De Anima (On the Soul)
Lecture 17: The Soul as Form: Definition and the Five Powers

Transcript
================================================================================

is known to something else. So he's using it for what? Discursive knowledge, right? Okay? Well, later on here, he'll call this reason here the, what? The dunamis di'anuedike, right? The discursive power, as it's fair to say, right? Okay? But here he calls it the dunamis di'anuedike, the power of what? Of looking. Of looking in the way that, you know, reason looks, right? So, I'm just trying to confirm, change his definition, right? But, I mean, I think it's interesting, you know, the way he, because usually we think, you know, of Aristotle as calling it noose, you know, but, you know, he doesn't use that word here, he uses the word here, but then he gives a more distinct notion, right? He says it's the, yeah, yeah. Peri de tu nu, about the mind, kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai k kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai k kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai k kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai k kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai k kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai k kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai k kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai kai 135 now. Moreover, all of these parts are present in some of the living things, right? Like in man. And some, some of these, and others, however, one only. This fact will make the difference among living things. Afterwards, you must look into the cause. Something akin, going back to the analogy he made before, something akin happens in the case of the senses. For some have all, all five senses, shall we say, some have some of these, and some only the most necessary one, which is what? Touch, right? You see that comparison he's making there? That's another proportion, right? Aristotle is just a fill of proportions, right? As I say, Pierre Duhem says, this is the most common way that theories are found in science, is by seeing a, what, proportion. And Einstein talks about how important that is in the evolution of physics, right? He says, anybody can see maybe a superficial analogy, but to see a deep analogy underneath the apparent differences, right? It's very important scientific work, and he takes the development of wave mechanics by Louis de Broglie, right, as a perfect example of this. But science is filled with these proportions, huh? The very way the word wave is carried over, right? So it's using proportions, right? Because they talk about wave length, right? Because they talk about wave length, and all these waves, right? You've got to be very careful with that likeness, because there are waves that are, what, propagated in different ways, right? Horizontal, longitudinal waves, and so on. But anyway, he's not getting involved in that too much. So he's going to explain later on why you can have some of these without others, right? That's the second sense of before, right? But applying the fifth sense of before to the second sense, right? He's saying you can have nourishing, growth, reproduction without all the other powers, right? But not face versa, in mortal things, right? You can have the sense of touch without the other senses, but not face versa. That's a before and the second sense of before, right? Right? But then he's going to give the reason why, which is the fifth sense of before, if you want to call it the fifth sense, that have cause and effect, right? Why? This is so, right? Okay? That's there on. Now, in 136, he's going to talk about the, what, major premise, right? Okay? He knows what we're saying here, right? In explaining the minor premise, the soul is that of which we, he's taking the human soul, which is the one where you have the fullest, right? But in general, he's saying the soul is that of which we first live, sense, move, understand, and so on, right? Okay? He says he's been manifesting up until this point in this meeting. Now he's going to, what, talk about this major premise, especially this meeting, that by which, right? Okay? And he wants you to see the difference between the way in which we say, that by which, in the sense of a, what, subject, right? Or matter, or something like that, and a form, right? Okay? Do I teach geometry by my mind or by geometry? You might say that the mind is the subject of the geometry, right? Okay? Is the word, or is this the word cat by its letters or by the order of the letters? One is more like the matter, and the other is that as the, what, form, right? Okay? So notice he's explaining the distinction here, huh? Since, however, that by which we live and sense is said in two ways, and he's making proportion here, just as that by which we know, we say it is science and the soul, for we speak of knowing each of these. Similarly, similarly also, that by which we are healthy is, the one by health, and the, another by some part of the body, or even by the whole, right? You see that difference? Two senses of the word, or the phrase, by which, huh? There's another sense of bias in there, too, where you have the extrinsic cause, right? But he doesn't have to bring that in here so much because he's talking about what you know to be within, right? The soul is the cause of life within, what? Living bodies, right, huh? Is it by which in the sense of matter, or in the sense of what? Form. Because the matter would not be capable of these operations, right? Until it has the form, huh? So, notice these two examples he gives here. Of these, science and health are form, and some species in account, right? And as the act of the receptive, one of the scientific power, the other of the human. For it seems that the act of the doer is present in the suffering, and disposed in the one undergoing. But the soul is this, that by which we first live, and sense, and think. Whence it would be some account, and species, huh? You can, I think the word account there, I think, would be logos, huh? That's the word I was using there. It talks about form, huh? Species. Aidas, yeah. Logas, huh? So it would be a logos, and an aidas, huh? But the soul is this, that by which first we live, and sense, and think. Whence it would be some account, and species, but not matter, and underlying. Now he recalls it, this division we had before. For substance being said in three ways, as we said, of which ways one is the species of the form, one matter, and one that which is from both. And of these the matter is potency, but the species is act. Since what is from both is the soul, the body is not the act of the soul, but the soul is the act of some body. You're talking about the eye, right? Is it the matter of the eye from which we're able to see, or is it by the power of sight that we're able to see? But not until the matter has that power is it able to actually see, right? So you're first able to see, once you have the power of sight, right? And that would be like a form to the eye in these parts, right? So if the soul is... That by which we first live since we learned then, is it like the matter or the subject of the living body, or is it like the form of the living body? Form. Yeah. No, so if you go back even to natural philosophy, the first part, they're already received much better. Aristotle speaks of nature being both matter and form, right? Which is more nature, matter or form? Form. Yeah. And why is it more nature than matter? Because the matter needs the form in order to... Well, you could say that nature is that by which something is natural, right? Okay? But you have a natural thing by matter, it won't mean ability. You actually have a natural thing through its form. So the form is more nature than the matter. Now, how do we know the different natures of things? How do we know if the nature, let's say, of a stone is different from the nature of a tree? Because nature loves to hide. Hides, that's right. So how do we know if the nature of the tree and the nature of the stone is different? Yeah, but they do, right? See? That the same sun and the same water and the same soil. The tree grows and reproduces itself and so on, right? And the stone doesn't do this, right? Okay? So different natures are known to be different because of what they do, right? Okay? But a thing doesn't do what that natural thing does until it has that nature, right? And it doesn't have that nature until it has its life. So it says that by which we first live since we can understand, right? Is the form of a body, right? Okay? It's not until it has its form, even this natural thing, right? The living body will do what a living body does, right? So if the soul is that in which we first live since we can understand, then it must be as a form, right? That's when you first live. Okay? So you're talking about the Vedic vision, right? And remember the question I raised, do we see God by our reason or by our senses? You might ask the question that way, right? Do you see God by your reason or by your eyes? I have your eyes. Yeah. Yeah. Now Thomas, when he takes out the Vedic vision, he says that you can only see God as he is, right? Through God himself. God has to join himself or join our mind to himself, right? So God is not only what we see in the Vedic vision, but he's that by which we see him, right? Okay? Now you've got two things by which we see God. We see God by our reason and we see God by God as by an intelligible or understandable form. Okay? Now is that in the same sense of by which or by what? God is as the what? The form by which we see, right? And the reason, our reason is as the subject, right? Of that form, right? Okay? Now if you asked, you know, do we first see God by our reason or by God? What would you say? See, our reason isn't able to see God as he is before God is joined to it as the form which it sees. So it's by God first that we see God, right? God is the form, right? Okay? I've got a little different example here. Is it by my reason that I see the conclusion? Or is it by the premises that I see the conclusion? Or is it by both? Yeah. Yes. But in the same way, you know, that I see the conclusion by my reason and by the premises? The reason is the subject. Yeah. Yeah. And the premises are like the what? The form, right? Okay? Do you understand what a square is? The quadrilateral line. Yeah. It's an equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral. Now, do you understand what a square is by your reason or by the definition of square? Well, do you want to choose between those two? Is it by your reason that you know what a square is? Or is it by the definition of square that you know what a square is? Yeah. Yeah. But in the same way? By both? You see that my reason, when it's in form by the definition of square, right, understands distinctly what a square is, huh? The definition is more like a what? Form, right? The definition is in my reason, right? My reason is the subject of the definition. So before the definition is in my reason, I don't know distinctly. Right? When I'm confused with it. But before the definition is in my reason, I don't know distinctly what the square is, right? Hmm? So is it by my reason that I first know what a square is? That I first know distinctly, you know? Or is it by the definition that I first know distinctly? Yeah. Well, you know, that's immediately before, right? When do I first understand distinctly what a square is, huh? Before in the sense of a cause, huh? Hmm? So when is rubber first a ball? That's rubber? Yeah, when it gets a shape, right? Okay. So you can say, rubber is first a ball when it has the shape of a ball, right? Okay. Okay. Okay. Before then, right? First is that, before it shows nothing, right? So he's saying the body's first able to sense, move, and all the other things. And it has its soul, right? It has its form, right? By the form, it's your first half of these things, right? You say it's by the body, but you second half of them? No, I don't know if I'd say that. I'm thinking more of the powers, right? I'm thinking of the soul, right? So notice what Hiroshima was doing in a way in these two parts of the chapter, I guess. He's first investigating the definition of the soul by those six divisions, right? Three divisions on the side of the soul, three divisions on the side of that of which the soul is something, right? And then the second thing he did was what? To manifest the definition found by two likenesses, a ratio, right? Two proportions, right? And then third, he's demonstrating the definition of the soul, right? Through something more known to us, right? This goes back almost to the meaning of the word soul, right? The soul is the first cause of life of the living body, right? The soul is that by which we first live sense, and we can understand that, right? And that's going to be as the, what? It's going to be by which in the sense of form, rather than, what? Matter, right? Because the matter has these operations only in potency before it sees the form. Now, he runs into a couple comments afterwards, this definition. And because of this fact, those assume well to whom it seems the soul is never without body, nor is some body, right? And also that's similar to what we saw in the definition of what? Time, right? It's those people think well who think that time is, what, never without motion, but it's not a motion. But it is not a motion, but it's something of emotion. It's the number of the before and after in emotion, right? And likewise, the soul is never without a body. Nor is it some body, right? So it's not going to show up on the dissecting table, right? You know? But it is not a body, but something of a body, right? The first act of such a body, certain body, substantial form. And because of this, it is present in a body and in such a body, right? And not as the predecessor said that the soul is fixed in a body, in no way defining in which and what sort of body, even if it does not appear that any chance thing receives any chance thing. And so it is according to reason, for the act of each thing is in what is already in potency, and is apt to come to be in its proper matter. From these considerations, therefore, it is clear that the soul in some actuality and account of what is in potency to be such. I think we'll stop there. In Chapter 3, he's going to start now to set the stage for a consideration of the various powers of the soul, right? And therefore, knowing the soul, and particular kinds of soul, in particular, right? Okay? That's right. Now, I'm going away to see grandchildren there. Remember Paul's thing in the Areopagus? Yeah. And he says, talking about God not being far away. He says, in him we what? Yeah. Live, move, and what? Yeah. Yeah. And that's, well, it tells that. You zoom in there, live, right? And with the emotion and the word, you know, being. Okay? Now, how would you explain that, those three things? To me, I always, you know, feel puzzled as to how to explain that, because Thomas doesn't have anything on it. I mean, like I recall, he quotes it sometimes, but the place where he actually expounds that text is in the Acts of the Apostles, right? Thomas doesn't have a commentary. He found this letter and there were a expounds on it, huh? Well, I don't remember a place where he expounds it before he might quote it, you know, in some, you know, I think he quotes it at times, right? He doesn't have a commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, where he, you know. Sure. You know. And it always kind of puzzled me, because, you know, living and motion seem to be somewhat similar overlap, right? And sometimes, you know, speak of life as being self-motion, right? Yeah. And so, how do you get those three things, right? How do you distinguish those three? And why are they in that order? What? Just a guess, if living could there refer to the higher powers, then moving being would be just existing. That's the last one. Yeah. In him we live and move and have our being. I was looking at a text of Thomas. Was it yesterday? Yesterday he said, was it the first? It's in the Summa Carta Gentiles, right? And in the third book, right? And in the third part of the third book, right? I said, well, I don't know. Capitulum 120, something like that. So anyway, it's the one on what they call Latria. The worship, you know, that should be given to God only, right? And this is a very precise word for Thomas, Latria. And Thomas is defending that this is to be given only to God. You don't give it to the angels or to anybody else, even to the saints, right? And he gives a lot of reasons why this should be so, right? Okay? But in his first group of reasons, the last reason is kind of interesting, right? Because Thomas comes back to the idea of what we call a sacrificium, a sacrifice, right? And how we sacrifice only to God, okay? This is genuflect, you know? You know, it was the custom in the courts of Europe, you know, to genuflect before the king or something like that, right? So he said, other things are sometimes done to human beings even, right? Although for a different reason, right? We don't genuflect from the king and the tabernacle for the same reason, right? But a sacrifice is only, what? To God, right, huh? Okay? Now, Thomas goes on to develop this, right? The purpose of sacrifice. But it's not for the sake of God. He doesn't need sacrifice, right? It's for our sake, in a way, huh? We have to sacrifice to God, right? And this exterior sacrifice is for the sake of, what? We're representing an interior sacrifice to stimulate that and so on, okay? But then he says we're sacrificing to God for three reasons. Three things that are unique in God, right? And the first thing he says is that God created us. He's shown earlier in the second book, let's imagine, to this, that the human soul can only come into existence through God, right? Only God can create the human soul. An angel cannot create a soul and so on, right? So God is the unique... He doesn't even create through the angels, right? It's God immediately, right? And not through anything else. Only God can create, right? And then you learn, you know, that our conservation in existence also depends... directly upon God, immediately upon God, right? So, we're sacrificing to God in recognition of the fact that he's our creator and serving us in existence, right? Secondly, because God is the author of our emotions. And he refers in particular to the fact that God alone can move the will, right? Which moves the rest of us, right? Interiorly, right? And this is a point Thomas will make when he takes up, not only man, but the rest of creation, that preachers, not only does their existence, they're coming into existence, their creation, and continuing existence depend upon him. Whatever they do, right, they do in some way in the power of God. And in regard to man in particular, he argues that the angels can persuade our will, to some extent, in the exterior way, right? But only God can move the will, what? Interiorly, right? Okay? And he moves all creation, right? He even actually exists, right? In some ways, the unmoved mover, right? That's the second thing. We sacrifice to God as the author of our emotions. The heart of the king is in the hands of God. God, right, as he puts that in the scripture, right? Okay? And then he said, finally, we sacrifice to God as the end or goal of everything. And then he refers back to what's been shown earlier, that God, you know, in the video vision song, God is the last end of man, right? Okay? This is kind of interesting, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because I've seen Thomas sometimes, when he's explaining the words in the mass, right? And sometimes, you know, we speak of to honor and glorify God, right? They have two rather than three, right? And then Thomas usually explains that he wants to make a distinction between honoring and glorifying God. We honor God as the beginning of all things, right? We glorify him as the what? End of all things, right? Okay? Like it says in scripture, I am the Alpha and the Omega. I am the beginning and the end, right? Okay? And so in Thomas' things, when he talks briefly about the mass and so on, he's sometimes saying when we're sacrificing to God, recognition of the fact that he is what? The beginning and the end of all things. Then you have a division into two, right? Uh-huh. Okay? But in order to explain that text in the Acts of the Apostles, you have to have a division into three, right? Now Thomas is not trying to explain the text at all on this point. He's trying to explain that Latria and his chief, one of his chief acts there, which is to sacrifice to God, right? In fact, we haven't sacrificed the mass, but you haven't sacrificed on this now. Why sacrifice is something given only to God, right? Well, we sacrifice something to God in recognition of the fact that he's our creator, uniquely our creator, right? And because he's the author of all our acts in some way, right? And because he's the end of all things. Now, the ultimate end, of course, is what? Eternal life, right? Right. And Christ himself says, you know, I've come, that they might have life, and they might have it abundantly, right? Right. So, therefore, life is taken, or could be understood as referring to the what? The end, huh? Okay. And, you know, when Thomas, Christ says, I am the way, the truth, and the life, right? And way, he's the way to get there, right? But as truth, and as life, he's the very, what? End or goal, right? That's what it means, right? You see? We can say our end or goal is what? Eternal life, right? Hmm. Okay? So, in him we live and move and what? Have our being, right? Right. It corresponds exactly to those three that he distinguished. And even the order is good, right? Because, obviously, what we do is closer to the end, than our mere being, right? You see? And notice he gives them, in a way, the order of importance, starting with the end. In him we live, right? In him we have our end, our purpose, right? You know how Aristotle would say, even in the Nicomache and Ethics, you know, that, you know, that the end, happiness, is a certain kind of life, right? A good life, right? Right? So you could appropriate living there to what? God is our, what? End, right? Then, in whom we live, move, as God is our mover, right? And Thomas there, you know, refers to the fact that God alone moves the will, as an efficient cause, right? The angels can't do that. The angels can move the will only in the sense of the end, by proposing a good, you know, that's persuasive to us, right? But not in the end. By proposing a good. Yeah, they can move by, in the way they persuade everyone moves, right? But God, you know, the heart of the king is in the hand of God, right? You know, we want to turn in transit, right? And then, yeah, and then there's our creator, right? That's interesting, right? You know, because... Being is creator? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you can say our creation and our remaining existence are, you know, conservation, right? They can go together, right? In both cases, our being is in God. That's the, what, the, um, that would be in the seventh sense of, uh, in, right? I've got you in my power, you know, see? So your being is in the power of God, right? Both your creation and your conservation in being, right? But you're doing something also is in the power of God, right? You see? That's a very interesting thing that Thomas says, huh? He's very contrary, you know, to what people, you know, the deus thought, you know, where God created the universe, he admitted it, he created the universe maybe, but then he kind of let it, you know, run off by itself and do whatever he wants to do, right? He's like a parent who might, you know, generate a child and then let the child run off and do whatever he wants to do, right? That's not true, though, right? The child can go and do things without the parents, right? You know, but we can't run off and do something without God, right? That's something that Thomas, you know, you know, spent some time showing there, right? In your heart, right? So that's very interesting that he gives those three, three reasons why we sacrifice to God, right? There are reasons, he's trying to prove, you know, that Latria should be given only to God, right? And in that particular argument, you know, among many arguments, he's reasoning from sacrifice, right? And so he reasons that he sacrificed to God in recognition of these three things, and then he recalls what's been shown previously, that these three things only God does, right? Okay? Okay? Okay? And I say the order makes sense because the end is put first, right? And we live, right? And then motion is closer to the end, isn't it? What we do, we merit heaven, and it's a price we merit anything, you know, to what we do, right? Okay, so our being is first in being, but it's not first in getting to your worth, right? We have to be before we do something. We have to do something before we can reach our end goal in life, right? Yeah. So in whom we live, that's what sense of meaning? Well, it might involve a little bit of the seventh and the eighth sense, right? Because obviously he's the end there, but we live in God only through the power of God, right? Like if you want to take the ultimate thing, we did vision, right? Which is really living in God, right? But we can't unite our mind or reason to God so we can see him face to face, because only God can unite our reason to himself, right? As an understandable form. So by him we see him, right? So only in his power, right? And only through him do we see the light of glory, which is a disposition, right? For by our mind the reason is rendered a suitable subject to receive God as an understandable form, right? Well, I was saying before, I was raising the question, right? We understand, we see God face to face by our reason or by the light of glory or by what? God himself, right? Well, we see God face to face by our reason as the subject, right? And by the light of glory as the disposition of that subject, right? But they're both inside the subject in that sense. But by God as the what? Understandable form. By which the reason being an act by that form sees that object, right? And what Thomas always argues is that by no understandable form that is created could we see God as he is, right? Because God is unlimited, right? So it's only by God that we see God, right? In thy light we shall see light, right? Are we reasoning in heaven now, it seems to me, within... Not in the vision, there's no reasoning there. We may have reasoning, we may have some other acts outside of the vision, right? But the vision itself, there's no... You really partake in eternal life there. There's no before and after in that vision. It's all at once, eternal, now, right? Is the light of glory in a created form? You live in the now. Pardon? You have to live in the now in this world. You have to live in the now in time, right? You have to live in the now in time, right? You have to live in the before and after, you know? And see the consequences of what you're doing now, right? For your whole life. But in the eternal now, your whole life is going to be in the now. It's kind of funny, I mean, you know? Because we criticize, you know, people will live in the now and then be looking for and after, right? But in the eternal now, it's going to be completely absorbed. And it's going to be very present, right? But there's going to be no past or future in that vision, right? It's going to be all at once. The light of glory is different from the light of faith and different from the natural light of reason. It doesn't make something, what, understandable that's not understandable. Because God is perfectly understandable. But it's a disposition received in us, right, which makes our mind or reason a suitable subject to receive the divine nature as what? In an intelligible, understandable form. There's one thing that's kind of a mystery to me. It seems like, say, we share God's life, His nature with His grace, but we're not part of God. We're totally separate. It seems, is that a mystery of sorts? A lot of mysteries there, yeah. But God can be joined to our mind, right? Uh-huh. As that by which we understand. By which in the sense of a form, right? Not in the sense of the subject, right? So the divinity joins our mind, but in a sense remains separate. Joins to our mind. Yeah, He's not joined, He's not joined to our mind as, so He's become one nature with it. No. As a power. He's joined to our mind, or rather our mind is joined to Him, right? As that by which it understands. Oh, okay. You see, this is more, you've got to see, we take up the senses, we take up reason, we'll see that, in a way, sensing and understanding, as Aristotle will put it, they're both a kind of undergoing, right? Yeah. In other words, you have to receive something before you sense. Your senses have to be acted upon by the object before you sense, right? And the, what you receive is that by which, in a sense, right? What you receive, in the beginning, is that by which you understand. Think about it. And then the question becomes, what is the form by which we see God face to face? And Thomas would argue, we don't see God face to face by any creative form, right? Because that would not be adequate to, you know, representing God, huh? So the only way you can see God as He is, is by God Himself being that by which we see. So it would be a higher form than human grace, because grace is created. Yeah, grace in that sense, yeah. And the so-called light of glory is a disposition, a supernatural disposition, rendering the mind a fit subject to receive God as its understandable form, as that by which it understands. Supernatural disposition, rendering the mind to understand the form of God, that by which you use? It makes it a suitable subject to receive God as an understandable form. So, you know, in that respect, you know, as Thomas often says, a disposition to receive some form, right? That disposition is reduced to the genus of material God, right? So it's on the side of the subject, right? So if you want to look at this distinction that the philosophy is making here, of that by which is the matter or the subject or it's the form, right? Well, then you put both the reason and the light of glory on the side of matter or the subject, right, right? And God, on the side of the part, form, right? In a substance, a form is, as Boethius says, right, huh? Mm-hmm. Can I read this place if I got it right? A supernatural disposition in rendering the mind as a suitable form to see God as its... And a suitable subject. The mind is this... It's a disposition making the, what? Rendering the mind... Suitable to receive God... Suitable to receive God as the form by which it understands. It seems, though, that there would be a problem that is... How could anything trade it for to be united with the end? Yeah, that's hard to understand. But Thomas does talk about it, right? Mm-hmm. of course right god does move our will that seems true but we still have that free will but he does actually move our will yeah that's the kind of it yeah it's a it's a hard thing most people can understand it's a hard thing to understand right but he moves all things in accord with our natures right so he doesn't course our will right so it freely will something never forces it you can really dispose of well though i think i mean you should you should pray to god you know that he would but move your will in the uh the right uh right directions interesting you know i was reading you know a little bit earlier the same book there so much and he was talking about the divine law right uh and how the first commandment is to love god right and thomas is giving reasons why this is the first commandment right and uh well no it's the first commandment right from christ's words right but now thomas is getting reasons you know why it's the first commandment and and uh you know you know the first reason he gives i guess is is that the the uh the king or the leader is moving everybody else to his end right and so god is what moving everything to his end which is himself right okay or he moves all things to their end right but the end of man is god right he gives various reasons to the start and but then he comes to something kind of interesting kind of later reasons kind of a secondary reason but starting with the secondary agent the more he partakes of the motion of primary agent right the more perfectly does he reaches perfection right and uh so god does everything from the fact that he loves himself right so the more we become what the more we love god right the more we are moved in the way that god himself is moving all things the more efficacious so it's it's kind of interesting to see the way he he proceeds there in the vision god will be in us as as formed in matter and how about now we say god is in our soul in different ways but yeah i mean the point you're making here though is that god would be division division is both what we see and that by which we see right that's kind of interesting huh you know but you know it's got which we see in one sense of that by which we see right because you can also say that it's by our reason that we see god right but primarily by god himself right so god is both what we see and that by which we see right and notice you see in god they are identical what god sees or understands and that by which he understands is the same thing absolutely no distinction at all you know and that's why god perfectly understands himself now do you think that that's going to determine the degrees of glory in heaven this life glory being how perfectly people understand god in the next life as that being the key you know what i'm saying well the star differs from star in magnitude as as scripture says right okay so the light of glory and some will be greater than others right okay but that that depends upon uh how much you love god right is that related though to knowing god too yeah yeah yeah but i mean basically um i think i understand this the metaphor you know the prophet o.c you know ocia something um coming somebody's quotes him you know i have espoused you in faith right it's kind of a of a betrothal between our soul and god to faith right the truth is that we're betrothed uh betrothed us in faith right uh espoused you in faith so that the beatific vision in a way is a kind of what marriage of two minds as shakespeare says right let me not to the marriage of two minds admit impediments right okay let's say it's a metaphor right but just like in in uh you know human marriage there the two become one flesh right okay but they wouldn't want to become one flesh unless they loved each other right okay so there's got to be a mutual love right before this intimate union well the union of the vision is much more intimate than this body union could ever be and so the the more love there is the more charity there is the more god will what unite his soul with himself right now okay i think you have to kind of understand that is as um you know metaphorically they're kind of terms of human love right and you know how how we might be closer to some people than others right now and some people we're we're we're more um intimate and we'll review ourselves and more talk about uh things we wouldn't talk to everybody about right you see and and so um but you know no big problem you know what you say to your friend you know you only said to yourself so see you get you know um so it seems to me i don't understand that in that in that way right just like metaphorically guys to be jealous you know when the jewish people are going after false gods or what was it was that same prophet we'll see isn't it you know where he has to take a prostitute his wife or something like that you know i mean a woman he doesn't you know but you know he's trying to um help him understand you know with the infidelity of jewish people right um by you know what would be to be married to a prostitute right it's kind of it's going to be concrete to say the least right you see or even you know i mean you know marrying somebody that you don't want to marry right you know you know being forced into a marriage right you know it's like in the past in letters there you want the dog to marry the rich old bunny bags and she wants to marry some young handsome fellow everybody is but you know she's you know they're beating her every day you know until she agrees to marry the old bunny bags well i mean uh yeah so i mean so you want to injure this kind of into a union of marriage without love right you know it's kind of metaphoric you understand that god is not going to unite himself without that love there or or as there's more love he's going to be more what he's going to bind me his son but christ say there was about looking for me you'll find me in the heart of virtue you know virtue the great that's what he is don't say that fact you know he's very strong you know you know you know you know part of the great for nothing you know you should be quite a saint there which would be great but um but um the heart of virtue they're real closeness there you know when virtue is out in the the garden there you know and admiring the benedictine garden and so on all he's missing is a friend you shared with you know that's when christ occurs to her you know it's really uh really it's about the saints you know when they give the the the saints who have you