Hear ye a fable,
A fable bespoke.
Love or hate
affinity or contest —
talk within tongues.
Teresa Pelka
Aristo-teles may be someone who likes good looks; the Greek πλάσσω would suit someone in favor of good shapes and of the name Plato. ■Lexica has resources.
The philosophers and their words
Handsome spoke and wrote like he had the legendary Manual for Earth and the Universe at hand. People liked his mind on the variegated domains of Nature.
His writings became little known in proper shape, after emperor Justinian damaged schools. There has been fallacy and nothingness instead, says philologue Taylor.
The natural and supernatural
Handsome had a teacher, philosopher Shapely. Both meant no ghosts when they said being or supernatural. Beings were those in the state of be-ing, and super-natural were those you looked up in the sky. Natural was the surface of Earth, and the super-natural was simply vertically above.
Handsome meant “natural”, when he said “physical”. Today lasers are physical and natural are daisies in pristine fields.
God
Handsome and Shapely said “God” alone, where they believed something was of the Design. They did not mean God was on Earth; the design was by God.
True Being was God — recognized the same as Dior, Armani, or Texas Instruments happened to be after. “Perpetual and invariable in subsisting; allotted an essence that was established entire at once and together, without interval, impartibly in eternity”, said Shapely.
Theories are today, if you halted a nucleus — completely or perfectly — you’d get a big bang where the True Being is a moment.
The impartible
It was not us to name the cosmic impartible. The name does not meet all semantic requirements for holes — there is nothing to see through them or leak — and maybe they are sleeves of sorts.
The name today was given likely before modern people thought there could be some indivisible in man too. Science first went wrong on the atom: it claimed it had split it.
The human indivisible
An a-tomos is something you cannot split or divide. Whenever you split something, you know it is not and never has been a-tomos.
It is the indivisible nature to allow eternal life to man. People thought about the “fiber” already in ancient China.
No rack can torture me,
My soul’s at liberty.
Behind this mortal bone
There knits a bolder one:
You cannot prick with saw,
Nor rend with scymitar.
Two bodies therefore be;
Bind one, and one will flee.
Emily Dickinson, ■Emancipation.
The indivisible and Earth’s gravitation
You could make observations on the indivisible relative to Earth gravitation. The inner factor here obviously is not a propeller.
There is no muscle power alone to do the things pictured here. There is human volitional movement and gravitational interplay.
It is the indivisible or impartible — synonyms in context — to allow the play on gravity in this partible world.
Natural intuitions
People have had natural intuitions and these may show in dance sometimes. Guys in Africa have had a tradition to balance something within their bodies at an interval with earthly gravitation. The indivisible “carries” sometimes, if you look at the purple fella.
The human indivisible is not cosmos within man; it becomes in man. Each human being grows own, or so the story would affirm on afterlife, that it is possible — more possible than not — because humans develop own impartible within. We cannot part from ourselves. Only the body is partible.
Russians cannot be denied some spirit either. By the way, if they have spirit, and you have spirit, and you go to war the fashion on Earth since Napoleon, would it not be you end up belligerent in some afterlife, only without the favorable earthly conditions? We do not know; you reckon and they reckon.
The swings here would be difficult to manage from the head straight and all the time, as you turn around much. It could be some gravitational balance where you “let go of your head a bit” not to get dizzy.
Other flips
We know there are birds that “dance” similar to that African dance, but humans do not have wings and aerodynamic bones, so we believe this makes a whole lot of a difference.
Robots can flip too, but they use “high-torque actuators and specialized storage for energy”, springs and hydraulics, see Google AI. An average human skeleton is some 10 kilograms, and those flipping robots would weigh some 20 altogether. Average human body weighs 62 kilos.
Could man have a soul if there is no measurement on Earth?
Our belief in earthly quantity is not unyielding. Guys would say it is unheard of in the physical world, that you can’t exactly measure it and it is. Superconductors yet have areas of uncertain charge, and you can go on without strict prescription on parameter.
If it is possible in physics that a thing goes on without measure, why would it not be possible for the soul.
The anima
Anima is a Latin name among Greek ways too, to talk about the soul. Romans had the name animal for any earthly creature that could move about. What followed, some people started to think that humans were animals, or intellect was different or separate from the soul.
The Latin was only to tell that people were the kind of life that by nature could move about. Plants could not, and they were life too.
Shapely noted, “Nature wove together with eternity”, to create man. We recommend ■Philosopher Honeybee, in renown for excellence at matters of man.
Who is responsible
Shapely and Handsome both made the reservation:
… that which makes, makes that which is made, and no more.
In other words, what there is formed, as an infant with its fiber of eternity — is own beginning in time.
Everybody has own fiber of eternity. A man or a woman, the time he or she was born was his or her beginning. God gave only a bud of eternity. What the human being does with own life, this is not God’s responsibility. Otherwise, Creation would be Driving, and life would be Hell.
Between Aristotle and Alexander the Great
Philologue Thomas Taylor enclosed some words between Aristotle and Alexander the Great:
□ Alexander wishing prosperity to Aristotle.
You have not done right in publishing your acroamatic works: for in what shall we surpass others, if the doctrines in which we were instructed become common to all men? I indeed would rather excel in the knowledge of the most excellent things.
□ Aristotle to Alexander, wishing prosperity.
You wrote to me concerning my acroamatic works, thinking that they ought not to have been divulged. Know, therefore, that they are published and not published; for they can be understood by my auditors alone. Farewell.