"What is the individuating principle according to Aristotle? It is matter."
Or, to be even more straightforward and terse: "it is matter that individuates."
On the one hand, this is the kind of idea that runs against my grain. I keep finding myself in the Plato Ontological / Metaphysical Camp, and thus have very little appreciation for the ultimate importance of The Body. When it comes down to it, it seems to me that my body is merely the meat vehicle which carries my soul (and by soul, I mean mind) around. But there are times when I have to say that that conceit doesn't play through.
For example, I am currently enjoying much better health and vitality than I have for a very long time. In fact, several years ago when I did an Assessment for my health insurance policy, the results showed that I was physically 69 years old. When I re-did the same assessment a few months ago, the results showed that I was physically 58 years old. So including the fact that I first did the assessment at least two years ago, that means that I am now 13 (possibly more, as I can't remember precisely when I did that initial assessment, but I'd rather low-ball it than risk hyperbole) years younger than I was then. And I certainly do feel that difference. And not just physically. I am much happier, much less prone to dwell on past pains and slights. I no longer look at the Facebook profiles of former lovers. So the change in my physical self has indeed had an influence on my mind, and thus, so far as my nomenclature is concerned, on my soul.
So there's that.
But it could be more than that, too. In fact, it could be much more than that. Like everything.
One of the things that has really jangled in my grille from the Edgar Cayce Search for God meetings (have I mentioned them here yet? I kind of have a book going on that experience, so maybe I haven't) was the repeated assertion that We Are All One Person. It just seems like an incredibly stupid idea to me. It makes some sense if you apply it in a non-literal (perhaps hyperbolic?) sense so that it arches around to form the maxim Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself, which is probably the best advice ever given from one human being to another. But beyond that it just seems really stupid. In fact, the first time someone said it in an ECSfG meeting I immediately responded by saying, "Well, I'm glad I showed up, then." Which I thought was kind of funny, but I really try not to pull that sarcasm shit out much these days. I just couldn't stop that one.
But despite my disdain--or maybe because of it--I kept thinking about that idea. And I came up with my own riff on it, which forms a kind of Metaphysical Conspiracy Theory. I may have even plopped it down into a previous blog entry--I really am dreaming when I write some of these, and I only go back when I get a typo alert, so there's a lot of stuff in there that is not in my Known Knowns. Anyway, it goes like this: what if God is manifest in this world only by expressing Himself in every possible variation of human being? It immediately solves some thorny problems: like why was that kid born with a debilitating disease? Etcetera. Of course, it's just an idea I pulled out of my ass, so I don't know where you can take it from there. I'll see if I can get hold of L. Ron Hubbard on the Ouija Board for some advice.
And as I was mulling this shit over just now, I remembered that I'd marked another spot in A History of Philosophy reference this God Business, and I'd saved it on my desktop in jpeg form, which is an indication that it was a little higher up on the I Mean To Write About This Later list than the stuff I just mark in the book. It went like this:
" . . . Speusippus held that substances proceed from the One and the absolute Many, and he placed the God . . . at the end of the process of becoming and not at the beginning, arguing from the development of plants and animals."
Now is that some hot shit or what? I'd never heard of this Speusippus 1 fellow before, but I think I am totally down with him on this End of the Process God Thing.
And if you put that together with the God working His 2 way into existence via manifesting as every possible variation of human being thing, it really really works, doesn't it?
And to extend that a bit . . . that also accounts for why God can't answer all prayers, doesn't it? Cause He's not There yet. (And maybe He can answer some prayers because He is There already.)
All in all, I think it makes for a beautiful explanation of some of the biggest problems facing the Christian (and maybe every other religion as well, but I don't know any of them and thus don't presume to speak for them) Thinker: the presence of evil in the world, the fact that some prayers are answered while others are ignored, the problem of why innocent people suffer. It's all right there, isn't it?
And no surprise that Artistotle and the Speusippus fellow were there long, long ago. Cause those guys were smart.
And you know what? I like this explanation so much that I'm just going to assume that that IS the way it works until someone proves otherwise. I know that's kind of stupid, since I just made it up and then found corroboration Out There, but what the hell is philosophy for if not attempting to find logical explanations for what happens in this life?
And oh yeah, if you want to join My Church, just send $25 a week to my home address and you'll be in Good Standing.
1 According to Wikipedia, he was Plato's nephew, and after Plato's death, Speusippus too over The Academy and ran it until he had a stroke 8 years later.
2 Sorry, I know it's not currently acceptable to use the male pronoun to refer to God . . . but we don't have a gender neutral pronoun, and the He/She formulation is just awkward and bullshitty, and we do have a few thousand years of tradition going on there . . . so I'm sticking with He and His.
No comments:
Post a Comment