On The Nature and Origin of the Mind
By Benedictus de Spinoza
Edited by J E Bradburn
DEFINITION 1: By body I mean a mode, which expresses in a certain determinate manner the essence of God, in so far as he is considered as an
extended thing (having wider influence, effect, or application) (See Pt 1, Proposition 25, and Corollary (something that naturally follows: RESULT),
DEFINITION 2: I consider as belonging to the essence of a thing [Spirit] that, which being given, the thing [Spirit] is necessarily given also, and, which being removed, the thing [Spirit] is necessarily removed also; in other words, that without which the thing [Spirit], and which itself without the thing [Spirit], can neither be, nor be conceived (Think or imagine something). http://www.godsplan.org.uk/book1.htm http://www.godsplan.org.uk/2%20Peter%203.htm http://godsplan.org.uk/fleshage.htm
I was born in Liverpool in February of 1946. I fully understand this physical body; and why we are on this fallen earth today, also the way it is and why most people act the way they do; how do I know? When I was fourteen years of age I had a few out of body experiences, the most significant being when I was up above the house where I lived. I looked around and was drawn to the Liver Buildings clocks it was 3:15 a.m. it was also a very clear and still night. This view of Liverpool I have never told anyone except my wife, and firstborn son who also had an out of body experience. It was he who gave me a book called “A Soul’s Journey” by Peter Richelieu which I read ardently page by page (feeling great passion, or felt very passionately) I had two other sons. How do I know of the soul? “I have experienced it” which led me to the way I write and study. If you are looking for a true place of study; visit and download my website. http://www.godsplan.org.uk/
DEFINITION 3: By idea, I mean the mental conception which is formed by the mind as a thinking thing. Explanation—I say conception rather than perception, because the word perception seems to imply that the mind is passive (tending not to participate actively, and usually letting others make decisions) in respect to the object; whereas conception seems to express an activity of the mind (a general understanding of something).
DEFINITION 4: By an adequate idea, I mean an idea which, in so far as it is considered in itself, without relation to the object, has all the properties or intrinsic (belonging to something as one of the basic and essential features that make it what it is) marks of a true idea. Explanation—I say intrinsic, in order to exclude that mark which is extrinsic (not an essential part of something) namely, the agreement between the idea and its object
(Ideatum) [The actual existence supposed to correspond with an idea] http://vimeo.com/11731116 (Click Image) Strangest Secret (I played this tape over and over, again and again).
DEFINTION 5: Duration is the indefinite continuance of existing. Explanation—I say indefinite, because it cannot be determined through the existence itself of the existing thing [Spirit], or by its efficient cause, which necessarily gives the existence of the thing [Spirit], but does not take it away.
DEFINITION 6: Reality and perfection I use as synonymous terms (meaning the same, or almost the same, as another word in the same language, or being an alternative name for somebody or something).
DEFINITION 7: By particular things, I mean things which are finite and have a conditioned existence; [Spirit] but if several individual things concur in one action, so as to be all simultaneously the effect of one cause, I consider them all, so far, as one particular thing.
http://www.godsplan.org.uk/parables.htm (Wheat & Tares)
1. The essence of man does not involve necessary existence, that is, it may, in the order of nature, come to pass that this or that man does or does not exist. (Reaches an age, then dies) Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”
2. Man thinks.
3. Modes of thinking, such as love, desire, or any other of the passions, do not take place, unless there be in the same individual an idea f the thing loved, desired, &c. But the idea can exist without the presence of any other mode of thinking.
4. We perceive (to notice something, especially something that escapes the notice of others) that a certain body is affected in many ways.
5. We feel and perceive no particular things, save bodies and modes of thought.
Prop 1: Thought is an attribute of God (to think of something as caused by a particular circumstance), or God is a thinking thing (Spirit)
His Proof—Particular thoughts, or this and that thought, are modes which, in a certain conditioned manner, express the nature of God (Pt 1, Prop 25, Corollary). God therefore possesses the attribute. (Pt 1, Definition 5) of which the concept is involved in all particular thoughts, which later are conceived thereby (to form an idea or concept of something in your mind). Thought, therefore, is one of the infinite attributes of God, which express God’s eternal and infinite essence (Pt 1, Def 6). In other words God is a thinking thing.
Note—This proposition is also evident from the fact, that we are able to conceive an infinite thinking being. For, in proportion as a thinking being is conceived as thinking more thoughts, so is it conceived as containing more reality or perfection. Therefore a being, which can think an infinite number of things in an infinite number of ways, is, necessarily, in respect of thinking, infinite. As, therefore, from the consideration of thought alone, we conceive an infinite being, thought is necessarily (Pt 1, Def 4, and 5.) is just one of the infinite attributes of God, as we were desirous of showing.
PROP 2 Extension is an attribute o0f God, or God is an extended thing (having a wider influence, effect, or application, forever)
His Proof—the proof of this proposition is similar to that of the last.
PROP 3 In God there is necessarily the idea not only of His essence, but also things which necessarily follow from His essence.
His Proof—God (by the first prop., of this Part) can think an infinite number of things in an infinite of ways, or (what is the same thing, by Prop 16 Part 1.) can form the idea of His essence, and of all things which necessarily follow therefrom. Now all that is in the power of God necessarily is (Pt 1, Prop 35.). Such an idea, as we are considering necessarily is, and in God alone. Q.E.D. (Part 1 Prop 15).
Note:--The multitude understand by the power of God the free will of God, and the right over all things which exist, which later are accordingly generally considered as contingent (dependent on or resulting from a future and as yet unknown event or circumstance) http://godsplan.org.uk/messianicage.htm http://www.godsplan.org.uk/kingdom.htm For it is said that God has the power to destroy all things, and reduce them to nothing. Further, the Power of God is very often likened to the power of kings. But this doctrine we have refuted (Part 1. Prop 32. Corrolls 1 &2), and we have shown (Part 1, Prop 16), that God acts by the same necessity, as that by which He understands Himself; in other words, as it follows from the necessity of the Devine nature (as all admit), that God understands Himself so also does it follow by the same necessity, that God performs infinite acts in infinite ways. We further showed (Part 1. Prop 34), that God’s power is identical with God’s essence in action; therefore it is as impossible for us to conceive God as not acting, at to conceive Him as non-existent. If we might pursue the subject further, I could point out, that the power which is commonly attributed to God is not only human (as showing that God is conceived by the multitude as a man, or in the likeness of a man), but involves a negation of power. However, I am unwilling to go over the same ground so often. I would only beg the reader again, and again, to turn over frequently in his mind what I have said in Part1from Prop 16 to the end. No one will be able to follow my meaning, unless he is scrupulously careful not to confound the Power of God with the human power and right of kings.
It is time for those of you who read only the New Testament; to understand the above note written by Spinoza. It is imperative that you fully understand what he says. However to give you something to think about I will, with great trepidation; try to lead, and help, you to understand. The misunderstanding arises from the ignorance of the translators.
Briefly: The true God, or the Father, is known as Jehovah, Who created all things known to man. His firstborn creation was Elohim: who was the tree of life. https://levendwater.org/companion/append4.html and it was Elohim who came as Jesus the sacrificial Lamb for all our sins. However, the translators saw Him as God after the birth by Mariam and Joseph which caused all the confusion in their minds (We know who the author of confusion is).The idea of G
Jehovah the father used Elohim to create the world of Genesis after the enemy Satan (Lucifer) ruined it. (Hence Wheat & Tares) http://www.godsplan.org.uk/parables.htm
If you need any more help download my website http://www.godsplan.org.uk/
PROP 4 The idea of God, from which an infinite number of things follow in infinite ways, can only be one.
His Proof—Infinite intellect comprehends nothing save the attributes of God and His modifications (Part 1, Prop 30). Now God is one (Part 1, Prop 14, and Coroll). Therefore the idea of God, wherefrom an infinite number of things follow in infinite ways, can only be one. (Q.E.D.)
PROP 5 The actual being of ideas owns God as its cause, only in so far as He is considered as a thinking thing, not in so far as He is unfolded in any other attribute; that is, the ideas both of the attributes of God and of particular things do not own as their efficient cause their objects (ideata) or the things perceived, but God Himself in so far as He is a thinking being.
His Proof—This proposition is evident from Prop 3, of this Part. We there drew the conclusion, that God can form the idea of His essence, and of all the things which follow necessarily there-from, solely because He is a thinking thing, and not because He is the object of His own idea. Wherefore the actual being of ideas owns for cause God, in so far as He is a thinking thing. It may be differently proved as follows:
The actual being of ideas is (obviously) a mode of thought, that is (Part 1. Prop 25, Coroll.) a mode which expresses in a certain manner the nature of God, in so far as He is a thinking thing, and therefore (Part 1. Prop 10.) involves the conception of (a result of thought, e.g. an idea, invention, or plan) no other attribute of God (to think of something as caused by a particular circumstance), and consequently (by Part 1. Ax 4.) is not the effect of any attribute save thought. Therefore the actual being of ideas owns God as its cause. in so far as He is considered as a thinking thing, &c. Q.E.D. (what was to be shown). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.#:~:text=or%20QED%20(British%20English%3A%20italicised,what%20was%20to%20be%20shown%22.
PROP 6 The modes of any given attribute are caused by God, in so far as He is considered through the attribute of which they are modes (a way, manner, or form, e.g. a way of doing something, or the form in which something exists, and not in so far as He is considered through any other attribute (to think of something as caused by a particular circumstance).
Whether you believe Prop 6 or not is immaterial. The Holy Spirit; so far, has lead me into all TRUTH, so if I was to refute the suggestion of Spinoza, I would be refuting the Holy Spirit as well. My faith is so strong I would not, or could not; do other than believe him. For; if it were untrue, why would I have this book by Spinoza, highly recommended by Oswald Spengler, and not refuted (to prove something to be false or somebody to be in error, either through logical argument or by providing evidence to the contrary) by the Holy Spirit? It is for you to cogitate (to think deeply and carefully about something) and; make your mind up. Spinoza, who was degraded by his parents, and suffered banishment by his nation, had the fortitude (strength and endurance in a difficult or painful situation); in his own beliefs, something which we all need in the days ahead J.E.B.
Genesis 1:26 (KJV) “And God said [Jehovah & Elohim], ‘Let us make man in our image after our likeness: and let them (Adham & Eve) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’” Why else would God say this? http://www.godsplan.org.uk/book1.htm
His Proof: Each attribute is conceived through itself, without any other (Part 1, Prop 10); wherefore the modes (a way, manner, or form, e.g. a way of doing something, or the form in which something exists) of each attribute involve the conception of that attribute, but not any other. Thus (Part 1, Ax 4.) they are caused by God, only in so far as He is considered through the attribute whose modes they are, and not in so far as He is considered through any other. Q.E.D.
Corollary (something that is a natural consequence of or accompaniment to something else)—Hence the actual being of things, which are not modes of thought, does not follow from the Divine nature, because that nature has prior knowledge of the things (in other words before it happens). Things represented in ideas follow, and derived from their particular attribute (assign qualities to somebody or something: Elohim.), in the same manner, and with the same necessity as ideas follow (according to what we have shown) from the attribute of thought.
PROP 7 The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things. http://www.godsplan.org.uk/biblicalunderstanding.htm (Through the King James Volume)
His Proof: This proposition is evident from Part 1, Ax 4, for the idea of everything that is caused depends on a knowledge of the cause, whereof it is an effect.
Corollary—Hence God’s power of thinking is equal to His realized power of thinking—that is, whatsoever follows from the infinite nature of God in the world of extension formaliter https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/formaliter,
Follows without exception in the same order and connection from the idea of God in the world of thought (objective) [free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings].
Before going any further, I wish to recall to mind what has been pointed out above—namely, that whatsoever can be perceived (to notice something, especially something that escapes the notice of others) by the infinite intellect as constituting the essence of substance, belongs altogether only to one substance. Consequently, substance thinking and substance extended are one and the same substance, comprehended now through one attribute, now through the other. So, also, a mode of extension and the idea of that mode are one and the same thing, though expressed in two ways. This TRUTH seems to have been recognised by those Jews who maintained that God, God’s intellect, and the things understood by God are identical. For instance, a circle existing in nature, and the idea of a circle existing, which is also in God, are one and the same thing displayed through different attributes. Thus, whether we conceive nature under the attribute of extension, or under the attribute of thought, or under any other attribute, we shall find the same order, or one of the same chain and causes—that is, the same things following in either case. http://www.godsplan.org.uk/strangestsecret.htm (Will help: hence: be very careful what you wish for).
I said that God is the cause of an idea—for instance, of the idea of a circle—in so far as He is a thinking thing; and of a circle, and in so far as He is an extended thing, simply because the actual being of the idea of a circle can only be conceived as a proximate (most likely) cause through another mode of thinking, and that again through another, and so to infinity; so that, so long as we consider things as modes of thinking, we must explain the order of the whole nature, or the whole chain of causes, through the attribute of thought only.
And, in so far as we consider things as modes of extension, we must explain the order of the whole of nature through the attributes of extension only; and so on, in the case of other attributes. Wherefore (a reason or purpose for something) as things as they are in themselves God is really the cause, inasmuch as He consists of infinite attributes. I cannot for the present explain my meaning more clearly. http://www.godsplan.org.uk/strangestsecret.htm (Click link, then click image to start; hence: be very careful what you wish for).
Prop 8 The ideas of particular things or of modes that do not exist, must be comprehended in the infinite idea of God, in the same way as the formal essences of particular things or modes are contained in the attributes of God.
His Proof: This proposition is evident from the last; it is understood more clearly from the preceding note (above).
Corollary—Hence, so long as particular things do not exist, except in so far as they are comprehended in the attributes of God, their representations in thought or ides do not exist, insofar as the infinite ideas of God exists; and when particular things are said to exist, not only in so far as they are involved in the attributes of God, but also insofar as they are said to continue, their ideas will also involve existence, through which they are said to continue.
If anyone desires an example to throw more light on this question, I shall, I fear, not be able to give him any, which adequately explains the thing of which I here speak, inasmuch as it is unique; however, I will endeavour to illustrate it as far as possible.
The nature of a circle is such that if any number of straight lines intersect within it, the rectangles formed by their segments will be equal to one another; thus, infinite equal rectangles are contained in a circle. Yet none of these rectangles (or shapes) can be said to exist, except insofar as they are comprehended in the idea of the circle. Let us grant that, from this infinite number of rectangles, two only exist. The ideas of these two not only exist, insofar as they are contained in the idea of the circle but also as they involve the existence of those shapes; wherefore (a reason or purpose for something) they are distinguished from the remaining ideas of the remaining shapes. To explain further: most humans, translators, priests, atheists, &c; have neither the ears nor eyes to see or believe what is in front of them. So they make it up as they go. http://www.godsplan.org.uk/earstohear.htm
PROP 9 The idea of an individual thing actually existing is caused by God, not insofar as he is infinite, but in so far as He is considered as affected by another idea of a thing actually existing, of which He is the cause, insofar as He is affected by a third idea, and so on to infinity.
His Proof—The idea of an individual thing actually existing is an individual mode of thinking, and is distinct from other modes (by the Corollary and note to Prop 8 of this part); thus (by Prop 6 of this part} it is caused by God, insofar only as He is a thinking thing, But not by (Prop 28 of Part 1.) insofar as He is a thing thinking absolutely, only in so far as He is considered as affected by another mode of thinking; and He is the cause of this latter, as being affected by a third, and so on to infinity. Now, the order and connection of ideas is (by Prop7 of this book) the same as the order and connection of causes. Therefore of a given individual idea, or God, insofar as He is, considered as modified by that idea, is the cause; and of the second idea God is the cause, insofar as He affected by another idea, and so on to infinity. Q.E.D.
Corollary—Whatsoever takes place in the individual object of any idea, the knowledge thereof in God, in so far only as he has the idea of the object.
His Proof—Whatsoever takes place in the object of any idea, its idea is in God (by Prop 3 of this part), and not in so far as He is infinite, but in so far as He is considered as affected by another idea of an individual thing (by the last Prop); but (by Prop 7 of this part) the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things. The knowledge, therefore, of that which takes place in any individual object will be in God, in so far only as He has the idea of that object. Q.E.D. https://levendwater.org/companion/append4.html Yahweh, the God of the Israelites, whose name was revealed to Moses as four Hebrew consonants (YHWH) called the tetragrammaton. http://godsplan.org.uk/fulltentribes.htm (Of Judea).
PROP 10 The being of substance does not appertain to the essence of man—in other words, substance does not constitute the actual being of man (to be, amount to, or have the status of a particular thing)
His Proof—The being of substance involves necessary existence (Part 1, Prop 7). If, therefore, the being of substance appertains to the essence of man (to belong or relate to something), substance being granted, man would necessarily be granted also (11 Def 2), and, consequently, man would necessarily exist, which is absurd (11, Ax. 1), Therefore, &c, Q.E.D.
This proposition may also be proved from 1. 5. In which it is shown that there cannot be two substances of the same nature; for as there may be many men, the being of substance (something that is individual and caused) is not that which constitutes (to appoint somebody formally to a position) the actual being of man. Again, the proposition is evident (easy or clear to see or understand) from the other properties of substance—namely, that substance is in its nature infinite, immutable (not changing or not able to be changed) indivisible (not capable of being separated into parts), &c, as anyone may see for himself.
Corollary (something that is a natural consequence of or accompaniment to something else)—Hence it follows, that the essence of man is constituted (to be, amount to, or have the status of a particular thing) by certain modifications of the attributes of God. For (by the last Prop) the being of substance does not belong to the essence of man. That essence therefore (1, 15) is something which is in God, and which without God can neither be nor be consceived, whether it be a modification (1, 25) Coroll), or mode which expresses God’s nature in a certain conditioned manner. (Lucifer tried to make himself as God, and look what God did to him). http://godsplan.org.uk/serpentofgenesis3.htm
Everyone must surely admit, (except the Tares http://www.godsplan.org.uk/parables.htm ), that nothing can be or be conceived without God. All men agree that God is the one and only cause of all things, both of their essence and their existence; that is, God is not only the cause of things in respect to their being made (Secundum Fieri) = In accordance and especially conceived as religious, when we have resurrected to God.; but also in respect to their being (secundum esse = when we have). http://www.godsplan.org.uk/seekinggod.htm
At the same time many assert, that that, without which a thing cannot be nor be conceived, belongs to the essence of that thing; wherefore (a reason of or purpose for something) they believe that either the nature of
2. Or else that created things can be, or be conceived without God.
3. Or else, as more probably the case, they hold inconsistent doctrines. (Tares).
I think the cause for such confusion is mainly, that they do not keep to the proper order of philosophic thinking. The nature of God, which should be reflected upon first, inasmuch as it is prior both
· in the order of knowledge. http://www.godsplan.org.uk/knowledgeandwisdom.htm
· And the order of nature. http://www.godsplan.org.uk/spiritualmaterial.htm
They have taken to be last in the order of knowledge, and have put into the first place what they call the objects of sensation; hence, while they are all considering natural phenomena, they give no attention at all to the divine nature, and, when they apply their mind to the study of the divine nature, they are quite unable to bear in mind the first hypotheses, with which they have overlaid the knowledge of natural phenomena,
inasmuch as such hypotheses are no help toward understanding the divine nature. So that it is hardly to be wondered at, that these persons contradict themselves freely.
However, I pass over this point. My intention here was only to give a reason for not saying, that that, without which a thing cannot be or be conceived, belongs to the essence of that thing: individual things cannot be or be conceived without God, yet God does not appertain to their essence. I said that “I considered as belonging to the essence of a thing that, which being given, the thing is necessarily given also, or that without which the thing, and which itself being the thing can neither be, nor be conceived,” (11 Def, 2).
PROP 11 The first element, which constitutes (to be, amount to, or have the status of a particular thing) the actual being of the human mind, is the idea of some particular thing actually existing.
If you study the image on the left, I have put a white mark over the brain, expressing the mind, and attributes of God. If we wish to speak to God; through prayer, this is how He hears you.
His Proof—The essence of man (by the Corolla of the last Prop) is constituted by certain modes of the attributes of God, (by 11. Ax 2), by the modes of thinking, of all which (by 11. Ax 3), the idea is prior in nature, and, when the idea is given, the other modes (namely, those of which the idea is prior in nature) must be in the same individual (by the same Axiom). Therefore an idea is the first element constituting the human mind. But not the idea of a non—existent thing, for then (11 8 Corolla) the idea itself cannot be said to exist; it must therefore be the idea of something actually existing. But not of an infinite thing For an infinite thing, must always necessarily exist; this would involve an absurdity. Therefore the first element, which constitutes (to make up the whole or a particular part of something) the actual being of the human mind, is the idea of something actually existing Q.E.D.
Corollary—Hence it follows, that the human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God (somebody's ability to think, reason, and understand); thus when we say, that the human mind perceives this or that, we make the assertion (a strong statement that something is true) that God has this or that idea, not insofar as He is infinite, but insofar as He is displayed through the nature of the human mind, or in so far as He constitutes the essence of the human mind; and when we say that God has this or that idea, not only insofar as He constitutes the essence of the human mind, but also insofar as He, simultaneously (done, happening, or existing at the same time) with the human mind, has the further idea of another thing, we assert (to state something as being true) that the human mind perceives a thing in part or inadequately (failing to reach an expected or required level or standard).
Here, I doubt not, readers will come to a stand, and will call to mind many things which will cause them to hesitate; I therefore beg them to accompany me slowly, step by step. And not to pronounce (to render an opinion or judgment) on my statements until they have read to the end.
PROP 12 Whatsoever comes to pass in the object of the idea, which constitutes the human mind, must be perceived by the human mind, or there will necessarily be an idea in the human mind of the said occurrence. That is, if the object of the idea constituting the human mind be a body (I mean a mode), nothing can take place in that body without being perceived by the mind (to notice something, especially something that escapes the notice of others)
His Proof—Whatsoever comes to pass in the object of any idea, the knowledge thereof is necessarily in God (Prop11. 9. Corollary), in so far as he is considered as affected by the idea of the said subject, that is (Prop 11. 11), in so far as he constitutes the mind of anything. Therefore, whatsoever takes place in the object constituting the idea of the human mind, the knowledge thereof is necessarily in God, in so far as He constitutes (to be, amount to, or have the status of a particular thing) the essence of the human mind, (that is by 11. 11. Corollary) the knowledge of the said thing will necessarily be in the mind, in other words the mind perceives it.
PROP 13. The object of the idea constituting the human mind is the body (I mean a mode) (a way, manner, or form, e.g. a way of doing something, or the form in which something exists) in other words a certain mode of extension which actually exists, and nothing else.
His Proof—If indeed the body (mode) were not the object of the human mind, the ideas of the modifications of the body would not be in God. In virtue of His constituting our mind (the quality of being morally good or righteous), but in virtue of His constituting the mind of something else; that is the ideas of the modifications of the body would not be in our mind: Now we do possess the idea of the modifications of the body (mode). Therefore the object of the idea constituting the human mind is the body (mode), and the body as it actually exists. Further, if there were any other object of the idea constituting the mind besides body (mode), then, as nothing can exist from which some effect does not follow there would necessarily have to be in our mind an idea, which would be the effect of the other object; but there is no such idea. Wherefore (a reason or purpose for something) the object of our mind is the body as it exists , and nothing else Q.E.D.
Note—We thus comprehend, not only that the human mind is united to the body, (see image above) but also the nature of the union between mind and body. http://www.godsplan.org.uk/askseekknock.htm However, no one will be able to grasp this adequately or distinctly (sufficient in quality or quantity to meet a need or qualify for something/clearly different and separate from others), unless he first has adequate knowledge of the nature of our body. The propositions we have advanced hitherto have been entirely general, applying not more to men than to other individual things, all of which, though in different degrees, are animated (to make a person, subject, or event lively). For of everything there is necessarily an idea in God, of which God is the cause, in the same way as there is an idea of the human body.
Genesis 3:21 (KJV) “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” This is how we got our flesh bodies. http://godsplan.org.uk/fleshage.htm thus whatever we have asserted of the
idea of the human body must necessarily also be asserted of the idea of everything else (to state something as being true).
Wherefore, in order to determine, wherein the human mind differs from other things, and wherein it surpasses (to go beyond what was expected or hoped for, usually by being bigger, better, or greater) them, it is necessary for us to know the nature of the object, that is, of the human body. What this nature is, like Spinola I am not able here to explain, nor is it necasarry for the proof of which I advance, that I sould do so. I will only say generally, that in proportion as any given body is more fitted than others for doing many actions or receiving many impressions at once, so also is the mind, of which it is the object, more fitted than others for forming many simultaneous perceptions; and the more the actions of the body depend on itself alone, and the fewer other bodies concur with it (to have the same opinion as somebody else, or reach agreement independently on a specific point) in action, the more fitted is the mind of which it is the object for distinct comprehension (the grasping of the meaning of something). We may thus recognise the superiority of one mind over others, and may further see the cause, why we have only a confused knowledge of our body, and also many kindred questions (close to somebody or something else because of similar qualities or interests), which I will, in the following propositions, deduce from what has been advanced. Wherefore I have thought it worthwhile to explain and prove more strictly my present statements. In order to do so, I must premise (a proposition that forms the basis of an argument or from which a conclusion is drawn) a few propositions concerning the nature of the bodies. http://www.godsplan.org.uk/book1.htm http://www.godsplan.org.uk/isgodthetruth%20.htm
Genesis 2:7 (KJV) “And the Lord God [Elohim] formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Revelation 13 (KJV)
01 “And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.”
02 “And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.”
03 “And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.”
04 “And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like unto the beast? ‘Who is able to make war with him?’”
05 “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.”
06 “And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.”
07 “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindred’s, and tongues, and nations.”
08 “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
09 “If any man have an ear, let him hear.”
10 “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”
11 “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.”
12 “And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.”
13 “And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,”
14 “And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.”
15 “And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.”
16 “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:”
17 “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
18 “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”
Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”