The Greys, or Grays, diminuitive but legendarily emotionless beings of super intellect who are said to have been here, on this world, interacting with classified levels of government and science, are the stuff of fascinated legend and great fear.

 

They are the 'abductors', the ones who've appeared in countless reports as having spirited away many a human being for gruesome experiments. The Travis Walton case in the 1970's is one of the most famous.

 

Are they here or is it a hoax? The Walton case is hair-raising and points to the very real possibility that Walton was not lying.

 

It is said, though, that these beings want something that we have and they do not - emotion. They are trying to acquire it through genetic splicing, so it's said. Whatever the case, it indicates that the intuitive and emotional, that we often place as secondary to reason, is the secret to our advancement as a species as reason, by itself, can become almost monstrous. The Greys may be a perfect metaphor for understanding the dangers of the extremes of rationality.

 

Or, they're just great fun to scare ourselves with .....

Now more than ever, we need to use our gift of intellect and science to preserve our home planet, a pale blue dot when viewed from other worlds. This is our one and only Spaceship Earth. Let's not exploit it for political gain.

 

EPCOT Center | Future World | Spaceship Earth

 

Thanks for looking! I appreciate feedback.

The Surveyor

 

HKD

 

Falls Psychologie interessiert: Logik kontra Gefühl – Ordnung und Chaos

 

Der Landvermesser

 

Das Prinzip der Ordnung beruht auf der Grundlage von Teilung. Ein Ganzes wird zerschnitten in zwei Teile, die Yin und Yang genannt werden können. Die Ordnung im Kosmos beruht auf dem Vergleich von links und rechts, oben und unten, Himmel und Erde. Es entstehen einzelne Teile, die miteinander verglichen werden können. Auf diese Weise entsteht Wissen, natürlich aufkosten der Ganzheit, die als Ursprung der Zwei und damit der Zeit in Vergessenheit gerät. Die Zweiheit und mit ihr die Verzweifelung wird – weil eben so erfahren – als einzige Realität angesehen. Widerspruch wohin das Auge blickt und der Gedanke schweift. Und das ist vollkommen normal, denn Yin bedingt Yang, das Leben den Tod, die Freude das Leid, Antipathie und Sympathie, die Reihe könnte ich endlos fortsetzen.

Selbstverständlich findet sich der Widerspruch in der Psyche entwickelter Wesen, sobald sich in ihnen der Verstand gegen das Gefühl stellt und dieser innere Kampf bewusst wird. Kann der Trieb sich unbewusst ausleben, ist der betreffende Mensch in zwei Persönlichkeiten gespalten, wie die Geschichte um Dr. Jekyll und Mr. Hyde zeigt. Eine helle und eine dunkle Seite wird dann erkennbar und wieder ist es dadurch dem Bewusstsein möglich, sich selbst zu erkennen. Die Basis jeglicher Erkenntnis ist Trennung in A und nicht A.

Die westliche Gottheit Apollo oder der östliche Buddha Manjushri sind Platzhalter für die logische Funktion des Geistes, eben jener Motivationskraft, die nach Licht, nach Sonne und Erkenntnis strebt., sobald dieses Software-Programm in der Psyche gestartet wird Es könnte heißen: Search Yourself. In der Tat hat dieser Landvermesser mit dem apollinischen Prinzip zu tun. Von ihm wird er motiviert, sich mit Zahlen und mathematischen Vorgängen zu beschäftigen.

Ein hoch entwickelter Intellekt hat immer mehr Energie aus dem Bereich der Lenden und dem des Herzens gezogen und die Gefühlswelt eines Logikers wie etwa Tuvok (Star-Trek – Voyager – der Sicherheitsoffizier des Rauschiffes) ist nur noch rudimentär vorhanden. Alle sieben Jahre bricht sie aus den Tiefen der Psyche hervor und zwingt den Mann (Vulkanier) zur Paarung.

Der Intellekt übernimmt in gewissen Menschen die Macht und diese Konzentration der Energie auf abstrakte Ordnungsprinzipien bringt große Reichsgründer und Führungspersönlichkeiten hervor. Doch auch der Landvermesser streckt Grenzen ab, trennt Verantwortungsbereiche und schafft Ordnung unter der künftigen Nachbarschaft. Bis hierhin und nicht weiter, darfst du ackern, bauen oder Einzäunen.

Regeln, Gesetze, Vorschriften, Erlasse, all diese Dinge finden energetisch ihre Wurzeln in der Motivationskraft A1. In einem Menschen paart sich gern die Energie A5 dazu. Der Landvermesser steht mit beiden Beinen auf der Erde, er ist verbunden mit der Scholle, der Außenwelt mit ihren Prinzipien und Ordnungsstrukturen. Und zu dieser Ordnung trägt er bei, vernünftig, sachlich, präzise. Dafür sorgt A5, die zuverlässige und rationale Motivationskraft, die Tuvok so wunderbar verkörpert, während Madame Captain ein hervorragendes Beispiel für eine Führungspersönlichkeit ist, die von A1 motiviert wird. Der Captain (A1) und der Sicherheitsoffizier (A5) sind in der Serie sehr gut miteinander befreundet. Der Captain stellt die Regeln auf und der Logiker setzt sie mit gebührender Logik um.

Auch der Landvermesser arbeitet mit Logik und Sachverstand, Emotionalität stört bei Tätigkeiten, die einen kühlen Kopf brauchen. Wenn sich in Systemen Fehler einschleichen, spielt eine andere Energie mit, das chaotische Prinzip. Es ist der Ordnung entgegengesetzt und gleichzeitig komplementär wie es Yin für Yang oder die Ebbe für die Flut ist. Ordnung und Chaos bedingen einander und ziehen sich an. Und so schleichen sich immer wieder subversive Kräfte in die Ordnungs- und Sicherheitssysteme ein und entpuppen sich als geschickte Gegenspieler.

Wie beim Schach, mal gewinnt Weiß, ein anderes Mal Schwarz. Und aufgrund der Teilung in Schwarz und Weiß nehmen die Bewusstheit und schließlich die Selbst-Bewusstheit zu.

Selbsterkenntnis beruht auf der vorausgegangenen Teilung, die sich aufgrund dieses Erkennens anschickt, wieder ein Ganzes zu werden und diesen Vorgang auch zu verstehen.

Wie viel versteht der Landvermesser bereits von sich selbst? Kennt er die verschiedenen Bereiche seines Denkens und Fühlens? Wird er bald beginnen mit der Vermessung seiner Innenwelt?

Das sind Fragen, die ich in dieses Bild hinein interpretiere. Vielleicht geht dieser Vermesser nach getaner Arbeit mit seinem Freund zur Jagd… Ach, was weiß ich denn schon?

 

HKD

 

Digital art based on own photography and textures

 

HKD

 

"Euclid's Elements is certainly one of the greatest books ever written, and one of the most perfect monuments of the Greek intellect."

 

Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, p. 211

 

My entry in the preliminary round of the 2018 Bio-Cup, of course! I was set from the start on offering something entirely original. After a days or two muddling through various unsatisfying 'elements' from alchemy, technology, and science, I suddenly recalled the Greek mathematician Euclid's authorship of the landmark geometry textbook entitled Elements, and knew I would depict him. In a Bionicle twist, he now wields Geometry powers in addition to his trademark compass and straightedge! I look forward to your thoughts, hope you enjoy, and wish my fellow participants good luck in the Bio-Cup!

Mind Flayers and Intellect Devourers. Oh my!

One of the weaknesses of much abstract painting is the attempt to substitute the inventions of the intellect for a pristine imaginative conception. The inner life of a human being is a vast and varied realm and does not concern itself alone with stimulating arrangements of color, form and design. The term 'life' as used in art is something not to be held in contempt, for it applies all of its existence, and the province of art is to react to it and not to shun it. Painting will have to deal more fully and less obliquely with life and nature's phenomena before it can again be great.

 

-- Edward Hopper

 

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).

plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

{3.2.2010 ~ Day 107 of 365} **EXPLORE**

 

It was far too beautiful a day to be stuck inside an office, though that's where I found myself. Thank goodness for a leisurely lunch and stroll around the park - fresh air and warm sunshine is what my soul needed today :)

 

Today's gratitude ~ left overs! Girlfriend is tired, and in no mood to waste precious veg time in the kitchen ;)

Brussels

www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7BeGDZewHs

A Tibetan Terrier rescued in the nick of time. My heartfelt admiration to all those folk who rescue dogs and give them a loving home.

"We may think we understand them, but ultimately our judgement of a dog and its behaviour and intellect is almost always effected by our own way of perceiving the world.

We seem to judge the worth of every animal on the planet, according to what they can give us or how much they resemble us. Can they think like us? Can they feel like us? It's the wrong way to look at it because we're not acknowledging their innate worth.

There are so many different kinds of intelligence in animals that are nothing like ours.

However much we like to think we understand them, they probably understand us better."

 

Feelings Versus Intellect.

Procese divizibil schimbare Propuneri de-a lungul implicații ipotezelor anterioare simțit,

verschiedene Theorien untrennbar Geschwindigkeit anzeigt entfernte Bewegungen verhältnismäßig Kräfte kniete,

άνιση αγάπες διαφέρουν αντίστοιχες συνθήκες κατηγορίες συμμέτρηση ομοιότητα περιπτώσεις,

megnyilvánulásai a jelenség feltárására motivációs kérdések illusztrációk kifejezések ismert,

в подчинении сознания представление невнятно макрокосма принципы внутренней части природы,

paradossali filosofia riflette esitazioni dogma modifiche Considerando l'individualità del ridicolo,

eðlislæg ástæður óbeinum raun núverandi Virknin eignuðust skoðanir fáránleikans tengingar orsakir,

forståelige undervisnings sjeler usvikelige belysning påfølgende konsepter fantasi innvendig heretter,

moderne uitgeput filosofie representaties transcendentale selecties bloemlezing esthetiek posities vallen,

génie spécifique et extraordinaire capacité consciente dispositions des règles instinctives art,

影響を受けない物腰丁寧な不協和音の再発の教義の危険説得力のある声の魅力的な事項は、成長.

Steve.D.Hammond.

The title is a quote by Swami Vivekananda.

*

The statue Quadriga by Carl Johan Dyfverman.

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death (James 1:13-15)

 

We think of sin as a single act, but God sees it as a process. Adam committed one act of sin, and yet that one act brought sin, death, and judgment on the whole human race. James described this process of sin in four stages.

 

Desire (v. 14). The word lust means any kind of desire, and not necessarily sexual passions. The normal desires of life were given to us by God and, of themselves, are not sinful. Without these desires, we could not function. Unless we felt hunger and thirst, we would never eat and drink, and we would die. Without fatigue, the body would never rest and would eventually wear out. Sex is a normal desire; without it the human race could not continue.

 

It is when we want to satisfy these desires in ways outside God’s will that we get into trouble. Eating is normal; gluttony is sin. Sleep is normal; laziness is sin. “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).

 

Some people try to become “spiritual” by denying these normal desires, or by seeking to suppress them; but this only makes them less than human. These fundamental desires of life are the steam in the boiler that makes the machinery go. Turn off the steam and you have no power. Let the steam go its own way and you have destruction. The secret is in constant control. These desires must be our servants and not our masters; and this we can do through Jesus Christ.

Deception (v. 14). No temptation appears as temptation; it always seems more alluring than it really is. James used two illustrations from the world of sports to prove his point. Drawn away carries with it the idea of the baiting of a trap; and enticed in the original Greek means “to bait a hook.” The hunter and the fisherman have to use bait to attract and catch their prey. No animal is deliberately going to step into a trap and no fish will knowingly bite at a naked hook. The idea is to hide the trap and the hook.

 

Temptation always carries with it some bait that appeals to our natural desires. The bait not only attracts us, but it also hides the fact that yielding to the desire will eventually bring sorrow and punishment. It is the bait that is the exciting thing. Lot would never have moved toward Sodom had he not seen the “well-watered plains of Jordan” (Gen. 13:10ff). When David looked on his neighbor’s wife, he would never have committed adultery had he seen the tragic consequences: the death of a baby (Bathsheba’s son), the murder of a brave soldier (Uriah), the violation of a daughter (Tamar). The bait keeps us from seeing the consequences of sin.

 

V 2, p 343 When Jesus was tempted by Satan, He always dealt with the temptation on the basis of the Word of God. Three times He said, “It is written.” From the human point of view, turning stones into bread to satisfy hunger is a sensible thing to do; but not from God’s point of view. When you know the Bible, you can detect the bait and deal with it decisively. This is what it means to walk by faith and not by sight.

Disobedience (v. 15). We have moved from the emotions (desire) and the intellect (deception) to the will. James changed the picture from hunting and fishing to the birth of a baby. Desire conceives a method for taking the bait. The will approves and acts; and the result is sin. Whether we feel it or not, we are hooked and trapped. The baby is born, and just wait until it matures!

 

Christian living is a matter of the will, not the feelings. I often hear believers say, “I don’t feel like reading the Bible.” Or, “I don’t feel like attending prayer meeting.” Children operate on the basis of feeling, but adults operate on the basis of will. They act because it is right, no matter how they feel. This explains why immature Christians easily fall into temptation: they let their feelings make the decisions. The more you exercise your will in saying a decisive no to temptation, the more God will take control of your life. “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

 

Death (v. 15). Disobedience gives birth to death, not life. It may take years for the sin to mature, but when it does, the result will be death. If we will only believe God’s Word and see this final tragedy, it will encourage us not to yield to temptation. God has erected this barrier because He loves us. “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” (Ezek. 18:23)

These four stages in temptation and sin are perfectly depicted in the first sin recorded in the Bible in Genesis 3.

 

Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary (vol. 2; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 342–343.

Island of Flying Books

 

“What do you want?” Little Rinpoche asks.

“I am here to bring back all these books to the island where they came from.”

“Oh yes, I remember”, he says. “I’ve ordered them back. Well done so far. Now open your mind and let all concepts fly away!”

He claps his hands and you will not believe it, but all books fly away.

 

HKD

 

„Rinpoche“, fragte der Junge. „Woher kommen die Wünsche?“

Sie kommen aus dem See der himmlischen Erde.

Und wo liegt dieser See?

Auf der Insel der fliegenden Bücher...

Die gibt es doch gar nicht.

Doch gibt es sie. Im innersten deiner Seele. Manche nennen diesen Ort auch Phantasie oder Imagination. Sobald du mit dem Boot deines Wünschens auf die Insel reist, erlebst du deine Phantasie. Und von dort bekommst du die Botschaften für deinen Alltag. Was wäre das Leben ohne Phantasie? Koste am schönsten Nektar deiner Seele, lass deine Phantasie zu, dann bist du mit der Insel der fliegenden Bücher verbunden.

 

Heute bin ich erwachsen, beinahe schon ein alter Mann, doch jetzt habe ich die Insel der Seligen entdeckt, Hypoberea. Aus meiner Sicht ist sie vergleichbar mit Shambhala von dem Rinpoche in eben jenem Buch berichtete, das auf dem obigen Bild durch die Gegend fliegt. Die kleine Figur hat sich aus der Druckerschwärze selbst erschaffen und nutzt das Buch wie einen fliegenden Teppich. Ich muss noch herausfinden, wer dieser kleine Mann ist... :-)

 

HKD

 

Falls Psychologie interessiert:

Auf dem Pfad der Entwicklung des Bewusstseins aus den Schleiern der Maya kommt der Punkt, an dem man alle Konzepte wieder aufgeben muss. Ein freies Bewusstsein kann weder an Prinzipien noch an Konzepten haften, obwohl sie für die Befreiung notwendig sind. Bewusstheit wird durch den Logos gebildet und daher kann man die Konzepte die er aufbaut als Boot oder Fahrzeug bezeichnen. Mit dem Boot setzt man über den großen Strom. Auf der anderen Seite liegt das Paradies der Freiheit. Es ist die innere Freiheit, das diamantene Bewusstsein. Dagegen sind äußere Freiheiten und Unfreiheiten unwesentlich. Was aber nicht heißt, dass sie zu vernachlässigen wären... :-)

Daher muss man sich konkret von den Büchern befreien. Ich selbst bin rituell mit einem Koffer voller Bücher in die Wüste gefahren und habe sie am Fuße einer großen Wanderdüne vergraben. Für große Übergänge bedurfte es bei mir stets großer Rituale, damit der Geist die Veränderung akzeptieren und verstehen konnte.

 

HKD

 

Anmerkung:

 

This is digital art work, not reality.

Das Bild ist ein digital hergestelltes Werk.

Jede Ähnlichkeit mit realen Gegebenheiten wäre rein zufällig.

 

HKD

 

"Winter is good -- his Hoar Delights

Italic flavor yield

To Intellects inebriate

With Summer, or the World --

 

Generic as a Quarry

And hearty -- as a Rose --

Invited with Asperity

But welcome when he goes."

 

- Emily Dickinson

 

=========

Nothing new. Prepping for my youngest son's birthday party. His birthday was last month but we are late as always.

 

These things start out modestly, and then they escalate terribly to being over-the-top!

 

We had all the best intentions :-)

www.riverhillgardens.co.uk/

History

 

The John Rogers who bought Riverhill in 1840 was an only child, with a modest fortune, and a fine intellect. He became a classics scholar, a scientist and a friend of Charles Darwin. He was one of the first members of the Royal Horticultural Society and a patron of the plant collectors of the day.

 

He chose Riverhill because its sheltered situation offered an ideal lime free hillside where he could hope to establish newly introduced trees and shrubs. From his garden notebook, it can be seen that planting started in 1842. Subsequent generations, continued the planting and in 1910 Colonel John Middleton Rogers created what is now known as ‘The Wood Garden’ a fine collection of Japanese Maples, Rhododendrons and Azaleas. His wife, the infamous Muriel, created many additions including the now hidden Rock Gardens.

 

Until the beginning of the 2nd World War, eight full time gardeners kept Riverhill looking immaculate. Since the war years, however, a shortage of manpower and a lack of money has meant that the garden was allowed to deteriorate, with many parts of the original planting lost to everyday use and visitors.

 

Today, four generations of the Rogers family live at Riverhill,

 

The estate is managed by Edward Rogers (Great-great-great-grandson of the John Rogers who bought Riverhill in 1840) and his wife, Sarah.

  

When God created man in His image, He created a measure; the human perception of the world corresponds to God's creative intention. Man by definition is a center, or "the center" in a given universe; not by accident, but in virtue of the very nature of Being, and this is why that which is large or small for man is large or small in the divine intention; man perceives things as they present themselves in the divine Intellect. And that is why the world of the indefinitely small, as well as the world of the indefinitely large, is as it were forbidden to man, who should not want to disproportionately enlarge the small or to disproportionately reduce the large. Man ought to feel that there is no advantage or happiness in such enterprises; and he would feel it if he had maintained a relationship with the Absolute, or if this relationship were sincere and sufficient.

 

He, who is really at peace with God is free from all unhealthy curiosity, if one may say so; he lives, like a well-guarded child, in the blessed garden of a grace that does not forsake him; the Creator knows the best place for the creature, and He knows what is good for man.

 

In a certain sense, the world of atoms as well as that of galaxies is hostile to human beings, and comprises for them, in principle or potentially, a climate of alienation and terror. Some people will doubtless argue that "the man of our times" is an "adult," but this is pride, even satanism, for a normal man always keeps a childlike side, as all sacred Scriptures attest by their language; if such were not the case, childhood itself would not comprise a positive aspect. Of course, a mature man ought to be "adult," but he can be so otherwise than by plunging into forbidden abysses; the spiritual victory over illusion is a matter appreciably more serious than the insensitivityof the explorers of the inhuman.

 

There are two points to consider in created things, namely the empirical appearance and the mechanism; now the appearance manifests the divine intention, as we have stated above; the mechanism merely operates the mode of manifestation.

 

For example, in man's body the divine intention is expressed by its form, its deiformity, its symbolism and its beauty; the mechanism is its anatomy and vital functioning.

 

The modern mentality, having always a scientific and "iconoclastic" tendency, tends to overaccentuate the mechanism to the detriment of the creative intention, and does so on all levels, psychological as well as physical; the result is a jaded and "demystified" mentality that is no longer "impressed" by anything. By forgetting the divine intention - which nonetheless is apparent a priori - one ends in an emptiness devoid of all reference points and meaning, and in a mentality of nihilism and despair, if not of careless and brutal materialism. In the face of this deviation it is the child who is right when he believes that the blue sky above us is Paradise.

 

---

 

Frithjof Schuon: Roots of the Human Condition

Year of the Monkey

 

Lunar Lanterns, giant lanterns representing animal signs of the Chinese zodiac in city centre locations from 6–14 February.

 

Ox

  

"People born in the Year of the Monkey are fun-loving, energetic and inquisitive. Their intellect allows them to adapt to any situation, they are confident, charismatic, loyal and inventive.

Sometimes, the Monkey can be a little too curious for his or her own good, as well as careless, restless, immature and arrogant."

  

whatson.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/posts/lunar-lanterns

Lorenzo Lotto (ca. 1480-1556)

 

Alte Pinakothek, Munich

 

The Venetian Lorenzo Lotto developed a very idiosyncratic pictorial language of his own and sought unconventional iconographic solutions.

 

This work shows a vision of St Catherine of Alexandria.

While on the lookout for a suitable husband who could equal her status, wealth and intellect, a hermit presented her with a picture of the Virgin and Child and suggested Christ as her spouse.

 

In a dream, the Christ Child thereupon placed a ring on Catherine's finger as a sign of the mystical marriage.

 

Inv. Nr. 32

Provenance: 1804 from the secularization of the first bishop's residence of Wurzburg.

There are many reasons why people feel empty; they only mask the problem hidden under a dress of artificial light. Right now we have so much chaos and destruction on this planet because people are feeling this void, and they are looking outside themselves to repair it. Or, out of frustration and loneliness, they hurt others to release these feelings. None of this will solve the problem, however. At the heart of emptiness is the lack of love for oneself.

Happy Melancholia

 

Blue Fire

Keeps me flying

Through happy nights

 

I love being alone with you

Logos – North Island

 

Cool Fire

Cool Mind

 

HKD

  

I am nearly happy

Means I am happy

With beeing

Nearly happy

  

HKD

  

Fallen man, and thus the average man, is as it were poisoned by the passional element, either grossly or subtly; from this results an obscuring of the Intellect and the necessity of a Revelation coming from the outside. Remove the passional element from the soul and the intelligence (remove "the rust from the mirror" or "from the heart") and the Intellect will be released; it will reveal from within what religion reveals from without.

 

This brings us to an important point: in order to make itself understood by souls impregnated with passion, religion must itself adopt a so to speak passional language, whence dogmatism, which excludes, and moralism, which schematizes; if the average man or collective man were not passional, Revelation would speak the language of the Intellect and there would be no exoterism, nor for that matter esoterism considered as an occult complement.

 

There are here three possibilities: firstly, men dominate the passional element, everyone lives spiritually by his inward Revelation; this is the golden age, in which everyone is born

an initiate.

 

Second possibility: men are affected by the passional element to the point of forgetting certain aspects of the Truth, whence the necessity - or the opportuneness - of Revelations that while being outward are metaphysical in spirit, such as the Upanishads.

 

Thirdly: the majority of men are dominated by passions, whence the formalistic, exclusive and combative religions, which communicate to them on the one hand the means of channelling the passional element with a view to salvation, and on the other hand the means of overcoming it in view of the total Truth, and of thereby transcending the religious formalism which veils it while suggesting it in an indirect manner. Religious revelation is both a veil of light and a light veiled.

 

---

 

Esoterism as Principle and as Way by Frithjof Schuon

Logic can either operate as part of an intellection, or else, on the contrary, put itself at the service of an error; moreover unintelligence can diminish or even nullify logic, so that philosophy can in fact become the vehicle of almost anything: it can be an Aristotelianism carrying ontological insights, just as it can degenerate into an "existentialism" in which logic has become a mere shadow of itself, a blind and unreal operation.

 

Indeed, what can be said of a "metaphysic" which idiotically posits man at the centre of the Real, like a sack of coal, and which operates with such blatantly subjective and conjectural concepts as "worry" and "anguish"? When unintelligence (and the variety we mean here is in no wise incompatible with what passes for intelligence in "worldly" circles) and passion prostitute logic, it is impossible to escape from that mental satanism which is so frequently to be found in contemporary thought.

 

The validity of a logical demonstration thus depends on the knowledge which we, as demonstrators, have of the subject in view, and it is evidently wrong to take as our starting-point not this direct knowledge but pure and simple logic.

 

When man has no "visionary" knowledge of Being, and merely "thinks" with his "brain" instead of "seeing" with his "heart", all his logic is useless to him, because it starts out from an initial fallacy. Moreover, the validity of a demonstration must be distinguished from its dialectical efficacy; the latter evidently depends on the intuitive disposition available for the recognition of truth when demonstrated, and therefore on an intellectual capacity.

 

Logic is nothing but the science of mental co-ordination and of arriving at rational conclusions; it cannot, therefore, attain the transcendent through its own resources; a supralogical -not an illogical- dialectic, based on symbolism and analogy, and therefore descriptive rather than ratiocinative, may be harder for some people to assimilate, but it conforms more closely to transcendent Reality.

 

Contemporary philosophy, on the other hand, really amounts to a decapitated logic: what is intellectually evident it calls "prejudice"; wishing to free itself from servitude to the mental, it sinks into infralogic; shutting itself off from the intellectual light above, it exposes itself to the obscurity of the lowest "subconscious" beneath.

 

Philosophic scepticism takes itself for a healthy attitude and for an absence of "prejudices", whereas it is in fact something completely artificial; it proceeds, not from real knowledge, but from sheer ignorance, and for this reason it is as alien to intelligence as it is to reality.

 

---

 

Frithjof Schuon

 

---

 

Quoted in: The Essential Frithjof Schuon (edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr)

"Photography is a marvelous discovery, a science that has attracted the greatest intellects, and art that excites the most astute minds—and one that can be practiced by any imbecile."

 

Nadar (Gaspard-Félix Tournachon)

[Photographer, b. 1820, Paris, d. 1910, Paris.]

  

Pentacon 29mm F2.8 Multi Coating

 

www.picssr.com/photos/8404101/popular-interesting

 

www.fluidr.com/photos/8404101/interesting

General Sir John Monash.

(1865-1931) was a civil engineer who became an Australian military commander in World War I. Regarded as Australia's greatest general, his brilliant leadership turned the tide of the war. Monash was also a born writer and intellect, and his writing displays a delight in detail, mastery and grace.

  

Dust jacket note on "John Monash"

The Australian Victories in France in 1918.

 

See Currency and other words at ozwords.com.au/

By Kel Richards..

 

Using the kit lens and a 10mm tube.

 

From Google Gemini AI.

 

what did the world do at the end of World war II?

  

The world reacted to the end of World War II with a mix of jubilation, relief, and a somber understanding of the immense cost of the conflict. Here's a breakdown of some key responses:

 

Celebrations and Relief:

 

Widespread Joy: News of the surrenders (first Germany in May 1945, then Japan in August 1945) sparked massive celebrations in Allied countries. People filled the streets,embracing and cheering, marking the end of years of hardship, anxiety, and loss.

Return of Soldiers: The end of the war meant the return of soldiers to their home countries. This was a joyous occasion for families and communities, although it was also a period of readjustment for many veterans.

Reconstruction and Recovery:

 

Devastation in Europe and Asia: Many parts of Europe and Asia lay in ruins. Cities were bombed, infrastructure was destroyed, and economies were shattered. The immediate focus was on providing humanitarian aid, rebuilding infrastructure, and restarting economies.

The Marshall Plan: The United States launched the Marshall Plan, a massive economic aid program to help rebuild European economies. This was crucial in preventing further instability and fostering recovery.

Political and Geopolitical Shifts:

 

Emergence of Superpowers: The war significantly altered the global balance of power. The United States and the Soviet Union emerged as superpowers, leading to a period of geopolitical tension known as the Cold War.

Formation of the United Nations: In 1945, the United Nations was established with the goal of preventing future global conflicts through international cooperation and diplomacy.

Decolonization: The war weakened European colonial powers, contributing to the rise of independence movements in Asia and Africa.

Dealing with the Aftermath:

 

Nuremberg Trials: The Nuremberg trials were held to bring Nazi leaders to justice for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace. This set a precedent for international criminal law.

Coming to Terms with the Holocaust: The full extent of the Holocaust was revealed after the war, shocking the world and leading to a greater understanding of the horrors of genocide.

A Desire for Peace:

 

"Never Again": The immense suffering caused by the war led to a widespread desire to prevent future global conflicts. This sentiment was reflected in the formation of the United Nations and other international efforts to promote peace and cooperation.

In summary, the end of World War II was met with widespread celebration and relief, but also marked the beginning of a long process of recovery, reconstruction, and dealing with the political and social consequences of the conflict. 1 The world was forever changed by the war, and its aftermath shaped the course of the 20th century. 2

 

Name- Ronald Johnson/ Bone Crusher (Hero)

 

Universe: DC

 

Age: 45

 

Weapons- Any firearm or bladed weaponry

 

Allies: The US Marines, Commissioner Gordon and The GCPD, and Batman

 

Enemies- Anyone who threatens the US, The Shadow, and gang operations. and Thugs.

 

Skills/ Abilities- Extreme strength, Extreme intellect, Rock Hard Skin, Great Leadership Qualities, Weapons and Hand to Hand Combat knowledge and experience.

 

Back Story:

Ronald Johnson, Ron to his friends, was always a good child. He was a tall, built boy with blond hair. He did well in school and never got in trouble. He knew that he wanted to join the US Marines when he grew up. When Ron was 19, he joined the US Marine Corps. He was one of the top members of his squad. When Ron was 29, he was sent over seas for War. Ron had such a strong punch, he would break several bones of anyone he hit. Because of this, his squad gave him the nickname "Bone Crusher".

 

During the war, he suffered a horrible accident, causing him to loose both his arms and legs. Surprisingly, he survived the incident, but his life was forever changed.

 

The Military had been working on a new procedure that would allow injured War veterans to be able to move and fight like they use to be able to. Hearing of Ron's accident, they asked if Ron would like to be the first subject to the operation. John accepted.

 

The procedure made Ron into a new Man and changed his appearance drastically. His arms and legs were extended and his skin was turned rock hard, making it extremely hard to pierce his skin with a bullet or knife. Some of his body was also reinforced with metal joints and plates. He was made a custom US Marine Armor Suit that covered his head and Chest. He could take the armor off, but he wore it most of the time to show support for his Country. Because of the procedure, Ron was not able to age. He is not immortal, but he would not show signs of aging.

 

Ron used his new body to fight against terrorist and anyone who fought against his country. He was given his own squad and was sent back overseas to fight in the war. Due to the non stop battle that Ron and his fellow soldiers fought, the war was won

 

When John returned from the war, he was shocked by the actions of the new vigilante "The Shadow". He agreed with what he was doing, but not how he was doing it. He did not want to anymore people suffer from the horrible deaths caused by The Shadow. After seeing multiple News Reports about The Shadow, he finally contacted the GCPD and traveled to Gotham to meet with the Commissioner. He was also introduced to Batman by the Commissioner. He was amazed by The Batman and how he was able to stop crimes with only his Mind, Gadgets, and his Fists. He took Batman's ways to heart, and vowed to only kill if absolutely necessary.

 

Since his trip to Gotham, he has moved there. He is the leader of the top Swat team in the city and does whatever he can to stop the horrific murders of The Shadow. He frequently reports in with Batman and The Commissioner, and together they try to find the whereabouts of The Shadow. Ron is now a full time member of the GCPD and and would gladly go back overseas to fight if another War was to come up.

    

_______________________________________________

 

Spiral & Net

 

I.

________________________________________________

 

[...] The shamanism is much older than all the world religions, he is as old as mankind. Many cave paintings from the Stone Age shamanic rituals are dar. We deal with our own roots as it were, if we now turn our attention to shamanic dreams. Many people today have a great yearning for the lost connection with these roots.

 

We have lost the one-sided by the full development of the intellect. We have said somewhat simplified, only used our left side of the face and put all the right areas out of service. This unused storage spaces of our options would be responsible for feelings, intuition, imagination, visual, symbolic way of thinking, intuition for the irrational.

 

Moreover, use our intellect, and I will not demonize the way, only the directed way of thinking, so we fixed a certain point that you want to see as sharp. It's the same principle as a telescope:

 

The price, however, you pay for this focus is a very narrow field of view. [...]____________________________________________

 

Source: Susanne Elsensohn - "Schamanismus und Traum"

Translated by Mr. Google!

________________________________________________

Yellow is the color of sunshine. It's associated with joy, happiness, intellect, and energy.

The Great Work in Heidelberg, look at the Serpent (Green Snacke by Goethe) under his face?the Universal Mind of the "highest Power" is over his head?

Palingenesia liberates the soul and is a reversal of physical birth (which imprisoned the soul in the body). This spiritual birth leads (thanks to the presence of a spiritual master and an initiatory father/son-relationship) to the soul's perfection through the knowledge of God, a "baptism in intellect" (IV.3-4). In the process of purification and Self-knowledge, traditional rituals may have been used, but the higher mysteries (the Hermetic initiation proper) involved a "mental" or "spiritual" sacrifice (I.31), the offering of hymns of praise and thanksgiving. The ritual and the noetic were thus fully integrated.Indeed, the "Nous", the Divine intellect or "soul of God", binds together the hierarchy of God, the world (of the Deities, minerals, plants & animals) and man. In particular, "Nous" is the way of the human soul to free itself from the snares of the flesh and be illuminated by the "light" of the "gnosis", for indeed, God is experienced as light. A "good Nous" will be able to repel the assaults of the world. The spiritual master becomes a personification of this Divine intellect. The master becomes one with the Divine Nous ("I am Mind") in the initiation of his disciple. In Hermetism, this "Nous" is personified by Hermes Trismegistus, the Universal Mind of the "highest Power" (situated on the Enneadic plane).In Ancient Egyptian theology, divine triads were used to express the divine family-unit, usually composed out of Pharaoh (the son) and a divine couple (father & mother), legitimizing his rule as divine king. Pharaoh Akhenaten had introduced a monotheistic triad (exclusive and against all other deities) : Aten, Akhenaten and Nefertiti. In Heliopolis, the original triad was Atum, Shu and Tefnut, in Memphis, Ptah, Sekhmet and Nefertem emerged, whereas Thebes worshipped Amun, Mut and Khonsu. The trinity naturally developed into three or one Ennead.In Hermetic triad reads as :God, the Unbegotten One, the essence of being, the Father of All - the "Decad" ;

Nous, the First Intellect, the Self-Begotten One, the Mind or Light of God - the "Ennead" ;

Ennead circle ⭕️ began with Atlantis was a great landing on Earth and a energetic belting game in production of a cosmically electric ⚡️

Logos, the "son" from "Nous", the Begotten One above the Seven Archons - the "Ogdoad". In Global Sacred Alignments, Terry Walsh diagrams several alignments of ancient sites on straight lines around the center of the earth, and mentions several others. He addresses the alignment of the Great Pyramid with Easter Island, Machupicchu and Persepolis, and he diagrams an alignment of Easter Island with Tiahuanaco, Luxor, Mohenjo Daro, Varanasi and Bandiagara, the ancient land of the Dogons. This second alignment also crosses over Dendera, Bodh Gaya and Mandalay.

The total circumference of this second alignment is 24,892 miles. The great circle distance from Easter Island to Tiahuanaco is 2,703 miles, 10.8% of the total circumference. The distance from Tiahuanaco to Bandiagara is 4,930 miles, 19.8%. The distance from Bandiagara to Luxor is 2,473 miles, 9.9%. The distance from Luxor to Easter Island’s antipodal point in the Indus Valley near Ganweriwali is 2,363 miles, 9.5%.

The One Entity or God (the "Tenth") is known to Its creation as the One Mind or Hermes which contains the "noetic" root of every individual existing thing (cf. Plato, Spinoza). This Divine Mind (the attributes or names of the nameless God) allows all things to be sympathetic transformations (adaptations, modi) of God.Hermetism is initiatory because it wants to elevate the soul to the level of its true Divine nature. Palingenesia is an ascension while alive. Rebirth implies more than just a confrontation with the Gods (as in Ancient Egypt), but a true interaction between Perfect Man and -thanks to the Presence of Mind- God. This interaction leads to a total emergence of the Divine spark in man and hence to his Deification (finally being completely his own Divine Self and thus himself "a God", a being permanently realizing the Enneadic nature (XIII.3,10 & 14). This highest state may be attained in the afterlife, although the Ogdoadic nature may be realized while alive on Earth. Because Easter Island, Machupicchu, the Great Pyramid, the Indus Valley and Angkor are also aligned at 10% intervals around the earth, there is a high coincidence of paired sites along these two alignments. In addition to the convergence of the two alignments at Easter Island and Mohenjo-Daro, Machupicchu is paired with Tiahuanaco and the Great Pyramid is paired with Luxor. If the pairing of these sites along these two alignments is not a coincidence, two good places to look for other ancient sites would be in the Sahara Desert, near the border between Mali and Mauritania, at 21° N, 7° 40' W, 2,488 miles southwest of the Great Pyramid, and in the shallow water of the South China Sea, just off the coast of Vietnam, at 18°43'N, 106°27'E, 2,488 miles southeast of Mohenjo-Daro.

The axis points of this great circle are 62°03'N, 124°40'W and 62°03'S, 55°20'E. The great circle crosses the equator at 34°40'W and 145°20'E. The upper latitudes are 27°57'N at 55°20'E and 27°57'S at 124°40'W.

"Man is a Divine being, not to be compared with the other Earthly beings, but with those who are called Gods, up in the heavens. Rather, if one must dare to speak the truth, man truly is established above even these Gods, or at least fully their equal. After all, none of the celestial Gods will leave the heavenly frontiers and descend to Earth ; yet man ascends even into heavens, and measured them, and knows their heights and depths, and everything else about them he learns with exactitude, and, supreme marvel, he even has no need to leave the Earth to establish himself upon high, so far does his power extend ! We must thus dare to say : Earthly man is a mortal God, the celestial God is an immortal Man. And so it is through these two, the world and man, that all things exist ; but they were all created by the One." CH, Libellus X, 24-25.The Hermetic triad can be traced back to Egyptian sources thus :the one god alone, pre-existing before creation as the primordial ocean of Nun ; the self-creative creator (in the form of Atum-Re), emerging out of the Nun (hatching out of his egg) as the origin of everything and the "father of the gods ; the unique "son of god" or Pharaoh, who mediates between the realm of the deities (sky) and the realm of humans (Earth). In this scheme, 10 ontological layers, strata or realms are posited : One supernatural Divine triad ("agennetos, autogennetos, gennetos") and Seven natural "powers of fate" or "archons". Hermetism is a gnosticism because it claims knowledge of God is possible. To know God one has to merge with Universal Mind, conveying a "special" light, causing a private and inner illumination or "gnosis". The purified soul is absorbed into God and realizes its own Divinity. Hermetism is a "way of immortality" (X.7). But as an Alexandro-Egyptian gnosticism, Hermetism did not introduce "evil" in the archons : God our Father is Good and His creation (including His Deities) is beautiful, the crucial moral choice is up to the individual. "For from thee, the unbegotten one, the begotten one came into being. The birth of the self-begotten one is through thee, giving birth to all begotten things that exists."

Robinson, 1984, p.294. The Hermetic Divine triad is modalistic and subordinates the hierarchy of being. God (10 : the Decad) is the first and ultimate level of existence, the One existing for Unity Alone (the Absolute in its Absoluteness). God (the incomprehensible, unrevealable and unknowable Father) is unborn, the "Logos autogenes" and the "son of Nous" born. What this is can not be said (cf. apophasis : absolute silence, no tales). Hermes (9 : the Ennead) is Self-begotten (not created or generated by God) and is the "soul" of God, the mode of God's holding together His creation by Universal Mind (Nous) and Word (logos). The Begotten One (8 : the Ogdoad), again a level lower, has no power of Self-generation, and is part of the process of time and space (this "son" is the "world" or "logos" given by Hermes as master, teacher and father). This level of the Perfect(ed) Human beings is higher than the Deities (or at least equal to them).The Seven Archons, ruling fate and subordinated to supernatural command, are beautiful and good (demons may exists, but there is no evil God). That evil exists at all is due to man's nature and his slavish prostrations before his physical passions & vices. Clouding his true nature, these evils cause ignorance and make man subject to the fatal blows of the blind planetary forces, measured by astrologers and manipulated by magicians. On their own, both astrologers and magi fail to reach the Hermetic goal of life : "gnosis" or an inner awakening in the light coming forth from God's Mind, i.e. an entrance in the supernatural strata of being (the Ogdoad, which borders the natural world, and the Ennead). "{O my Father}, yesterday You promised me that You would bring my mind into the eighth and afterwards You would bring me into the ninth. You said that this is the order of the tradition."Robinson, 1984, p.292.Resisting fate binds one to fate. Only the Divine light of "gnosis" allows the soul to move beyond nature and abide in the supernatural. Here, fate has no hold, for the Gods never leave their heaven, and, as Paracelsus would claim centuries earlier : the wise command the stars !► literary Hermeticism and the Western Tradition : a few highlights The earliest links made between Egyptian wisdom and Christianity appear in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215), Origen of Alexandria (185 - 254) and Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430)."As early as Origen's Contra Celsus (I, 28), we encounter the claim that it was in Egypt, and specifically as an adult laborer, that Jesus had learned all the magical arts with which he worked miracles and on which he based his divinity. The tradition also occurred in early rabbinic literature, but it was of course suppressed in official Christianity."Hornung, 2001, pp.76-77.Indeed, Morton (1978) writes :"The rabbinic report that in Egypt Jesus was tattooed with magic spells does not appear in polemic material, but is cited as a known fact in discussion of a legal question by a rabbi who was probably born about the time of the crucifixion. The antiquity of the source, type of citation, connection with the report that he was in Egypt, and agreement with Egyptian magical practices are considerable arguments in its favor."Morton, 1978, pp.150-151.The link between Egyptian wisdom, under the guise of Hermetism, Christianity and Islam is also pertinent and often forgotten. "The mystical powers of Hermes exerted themselves far beyond the Pagan world of Late Antiquity, transmuting medieval Christian and Islamic understanding of the relationship between rational knowledge and revelation." Green, 1992, p.85.This explains why, when Arab translations overflowed Europe, Hermetic concepts came along."The Sabaeans in Harran, who were without a sacred scripture under Islam, in order to count as a 'people of the Book', elevated the Corpus Hermeticum into such a holy book in the ninth century, thereby contributing to the continued existence of Hermetic texts among the Arab writers."Hornung, 2001, pp.53.The first elements of literary Hermeticism were probably introduced in Western Europe by the Knight Templars (an order initiated in 1118). This powerful organization would pass on "the light of the Orient" to Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry. Both drew on the translations of the Corpus Hermeticum, available as early as 1471, but also on alchemy, centuries older."The first Latin texts on alchemy were translated from Arabic in the 12th century, and included the Septem tractatus Hermetis Sapientia Triplicis and the Liber de Compositione Alchemiae of Morienus. A leitmotif that occurs with respect of the Arabic and Latin alchemical texts is the discovery in an underground chamber or crypt of a stela made of marble, ebony or emerald, with mysterious writing or symbols on it."

Burnett, Ch (Ucko & Champion, 2003, p.94).► the Order of the Temple. Jerusalem fell to the curved swords of Islam in 638 AD. In 1095, Pope Urban II decided to incite the sovereigns of the West to recapture the city. He wanted to bring together the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman) strains of Christianity, a scandalous divide caused by a fundamental dogmatic difference about the nature of the Holy Spirit (who, in the Eastern Church, does not proceed from the Son as in the Filioquist West). In 1099, the year Godefroy de Bouillon of Flanders conquered the city, the Pope died. It would be recaptured in 1244. According to Templar tradition, the Order of the Knights Templar was founded by Huges de Payns, a 48 year old nobleman, and eight other Knights. They took their vows on the 12th of June 1118 at the Castle of Arginy in the County of Rhône. The nine Knights were devoted to Christ and pledged to ensure the safety of the pilgrims to Jerusalem and the protection of the Holy Sepulchre. The Grand Master was very successful and obtained gifts of land and property to start the order. By 1129, the Templar Order was established in Europe. The battle standard of the Order, the Gonfalon Beauceant or Beauseant was a red eight-pointed cross, the "Croix patteé gueules", on a background of white and black squares. Their motto was : Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tua da gloriam. The seal of the Order was the design of two horsemen on the same horse, indicating the vow of poverty, the fraternity as well as the dual role of monk and warrior. When Pope Honorius died in 1130, Bernard of St. Clairvaux supported the man who became Innocent II, to the great advantage of the Order, for eventually his Templars were subject to no authority save the Pope's. Their Order became a state within states and enjoyed considerable freedom, endowed with incredible wealth. The purity of these ideals were compromised by the politics of the Near East. Although the inner order retained the ideal, the outer structures failed. This inner order had access to "heretical" knowledge. Hermetical doctrines taught them the universe was conditioned by the laws of sound, color, number, weight and measure. Impregnated with the "Orientale Lumen", studying the "sciences of the Moors", Jewish Qabalah & Muslim Sufism and helped by Arab translations, they were able to read unknown Greek & Latin authors and drink from the grand reservoir of Mediterranean and Hellenistic spirituality. Eventually, new technologies were learned. These were introduced in the West, fertilized Christian culture, transformed the architecture of churches & cathedrals and enlightened the intelligentsia of their time. Hence, the Templar Order helped prepare the European Renaissance ...In 1312, during a Council held in Vienne, Pope Clement V, backed by the King of France (who had been refused by the Order) abolished the Order of the Knights Templar. After this, the Order lost central command, and various groups were created, like the Order of Montesa in Spain (1317), the Order of Christ in Portugal (1319) and the Elder Brothers of the Rose Cross in France (returning from Scotland). These "Frères Aînés de la Rose-Croix" (1317) drew up a new Templar Rule adopted by a college of 33 men, renewed and maintained by co-option.Templars made links with troubadours, alchemists, qabalists and Muslims, in particular certain Muslim brotherhoods (the flowering of Sufism, the mysticism of Islam, was conterminous with the rise of the Knights Templar). It was one of the tasks of St. Bernard and his Templars, to bring Judaism, Christianity and Islam together, and in this intention they saw the work of the Paraclete. They also worked to allow the latter to manifest in this world again and strove for the "Return of the Christ in Solar Glory". This was accepted by both Judaism (the coming of the Messiah), Christianity (the "Parousia") and Islam (prophet Jesus, the "Word" of Allah, returning to judge the world). Templars are called to sacrifice the selfish aspect of their natures, so the spirit of Christ may manifest in them in victu.

► the Zohar..Before the entry of the Hermetica on the European scene, Jewish gnosticism made its move. In the Sepher Zohar (Book of Splendor), the "classic" of Jewish mysticism, a commentary on the Torah is presented. Written in Aramaic, it was purported to be the teachings of the 2nd century Palestinian Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai. During the time of Roman persecution, so its legend relates, Rabbi Shimon hid in a cave for 13 years, studying the Torah with his son. During this time, he is said to have been inspired by God to write the Zohar ... Around the same time, the Corpus Hermeticum was codified.

In the 13th century, a Spanish Jew by the name of Moshe de Leon (according to Graetz "a base and despicable swindler") claimed to have discovered the text, and it was subsequently published and distributed throughout the Jewish world. This strategy of finding so-called "lost texts" would become a standard approach (only in the previous century would it make real science, cf. the Qumran scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library). The influence of the Zohar was considerable, also on members of the Western Tradition. Eventually, its basic scheme, the "Tree of Life", would be viewed as the backbone of Western spirituality ... "... the level of abstraction reached by cabalistic thought was foreign to the Egyptian mindset. Nevertheless, in later esoterica, we constantly find a link between Egyptosophy and cabala, and the connection between Moses and Egyptian wisdom to be found in many Christian writers is also relevant to our theme." Hornung, 2001, p.80. Unfortunately for the literalists, historian Gershom Scholem made clear de Leon himself was the most likely author of the Zohar. He had forged its ancient origins. Among other things, but most importantly, Scholem noticed frequent errors in Aramaic grammar and its highly suspicious traces of Spanish words and sentence patterns ! There is no real mention of this book in any Jewish literature until the 13th century. Moreover, recent studies showed how early qabalah (cf. Sepher Bahir, Sepher Yetzirah) was influenced by the Greeks, in particular the mathematical mysticism of Pythagoras (the Sephiroth and the Greek Decad, numerology and Merkabah mysticism - Barry, 1999). It even contains elements of Egyptian thought, introducing precreation and describing it in identical negative terms as had the Egyptians (cf. Nun and "Ain Soph Aur"). "... it is sufficient to note that Hebrew Qabalist doctrines reached their pinnacle of importance in Judaism in Europe during the Middle Ages. Consequently they also had a huge influence on Western magical tradition, which drew heavily on Jewish esoteric lore, and as a source for the inner gnosis of orthodox Christian thought." Barry, 1999, p.185. In the best case scenario, Jewish mysticism cannot claim roots earlier than the Second Temple and in general the impact of Hellenism (Hermetism and Philonic thought) on Judaism has been largely underestimated by orthodox Jews. Rabbinical Judaism as a whole may well be the product of a Hellenistic interpretation of the available scriptural sources (by themselves posing considerable historical problems regarding authenticity).

"Of the large number of Hebrew sacred writings, the canon of books that were eventually selected for the Hebrew Bible, or 'Old Testament', as the Christians later called it, was only established after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE, by surviving rabbis at Jamnia who were anxious to preserve their religion from the catastrophe of the failed Jewish revolt." Barry, 1999, p.175. ► the first translation of the Corpus Hermeticumn "The thirteenth century saw a renaissance of pyramids and sphinxes. (...) the first western representation of the pyramids appeared in San Marco in Venice, but they were believed to be the granaries of Joseph, and thus not part of an esoteric tradition."nHornung, 2001, p.83. In Florence, a new Platonic Academy had been founded in 1459. It tried to resume the traditions of the Athenian Academy closed by emperor Justinian in 529. Around 1460 CE, Brother Leonardo of Pistoia brought a Greek manuscript from Macedonia to Florence. Cosimo de' Medici was fascinated and asked his Plato expert Marsilio Ficino (1433 - 1499) to stop translating Plato in order to look into these texts. In 1463, even before finishing his Latin version of the works of Plato, he translated them, which took him only a few months. For Fincino, the CH contained a philosophy older than Plato's. This Latin version of the Corpus Hermeticum was extremely influential, especially its first treatise, the Poimandres, circulating in many copies before it was published in Treviso in 1471 together with the other books as Liber de potestate et sapientia Dei (On the Power and Wisdom of God). Fincino also translated the On the Mysteries of the Egyptians by Iamblichus, and the latter's Opera omnia, published in Basel in 1561. The original Greek version of the CH was published in Paris in 1554.

 

► A SECOND EASTER ISLAND ALIGNMENT ► A THIRD EASTER ISLAND ALIGNMENT ► A FOURTH EASTER ISLAND ALIGNMENT ► A SECOND GREAT PYRAMID ALIGNMENT ► A THIRD GREAT PYRAMID ALIGNMENT ►A SECOND PERSEOPOLIS ALIGNMENT ► A SECOND ANGKOR ALIGNMENT ► A SECOND NAZCA ALIGNMENT ► A SECOND MACHUPICCHU ALIGNMENT ► A SECOND CHACO CANYON ALIGNMENT ► A SECOND PALENQUE ALIGNMENT ►CONVERGENT ALIGNMENTS ►CONVERGENT ALIGNMENTS - PART II ►THE AVENUE OF THE DEAD ► THE GOLDEN SECTION - PART II ► IN SEARCH OF ATLANTIS - PART II ©

Ganesha, also spelled Ganesh, and also known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is a widely worshipped deity in the Hindu pantheon. His image is found throughout India and Nepal. Hindu sects worship him regardless of affiliations. Devotion to Ganesha is widely diffused and extends to Jains, Buddhists, and beyond India.

 

Although he is known by many attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As the god of beginnings, he is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies. Ganesha is also invoked as patron of letters and learning during writing sessions. Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.

 

Ganesha emerged as a distinct deity in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, during the Gupta Period, although he inherited traits from Vedic and pre-Vedic precursors. He was formally included among the five primary deities of Smartism (a Hindu denomination) in the 9th century. A sect of devotees called the Ganapatya arose, who identified Ganesha as the supreme deity. The principal scriptures dedicated to Ganesha are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa.

 

ETYMOLOGY AND OTHER NAMES

Ganesha has been ascribed many other titles and epithets, including Ganapati and Vighneshvara. The Hindu title of respect Shri is often added before his name. One popular way Ganesha is worshipped is by chanting a Ganesha Sahasranama, a litany of "a thousand names of Ganesha". Each name in the sahasranama conveys a different meaning and symbolises a different aspect of Ganesha. At least two different versions of the Ganesha Sahasranama exist; one version is drawn from the Ganesha Purana, a Hindu scripture venerating Ganesha.

 

The name Ganesha is a Sanskrit compound, joining the words gana, meaning a group, multitude, or categorical system and isha, meaning lord or master. The word gaņa when associated with Ganesha is often taken to refer to the gaņas, a troop of semi-divine beings that form part of the retinue of Shiva. The term more generally means a category, class, community, association, or corporation. Some commentators interpret the name "Lord of the Gaņas" to mean "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of created categories", such as the elements. Ganapati, a synonym for Ganesha, is a compound composed of gaṇa, meaning "group", and pati, meaning "ruler" or "lord". The Amarakosha, an early Sanskrit lexicon, lists eight synonyms of Ganesha : Vinayaka, Vighnarāja (equivalent to Vighnesha), Dvaimātura (one who has two mothers), Gaṇādhipa (equivalent to Ganapati and Ganesha), Ekadanta (one who has one tusk), Heramba, Lambodara (one who has a pot belly, or, literally, one who has a hanging belly), and Gajanana; having the face of an elephant).

 

Vinayaka is a common name for Ganesha that appears in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. This name is reflected in the naming of the eight famous Ganesha temples in Maharashtra known as the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka). The names Vighnesha and Vighneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) refers to his primary function in Hindu theology as the master and remover of obstacles (vighna).

 

A prominent name for Ganesha in the Tamil language is Pillai. A. K. Narain differentiates these terms by saying that pillai means a "child" while pillaiyar means a "noble child". He adds that the words pallu, pella, and pell in the Dravidian family of languages signify "tooth or tusk", also "elephant tooth or tusk". Anita Raina Thapan notes that the root word pille in the name Pillaiyar might have originally meant "the young of the elephant", because the Pali word pillaka means "a young elephant".

 

In the Burmese language, Ganesha is known as Maha Peinne, derived from Pali Mahā Wināyaka. The widespread name of Ganesha in Thailand is Phra Phikhanet or Phra Phikhanesuan, both of which are derived from Vara Vighnesha and Vara Vighneshvara respectively, whereas the name Khanet (from Ganesha) is rather rare.

 

In Sri Lanka, in the North-Central and North Western areas with predominantly Buddhist population, Ganesha is known as Aiyanayaka Deviyo, while in other Singhala Buddhist areas he is known as Gana deviyo.

 

ICONOGRAPHY

Ganesha is a popular figure in Indian art. Unlike those of some deities, representations of Ganesha show wide variations and distinct patterns changing over time. He may be portrayed standing, dancing, heroically taking action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down or on an elevated seat, or engaging in a range of contemporary situations.

 

Ganesha images were prevalent in many parts of India by the 6th century. The 13th century statue pictured is typical of Ganesha statuary from 900–1200, after Ganesha had been well-established as an independent deity with his own sect. This example features some of Ganesha's common iconographic elements. A virtually identical statue has been dated between 973–1200 by Paul Martin-Dubost, and another similar statue is dated c. 12th century by Pratapaditya Pal. Ganesha has the head of an elephant and a big belly. This statue has four arms, which is common in depictions of Ganesha. He holds his own broken tusk in his lower-right hand and holds a delicacy, which he samples with his trunk, in his lower-left hand. The motif of Ganesha turning his trunk sharply to his left to taste a sweet in his lower-left hand is a particularly archaic feature. A more primitive statue in one of the Ellora Caves with this general form has been dated to the 7th century. Details of the other hands are difficult to make out on the statue shown. In the standard configuration, Ganesha typically holds an axe or a goad in one upper arm and a pasha (noose) in the other upper arm.

 

The influence of this old constellation of iconographic elements can still be seen in contemporary representations of Ganesha. In one modern form, the only variation from these old elements is that the lower-right hand does not hold the broken tusk but is turned towards the viewer in a gesture of protection or fearlessness (abhaya mudra). The same combination of four arms and attributes occurs in statues of Ganesha dancing, which is a very popular theme.

 

COMMON ATTRIBUTES

Ganesha has been represented with the head of an elephant since the early stages of his appearance in Indian art. Puranic myths provide many explanations for how he got his elephant head. One of his popular forms, Heramba-Ganapati, has five elephant heads, and other less-common variations in the number of heads are known. While some texts say that Ganesha was born with an elephant head, he acquires the head later in most stories. The most recurrent motif in these stories is that Ganesha was created by Parvati using clay to protect her and Shiva beheaded him when Ganesha came between Shiva and Parvati. Shiva then replaced Ganesha's original head with that of an elephant. Details of the battle and where the replacement head came from vary from source to source. Another story says that Ganesha was created directly by Shiva's laughter. Because Shiva considered Ganesha too alluring, he gave him the head of an elephant and a protruding belly.

 

Ganesha's earliest name was Ekadanta (One Tusked), referring to his single whole tusk, the other being broken. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The importance of this distinctive feature is reflected in the Mudgala Purana, which states that the name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta. Ganesha's protruding belly appears as a distinctive attribute in his earliest statuary, which dates to the Gupta period (4th to 6th centuries). This feature is so important that, according to the Mudgala Purana, two different incarnations of Ganesha use names based on it: Lambodara (Pot Belly, or, literally, Hanging Belly) and Mahodara (Great Belly). Both names are Sanskrit compounds describing his belly. The Brahmanda Purana says that Ganesha has the name Lambodara because all the universes (i.e., cosmic eggs) of the past, present, and future are present in him. The number of Ganesha's arms varies; his best-known forms have between two and sixteen arms. Many depictions of Ganesha feature four arms, which is mentioned in Puranic sources and codified as a standard form in some iconographic texts. His earliest images had two arms. Forms with 14 and 20 arms appeared in Central India during the 9th and the 10th centuries. The serpent is a common feature in Ganesha iconography and appears in many forms. According to the Ganesha Purana, Ganesha wrapped the serpent Vasuki around his neck. Other depictions of snakes include use as a sacred thread wrapped around the stomach as a belt, held in a hand, coiled at the ankles, or as a throne. Upon Ganesha's forehead may be a third eye or the Shaivite sectarian mark , which consists of three horizontal lines. The Ganesha Purana prescribes a tilaka mark as well as a crescent moon on the forehead. A distinct form of Ganesha called Bhalachandra includes that iconographic element. Ganesha is often described as red in color. Specific colors are associated with certain forms. Many examples of color associations with specific meditation forms are prescribed in the Sritattvanidhi, a treatise on Hindu iconography. For example, white is associated with his representations as Heramba-Ganapati and Rina-Mochana-Ganapati (Ganapati Who Releases from Bondage). Ekadanta-Ganapati is visualized as blue during meditation in that form.

 

VAHANAS

The earliest Ganesha images are without a vahana (mount/vehicle). Of the eight incarnations of Ganesha described in the Mudgala Purana, Ganesha uses a mouse (shrew) in five of them, a lion in his incarnation as Vakratunda, a peacock in his incarnation as Vikata, and Shesha, the divine serpent, in his incarnation as Vighnaraja. Mohotkata uses a lion, Mayūreśvara uses a peacock, Dhumraketu uses a horse, and Gajanana uses a mouse, in the four incarnations of Ganesha listed in the Ganesha Purana. Jain depictions of Ganesha show his vahana variously as a mouse, elephant, tortoise, ram, or peacock.

 

Ganesha is often shown riding on or attended by a mouse, shrew or rat. Martin-Dubost says that the rat began to appear as the principal vehicle in sculptures of Ganesha in central and western India during the 7th century; the rat was always placed close to his feet. The mouse as a mount first appears in written sources in the Matsya Purana and later in the Brahmananda Purana and Ganesha Purana, where Ganesha uses it as his vehicle in his last incarnation. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa includes a meditation verse on Ganesha that describes the mouse appearing on his flag. The names Mūṣakavāhana (mouse-mount) and Ākhuketana (rat-banner) appear in the Ganesha Sahasranama.

 

The mouse is interpreted in several ways. According to Grimes, "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire". Along these lines, Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish. Krishan notes that the rat is destructive and a menace to crops. The Sanskrit word mūṣaka (mouse) is derived from the root mūṣ (stealing, robbing). It was essential to subdue the rat as a destructive pest, a type of vighna (impediment) that needed to be overcome. According to this theory, showing Ganesha as master of the rat demonstrates his function as Vigneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) and gives evidence of his possible role as a folk grāma-devatā (village deity) who later rose to greater prominence. Martin-Dubost notes a view that the rat is a symbol suggesting that Ganesha, like the rat, penetrates even the most secret places.

 

ASSOCIATIONS

 

OBSTACLES

Ganesha is Vighneshvara or Vighnaraja or Vighnaharta (Marathi), the Lord of Obstacles, both of a material and spiritual order. He is popularly worshipped as a remover of obstacles, though traditionally he also places obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked. Paul Courtright says that "his task in the divine scheme of things, his dharma, is to place and remove obstacles. It is his particular territory, the reason for his creation."

 

Krishan notes that some of Ganesha's names reflect shadings of multiple roles that have evolved over time. Dhavalikar ascribes the quick ascension of Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon, and the emergence of the Ganapatyas, to this shift in emphasis from vighnakartā (obstacle-creator) to vighnahartā (obstacle-averter). However, both functions continue to be vital to his character.

 

BUDDHI (KNOWLEDGE)

Ganesha is considered to be the Lord of letters and learning. In Sanskrit, the word buddhi is a feminine noun that is variously translated as intelligence, wisdom, or intellect. The concept of buddhi is closely associated with the personality of Ganesha, especially in the Puranic period, when many stories stress his cleverness and love of intelligence. One of Ganesha's names in the Ganesha Purana and the Ganesha Sahasranama is Buddhipriya. This name also appears in a list of 21 names at the end of the Ganesha Sahasranama that Ganesha says are especially important. The word priya can mean "fond of", and in a marital context it can mean "lover" or "husband", so the name may mean either "Fond of Intelligence" or "Buddhi's Husband".

 

AUM

Ganesha is identified with the Hindu mantra Aum, also spelled Om. The term oṃkārasvarūpa (Aum is his form), when identified with Ganesha, refers to the notion that he personifies the primal sound. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa attests to this association. Chinmayananda translates the relevant passage as follows:

 

(O Lord Ganapati!) You are (the Trinity) Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa. You are Indra. You are fire [Agni] and air [Vāyu]. You are the sun [Sūrya] and the moon [Chandrama]. You are Brahman. You are (the three worlds) Bhuloka [earth], Antariksha-loka [space], and Swargaloka [heaven]. You are Om. (That is to say, You are all this).

 

Some devotees see similarities between the shape of Ganesha's body in iconography and the shape of Aum in the Devanāgarī and Tamil scripts.

 

FIRST CHAKRA

According to Kundalini yoga, Ganesha resides in the first chakra, called Muladhara (mūlādhāra). Mula means "original, main"; adhara means "base, foundation". The muladhara chakra is the principle on which the manifestation or outward expansion of primordial Divine Force rests. This association is also attested to in the Ganapati Atharvashirsa. Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara. Ganesha holds, supports and guides all other chakras, thereby "governing the forces that propel the wheel of life".

 

FAMILY AND CONSORTS

Though Ganesha is popularly held to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, the Puranic myths give different versions about his birth. In some he was created by Parvati, in another he was created by Shiva and Parvati, in another he appeared mysteriously and was discovered by Shiva and Parvati or he was born from the elephant headed goddess Malini after she drank Parvati's bath water that had been thrown in the river.

 

The family includes his brother the war god Kartikeya, who is also called Subramanya, Skanda, Murugan and other names. Regional differences dictate the order of their births. In northern India, Skanda is generally said to be the elder, while in the south, Ganesha is considered the first born. In northern India, Skanda was an important martial deity from about 500 BCE to about 600 CE, when worship of him declined significantly in northern India. As Skanda fell, Ganesha rose. Several stories tell of sibling rivalry between the brothers and may reflect sectarian tensions.

 

Ganesha's marital status, the subject of considerable scholarly review, varies widely in mythological stories. One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as an unmarried brahmacari. This view is common in southern India and parts of northern India. Another pattern associates him with the concepts of Buddhi (intellect), Siddhi (spiritual power), and Riddhi (prosperity); these qualities are sometimes personified as goddesses, said to be Ganesha's wives. He also may be shown with a single consort or a nameless servant (Sanskrit: daşi). Another pattern connects Ganesha with the goddess of culture and the arts, Sarasvati or Śarda (particularly in Maharashtra). He is also associated with the goddess of luck and prosperity, Lakshmi. Another pattern, mainly prevalent in the Bengal region, links Ganesha with the banana tree, Kala Bo.

 

The Shiva Purana says that Ganesha had begotten two sons: Kşema (prosperity) and Lābha (profit). In northern Indian variants of this story, the sons are often said to be Śubha (auspiciouness) and Lābha. The 1975 Hindi film Jai Santoshi Maa shows Ganesha married to Riddhi and Siddhi and having a daughter named Santoshi Ma, the goddess of satisfaction. This story has no Puranic basis, but Anita Raina Thapan and Lawrence Cohen cite Santoshi Ma's cult as evidence of Ganesha's continuing evolution as a popular deity.

 

WOSHIP AND FESTIVALS

Ganesha is worshipped on many religious and secular occasions; especially at the beginning of ventures such as buying a vehicle or starting a business. K.N. Somayaji says, "there can hardly be a [Hindu] home [in India] which does not house an idol of Ganapati. [..] Ganapati, being the most popular deity in India, is worshipped by almost all castes and in all parts of the country". Devotees believe that if Ganesha is propitiated, he grants success, prosperity and protection against adversity.

 

Ganesha is a non-sectarian deity, and Hindus of all denominations invoke him at the beginning of prayers, important undertakings, and religious ceremonies. Dancers and musicians, particularly in southern India, begin performances of arts such as the Bharatnatyam dance with a prayer to Ganesha. Mantras such as Om Shri Gaṇeshāya Namah (Om, salutation to the Illustrious Ganesha) are often used. One of the most famous mantras associated with Ganesha is Om Gaṃ Ganapataye Namah (Om, Gaṃ, Salutation to the Lord of Hosts).

 

Devotees offer Ganesha sweets such as modaka and small sweet balls (laddus). He is often shown carrying a bowl of sweets, called a modakapātra. Because of his identification with the color red, he is often worshipped with red sandalwood paste (raktacandana) or red flowers. Dūrvā grass (Cynodon dactylon) and other materials are also used in his worship.

 

Festivals associated with Ganesh are Ganesh Chaturthi or Vināyaka chaturthī in the śuklapakṣa (the fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of bhādrapada (August/September) and the Gaṇeśa jayanti (Gaṇeśa's birthday) celebrated on the cathurthī of the śuklapakṣa (fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of māgha (January/February)."

 

GANESH CHATURTI

An annual festival honours Ganesha for ten days, starting on Ganesha Chaturthi, which typically falls in late August or early September. The festival begins with people bringing in clay idols of Ganesha, symbolising Ganesha's visit. The festival culminates on the day of Ananta Chaturdashi, when idols (murtis) of Ganesha are immersed in the most convenient body of water. Some families have a tradition of immersion on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or 7th day. In 1893, Lokmanya Tilak transformed this annual Ganesha festival from private family celebrations into a grand public event. He did so "to bridge the gap between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins and find an appropriate context in which to build a new grassroots unity between them" in his nationalistic strivings against the British in Maharashtra. Because of Ganesha's wide appeal as "the god for Everyman", Tilak chose him as a rallying point for Indian protest against British rule. Tilak was the first to install large public images of Ganesha in pavilions, and he established the practice of submerging all the public images on the tenth day. Today, Hindus across India celebrate the Ganapati festival with great fervour, though it is most popular in the state of Maharashtra. The festival also assumes huge proportions in Mumbai, Pune, and in the surrounding belt of Ashtavinayaka temples.

 

TEMPLES

In Hindu temples, Ganesha is depicted in various ways: as an acolyte or subordinate deity (pãrśva-devatã); as a deity related to the principal deity (parivāra-devatã); or as the principal deity of the temple (pradhāna), treated similarly as the highest gods of the Hindu pantheon. As the god of transitions, he is placed at the doorway of many Hindu temples to keep out the unworthy, which is analogous to his role as Parvati’s doorkeeper. In addition, several shrines are dedicated to Ganesha himself, of which the Ashtavinayak (lit. "eight Ganesha (shrines)") in Maharashtra are particularly well known. Located within a 100-kilometer radius of the city of Pune, each of these eight shrines celebrates a particular form of Ganapati, complete with its own lore and legend. The eight shrines are: Morgaon, Siddhatek, Pali, Mahad, Theur, Lenyadri, Ozar and Ranjangaon.

 

There are many other important Ganesha temples at the following locations: Wai in Maharashtra; Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh; Jodhpur, Nagaur and Raipur (Pali) in Rajasthan; Baidyanath in Bihar; Baroda, Dholaka, and Valsad in Gujarat and Dhundiraj Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Prominent Ganesha temples in southern India include the following: Kanipakam in Chittoor; the Jambukeśvara Temple at Tiruchirapalli; at Rameshvaram and Suchindram in Tamil Nadu; at Malliyur, Kottarakara, Pazhavangadi, Kasargod in Kerala, Hampi, and Idagunji in Karnataka; and Bhadrachalam in Andhra Pradesh.

 

T. A. Gopinatha notes, "Every village however small has its own image of Vighneśvara (Vigneshvara) with or without a temple to house it in. At entrances of villages and forts, below pīpaḹa (Sacred fig) trees [...], in a niche [...] in temples of Viṣṇu (Vishnu) as well as Śiva (Shiva) and also in separate shrines specially constructed in Śiva temples [...]; the figure of Vighneśvara is invariably seen." Ganesha temples have also been built outside of India, including southeast Asia, Nepal (including the four Vinayaka shrines in the Kathmandu valley), and in several western countries.

 

RISE TO PROMINENCE

 

FIRST APEARANCE

Ganesha appeared in his classic form as a clearly recognizable deity with well-defined iconographic attributes in the early 4th to 5th centuries. Shanti Lal Nagar says that the earliest known iconic image of Ganesha is in the niche of the Shiva temple at Bhumra, which has been dated to the Gupta period. His independent cult appeared by about the 10th century. Narain summarizes the controversy between devotees and academics regarding the development of Ganesha as follows:

 

What is inscrutable is the somewhat dramatic appearance of Gaņeśa on the historical scene. His antecedents are not clear. His wide acceptance and popularity, which transcend sectarian and territorial limits, are indeed amazing. On the one hand there is the pious belief of the orthodox devotees in Gaņeśa's Vedic origins and in the Purāṇic explanations contained in the confusing, but nonetheless interesting, mythology. On the other hand there are doubts about the existence of the idea and the icon of this deity" before the fourth to fifth century A.D. ... [I]n my opinion, indeed there is no convincing evidence of the existence of this divinity prior to the fifth century.

 

POSSIBLE INFLUENCES

Courtright reviews various speculative theories about the early history of Ganesha, including supposed tribal traditions and animal cults, and dismisses all of them in this way:

 

In the post 600 BC period there is evidence of people and places named after the animal. The motif appears on coins and sculptures.

 

Thapan's book on the development of Ganesha devotes a chapter to speculations about the role elephants had in early India but concludes that, "although by the second century CE the elephant-headed yakṣa form exists it cannot be presumed to represent Gaṇapati-Vināyaka. There is no evidence of a deity by this name having an elephant or elephant-headed form at this early stage. Gaṇapati-Vināyaka had yet to make his debut."

 

One theory of the origin of Ganesha is that he gradually came to prominence in connection with the four Vinayakas (Vināyakas). In Hindu mythology, the Vināyakas were a group of four troublesome demons who created obstacles and difficulties but who were easily propitiated. The name Vināyaka is a common name for Ganesha both in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. Krishan is one of the academics who accepts this view, stating flatly of Ganesha, "He is a non-vedic god. His origin is to be traced to the four Vināyakas, evil spirits, of the Mānavagŗhyasūtra (7th–4th century BCE) who cause various types of evil and suffering". Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century. According to Ellawala, the elephant-headed Ganesha as lord of the Ganas was known to the people of Sri Lanka in the early pre-Christian era.

 

A metal plate depiction of Ganesha had been discovered in 1993, in Iran, it dated back to 1,200 BCE. Another one was discovered much before, in Lorestan Province of Iran.

 

First Ganesha's terracotta images are from 1st century CE found in Ter, Pal, Verrapuram and Chandraketugarh. These figures are small, with elephant head, two arms, and chubby physique. The earliest Ganesha icons in stone were carved in Mathura during Kushan times (2nd-3rd centuries CE).

 

VEDIC AND EPIC LITERATURE

The title "Leader of the group" (Sanskrit: gaṇapati) occurs twice in the Rig Veda, but in neither case does it refer to the modern Ganesha. The term appears in RV 2.23.1 as a title for Brahmanaspati, according to commentators. While this verse doubtless refers to Brahmanaspati, it was later adopted for worship of Ganesha and is still used today. In rejecting any claim that this passage is evidence of Ganesha in the Rig Veda, Ludo Rocher says that it "clearly refers to Bṛhaspati—who is the deity of the hymn—and Bṛhaspati only". Equally clearly, the second passage (RV 10.112.9) refers to Indra, who is given the epithet 'gaṇapati', translated "Lord of the companies (of the Maruts)." However, Rocher notes that the more recent Ganapatya literature often quotes the Rigvedic verses to give Vedic respectability to Ganesha .

 

Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā (2.9.1) and Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.1), appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" (Dantiḥ), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" (Vakratuņḍa). These names are suggestive of Ganesha, and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification. The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club, is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin". However, Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions. Thapan reports that these passages are "generally considered to have been interpolated". Dhavalikar says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity".

 

Ganesha does not appear in Indian epic literature that is dated to the Vedic period. A late interpolation to the epic poem Mahabharata says that the sage Vyasa (Vyāsa) asked Ganesha to serve as his scribe to transcribe the poem as he dictated it to him. Ganesha agreed but only on condition that Vyasa recite the poem uninterrupted, that is, without pausing. The sage agreed, but found that to get any rest he needed to recite very complex passages so Ganesha would have to ask for clarifications. The story is not accepted as part of the original text by the editors of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, in which the twenty-line story is relegated to a footnote in an appendix. The story of Ganesha acting as the scribe occurs in 37 of the 59 manuscripts consulted during preparation of the critical edition. Ganesha's association with mental agility and learning is one reason he is shown as scribe for Vyāsa's dictation of the Mahabharata in this interpolation. Richard L. Brown dates the story to the 8th century, and Moriz Winternitz concludes that it was known as early as c. 900, but it was not added to the Mahabharata some 150 years later. Winternitz also notes that a distinctive feature in South Indian manuscripts of the Mahabharata is their omission of this Ganesha legend. The term vināyaka is found in some recensions of the Śāntiparva and Anuśāsanaparva that are regarded as interpolations. A reference to Vighnakartṛīṇām ("Creator of Obstacles") in Vanaparva is also believed to be an interpolation and does not appear in the critical edition.

 

PURANIC PERIOD

Stories about Ganesha often occur in the Puranic corpus. Brown notes while the Puranas "defy precise chronological ordering", the more detailed narratives of Ganesha's life are in the late texts, c. 600–1300. Yuvraj Krishan says that the Puranic myths about the birth of Ganesha and how he acquired an elephant's head are in the later Puranas, which were composed from c. 600 onwards. He elaborates on the matter to say that references to Ganesha in the earlier Puranas, such as the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas, are later interpolations made during the 7th to 10th centuries.

 

In his survey of Ganesha's rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature, Ludo Rocher notes that:

 

Above all, one cannot help being struck by the fact that the numerous stories surrounding Gaṇeśa concentrate on an unexpectedly limited number of incidents. These incidents are mainly three: his birth and parenthood, his elephant head, and his single tusk. Other incidents are touched on in the texts, but to a far lesser extent.

 

Ganesha's rise to prominence was codified in the 9th century, when he was formally included as one of the five primary deities of Smartism. The 9th-century philosopher Adi Shankara popularized the "worship of the five forms" (Panchayatana puja) system among orthodox Brahmins of the Smarta tradition. This worship practice invokes the five deities Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, and Surya. Adi Shankara instituted the tradition primarily to unite the principal deities of these five major sects on an equal status. This formalized the role of Ganesha as a complementary deity.

 

SCRIPTURES

Once Ganesha was accepted as one of the five principal deities of Brahmanism, some Brahmins (brāhmaṇas) chose to worship Ganesha as their principal deity. They developed the Ganapatya tradition, as seen in the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana.

 

The date of composition for the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana - and their dating relative to one another - has sparked academic debate. Both works were developed over time and contain age-layered strata. Anita Thapan reviews comments about dating and provides her own judgement. "It seems likely that the core of the Ganesha Purana appeared around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries", she says, "but was later interpolated." Lawrence W. Preston considers the most reasonable date for the Ganesha Purana to be between 1100 and 1400, which coincides with the apparent age of the sacred sites mentioned by the text.

 

R.C. Hazra suggests that the Mudgala Purana is older than the Ganesha Purana, which he dates between 1100 and 1400. However, Phyllis Granoff finds problems with this relative dating and concludes that the Mudgala Purana was the last of the philosophical texts concerned with Ganesha. She bases her reasoning on the fact that, among other internal evidence, the Mudgala Purana specifically mentions the Ganesha Purana as one of the four Puranas (the Brahma, the Brahmanda, the Ganesha, and the Mudgala Puranas) which deal at length with Ganesha. While the kernel of the text must be old, it was interpolated until the 17th and 18th centuries as the worship of Ganapati became more important in certain regions. Another highly regarded scripture, the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, was probably composed during the 16th or 17th centuries.

 

BEYOND INDIA AND HINDUISM

Commercial and cultural contacts extended India's influence in western and southeast Asia. Ganesha is one of a number of Hindu deities who reached foreign lands as a result.

 

Ganesha was particularly worshipped by traders and merchants, who went out of India for commercial ventures. From approximately the 10th century onwards, new networks of exchange developed including the formation of trade guilds and a resurgence of money circulation. During this time, Ganesha became the principal deity associated with traders. The earliest inscription invoking Ganesha before any other deity is associated with the merchant community.

 

Hindus migrated to Maritime Southeast Asia and took their culture, including Ganesha, with them. Statues of Ganesha are found throughout the region, often beside Shiva sanctuaries. The forms of Ganesha found in Hindu art of Java, Bali, and Borneo show specific regional influences. The spread of Hindu culture to southeast Asia established Ganesha in modified forms in Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand. In Indochina, Hinduism and Buddhism were practiced side by side, and mutual influences can be seen in the iconography of Ganesha in the region. In Thailand, Cambodia, and among the Hindu classes of the Chams in Vietnam, Ganesha was mainly thought of as a remover of obstacles. Today in Buddhist Thailand, Ganesha is regarded as a remover of obstacles, the god of success.

 

Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan had close cultural ties with India, and the adoration of both Hindu and Buddhist deities was practiced. Examples of sculptures from the 5th to the 7th centuries have survived, suggesting that the worship of Ganesha was then in vogue in the region.

 

Ganesha appears in Mahayana Buddhism, not only in the form of the Buddhist god Vināyaka, but also as a Hindu demon form with the same name. His image appears in Buddhist sculptures during the late Gupta period. As the Buddhist god Vināyaka, he is often shown dancing. This form, called Nṛtta Ganapati, was popular in northern India, later adopted in Nepal, and then in Tibet. In Nepal, the Hindu form of Ganesha, known as Heramba, is popular; he has five heads and rides a lion. Tibetan representations of Ganesha show ambivalent views of him. A Tibetan rendering of Ganapati is tshogs bdag. In one Tibetan form, he is shown being trodden under foot by Mahākāla, (Shiva) a popular Tibetan deity. Other depictions show him as the Destroyer of Obstacles, and sometimes dancing. Ganesha appears in China and Japan in forms that show distinct regional character. In northern China, the earliest known stone statue of Ganesha carries an inscription dated to 531. In Japan, where Ganesha is known as Kangiten, the Ganesha cult was first mentioned in 806.

 

The canonical literature of Jainism does not mention the worship of Ganesha. However, Ganesha is worshipped by most Jains, for whom he appears to have taken over certain functions of Kubera. Jain connections with the trading community support the idea that Jainism took up Ganesha worship as a result of commercial connections. The earliest known Jain Ganesha statue dates to about the 9th century. A 15th-century Jain text lists procedures for the installation of Ganapati images. Images of Ganesha appear in the Jain temples of Rajasthan and Gujarat.

 

WIKIPEDIA

I am awake, but do not open my eyes. Instead, I process everything that has happened:

We were running

K'hym is dead

So is M'yri'ah

I am not

At least, not as far as I am aware.

I am also aware that I am not the only being in this room.

I go into deep thought, accessing the being's mind.

 

~His thoughts merge into my mind. I see the basic shapes and colours that form in another's mind.

This being is not Martian. That much I can tell. His thought patterns differ from that of a Martian's; for one thing, his mind is far less complicated than mine.

His intellect is far less superior, too.

I look deeper, and discover the aspects of the being's life. His culture, species and language all flood into my mind.

Earth

Human

English

America

Name...

 

Name...~

 

I open my eyes.

 

"You are Doctor Saul Erdel."

 

The doctor stops his actions and stands still.

 

"W...w...what did you just say?"

 

I find this statement interesting. Do these humans require everything to be said to them twice?

 

"Doctor Saul Erdel. You are doctor Saul Erdel."

 

He still appears to be in shock.

 

"You are human. This planet is Earth."

 

He walks around the screen he has been monitoring for the duration of my stay, and finally manages to structure a sentence to reply to me with.

 

"But you...how do you know me? My language?"

 

He moves in closer to me, and only now I realise I am securely bound to a table of some kind.

 

"Remarkable. Where are you from?"

 

I say nothing.

 

"Oh...okay. You do speak English, don't you?"

 

"Everyone I know is dead."

 

My words do have an effect on him. His mouth is open, but no words escape.

 

"..."

 

"I am a coward."

 

He finally manages to engage in conversation with me.

 

"Your family...what happened?"

 

"I abandoned them."

 

His eyes widen.

 

"Oh God. Is this...Is this my fault? My machine, did it kill your family? Oh God..."

 

I am confused.

 

"Your machine? Your machine is responsible for the Plague?"

 

He stops rubbing his face with his hand, and looks down to me.

 

"What? Plague? I...I don't..."

 

He rabbles on as I enter his mind again-

 

~This "machine" he talks about is responsible for bringing me to Earth. He believes it is responsible for killing my family too. I tell him what has really happened to put his mind at rest.

It seems only fair.

 

"Your machine did not kill my family."

 

"..."

 

He falls silent. But his mind is clearly still uneasy due to my telepathic abilities.

 

"I can read you thoughts."

 

"You...you can?"

 

"Yes. And I do not mean you harm."

 

He is slightly more relaxed now, but still clearly uneasy.

 

"I have done enough harm already."

 

"Did you-"

 

Reading his thoughts, I answer the question he is about to ask.

 

"No. I do not kill."

 

"Oh."

 

Silence.

 

"You are quite remarkable."

 

I do not know how to reply, so I do not.

 

"Do you...do you have a name?"

 

This I can, and do, answer.

 

"Yes. My name is J'onn J'onzz."

 

He clearly has many questions to ask me.

 

"So, you read minds?"

 

"Yes."

 

"Can you do anything else?"

 

"That depends. What are you humans capable of?"

 

He presses a button on the side of my table, and my restraints rise up, freeing me.

 

"You are uneasy, I understand. But I will not harm you."

 

He steps closer as I sit up.

 

"Mister J'onzz, I would very much like to study you, if you don't mind."

 

"Why would I mind."

 

He hesitates.

 

"Well, I take that as a yes then."

 

He places a hand on my shoulder, and helps me stand up. He is a small man, but my size does not seem to impose him.

 

"Mister J'onzz-"

 

"Call me J'onn."

 

"J'onn, would you like to follow me?"

 

He gestures towards the door, and walks out.

I follow.

 

He turns and looks at me, but before he can ask, I answer his question again.

 

"Yes, if you wish to study me, you may."

 

He smiles, turns and with that, we leave the room.

 

I’ve never been all that impressed with educators: gurus, mentors or otherwise. Don’t get me wrong I liked the people I worked with during my 32 years in the teaching profession, it wasn’t their fault that none of them quite measured up to Shirley.

 

It all began on my first day as a 7th grader wandering the hallowed halls in Red Hook, NY. I had already met my history teacher, Minor Treat (honest, that was his name), and could have cared less about the fact that if I wanted to impress him I’d have to put a shine on my shoes better than he put on his, and I had already met my English teacher, Mr. Wilson, who had already begun rapping his class ring on the top of my head to get my attention, when I arrived at my science classroom and met Shirley.

 

She was a vision of perfection with her perfect blond hair, her perfect lipstick, and her perfect outfits. To at least one student sitting in front of her she was drop dead gorgeous. I distinctly remember one particular outfit, a green cowl neck sweater and black knee length skirt, but I digress. Although Shirley was a stunner that didn’t make me any better of a student. From time to time Shirley would have to verbally dissect me for my lack of classroom decorum, a job her razor sharp intellect was more than qualified to do. I didn’t mind at all.

 

All totaled I spent nearly 50 years amongst educators and never came across another one that possessed the total package of brains, looks, and ability to teach that Shirley possessed.

 

PS Years later when Mom would talk about the parties Carl and Shirley threw that Mom and Dad attended those stories only served to reinforce my view that Shirley was the coolest of teachers.

 

Photo taken at the Sacramento International Airport (SMF), Sacramento, CA

www.riverhillgardens.co.uk/

History

 

The John Rogers who bought Riverhill in 1840 was an only child, with a modest fortune, and a fine intellect. He became a classics scholar, a scientist and a friend of Charles Darwin. He was one of the first members of the Royal Horticultural Society and a patron of the plant collectors of the day.

 

He chose Riverhill because its sheltered situation offered an ideal lime free hillside where he could hope to establish newly introduced trees and shrubs. From his garden notebook, it can be seen that planting started in 1842. Subsequent generations, continued the planting and in 1910 Colonel John Middleton Rogers created what is now known as ‘The Wood Garden’ a fine collection of Japanese Maples, Rhododendrons and Azaleas. His wife, the infamous Muriel, created many additions including the now hidden Rock Gardens.

 

Until the beginning of the 2nd World War, eight full time gardeners kept Riverhill looking immaculate. Since the war years, however, a shortage of manpower and a lack of money has meant that the garden was allowed to deteriorate, with many parts of the original planting lost to everyday use and visitors.

 

Today, four generations of the Rogers family live at Riverhill,

 

The estate is managed by Edward Rogers (Great-great-great-grandson of the John Rogers who bought Riverhill in 1840) and his wife, Sarah.

  

My nine year old step granddaughter peering out into the abyss. (She can actually tell you what that word means. She has the intellect of a 15 year old and the impulse control of a nine year old. She never saw a button she didn't want to push. Some day she will be famous.)

 

So if "this" means "that" and "that" means "this", are they both interchangeable? Hmmm.

 

Curiosity is one of the most reliable and safe characteristics of an active intellect.

(Samuel Johnson)

 

www.marcellomachelli.com/

Alessia Scriboni

Hailing from the 31st Century, Querl Dox, aka Brainiac 5, was the 12-level intellect behind the Legion of Super-Heroes. When he and his fellow Legionnaires Mon-El and Saturn Girl accidentally traveled back in time, he allied himself with the 21st Century's Girl of Steel, Supergirl, to defeat the villain Reign. After meeting Nia Nal, the ancestor of another 31st century hero, Brainy decided to stay behind while his teammates returned to the future. Since then, Brainiac 5 has become an invaluable member in the fight to protect National City!

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love Brainiac 5, but I /hate/ how Brainiac 5 looks in this show. The show seems to realize that they made a mistake (or maybe that that makeup is too time-consuming and expensive) and mostly uses him "in disguise" as a normal human. I'm still hopeful that something (Crisis, maybe?) will give them an excuse to redesign him with a proper green skintone and inhumanly blond hair.

 

But until that day, I have to make what I see, so Brainy gets his Doc Brown hair. I'm not crazy about the head, but the choices are very limited in most lighter shades of blue. I was hoping to use the new Ninjago Jay head, but it looks like it won't be out until early next year. I was almost tempted to hold off on this until next year, between that and the DC CMF, but tackling more than 16 shows and movies and their entire canon was hard enough without all the surprises they'll be busting out during Crisis!

Alter Ego: Vacuum

 

Real Name: Victor Neggan

 

Powers:

* Enhanced Physical Attributes

* Enhanced Durability

* Enhanced healing factor

* Extreme Intellect

 

Weapons:

* Hidden Destrite metal knife

* Robotic arm which can cause and hold a vacuum in a large atmosphere and can be held for 2minutes

 

Weakness: Being outmatched

 

Backstory: A deadly assassin working for T.O.X.I.N is well known for his unique Vacuum weapon which he engineered hence the name. He is also well known for being The Kingston's arch enemy and blackmailing Circuits into working for him.

 

Victor was always a troubled individual...being abandoned at the German Army and brought up there Victor was well trained and soon was recommended to T.O.X.I.N for their super soldier experiment. The experiment was a success and Vacuum was sent to kill The Kingston's due to them stopping shipments of T.O.X.I.N chemicals being shipped into Avalon City. Vacuum was notorious for never being beat until he was defeated by The Kingston's...Circuits was then sent to Vacuum to be "fixed" with mechanical limbs. Vacuum then realised he could use the vulnerable Circuits to his advantage by blackmailing him with a memory chip which could give Circuits his memory back. Vacuum became obsessed with The Kingston's after they defeated him wondering how they did it. He now uses Circuits to pair up against The Kingston's so he can defeat them and be notoriously known for killing the greatest heroes in Avalon City...

Martes, 16 de marzo / Tuesday, march 16 2010

 

Autorretrato (Selfportrait)

 

El hecho de que tome un autorretrato (casi) diario, no significa en lo absoluto que yo sea una persona segura.

Al contrario, durante toda mi vida he debido afrontar ciertos temores, ya sea con mi cuerpo, mi intelecto o mis "talentos".

 

pd: creo que esta es una de mis fotografias favoritas :-)

..................................................................................................................................................................

 

The fact of taking a self portrait (almost) daily, doesn't mean at all that I am a secure person.

On the contrary, my whole life I've had to face some fears, either with my body, my intellect or my "talents".

 

ps: I think this is one of my favorites photos :-)

When the mind becomes irradiated by enlightenment, then the human mental faculty, the intellect, becomes suffused and filled with spiritual discrimination and vision and is illuminated by the radiance of divinity.

 

denniscordell.zenfolio.com

 

via Instagram ift.tt/2uaMlu8

A temple of intellect and exclusivity, the Athenaeum Club has long been a haven for scholars, statesmen, and artists. Founded in 1824 and housed in this splendid neoclassical building on Pall Mall, it continues to radiate restraint and refinement—though the golden figure of Pallas Athena suggests she keeps a watchful eye on the debates within.

—

Temple de l’intellect et de l’exclusivité, l’Athenaeum Club accueille depuis 1824 érudits, hommes d’État et artistes. Installé dans ce superbe édifice néoclassique de Pall Mall, il incarne la retenue et le raffinement — sous l’œil vigilant de Pallas Athéna, perchée en dorure au sommet.

  

⸻

 

Historical/Architectural Background:

The Athenaeum Club, located at 107 Pall Mall, London, was founded in 1824 to serve as a gathering place for individuals distinguished in science, literature, and the arts. The club’s current building was designed by Decimus Burton and completed in 1830. Its style is quintessentially neoclassical, echoing ancient Greek ideals of proportion, clarity, and civic virtue.

 

The golden statue of Pallas Athena atop the entrance portico—added in 1830—is a nod to the club’s dedication to wisdom and intellectual achievement. The frieze above the first floor is modelled after the Panathenaic procession from the Parthenon marbles, further reinforcing the Greek influence. The Athenaeum is part of London’s storied “Clubland” and remains one of the most prestigious and selective gentleman’s clubs in the city.

St Oswald

Church of England

 

Monument to Penelope Boothby (Detail)

(1785-1791)

by Thomas Banks

1793.

 

Carrara Marble

 

Inscription:

 

"She was in form and intellect most exquisite. The unfortunate parents ventured their all on this frail bark and the wreck was total”.

 

The inscription is in four different languages – English, Latin, French & Italian, all of which Penelope spoke.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penelope_Boothby

 

Penelope was the only child of Sir Brooke Boothby, 6th Baronet Boothby, and his wife Susannah.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Brooke_Boothby,_6th_Baronet

  

Go here to see a portrait of Penelope by Sir Joshua Reynolds:

 

www.flickr.com/photos/oxfordshirechurches/6675020865/in/p...

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Oswald%27s_Church,_Ashbourne

Village Drunk.

 

Exaspérations radicales expurgées buvant des idées implacables propageant des histoires d'intellect le plus vif insensé philosophique désespéré soif implacable,

fanatični pogovori silgizmi strasti grozne despotične smejoče strasti barbarska eksistenca anarhistične misli lahkotna borba,

feire decadent feasting truncating måter ennobled ufordøyelig væske smattering poesi regenerere sult forgiftning mørkere vegger,

manische Herzen furiose psychotische Enthusiasmen lähmende Dämonen halluzinierende Straßen korrumpierende Stimmen grandiose Visionen Wahrnehmungsgefühle,

comhráite ilroinnte smaoineamh fiáin tromchúiseach mothúcháin dianseasmhach hyperacusis taitneamh dian gníomhartha paranoid idiosyncratic,

il fulgore di energia impennata brilla le feste di fischi volanti delizie stati clinici fluttuanti dulazioni malinconia irregolare malattia sensibile,

恐ろしい陰影絶望的な悪魔外部的な無限感情的な複雑な心の変化の条件絡みつく精神的な精神病不安定な陶酔的な破壊的な方法.

Steve.D.Hammond.

In the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy, the demiurge (/ˈdɛmi.ɜːrdʒ/) is an artisan-like figure responsible for fashioning and maintaining the physical universe. The Gnostics adopted the term demiurge. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the same as the creator figure in the monotheistic sense, because the demiurge itself and the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are both considered consequences of something else. Depending on the system, they may be considered either uncreated and eternal or the product of some other entity.

 

The word demiurge is an English word derived from demiurgus, a Latinised form of the Greek δημιουργός or dēmiurgós. It was originally a common noun meaning "craftsman" or "artisan", but gradually came to mean "producer", and eventually "creator". The philosophical usage and the proper noun derive from Plato's Timaeus, written c. 360 BC, where the demiurge is presented as the creator of the universe. The demiurge is also described as a creator in the Platonic (c. 310–90 BC) and Middle Platonic (c. 90 BC – AD 300) philosophical traditions. In the various branches of the Neoplatonic school (third century onwards), the demiurge is the fashioner of the real, perceptible world after the model of the Ideas, but (in most Neoplatonic systems) is still not itself "the One". In the arch-dualist ideology of the various Gnostic systems, the material universe is evil, while the non-material world is good. According to some strains of Gnosticism, the demiurge is malevolent, as it is linked to the material world. In others, including the teaching of Valentinus, the demiurge is simply ignorant or misguided.

  

Contents

1Platonism and neoplatonism

1.1Plato and the Timaeus

1.2Middle Platonism

1.3Neoplatonism

1.3.1Henology

1.3.2Iamblichus

2Gnosticism

2.1Mythos

2.2Angels

2.3Yaldabaoth

2.3.1Names

2.4Marcion

2.5Valentinus

2.6The devil

2.7Cathars

3Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

3.1Plotinus

4See also

5References

5.1Notes

5.2Sources

6External links

Platonism and neoplatonism[edit]

Plato and the Timaeus[edit]

Plato, as the speaker Timaeus, refers to the Demiurge frequently in the Socratic dialogue Timaeus (28a ff.), c. 360 BC. The main character refers to the Demiurge as the entity who "fashioned and shaped" the material world. Timaeus describes the Demiurge as unreservedly benevolent, and so it desires a world as good as possible. Plato's work Timaeus is a philosophical reconciliation of Hesiod's cosmology in his Theogony, syncretically reconciling Hesiod to Homer.[1][2][3]

 

Middle Platonism[edit]

In Numenius's Neo-Pythagorean and Middle Platonist cosmogony, the Demiurge is second God as the nous or thought of intelligibles and sensibles.[4]

 

Neoplatonism[edit]

Plotinus and the later Platonists worked to clarify the Demiurge. To Plotinus, the second emanation represents an uncreated second cause (see Pythagoras' Dyad). Plotinus sought to reconcile Aristotle's energeia with Plato's Demiurge,[5] which, as Demiurge and mind (nous), is a critical component in the ontological construct of human consciousness used to explain and clarify substance theory within Platonic realism (also called idealism). In order to reconcile Aristotelian with Platonian philosophy,[5] Plotinus metaphorically identified the demiurge (or nous) within the pantheon of the Greek Gods as Zeus.[6]

 

Henology[edit]

The first and highest aspect of God is described by Plato as the One (Τὸ Ἕν, 'To Hen'), the source, or the Monad.[7] This is the God above the Demiurge, and manifests through the actions of the Demiurge. The Monad emanated the demiurge or Nous (consciousness) from its "indeterminate" vitality due to the monad being so abundant that it overflowed back onto itself, causing self-reflection.[8] This self-reflection of the indeterminate vitality was referred to by Plotinus as the "Demiurge" or creator. The second principle is organization in its reflection of the nonsentient force or dynamis, also called the one or the Monad. The dyad is energeia emanated by the one that is then the work, process or activity called nous, Demiurge, mind, consciousness that organizes the indeterminate vitality into the experience called the material world, universe, cosmos. Plotinus also elucidates the equation of matter with nothing or non-being in The Enneads[9] which more correctly is to express the concept of idealism or that there is not anything or anywhere outside of the "mind" or nous (c.f. pantheism).

 

Plotinus' form of Platonic idealism is to treat the Demiurge, nous as the contemplative faculty (ergon) within man which orders the force (dynamis) into conscious reality.[10] In this, he claimed to reveal Plato's true meaning: a doctrine he learned from Platonic tradition that did not appear outside the academy or in Plato's text. This tradition of creator God as nous (the manifestation of consciousness), can be validated in the works of pre-Plotinus philosophers such as Numenius, as well as a connection between Hebrew and Platonic cosmology (see also Philo).[11]

 

The Demiurge of Neoplatonism is the Nous (mind of God), and is one of the three ordering principles:

 

Arche (Gr. 'beginning') – the source of all things,

Logos (Gr. 'reason/cause') – the underlying order that is hidden beneath appearances,

Harmonia (Gr. 'harmony') – numerical ratios in mathematics.

Before Numenius of Apamea and Plotinus' Enneads, no Platonic works ontologically clarified the Demiurge from the allegory in Plato's Timaeus. The idea of Demiurge was, however, addressed before Plotinus in the works of Christian writer Justin Martyr who built his understanding of the Demiurge on the works of Numenius.[citation needed]

 

Iamblichus[edit]

See also: Panentheism

Later, the Neoplatonist Iamblichus changed the role of the "One", effectively altering the role of the Demiurge as second cause or dyad, which was one of the reasons that Iamblichus and his teacher Porphyry came into conflict.

 

The figure of the Demiurge emerges in the theoretic of Iamblichus, which conjoins the transcendent, incommunicable “One,” or Source. Here, at the summit of this system, the Source and Demiurge (material realm) coexist via the process of henosis.[12] Iamblichus describes the One as a monad whose first principle or emanation is intellect (nous), while among "the many" that follow it there is a second, super-existent "One" that is the producer of intellect or soul (psyche).

 

The "One" is further separated into spheres of intelligence; the first and superior sphere is objects of thought, while the latter sphere is the domain of thought. Thus, a triad is formed of the intelligible nous, the intellective nous, and the psyche in order to reconcile further the various Hellenistic philosophical schools of Aristotle's actus and potentia (actuality and potentiality) of the unmoved mover and Plato's Demiurge.

 

Then within this intellectual triad Iamblichus assigns the third rank to the Demiurge, identifying it with the perfect or Divine nous with the intellectual triad being promoted to a hebdomad (pure intellect).

 

In the theoretic of Plotinus, nous produces nature through intellectual mediation, thus the intellectualizing gods are followed by a triad of psychic gods.

 

Gnosticism[edit]

 

It has been suggested that this section be split out into another article titled Yaldabaoth. (Discuss) (November 2018)

hide

Part of a series on

Gnosticism

Abraxas gem scan.svg

show

Gnosis

show

Gnostic sects

show

Scriptures

show

Influenced by

show

Influence on

vte

Gnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable God or Supreme Being and the demiurgic "creator" of the material. Several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme Being: his act of creation occurs in an unconscious semblance of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else is formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine in materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to (or, at least possibly, the problem or cause that gives rise to)[citation needed] the problem of evil.

 

Mythos[edit]

One Gnostic mythos describes the declination of aspects of the divine into human form. Sophia (Greek: Σοφία, lit. 'wisdom'), the Demiurge's mother and partial aspect of the divine Pleroma or "Fullness," desired to create something apart from the divine totality, without the receipt of divine assent. In this act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, and concluded that only he existed, ignorant of the superior levels of reality.

 

The Demiurge, having received a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm: He frames the seven heavens, as well as all material and animal things, according to forms furnished by his mother; working, however, blindly and ignorant even of the existence of the mother who is the source of all his energy. He is blind to all that is spiritual, but he is king over the other two provinces. The word dēmiurgos properly describes his relation to the material; he is the father of that which is animal like himself.[13]

 

Thus Sophia's power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped within the material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, which permitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source.

 

Angels[edit]

Psalm 82 begins (verse 1), "God stands in the assembly of El [LXX: assembly of gods], in the midst of the gods he renders judgment", indicating a plurality of gods, although it does not indicate that these gods were co-actors in creation. Philo had inferred from the expression "Let us make man" of the Book of Genesis that God had used other beings as assistants in the creation of man, and he explains in this way why man is capable of vice as well as virtue, ascribing the origin of the latter to God, of the former to his helpers in the work of creation.[14]

 

The earliest Gnostic sects ascribe the work of creation to angels, some of them using the same passage in Genesis.[15] So Irenaeus tells[16] of the system of Simon Magus,[17] of the system of Menander,[18] of the system of Saturninus, in which the number of these angels is reckoned as seven, and[19] of the system of Carpocrates. In the report of the system of Basilides,[20] we are told that our world was made by the angels who occupy the lowest heaven; but special mention is made of their chief, who is said to have been the God of the Jews, to have led that people out of the land of Egypt, and to have given them their law. The prophecies are ascribed not to the chief but to the other world-making angels.

 

The Latin translation, confirmed by Hippolytus of Rome,[21] makes Irenaeus state that according to Cerinthus (who shows Ebionite influence), creation was made by a power quite separate from the Supreme God and ignorant of him. Theodoret,[22] who here copies Irenaeus, turns this into the plural number "powers", and so Epiphanius of Salamis[23] represents Cerinthus as agreeing with Carpocrates in the doctrine that the world was made by angels.

 

Yaldabaoth[edit]

 

A lion-faced deity found on a Gnostic gem in Bernard de Montfaucon's L'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures may be a depiction of the Demiurge.

In the Ophite and Sethian systems, which have many affinities with the teachings of Valentinus, the making of the world is ascribed to a company of seven archons, whose names are given, but still more prominent is their chief, "Yaldabaoth" (also known as "Yaltabaoth" or "Ialdabaoth").

 

In the Apocryphon of John c. AD 120–180, the demiurge arrogantly declares that he has made the world by himself:

 

Now the archon ["ruler"] who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is Saklas ["fool"], and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come.[24]

He is Demiurge and maker of man, but as a ray of light from above enters the body of man and gives him a soul, Yaldabaoth is filled with envy; he tries to limit man's knowledge by forbidding him the fruit of knowledge in paradise. At the consummation of all things, all light will return to the Pleroma. But Yaldabaoth, the Demiurge, with the material world, will be cast into the lower depths.[25]

 

Yaldabaoth is frequently called "the Lion-faced", leontoeides, and is said to have the body of a serpent. The demiurge is also[26] described as having a fiery nature, applying the words of Moses to him: "the Lord our God is a burning and consuming fire". Hippolytus claims that Simon used a similar description.[27]

 

In Pistis Sophia, Yaldabaoth has already sunk from his high estate and resides in Chaos, where, with his forty-nine demons, he tortures wicked souls in boiling rivers of pitch, and with other punishments (pp. 257, 382). He is an archon with the face of a lion, half flame, and half darkness.

 

Under the name of Nebro (rebel), Yaldabaoth is called an angel in the apocryphal Gospel of Judas. He is first mentioned in "The Cosmos, Chaos, and the Underworld" as one of the twelve angels to come "into being [to] rule over chaos and the [underworld]". He comes from heaven, and it is said his "face flashed with fire and [his] appearance was defiled with blood". Nebro creates six angels in addition to the angel Saklas to be his assistants. These six, in turn, create another twelve angels "with each one receiving a portion in the heavens".

 

Names[edit]

 

Drawing of the lion-headed figure found at the Mithraeum of C. Valerius Heracles and sons, dedicated 190 CE at Ostia Antica, Italy (CIMRM 312).

The most probable derivation of the name "Yaldabaoth" was that given by Johann Karl Ludwig Gieseler. Gieseler believed the name was derived from the Aramaic yaldā bahuth, ילדאבהות, meaning "Son of Chaos". However, Gilles Quispel notes:

 

Gershom Scholem, the third genius in this field, more specifically the genius of precision, has taught us that some of us were wrong when they believed that Jaldabaoth means "son of chaos", because the Aramaic word bahutha in the sense of chaos only existed in the imagination of the author of a well-known dictionary. This is a pity because this name would suit the demiurge risen from chaos to a nicety. And perhaps the author of the Untitled Document did not know Aramaic and also supposed as we did once, that baoth had something to do with tohuwabohu, one of the few Hebrew words that everybody knows. ... It would seem then that the Orphic view of the demiurge was integrated into Jewish Gnosticism even before the redaction of the myth contained in the original Apocryphon of John. ... Phanes is represented with the mask of a lion's head on his breast, while from his sides the heads of a ram and a buck are budding forth: his body is encircled by a snake. This type was accepted by the Mithras mysteries, to indicate Aion, the new year, and Mithras, whose numerical value is 365. Sometimes he is also identified with Jao Adonai, the creator of the Hebrews. His hieratic attitude indicates Egyptian origin. The same is true of the monstrous figure with the head of a lion, which symbolises Time, Chronos, in Mithraism; Alexandrian origin of this type is probable.[28]

"Samael" literally means "Blind God" or "God of the Blind" in Hebrew (סמאל‎). This being is considered not only blind, or ignorant of its own origins, but may, in addition, be evil; its name is also found in Judaism as the Angel of Death and in Christian demonology. This link to Judeo-Christian tradition leads to a further comparison with Satan. Another alternative title for the demiurge is "Saklas", Aramaic for "fool".

 

The angelic name "Ariel" (Hebrew: 'the lion of God')[29] has also been used to refer to the Demiurge and is called his "perfect" name;[30] in some Gnostic lore, Ariel has been called an ancient or original name for Ialdabaoth.[31] The name has also been inscribed on amulets as "Ariel Ialdabaoth",[32][33] and the figure of the archon inscribed with "Aariel".[34]

 

Marcion[edit]

According to Marcion, the title God was given to the Demiurge, who was to be sharply distinguished from the higher Good God. The former was díkaios, severely just, the latter agathós, or loving-kind; the former was the "god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4), the God of the Old Testament, the latter the true God of the New Testament. Christ, in reality, is the Son of the Good God. The true believer in Christ entered into God's kingdom, the unbeliever remained forever the slave of the Demiurge.[25]

 

Valentinus[edit]

It is in the system of Valentinus that the name Dēmiurgos is used, which occurs nowhere in Irenaeus except in connection with the Valentinian system; we may reasonably conclude that it was Valentinus who adopted from Platonism the use of this word. When it is employed by other Gnostics either it is not used in a technical sense, or its use has been borrowed from Valentinus. But it is only the name that can be said to be specially Valentinian; the personage intended by it corresponds more or less closely with the Yaldabaoth of the Ophites, the great Archon of Basilides, the Elohim of Justinus, etc.

 

The Valentinian theory elaborates that from Achamoth (he kátō sophía or lower wisdom) three kinds of substance take their origin, the spiritual (pneumatikoí), the animal (psychikoí) and the material (hylikoí). The Demiurge belongs to the second kind, as he was the offspring of a union of Achamoth with matter.[25][35] And as Achamoth herself was only the daughter of Sophía the last of the thirty Aeons, the Demiurge was distant by many emanations from the Propatôr, or Supreme God.[25]

 

In creating this world out of Chaos the Demiurge was unconsciously influenced for good; and the universe, to the surprise even of its Maker, became almost perfect. The Demiurge regretted even its slight imperfection, and as he thought himself the Supreme God, he attempted to remedy this by sending a Messiah. To this Messiah, however, was actually united with Jesus the Saviour, Who redeemed men. These are either hylikoí or pneumatikoí.[25]

 

The first, or material men, will return to the grossness of matter and finally be consumed by fire; the second, or animal men, together with the Demiurge, will enter a middle state, neither Pleroma nor hyle; the purely spiritual men will be completely freed from the influence of the Demiurge and together with the Saviour and Achamoth, his spouse, will enter the Pleroma divested of body (hyle) and soul (psyché).[25][36] In this most common form of Gnosticism the Demiurge had an inferior though not intrinsically evil function in the universe as the head of the animal, or psychic world.[25]

 

The devil[edit]

Opinions on the devil, and his relationship to the Demiurge, varied. The Ophites held that he and his demons constantly oppose and thwart the human race, as it was on their account the devil was cast down into this world.[37] According to one variant of the Valentinian system, the Demiurge is also the maker, out of the appropriate substance, of an order of spiritual beings, the devil, the prince of this world, and his angels. But the devil, as being a spirit of wickedness, is able to recognise the higher spiritual world, of which his maker the Demiurge, who is only animal, has no real knowledge. The devil resides in this lower world, of which he is the prince, the Demiurge in the heavens; his mother Sophia in the middle region, above the heavens and below the Pleroma.[38]

 

The Valentinian Heracleon[39] interpreted the devil as the principle of evil, that of hyle (matter). As he writes in his commentary on John 4:21,

 

The mountain represents the Devil, or his world, since the Devil was one part of the whole of matter, but the world is the total mountain of evil, a deserted dwelling place of beasts, to which all who lived before the law and all Gentiles render worship. But Jerusalem represents the creation or the Creator whom the Jews worship. ... You then who are spiritual should worship neither the creation nor the Craftsman, but the Father of Truth.

This vilification of the creator was held to be inimical to Christianity by the early fathers of the church. In refuting the beliefs of the gnostics, Irenaeus stated that "Plato is proved to be more religious than these men, for he allowed that the same God was both just and good, having power over all things, and himself executing judgment."[40]

 

Cathars[edit]

Catharism apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world from Gnosticism. Quispel writes,

 

There is a direct link between ancient Gnosticism and Catharism. The Cathars held that the creator of the world, Satanael, had usurped the name of God, but that he had subsequently been unmasked and told that he was not really God.[41]

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism[edit]

Main article: Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Against the Gnostics; or, Against Those that Affirm the Creator of the Cosmos and the Cosmos Itself to be Evil

Gnosticism attributed falsehood or evil to the concept of the Demiurge or creator, though in some Gnostic traditions the creator is from a fallen, ignorant, or lesser—rather than evil—perspective, such as that of Valentinius.

 

Plotinus[edit]

The Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus addressed within his works Gnosticism's conception of the Demiurge, which he saw as un-Hellenic and blasphemous to the Demiurge or creator of Plato. Plotinus, along with his teacher Ammonius Saccas, was the founder of Neoplatonism.[42] In the ninth tractate of the second of his Enneads, Plotinus criticizes his opponents for their appropriation of ideas from Plato:

 

From Plato come their punishments, their rivers of the underworld and the changing from body to body; as for the plurality they assert in the Intellectual Realm—the Authentic Existent, the Intellectual-Principle, the Second Creator and the Soul—all this is taken over from the Timaeus.

 

— Ennead 2.9.vi; emphasis added from A. H. Armstrong's introduction to Ennead 2.9

Of note here is the remark concerning the second hypostasis or Creator and third hypostasis or World Soul. Plotinus criticizes his opponents for "all the novelties through which they seek to establish a philosophy of their own" which, he declares, "have been picked up outside of the truth";[43] they attempt to conceal rather than admit their indebtedness to ancient philosophy, which they have corrupted by their extraneous and misguided embellishments. Thus their understanding of the Demiurge is similarly flawed in comparison to Plato’s original intentions.

 

Whereas Plato's Demiurge is good wishing good on his creation, Gnosticism contends that the Demiurge is not only the originator of evil but is evil as well. Hence the title of Plotinus' refutation: "Against Those That Affirm the Creator of the Kosmos and the Kosmos Itself to be Evil" (generally quoted as "Against the Gnostics"). Plotinus argues of the disconnect or great barrier that is created between the nous or mind's noumenon (see Heraclitus) and the material world (phenomenon) by believing the material world is evil.

 

The majority of scholars tend[44] to understand Plotinus' opponents as being a Gnostic sect—certainly (specifically Sethian), several such groups were present in Alexandria and elsewhere about the Mediterranean during Plotinus' lifetime. Plotinus specifically points to the Gnostic doctrine of Sophia and her emission of the Demiurge.

 

Though the former understanding certainly enjoys the greatest popularity, the identification of Plotinus' opponents as Gnostic is not without some contention. Christos Evangeliou has contended[45] that Plotinus' opponents might be better described as simply "Christian Gnostics", arguing that several of Plotinus' criticisms are as applicable to orthodox Christian doctrine as well. Also, considering the evidence from the time, Evangeliou thought the definition of the term "Gnostics" was unclear. Of note here is that while Plotinus' student Porphyry names Christianity specifically in Porphyry's own works, and Plotinus is to have been a known associate of the Christian Origen, none of Plotinus' works mention Christ or Christianity—whereas Plotinus specifically addresses his target in the Enneads as the Gnostics.

 

A. H. Armstrong identified the so-called "Gnostics" that Plotinus was attacking as Jewish and Pagan, in his introduction to the tract in his translation of the Enneads. Armstrong alluding to Gnosticism being a Hellenic philosophical heresy of sorts, which later engaged Christianity and Neoplatonism.[46][47]

 

John D. Turner, professor of religious studies at the University of Nebraska, and famed translator and editor of the Nag Hammadi library, stated[48] that the text Plotinus and his students read was Sethian Gnosticism, which predates Christianity. It appears that Plotinus attempted to clarify how the philosophers of the academy had not arrived at the same conclusions (such as dystheism or misotheism for the creator God as an answer to the problem of evil) as the targets of his criticism.

 

Emil Cioran also wrote his Le mauvais démiurge ("The Evil Demiurge"), published in 1969, influenced by Gnosticism and Schopenhauerian interpretation of Platonic ontology, as well as that of Plotinus.

 

See also[edit]

iconReligion portal

Albinus (philosopher)

Azazil

Emil Cioran

Devil in Christianity

Gnosticism

Mara (demon)

Mayasura

Narasimha

Problem of the creator of God

Ptah

Simulated reality

Tenth Intellect (Isma'ilism)

Urizen

References[edit]

Notes[edit]

^ Fontenrose, Joseph (1974). Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and Its Origin. Biblo & Tannen Publishers. p. 226. ISBN 978-0-8196-0285-5.

^ Sallis, John (1999). Chorology: On Beginning in Plato's Timaeus. Indiana University Press. p. 86. ISBN 0-253-21308-8.

^ Keightley, Thomas (1838). The mythology of ancient Greece and Italy. Oxford University. p. 44. theogony timaeus.

^ Kahn, Charles (2001). Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing. pp. 124. ISBN 978-0-872205758.

^ Jump up to: a b Karamanolis, George (2006). Plato and Aristotle in Agreement?: Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford University Press. p. 240. ISBN 0-19-926456-2.

^ The ordering principle is twofold; there is a principle known as the Demiurge, and there is the Soul of the All; the appellation "Zeus" is sometimes applied to the Demiurge and sometimes to the principle conducting the universe.[citation needed]

^ Wear, Sarah; Dillon, John (2013). Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 15. ISBN 9780754603856.

^ Wallis, Richard T.; Bregman, Jay, eds. (1992). Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. International Society for Neoplatonic Studies. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-1337-1.

^ "Matter is therefore a non-existent"; Plotinus, Ennead 2, Tractate 4 Section 16.

^ Schopenhauer wrote of this Neoplatonist philosopher: "With Plotinus there even appears, probably for the first time in Western philosophy, idealism that had long been current in the East even at that time, for it taught (Enneads, iii, lib. vii, c.10) that the soul has made the world by stepping from eternity into time, with the explanation: 'For there is for this universe no other place than the soul or mind' (neque est alter hujus universi locus quam anima), indeed the ideality of time is expressed in the words: 'We should not accept time outside the soul or mind' (oportet autem nequaquam extra animam tempus accipere)." (Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy", § 7) Similarly, Professor Ludwig Noiré wrote: "For the first time in Western philosophy we find idealism proper in Plotinus (Enneads, iii, 7, 10), where he says, 'The only space or place of the world is the soul', and 'Time must not be assumed to exist outside the soul'." [5] It is worth noting, however, that like Plato but unlike Schopenhauer and other modern philosophers, Plotinus does not worry about whether or how we can get beyond our ideas in order to know external objects.

^ Numenius of Apamea was reported to have asked, "What else is Plato than Moses speaking Greek?" Fr. 8 Des Places.

^ See Theurgy, Iamblichus and henosis Archived 2010-01-09 at the Wayback Machine.

^ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 5, 1.

^

It is on this account that Moses says, at the creation of man alone that God said, "Let us make man," which expression shows an assumption of other beings to himself as assistants, in order that God, the governor of all things, might have all the blameless intentions and actions of man, when he does right attributed to him; and that his other assistants might bear the imputation of his contrary actions.

— "Philo: On the Creation, XXIV". www.earlyjewishwritings.com.

^ Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho. c. 67.

^ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 23, 1.

^ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 23, 5.

^ Irenaeus, i. 24, 1.

^ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 25.

^ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 24, 4.

^ Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies. vii. 33.

^ Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 3.

^ Epiphanius, Panarion, 28.

^ "Apocryphon of John," translation by Frederik Wisse in The Nag Hammadi Library. Accessed online at gnosis.org

^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Demiurge". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

^ Hipp. Ref. vi. 32, p. 191.

^ Hipp. Ref. vi. 9.

^ Quispel, Gilles (2008). Van Oort, Johannes (ed.). Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica: Collected Essays of Gilles Quispel. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 64. ISBN 978-90-04-13945-9.

^ Scholem, Gershom (1965). Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition. Jewish Theological Seminary of America. p. 72.

^ Robert McLachlan Wilson (1976). Nag Hammadi and gnosis: Papers read at the First International Congress of Coptology. BRILL. pp. 21–23. Therefore his esoteric name is Jaldabaoth, whereas the perfect call him Ariel, because he has the appearance of a lion.

^ Gustav Davidson (1994). A dictionary of angels: including the fallen angels. Scrollhouse. p. 54.

^ David M Gwynn (2010). Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity. BRILL. p. 448.

^ Campbell Bonner (1949). "An Amulet of the Ophite Gnostics". The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Hesperia Supplements, Vol. 8: 43–46.

^ Gilles Quispel; R. van den Broek; Maarten Jozef Vermaseren (1981). Studies in gnosticism and hellenistic religions. BRILL. pp. 40–41.

^ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 5.

^ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 6.

^ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 30, 8.

^ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 5, 4.

^ Heracleon, Frag. 20.

^ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, iii. 25.

^ Quispel, Gilles and Van Oort, Johannes (2008), p. 143.

^ John D. Turner. Neoplatonism.

^ "For, in sum, a part of their doctrine comes from Plato; all the novelties through which they seek to establish a philosophy of their own have been picked up outside of the truth." Plotinus, "Against the Gnostics", Ennead II, 9, 6.

^ Plotinus, Arthur Hilary Armstrong (trans.) (1966). Plotinus: Enneads II (Loeb Classical Library ed.). Harvard University Press. From this point to the end of ch. 12 Plotinus is attacking a Gnostic myth known to us best at present in the form it took in the system of Valentinus. The Mother, Sophia-Achamoth, produced as a result of the complicated sequence of events which followed the fall of the higher Sophia, and her offspring the Demiurge, the inferier and ignorant maker of the material universe, are Valentinian figures; cp. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1.4 and 5. Valentinius had been in Rome, and there is nothing improbable in the presence of Valentinians there in the time of Plotinus. But the evidence in the Life ch. 16 suggests that the Gnostics in Plotinus's circle belonged rather to the older group called Sethians or Archontics, related to the Ophites or Barbelognostics: they probably called themselves simply 'Gnostics'. Gnostic sects borrowed freely from each other, and it is likely that Valentinius took some of his ideas about Sophia from older Gnostic sources, and that his ideas in turn influenced other Gnostics.

^ Evangeliou, "Plotinus's Anti-Gnostic Polemic and Porphyry's Against the Christians", in Wallis & Bregman, p. 111.

^ From "Introduction to Against the Gnostics", Plotinus' Enneads as translated by A. H. Armstrong, pp. 220–222: "The treatise as it stands in the Enneads is a most powerful protest on behalf of Hellenic philosophy against the un-Hellenic heresy (as it was from the Platonist as well as the orthodox Christian point of view) of Gnosticism. There were Gnostics among Plotinus's own friends, whom he had not succeeded in converting (Enneads ch. 10 of this treatise) and he and his pupils devoted considerable time and energy to anti-Gnostic controversy (Life of Plotinus ch. 16). He obviously considered Gnosticism an extremely dangerous influence, likely to pervert the minds even of members of his own circle. It is impossible to attempt to give an account of Gnosticism here. By far the best discussion of what the particular group of Gnostics Plotinus knew believed is M. Puech's admirable contribution to Entretiens Hardt V (Les Sources de Plotin). But it is important for the understanding of this treatise to be clear about the reasons why Plotinus disliked them so intensely and thought their influence so harmful."

^ Armstrong, pp. 220–22: "Short statement of the doctrine of the three hypostasis, the One, Intellect and Soul; there cannot be more or fewer than these three. Criticism of the attempts to multiply the hypostasis, and especially of the idea of two intellects, one which thinks and that other which thinks that it thinks. (ch. 1). The true doctrine of Soul (ch. 2). The law of necessary procession and the eternity of the universe (ch.3). Attack on the Gnostic doctrine of the making of the universe by a fallen soul, and on their despising of the universe and the heavenly bodies (chs. 4–5). The senseless jargon of the Gnostics, their plagiarism from and perversion of Plato, and their insolent arrogance (ch. 6). The true doctrine about Universal Soul and the goodness of the universe which it forms and rules (chs. 7–8). Refutation of objections from the inequalities and injustices of human life (ch. 9). Ridiculous arrogance of the Gnostics who refuse to acknowledge the hierarchy of created gods and spirits and say that they alone are sons of God and superior to the heavens (ch. 9). The absurdities of the Gnostic doctrine of the fall of "Wisdom" (Sophia) and of the generation and activities of the Demiurge, maker of the visible universe (chs. 10–12). False and melodramatic Gnostic teaching about the cosmic spheres and their influence (ch. 13). The blasphemous falsity of the Gnostic claim to control the higher powers by magic and the absurdity of their claim to cure diseases by casting out demons (ch. 14). The false other-worldliness of the Gnostics leads to immorality (ch. 15). The true Platonic other-worldliness, which love and venerates the material universe in all its goodness and beauty as the most perfect possible image of the intelligible, contracted at length with the false, Gnostic, other-worldliness which hates and despises the material universe and its beauties (chs. 16–18)."

^ Turner, "Gnosticism and Platonism", in Wallis & Bregman.

Sources[edit]

This article incorporates text from the entry Demiurgus in A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines by William Smith and Henry Wace (1877), a publication now in the public domain.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

Name- Duke Atoms (Villain)

 

Universe: DC

 

Age: 32

 

Weapons- Fist

 

Allies- Deadshot

 

Enemies- Police and certain thugs

 

Skills- Extreme Agility and strength and large arms for certain task. Extreme intellect and robotics knowledge.

 

Back story:

Duke Atoms grew up in South Gotham. His parents divorced when he was young, but overall, he had a good childhood. He was always a hard worker and would not take any crap from anyone.

 

Duke worked at Ace Chemicals as a mechanic for the robotics and machinery at the plant. One day, while repairing a robotic arm that lifts barrels of chemicals and pours them into a vat with other chemicals, he hit the wrong switch. This caused the robotic arm to swing around violently, knocking Duke into the vat of chemicals. His fellow workers saw what happened and quickly pulled him out and called for medical services.

 

Duke awoke in the hospital. He was strapped to a bed and was being prepped for some form of surgery. Duke looked to his left and saw a mirror on the table next to his bed. What he saw horrified him. His skin had been bleached yellow and his arms had tripled in size.

 

Due to the chemicals absorbed into Duke's brain, he suffered severe case of amnesia. The only thing he remembered was his name and where he lived. Scared of what he saw, he was convinced that the doctors at the hospital had done this to him. Thinking quickly, he broke free from his restraints and flung himself out the window. When he jumped out, he grabbed the side of the building, digging his fingers into the bricks. In doing this, he realized his over sized arms had super human strength and grip. He climbed the rest of the way down and quickly headed back to his home.

 

When duke arrived at his home, he discovered his personal belongings and other things that he owned. Using them, he gained back some of his memories about what he did for a living. He found his robotics books and skimmed through them, remembering some of the knowledge that he already knew. While desperately turning the pages, his over sized arms ripped them out, and eventually tore the book in half.

 

Duke realized that his legs were unable to support him and he had to use his arms as his legs. Using his knowledge of robotics that he had relearned, he used parts and materials from his home, he crafted a make shift leg brace that would allow him to use his legs for a short period of time. Duke knew he would need something better.

 

The next night, he returned to ace chemicals after closing and took robotics parts and equipment from the machines that he had once fixed. He took them home and made himself a suit that had built in leg braces that could easily hold his weight. The braces not only supported him. but gave his legs a boost of strength as well.

 

Duke decided that the only way he could provide for himself was to steal the things he needed, like food and other supplies to improves his suit. Duke began to rob small shops and gas stations, taking everything from the cash register and anything else of use. He would also go to auto parts shops and steal other thing for his suit. Using everything he had stolen, he crafted a red suit to cover his braces that was also equipped with pouches for storage.

 

One night while roaming the roof tops, he ran into Deadshot. He began to talk with Deadshot, and the two eventually became good friends. Deadshot even helped Duke to make a eye HUD. Duke used this to scan areas before he entered them. Duke began to accompany Deadshot on some of his jobs. He was fascinated by Deadshot's accuracy and by his precision, and he soon began to kill.

 

He would use his large fist and pulverize his enemies, breaking most of there bones, then leaving them to bleed to death. When other criminals heard of Duke, they gave him the appropriate name "Atom Smasher". Duke works with Deadshot, but sometimes goes off on his own. Duke is not known for leaving his foes alive, and he tries to cause as much pain as possible before his victims actually die.