Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6098Re: Re: Re: [neoplatonism] Re: Relativity and Neoplatonism (Mether vs. Chase, III)

Expand Messages
  • Dino Buzzetti
    Oct 30, 2013
      On 30 October 2013 06:44, <john.h.spencer@...> wrote:

      I do not understand the purpose of the Vuillemin quote. It seems to be an appeal to authority, acting as a rebuttal against Planck (the key originator of what has become the most powerful scientific theory in history), or perhaps it is simply meant to remind me that others disagree with me. (Or have I totally misunderstood what Vuillemin is talking about, or your purpose in quoting him?)

      Well, what is the purpose of a quote ?  Far from being an appeal to authority, it is more of an invitation to explore the reasons of that assertion and a warning of caution before being so assertive as in your "short answer"​. ​

      What Vuillemin's quotation shows—the way I understand it—is that the quantum approach overcomes the classical view of an absolute distinction between objective and subjective.  I do not know how you deal with the "discussion about the epistemological versus ontological nature of the laws of physics" in your book, but the real issue, from a Neoplatonic point of view, seems to me that of the relation of our claims of describing objectively the world with the notion of the νοῦς, "in whom there is no difference between knower, object known, and the act of knowledge"  (Philip Merlan, Monopsychism, Mysticism, Metaconsciousness: Problems of the soul in the Neoaristotelian and Neoplatonic tradition, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1963, pp. 80-81 — not an appeal to authority, God forbid !).  How can the universe describe itself, as in Wheeler's eye ?  That seems to me the point.  Accordingly, the discussion about "epistemological versus ontological" seems to me outdated and we should instead fully acknowledge the paradigm shift induced by the advent of quantum theory.  May be something instructive ​in this respect could be gleaned from Merleau-Ponty's The Visible and the Invisible, or Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form—who explicitly quotes Proclus, by the way

    • Show all 48 messages in this topic