Was there a fundamental disagreement between the spy perspective and Caleb’s view about death and the land? If the land eats the inhabitants is there nothing left to pray at? Is that the same as the "dust" argument or different?
1) Yes. It will be explored further on in this work. Caleb viewed land as the space for instantiation of eternal ideas in succession, each instantiation, as such, temporary, but still participating in eternity. From this perspective, nothing ends. There is no death.
2) Very interesting. We bury the dead, intact, covered and hidden in the earth, not consumed by the earth.
3) I think it's the same. If man is but body, then earth eats its inhabitants - the body decomposes. All is but dust. But if man is soul, idea, of which the particular body is but one instantiation among an unending, infinite chain of beings, then we are not dust, and the land is not dust, i.e., its matter, but rather the ideas that are instantiated within its matter.
"See the land, 'what' is it" means that land is but a great "what," nothing in and of itself, but a means for any true thing - ideas - to be instantiated.
Was there a fundamental disagreement between the spy perspective and Caleb’s view about death and the land? If the land eats the inhabitants is there nothing left to pray at? Is that the same as the "dust" argument or different?
Re:
1) Yes. It will be explored further on in this work. Caleb viewed land as the space for instantiation of eternal ideas in succession, each instantiation, as such, temporary, but still participating in eternity. From this perspective, nothing ends. There is no death.
2) Very interesting. We bury the dead, intact, covered and hidden in the earth, not consumed by the earth.
3) I think it's the same. If man is but body, then earth eats its inhabitants - the body decomposes. All is but dust. But if man is soul, idea, of which the particular body is but one instantiation among an unending, infinite chain of beings, then we are not dust, and the land is not dust, i.e., its matter, but rather the ideas that are instantiated within its matter.
"See the land, 'what' is it" means that land is but a great "what," nothing in and of itself, but a means for any true thing - ideas - to be instantiated.