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

Re: [neoplatonism] Re: One and Two as numbers or not

Expand Messages
  • dgallagher@aol.com
    Thanks, John. Much appreciated. Currently reading PT, II, and now looking forward to V.34. I believe the note is consistent with Plotinus. The ideas are
    Message 1 of 44 , Sep 20 2:46 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, John. Much appreciated. Currently reading PT, II, and now
      looking forward to V.34. I believe the note is consistent with Plotinus. The
      ideas are extremely subtle and subject to interpretive dispute. For me,
      geometry is an ineffable rite; theurgic through-and-through. So the note
      resonates on that level too. Number (monad) collecting numbers (many) into
      itself also feels congruent with Intellect thinking itself. Must stew on that a
      bit. Things apparent seems more like sensible number rather than
      intelligible; the latter, to me via Plotinus and practice, constituting the
      intelligibles. Things apparent are more extension (separation) into magnitudes,
      especially in terms of monadic numbers emanating into infinity; infinity in
      that context being the matter of Soul, not the unbound infinity of One. VI.6
      is crucial in this regard.

      Most appreciatively,

      In a message dated 9/20/2010 4:18:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      ted.hand@... writes:

      David, I don't know if/how this fits but I thought you might be interested
      in this footnote from
      Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist tradition, Sarah Klitenic
      Wear, John M. Dillon

      105 n.21 Proclus in PT V.34 p.101 explains that the divine monadic numbers,
      more simple than Forms, exist ontologically prior to intelligible entities.
      As with sacrament, these numbers are both one and many. Theurgy, when it
      employs these numbers, takes part in monadic sympathy to effect ineffable
      rites. Metaphysically, numbers exhibit a creative ability -- the monadic
      numbers create the universe when they emanate into infinity. Later in the
      same passage, Proclus shows that monadic numbers also have an anagogic
      power. Because the monadic number is beyond all intelligible number, it
      collects numbers into itself--it elevates souls from things 'apparent',
      intelligible number.

      On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:13 PM, <dgallagher@...> wrote:

      > Very cool, Kathryn, as this thread has effectively evaporated my mundane
      > day. M-Theory came to mind here with its suggestive pattern of three
      > (in a sense reciprocals) merged together in a unified framework, and,
      > which, suggests the appearance of correspondence with Plotinus' genera.
      > David
      > In a message dated 9/20/2010 3:42:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      > kathryn-e@... <kathryn-e%40sbcglobal.net> writes:
      > One conclusion is that these thinkers are looking at the genesis of
      > creation, though only through the human body and mind. So, they are
      > at
      > the nature of their own thought or mind, the scaffolding, or
      > frame" as you say Greg. Yet through the illusion of that separation
      > One and two they are able to experience the third element between, Spirit
      > or
      > Soul.
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      Yahoo! Groups Links

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John Dillon
      ... Yes indeed, Han Balthussen¹s book (which I have recently reviewed), does a very good job for Simplicius ­ and it may prove possible before too long to do
      Message 44 of 44 , Sep 29 12:45 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        >> >
        >> > M.C: I haven't made a thorough stdy of this commentary, which my friend
        >> > Pantelis Golitzis claims is not even by Psellus. But a perfunctory glance
        >> > does indicate that there is material in there that does not come from
        >> > either Simplicius or Philoppnus, which is enough to make it interesting
        >> > for me. As far as it's being a teaching tool is concerned: no doubt, but
        >> > in this is it is no differnt from the quasi-totality of Greek commentaries
        >> > (some of Simplicius' commentaries don't seem to have been written for
        >> > immediate pedagogical use).
        > That's good to know - until someone goes through these "new" texts, we just
        > don't know for sure what is lurking there. And with Psellus, given Prof.
        > O'Meara's discovery of the Iamblichan material embedded in one of his other
        > works, it's certainly not unreasonable that something might be found there.
        > Not to sound too much like some sort of "gold miner" just trolling through
        > these texts - I think they should be studied on their own merits too. I really
        > would like to read Baltussen's new book on Simplicius treating him as a
        > philosopher on his own, and had I the time and ability, would love to try to
        > do the same for Syrianus.
        >>> > > ?
        >>> > >
        >>> > > I can say one thing though, that Philoponus is breaking with Aristotle
        >>> > > here and other Neoplatonists, in denying that two is a number.
        >> >
        >> > M.C. I guess that's not too surprising. It's precisely in some parts of
        >> > the In Phys. and the In APo that Philoponus starts to show his
        >> > disagreemenst with Aristotle, which were to culminate in the Contra
        >> > Aristotelem.
        > Yes, that thought occured to me too, though I don't know this passage has been
        > cited in the study of his differences, and perhaps it should.
        >> >
        >> > M.C. I did not know that Ian Mueller had died. What a shame, he was a very
        >> > nice guy, and still fairly young.
        >>> > >
        > There is an obituary and memorial guest book at the University of Chicago
        > Philosophy website. I unfortunately of course did not know him, but I have
        > spent a lot of time recently with several of his very finely written articles
        > on mathematics in Aristotle. This URL below is to a page that links to both
        > the obituary and guest book, found at the bottom of this page:
        > http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/emeritus.html#m
        >>> > >
        >>> > > And what happened to Simplicius' library? He must have had a remarkable
        >>> > > collection. These things are so fragile.
        >> >
        >> > M.C. Maybe. Then again, maybe he had just a few compendious sources, like
        >> > the commentaries of Iamblichus, from which he carried out extensive
        >> > excavations.
        >> >
        > Yes, "cherchez Jamblique" - I seem to be doing a bit myself just now. I just
        > reread O'Meara's chapter on Syrianus in Pythagoras Revived, and had forgotten
        > how much Syrianus also follows Iamblichus in his comm on the Metaphysics. How
        > much, that is, where we can be sure because Syrianus tells us directly or even
        > reproduces Iamblichus' text, maybe without telling us it's his - but who knows
        > how much more is embedded there that we cannot tell because we don't have the
        > Iamblichan original?
        > Thanks, Mike.
        > Dennis Clark

        Yes indeed, Han Balthussen¹s book (which I have recently reviewed), does a
        very good job for Simplicius ­ and it may prove possible before too long to
        do something like this for Syrianus, after Sarah Wear publishes the
        fragments of his Timaeus and Parmenides commentaries! JMD

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