The doors - the bodies the souls and some philosophia

I think if Roland's body had died, the Roland would continue to live in Eddie's body. I can see why a person might think that he would die though, after all how much of a link remains between the body and 'mind/spirit/ka/whatever/' when it's vacant?

I think it depends very much on how 'there' the individuals mind actually is. In this case, I would say totally (taking into account he felt none of the sickness of his body or the dulling of his senses when in Eddie), hence my conclusion.

Wolves of the Calla spoilers:


Consider this though:

Spoiler:

What if the person had gone todash however? You know, when it fades in and out of existence? I think if the body were killed in that state, then the person is completely dead. Then again that form of todash is different from the mind possession that occurs in tDotT, as the body itself is partially 'there'.

Being trapped in Todash after the death of your body would be a horrific thing :panic:

What a fascinating discussion...I love getting time to cruise through these

I believe that Roland would have certainly moved on and I love this idea of a Roland/Eddie hybrid assaulting the Tower. That's a whole other 7 books.

Quote:

---

More! - eventually, he would essentially have been Roland! (as in , Roland would have taken over)

---

And thinking of this,

Spoiler:

perhaps it was one of the loops already

. Roland's body dies, he co-ops Eddie and finds a door back to do exactly what we are talking about above. Only he sacrifices Eddie in the process by stealing his body.

Epistemologically, I'm very concerned about what this may mean in regards to the soul. Since Descartes, many have understood the soul as "a ghost inhabiting a machine" which is essentially platonic dualism. I always think about this when I think about the doors on the beach. Especially when Roland gazes through the door (while in Eddie) and comments that his body essentially looks dead- in fact that is why he is looking, to make sure that he is still breathing. These scenes make the body insignificant in a way, and that bothers me. Ethics, at least in regards to modernity, have been dominated by similar neo-platonic tendencies (I am thinking of Immanuel Kant and J.S. Mill specifically).

I am an Aristotelian. Aristotle believed (because of this empirical epistemology) that the soul should be understood as the sum of being- including the body. Because life is perceived asthetically through the senses, then it follows that all knowledge is more or less arrived at empirically, in contrast to Plato's insistence that truth only exist in the abstract realm of the divine. It seems that Roland's identity is not embodied whatsoever. It really messed with me as I was reading it. You guys know I love the books, but this bothered me. While the scene is very indicative of modernity, it is not representative of my personal beliefs- and yes I'm a Neo- Aristotelian post-modernist. I went into this explanation bc Letti mentioned philosophy in the title. Please don't be mad at me if I misunderstood and rambled off-topic.

Ahhh someone just got back from a college class in philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obscurejude

Please don't be mad at me if I misunderstood and rambled off-topic.

---

I think you're perfectly on topic and everything you said makes sense. Maybe to solve your dilemma you could look at it as a concept that overcomes classical aristotelian understanding; namely, the thomist concept of soul. It wouldn't be a straightforward solution, but, I think, at least something to start with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obscurejude

Epistemologically, I'm very concerned about what this may mean in regards to the soul. Since Descartes, many have understood the soul as "a ghost inhabiting a machine" which is essentially platonic dualism. I always think about this when I think about the doors on the beach. Especially when Roland gazes through the door (while in Eddie) and comments that his body essentially looks dead- in fact that is why he is looking, to make sure that he is still breathing. These scenes make the body insignificant in a way, and that bothers me. Ethics, at least in regards to modernity, have been dominated by similar neo-platonic tendencies (I am thinking of Immanuel Kant and J.S. Mill specifically).

---

While the mind inhabiting another body may not be a traditional Christian concept, the body as a vessel for the mind (and soul) certainly is. And for Christians as a whole, mind = soul. It's not much of a stretch to see this applied in Roland's world - as we did. Likewise, astral projection, the process of sending the mind outside the body to other places, fits neatly with the doors/bodies scenario King chose. We've seen this exhibited in everything from Anne Rice's The Body Thief to Being John Malkovich. The body left behind, unless another consciousness is available to occupy it, simply appears to be "brain dead" as, essentially, it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obscurejude

I am an Aristotelian. Aristotle believed (because of this empirical epistemology) that the soul should be understood as the sum of being- including the body. Because life is perceived asthetically through the senses, then it follows that all knowledge is more or less arrived at empirically, in contrast to Plato's insistence that truth only exist in the abstract realm of the divine. It seems that Roland's identity is not embodied whatsoever. It really messed with me as I was reading it. You guys know I love the books, but this bothered me. While the scene is very indicative of modernity, it is not representative of my personal beliefs- and yes I'm a Neo- Aristotelian post-modernist. I went into this explanation bc Letti mentioned philosophy in the title. Please don't be mad at me if I misunderstood and rambled off-topic.

---

But perception through the senses is nothing if there is no mind to consider, reflect, and categorize the experience. Are the blind and deaf less capable of achieving complete understanding or knowledge of something because they experience life with an incomplete set of senses? Or is it just that their understanding and knowledge is different than one who has all senses intact? What about the possible "sixth" sense? Do people with ESP have more of an understanding than those restricted to the traditional five senses?

The mind is perception, for without it we are simply animated meat, little more than zombies shoving random items in our mouths in search of sustenance.

Ah folks...These are just concerns of mine, not definitive statements. Woofer, Christian concepts along these lines were very platonic with the advent of St. Augustine (Manichean and Neo-Platonist) in the 5th Century. During the crusades, Aristotle was rediscovered after Jerusalem was re-taken by the Christians. This discovery led to late Middle- Age Scholasticism (Aquinas etc...) Aristotle was in favor for a few years, but the Renaissance picked up Plato again, and Aristotle has all but disappeared for the most part.

Jean, its great that you picked up on that. Thomas is sort of where I landed right before I graduated college. Its complicated...thank you for the suggestion friend. :)

Woofer, in regards to the senses... Instead of looking at Plato and Aristotle as diametrically opposed, I tend to look at Aristotle (his pupil) as disagreeing with Plato, but still maintaining a lot of his basic precepts. They were in conversation, not out to destroy each other. The mind is extremely important to the body and any theory of knowledge (epistemology). I was trying to suggest that the mind has been, perhaps a little overemphasized (actually a lot). As for disabilities, its an interesting question and brings us to the heart of the matter. I've always pictured Plato as someone who would enjoy having disabilities like you mentioned, because he was so terrified of being led astray by his sense perceptions. I think Plato would enjoy being blind.

Also, I am a post-modernist because I think of it as an alternative to modernity (which is decidedly platonic, at least in regards to ethics, as I have mentioned). I would elaborate about my views of embodied epistemology, but it would be off-topic. If you're interested, pm me.

Great points, everyone.

I like to think that someone else takes over the bodies for a little while and they go take a nap or go dancing or something....

But you're right , Letti. How come they don't end up getting eaten or sunburned or something?

Many of you see the body, soul and the mind as distinct separate things. I see a person as the sum of all the parts, just as you can't have a living body without a heart and lungs you really can't have a person without a body, mind and soul.

In the Matrix movies if the body was killed while the mind was off in the Matrix the mind would die as well. Why would that be? Non human beings inside the Matrix lived just fine without a real body. Yes I know it is lame to try and argue reality by referencing fiction but the entire concept of what is really real that the Matrix is all about addresses this current discussion.

IMO if Roland's body dies while his mind is in Eddie then his mind dies as well.

What I find interesting about this is how "special" the doors are in the DOTT. In all the other doors they find and use when a person goes through the door their entire "self" goes through. Only in DOTT does just the mind go through.