/lit/ - Literature

>>22798090
Some posts from the last thread that didn't get enough attention, mostly focusing on Aristotle's cosmology and Neoplatonism's relationship to it:
>>22793393
>>22793417
>>22793424

>>22784828
>pantheistic
no

>panentheistic
Not necessarily but one could read it that way.

>>22784957
>you forgot to attache the Giga Chad image

>>22784978
In other terms ~ :
>>22790869

>>22785038
>indefinite dyad, emanationism
It's transcendant, but one might say the pantheism was true up to the demiurge.

>>22785293
>matter is an emanation of the mind, but mind and matter are in vedantic terms, dual, while the ultimate is non dual

Matter is counterspace to Nous, it is lacking/deficient/a 'fallen' modulation thereof.

>>22765969
Its presence is mediated by the 'signal-receiver' in the materium via emanation; it's apophatic, burn the haystack to acquire the needle-- then you get the apodictic, neti neti "this not that", the Higher Self that is self-coherent with the lower one here and now. Armstrong's rendering muddles emanationism sections; Get Thomas Taylors, while incomplete, will shine a light on this.

>>22684981

>>22361302
The forms are the unfolding of the One that leads to Being.

>>22160122
It's as simple as this. What don't you get?

>>20934898
To begin, let's start with the metaphysics, which I think is best explicated in The Republic, Philebus, and Statesman.

First, there is the peiron: the limited, the defined, the absolute, the actual, the rational. There is also an empirical component: peras means "trial, experiment, etc.", something which can be seen for oneself. This can be assigned a number and made intelligible. Plato would have called this "the One" or "the Good." Then there is the apeiron: the unlimited, pure potential, the relative, the chaotic, etc. This cannot be assigned a number: think of the qualities we experience like sound or the irrational numbers that go on forever like the sqrt(2). The "limited" and "the unlimited" are the fundamental yet distinct categories of existence and normally cannot be reconciled.

However, in the phenomenology of Being, there is also the "mixed", the "middle ground" in which we live in. This is essentially like grasping onto the "unlimited", making it "limited", thus making part of the unknown "known." Then, one can move beyond the old "limits" to find new "limits" in a Faustian spirit. Most things in life fall into this category, like music or the weather. This is an exhaustive, infinite process of comprehension, where one gets closer and closer to precision, but never quite reaches it. The unlimited can be measured, meaning assigned number to make it appear limited. But in reality, this mixture is merely "expressible", and its precision is indeterminate. Without any corresponding effort to "exhaust" the infinite and make it as limited as can be, it is pure unlimitedness, hence the term "indeterminate dyad."

In addition to the "mixed" domain, there are causes: think Aristotle's four causes of material, efficient, formal, and final. This is where knowledge begins to mature in its own. Heidegger brilliantly points out that "causes" in Ancient Greek, aitia (αἰτία), had a richer temporal meaning than we explain today. Not only did it mean "cause and effect", but it also meant debt, credit, opportunity, motive (motion, emotion, etc.), interrogation, etc. Through causes, one begins to truly acquire knowledge (episteme), as they can have a complex account what things are and why. If one imagines the "unlimited" as an infinite succession of concentration circles, and the "limited" as each particular circle, the causes are like some kind of "chain" that connects each circle in perpetuity.

(2/?)

>>20934838
To begin, let's start with the metaphysics, which I think is best explicated in The Republic, Philebus, and Statesman.

First, there is the peiron: the limited, the defined, the absolute, the actual, the rational. There is also an empirical component: peras means "trial, experiment, etc.", something which can be seen for oneself. This can be assigned a number and made intelligible. Plato would have called this "the One" or "the Good." Then there is the apeiron: the unlimited, pure potential, the relative, the chaotic, etc. This cannot be assigned a number: think of the qualities we experience like sound or the irrational numbers that go on forever like the sqrt(2). The "limited" and "the unlimited" are the fundamental yet distinct categories of existence and normally cannot be reconciled.

However, in the phenomenology of Being, there is also the "mixed", the "middle ground" in which we live in. This is essentially like grasping onto the "unlimited", making it "limited", thus making part of the unknown "known." Then, one can move beyond the old "limits" to find new "limits" in a Faustian spirit. Most things in life fall into this category, like music or the weather. This is an exhaustive, infinite process of comprehension, where one gets closer and closer to precision, but never quite reaches it. The unlimited can be measured, meaning assigned number to make it appear limited. But in reality, this mixture is merely "expressible", and its precision is indeterminate. Without any corresponding effort to "exhaust" the infinite and make it as limited as can be, it is pure unlimitedness, hence the term "indeterminate dyad."

In addition to the "mixed" domain, there are causes: think Aristotle's four causes of material, efficient, formal, and final. This is where knowledge begins to mature in its own. Heidegger brilliantly points out that "causes" in Ancient Greek, aitia (αἰτία), had a richer temporal meaning than we explain today. Not only did it mean "cause and effect", but it also meant debt, credit, opportunity, motive (motion, emotion, etc.), interrogation, etc. Through causes, one begins to truly acquire knowledge (episteme), as they can have a complex account what things are and why. If one imagines the "unlimited" as an infinite succession of concentration circles, and the "limited" as each particular circle, the causes are like some kind of "chain" that connects each circle in perpetuity.

(2/?)

>>20760301
>solitude ... beast/man ... or a philosopher
>GOM, Laws of Manu
Reason here is in a constellation of drives, one that made itself king at the expense of others, all within a table of values favoring its rise. Super/post-'human all to human' will set it back among the others in proper relation to one another (for all its utility, it's the weapon of last resort and of the weaker part[y] that can't act imperiously). The Pythagorean/Platonic monad if true is of less interest than its emanations hence Nietzche's fascination with the Orphic, auto-generative self-sacrifice - or immolation, per the Persian This Apollonian degeneration into hedonism makes an offering to the gods out of themselves. And why not, when you're one of the shards of light according to your book (unlike those 'beasts of the field') ...

>What it doesn't explain is how the Apollonian aspect of the soul eventually degrades into decadence
The solar Apollonian: knowledge, revelation, thaumaturgy, signs & divination, narrative/world-as-text teleology that only need be parsed to be 'read into' the Providential hidden hand guiding events

The chthonic Dionysian/Orphic: apophaticism, theurgy, direct experience/communion, transformative embodiment of the gods or being brought into their direct presence

>>20765002
>>20775214
>...Will to Power... sporadic passages where Nietzsche...suggests both that it's the "instinct of instincts" and what nature in general does...passage about Eros... where Diotima talks about Eros in animals and poets. Maybe the really hard question is how Eros and Thumos relate in Plato.
Crucible.

>being a filter we use to organize and interpret the contents of consciousness that stream in through our Dionysian openness to ideas and unconscious influences
Philosopher's stone as one's own sphere to one's own, apart from the caprice of 'the gods' and heavenly bodies; they apprehend the actions of these forces on others and themselves (and their own sway in that calculation). The alternative is by-the-numbers ritual observances and trusting your priests' haruspexy rather than one's own judgement and 'gut feeling'/disciplined instinct. We are gelding the future in service of technology as an end in itself by actively suppressing healthy, natural instincts and their insurrection against it. The 'gene transfection technology' and the propensity of the cytotoxic spike protein it induces production of, concentrating in the gonads, may prove to be an evolutionary filter in the eusocial direction (at least for higher life and art)

>>20777205
Bingo. Tech has gotten away from us to the point of 'the singularity' being its hylic acolytes' demonic secularized eschaton.

>>20761782
>ome Hebrew scholar on youtube told me original Hebrew was constructed specifically for this purpose and we can barely scratch the surface of the original layers.
picrel

>>20745687
>Can you give a short Peircian account of how knowledge occurs, how awareness or the subject or consciousness knows itself or something else?
It's a descriptive account simplified as far as it can be. First quality arises. Then it is forcefully met with reaction between the ego and the outside world before being mediated into an intricate web of meaning, representation, habit, etc. Rinse and repeat. There's a lot going on. Firstness has a "wholeness, potentiality, potential" aspect to it. Secondness has a "analytic, relational, collisionary, ego vs. world" aspect to it. Thirdness has an "evolutionary, stabilizing" quality to it.

Basically, Peirce takes Kant's sensible intuitions, robs Kant of the ability to take those for granted and says that they're acquired abstractions that we've picked up since coming into existence, and eventually acknowledges that the only way we can be said to know anything at all is to have some kind of il lume naturale that connects our minds to the framework of nature. Knowledge is an infinite process, a constant negotiation between ourselves and nature, ourselves and a community of inquirers, etc., as the universe evolves from chance interactions to stable laws. An ever-continuing dance of abduction, deduction, and induction.

As you can tell, everything Peirce writes tends to have an architectonic, reflexive aspect to it. Minds have firstness, secondness, thirdness, etc. The universe operates by firstness, secondness, thirdness, etc. And these categories have a fractal nature to them as well. Secondness can have a degenerate firstness, thirdness can have a degenerate secondness and firstness, etc.

By the way, why the constant mention of triads? Well, Peirce argued that all logical relations can be represented in monads, dyads, and triads. Can't be monads and dyads alone, as that's insufficient to sum up to triads. So Peirce's triadomania holds up. This is how he's able to take Hegel's vision and run with it. Interestingly enough, the Peirce reduction thesis was proved a few decades ago, too. Though, it's worth saying that Quine proved that all logical relations *could* be reduced to dyadic predicates, but that depends on a construction that avoids negation (robbing the Hegelian elements) which Peirce incorporates. It's complex and I have to admit that I'm out of my element when it comes to pure logic, relying instead on SEP here. Still, it's quite fascinating.
>>20745702
It's from a Yale adjunct. And you can read 100 articles free per month from JSTOR.

>>20674537
met-
hexis

>>20652009
>apophaticism, retroduction, neti neti, disobjectification
>>20652321
^Has a point. Not to go perennialist, but the pith of other strains open up more readily this way. Some primers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhUOupmBPuM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP4pMU7frQU
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNnqqvK2yDEF44yZjBGOahfGKFIYGWcLt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGysTUD5e50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lr7ZDmQg8M
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ__PGORcBKxNBjy-A49C8fUd4COs8Vi9
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ__PGORcBKyxwViLyPNn1vmbI5kl0xj7

>>20652494
Not bad, would have more Neoplatonists, Proclus, Numenius ect.

>>20652745
Evola was always in circulation thanks to that Yoga book, in New Age boomer circles, no less.

I'm thinking in terms of Schiller's play drive. Maybe a kind of practical Platonism, if you will. Or something that expands with archetypes like Jung or the realm of possibility like Meinong. Bonus points if it bolsters a desire to "live in the moment" more often.

>>20620376
The more you read the more you'll find they're all systems to try and reconcile the One and the Many which is the fundamental problem of Metaphysics. All plurality derives from a unity but all unity is made up of a plurality. In the Neoplatonic scheme the issue is addressed with the absolutely transcendental One which is the source of everything else and absolutely simple in its essence, giving rise to the Nous through its own self contemplation and thus emanating the Forms as an infinite set of finite ways to consider the infinite One in a finite mode.

The answer is whichever system you find most appealing. I don't think there's any real obviously correct answer, they're all just ways of considering the relationship between the absolute and creation. I think Neoplatonism proposes the most simple and rationally defensible answer with as few metaphysical entities as possible.

There's also the issue that the various schemas are not necessarily mutually incompatible. The Tree of Life for example shares a lot in common with Proclus' scheme of many triads of Life, Being and Soul

Ultimately you're trying to explain the ineffable. There are an infinite number of angles to approach the infinite and they all have some level of truth to them.