Pure Elements

[Cloud Hex]

Take any element, and consider what that element is at its most fundamental. For this to work you have to remove all outside influences in regards to how the element can effect them, and they can effect the element. In short, think of what an element is when it is within itself, for you to better understand, I'll give you an example.

 

What is water within water? The answer is fluid motion, without anything to effect or be effected by it, water at its most fundamental is pure fluid movement. This can only work if you use this same line of logic with other and all elements in dealing with the subject of this thread.

[HuaiDan]

Are you referring to earth, air, fire, and water? The ancient Chinese had 5: Earth, metal, wood, fire, and water.

[Cloud Hex]

Are you referring to earth, air, fire, and water? The ancient Chinese had 5: Earth, metal, wood, fire, and water.

 

Any of the systems really.

[BlueGiant]

I can see using elements as an abstraction for certain concepts, and this is usually what various correspondences are based on. I would also suggest that the system of elements you are using would very much affect the outcome of such an exercise.

 

As far as the Aristotelean elements, do you account for the qualities (hot, cold, wet, dry) which were supposed to be the pathway for changes between the elements? Also, do you take into account other, more ethereal element systems (salt, sulphur, and quicksilver from Western alchemy?) I could see a lot of diversity in this exercise from merely a psychological standpoint, let alone a spiritual one, in the magnum opus sense.

 

ETA: I can't spell today...

[MultifariousBirdLady]

Take any element, and consider what that element is at its most fundamental. For this to work you have to remove all outside influences in regards to how the element can effect them, and they can effect the element. In short, think of what an element is when it is within itself, for you to better understand, I'll give you an example.

 

What is water within water? The answer is fluid motion, without anything to effect or be effected by it, water at its most fundamental is pure fluid movement. This can only work if you use this same line of logic with other and all elements in dealing with the subject of this thread.

 

I seem to recall Aristotle saying that the "nature" of Water involved moving down, and the "nature" of Fire involved going up.

 

I'll have to look that up to be sure.

 

I often think of the elements as representing aspects of physics/chemistry. Air = gasses. Water = liquids. Earth = solids. Fire = energy.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

Are you referring to earth, air, fire, and water? The ancient Chinese had 5: Earth, metal, wood, fire, and water.

 

True enough.

 

And the Tibetan Buddhists include Space in there somewhere, or perhaps swap space for wood. I'd have to look it up again, as I haven't figured out all the differences between systems yet.

[Skankboy]

And the Tibetan Buddhists include Space in there somewhere

I think you're right. I'd have to check but it think it's "Space" in the sense of the empty "Void" from which all else springs. The ultimate potential, if you will...

[R. S. Martin]

And the Tibetan Buddhists include Space in there somewhere

I think you're right. I'd have to check but it think it's "Space" in the sense of the empty "Void" from which all else springs. The ultimate potential, if you will...

 

Just found this thread. This is a totally new way of thinking for me.

 

Can anybody explain how it's supposed to work? Just the bare bones basics to begin with, please. I get the idea that if it were a diagram we'd have four cubes: space, water, fire, earth, and air, or something like that for Eastern throught. But with Western thought there's something corrosive like salt added to the mixture. This might cause action and blending....Oops! just now I counted my "four" cubes and I see there's five. I guess space and air might be the same....

 

Okay, I'll try to make some sense. Philosophy has always been just beyond my abilities because it's so abstract. However, a few concepts have stuck to my brain. The concept that all things come from fire, water, earth, and air has somehow stuck. I understand this concept comes from the most ancient Greek philosophers before Socrates. I don't remember names. I do not understand how fire, water, earth, and air are supposed to relate to abstract existential reality. That is what I am trying to understand--the question I am trying to ask.

 

Not sure I am using the right words to ask my question....Am I making sense?

 

Maybe it would help if I explained that what I understand best is the cause and effect thinking of the scientific method--Western thought at its finest. I think that is called linear thought. I'd like to get my head around the basics of Eastern thought, too, if possible. And this thread sounds like something so basic that it might be a good place to start, if anyone can break it down into something simple enough that my Western brain can comprehend.

 

Even more basic, the OP mentions that the elements are fundamental to some people's beliefs. That really captures my interests--it sounds a lot like theology. My question is HOW? I guess we're back to what I asked above: What is the relationship between the very concrete (that we can sense and measure with the five senses) elements of earth, fire, air, and water and existential reality?

[Grandpa Harley]

From memory of poking round different mystical ideas

 

The elements seem to be less a bald dscription of matter and more somewhere between a functional grouping and decription of process (the latter being stronger in the Indian, Chinese and Japanese 'elements', than in the Classical [Greek] view)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_elements...e_philosophy%29

 

for the Buddhist/Hindu/Jain/Sikh view

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81bh%C5%ABta

 

although I tend to translate the word 'bhuta' as 'nature' or 'property of' than 'element...

[Ouroboros]

Take any element, and consider what that element is at its most fundamental. For this to work you have to remove all outside influences in regards to how the element can effect them, and they can effect the element. In short, think of what an element is when it is within itself, for you to better understand, I'll give you an example.

 

What is water within water? The answer is fluid motion, without anything to effect or be effected by it, water at its most fundamental is pure fluid movement. This can only work if you use this same line of logic with other and all elements in dealing with the subject of this thread.

You're talking about the essence or the form of things. It's an old belief that water is "watery" because it contains the water essence. Kind of th "spirit" of things. (If I understand it right - I heard about these things a while ago, but I don't remember much.)

 

Here's a link to Aristotle's four 'causes': http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm

[R. S. Martin]

The thing-ness of a thing.

[Ouroboros]

The thing-ness of a thing.

I like that. I'll try to remember that.

[R. S. Martin]

From memory of poking round different mystical ideas

 

The elements seem to be less a bald dscription of matter and more somewhere between a functional grouping and decription of process (the latter being stronger in the Indian, Chinese and Japanese 'elements', than in the Classical [Greek] view)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_elements...e_philosophy%29

 

for the Buddhist/Hindu/Jain/Sikh view

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81bh%C5%ABta

 

although I tend to translate the word 'bhuta' as 'nature' or 'property of' than 'element...

 

Thank you. I also read the wiki article on geomancy. At last I can see how a cosmology, philosophy, world view, and comprehensive ethical system can be built and sustained on the elements. It's like the interlocking stones in an arch.

 

The thing-ness of a thing.

I like that. I'll try to remember that.

 

Maybe the lecture was about Plato. The emphasis was on things like treeness of a tree, chairness of a chair, horseness of a horse, etc.

 

To illustrate chairness, there's something about all of the following that makes us think "chair" no matter how different they are in appearance:

 

• stool with legs, seat, and back
  
• rock formation with seat and back
  
• mattress-like contraption equipped with electric wires and buttons that cause the top to lean back and the bottom to rise up while the middle remains stable, sometimes known as a recliner.
  

Not to mention rocking-chair, arm-chair, kitchen chair, and just chair.

 

To illustrate dogness, think of all the different breeds of dogs, some of which are almost indistinguishable from cats and others of which are almost indistinguishable from ponies. Yet they are so definitely Dog.

 

I'm thinking there must be something in there that relates to the forms used Neo-Platonist Christian theologians. Plato's forms are a philosophy lesson I've never been able to fully comprehend. I'm still working on it.

[Ouroboros]

The thing-ness of a thing.

I like that. I'll try to remember that.

 

Maybe the lecture was about Plato. The emphasis was on things like treeness of a tree, chairness of a chair, horseness of a horse, etc.

My teacher used the words "being" and "becoming", and "form" and "particular", to represent the difference. As a programmer I would use terms as "class" and "object" or "instance" instead.

 

I'm thinking there must be something in there that relates to the forms used Neo-Platonist Christian theologians. Plato's forms are a philosophy lesson I've never been able to fully comprehend. I'm still working on it.

I think, (I could be wrong), but the "form" is kind of like an "idea". There is an "idea" of what a chair is and for what purpose it is. This idea is the ultimate and pure form of the actual chair.

[R. S. Martin]

I'm thinking there must be something in there that relates to the forms used Neo-Platonist Christian theologians. Plato's forms are a philosophy lesson I've never been able to fully comprehend. I'm still working on it.

I think, (I could be wrong), but the "form" is kind of like an "idea". There is an "idea" of what a chair is and for what purpose it is. This idea is the ultimate and pure form of the actual chair.

 

I think the NeoPlatonist theologians had forms emanating from God or spirit downward. From spirit toward matter. With each emanation it deteriorated another stage and the last stage was matter. I think Jesus materialized in there somewhere. Are you suggesting Jesus originated as an idea from the mind of God? (In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God. The Word was God, etc.) That sounds an awful lot like a loan from the story of Zeus. Would the Church Fathers have accepted that? Or am I pulling stuff out of thin air?

 

PS. I looked at the title of the forum this is in. EXChristian Theism. And I am taking the topic to Christian theology. Should this post be moved to the Theology section?

[Ouroboros]

I think the NeoPlatonist theologians had forms emanating from God or spirit downward. From spirit toward matter. With each emanation it deteriorated another stage and the last stage was matter. I think Jesus materialized in there somewhere. Are you suggesting Jesus originated as an idea from the mind of God? (In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God. The Word was God, etc.) That sounds an awful lot like a loan from the story of Zeus. Would the Church Fathers have accepted that? Or am I pulling stuff out of thin air?

No, you're not pulling stuff out of thin air at all. However, you took the leap from Plato to Neoplatonists.

 

Plato considered the Good, or the Ultimate Good as a Sun. It's a force or form that is so pure and emanate such energy that you can't look straight at it. It's there, you know it's there, and you know it's form, but you can't look straight at it. That's how Plato considered justice and good. (If I understand it right)

 

This Good, (I think) became God for the NeoPlatonists. The Form, all other 'goods' are imitating, the virtues and any other righteous acts. How Jesus exactly would come in for a Neoplatonist, I'm not quite sure, because Jesus fits better to Aristotle's ideas than Plato. (IMO)

 

I think Plato considered the Forms to actually exist, as something beyond matter, and he's kind of right, because ideas and thoughts do exists, kind of on-top of all the other things like matter. It's meta-physical in that sense. Like "Love", we can't touch or measure love, but we know it's a phenomenon that is quite real. The same way Forms exists, but it's not necessarily we can exactly measure it or always pinpoint what it is.

 

PS. I looked at the title of the forum this is in. EXChristian Theism. And I am taking the topic to Christian theology. Should this post be moved to the Theology section?

Yeah, maybe "Christian theology in the light of Plato and Aristotle" should be in the Theology section, as a new topic.

[HuaiDan]

because Jesus fits better to Aristotle's ideas than Plato. (IMO)

 

 

Yeah, maybe "Christian theology in the light of Plato and Aristotle" should be in the Theology section, as a new topic.

 

 

 

How so?

[Ouroboros]

because Jesus fits better to Aristotle's ideas than Plato. (IMO)

 

Yeah, maybe "Christian theology in the light of Plato and Aristotle" should be in the Theology section, as a new topic.

 

How so?

Because the questions are more related to theology than spirituality.

 

St Thomas based most of his ideas on Aristotle (even though not 100%), and this has influenced the Catholic Church a lot more (I think) than Neoplatonic. (But I could be wrong)

[R. S. Martin]

I copied the last three posts here, and started a new thread as Hans suggested. I will respond there.