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

Re: [neoplatonism] Re: Divine Darkness

Expand Messages
  • Andy K.
    ... Pardon my intrusion, no student of Ancient Philosophy am I, but this sounds very un-Plotinian: Plotinus reminds us time and again that the One is without
    Message 1 of 13 , May 31, 2004
      Melanie Brawn Mineo wrote:
      > Reiner Shürmann puts forth: the One, as no-thing (me on) and to-be
      > (to einai) "is best described as event" . . . . The One _is_ the
      > directionality of all things. As such, it is primordial time" ("The
      > One: Substance or Function?", in NEOPLATONISM AND NATURE, ed. M.
      > Wagner, SUNY Press: 2002, pp. 162-164).

      Pardon my intrusion, no student of Ancient Philosophy am I, but this sounds
      very un-Plotinian: Plotinus reminds us time and again that the One is
      without attributes, even oneness, and that time is characteristic of
      Universal Soul, Nous being timeless. On the latter point, I'm often confused
      by his "other" claim that there *is* change in Nous, and it is "boiling with
      life", so I may be wrong. If anybody would care to clear up my confusion
      then I would be indebted.
    • Melanie Brawn Mineo
      Since I don t usually get involved in these sorts of conversations, preferring drive-by interjections, please attribute all errors to beginner s mind.... Thank
      Message 2 of 13 , Jun 1, 2004
        Since I don't usually get involved in these sorts of conversations,
        preferring drive-by interjections, please attribute all errors to
        beginner's mind.... Thank you.

        Schürmann's article, to me, is _very_ interesting, simply perhaps
        because it shakes things up a bit. It first (?) appeared in
        NEOPLATONISM AND NATURE (2002), with an extended version to be found
        in his BROKEN HEGEMONIES (Indiana Univ Pr: 2003)—both posthumously.

        S. delineates an understanding of the difference between ONE
        (non-being) and NOUS/MIND (being) as being the difference between a
        verb and a noun. Plotinus himself never equates to hen with to einai,
        he says, however, a later Neoplatonist called "Anonymous of Turino,"
        writes: "The One that is beyond substance (ousia) and beyond being
        (ontos) is neither being, nor substance, nor act, but rather it acts
        and is itself pure acting, so that it is itself "the to be" (to
        einai), that which is prior to being (ontos)"(N & N, 159).

        This striking text, he says, states the ontological difference between
        the first and second hypostases as being "clearly expressed as the
        difference between 'to be' and 'a being'; between the indeterminate or
        pure 'is' and determinate sum of all beings; between the verbal and
        the nominal participle" (N & N, 160).

        Re the ONE/Primordial Time, he discusses this in the context of
        Heidegger's Ereignis—a notion he acknowledges as heretical within the
        context of Neoplatonism—but which, he adds, may allow us to raise the
        question of the _temporality_ (my emphasis) of the ONE. Perhaps our
        Heidegger experts in the group (you know who you are!) can elucidate? M


        --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "Andy K." <a.a553@n...> wrote:
        > Melanie Brawn Mineo wrote:
        > > Reiner Schürmann puts forth: the One, as no-thing (me on) and to-be
        > > (to einai) "is best described as event" . . . . The One _is_ the
        > > directionality of all things. As such, it is primordial time" ("The
        > > One: Substance or Function?", in NEOPLATONISM AND NATURE, ed. M.
        > > Wagner, SUNY Press: 2002, pp. 162-164).
        >
        > Pardon my intrusion, no student of Ancient Philosophy am I, but this
        sounds
        > very un-Plotinian: Plotinus reminds us time and again that the One is
        > without attributes, even oneness, and that time is characteristic of
        > Universal Soul, Nous being timeless. On the latter point, I'm often
        confused
        > by his "other" claim that there *is* change in Nous, and it is
        "boiling with
        > life", so I may be wrong. If anybody would care to clear up my confusion
        > then I would be indebted.
      • Giannis Stamatellos
        Bruno s position on the identity of Matter with the One appears in the fourth chapter of his work Cause, Principle and Unity. In this chapter, Bruno identifies
        Message 3 of 13 , Jun 2, 2004
          Bruno's position on the identity of Matter with the
          One appears in the fourth chapter of his work Cause,
          Principle and Unity. In this chapter, Bruno identifies
          the Plotinian sensible matter with intelligible
          matter. Actually, Wallis observes Bruno's argument and
          correctly mentions that on this identification he goes
          one step further than the ancient Neoplatonists.
          Within this framework, as you correctly point out, the
          Neoplatonic influence to later philosophical tradition
          appears to have multi-divergent undiscovered aspects.

          Best
          Giannis





          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
          http://messenger.yahoo.com/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.