Chris Barker wrote:
> Not sure I agree with you, old chap. The phrase "acted on impulse" would
> imply that the latter necessarily comes before the former and therefore that
> they are separate.
Separate, indeed, but if the impulse is an action, then you simply have
a casual relationship of two actions, one internal and the other external.
To be clear, I am not arguing here that an impulse is or is not an
action, only that your suggestion does not logically preclude it being
I am further taking no position on whether an impulse is acausal or
causally a result of prior events or actions. Nor whether an impulse is
spiritual, psychological and/or chemical in nature.
It seems entirely possible that impulses are a bit like quarks, coming
in several flavors, each with different combinations of charge, spin and
mass. Or perhaps impulse sub-components combine in various ways to form
impulses, through the actions and/or interactions of which actions of
mind and body come about.
One impulse type clearly acasual is the Correct Action of Buddist
thought. The Jungian concept of synchronicity would certainly seem to me
to include acasual impulses.An action based on such impulses would then,
I suppose, be locally casual, but globally acasual.
Can action come without impulse? Certainly not in the case of the body
and the physiology of movement.
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx