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

Re: trinitarian and triadicRe: [neoplatonism] Re: What are the One and the No...

Expand Messages
  • dgallagher@aol.com
    Thomas, Helpful comments; in particular: 1. ...I have some degree of soul that integrates my inner forces .... What entices is the idea of soul as integral
    Message 1 of 44 , Aug 23, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Thomas,

      Helpful comments; in particular:

      1. "...I have some degree of soul that integrates my inner forces ...."
      What entices is the idea of soul as integral function. Seems like a
      perspective that's been waiting to be seen; for me, that is.

      2. "Perhaps the always fruitful or alchemical prima materia is being able
      to get back
      to that state where I and reality are a question. Where ideas are not
      answers but ferments."

      That prompted the thought of Intellect circumspecting the One collecting
      successive impressions. Here I think of will as aspiration or desire; the
      energia of Intellect his eternal contemplation of the One. But that implies
      a lack within the All; yet Intellect necessarily contemplates in order to
      exist, and that suggests he must somehow, therefore, subsist in the One.
      Anyway, it seems interesting to consider Intellect as ferment (singular);
      not to say that is what you meant with what you wrote.

      Prepositions are tricky parts of speech.

      David






      In a message dated 8/22/2012 7:44:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      thomas.r.mether@... writes:




      Soul as ladder, yes, but also unknown turf or a turf to be cultivated into
      an entity that counts for soul in the real sense. Nuts and bolts practical
      spirituality, within one there a variety of forces, impulses, desires, and
      etc., let us say a multitude of me-s or I-s (animated identifications). At
      minimum, one has soul to the extent your body is alive, has integrity as a
      bio-unit, but that is the bottom rung of an endless ladder.

      I suggest the various definitions of soul reflect various persons'
      adventures in soul. That is an endless task (whether Neoplatonic or not)
      where I am truly existent as I, when who or what I am is really a question.
      It does not matter how often one has been there, done that, so it is not
      about a beginner's state that gets surpassed by some advanced spiritual
      state. It is always, anew, who am I - what am I - as the eternal raw
      material for any "ascent". It includes relationships. The question of who
      or what am I most especially arises in who or what am I with others. This
      is why metaphysics, spirituality, and ethics are inseparable. The key is
      Socratic irony: in a state of wonder/question - I have some degree of soul
      that integrates my inner forces if passionate enough to inquire or learn.

      That is what, long addict to Hegel, I realize is the problem with him: all
      answers -- as Kierkegaard (who is very Hegelian while undermining it like a
      computer virus that mimics while undermining the host software) and
      foreordained outcomes. Hegel is a drug; not life.

      The uneasy thing I still struggle to be, is in that state of a philosopher
      rather than Sophos. The soul is a ladder, yes, but to climb its inner
      heights requires - a basic humility - not faked self-condemnation, but
      just, well,... that is best left between a directee and director. Perhaps
      the always fruitful or alchemical prima materia is being able to get back
      to that state where I and reality are a question. Where ideas are not
      answers but ferments.

      On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Robert Wallace <_bob@..._
      (mailto:bob@...) >wrote:

      > Hi David,
      >
      > Hegel's account of the "return" from nature to God is the second and
      third
      > sections (volumes) of his _Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences_
      (the
      > "Philosophy of Nature" and the "Philosophy of Spirit" [or "Philosophy of
      > Mind"]). Appetite, emotion, and reason are treated in the Phil of
      Spirit. I
      > give some fairly detailed commentary on these in chapter 6 of my _Hegel's
      > Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God_ (2005).
      >
      > I'd agree that the ladder is soul. Of course, "soul" is a highly
      contested
      > concept, both in Plato's time and in ours. The challenge is to explain it
      > in a way that doesn't seem obviously unacceptable to "common sense." I
      > think Plato does this in the Republic books that I mentioned.
      >
      > Best, Bob W
      >
      > On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:47 PM, _dgallagher@..._
      (mailto:dgallagher@...) wrote:
      >
      > > Thanks for this, Bob; serendipitous with what I've been working on of
      > > late. Where should I look in Hegel on the three parts of the soul? I'm
      > > considering the parts in relation to the three middles (means) in
      > Timaeus. Can
      > > we identify how many steps on the ladder? Are the middles related to
      the
      > > steps, following the ladder metaphor; the metaphor seeming appropriate.
      > >
      > > I didn't relate how each of us is our own ladder in my reply to Robert
      K,
      > > so, no, it wasn't there to be missed. Good question though. Off the
      cuff,
      > > I guess I'd posit the ladder as soul and proceed from there.
      > >
      > > Good to hear from you.
      > >
      > > David
      > >
      > >
      > > In a message dated 8/22/2012 4:09:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      > > _bob@..._ (mailto:bob@...) writes:
      > >
      > > Hello Robert K,
      > >
      > > Back to your earlier formulation:
      > >
      > > > I might listen to the silence for hours, unaware of passing thoughts,
      > > for
      > > > I have decided to ignore these in favor of the silence. Yet sooner or
      > > > later, I find myself munching a chocolate chip cookie. Try as I
      might,
      > I
      > > cannot
      > > > find the link between these two states, except to assemble
      cause-effect
      > > > chains within the multiplicity side of it. In the ensuing unfair
      > > argument,
      > > > the One has no voice, and the cookie-eater explains everything, in
      > > > cookie-eater terms, about the cookie-eating world.
      > > >
      > > > So where is the One? Back where the many are forgotten. And where are
      > > the
      > > > many? Right here in the world, where the One is forgotten.
      > >
      > > David told you, in response, that "you are the ladder" that will take
      you
      > > back from the cooky-eating to the One. But I didn't see a clear account
      > in
      > > what David wrote of _how_ you are the ladder. (I may well have missed
      > it.)
      > >
      > > In my view, Plato gives this account in Republic iv-vii, taken together
      > > (as commentators seldom seem to take them). Republic iv describes the
      > three
      > > parts of the soul, and how they can achieve One-ness under the
      > leadership of
      > > the rational part. Republic vi-vii then show how this "rational" part
      has
      > > to function, namely, by trying to determine what's really good and
      really
      > > true, as opposed to what the appetites and the "spirited" part (thumos)
      > take
      > > to be good and true. Why? Because everyone wants ultimately to get
      what's
      > > really good, and not just whatever they currently feel or think is
      good.
      > > Thus, the soul must "ascend" from the many appetites and emotions to
      the
      > One
      > > rational life.
      > >
      > > What this entails regarding relations between different souls, is
      better
      > > explained (IMO) in the Symposium than in the Republic, and in Hegel
      than
      > > (even) in the Symposium. But the initial ascent from multiplicity to
      > One-ness
      > > is laid out as clearly as one could wish in the Republic.
      > >
      > > I hope it's evident how this necessary ascent is the "ladder" from the
      > > many to the One, that you've been asking for and that David says you
      > "are."
      > > Likewise it's the "return" that Plotinus speaks of.
      > >
      > > Best, Bob W
      > >
      > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 11:00 PM, robert_tkoch wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In _neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) , dgallagher@... wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > You are your stepladder; kinda like the eyes already in your head
      > that
      > > you
      > > > > cannot see yet through which you possess vision;
      > > >
      > > > Thank you for this reminder. Yet after pursuing such self-seeing-self
      > > ideas for a while, I am no nearer the truth. And so I would say,
      again,
      > that
      > > I need a new kind of stepladder, one that I am not already being, to
      see
      > in
      > > a new manner.
      > > >
      > > > That is why I am asking about the Islamic interpretation of Plotinus,
      > > because I always find that Western philosophy eternally entangles
      itself
      > > within the complexity of its own fantastic, manifold ideas, even
      > en-wrapping
      > > the One with such ideas. Every time that I ask about the simplest of
      > > simplicities, from myself or from others, I only get a new complexity
      > about what is
      > > already complex.
      > > >
      > > > I know almost nothing about Islam. But I think that I perceive there
      a
      > > hint of a more ancient attitude, a certain stern respect for Allah that
      > is
      > > largely missing in the Western mind. And I wonder if --- somehow, in
      the
      > > sort of dream-analog that plays out in the history of ideas --- the
      > modern
      > > drama of Islamic rebirth, accompanied by the appearance of occasional
      > > violence, might actually be a reflection of this ancient true severity
      > as it
      > > encounters the excessive Western liberalism.
      > > >
      > > > My theory, my guess, is that the mind of humanity has gotten tired of
      > > Western laissez-faire, and would like to balance this extreme with a
      more
      > > conservative regimen.
      > > >
      > > > To my mind, Plato and Plotinus translated the perennial Eastern
      > > philosophy into dynamic Western terms. So it is the same, yet
      altogether
      > different
      > > too. The later idea that all subsequent Western philosophy is only a
      > > footnote to Plato, which I think is true, is then also only a further
      > reflection
      > > of the idea that all of Plato is a Western reflection of the East.
      > > >
      > > > Certainly, when I look to the East, I find plenty of respectful
      > > acknowledgement of the One, as the East quietly contemplates the One on
      > the One's
      > > own terms (silence, and cessation of the human ego for the time being).
      > And
      > > I appreciate the autocratic nature of any One-oriented religion as
      > > reflecting, in a necessarily human and imperfect way, that the One is
      > All, and we
      > > humans are very minor.
      > > >
      > > > So it seems, to me, that any partial synthesis of East and West,
      which
      > > will lead to a truly peaceful and dynamic interchange between all of
      East
      > > and West, must begin on the upper levels of East and West. And to my
      > mind,
      > > this might be where East and West already meet a little, for instance,
      > > perhaps, in something like Neoplatonic thought.
      > > >
      > > > Robert
      > > >
      > > > > The One has no voice because it has no need of voice. Voice "lies"
      > > within
      > > > > the province of confusion; the realm of mixture as outlined in
      > Timaeus
      > > and
      > > > > further elaborated through the interpretation of Proclus.
      > > > >
      > > > > Another way to consider forgetfulness is ignorance, recognizing the
      > > noun as
      > > > > derived from the verb (indicating activity): to ignore. To ignore
      > > > > presumes the presence of that which is presumably ignored. Such a
      > > presence must
      > > > > possess existence, regardless of any absence of awareness of that
      > > which is
      > > > > necessarily present. Hence, forgotten does not obviate presence.
      But
      > > the
      > > > > ladder is a whole consisting of parts, and our contemplation is an
      > > analogous
      > > > > ascent "through" the parts; the steps "in" the ladder; you yourself
      > as
      > > the
      > > > > ladder. This is the point, as I see it, of the bit about dialectic
      > > toward
      > > > > the end of VI in Republic.
      > > > >
      > > > > The equation between not-being and the many seems more explicit in
      > > > > Timaeus, contextualized as the mathematical proportions of the
      three
      > > middles
      > > > > between intelligible and sensible; again, steps with and in the
      > ladder
      > > of
      > > > > dialectic. Proclus' exegetic interruption is valuable in this
      regard,
      > > especially
      > > > > as augmented by Thomas Taylor's footnotes in his translation.
      > > > >
      > > > > "Difference comes from our fallibility." Rather, I would posit, our
      > > > > fallibility is a consequence of difference when we ignore the
      > > essential sameness
      > > > > which is immanent in all that we perceive as different. Difference
      > > > > separates. Sameness brings together. Contemplation unifies or sees
      > > (knows)
      > > > > sameness within the limits of its object (singular) of
      contemplation.
      > > And that
      > > > > entices us to the bridge (I prefer to conceptualize it as the door;
      > > doors,
      > > > > or steps, if we factor in the middles) between God, man, and our
      > > > > (collective plural) playground (again III.8.1 in terms of play,
      > > although the entire
      > > > > treatise with reference to contemplation); as I (mis?)understand
      it,
      > > the
      > > > > ultimate mistery [sic]; that which we miss in our ignorance of the
      > > presence.
      > > > >
      > > > > "How, starting right where we are?" First, by recognizing that you
      > are
      > > > > what you seek; viz, the stepladder. Next, through Plotinus'
      > > interpretation
      > > > > of Plato, with further reference to Proclus to help us understand
      > > Plotinus.
      > > > > The title of III.8 is telling: "On Nature and Contemplation". I
      like
      > > > > McKenna's rendering better: "Nature, Contemplation, and the One".
      > > Better in my
      > > > > view (indicating perspective) because it's descriptive of starting
      > > right
      > > > > where we are. Further noteworthy about the title is the placement
      of
      > > > > contemplation as a middle between extremes: viz, nature and the
      One.
      > > Middles,
      > > > > according to Plato, mediate between extremes. And mediate
      alliterates
      > > with
      > > > > meditate.
      > > > >
      > > > > Then, therefore, we start where we are; ontologically: the
      > > simultaneous
      > > > > presence of the mixture of essence, same, and different;
      > > intellectively:
      > > > > contemplation. But we must be careful to not separate Being and
      > > Intellect.
      > > > > Here I'd look to V.3 and VI.2, setting aside the other two genera
      in
      > > VI.2 for
      > > > > the sake of brevity here.
      > > > >
      > > > > Again, just some ideas.
      > > > >
      > > > > Oh, almost forgot. All mention of "presence" herein necessarily
      > > > > implicates the One; that is, we know the One through the presence
      of
      > > the One right
      > > > > here where we are. No presence; no contemplation. Best discussion
      in
      > > The
      > > > > Enneads, in my opinion: VI.4 & 5; which, as it occurs, were placed
      by
      > > > > Porphyry immediately prior to VI.6 where we encounter the seminal
      > > discussion of
      > > > > infinity and bound. As I interpret it, bound abounds throughout the
      > > > > Plotinian cosmic schema and is key to understanding Plato's wholes,
      > > middles, and
      > > > > Plotinus' doctrine of contemplation; how we get from one to many,
      and
      > > > > through the many back to one. Much to explore, both down the rabbit
      > > hole and
      > > > > back up via your stepladder with you yourself both ladder and
      > climber;
      > > > > abiding, converting, and returning all comprehended within
      infinite,
      > > eternal
      > > > > unity.
      > > > >
      > > > > David
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > In a message dated 8/20/2012 9:41:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      > > > > linyuuuu@... writes:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In __neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) _
      > > (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:neoplatoni
      sm@yahoogroups.com) )
      > > > > , Ebrahim Mousavi <brhmmsv@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Hi,
      > > > > > Thank you Robert
      > > > > > It seems you have a good sense towards this
      > > > > > approach, and I am glad for that. First I should say that I am
      only
      > > > > reporting
      > > > > > these beliefs, as I have understood, and second it is the
      > > theosophists
      > > > > who I
      > > > > > have focused on them but mystics have said more on this direction
      > > which
      > > > > I think
      > > > > > it is closer to what you are seeking for.
      > > > >
      > > > > I think so too. Yet reading Rumi, or Hafiz, or Shankara, even
      though
      > > the
      > > > > all-in-one dancing integrity of the All is clearly communicated
      > beyond
      > > any
      > > > > doubt, yet there is still no explanation about going from the utter
      > > > > simplicity and quietude of the One to the "boiling life" of the
      All.
      > > > >
      > > > > I might listen to the silence for hours, unaware of passing
      thoughts,
      > > for
      > > > > I have decided to ignore these in favor of the silence. Yet sooner
      or
      > > > > later, I find myself munching a chocolate chip cookie. Try as I
      > might,
      > > I cannot
      > > > > find the link between these two states, except to assemble
      > > cause-effect
      > > > > chains within the multiplicity side of it. In the ensuing unfair
      > > argument,
      > > > > the One has no voice, and the cookie-eater explains everything, in
      > > > > cookie-eater terms, about the cookie-eating world.
      > > > >
      > > > > So where is the One? Back where the many are forgotten. And where
      are
      > > the
      > > > > many? Right here in the world, where the One is forgotten.
      > > > >
      > > > > Thus, my interest in Plotinus. More than others in my experience,
      he
      > > does
      > > > > not let go of the quest for the One, and he does his best to
      > describe,
      > > > > without mythology, how the One might naturally, just in its own
      way
      > of
      > > original
      > > > > Being, emanate lesser things, which lesser things, being merely
      > > incident
      > > > > to itself, do not need to be rigorously explained with a strict
      > causal
      > > > > hierarchy, for they are sort of nonexistent anyway. Yet he too,
      > > cannot, using
      > > > > words, say what he saw beyond words. And I am simply looking for a
      > > > > stepladder that will help me to see what he saw.
      > > > >
      > > > > > Two things should be presupposed:
      > > > > > world (the created beings) cannot be neglected in a theistic
      > thought
      > > (as
      > > > > in
      > > > > > realists approach) because God is the creator, and God is over
      and
      > > above,
      > > > > > almost all reality, in a monotheistic religion (like Islamic
      one).
      > > > > Standing in
      > > > > > middle and putting both of these suppositions together is
      desirable
      > > for
      > > > > all
      > > > > > theist thinkers but each have been criticized from other
      different
      > > > > parties
      > > > > > within these religions. Neoplatonism, I think, have given the
      best
      > > way
      > > > > > approaching the transcendental part which is demanded in
      > > monotheistic
      > > > > religions
      > > > > > but keeping the distinction between the Garden of Eden and
      earthly
      > > life
      > > > > is also
      > > > > > very important in these religions.
      > > > > > Now, your question:
      > > > > > Â
      > > > > > >Because, if I say, "a
      > > > > > necessary product of the One," I am right back in a
      contradiction
      > > that I
      > > > > > cannot explain, as in, "How can the One be only One and yet have
      a
      > > > > > product?".
      > > > > > Â
      > > > > > Philosophical view has centered
      > > > > > on the oneness of God and weakening, as much as possible, the
      > > > > multiplicity of the
      > > > > > rest. But from mystical part, the entire world becomes one
      reality,
      > > that
      > > > > is
      > > > > > Being (as if, Parmenides presents himself), within which the
      others
      > > can
      > > > > be
      > > > > > seen.
      > > > >
      > > > > I think that Parmenides and Plotinus are similar, although
      Parmenides
      > > > > focused more simply on the One itself, all alone; also almost
      > > suggesting that
      > > > > it was unlawful to believe in the not-being, or the many. But the
      > > equation
      > > > > between not-being and the many was only implied, and this can be
      > > debated.
      > > > >
      > > > > My guess is that, if Parmenides could talk with us, he might say
      that
      > > > > seeing the many, itself, is like like seeing the face of Medusa,
      an
      > > > > instantaneous, automatic seduction into a state of non-divine
      > > paralysis.
      > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > On your question about
      > > > > > >How can there be any
      > > > > > contingency whatsoever related in any possible way to the One?
      > > > > > Â
      > > > > > Theosophists speak of the reality
      > > > > > as a hierarchical system and have formed a differential analogy.
      > > They
      > > > > say separation
      > > > > > between two things is not only by accidents, essence, or
      > difference,
      > > but
      > > > > it can
      > > > > > be also by intensity and weakness. The reality is one and it is
      > > Being,
      > > > > that is, it has one kind of essence and nature but at the same time
      > it
      > > has
      > > > > intensity and
      > > > > > weakness which makes differences meaningful. Differential analogy
      > is
      > > a
      > > > > kind of
      > > > > > separation that has a unity, in their words "their privilege is
      the
      > > same
      > > > > > as their participate".
      > > > > > Mystics believe that there is only
      > > > > > one reality, and nothing is in the being except the One.
      Difference
      > > > > comes from
      > > > > > our fallibility.
      > > > >
      > > > > Even though this statement about the mystics always leaves everyone
      > > > > feeling incomplete, I think it is essentially true. "Difference
      comes
      > > from our
      > > > > fallibility." We are the ones who imagine that the rope is a
      snake.
      > > > >
      > > > > But how do we find the bridge between God and man, the true bridge
      > > that
      > > > > makes this world into a divine or semi-divine playground? How,
      > > starting right
      > > > > where we are?
      > > > >
      > > > > Robert
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I have many questions and problems with these approaches
      > > > > > of thinking.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ________________________________
      > > > > > From: robert_tkoch <linyuuuu@>
      > > > > > To: __neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) _
      > > (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) )
      > > > >
      > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2012 10:17 AM
      > > > > > Subject: trinitarian and triadicRe: [neoplatonism] Re: What are
      the
      > > One
      > > > > and the Nous for you?
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Â
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In __neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) _
      > > > > (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) ) , Ebrahim Mousavi <brhmmsv@>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Greetings to Ebrahim.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Thanks for your answer. Please see my responses to your words
      > below,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Hi Robert
      > > > > > > I am sorry for being late in responding because I
      > > > > > > didn't access to internet.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > No problem, gives us all more time to think.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > For the first part of your question, If by "correspond
      > > > > > > to the Plotinian Nous" and "correspond exactly" you mean
      > > > > > >  "necessary product of the One", I can say yes, that's
      > > right.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Yes, I mean what you just said, but I also mean to look for the
      > > right
      > > > > way exactly, which I do not yet know. I believe that there must
      be a
      > > way of
      > > > > seeing the necessary emanation of the One without there being any
      > > > > contradiction. Because, if I say, "a necessary product of the
      One," I
      > > am right back
      > > > > in a contradiction that I cannot explain, as in, "How can the One
      be
      > > only
      > > > > One and yet have a product?". But I know, or believe, that the One
      > > does truly
      > > > > emanate all this. Yet try as I might, I cannot honestly explain the
      > > > > process by a sequence of understood ideas.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > This
      > > > > > > necessary being is not self necessary but necessaryÂÂ
      > > > > > > upon other (the One).  Here I should refer to different
      > > kind of
      > > > > > > contingency which theosophists have persisted on that.ÂÂ
      > > > > > > They deny essential
      > >
      > > > > > > contingency in beings which muslin peripatetics continue on
      that.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > How can there be any contingency whatsoever related in any
      possible
      > > way
      > > > > to the One? How can anyone "just say" these things without
      explaining
      > > > > exactly how it works? If the One is One, then there is no
      extraneous
      > > contingency
      > > > > anywhere for all eternity, as far as the One is concerned --- or,
      to
      > > be
      > > > > more accurate, as far as my mind, trying hard to imagine the
      > > simplicity of
      > > > > the One, is concerned.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I do not mean to be difficult, but in all good will I am simply
      > > sharing
      > > > > my own perplexity with this, in the hope that an Eastern wisdom
      will
      > > > > address this extremely basic and primal level, before we get into
      > > anything more
      > > > > intricate and manifold.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > Instead, they
      > > > > > > believe on
      > > > > > >  existential contingency that became known as Poverty
      > > Contingency.
      > > > > There
      > > > > > > are two kinds of beings or realities:ÂÂ
      > > > > > > one is not in need to efficient cause for
      > > > > > > its existence and the other is in need. The first is
      essentially
      > > rich
      > > > > and the
      > > > > > >  other is essentially poor. It means that the being of
      > > the second
      > > > > one is the
      > > > > > > same as its dependence,ÂÂ
      > > > > > > not something which needs the cause and it would be
      > > > > > > accidental (that is, the perspective from nature or quiddity).
      > > > > >
      > > > > > This seems to be closer to something I can understand. Certainly,
      > > the
      > > > > One is infinitely rich beyond all richness --- and any contingent
      > > emanation,
      > > > > not being the One, is poor. And this necessarily-attached poverty
      is
      > > > > therefore a trademark of all mortal life, a statement of the
      sadness
      > > of
      > > > > mortality, the impermanence of all compounded forms, the essential
      > > limitedness of
      > > > > life that only endures for a little while.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > And yet, life has its own wonderful supply of reflected Oneness,
      > its
      > >
      > > > > virtues and intelligence and love. Obviously, the One has emanated
      > its
      > > Oneness
      > > > > into these little ones. We can almost see it doing this. Yet how
      can
      > > it be
      > > > > simply explained?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Then I think your question on following subject can
      > > > > > > be answered from what have been said now.
      > > > > > > >Indeed, I have to ask, as
      > > > > > > always: why can't God just be God, and why must he emanate all
      > > this?
      > > > > Since much
      > > > > > > of this is apparently ungodly, why does he go to the trouble to
      > > undo
      > > > > himself?
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > God is not different or separate from other things while
      > > > > > > is not the same as them also. There is a philosophical rule
      > > > > > >  in theosophist's
      > > > > > > kind of thinking which says "The essentially necessary is the
      > > whole
      > > > > things
      > > > > > > while is none of them",ÂÂ
      > > > > > > "Al-Vajib o be al-dzat e kol o al-ashya' e va
      > > > > > > laysa be shayen minha" . It seems paradoxical but they argue
      onÃâ
      > > ��Â
      > > > > > > that by
      > > > > > > insisting the absolute simplicity of God which means it is the
      > > simple
      > > > > reality.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I think that this is true, and I believe that, deep down, all
      > > creatures
      > > > > know that this is true. I can imagine, almost see, feel as a
      reality,
      > > think
      > > > > about the One emanating the cosmos in a mind-astonishing miracle,
      and
      > > know
      > > > > that it just is, that it is both One and many, and if it just is,
      > then
      > > who
      > > > > am I to insist that it be understandable to my own little mind?.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > But when there are parts that do not fit into this neat mandala,
      I
      > > think
      > > > > that this must be because there are parts of our mind that do not
      see
      > > > > truly in the first place. And that it might be these lower parts
      of
      > > our mind
      > > > > which interject their own inclusion into the thinking and seeing,
      > > leading
      > > > > everything back to the ever-unanswered good-and-evil duality
      again.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > The
      > > > > > > argument for thisÂÂ
      > > > > > > rule has risen from three ways: differential analogy,
      > > > > > > efficient cause of God, and the absolute simplicity of God.
      > > > > > > Speaking of things as the"Relational being"is harmonized for
      this
      > > kind
      > > > > of view on the world. As
      > > > > > > I have saidÂÂ
      > > > > > > before (in ambiguous way), effects have mere relational
      existence
      > > > > > > which is subtler than relational being,ÂÂ
      > > > > > > the first have not even in itself
      > > > > > > existence while the second have.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Does anyone in Islam say something like this? That there is a
      > > central
      > > > > Oneness that is all right being all-in-all because there is
      nothing
      > in
      > > the
      > > > > all-in-all that is in any way different from the One? That, unlike
      > our
      > > world,
      > > > > there is another world, or a higher side of this world, that,
      devoid
      > > of
      > > > > evil or otherness, has no problem being everything and One both
      > > together, for
      > > > > every one in that cosmos is as good and high, as far as little
      beings
      > > can
      > > > > be, as the One itself?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > This, I think, is the Garden of Eden, where men remain the way
      God
      > > made
      > > > > them to be; and from earth, they look like angels, or like Adam
      and
      > > Eve in
      > > > > happiness.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Then, conversely, this earth would be another place, where evil
      > > prevents
      > > > > the all from being the One, even though it really is the One,
      except
      > > that
      > > > > it cannot know it, for it refuses the virtue that would allow it to
      > > see.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > And that the task of men in this world is to realize that they
      are
      > > > > emanations of their own souls, of souls who are even now living in
      > > that higher
      > > > > world, those on earth being mere shadows of actual men, here dim in
      > > virtue.
      > > > > And that the thing for them to do is to sort of disappear in their
      > > dimness
      > > > > by letting their light shine, by allowing their better side to show
      > > forth
      > > > > more often.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > So that the dilemma would be resolved: the One and the all are
      > > actually
      > > > > One, and always have been; and only the people out there, believing
      > in
      > > > > their own separate existence, refuse to acknowledge and live by
      this.
      > > And the
      > > > > outer people, forgetful of the One, have invented all the languages
      > > and
      > > > > trains of thought that keep the all seemingly apart from the One.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Here, I am repeating various lore, and also sharing my own obse
      > > rvations;
      > > > > yet I truly wonder if Islam says something like this, hopefully
      more
      > > than
      > > > > this.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > >This needs more discussion,ÂÂ
      > > > > > > and I will think
      > > > > > > that for the next time.
      > > > > > > Moosavi.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I agree.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Robert
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > ________________________________
      > > > > > > From: robert_tkoch <linyuuuu@>
      > > > > > > To: __neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) _
      > > > > (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) )
      > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 2:21 AM
      > > > > > > Subject: trinitarian and triadicRe: [neoplatonism] Re: What
      are
      > > the
      > > > > One and the Nous for you?
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > ÂÂ
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In __neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) _
      > > > > (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) ) , Ebrahim Mousavi <brhmmsv@>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > But, in serious speeches they believe more on second part of
      > > > > > > > Jami's speech as "pictures or shadows" not illusions.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Within Islamic thought --- does the first and highest part of
      the
      > > > > picture or shadow correspond to the Plotinian Nous, and does it
      > > correspond
      > > > > exactly? Is the picture a simple and self-necessary product of the
      > One
      > > being
      > > > > One, but also of a sort of necessity that all possible things,
      though
      > > not
      > > > > existent like the One, may exist in their own picture-like or
      > > shadow-like
      > > > > manner?
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Would this, then, correspond to the Greek Moira, the fate that
      > has
      > > its
      > > > > own way within Creation, a sort of statement that this necessity
      of
      > > > > little-existences, little-pictures, is somehow required, and that
      all
      > > of the
      > > > > powers must obey it? Except for Zeus, who must both obey and
      > not-obey,
      > > even as
      > > > > the One allows it to be and also transcends it?
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > World (cosmos) has things which they are
      > > > > > > > beings and it means that they reflect the Being or One. Then
      > any
      > > > > being other
      > > > > > > > than God (or One) is being in relation to God. This has been
      > > spoken
      > > > > under the
      > > > > > > > "Relational being".
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Is this the same as the above? Is all relational Being an
      ongoing
      > > > > emanation from the original, a mere secondary?
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > If so, then there is God, and also the necessity for God to
      > > emanate,
      > > > > and this makes two. Indeed, I have to ask, as always: why can't God
      > > just be
      > > > > God, and why must he emanate all this? Since much of this is
      > > apparently
      > > > > ungodly, why does he go to the trouble to undo himself?
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I know that Plotinus remarked that this is because all possible
      > > things
      > > > > must exist, and that is fine. But I still cannot understand how the
      > > > > self-sufficient God got from his eternity to all this without a
      > > compulsion.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Everyone is always vague about this. Even Plato resorted to
      myth
      > > and
      > > > > feeling. There might be a fall, or a guilty disobedience by the
      > > creature, or
      > > > > a swooning into forgetfulness; or God may have done this for his
      love
      > > for
      > > > > all the creatures thus to be created; or God just loves to dance.
      Yet
      > > all
      > > > > of these are too obviously human inventions, and they never answer
      > the
      > > > > question.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > So I am wondering --- does the subtlest part of Islamic thought
      > > have a
      > > > > subtle answer for this? I would like to hear it, even though I may
      > not
      > > be
      > > > > subtle enough to understand.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Robert
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Hi Roberth
      > > > > > > > I think it is difficult to find in Islamic thought someone
      > > > > > > > who denies whole world. In the writings of important
      thinkers,
      > > both
      > > > > > > > philosophers and mystics, we find some passages which they
      > speak
      > > > > about world as
      > > > > > > > something which is not real or is illusion. Jami, a mystic
      > says:
      > > > > "all you
      > > > > > > > see in the world are imaginations or illusions ÃÆ'¢ââ�‚
      > > �šÂ¬Ã‚¦ or
      > > > > else are pictures on mirror
      > > > > > > > or shadows". But, in serious speeches they believe more on
      > > second
      > > > > part of
      > > > > > > > Jami's speech as "pictures or shadows" not illusions.
      Sometimes
      > > they
      > > > > > > > distinct between Ignorant sufis which they speak of world as
      > > > > illusions and say
      > > > > > > > everything is god and there is nothing else and Aware sufis
      who
      > > > > believe weaken and
      > > > > > > > mean things cannot be god.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > You have said:
      > > > > > > > >So I wonder --- in the
      > > > > > > > subtle Islamic tradition --- does anyone take seriously the
      > > absolute
      > > > > and
      > > > > > > > unchangeable Oneness of the One and strongly refuse to
      > > compromise
      > > > > that Oneness
      > > > > > > > with dualistic thinking? And then, because we live in the
      > > duality,
      > > > > does he say
      > > > > > > > something about the nature of the duality which somehow
      > > justifies or
      > > > > explains
      > > > > > > > its actual and meaningful place with regard to the One?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I should speak about the
      > > > > > > > continue tradition of theosophists (Mulla Sadra's tradition
      of
      > > > > thinking) that
      > > > > > > > one branch of its interpretation have weakened as much as
      > > possible
      > > > > the multiple
      > > > > > > > part of the world. Theosophists distinct between world and
      > being
      > > > > which are the
      > > > > > > > other side of essence and existence. World (cosmos) has
      things
      > > which
      > > > > they are
      > > > > > > > beings and it means that they reflect the Being or One. Then
      > any
      > > bein
      > > > > g other
      > > > > > > > than God (or One) is being in relation to God. This has been
      > > spoken
      > > > > under the
      > > > > > > > "Relational being". Some more mystical interpretation of this
      > > > > > > > tradition,ÃÆ'‚ although they
      > > > > > > > are called as philosophers,ÃÆ'‚ distinct
      > > between relational
      > > > > being and
      > > > > > > > be only a relation.ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
      > > They say there are
      > > > > > > > two kinds of cosmological being, one is complete and the
      other
      > > is
      > > > > imperfect.
      > > > > > > > Their exemplar kinds of these being are verbal word and
      > > > > prepositional word.
      > > > > > > > Things and beings in the world in relation with God (or
      One) is
      > > more
      > > > > like a
      > > > > > > > prepositional word than a verbal one.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > ________________________________
      > > > > > > > From: robert_tkoch <linyuuuu@>
      > > > > > > > To: __neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) _
      > > > > (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) )
      > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 4:33 AM
      > > > > > > > Subject: trinitarian and triadicRe: [neoplatonism] Re: What
      are
      > > the
      > > > > One and the Nous for you?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > --- In __neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) _
      > > > > (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) ) , Ebrahim Mousavi <brhmmsv@>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Some mystics has said there is no such
      > > > > > > > > thing as multiplicity and it is a kind of illusion. All
      thing
      > > is
      > > > > is God; they
      > > > > > > > > have said different kinds of pantheism. What we have said
      was
      > > by
      > > > > supposition of
      > > > > > > > > the reality for both sides of God (and One) and creature
      (or
      > > > > multiplicity) and
      > > > > > > > > of accepting a deep relation between them upon Islamic
      > > > > Neo-Platonism.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Thank you. And yes --- regarding your answer above --- that
      is
      > > what
      > > > > I am wondering. In the Islamic tradition, does anyone take this
      idea
      > > > > further, to its natural conclusion?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I mean --- when you said:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Some mystics has said there is no such
      > > > > > > > > thing as multiplicity and it is a kind of illusion. All
      thing
      > > is
      > > > > is God;
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Does anyone then say, "Ok. That is that. There is no God but
      > > God,
      > > > > and that is the end of it." That is, God is only God, there is no
      > > other, and
      > > > > anything else being said might be said, but the saying is not about
      > > God.
      > > > > The saying, then, is ourselves, chattering away godlessly in a
      > > not-Godian,
      > > > > self-made illusion.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > It seems to me that the Sufis might have said this, and that
      > Lao
      > > Tze
      > > > > and Chuang Tzu also seemed to say this. But I wondered if the
      > > Islamists
      > > > > might have pursued this point with a greater analysis and
      > distinction.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > It also seems that Plotinus said this, that the One is
      entirely
      > > > > beyond all distinctions and differentiations, including the
      > difference
      > > of
      > > > > maker and made, God and man, and all the rest.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I have been thinking about this for many years, attempting to
      > > bridge
      > > > > the gap between my concept of the One and my concept of the many.
      But
      > > > > every time that I think that I have explained it, it turns out
      that I
      > > have
      > > > > actually simply forgotten the One, and am now embroiled in another
      > > bright idea
      > > > > or scheme that just distracts me with its nonsense, so that I
      forget
      > > the
      > > > > original, honest perplexity.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > For instance, when you said,
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >God is the creator but this is his
      > > > > > > > > acting attribute which is different from his essential
      > > attributes.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > This seems to me to be again a jumping back to this dualistic
      > > world,
      > > > > where God might have multiple qualities, like an acting attribute
      > that
      > > is
      > > > > different from an essential attribute. Or that God has any
      attributes
      > > at
      > > > > all --- this means that we are firmly ensconced back in duality
      > again.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > So I wonder --- in the subtle Islamic tradition --- does
      anyone
      > > take
      > > > > seriously the absolute and unchangeable Oneness of the One and
      > > strongly
      > > > > refuse to compromise that Oneness with dualistic thinking? And
      then,
      > > because
      > > > > we live in the duality, does he say something about the nature of
      the
      > > > > duality which somehow justifies or explains its actual and
      meaningful
      > > place with
      > > > > regard to the One?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I realize, of course, one place in Islam where this is
      evident:
      > > in
      > > > > the respectful religiousness and surrender of ego that the true
      > > worshipper
      > > > > shows to the One. But I am wondering if this essential and
      mandatory
      > > respect
      > > > > of the creature for his Creator has also manifested as a reasonable
      > > verbal
      > > > > teaching that is helpful to the creature's understanding?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Robert Tkoch
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > --- In __neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) _
      > > > > (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) ) , Ebrahim Mousavi <brhmmsv@>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Hi
      > > > > > > > > Roberth
      > > > > > > > > I
      > > > > > > > > appreciate for your attendance and excuse me for being off
      > for
      > > > > five days and
      > > > > > > > > didn't check my email. You have asked:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >Within the Islamic tradition, does anyone say, "Let us
      not
      > do
      > > > > this. Let us not look for ways in which the One might become many,
      > for
      > > if the
      > > > > One becomes many, then the One is not One. And the essential
      sanctity
      > > of
      > > > > God is that God is forever only God, and not just a producer of all
      > > the
      > > > > not-God."
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Well,
      > > > > > > > > I can say that it has been a debate about the truth of God
      > and
      > > the
      > > > > rest (ma seva
      > > > > > > > > allah) among some philosophers and theologians. Some
      believes
      > > the
      > > > > common words
      > > > > > > > > between them like being are just equivocal. Then
      attributing
      > > > > multiplicity to
      > > > > > > > > God or vice versa would totally be wrong. God is the
      creator
      > > but
      > > > > this is his
      > > > > > > > > acting attribute which is different from his essential
      > > attributes.
      > > > > Creation
      > > > > > > > > belongs to volition of God and that is his acting attribute
      > > and it
      > > > > makes a
      > > > > > > > > separation between him and his essence.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Some mystics has said there is no such
      > > > > > > > > thing as multiplicity and it is a kind of illusion. All
      thing
      > > is
      > > > > is God; they
      > > > > > > > > have said different kinds of pantheism. What we have said
      was
      > > by
      > > > > supposition of
      > > > > > > > > the reality for both sides of God (and One) and creature
      (or
      > > > > multiplicity) and
      > > > > > > > > of accepting a deep relation between them upon Islamic
      > > > > Neo-Platonism.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >"Let us rather ask --- if One is only One, then what is
      this
      > > > > necessarily not-One, nonexistent life in which we seem to be
      being?
      > > Who are
      > > > > these questioners?"
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > All
      > > > > > > > > Muslim neo plationist philosophers accept being as
      essential
      > > for
      > > > > all beings
      > > > > > > > > which it's impossible to negate existence from them. Then,
      > > both
      > > > > One and the rest
      > > > > > > > > will count as necessity. Although, the necessity goes for
      > > essence
      > > > > in
      > > > > > > > > peripatetic philosophy,ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Ã
      > > ‚Â it is the
      > > > > > > > > property of light for illuminationist, and it is only for
      > > being in
      > > > > Mulla Sadra.
      > > > > > > > > The
      > > > > > > > > other point which should not be neglected is that
      necessity
      > in
      > > > > theosophy
      > > > > > > > > sometimes is logical and sometimes is philosophical
      > > (ontological).
      > > > > What peripatetic
      > > > > > > > > says about the necessity of essence here is a logical or
      > > > > propositional
      > > > > > > > > necessity. Philosophical (ontological) necessity is opposed
      > > to
      > > > > contingency of
      > > > > > > > > poverty which is one kind of contingency. ÃÆ'Æ'ââ‚
      > > ¬Å¡ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
      > > > > Contingency of poverty stands for multiplicity
      > > > > > > > > and its reality is belonging to the other. Then a
      contingent
      > > being
      > > > > will be contingent
      > > > > > > > > from ontological point of view and necessity from logical
      > > point
      > > > > of view.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > ________________________________
      > > > > > > > > From: robert_tkoch <linyuuuu@>
      > > > > > > > > To: __neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) _
      > > > > (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) )
      > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 1:02 AM
      > > > > > > > > Subject: trinitarian and triadicRe: [neoplatonism] Re: What
      > > are
      > > > > the One and the Nous for you?
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > --- In __neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) _
      > > > > (mailto:_neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com) ) , Ebrahim Mousavi <brhmmsv@>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > If the group doesn't mind I will report briefly the
      > relation
      > > > > between One and Many in Islamic Neoplatonic
      > > > > > > > > > theme of philosophy.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Many thanks for your clear explanation of these points.
      > > Regarding
      > > > > the Islamic Neoplatonic tradition, I have a question:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Within the Islamic tradition, does anyone say, "Let us not
      do
      > > > > this. Let us not look for ways in which the One might become many,
      > for
      > > if the
      > > > > One becomes many, then the One is not One. And the essential
      sanctity
      > > of God
      > > > > is that God is forever only God, and not just a producer of all
      the
      > > > > not-God."
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > "Let us rather ask --- if One is only One, then what is
      this
      > > > > necessarily not-One, nonexistent life in which we seem to be being?
      > > Who are
      > > > > these questioners?"
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Then, I would like to hear what else he might say.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Robert
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Before, I should thank those who replied my previous
      > question.
      > > > > > > > > > Beside those who reject this relation, there are four
      kinds
      > > of
      > > > > interpretation on One and many. Two of them
      > > > > > > > > > are from peripatetic part, one in illuminationist and the
      > > other
      > > > > from theosophist part. Farabi, as a peripatetic,
      > > > > > > > > > proposes a dyadic form. One produces only one which is
      the
      > > > > Intellect and Intellect on thinking of itself which
      > > > > > > > > > is contingent produces the first sphere and on thinking
      of
      > > the
      > > > > essence of the One which is necessity produces
      > > > > > > > > > the next intellect. Ibn Sina, as the second an important
      > > > > peripatetic, introduces triadic form. One produces only
      > > > > > > > > > one and it is Intellect which on thinking of its
      necessity
      > > in
      > > > > relation to the One produces the second intellect, on
      > > > > > > > > > thinking of its contingency produces the matter of the
      > > sphere
      > > > > and on thinking of its existence it produces the form
      > > > > > > > > > of the sphere.
      > > > > > > > > > Illuminationst tradition goes on a dyadic procedure but
      it
      > > > > speaks of lights instead of intellect. Theosophists, which
      > > > > > > > > > have the most supporters on recent time in Iran, speaks
      of
      > > One
      > > > > as a being without any qualification and from itÃÆ'Æ'Ã�€ 'ÃÆ'Â
      > > ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡ÃÆ'
      > > > > Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
      > > > > > > > > > comes out one common simple and expanded being which is
      the
      > > > > excel of all multiplicity and qualified beings. ThisÃÆ'Æ'Ã�€ 'Ã
      > > Æ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'
      > > > > Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
      > > > > > > > > > interpretation being very close to Islamic mysticism
      > differs
      > > > > from it on accepting the reality ofÃÆ'Æ'Ã�€ 'ÃÆ'¢ââ�‚
      > > �šÂ¬Ã…¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
      > > > >  multiplicity and eternal
      > > > > > > > > > fluxes. It speaks of unity just as multiplicity and of
      > > > > multiplicity just as unity.
      > > > > > > > > > In historic revolving, the production of One has changed
      > > from
      > > > > intellect to being and all tree kinds of being (the One,
      > > > > > > > > > the common and expanded being, and the rest of beings)
      have
      > > one
      > > > > reality which has reflected from the One, and that
      > > > > > > > > > is being.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > MoosaviÃÆ'Æ'Ã�€ 'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡Ã
      > > Æ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
      > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Ã�€ 'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'Ã
      > > ¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Ã�€ 'ÃÆ'¢ââ
      > > > > €šÂ¬Ã…¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > _,_.___
      > > > > > > > > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post |
      > > Start a
      > > > > New Topic Messages in this topic (15)
      > > > > > > > > > Recent Activity:
      > > > > > > > > > Visit Your Group
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ÃÆ'Æ'Ã�€ 'ÃÆ'â�‚
      > > �šÃ‚¢ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'
      > > > > ¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'‚¬ÃÆ'Æ'âââ
      > > ��¬Å¡ÃÆ'‚¢ Unsubscribe ÃÆ'Æ'Ã�€ 'ÃÆ'â
      > > > > €šÃ‚¢ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ÅÂ
      > > ¡ÃÆ'‚¬ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚¢
      > > Terms of
      > > > > Use
      > > > > > > > > > .
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > Robert Wallace
      > > website: www.robertmwallace.com
      > > email: _bob@..._ (mailto:bob@...)
      > > phone: 414-617-3914
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      >
      > Robert Wallace
      > website: www.robertmwallace.com
      > email: _bob@..._ (mailto:bob@...)
      > phone: 414-617-3914
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >

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






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dgallagher@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/26/2012 1:04:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, linyuuuu@gmail.com writes: Or, to put it more mildly, that the evidence of the senses in no
      Message 44 of 44 , Sep 26, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 9/26/2012 1:04:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        linyuuuu@... writes:

        Or, to put it more mildly, that the evidence of the senses in no way
        argues for an absolutely good source for all of this. The evidence of the senses
        indicates something pretty ignorant and bad.


        Sounds like the cracking of thin ice to me. The senses may be understood
        as apprehending "evidence", but not the assessment thereof as "ignorant and
        bad." Further, we ought be cautious with our understanding of references
        to "evil" in the ancient sources, as they more typically appear to me as
        allusions to separation from the real or true without any moral implicate
        intended.

        What you see is what you get depends upon what is seeing.

        David



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