/lit/ - Literature

>>21721490
Nice one. Thanks brother.
>So it seems that there are some things he considers to be products of soul and matter, with no Form in the Intellect?
From what I'm getting such things are the soul(s) attempting to manifest the Forms, but failing or not creating the best possible manifestation matter will allow. There the principle of matter has too much hold of either the soul or the particular magnitude in question.
What about things like motion? This can't be a form because motion doesn't apply to the Ideas right? So motion would be a category of action of the soul? I think I remember hearing something along these lines in 6.1 On the Kinds of Being.

[3]
>Now it is the soul's character to be ever in the Intellectual sphere, and even though it were apt to sense-perception, this could not accompany that intention towards the highest; to ourselves when absorbed in the Intellectual, vision and the other acts of sense are in abeyance for the time; and, in general, any special attention blurs every other. The desire of apprehension from part to part- a subject examining itself- is merely curiosity even in beings of our own standing, and, unless for some definite purpose, is waste of energy: and the desire to apprehend something external- for the sake of a pleasant sight- is the sign of suffering or deficiency.
(IV.4.25) 26 and 27 have interesting things about magic and prayer, also about the earth having a soul and Demeter and Hestia.
>Their knowledge of our prayers is due to what we may call an enlinking, a determined relation of things fitted into a system; so, too, the fulfillment of the petitions; in the art of magic all looks to this enlinkment: prayer and its answer, magic and its success, depend upon the sympathy of enchained forces.
(IV.4.26) More later.