third window-breaking in the house this year; but the facts about prior window-breakings, rather than the rock’s hitting the window, are what cause this window-breaking to have this feature.”
The opponent of overdetermination could perhaps reply that his principle applies, not to every feature of events, but to a subgroup – say, intrinsic features, not merely relational or comparative ones. It is this kind of feature that the mental event would have to cause, but physical closure leaves no room for this. These matters are still controversial.
The problem with closure of physics may be radically altered if physical laws are indeterministic, as quantum theory seems to assert. If physical laws are deterministic, then any interference from outside would lead to a breach of those laws. But if they are indeterministic, might not interference produce a result that has a probability greater than zero, and so be consistent with the laws? This way, one might have interaction yet preserve a kind of nomological closure, in the sense that no laws are infringed. Because it involves assessing the significance and consequences of quantum theory, this is a difficult matter for the non-physicist to assess. Some argue that indeterminacy manifests itself only on the subatomic level, being cancelled out by the time one reaches even very tiny macroscopic objects: and human behaviour is a macroscopic phenomenon. Others argue that the structure of the brain is so finely tuned that minute variations could have macroscopic effects, rather in the way that, according to ‘chaos theory’, the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in China might affect the weather in New York. (For discussion of this, see Eccles (1980), (1987), and Popper and Eccles (1977).) Still others argue that quantum indeterminacy manifests itself directly at a high level, when acts of observation collapse the wave function, suggesting that the mind may play a direct role in affecting the state of the world (Hodgson 1988; Stapp 1993).
3.2 Epiphenomenalism
If the reality of property dualism is not to be denied, but the problem of how the immaterial is to affect the material is to be avoided, then epiphenomenalism may seem to be the answer. According to this theory, mental events are caused by physical events, but have no causal influence on the physical. I have introduced this theory as if its point were to avoid the problem of how two different categories of thing might interact. In fact, it is, at best, an incomplete solution to this problem. If it is mysterious how the non-physical can have it in its nature to influence the physical, it ought to be equally mysterious how the physical can have it in its nature to produce something non-physical. But that this latter is what occurs is an essential claim of epiphenomenalism. (For development of this point, see Green (2003), 149–51). In fact, epiphenomenalism is more effective as a way of saving the autonomy of the physical (the world as ‘closed under physics’) than as a contribution to avoiding the need for the physical and non-physical to have causal commerce.
There are at least three serious problems for epiphenomenalism. First, as I indicated in section 1, it is profoundly counterintuitive. What could be more apparent than that it is the pain that I feel that makes me cry, or the visual experience of the boulder rolling towards me that makes me run away? At least one can say that epiphenomenalism is a fall-back position: it tends to be adopted because other options are held to be unacceptable.
The second problem is that, if mental states do nothing, there is no reason why they should have evolved. This objection ties in with the first: the intuition there was that conscious states clearly modify our behaviour in certain ways, such as avoiding danger, and it is plain that they are very useful from an evolutionary perspective.
Frank Jackson (1982) replies to this objection by saying that it is the brain state associated with pain that evolves for this reason: the sensation is a by-product. Evolution is full of useless or even harmful by-products. For example, polar bears have evolved thick coats to keep them warm, even though this has the damaging side effect that they are heavy to carry. Jackson’s point is true in general, but does not seem to apply very happily to the case of mind. The heaviness of the polar bear’s coat follows directly from those properties and laws which make it warm: one could not, in any simple way, have one without the other. But with mental states, dualistically conceived, the situation is quite the opposite. The laws of physical nature which, the mechanist says, make brain states cause behaviour, in no way explain why brain states should give rise to conscious ones. The laws linking mind and brain are what Feigl (1958) calls nomological danglers, that is, brute facts added onto the body of integrated physical law. Why there should have been by-products of that kind seems to have no evolutionary explanation.
The third problem concerns the rationality of belief in epiphenomenalism, via its effect on the problem of other minds. It is natural to say that I know that I have mental states because I experience them directly. But how can I justify my belief that others have them? The simple version of the ‘argument from analogy’ says that I can extrapolate from my own case. I know that certain of my mental states are correlated with certain pieces of behaviour, and so I infer that similar behaviour in others is also accompanied by similar mental states. Many hold that this is a weak argument because it is induction from one instance, namely, my own. The argument is stronger if it is not a simple induction but an ‘argument to the best explanation’. I seem to know from my own case that mental events can be the explanation of behaviour, and I know of no other candidate explanation for typical human behaviour, so I postulate the same explanation for the behaviour of others. But if epiphenomenalism is true, my mental states do not explain my behaviour and there is a physical explanation for the behaviour of others. It is explanatorily redundant to postulate such states for others. I know, by introspection, that I have them, but is it not just as likely that I alone am subject to this quirk of nature, rather than that everyone is?
For more detailed treatment and further reading on this topic, see the entry epiphenomenalism.
3.3 Parallelism
The epiphenomenalist wishes to preserve the integrity of physical science and the physical world, and appends those mental features that he cannot reduce. The parallelist preserves both realms intact, but denies all causal interaction between them. They run in harmony with each other, but not because their mutual influence keeps each other in line. That they should behave as if they were interacting would seem to be a bizarre coincidence. This is why parallelism has tended to be adopted only by those – like Leibniz – who believe in a pre-established harmony, set in place by God. The progression of thought can be seen as follows. Descartes believes in a more or less natural form of interaction between immaterial mind and material body. Malebranche thought that this was impossible naturally, and so required God to intervene specifically on each occasion on which interaction was required. Leibniz decided that God might as well set things up so that they always behaved as if they were interacting, without particular intervention being required. Outside such a theistic framework, the theory is incredible. Even within such a framework, one might well sympathise with Berkeley’s instinct that once genuine interaction is ruled out one is best advised to allow that God creates the physical world directly, within the mental realm itself, as a construct out of experience.
4. Arguments for Dualism
4.1 The Knowledge Argument Against Physicalism
One category of arguments for dualism is constituted by the standard objections against physicalism. Prime examples are those based on the existence of qualia, the most important of which is the so-called ‘knowledge argument’. Because this argument has its own entry (see the entry qualia: the knowledge argument), I shall deal relatively briefly with it here. One should bear in mind, however, that all arguments against physicalism are also arguments for the irreducible and hence immaterial nature of the mind and, given the existence of the material world, are thus arguments for dualism.
The knowledge argument asks us to imagine a future scientist who has lacked a certain sensory modality from birth, but who has acquired a perfect scientific understanding of how this modality operates in others. This scientist – call him Harpo – may have been born stone deaf, but become the world’s greatest expert on the machinery of hearing: he knows everything that there is to know within the range of the physical and behavioural sciences about hearing. Suppose that Harpo, thanks to developments in neurosurgery, has an operation which finally enables him to hear. It is suggested that he will then learn something he did not know before, which can be expressed as what it is like to hear, or the qualitative or phenomenal nature of sound. These qualitative features of experience are generally referred to as qualia. If Harpo learns something new, he did not know everything before. He knew all the physical facts before. So what he learns on coming to hear – the facts about the nature of experience or the nature of qualia – are non-physical. This establishes at least a state or property dualism. (See Jackson 1982; Robinson 1982.)
There are at least two lines of response to this popular but controversial argument. First is the ‘ability’ response. According to this, Harpo does not acquire any new factual knowledge, only ‘knowledge how’, in the form of the ability to respond directly to sounds, which he could not do before. This essentially behaviouristic account is exactly what the intuition behind the argument is meant to overthrow. Putting ourselves in Harpo’s position, it is meant to be obvious that what he acquires is knowledge of what something is like, not just how to do something. Such appeals to intuition are always, of course, open to denial by those who claim not to share the intuition. Some ability theorists seem to blur the distinction between knowing what something is like and knowing how to do something, by saying that the ability Harpo acquires is to imagine or remember the nature of sound. In this case, what he acquires the ability to do involves the representation to himself of what the thing is like. But this conception of representing to oneself, especially in the form of imagination, seems sufficiently close to producing in oneself something very like a sensory experience that it only defers the problem: until one has a physicalist gloss on what constitutes such representations as those involved in conscious memory and imagination, no progress has been made.
The other line of response is to argue that, although Harpo’s new knowledge is factual, it is not knowledge of a new fact. Rather, it is new way of grasping something that he already knew. He does not realise this, because the concepts employed to capture experience (such as ‘looks red’ or ‘sounds C-sharp’) are similar to demonstratives, and demonstrative concepts lack the kind of descriptive content that allow one to infer what they express from other pieces of information that one may already possess. A total scientific knowledge of the world would not enable you to say which time was ‘now’ or which place was ‘here’. Demonstrative concepts pick something out without saying anything extra about it. Similarly, the scientific knowledge that Harpo originally possessed did not enable him to anticipate what it would be like to re-express some parts of that knowledge using the demonstrative concepts that only experience can give one. The knowledge, therefore, appears to be genuinely new, whereas only the mode of conceiving it is novel.
Proponents of the epistemic argument respond that it is problematic to maintain both that the qualitative nature of experience can be genuinely novel, and that the quality itself be the same as some property already grasped scientifically: does not the experience’s phenomenal nature, which the demonstrative concepts capture, constitute a property in its own right? Another way to put this is to say that phenomenal concepts are not pure demonstratives, like ‘here’ and ‘now’, or ‘this’ and ‘that’, because they do capture a genuine qualitative content. Furthermore, experiencing does not seem to consist simply in exercising a particular kind of concept, demonstrative or not. When Harpo has his new form of experience, he does not simply exercise a new concept; he also grasps something new – the phenomenal quality – with that concept. How decisive these considerations are, remains controversial.
4.2 The Argument from Predicate Dualism to Property Dualism
I said above that predicate dualism might seem to have no ontological consequences, because it is concerned only with the different way things can be described within the contexts of the different sciences, not with any real difference in the things themselves. This, however, can be disputed.
The argument from predicate to property dualism moves in two steps, both controversial. The first claims that the irreducible special sciences, which are the sources of irreducible predicates, are not wholly objective in the way that physics is, but depend for their subject matter upon interest-relative perspectives on the world. This means that they, and the predicates special to them, depend on the existence of minds and mental states, for only minds have interest-relative perspectives. The second claim is that psychology – the science of the mental – is itself an irreducible special science, and so it, too, presupposes the existence of the mental. Mental predicates therefore presuppose the mentality that creates them: mentality cannot consist simply in the applicability of the predicates themselves.
First, let us consider the claim that the special sciences are not fully objective, but are interest-relative.
No-one would deny, of course, that the very same subject matter or ‘hunk of reality’ can be described in irreducibly different ways and it still be just that subject matter or piece of reality. A mass of matter could be characterized as a hurricane, or as a collection of chemical elements, or as mass of sub-atomic particles, and there be only the one mass of matter. But such different explanatory frameworks seem to presuppose different perspectives on that subject matter.
This is where basic physics, and perhaps those sciences reducible to basic physics, differ from irreducible special sciences. On a realist construal, the completed physics cuts physical reality up at its ultimate joints: any special science which is nomically strictly reducible to physics also, in virtue of this reduction, it could be argued, cuts reality at its joints, but not at its minutest ones. If scientific realism is true, a completed physics will tell one how the world is, independently of any special interest or concern: it is just how the world is. It would seem that, by contrast, a science which is not nomically reducible to physics does not take its legitimation from the underlying reality in this direct way. Rather, such a science is formed from the collaboration between, on the one hand, objective similarities in the world and, on the other, perspectives and interests of those who devise the science. The concept of hurricane is brought to bear from the perspective of creatures concerned about the weather. Creatures totally indifferent to the weather would have no reason to take the real patterns of phenomena that hurricanes share as constituting a single kind of thing. With the irreducible special sciences, there is an issue of salience , which involves a subjective component: a selection of phenomena with a certain teleology in mind is required before their structures or patterns are reified. The entities of metereology or biology are, in this respect, rather like Gestalt phenomena.
Even accepting this, why might it be thought that the perspectivality of the special sciences leads to a genuine property dualism in the philosophy of mind? It might seem to do so for the following reason. Having a perspective on the world, perceptual or intellectual, is a psychological state. So the irreducible special sciences presuppose the existence of mind. If one is to avoid an ontological dualism, the mind that has this perspective must be part of the physical reality on which it has its perspective. But psychology, it seems to be almost universally agreed, is one of those special sciences that is not reducible to physics, so if its subject matter is to be physical, it itself presupposes a perspective and, hence, the existence of a mind to see matter as psychological. If this mind is physical and irreducible, it presupposes mind to see it as such. We seem to be in a vicious circle or regress.
We can now understand the motivation for full-blown reduction. A true basic physics represents the world as it is in itself, and if the special sciences were reducible, then the existence of their ontologies would make sense as expressions of the physical, not just as ways of seeing or interpreting it. They could be understood ‘from the bottom up’, not from top down. The irreducibility of the special sciences creates no problem for the dualist, who sees the explanatory endeavor of the physical sciences as something carried on from a perspective conceptually outside of the physical world. Nor need this worry a physicalist, if he can reduce psychology, for then he could understand ‘from the bottom up’ the acts (with their internal, intentional contents) which created the irreducible ontologies of the other sciences. But psychology is one of the least likely of sciences to be reduced. If psychology cannot be reduced, this line of reasoning leads to real emergence for mental acts and hence to a real dualism for the properties those acts instantiate (Robinson 2003).
4.3 The Modal Argument
There is an argument, which has roots in Descartes (Meditation VI), which is a modal argument for dualism. One might put it as follows:
It is imaginable that one’s mind might exist without one’s body.
therefore
It is conceivable that one’s mind might exist without one’s body.
therefore
It is possible one’s mind might exist without one’s body.
therefore
One’s mind is a different entity from one’s body.
The rationale of the argument is a move from imaginability to real possibility. I include (2) because the notion of conceivability has one foot in the psychological camp, like imaginability, and one in the camp of pure logical possibility and therefore helps in the transition from one to the other.
This argument should be distinguished from a similar ‘conceivability’ argument, often known as the ‘zombie hypothesis’, which claims the imaginability and possibility of my body (or, in some forms, a body physically just like it) existing without there being any conscious states associated with it. (See, for example, Chalmers (1996), 94–9.) This latter argument, if sound, would show that conscious states were something over and above physical states. It is a different argument because the hypothesis that the unaltered body could exist without the mind is not the same as the suggestion that the mind might continue to exist without the body, nor are they trivially equivalent. The zombie argument establishes only property dualism and a property dualist might think disembodied existence inconceivable – for example, if he thought the identity of a mind through time depended on its relation to a body (e.g., Penelhum 1970).
Before Kripke (1972/80), the first challenge to such an argument would have concerned the move from (3) to (4). When philosophers generally believed in contingent identity, that move seemed to them invalid. But nowadays that inference is generally accepted and the issue concerns the relation between imaginability and possibility. No-one would nowadays identify the two (except, perhaps, for certain quasi-realists and anti-realists), but the view that imaginability is a solid test for possibility has been strongly defended. W. D. Hart ((1994), 266), for example, argues that no clear example has been produced such that “one can imagine that p (and tell less imaginative folk a story that enables them to imagine that p) plus a good argument that it is impossible that p. No such counterexamples have been forthcoming…” This claim is at least contentious. There seem to be good arguments that time-travel is incoherent, but every episode of Star-Trek or Doctor Who shows how one can imagine what it might be like were it possible.
It is worth relating the appeal to possibility in this argument to that involved in the more modest, anti-physicalist, zombie argument. The possibility of this hypothesis is also challenged, but all that is necessary for a zombie to be possible is that all and only the things that the physical sciences say about the body be true of such a creature. As the concepts involved in such sciences – e.g., neuron, cell, muscle – seem to make no reference, explicit or implicit, to their association with consciousness, and are defined in purely physical terms in the relevant science texts, there is a very powerful prima facie case for thinking that something could meet the condition of being just like them and lack any connection with consciousness. There is no parallel clear, uncontroversial and regimented account of mental concepts as a whole that fails to invoke, explicitly or implicitly, physical (e.g., behavioural) states.
For an analytical behaviourist the appeal to imaginability made in the argument fails, not because imagination is not a reliable guide to possibility, but because we cannot imagine such a thing, as it is a priori impossible. The impossibility of disembodiment is rather like that of time travel, because it is demonstrable a priori, though only by arguments that are controversial. The argument can only get under way for those philosophers who accept that the issue cannot be settled a priori, so the possibility of the disembodiment that we can imagine is still prima facie open.
A major rationale of those who think that imagination is not a safe indication of possibility, even when such possibility is not eliminable a priori, is that we can imagine that a posteriori necessities might be false – for example, that Hesperus might not be identical to Phosphorus. But if Kripke is correct, that is not a real possibility. Another way of putting this point is that there are many epistemic possibilities which are imaginable because they are epistemic possibilities, but which are not real possibilities. Richard Swinburne (1997, New Appendix C), whilst accepting this argument in general, has interesting reasons for thinking that it cannot apply in the mind-body case. He argues that in cases that involve a posteriori necessities, such as those identities that need discovering, it is because we identify those entities only by their ‘stereotypes’ (that is, by their superficial features observable by the layman) that we can be wrong about their essences. In the case of our experience of ourselves this is not true.
Now it is true that the essence of Hesperus cannot be discovered by a mere thought experiment. That is because what makes Hesperus Hesperus is not the stereotype, but what underlies it. But it does not follow that no one can ever have access to the essence of a substance, but must always rely for identification on a fallible stereotype. One might think that for the person him or herself, while what makes that person that person underlies what is observable to others, it does not underlie what is experienceable by that person, but is given directly in their own self-awareness.
This is a very appealing Cartesian intuition: my identity as the thinking thing that I am is revealed to me in consciousness, it is not something beyond the veil of consciousness. Now it could be replied to this that though I do access myself as a conscious subject, so classifying myself is rather like considering myself qua cyclist. Just as I might never have been a cyclist, I might never have been conscious, if things had gone wrong in my very early life. I am the organism, the animal, which might not have developed to the point of consciousness, and that essence as animal is not revealed to me just by introspection.
But there are vital differences between these cases. A cyclist is explicitly presented as a human being (or creature of some other animal species) cycling: there is no temptation to think of a cyclist as a basic kind of thing in its own right. Consciousness is not presented as a property of something, but as the subject itself. Swinburne’s claim that when we refer to ourselves we are referring to something we think we are directly aware of and not to ‘something we know not what’ that underlies our experience seemingly ‘of ourselves’ has powerful intuitive appeal and could only be overthrown by very forceful arguments. Yet, even if we are not referring primarily to a substrate, but to what is revealed in consciousness, could it not still be the case that there is a necessity stronger than causal connecting this consciousness to something physical? To consider this further we must investigate what the limits are of the possible analogy between cases of the water-H2O kind, and the mind-body relation.
We start from the analogy between the water stereotype – how water presents itself – and how consciousness is given first-personally to the subject. It is plausible to claim that something like water could exist without being H2O, but hardly that it could exist without some underlying nature. There is, however, no reason to deny that this underlying nature could be homogenous with its manifest nature: that is, it would seem to be possible that there is a world in which the water-like stuff is an element, as the ancients thought, and is water-like all the way down. The claim of the proponents of the dualist argument is that this latter kind of situation can be known to be true a priori in the case of the mind: that is, one can tell by introspection that it is not more-than-causally dependent on something of a radically different nature, such as a brain or body. What grounds might one have for thinking that one could tell that a priori?
The only general argument that seem to be available for this would be the principle that, for any two levels of discourse, A and B, they are more-than-causally connected only if one entails the other a priori. And the argument for accepting this principle would be that the relatively uncontroversial cases of a posteriori necessary connections are in fact cases in which one can argue a priori from facts about the microstructure to the manifest facts. In the case of water, for example, it would be claimed that it follows a priori that if there were something with the properties attributed to H2O by chemistry on a micro level, then that thing would possess waterish properties on a macro level. What is established a posteriori is that it is in fact H2O that underlies and explains the waterish properties round here, not something else: the sufficiency of the base – were it to obtain – to explain the phenomena, can be deduced a priori from the supposed nature of the base. This is, in effect, the argument that Chalmers uses to defend the zombie hypothesis. The suggestion is that the whole category of a posteriori more-than-causally necessary connections (often identified as a separate category of metaphysical necessity) comes to no more than this. If we accept that this is the correct account of a posteriori necessities, and also deny the analytically reductionist theories that would be necessary for a priori connections between mind and body, as conceived, for example, by the behaviourist or the functionalist, does it follow that we can tell a priori that consciousness is not more-than-causally dependent on the body?
It is helpful in considering this question to employ a distinction like Berkeley’s between ideas and notions. Ideas are the objects of our mental acts, and they capture transparently – ‘by way of image or likeness’ (Principles, sect. 27) – that of which they are the ideas. The self and its faculties are not the objects of our mental acts, but are captured only obliquely in the performance of its acts, and of these Berkeley says we have notions, meaning by this that what we capture of the nature of the dynamic agent does not seem to have the same transparency as what we capture as the normal objects of the agent’s mental acts. It is not necessary to become involved in Berkeley’s metaphysics in general to feel the force of the claim that the contents and internal objects of our mental acts are grasped with a lucidity that exceeds that of our grasp of the agent and the acts per se. Because of this, notions of the self perhaps have a ‘thickness’ and are permanently contestable: there seems always to be room for more dispute as to what is involved in that concept. (Though we shall see later, in 5.2.2, that there is a ‘non-thick’ way of taking the Berkeleyan concept of a notion.)
Because ‘thickness’ always leaves room for dispute, this is one of those cases in philosophy in which one is at the mercy of the arguments philosophers happen to think up. The conceivability argument creates a prima facie case for thinking that mind has no more than causal ontological dependence on the body. Let us assume that one rejects analytical (behaviourist or functionalist) accounts of mental predicates. Then the above arguments show that any necessary dependence of mind on body does not follow the model that applies in other scientific cases. This does not show that there may not be other reasons for believing in such dependence, for so many of the concepts in the area are still contested. For example, it might be argued that identity through time requires the kind of spatial existence that only body can give: or that the causal continuity required by a stream of consciousness cannot be a property of mere phenomena. All these might be put forward as ways of filling out those aspects of our understanding of the self that are only obliquely, not transparently, presented in self-awareness. The dualist must respond to any claim as it arises: the conceivability argument does not pre-empt them.......
5.2 The Unity of the Mind
Whether one believes that the mind is a substance or just a bundle of properties, the same challenge arises, which is to explain the nature of the unity of the immaterial mind. For the Cartesian, that means explaining how he understands the notion of immaterial substance. For the Humean, the issue is to explain the nature of the relationship between the different elements in the bundle that binds them into one thing. Neither tradition has been notably successful in this latter task: indeed, Hume, in the appendix to the Treatise, declared himself wholly mystified by the problem, rejecting his own initial solution (though quite why is not clear from the text).