On 05 Jan 2015, at 05:52, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 3:04 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/3/2015 4:15 PM, PGC wrote:
with the latter ultimately escaping our capacity to sort and
analyze.
You mean their assertion of that is clear. It's begging the
question to say it is clear.
It's clear to everybody who has read them beyond some wiki pages,
including you being exposed to Bruno's pov for years. Like any study
in any domain.
So simple as to not permit these sorts of facile generalization,
The "one" is the simplest of all ideas is a facile abstraction.
It is indeed too simple to talk about. Plotinus makes clear that his
talk/writing is to be taken with grain of salt, and merely "as if";
merely some linguistic reasoning to encourage what is most important
to him: entering into union with the one. And yes, this kind of
point would be clear to any undergraduate reading some introduction
text to negative philosophy or theology of Plotinus.
or analysis as we know it (and this is consistent with inability to
break something, which is the ultimate simple, down further), so
simple as to elude people, try as they might to capture it or make
it fit some personal agenda.
I haven't noticed them having any difficult making it fit their
personal agendas. It's vague enough to fit anything.
It's not hard to find Plotinus quotes along the semantic lines:
"negative spiritual or theological path is a rational consequence of
us not being able to affirm positive attributes (implying exclusion)
of the one. Any thought or spirit directed at anything else than the
one is under enchantment of illusion of appearances." For Plotinus
all practical action, as well as thought associated with it in this
world, is therefore dreaming under enchantment and not fully
conscious, not in full contact with the one." (I could dig up
precise reference, treatise/section/chapter + translation of Enneads
if you really cared, but it's Plotnius 101, I think somewhere around
4,4 and somewhere around 40th Chapter with Chase's translation)
Therefore "to have a personal agenda" is delusion at best, in
Plotinus' terms. I agree that mysticism is abused in various ways.
But this abuse highlights possibility of its rational use as well,
and the negative theology of ancient Greece did well here. And
Plotinus didn't do and/or even write much, again a subject of
scrutiny for how to write about the one, without missing the point?
Frequent uses of "so to speak" and "as it were" throughout the work
are not weaseling in this case, but appropriate to unspeakable
subject matter, a negative theology therefore, and an open admission
of the limitations and strictures of language.
Once wrestled with, the theology stands as one of the simplest and
clearest. But getting there is, due to our cultural biases, a
complex matter. Not because Plotinus message is complex, but mainly
because of all the cultural baggage we habitually bring to the
reading.
Well said.
And this is also fits with beings sitting in the dark of some cave
of forms, easily mistaking such forms for reality, truth, god etc.
"Fits with" is vague enough to fit with assertion.
It just means a point for consistency, in asserting negative
theology as a whole. Like Plato's cave, we don't get a why-answer
for the one's existence, but we can query negative theology for the
types of confusions in belief/dream that might arise and decide for
ourselves whether we get closer to relating to a reality that these
mystical propositions point towards or not.
Value and precision with negation is asserted in a world of illusion
in platonic tradition. Another common rhetorical device to convey
this as reading that forms simplicity, rather than informs the
reader with more new facts, and therefore a firewall for excessive
literal interpretation is apophasis. This is not used as rhetorical
trick, but reflects the "as if" status of statements, pertaining to
something so beyond our ability to conceive (while also being under
our noses) that it cannot be described in or analyzed in discrete
terms.
That is why questioning dialogue is appropriate to the pedagogical
aspect of relating this kind of content better than detached passive
voice and analytical exposition we have grown used to from western
perspective, sweeping the respective scientists' theologies under
the rug in most papers, from most domains of institutional
scientific work, I come across these days. It follows that our
current habits would be arrogant and excessive in Plotinus' view.
Plotinus would have already depressed by discovering so weird as
atheism.
It that context I regret so much that we lost the test "Again the
Christians" written by its student, Porphyry. But Porphyry like
Proclus, and the followers (but unlike Plotinus) will develop interest
in theurgy and rites, and so get influenced by the growing
christianity. In +400 (one centuray after Plotinus), Hypatia's
student (in Diophantine mathematics course, and in neoplatonism
courses) where a mix of christians and neoplatonists, and those
christians were aware of the interest of the Platonist theologies. It
is only in +500 that the popularization of theology; through parabloic
fairy tales, get instituted into dogma.
The problem of atheism is that by mocking all theologies, it keeps the
creation in the hand of the naturalist/materialist/physicalist, and,
worst, it keep the theology in the hands of the Church and other
institutionalized religion.
I guess Plotinus would have consolate himself with the work of Cantor,
Gödel, ..., and perhaps also with cannabis and salvia :)
Unless you are the devil. Unless you don't want to obey God's
orders to stone adulterers and conquer unbelievers and tithe to the
priests.
Brent
"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
- Anne Lamott
The very idea of "people's relation to god => who we should hate,
superiority, politics etc." is already too low and worldly to start
with, that it itself cannot be divine. So those comments and the
quote don't seem relevant.
Concerning the devil, I think the Yazidis have a noteworthy take on
who they see as Peacock Angel. It makes one ask whether the vain
Peacock Angel's tears of remorse would soften the harsh truths or
not: e.g. will some benevolent future Star Trek force defrost
Clark's awesome ice cube head or judge that he spammed too much and
is taking too much disk space for the money he spent?
And thanks Brent for the Castaneda article to show how mystical
types are all the same. I would say that our naive theological
attitude, equating all theological questioning with some fear-based
cartoon in our heads
It's not in our heads, it's in this culuture
Which one are you referring to now?
and written in the sacred books which Bruno referred to: "I think
that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the monism of
those who believe in an unifying truth."
(instead of sincerely trying to parse and test them rationally), is
what made the western reader ideal prey for this kind of
manipulation. Your anti-mystical posts, in this regard, repeatedly
make this rather irrational point,
What "irrational point"? That all mystics are the same? that's not
a point I've ever tried to make.
Theology in any form, specifically Plotnius' rational mysticism in
this case, is not a part of scientific enterprise, right? Isn't this
what your posts in this thread point towards? The point of the
rather sensational tabloid Castaneda post?
I'm not advocating platonism here; merely that I'm undecided on
these issues, and argue Platonism for fun. Especially since it's so
easy to argue the materialist side. All you have to do is argue that
your theology and state of the world are in line with each other:
inner beliefs fit with outside appearances. Finished, done, clear.
Taking up immaterial side is much harder. That we experience matter
but assert reality counter to what our senses suggest... this puts
every platonic reasoner in a sort of hypocrisy defense mode by
default. The platonic side of the ontological coin is thus much more
vulnerable to attack.
Despite quasi logically trivial by the antic dream argument, where we
can know the table and say how much it is hard and real, and then wake
up, and understand that "seeming hard and real" is not an argument for
fundamental ontology.
Then we can't doubt consciousness, and we can doubt Matter.
I'd say 1 to 10: Ten materialist posts well reasoned are equivalent
to one platonic post well reasoned, because the platonic reasoner
has to go counter their primary conviction that this kind of
argument/thought is waste of time in view of the one in the first
place, which the materialist is not bound to, being enchanted by
everything that bounces along. The platonic thinker has to account
for the complex illusion of appearances while the materialist can
just "well, that's how it is, as you can see".
The monist materialist must explain the "illusion of consciousness" to
a stone.
The monist idealist must explain "the illusion of matter" to an idea.
The neutral monism of computationalism explains the illusion of matter-
mind from non trivial relative self-referential relation and their
different modes imposed by incompleteness.
Materialist are just not interested in the matter, and they prefer to
eliminate consciousness instead of changing the base of their religion.
when all it needs is reason: if the western reader had had
sufficient mystical experience with techniques of trance and
ecstasy, that book would have never made the bestseller list.
How is experience the same as reason? That's the attitude that
charlatan's prey on: "If you don't believe in my magic you're just
prejudiced, you have to try it first." Your theory seems to be that
if people had sufficient experience with travel to other planets and
remembering their time in the womb they wouldn't be taken in by
Scientology? I can think of a lot easier and more efficient ways of
avoiding nonsense than by indulging in it.
Then all victims of manipulation are idiots. As are the people "who
indulge in nonsense".
That's too easy but not easy enough ;-) I can relate to people's
ignorance on many levels because of my own. Especially regarding the
issue of poison/medicine. That's for people to decide themselves.
Keep in mind that before we had test tubes and rats, people had to
"indulge in nonsense" for the birth of pharmacology.
The "indulging in nonsense argument" sounds quite puritan. Sometimes
you don't sound like this. Indulging in nonsense is part of
experiment and inquiry, especially when new fields open and open
problems abound.
People would have thrown it into the trash, ridiculing the inept
and naive consumption of poisons, as well as the experiential
results that the book points towards.
Exactly what I did with it after reading a few pages. So why wasn't
I "ideal prey for this kind of manipulation"?
Two lines ago you "can think of a lot more efficient ways of
avoiding nonsense than by indulging in it", and now you are the
authority on mystical experience and associated poison use? That
doesn't seem to fit. Which is it then?
Summing this up, Bruno's use seems quite standard, although
Plotinus' use of various terms is not always consistent,
purposefully vague, which is why he criticizes analytical engagement
of content of his writings; indeed why he avoided writing until
convinced otherwise, according to various sources. This, along with
some problems in his use of beauty can be looked at critically if we
want to play sharp. But this stuff here is just basics.
Also, what does it matter that majority interprets some
transcendental term like xyz inaccurately? We should aim for the
best interpretations with rationality as tool. PGC
If we want to do science, that is exactly what we have to do.
People who dislike the use of "xyz" can substitute it by "verre-à-
bière", or "saperlipopette" or whatever.
That would work, even if , unlike Gödel in S5, I do not formalize the
notion of God. I just explain why machine cannot distinguish their
Platonician God from the arithmetical truth. This remains correct for
no-machines with any sufficiently encompassing notion of truth.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/kW-ZLuYPOGA/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to [email protected]
.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
