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

Re: Demiurge in Iamblichus... and another question

Expand Messages
  • vaeringjar
    ... Sorley in the Enciclopaedia Britannica, I don t remember) quoted in ... Life. ... Iamblichus cosmology, the One Existent equates to the Pure Being, and
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Beniamino Di Dario
      <lupoinvincibile@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thanks a lot.
      > Another question concerning a summary by Annie Besant (or W.R.
      Sorley in the Enciclopaedia Britannica, I don't remember) quoted in
      this list:
      > «…from Being emanates the second element of the Noetic triad,
      Life.
      > And from Life emanates Nous…».
      >
      > This point is not clear to me. In this interpretation of
      Iamblichus' cosmology, the One Existent equates to the Pure Being,
      and the Nous itself emanates from Life.
      > Exactly, what's the relationship between the three moments of
      the hypostasis of Nous (On, Zoé, Nous) and the noetic/noeric triads?
      >
      > .:.BMD.:.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Vinci i biglietti per FIFA World Cup in Germania!
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >

      I am going to defer to the experts here to answer this complex
      question in detail, assuming also you are asking how much of this is
      in Iamblichus vs later Neoplatonists, but certainly the best place to
      start in my opinion is Prof Dillon's edition of Iamblichus' fragments
      on the Plato commentaries and the essays in the appendices. Also his
      ANRW article, which I think you mentioned you already had looked
      into. There is no monograph as far as I know that addresses these
      issues head-on - though I have not read all of Larsen's book, so
      perhaps it does, though I fear not. In my experience, much of the
      recent scholarship on Iamblichus has concentrated on theurgy and his
      psychology. So this issue takes some digging, in my opinion, if you
      are starting from fresh on this quest.

      If you meant however this not to refer to Iamblichus, rather to the
      later Neoplatonists such as Proclus, then several of the
      introductions to the Bude edition of Proclus' Platonic Theology are
      helpful, especially V and VI, though Iamblichus does figure into the
      discussions there also from time to time, especially in trying to
      work back to him from Proclus and Syrianus. There are also other
      articles here and there, including one by Prof Opsomer, "Deriving the
      three intelligible triads from the Timaeus" in Proclus et la
      Théologie platonicienne: actes du colloque international de Louvain
      (13-16 mai 1998) en l'honneur de H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Westerink,
      éd. par A.-Ph. Segonds et C. Steel (Ancient and medieval philosophy,
      Series I 26), Leuven-Paris: Leuven University Press / Les Belles
      Lettres, 2000, which has a lot of other useful articles.

      I will defer to the experts at this point.

      Dennis Clark
    • Beniamino Di Dario
      Prof. Dillon, in his article in ANRW (p. 892), mentioned the possibility that for Iamblichus the Space is a manifestation of the One at the level of the
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Prof. Dillon, in his article in ANRW (p. 892), mentioned the possibility that for Iamblichus the Space is a manifestation of the One at the level of the physical world: «…it has the form of unity and holds all things together in itself, as well as perfectly limiting the universe according to one measure».

        This is a very fascinating example for our 'temporal' minds: it’s correct to affirm that in our physical world the unity (oneness) of the Space is a symbol of the One?

        .:.BMD.:.



        ---------------------------------
        Vinci i biglietti per FIFA World Cup in Germania!

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • vaeringjar
        ... possibility that for Iamblichus the Space is a manifestation of the One at the level of the physical world: «…it has the form of unity and holds all
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Beniamino Di Dario
          <lupoinvincibile@...> wrote:
          >
          > Prof. Dillon, in his article in ANRW (p. 892), mentioned the
          possibility that for Iamblichus the Space is a manifestation of the
          One at the level of the physical world: «…it has the form of unity
          and holds all things together in itself, as well as perfectly
          limiting the universe according to one measure».
          >
          > This is a very fascinating example for our 'temporal' minds: it's
          correct to affirm that in our physical world the unity (oneness) of
          the Space is a symbol of the One?
          >
          > .:.BMD.:.
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Vinci i biglietti per FIFA World Cup in Germania!
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >

          Well, I've taken it as the mirror opposite of the One, rather like an
          obverse, but now that I think about it, what attributes does the
          receptacle have, if any? If it lackes all attributes it would, oddly
          enough, have that in common with the One, wouldn't it, except that it
          contributes nothing. Of course also the One is unaspected itself, yet
          somehow at the same time it is the fount of all aspects in the lower
          levels of reality flowing from it.

          I have just been reading Prof Smith's book on Porphyry and quite a
          bit about the distinction between dynamis and energeia, though I
          sense I need a better grounding here in Aristotle. His book his
          really rather dense and demands a close reading and understanding of
          course of much important detail in Plotinus.

          So that would be one obvious big difference between the One and the
          receptacle, that the One has infinite energeia - ? And space/the
          receptacle absolutely no energeia?

          Dennis Clark
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.