Body resides within soul as its activity, so union necessarily cannot be accidental. Sense faculties are product of the soul's prior activity expressed through its body; it cannot be 'of the body' in and of itself as bodies do not intrinsically possess senses.
To say the sense faculties are a "necessary component" of an activity within its prior cause violates the principle of procession. As prior to sense faculties (SFs), intellect within soul gives rise to SFs alongside the rest of the body within which the SFs are integrally part.
It is not that intellect has adorned the body with sense, nor especially as you say that it has done so out of obliged necessity to complete its own essential act, but that the activity of soul achieved via intellect has integral to its bodily generation the SFs.
There are so many 'heresies' to contend with within the sphere of European religion that it makes efforts to meaningfully convert people mostly a joke. Even if you succeed initially, they can so easily be led astray and come into a position where apostasy is inevitable.
The truth is that calling our religio in its current state a "tradition" is at best mere rhetoric. Not because it can't become a tradition, but because what that tradition entails is an awful mess of disagreements and inconsistencies. Such cannot be meaningfully called tradition.
I'm not ignorant to there being a tinge of irony in my criticism, given I also am just one of many persons espousing a view I believe is true against others who believe their own version to be true; but so long we are in such a state of disorder, there'll be no lasting revival.
The process was a bit idiosyncratic. I begun with a simple Pythagorean assumption that 12 was a more complete number than 7, so it would be a better number of days in the week. From that, I begun to build the calendar just to see where it would take me.
Since giving each month an equal number of days would've meant splitting some weeks in half between the months, I followed the Pythagorean logic of identifying the dyad with the feminine and the triad with the masculine, so goddess months have two weeks and god months have three.
Thus goddess months have 24 days, which brought to its digital root (DR), 2 + 4, is 6. God months have 36 days, its DR 9. Basically 6 is a divine generative number while 9 is its completion because the primordial divine triad generates via serial magnitudes of itself.
It's a sad fact many "converts" abuse the lack of a native European religious moral authority to affirm their existing habits and vices. Usually ex-Christians totally incapable of controlling their vices, they convert to abuse every ambiguity to try justify their lives.
They treat apostasy as a liberation from chafing moral obligations, their "conversion" giving them licence to now indulge in every proclivity without guilt or circumspect. They treat the cultus deorum as a blank canvas they can use to paint whatever morality they desire.
They are in practice theologically indistinguishable from New Age religion, their only point of difference being what flavour of politics they've projected into their personalised, retrofitted cult. All "pagans" of this variant can simply be neatly labeled 'postmodern pagans'.
Much in the world makes sense when you realise that Judaism values a witness' observation of an event more highly than evidence for the event itself. Its judicial system relied on witnesses, the Torah stating two or more witnesses was enough to indict someone of a crime.
This attitude of legitimate truth via witness came to us in Christianity, whereby the whole of Europe observed the truth of Christ not by evidence but by witness, and so we embraced the authenticity of witnessed account over evidence. Hence forgiveness absolves evil by agreement.
This enough was sufficient to build a moral system of witness, a necessary consequence when you observe the most fundamental truth—that Christ was God—as being grounded in witness accounts and not by material evidence or reason. These are rejected, there is only witness truth.
It is more than mere preference. Platonism is Soul's divine science towards truth, so the judgement is in what can be argued as nearer to what is true rather than what best suits our sensibilities. Platonism emerges from tradition, but it has also been refined over centuries.
And this divine science gives us the means to perfect our traditions, an unprecedented capacity to not only know the true value of the inherited cultus deorum, but to also rectify its path should it be led astray and to help navigate it through the tumult of an unknown tomorrow.
Setting praise aside, the subject: goddess Sun & god Moon.
Why Platonists have argued against this tradition is from trying to justify them as principles. The Moon is a receptive sphere, truth of this most easily observed in the Moon's light being a reflection of the Sun's.
Because the supremacy and glory of the Supreme is not to be thought compact or contained, but overflowing with an immeasurable magnitude. His court is not vacant, but filled with his divine godly vassals and holy retainers.
All the cosmos in its multitude of forms stand as testimony to the supremacy and beauty of their King- why should beauty be here in such grandness and magnitude, and not 'There'? Surely we may say, with certain confidence, that what we find grand here must be even grander there.
For all the things which are here, with their imperfections and partiality, there is a greater who rules them in Heaven. Even the things in nature which we say are dead, without life- surely these things in their highest heavenly perfection are filled with life and consciousness?
— Hesiod's Theogony: a thread. —
I beckon thee, o divine Muses; ye sacred bringers of holy harmony and concord, to ye I raise my prayer: bear in me thy fruits most righteous, mould my thoughts to thy beauty, allow thy light illumine my mind, so all that I say may attest to truth.
There will be two threads (due to Twitter's limitations), split into three parts.
1st thread: 1. Myth as theological allegory. 2. Modern difficulty interpreting Hesiod.
2nd thread: 3. The theology of Hesiod's divine succession.
Check the first tweet's QRT for the 2nd thread.
1. I have long held the position that myth is allegorical and always has been. While it is impossible to generalise all myths, some occasionally more legitimate than others, most often this allegory is used to convey theology. This has long been known within Hellenic tradition.
It is frustrating that Christians, when asserting the resurrection's historicity, their evidence is just the mere alleging by NT authors of there being some many hundreds of witnesses. When suggesting they could just be fabricated, it's replied "the lie would be simply too big."
It shouldn't need to be said that the rate at which information spread in antiquity has utterly no parallel with today. There is this strange assumption that these witnesses could be verified with, that fabricating them would be impossible because people would check on them.
Near all of these witnesses have no names, the only named being the religion's principal evangelists, but even if they were named in their hundreds upon a grand list, an Antiochene convert couldn't just wander down to Judea to check the veracity of the claim, let alone a Greek.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the
organized habits and opinions of the masses is an
important element in democratic society. Those who
manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute
an invisible government which is the true ruling
power of our country.
“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.
“Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.
Greco-Roman culture is generally still thought as superstitious today. But as for the "aesthetics", it's quite rich to enter into the European world and ask why it doesn't love and respect your culture - a culture totally alien to Europeans - the same as it does its own.
If you have internalised a belief that European culture is superior to your own, then that is your own issue. There is no obligation on Europeans to reciprocate love just because of this, just as there is no obligation on other races to love Europe.
The "what about my people" plea is so pathetic and comes entirely from an internal presupposition of intrinsic cultural/racial inferiority. It presumes that European culture is superior and preferred, and then seeks to supplant it.
On Nietzsche's "will to power", we might better rewrite it "will to power to will".
The accumulation of power can never be an end. An end entails rest, and power unexercised contradicts its essential act of motion towards end, so power at its end no longer exist.
First will (FW) knows last will (LW) and desires to become it, and so FW engenders motion to power. FW apprehends power, utilises it as its vehicle, and then fulfils LW. But if FW is will to become LW, what is LW?
LW is simply 'to be'. Hence, in formulation of Will's essence:
First Will (will to become) » Power (motion to end) » Last Will (will to be).
As will fulfils itself through power, it must retain power to maintain fulfilment. Therefore LW has being by virtue of attained power.
SHORT THREAD CRITIQUE OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS | SUMMA THEOLOGIAE | AGAINST LOVE & WILL IN GOD
Article 1. Whether love exists in God?
I. To the contrary, I object: 1. God should not possess faculties. Faculties imply other, alike to how sight implies there is light for it to see. Any faculty possessed by God must be perfected, and so the perfect faculty must actualise its perfect end.
Therefore, by necessity of God possessing said faculty, he must actualise the perfect end of that faculty. The faculty of love necessitates either the reception or impartation of love, so he is made to either make beings which will love him and/or beings which he can love.