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

Re: [neoplatonism] Re: Timaeus 32A

Expand Messages
  • dgallagher@aol.com
    Dennis, Both being four is a relatively superficial aspect of the relationship, although not lacking significance. Key question is the bond . What,
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 30, 2010

      Both being four is a relatively superficial aspect of the relationship,
      although not lacking significance. Key question is the "bond". What,
      precisely, is that which binds or yokes? In both Tim. and Rep. it's averred to
      be best expressed by proportion. It seems to take on a Pythagorean flavor
      in 1:1.618034 or the only known (as far as I know) two-term proportion;
      namely a:b::b:a+b. If you divide line = 1 as at Rep.509D, resulting are
      segments a = .618 & b = .382 [rounded]. These are the only values that satisfy
      the equation a/b=b/(a+b). Or, more correctly, you can use any two values for
      a & b so long as they're consistent with the 1:618 ratio. And, of course,
      a proportion requires two ratios; hence, four. So it's my guess Plato knew
      that but didn't explicitly "reveal" it in the dialogs. Since the bond is
      best expressed by proportion, and proportion requires ratios (in this
      instance unifying ratios), and the only ratio that conforms with the divisions
      of the line as described at Rep.509D is 618:382 with the ensuing two
      sections in the same identical ratio, then the bond must be that unique ratio.
      Identity is an essential idea in this context and correlates with how Plotinus
      uses it in connection with self-knowing.

      Lots more in this vein. I'm curious about the correspondence you happen
      to be pursuing, and welcome off-list communication if you're amenable.

      David Gallagher

      In a message dated 7/30/2010 2:48:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      vaeringjar@... writes:

      --- In _neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com)
      , dgallagher@... wrote:
      > Dennis,
      > Not precisely the feedback you requested, but I see a connection between
      > Tim,32A and Rep.VI, 507E, 508A, 508C, 511E; actually the entire analogy
      > the Sun and the divided line business.

      I am considering the divided line, but rather from another angle.

      >I then correlate the four sections of
      > the divided line with the four elements in Tim. (in the order >fire,
      > water, earth -- empirically least thru most dense). Fire >corresponds
      > intelligible; earth with shadows and reflections. Expressed
      > fire:air::water:earth.

      Curious - fire with the intelligible would be consistent with the later
      notion of noeton pyr, but I don't recall seeing this correlation before, yet
      just for the number 4 you rather wonder someone hadn't tried to match them
      long ago, or maybe they have and I just missed it.

      The correspondance I happen to be pursuing is a bit more specific than
      just both being 4, but a bit too complex to go into in a posting.


      Dennis Clark

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