Re: Divine Darkness
- 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 Ereignisa notion he acknowledges as heretical within the
context of Neoplatonismbut 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 email@example.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
> 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
> by his "other" claim that there *is* change in Nous, and it is
> life", so I may be wrong. If anybody would care to clear up my confusion
> then I would be indebted.
- 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.
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.