Re: [neoplatonism] Re: What's the fuss all about ?
- Dear Mike,
> There is also a deeper answer, latent inDo you happen to know the exact reference to this
> Plotinus and given full
> expression in Porphyry (or whoever), Commentary on
> the Parmenides.
Commentary ? It must be very interesting.
> The supreme principle is indeed *almosrt* perfect,but
> not quite, for itI cant speak of the supreme principle but it seems
> lacks self-consciousness. To achieve such
> self-consciousness, it must
> alienate itself from itself (proodos, soul, life)
> and return
> (epistrophe, intellect). It is therefore not true
> that there is no
> added value in the process : the inestimable added
> value is that the
> supreme principle achieves self-consciousness. I
> think I've mentioned
> before in this forum that this idea is found in any
> number of
> subsequent thinkers, from Ibn Arabi to Hegel, and
> compare the Islamic
> hadith : I was a hidden treasure and I longed to be
that at least demiurge is self-conscious, at least if
I get the exact meaning of someone being
Proclus in his commentary in Parmenides says in 790.15
But if it knows itself (gignOskon eauto), that is
knows itself as a cause, then it knows also the
things of which it is the cause and will therefore
contain the things which it knows ( Dilllon, page 161
and also in 958.24 ..and by knowing itself alone
knows all other things. ( Dillon, page 308 )
So if demiurge is self-conscious, can we say the same
for the upper levels up to the One ?
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bob Wallace <philosop@...> wrote:
> felt like doing. What's wrong with this notion? It's the idea that
> something could _be_ "God," could be perfect and self-sufficient,
> without being in relation to an actual finite world. Why is this
> mistaken? It's mistaken because perfection and self-sufficiency areand
> contrast terms. They're the "opposite" of imperfect and
> un-self-sufficient. So that the being that's described as perfect
> self-sufficient, gets its definition from its relation to what isor
> imperfect and un-self-sufficient. But that means that through his
> her very _definition_, the conventional "God" depends upon abut
> relationship to what's imperfect and non-self-sufficient. And that
> means that the conventional "God" simply isn't self-sufficient! The
> conventional "God" fails to be what he or she is supposed to be.
> What's to be done about this? We need to conceive of God, Hegel
> suggests, not through a contrast which makes God fail to be God,
> through an Identity. God will be the finite world's self-overcomingdefined
> (self-transcendence). Understood in this way, God will not be
> by his or her relation to what he or she _isn't_; instead, God willfinite
> be defined by what he or she _is_, namely, the finite world
> (surpassing itself). So this God will escape the the conventional
> "God"'s fate of being rendered non-self-sufficient by its own
> definition. But this God will also escape the finite world's
> imperfection and non-self-sufficiency, because this God is the
> world's self-_surpassing_ (self-transcendence): its passage intoA most interesting argument that I had never heard before, but then I
> infiniteness. So in both respects, God will be perfect and
> self-sufficient, after all. This is the "true infinity."
know almost nothing, I am sad to say, about Hegel, though there a
number of books upstairs that would perhaps help remedy that if I
ever get to them.
This locks creator with created and vice-versa rather tightly
together, doesn't it? Rather as does the argument about dynamis or
potential that I was probably not all that lucidly trying to make
Thanks for sharing this - I need to consider it more.