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

Re: The One - Why more?

Expand Messages
  • aousager
    Dear Francisco Razzo, there is a full exposition of Plotinus view on the stepwise unification(s) of the particular human soul together with a comprehensive
    Message 1 of 26 , May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Francisco Razzo,
      there is a full exposition of Plotinus' view on the stepwise
      unification(s) of the particular human soul together with a
      comprehensive account of the epistemological and ontological
      requirements for it, among them, especially, the Platonic sources
      for his doctrine in my book "Plotinus on Selfhood, Freedom and
      Politics" (Aarhus University Press 2004) - 397 pages.

      Plotinus is an originator of Augustine's similar (but definitely not
      identical) doctrine on the unification of the soul (pp. 91-3).

      Yours,
      Asger Ousager
      PhD, Research Fellow
      Nobelparken 1461-328
      University of Aarhus
      Denmark

      --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "francisco razzo"
      <franciscorazzo@...> wrote:
      >
      > Chers Collègues
      >
      > Il voulait pouvoir contribuer à un petit peu avec cette discussion
      très
      > intéressante. Je suis extrêmement reconnaissant de pouvoir faire
      partie de
      > ce groupe. Moi aussi encore un novice dans philosophie.
      >
      > Mais je crois beaucoup de dans cette question :
      >
      > Concernant la connaissance de l'Un, plus à spécifiquement,
      >
      > l'expérience inefable du Premier Principe, doit se donner dans la
      marge d'une
      > expérience mystique. Et ce que cela envoie? Premier dans
      l'impossibilité de
      > communication directe de ce type de "connaissance", ou
      l'établissement
      > définitif des limites de lascience. Nous confions ainsi dans un «
      témoin »!
      > Dans en second, que même en avant du "flux", le principe
      intelligible est
      > maintenant complètement transcendental, ce qui dans Héraclite se
      justifie
      > par un *Logos*, qui est toujours, et que les hommes ne sont pas
      seulement dans
      > syntonie, différentement dans Plotin, le Principe est ai présent,
      mais en
      > même temps
      >
      > complètement absent.

      >
      > Comment alors connaître l'Un ? Le témoin de cette expérience
      >
      > "abysse-hautain" la justifie philosophiquement et aussi «
      poétiquement ».
      > Poétiquement : par milieu de métaphores "spéciales". Et les
      métaphores les
      > plus courants dans la période Impériale sont, exactement, ce de
      > l'"inférieur/supérieur"
      > et ce de l'"intérieur/extérieur". Les métaphores sont justifiées
      selon une
      > anthropologie philosophique qui établit une structure hiérarchique
      de l'être
      > humain. L'homme doit trouver l'Un, qui est le plus haut et
      *epekeina tes
      > ousia*, dans sa la plus intimee et propre unité. Le *superior
      summo meo, *comme
      > dira plus tard. S. Agostin, c'est-à-dire, le plus intime de
      l'esprit – *Aditum
      > mentis – *ou le bout fin, l' *Apex Mentis. *C'est dans ce sens que
      Plotin
      > nous invite à « tourner à nous-mêmes ». Il me semble que le
      traité 9
      > enseigne cela plus ou moins. Au moins encore je crois beaucoup de
      dans cela.
      >
      > *Respeitosamente*,
      > Francisco Razzo
      > ICHTHYS
      >
      > Instituto Hypnos - o prazer de saber
      > www.institutohypnos.org.br
      >
      > ""A filosofia é propriamente uma
      > saudade da pátria, um impulso para
      > estar por toda parte em casa"
    • John Dilon
      ... Yes, we know about Speusippus plethos from Aristotle. This process of the One plurifying itself was seen as being set out in the second hypothesis of the
      Message 2 of 26 , May 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        on 29/4/06 0:53, vaeringjar at vaeringjar@... wrote:

        > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "vaeringjar" <vaeringjar@...>
        > wrote:
        >>
        >>>>
        >>> Well yes, so we have a world, one may say, but why a One? I think
        >> Plotinus
        >>> would maintain that we have a basic intuition of 'one-ness' in
        > face
        >> of all
        >>> this Heraclitean flux which can only be satisfied by the
        > postulate
        >> of a One.
        >>> Enn. VI 9 is very much about that, I think. John
        >>>
        >>
        >> I couldn't help myself and took a look at VI 9 just now, one of my
        >> favorites because of that lovely passage at the end about the
        >> the 'flight of the alone to the alone'. I think Plotinus gets right
        >> at it, in the very beginning of the Ennead:
        >>
        >> It is in virtue of unity that beings are beings.
        >> This is equally true of things whose existence is primal and of
        >> all that are in any degree to be numbered among beings. What could
        >> exist at all except as one thing? Deprived of unity, a thing ceases
        > to
        >> be what it is called: no army unless as a unity: a chorus, a flock,
        >> must be one thing. Even house and ship demand unity, one house, one
        >> ship; unity gone, neither remains thus even continuous magnitudes
        >> could not exist without an inherent unity; break them apart and
        >> their very being is altered in the measure of the breach of unity.
        >> Take plant and animal; the material form stands a unity; fallen
        >> from that into a litter of fragments, the things have lost their
        >> being; what was is no longer there; it is replaced by quite other
        >> things- as many others, precisely, as possess unity. (MacKenna and
        >> Page)
        >>
        >>
        >> So as anything on the micro level needs unity to exist, so also on
        >> the macro level there must be an ultimate unity - macrocosm like
        >> microcosm? Is it as simple as that?
        >>
        >>
        >
        > After I posted this it occurred to me that this is the same argument
        > as in Proclus' very first proposition in his <Elements of Theology>.
        > I was curious to see if Dodds referred in any way in his commentary
        > to this passage in Plotinus, and he does mention it, rather briefly.
        >
        > But it's interesting that Proclus takes this as his point of
        > departure, and also as I recall this is Plotinus' first Ennead
        > chronologically dealing directly with the One. I noticed that Proclus
        > is very consistent in his terminology in the Elements dealing with
        > this subject, and always, unless I am mistaken, refers to what we
        > would probably call most often "the Many" with "plethos". I guess we
        > would have to say then from Proclus that it's a technical term, not
        > just a synonym. Speusippus used it first, as I recall, instead of the
        > Infinite Dyad, and I'd have to look it up, but I think we know that
        > only second-hand his case (from Aristotle - ? Can't remember for
        > sure. I don't think it's in the imputed excerpt in Iamblichus' DCMS -
        > ?)
        >
        > Dennis Clark
        > Issaquah
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        Yes, we know about Speusippus' plethos from Aristotle. This process of the
        One plurifying itself was seen as being set out in the second hypothesis of
        the Parmenides, and I think with some justification. JMD
      • francisco razzo
        Dear Asger Ousager I am thankful very for the indication. Excuses with the errors of my English, but I do not have familiarity in writing in another language
        Message 3 of 26 , May 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Asger Ousager



          I am thankful very for the indication. Excuses with the errors of my
          English, but I do not have familiarity in writing in another language not to
          be my Portuguese.



          It is, exactly, footing epistemological and ontological that still lacks my
          research, does not have doubt. I am in the beginning of the work; I will
          take in consideration these philosophical basic problems, they are two
          demanding philosophical pillars. I believe much that the anthropology
          questions need these beddings.



          I read more details of the description of your book and was more
          enthusiastic in I know it. Of fact the question most intriguing: "*And
          finally, what are the political and ethical implications of Plotinism?"*



          I am studying the En. VI 9 (9), as work of conclusion of course of the
          "College". All the aid and the counted with great studious of Plotino is
          very well coming.



          Muito Obrigado!

          F. Razzo



          2006/5/1, aousager <ousager@...>:
          >
          > Dear Francisco Razzo,
          > there is a full exposition of Plotinus' view on the stepwise
          > unification(s) of the particular human soul together with a
          > comprehensive account of the epistemological and ontological
          > requirements for it, among them, especially, the Platonic sources
          > for his doctrine in my book "Plotinus on Selfhood, Freedom and
          > Politics" (Aarhus University Press 2004) - 397 pages.
          >
          > Plotinus is an originator of Augustine's similar (but definitely not
          > identical) doctrine on the unification of the soul (pp. 91-3).
          >
          > Yours,
          > Asger Ousager
          > PhD, Research Fellow
          > Nobelparken 1461-328
          > University of Aarhus
          > Denmark
          >
          > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "francisco razzo"
          > <franciscorazzo@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Chers Coll�gues
          > >
          > > Il voulait pouvoir contribuer � un petit peu avec cette discussion
          > tr�s
          > > int�ressante. Je suis extr�mement reconnaissant de pouvoir faire
          > partie de
          > > ce groupe. Moi aussi encore un novice dans philosophie.
          > >
          > > Mais je crois beaucoup de dans cette question :
          > >
          > > Concernant la connaissance de l'Un, plus � sp�cifiquement,
          > >
          > > l'exp�rience inefable du Premier Principe, doit se donner dans la
          > marge d'une
          > > exp�rience mystique. Et ce que cela envoie? Premier dans
          > l'impossibilit� de
          > > communication directe de ce type de "connaissance", ou
          > l'�tablissement
          > > d�finitif des limites de lascience. Nous confions ainsi dans un �
          > t�moin �!
          > > Dans en second, que m�me en avant du "flux", le principe
          > intelligible est
          > > maintenant compl�tement transcendental, ce qui dans H�raclite se
          > justifie
          > > par un *Logos*, qui est toujours, et que les hommes ne sont pas
          > seulement dans
          > > syntonie, diff�rentement dans Plotin, le Principe est ai pr�sent,
          > mais en
          > > m�me temps
          > >
          > > compl�tement absent.
          >
          > >
          > > Comment alors conna�tre l'Un ? Le t�moin de cette exp�rience
          > >
          > > "abysse-hautain" la justifie philosophiquement et aussi �
          > po�tiquement �.
          > > Po�tiquement : par milieu de m�taphores "sp�ciales". Et les
          > m�taphores les
          > > plus courants dans la p�riode Imp�riale sont, exactement, ce de
          > > l'"inf�rieur/sup�rieur"
          > > et ce de l'"int�rieur/ext�rieur". Les m�taphores sont justifi�es
          > selon une
          > > anthropologie philosophique qui �tablit une structure hi�rarchique
          > de l'�tre
          > > humain. L'homme doit trouver l'Un, qui est le plus haut et
          > *epekeina tes
          > > ousia*, dans sa la plus intimee et propre unit�. Le *superior
          > summo meo, *comme
          > > dira plus tard. S. Agostin, c'est-�-dire, le plus intime de
          > l'esprit � *Aditum
          > > mentis � *ou le bout fin, l' *Apex Mentis. *C'est dans ce sens que
          > Plotin
          > > nous invite � � tourner � nous-m�mes �. Il me semble que le
          > trait� 9
          > > enseigne cela plus ou moins. Au moins encore je crois beaucoup de
          > dans cela.
          > >
          > > *Respeitosamente*,
          > > Francisco Razzo
          > > ICHTHYS
          > >
          > > Instituto Hypnos - o prazer de saber
          > > www.institutohypnos.org.br
          > >
          > > ""A filosofia � propriamente uma
          > > saudade da p�tria, um impulso para
          > > estar por toda parte em casa"
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >


          --
          Francisco Razzo
          ICHTHYS

          Instituto Hypnos - o prazer de saber
          www.institutohypnos.org.br

          ""A filosofia � propriamente uma
          saudade da p�tria, um impulso para
          estar por toda parte em casa"


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.