On 12 Jan 2015, at 04:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:39 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything
List <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Platonist Guitar Cowboy
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 6:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
In this sidestepping there is a point at which reason is left
behind, which is consistent with incompleteness phenomenon, failure
of logicism, mysticism etc. The move is grounded in the consequence
that somebody asserting existence or non-existence of God has to be
able to therefore "know the root and source of all and nothing". The
latter is assumed impossible. Therefore sidestepping and questioning
the implications of such a move in Plotinus' work. PGC
Once Bruno explained to me how he intends the term god when he uses
it I understood his intent. Clearly he is not connoting some
biblical deity when he uses the term. While it may be a continuous
source of confusion for him as others who are unfamiliar with his
meaning of god, encounter his usage of it; it is his prerogative to
decide to use that term.
Agreed. Plotinus stated in Enneads that we can merely use some weak
reference, like "One". But in line with sidestepping we can choose
to be inconsistent to mark that we don't really know what we are
talking about; e.g. concerning truth, reality, source, one, god,
beauty, ultimate, foundation, root, fountain, pure etc. I don't know
Bruno's exact line on this issue, but Plotinus uses these terms and
more to build the forms of his dialogues, only to demolish them later.
Yes, it is what we do in science, and that was the beginning of
theology, as a science, by the platonicians. That was put to a close
by the mixing of politics and religion, and politics took theology in
hostage, and this has not changed since.
I have at last find good account of Aristotle's refutation of Plato,
but crazily enough he assumes there, without saying, the primary matter.
I think this might confuse the western reader to venture "ok, but
what is the point?", at which point Plotinus would probably blurt
"Good point!", maintaining something like: We don't know what "it" is.
Indeed. But in his chapter on numbers, which is against the numerology
of the time, Plotinus foresaw Cantor ordinals, *and* Cantor
theological difficulties (which is why Cantor corresponded with
theologians). He lacked Church's thesis, only, to find
computationalism. But if comp is correct, we can say that Plotinus was
a brilliant introspectors, as what he found in himself is close to
what all machine can find.
Bruno
But neo-platonic thought does postulate that everybody seeks "it".
Why pretend to be consistent, when we couldn't know such thing, and
have in fact asserted that we don't? This doesn't negate search or
fundamental inquiry, it gives us the keys to use the vehicle and
search, instead of getting in, turning the key and muttering
bitterly "I don't believe in vehicles."
This is hyperbole. It's too late for me to write anything sensible
today. Please excuse the excesses. PGC
--
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.
