1998-04-14 NSPRS 095 - Plato's Parmenides and the Diamond Sutra

[Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] this evening we're going to explore three words and therefore we may very likely need three follow-up talks for each one of the subjects not one talk with three but in any case I am interested in making this comparison because I'd like to make a couple of points and in doing it I think I'm going to lead you to a curious conclusion and the conclusion I think is going to be summarized in terms of the problem of fairness that's where we're going problem of fairness so let me jump into it first I'd like to take up the Diamond Sutra but before I do that I have just one small question I'm sure you all have very good answers to nothing and something now on any level that you want to take this on what basis do you say something or nothing that's going to be the fundamental issue so then would you be willing to go along with the following reasoning if there's nothing it's likely you're not going to be able to have a perception of it is that safe to say good is it equally likely that we can be comfortable and coming to a tentative conclusion that if there is something and you make a claim that there is something you should have some perception or experience of it here's the whole problem for the evening they are a set of things for which there is no specific perception and therefore there's no specific experience of it now I'm using the word perception in the widest sense any way of knowing so it's really cognition any cognitive experience so experience is going to include the entire intellectual facilities so all the ways in which we apprehend anything good now look here strictly speaking then can we say that right now if you have a perception of something it should very likely ah there's a piece of chalk that if you have a perception of something you should be able to make some statement about the things you perceived now if you do that would you agree in some way you have to distinguish it from something else or all else no like your self so mind can you have a perception of it then you have a unique experience of it and nothing else that's where we're on so now that we've just explored that for a moment I'd like to now quote a few lines from the Diamond Sutra now I'm taking this from Edward con Z's translation and the Diamond Sutra is part of the project on parameter sutra which includes a whole tradition of some six or seven hundred years that is to say there is no specific author for those now at 14 C and the translation that I'm using which is the Buddhist wisdom books it's a very fine translation at 14 C he makes this comment I looked at it now take a look at in them however no perception of a self will take place or a being a soul or a person that is indeed no perception and why because the Buddha's the lords have left all perception behind where they are there's no presumption however they are functioning their functioning beyond the realm of perception if so if they are beyond all perception then would you agree whether or not you can perceive these things or not in one seven one sense we can ignore it because they're beyond all perception now look at the next one oh no this follows it with my superhuman knowledge I recall that in the past I've had five hundred births or reincarnation led the life of the sage devoted to patience then also I have had no perception of itself a being a soul or a person there is nothing there to perceive therefore they come up with this very fine insight that since there is nothing like this we can say the truth of the nature of reality is emptiness that means not that there is a state of nothingness but it's empty of self soul mind ego therefore if you get a clear perception of the highest level you'll find that there's the idea of self soul is a metaphor something that we use to collect many ideas together but in essence there's nothing there specifically to experience now here he leaves all perception behind and for these five hundred births of course and reincarnation he says he's had no perception of it so he's taking both sides here is beyond and here there is none now this is repeated throughout the Diamond Sutra in a variety of ways and in the famous platform Sutra to be able to perceive the truth of that immediately is enlightenment that's what enlightenment is so to be able then to just emptiness that is the experience of Satori that's enlightenment now that's rather interesting it all rests upon this one-word perception all right how about you the beyond it or there's no possible way in which you can encounter anything that remotely resembles a unique thing that goes by any of those names that's the entire tradition that's the heart of Buddhism in the Mahayana sense in the northern school to grasp that immediately without any intervening thoughts to be able to just be there and recognize the truth of it that's a nice no go further now I'd like to bring up another tour another issue a curious one therefore I need my marker I'd like to know about this curious word that comes up again and again that comes up breakdown comes up again look look there comes up again I'd like to know is what is the negation what is I know what is the negation what sanitation I need to know that because everything that follows hinges upon the word perception and the word know huh we have an example I know something that exists in some way but it never moves motion does motional or did things in motion move does motional or the things in motion move oh oh they're motion doesn't move oh I see there's no motion in motion ah thank you ha ha gosh there's no motion amazing hey you know about that is no motion hey but wait a minute would you go further and risk another judgment there's no motion in motion could you not say however that anything in motion in some way derives its source of motion from motion so when is it possible then that in a very interesting way a certain set of negations that you deny something having it can also said to be the source of what it is that's denied let's take the trivial sense of it this no matter how much you argue this is not reincarnation sir would you concur with that judgment would you like to examine it yourself or is it sufficient to say I can go along with judgment that this is not really good good but even though it is not reincarnation you're not going to say this is the source of reincarnation are you so then there's some things that you can deny negative the particular characteristic but yet that particular characteristic is denied from the thing that is denied or negated is that right well then there are two classes of negative things would that fall from our reasoning good good now you may later worry about whether or not you gave me too much when you agreed to this what don't you see didn't you agree that this is not this is not reincarnation yes but yet it's not the source of negative reincarnation therefore that's one use of the word no one not is it not but wait didn't we say that motion is not in motion but only things are well then that's a negation motion is not moving and we can even go further and say it's also not in rest agree but motion is the source of motion I say I say then you do understand the two uses of the word negation and no since you just agreed to two different kinds of knowing and negation you're not sure whether it's as you know one of these sly of hand tricks of course quite right now look here another go now we're gonna go a little bit more see motion itself does not move but rather the move thing moves yet the negation is applied to motion for it doesn't move great everything's your what we just said and another one look here each physical attribute is itself free from the relevant characteristic for itself being simple either exists or does not exist whereas what what what hat what experience is the experience through it is the composite body that is to say this is in motion in a composite body it moves all right it moves it's in a composite body it moves it experiences for the experience it experiences yet we experience the experience don't experience by God we're pretty clever right so each physical attribute is itself free from the relevant characteristic for itself being simple it either exists or does not exist now I like this quote which is why I made a page of this quote that I handed out tonight so let me see if I can now draw a conclusion now we can go back to the conclusion here's the conclusion now so these negatives or these negations are the causes of the corresponding assertions now let's see what that means okay let me take it up from let's just take a quick view of Plato's dialectic for anything that you explore rationally you can make 24 assertions 12 of them are going to be positive and 12 are going to be negative of the 12 you have four categories that are plus and four characters that are negative for each category you can say three things you can assert three things that it is true that it is false that is both true and false therefore you have three times four which should be 12 positive assertions and three times four is twelve twelve negative assertions now you should be able to break those up into a systematic model which is what the subject that you are speaking about you can talk about the thing itself that is to say if you want we'll talk about you or we'll talk about motion or we'll talk about likeness or we'll talk about the one it doesn't matter it follows that then you can say 12 positive things about you all right there now what are they you can say three classes of statements about yourself what is true about you what is false about you what is going to be said to be both true and false now you can also say can you not the way you are in respect to other people tats and beer cans that is say you can say things about yourself that are true/false and both true and false and you can also make assertions about others and the influence you have on others you can also make three statements about that that are both true false and true and false and you can of course make statements about the effect these things these things have upon themselves the interrelationship between these things independent of you and that's another three and you can then talk about how these same kinds of things that we just described are related back to you so these are the four categories you can talk about you you can talk about the one you can talk about knowledge you can talk about any subject and you can make their 4 3 6 9 12 positive assertions and you can also say what it is not suppose you are not what would follow with you or not all right then you can say 3 things about them all right if you are not what effect would that have on everything else what could what effect would that have among themselves and what effect would all those things have back on yourself if you do not exist though those are basically the twelve now any any any subject whatsoever no you can do with likeness you can do with soul you can do with emotion any idea what thing now in these 12 just to talk about Plato's Parmenides for a moment they are in nine hypotheses now notice that doesn't fit for employers eight or nine hey yeah we got nine categories well okay Parmenides and the second hypothesis talks about the way it is in respect to itself third fourth fifth six seven eight nine these are the four sets of positive assertions just as we said a moment ago these are the negative and this is whether or not you can talk about the subject itself in itself by itself because whatever you're talking about you have to define that first so therefore there are nine categories or what they're called hypotheses now they are ordered in a very interesting way they're over ordered in two ways one structurally of course all right you can put two three four five those are the positive assertions about the nature of reality and six seven eight nine and you will find that the things that are asserted of the second hypotheses are denied and the sixth those that are asserted of the third are denied of the seventh and so on now therefore they're also interrelationships between these which are very interesting to work out but this is basically the model and upon which all of this theoretical thought works now we can also arrange it not in this geometrical packet fashion where is a cube but we can also arrange it as a hierarchy now this is a hierarchical model the highest concept is the one itself the one that's the first hypothesis the second hypothesis is intelligence the third soul the fourth soul and matter or body living beings soul and matter fifth one matter alone so one two three four five now you see what's kuwait interesting is going to be this so these negations are the causes of the corresponding assertions okay what the heck does that mean that means if we can line up all the things when Plato talks about the nature of the one if we can list we can make a list of all that he says about the one there's a whole bunch of negatives there's a whole bunch of negatives and we'll go through them all right whole bunch of negatives but wait a minute this is saying so these negations are the causes of the corresponding assertions therefore if the first hypothesis is denying a whole set of ideas they become the assertion for the second hypothesis that's the way he builds him to say therefore in the same way the first couldn't be said to be the cause of the second why they're derived from the second this is the way it's structured to logically write therefore everything then which is negated of the one if it's derived from it everything in proceeds from the one in the same way that we talked about a moment ago so look hurt these are the categories that are denied now there's something very curious about this work we can play with them you can get into the spirit of it and we can easily do it you can all join in and see how much fun it is to do it but the thing I want to deal with in a short while is whether or not there's some significance to the order of these is there any significant why does he take this first why this last etc so that's what we want to talk about later but let's just talk about this now let's see how he does it right now we're looking only at the first hypothesis and you can see if you just follow the first argument you can see how easy it is to apply the whole thing it takes some technical skill at some points of the logic but what narrowly everybody can do it get into it it's a lot of fun it starts with it if the one if the one is now that is in this case does not assume existence that's a big point in Greek thought that you can talk about the use of the word is without attributing existence like you can say there is emptiness well that doesn't mean you're going to look around for it right right well where I didn't see this so if there is a one and if you mean by one a pure one would you agree one thing we have to say it is not and cannot be considered to be a many for if it were a many it wouldn't be one it would be a bunch of ones agree obviously how easy does it so if if for one if it's the one then clearly it's not a many it is not a many now everything follows from that if a one not a minute by the way if it's not a many then could it be a whole because a whole is a a sum of parts and if a sum a many therefore it can't be a whole good could it be apart for a part assumes a whole of which other parts and a whole of which it must be a member right so it can't be lighting Wow now look here it can't be a many can't be the whole don't be a part now we can play in sale occur is it possible though that it has a beginning middle and end well if it did have a beginning a middle and an end there would be its respective parts would it not and we agreed no parts therefore it can't have the beginning middle and if it can't have a beginning middle or end you agree it's not going to be a shape or a figure for any kind of shape no matter what kind you draw or you encounter it's made up of straight lines and circles agree with various diameters springing off from them agree but would you agree to have a straight line because straight lines are getting middle and ends and it can't be composed of circles for circles having a center they have a circumference and they have radii and those are its respective parts therefore it can't be made up of parts of itself has no parts well there are that goes then all right all right right huh well look here you do it now can it be in something if you're only talking about a pure one can it be in something because yeah and it has to be something there to be in right right right right so camping and something can it be in its own well if it's in its so then a part of it must be right a part of it must contain it and a part must be contained they would be its respective parts and therefore at least a two right that's out oh good good hey tenet be in motion for if it were in motion there would in exist motion and which it's in right and where they have to be a space in which it moves and places in which it could pass through ah none of that is allowed if a pure one agree ha ha ha that's how rest rest rest can it be at rest if so there's got to be plays for it too all right ah ah oh hey look here if there is a one if there is one can it be the same as something because they'd have to be something by which you could compare it and say that it is no way we're only talking about a one oh good it be other than something why there's something else see how easy you guys are just natural politeness right hey can it be like something why not there's something else it would have to be like tents that have to be something similar between they're saying two things right that's out but it can be unlike everything else gonna die why not there'd have to be another one to compare it with and you have to find something about it which it doesn't show oh wow that's how okay okay hey could you say it's equal to anything that presupposes like no Senate equal equal measures or and some but it can be unequal counted that please bah that's alright hey can it be in time for if it were in time yeah beginning middle and end does notice I have to be in it none of the part of it would be getting older and another part would be getting younger and respect to it relatively speaking right so it huh it is not going to be older or younger right then itself or anything else by the way then Kenny participate in time know participate hey if it doesn't participate in time would you not agree anything that exists participates in time it comes into existence and it passes out of existence doesn't I mean this if this is something that exists that came into being at some time somehow and then it's going off very fast with the way I'm working on it right right so then would you agree then it doesn't participate in existence here's another reason let's try another reason how fun with this one right let's put this one and together with giant present past right past present future now by the way which way does time move does it does it come from the future into the present in the past or does it go the other way take a look what goes either way they'd already get confused can it coming either way can the future come mother well okay whatever I forgot I forgot about it okay here is something say it's in the past there it goes can we not say if something is in time then it comes into existence into our presence and part of it is yet to come or part of it has yet to come and therefore that must have respective parts of it because at some time does this come into existence all at once or does it come in what's it possible like a anything in the process of growth maturation and development does it come into being through stages if through stages then respectively parts of it what are we going to do then negate that right there is any time right right right okay can you have a can you have a perception of it could you have a perception well they'd have to exist and then it would have to be yeah and then what else what what you'd have to exist - you can't have a perception without a perceiver and something perceived 0:03 okay that's out all right all right no perception of it right nope by the way can you describe it you have a lightness to describe it did we knock out likeness oh no description of it right can you have a knowledge of can't perceive it come on no because then it would be an object of knowledge there'd be an object of knowledge there be a knower good and the process of knowing ha ha ha can you have an opinion about it that's out okay therefore his conclusion is no name can be given for it so strictly speaking you called it one just to start out but you can't name it and there's no perception of it now wait a minute is there something similar than between what we were doing with the Diamond Sutra and what we're now doing no being no soul no mind no person what's the difference between reaching the conclusion this way and the other way because we're talking about what the one is not rather than negating now we don't saying what the obviously that's another are there it's a difference that's yet a difference we can talk about what the one is not we're just saying at this point describing the nature of the one aren't ya but this is would you say this is the one since it's not all the other things it's not not may either right right I wouldn't either so look then let's hold on to that and do this one right now occur okay well good good good what knowledge would you have could you tell us the knowledge you have what let's see it's part of the problem of the elephant right no problem the elephant someone's blind it tries to describe an elephant hi yeah right I'll tell you what it's not good when you say everything that it's not then you know what an elephant is don't you it's not a snake it's not a gorilla it's not my Uncle Louie oh oh no I know what an elephant is all right since I know everything that it is not does that leave me with the knowledge of what it is no all right now I want to see if I can push this a few more steps now all right No why would anybody do this what is the object of this kind of reflection what's the goal now what's the goal of it it's all illogical see there are many scholars who have argued that this whole Parmenides is just a logical exercise that has no value beyond being a logical exercise and that's all it is and you see Europe didn't get a copy of Plato's Parmenides and pro Colossus commentary which is where we're going until quite late so we're really only talking about several hundred years of scholarship and reflection on these words as far as Europeans are concerned so though we talk about it as ancient literature for us it's quite new well most of them most of the platonic tradition has come into a good part of it has come into general availability within the last 200 years we have had Shakespeare longer than we've had most of the platonic tradition so just to keep that in mind know what do these people say is the value of going through this do they say it's a logical exercise well one of the great commentaries on Plato's Parmenides there's a great work which I always recommend which has been recently translated by maro and Dylan called Pro Colossus commentary on Plato's Parmenides I just pulled out a couple of quotes here because he deals with this issue that's deal with us here it is on page 425 how are we to make this one and the flower of the soul shine forth unless we activate our intellect in order that we may can sort with it alone and perform a dance around it leaving behind all in selections of the soul which are directed to secondary things that's why you study it why why do we do it because it activates the intellect you see were engaged in exercising the intellect and discover its limitations everything we're activating the intellect to see we activate our intellect by going through this and this is a process of training the mind it's mind training - silence - silence the intellect is silence the intellect by allowing it to develop to its maximum potential you do that's what you're doing so that you prepare there for yourself for vision how are we to make this one and the flower of the soul shine forth unless we activate our intellects as pro Kalu's in order that we may consorted it alone and perform a dance around it leaving behind all the intellectuals of the soul which are really directed to secondary things that's why we study the one that's why we study plato's Parmenides no look here let me see if we can have a little more fun all right let us say for the moment that we can take a look at the ancient world in it in a different way all right let's say we take the whole vision of the Greek let's call in Hellenic because that's what they call themselves right the Latins Romans called the Hellenic Greek is gratias right we'll call them Hellenic okay give them back their name if we could get a vision of all of the gods all of the gods the way they understood all of their gods and all the divine if we could then describe them all get them all in a bag let's go along now come on got him all the gods yep and all their views of the divine yep got it right in there the mixed up yeah shook them up got it why don't we see if we can arrange them hierarchically what would it be like if we could take all the Greek gods and arrange them hierarchically say the highest the next the next the next the next will not be interesting to do so that instead of talking about the Greek gods we could then make distinctions among them and talk about them in different ways what if it turned out that for each set of gods we can distinguish there's a particular kind of logos to it there's a certain way of reasoning appropriate for each for each different different now let me complicate this a bit since you may be following it right I think you're aware of the fact that I snuck something in earlier right I asked his motion in motion or are things in motion remember that I sneaked that one in I said something else too didn't I no I said whatever is in motion derives its motion from some source which we call motion now if you hold to this then then there are certain ideas like motion which have a generative function generator that is to say other things can be derived from it other things or ideas can be derived from it how what does that mean okay now that means if there is such a thing let us say as soul if there is such a thing as soul then we know the presence of soul because soul gives as it were life - whatever then it animates right living things right we could say so hate a lot of living things oh there's something common to them all oh yeah they're all living well if there is a bunch of red things would we not say there must be something red that's independent of those things because each of the things is red that we've lined up oh yeah then there must be a cause of red independent of the things that are red and that can't be red right the principle of the thing can't be one of the members can it heavens no well then it looks like then the principle of something it's not one of the things like itself but it derives other things from it now if that's so if that's so if we can hold on to that notion and then we might say then if that's true that there is so such a thing as soul and soul is what activates bodies and gives it life because we want to attribute it to something so we're calling it soul but soul is in life it's rather the source of life by the way if they're a bunch of things that have souls and life including that beautiful cat I drew a minute ago right would you agree then we have a different kinds of things that are living but among the living things something seemed to possess a certain quality of life that leads us to believe they have something other than life called mine or intelligence agree with that well then if all of these things that are living have some degree of intelligence and among those things that have clearly the most intelligence we can call them the most intelligent living things and at this point unless whales beat us down we're number one and they may but at this point prime well then if there is a quality that exists in all of those things the source of it must be independent of the particular things that have intelligence therefore there must be something called intelligence which exists in its own right which is the source of the intelligence and things are great but it itself can't be one of the things that has intelligence by the same logic that we just went through hey now if you can hold on to that there's something curious about this then each one of these groups of gods we have identified could in fact be the source of a whole order of things other things could be derived from it so that that's true then not only is it possible to take a group of things called the gods and the divine and rank them hierarchically but we may be able to say that each of those things is itself a principle a principle that can be the cause of and can be the cause of and therefore it can generate things akin to itself as derivatives well then you see if you hold on to that notion you're getting close to what the Greeks mean by a God look our thing if you can personify equality right if there's a certain set of qualities that that can be said to be represented or represents a certain idea let's say let's get one say I want to represent the activity of insight quick immediate certain clarity brings things together into a unity there must therefore be a gathering together before it gathering together right it's kind of ready for action you can use it because he's getting intuition you can I'm use it you can then proceed on it now is it possible that we can take all of those things and say what kind of a person might exhibit all of those qualities most ideally a warrior quick clear unity of action can gather a lot of things to get it ready for action well we might then say among those things that might share those qualities might be someone who's a warrior type warrior but if so it must come into existence quickly from mom what is into what is intuition come from mine Oh ha well then if there is a divine zhuzh that must spring from his forehead fully clad ready for action Athena if we can then get all the qualities of Athena and recognize them and then say these qualities when we are bringing them together into a unity can best represent the functioning of intuition and then we can say that there is something that is divine about that therefore we can predicates some kind of a divinity the very nature and the source of it what we can create now on the focus counter by personifying it and then working back to see whether then we can put all of the personifications into a figure and perhaps build the story around it hmm well if we can do that then we can do the next thing now can you please take a look at your sheet I gave you this sheet and as a table you see that table and the first row Parmenides that's the dialogue plato's dot here on the board notice multiple many hole in parts shape in itself in another address motion same different like unlike equal time see them all notice that next to each one of these is a class of God's appropriate for each of these in the last column is where pro Colette's describes and has a commentary on each of them now what does that mean now look what we have here hey let's go back then what do we have here each of these categories when you look at them purely what we say we can say looking at them purely maximizing what they represent they can be considered as an archetype they can be personified and therefore when you have an archetype that personifies the qualities of the thing that you're talking about you can in fact have a figured that figure then is going to be seen in Greek mythology and these gods therefore can be ranked 1st 2nd 3rd 4th representing these logical types therefore the whole function of this first hypothesis is therefore to deny these divine qualities or images of the gods of the highest concept the 1 therefore the one goes beyond all the gods doesn't see how you came to that conclusion ah now each one of these that are denied becomes the subject matter of the second hypothesis because here it's denied what's it going to be in the second asserted that's right it's gonna be asserted [Applause] it gives us a problem let's see if we can look at a couple of problems there's certainly a difference between working through the Diamond Sutra and the Greek tradition found in Plato and propolis Plato is very interested in the whole Platonic tradition in levels of realities hierarchies you see the other system the Diamond Sutra is going to say there is let us call it the one mm-hmm about which you can say nothing just for the moment use that language but you can't say anything about anything else or in Hindu terms all the rest is Maya illusion so you only have one term therefore in the Platonic tradition they are very careful to set up levels of reality because they want to have a place for the intellect they want to see how it functions they want to understand its function they want to understand how it operates therefore and they want to see therefore what you can say about what it can be said to be the intelligible what you call the intelligible by the way are going to be these gods you lined up another way of talking about the divine and the gods what does that lead us to that leads us to see that there is a way of understanding a very simple fun way to understand this most complex of all systems and what do you get them when you understand it you can move freely within these different systems and you can enjoy them but then you are preparing your understand see you're preparing by understanding for the operation of the intellect to go beyond the intellect to the levels of reality until you can then dance around the one now why does he do that this is called problem of the likely story and the Plato's time is he creates this cosmology and he raises the question whether or not that's true he says not something that's it's not a question being true we're giving it because we want to give a likely story it's only a likely story it's likely that's likely but by giving a likely story you can show that the nature of reality of which we participate in is rational and you can therefore operate on it on several levels you can operate on the level of sense experience you can operate it on the level of perception you can operate on the level of understanding and intellect each has its proper domain that is to say you don't have to deny you don't have to reject you don't have to deny anything you can include it comprehensively now does that are we being fair because what does this mean we're saying into without saying it about the Diamond Sutra don't they make distinctions in different levels of beings like gods Assurance demons heroes what status do they have do you say they have some kind of status and reality well do this look it up when you find it bring it back let me see it and I'll change what I usually say right that's all I hope and I have a copy here you can take home oh good good good good but since they're trying to grasp the very nature of enlightenment the highest concept right here you're brought to the same kind of highest concept they say the same thing do they not it's not an object of perception you saw how one got to it and you saw how the other got to it now we being fair this is the problem between experience and the logos that's the problem and the Buddhists look here what you have to see is that there is no way in which you can experience any of these things that you think are so real and important to you you have to see that there is no soul there is no self there is no person there is no being there is in fact an emptiness of those very concepts and while they are is empty concepts that then by staying with that meditating on that there is an experience but what is the experience the experience is not of something new what you're doing is not perceiving things through those ideas or beliefs so what you're doing is clearing these ideas from your mind and what is left is just what is emptiness of what of those very ideas in the Platonic round here we go they want the logos they want to find the intelligibility they want to be embracive they want to include it all and hierarchically reach there there are two different ways of reaching the same thing I submit to write and therefore I'll give you how they perceive their highest vision mmm the Buddhists all right since this is how the Platonic does so here's the right I once did a paper years ago on Shunyata for Alan Watts of which he didn't enjoy I gave him a blank piece of paper and he looked at it and he said who should I grade I got it back and I ruffled it up and I gave it back to him he said okay so that's the trip I wanted to take you on tonight I know we compacted a few things together did I not so anything you want to explore at this point please do so yes and the other book is of course this one called crocuses commentary on plato's Parmenides this is the Parmenides Loeb edition yes marry me - don't you have to I mean you said before that you can do the dialectic on anything and any idea I said can you demonstrate I thought they thought there had to be an appropriate care no no the pair is just that it is and that it is not in a particular relationship with a thing that you can't take soul and do a dialectic on soul without pairing it up with its appropriate other you can say if soul and you're gonna take it through the 24 categories right you can also say if there is no soul now watch out is that different than if soul does not exist because you're involved with double negatives if there is no such thing as a soul there might be mind might be a person might be a bin now the apartment justa now go back to your point okay this is the pear then if soul exists if soul does not oh you want to oh sure sure how it is in itself right how it is to other things how these other things how these other things relate to themselves how those things relate back to the idea of the soul if there is a soul then it must be self autonomous it must have a self sufficient suit must be autonomous what do you agree yeah fine and that's something I can say about it that is true is it not right would you not agree I can also talk about things about the nature of the soul just by itself that is false as you can that is you cannot say that that it occupies lifeless bodies you can say the soul both is a living thing and an intelligible thing it's both both isn't it's not right I can go on and make other statements and I know where's the other I think you think it should it should there not be other kinds of things is that correct is that your point no just respect for the song oh sure you have to know a lot of stuff you have to know all the categories I'm sure yeah that's true let's see if I can play there's a great one in here I like very much that he uses normally I just opened the book up and it falls right there yeah if I got sure this matter of fact I'm here on page 354 okay watch again if soul exists now I'm taking it in respect to other things that it is productive of life that initiates motion that it holds together bodies as long as it its present to bodies that it Lords and rules over them by Nature that's what it does to other that's how it functions with respect to other things doesn't it is productive of life that's what it does it produce it has an effect on other things right it is productive of life it initiates motion and all these other things does it not it holds together bodies does it not that's what it does the various parts in relationship to themselves now all they're going to be as qualities there's a sympathetic affection huh rather things that sympathetic affections right now going back if the soul exists then it's true for bodies in relation to being moved from within by it being vivified by it living being preserved and held together through it and in general being dependent upon it right going back yeah then it's dependent upon soul and it's dependent right so yes you do have to have all of these these categories in your mind and know how they fit together and that's how you apply it the way to get into pro coalesce and these subjects therefore is to know about the major ideas soul intellect likeness motion rest so you can see it's the same thing we're doing before if these see if any one of these ideas has a set of ideas around it that or that must be understood with it as part of it then you can arrange them logically can you write some of these things you could therefore say right looking at them you can also say things about those things that are true those things that are false you can collect other things that are both true and false and when not talking about things other than soul we're talking about the way in which it functions let me give you some negatives which one which one of the four do you want and respect to itself and respect to others and way others relate to it or the way in which all of those things relate back to it negatively okay respect to others okay well that'd be sixteen seventeen eighteen right if the soul does not exist there are true of it in relation to bodies being incapable of generating them being unmingled with them and having no care of them if there is no soul right if there is no soul right then therefore we cannot say that there'll be any relationship to bodies they'll be incapable of generating anything and being unmingled with other things there will be no care for them since the soul takes care of the body right okay good partner that's right that's what was asked for no not in that language want to say it again maybe I didn't get it you mean the first hypothesis the things that are denied in the first hypothesis become what is asserted in the second hypothesis that's true well it's independent of the way it's independent of its source that's right okay we're talking about then we're talking about the effect here assuming that we're talking about Seoul for a moment right then we want to know what kind of language we can use when we're just talking about whatever these things are among themselves yeah if there is such a thing as a soul then the thing that would become obvious were there that there would have to be a sympathetic union of these things that's the statement even though which is what he said I can yep okay the second is it follows right if the soul exists the following is true for the rest of things in the case of bodies you see I should make that clear you see when we're talking about soul right we can talk about it in relationship to bodies you can also talk about it in relationship to intelligence or or intellect and then you'd have a different set of ideas as it relates to this for this has a set of qualities which would have to become aware of and then it's in reference to these ideas that you would making your distinctions respect to itself and respect to others and respect to the things themselves and back to the source of that I hope so if we're together yeah so see here it's soul and respect to bodies and therefore there would be a sympathetic Union among those things that's what you could say that it's true what you could say about it that would be false as that it's not what you can say about it is that it is not true that it lacks sensations for it's necessary that with the presence of soul everything should have sensations what is true and false about it is that bodies move themselves in a way body moves themselves because they're in sold and none of the way they do not is that something can say that's true about it not sure about yep so therefore would you agree to play this game you would have to know what they think about these major ideas and then see how they can be attributed to these this ranking of four major concepts or categories about which you can then say three things through false and both true and false now one of the great ones that he does see one of the principal ideas in the Platonic world is likeness because the whole genic see the whole universe is create out of created out of the likeness because the Demiurge the god the creator he creates it and the condition for creation is likeness because he reflects on himself and uses himself as a model and therefore creates the universe and respect to the model that he has therefore all creation has promised on the condition that there is likeness first be able to say that I'm making something like the lot of them in order to say I'm making something like something the condition for likeness sure must be there therefore the supreme principle the supreme originating principle the universe is likeness okay now there should be a set of ideas that surround the idea of likeness if you have identified all of those then you can then arrange them in these 24 categories both positive and negative and that's the dialectic treatment of likeness or soul and we'll do it one night if you want to but I don't think we'll have time to pull it off and you see all these relationships can that be count as an experience and the logo yes I know you are certainly going through something but it's not a specific experience like you might experience through sight through hearing what you're doing see what this does essentially what this does for the person who wants to play the game is to see that ideas belong in families natural families there's a kins kinship among ideas and that there's a way in which you can unite with them and the way in which you can then understand there are hierarchical significance you can see the way in which certain sets of ideas naturally fit see because take this one as an example we have soul and respect to body which we did there'd be another set and respect to intelligence if we then use the idea of likeness now there's a set of ideas which we would have to identify first and then see how they could be set into those categories agree now if you realize that the most the supreme originating idea of the generation of the cosmos is the idea of likeness wouldn't it be interesting to get a deeper understanding of the idea of likeness we do not then come to that idea with a greater richness and that's what the dialectic brings your great original and that's pretty good I was a joke by the way I hope someone got it that's pretty good right yeah okay like with likeness to see we likeness should have to have the primary idea would have to be well it's a primary idea right it's a productive idea isn't it it's a very condition for everything therefore it's a primary idea it's a productive idea right and what does it do it's a bond see we can build it together but it'll take a while to argued there were the most difficult category for me is being able to keep in mind all the true and false ones that's a that gets a little foreign anytime and the negatives are not the denial are not merely the denial of the positive likeness okay that I know where it is 3:58 yeah no yes yeah okay likeness in relationship to itself productiveness primacy eternity in relation to sense objects assimilation to them to intellectual objects not allowing them to dissolve into a sea of unlike this linking of parts to their respective holes for sense objects relationship to themselves a community with one another participation in one another taking pleasure in one another taking pleasure in and sympathizing with and mingling with what's like that's the basis of communication and love doesn't likeness in relationship to it one participates in it there's an insemination to it there's a unification by virtue of it that's it's real fine stuff yeah I recommend we're talking about the dialectic and subject it's the it's the essential ideas that are connected with it right let me see if I give an example because he's got a couple of good ones but take soul I'll show you how he does it if soul exists in relationship to itself essential life it's self constituted self motion now those ideas are would you not agree what you'd say must be there if you know what you mean by the word soul so the necessaries are a set of necessary ideas that best explain what it is and how it functions it functions to itself and respect to others among themselves and back to it yeah sure so then if soul exists there is truth of it and relationship to itself self constituted self motion essential life see let me take the fourth one now which doesn't respect other things there is a truth of it in relation to bodies that it is productive of life that it initiates motion among them that it holds together bodies as long as it is present to bodies among themselves sympathetic affection as we mentioned right I'm going back going back so very fine book thank you for coming enjoyed it [Music] [Music] you [Music]

Channel: Pierre Grimes and the Noetic Society

Views: 4,208

Rating: 4.8899083 out of 5

Keywords: socrates, pierre grimes, NSPRS, platonism, pythagoreanism, philosophy, gnosticism, hermeticism, parmenides, plato, pg1, heraclitus, neoplatonism

Id: Fzd0_UPRR-0

Length: 84min 21sec (5061 seconds)

Published: Fri Mar 09 2018