Metaphysics is part of philosophy. What you say is like saying that someone who studies life more properly is called a biologist and not a scientist. In fact, he is both.
Plato was a political philosopher first, or more precisely an agathologist: one who studies the _telos_ of reason (hint, hint, the allegory of the sun) and of life. Those who ascribe to him "unwritten doctrines" speak of a wisdom he didn't have, for he was merely a lover; he was not a master who imparted secrets, but a teacher who posed problems.
Theology is a branch of philosophy, ‘metaphysics’ is just an unfortunate name. The reason for this is that the primary aspect and objective of questioning is the soul, or in other words ‘that which is beyond sense experience which guides that within sense experience’. As is pointed out to Parmenides by the goddess of night “being and thought are one”, yet thought can not completely encompass & comprehend being. Search for Pierre Grimes.
@Aarvoll, There’s a physicist I like named Ray Fleming, who has a great book called the Zero Point Universe. He picks up ether physics from the point where it was abandoned in the 20th century and integrates these older ideas with modern quantum field theory and experimental observations like the Casimir effect. It’s fascinating. He gives a very compelling explanation of a unified field theory emanating from the quantum ether. In his book the Onium theory (which I haven’t read yet), he lays out how all known particles are resonant states of electrons, protons and their antiparticles, which are all themselves derived from quantum fluctuations. I am very new to platonism, just curious really, but the theory you explain in this video seems like it would map very well with Ray Fleming’s cosmology. I’d be super interested to hear your take on it. He has videos on UA-cam.
I agree with you on things come when you are prepared. If most people listen to this they would change it and not care or not understand. That’s the long and short as why Plato is well known but not so much his deeper meaning. That’s why I love the neo platonists and don’t care to listen to many modern philosophers takes on Plato.
Is the One the ultimate form in a system that is ultimately a strange loop? I always wondered, how does the One, the maximally complex object that admits of all properties, manifest consciousness if it has nothing to contrast itself to --- no object to its subject, for example --- but instead has to be divided up in itself in order to have consciousness occur "within" it --- and yet, when we perform this division (UG Krishnamurti once said, when you posit the number 1, you posit all the other numbers that come about out of that; obviously he was not remotely the first to realize this; infants realize it, I remember realizing it in my teens without any philosophical background; Meno is partly about realizing it), we create another series of discrete objects, each is One unto itself and has to in turn be further divided up again in order to get consciousness or the reflexivity that many philosophers of mind suggest creates the epiphenomenon of conscious. Can there truly be a top "One" where this hierarchy stops -- or is this seemingly "ultimate" One, in turn, just another part of a larger segment, a higher octave of the Many, that continues on forever, or perhaps even loops back upon itself? I would kind of like to suggest that it surely must loop back upon itself in a strange loop, and thus the One truly is a form that, like all forms, is never ultimately instantiated, and the form of One is, in an ultimate sense, truly transcendental! I envision this process as like, turning a video camera back on the television that is outputting its input. You can never, never escape the scenario. As Buckminster Fuller says, you can escape from systems, but you can never escape from Scenarios --- and we are in Scenario: Universe, and there is no escape from that. This is why the doctrine of rebirth is a necessity, along with the doctrine of remembering, as Plato points out in the Meno.
The One isn't an essense or fixed identity, and it contains all things. It's the same as the concept of Brahman. You can think of it as a strange loop from our perspective, but I believe there is an in itself of the One and that state is the Good which all things ultimately seek.
@@ericorwoll I assume the average scientific materialist cosmology of today implies that stuff is finite, and in that cosmology Brahman is the one and only thing that instantiates the form of One. But I assume that can't be true, and that as you say the form of One is not an existence or an essence. But if Brahman itself doesnt truly instantiate the One, couldnt that open the door for some more nominalist or postmodern views. I was trying to answer this by saying, well, on a conventional level, there are clearly patterns that come from transcendental forms, and on an ultimate level, there is infinite recursion of flux, it loops back on itself, something like that, and maybe we can reconcile everything that way. Maybe we are talking about two different levels of reality, but they're both true, or something like that. Maybe I'm confused or maybe thats a cheap way out of the problem, or maybe its not actually problem as I'm seeing it
I'm not sure it makes sense to me to considering the most basic form is not the "indefinite dyad", but rather the Nothing. It seems that the 0 has to precede the 1. The Monad is the perfect unity but the very fact that it is a unity means it has to have a boundary of some kind. In the same sense that before you can draw a circle you have to have an empty space in which to do so. "The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things" - _Tao Te Ching_ I suppose if one really thinks about it becomes evident why absolute nothingness and the absolute infinite are one and the same. Perhaps this is why the universe always record, because when entropy finally runs its course, which is to say it shreds everything down to its absolute smallest infinite constituent parts, what it has really done is just create a new field of infinite potentiality, which the one moment contains 0 coherent and structures but in the next moment will have 1. The new Monad arises out of this, and the process begins once again.
@Conway's Glider I don't think it's self-refuting it's just simply highlighting the crisp boundaries and limits of rationalism, and especially linguistic rationalism. (You get caught in retarded circles like "If you have nothing then you have something so something is nothing", but that doesn't there any relation to reality, that's just a quirk of our words) _The Tao that cannot be named is not the true Tao._ But, to use the broken tools of reason I suppose we could conceive of it like a difference between a unitary spherical creation which, even if it in Practical terms May completely consume you, has a boundary somewhere, versus an infinite plane that has no boundary anywhere. That is, no matter how much you zoom out you will never be able to perceive the totality of it, and it is completely empty. Again, rationalism really cannot come to grips with this, but I think with this example weekend intuitively feel on some level the qualitative difference between them.
In Hindu religio-philosophy there is the path of jnana and bhaki. Jnana is the path of knowledge and bhakti is the path of love. Both paths will get you "there". I wonder if Platonism is the path of knowledge and jesus was teaching bhakti. This would make sense how the neo platonist and the early Christians were kind of trying to mix the two philosophies, whether consciously or not.
Yo Aarvoll you ever looked into Eriugena? While he didn't really have og Neoplatonic sources aside from Macrobius, he ended up reinventing pretty much all the theses of Neoplatonism from St. Augustine, Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos and Dionysius the Areopagite and a partial copy of Timaeus. However, his system is very unique. Feel like he'd be someone you'd enjoy looking into. Peep his Periphyseon/De Divisione Naturae. Stephen Gersh book "From Iamblichus to Eriugena" is also super autistically helpful in kinda weaving all these guys together. But yea, Eriugena's angelology and cosmology are very explicitly mathematical harmonic and dialectical.
This is really interesting. I am genuinely fascinated by the way the Pythagoreans formed the ideas of The One, and then the Monad and the Dyad. Harmonica seems a little bit more complex, but since I have studied the Fourier Transforms I can understand what is being discussed here. It is when the temporal realm enters the discussion that things really go over my head, but it is nevertheless a great lecture and a fantastic video! Thank you for this.
Abductive reasoning ... it well believed that pythagoras got his knowledge from egypt ... so why postulate a non occams razor proposal.... its kinda like being decieved by shadows on the walll....Egypt was known for developing first geometry via field management and architecture whence we get the imhotep myth....the rest is good but saying its atlantis is mere hope ....
Reminds me a lot of how Tolkien described the creation of things that they were "sang" into being. And through harmony and discord things like the world were created.
Just this morning I was talking to a friend about Plato's 'secret' teachings and the idea that Platonism may have been a mystery tradition, or patterned after mystery traditions; and then I saw this video. A nice example of the internet working in mysterious ways. // This is tangential, but you might be intrigued to know that there is a poetic form called 'Tetractys'; it was invented in the 1980's or 90's (by a Scott, I think). It is a five-line syllabic form with the syllable count as follows: 1-2-3-4-10. A small number of poets have written in the form and it is hard to know what kind of future it has. My experience is that the form works well in the hands of a good poet, and I enjoy the metaphysics behind the form. // Thanks for posting this video.
the golden thread somewhat.. unknown,shamanism,chaldeans,egypt priests,india brahmins(indoeuropean origin?),taoism,buddhism,orphism,pythagoreans,platonism,kabbalists,gnostics,neoplatonists,hermeticists-alchemists,sufism,knight templairs bring from crusades shia wisdom; get destroyed and freemasonry,etc
Cyrus conquered the indus valley in the mid 6th century bce. Shortly thereafter greek philosophy proper came into being, pythagoras, heraclitus and parmenides. This is not a coincidence. Pythagorean mathematics and ideas such as transmigration of souls, was not a known thing before that (eg in homer for example). Socrates (in Phaedo I think) speaks of some lost book originating the Platonic idea of the arche (ontological source) being "mind". Yeah right. Platonism originates in India.
Guenon in The Reign of Quanity has a chapter entitled Measure and Manifestation, where he refers to this temple and 'Let none but a geometrician enter here'
Thanks! What good books are there on this subject (intermediate level). It would be excellent if you did a video on your thought about the Demiurge concept!
Regarding the decomposition of waves, I had this idea over a decade ago, but have not yet pursued it: In the technical analysis of securities, we can de-trend a time series by running digital filters (e.g. Exponentially-Weighted Moving Averages or other) through it until we are left with what is apparently white noise. We have then extracted all tradable signals from the time series, because the extracted trend - the product of all filters run through the series - contains within it a predictions of observations yet to come. Or have we? We can observe the properties of the white noise series as with other waves, e.g. its apparent frequency, amplitude & period. Because we have extracted all perceptible trend out of the series, the residual "noise" is not truly random (i.e. a Markov Process) but e.g. the amplitude will be generally or probabilistically bounded, & there will be some perceptible frequency. The residual is thus also tradable, as one would trade a sine wave - it is mean-reverting over a long enough horizon. So then, in our decomposition of waves, which is the signal & which the noise? And strange to tell, among that Earthen Lot Some could articulate, while others not: And suddenly one more impatient cried- "Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?" - Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
You mean Occult teachings? The occult (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret") is "knowledge of the hidden". I assume Plato would like one to use the language of his time and not a word foreign to him. You know some people might think you are turning Plato into a Cult. Of course you may know these words are different and have different meanings. None the less it did not seem to make much of a difference during the Salem Witch Trials. Leads to the question: Should one play God, and remove all occult religions and beliefs? or allow God to sort it out as the one who will pass Judgment? I'm mindful that your video on Falun Gong is being used by those who would play God. I have concerns that if, those who would play God, were to understand Plato's Cave, Plato's republic, or Plato's The Apology, they would judge it no differently than they judge Falun Gong. That being said, Let the truth be known even if the heavens shall fall ... but you don't need to allow others to violate your copyright or change the intent of your video. Now I don't support any occult teachings, beliefs, or superstitions, but I value the lives of those people with different beliefs than my own. I wish these people well, I don't seek to have them punished. Matthew 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Can you expound more on your theory of how technology spreads and doesn’t spread? If it is hard to conceive of information being kept hidden it is even harder to conceive of technology being kept hidden. I mean it’s wild thinking about elites 2000 years ago using contemporary communication technology
Would you agree with the nietzchen idea that platonism is just a cope? In that sense what Plato is doing, he is taking these models and abstractions of reality which are the products of our imagination and which describe reality to a certain degree of accuracy suitable for us to manipulate it at a satisfactory degree for our survival, and raising these abstractions to the highest level of value? In that sense Plato is devaluing reality as imperfect in opposition to the products of the human mind which can be considered as having the highest level of perfection. But isn't that our internal cognitive sense of value which is common to all humans, where we seek the essence of perfection in terms of value in everything we do. For example, you have five apples, one is of lower value than the other four and one is of the highest value or level of perfection with various degrees of perfection between them. So it's this strange mangling up of how our brain at individual and social level discovers perfection and value and how that idea transposes itself within the natural world. Of course these types of ideas are very useful in establishing a progress and innovation based mercantilism society where discovering the next best thing, the next valuable thing, the better, the more perfect become the societal foundation. Nature itself is seen as a fallen version of some perfect archetype and human society itself an imperfect manifestation of some outwardly flawless model. The Platonist model does seem to be useful to our species as it allowed the development of mathematics and sciences, and nation states and capitalist societies, but it's inherently a false model. As the individual and society as a whole are the valuators, we decide at group level what is perfect and what is not, what is good and what is bad, what is worthwhile and what is pointless. Within the concept of the natural world, the concept of perfection is meaningless. Evolution does't seek for perfection, its simply the creative expansion of carbon chemistry to discover what works in certain environmental conditions. So the platonist ideal is an untenable proposition, it does not exist, it cannot be reached, it's an unachievable goal, it's simply a false target. A false target that has driven humanity for thousands of years, because the human animal becomes ultimately motivated when he is seeking for a treasure of infinite value with minimum chances for it to exist.
"Would you agree with the nietzchen idea that platonism is just a cope?" I would argue you shouldn't heed the words of one who acquiesced to cuckoldry from a feminist and died from syphilis; for all his gloat about "life affirmance", Plato had a much more positive outlook on life than the insane Nietzsche. "he is taking these models and abstractions of reality which are the products of our imagination" What is reality? How can you so distinctively conceive of something you know so little about? Because you can touch and see it? But if what you had once grasped by the senses resides only in your memories, and you only fortuitously experienced those things, how can you aver that this is "reality", and not merely a superimposition of your memories? You are making too many presuppositions. Also, imagination is not the same as reason; you cannot imagine a chiliagon (without mistakenly imagining a circle, that is), but you can reason about it, and derive consistent demonstrations in so reasoning. Imagination is much nearer to the senses ('imagination' comes from the 'image', conveying a visual notion) than it is to reason, insofar as it is just as imprecise. "which describe reality to a certain degree of accuracy suitable for us to manipulate it at a satisfactory degree for our survival, and raising these abstractions to the highest level of value?" You haven't read the Phædo it seems. For Plato dialectical inferences are, as described by Socrates, a "beautiful risk": hypothetical principles that, in spite of the limits of reason, we must admit by sheer cogency of the argument if we hope to act in accordance with truth as much as possible. Plato does not feign to have transcendental insights, nor that any argument is absolutely binding, but even if infallible certainty is not attainable by human beings, nevertheless we should avoid becoming misologists; for not only is reason our best tool to scour reality, but to despise reason is to despise that which is most distinctive in human beings, therefore sinking into misanthropy. "In that sense Plato is devaluing reality as imperfect in opposition to the products of the human mind which can be considered as having the highest level of perfection" So you make an unfounded ontological assumption about "reality", then frame Plato as an escapist for not adhering to your arbitrary standards of "reality"? Besides, that's a wrongheaded interpretation of his works; Plato never posits two distinct realms that obey their own laws (and he explicitly disavows such dualism in the Parmenides and the Sophist), but two ways of observing the same world: one of a probable and conjectural nature (sensible/doxastic) and another inquisitive and axiomatic (intelligible/epistemic), and although the latter is more exact than the former, for Plato the true philosopher embraces both domains, which is why even the enlightened prisoner must return to the cave at some point lest he be blinded. Plato uses the term "eidos", usually translated as 'form' but more appropriately rendered by the Latins as "species", to denote any commonality in affections stemming from some "pragma" (which may readily be translated as 'thing', but that omits the nuance of it being active/affecting), as opposed to "eikon", an image or illusion, which may be of a visual (i.e. "pragmata" reflected by a medium rather than the "pragmata" themselves) or cognitive nature (i.e. appearances in general/likeness); contrary to what many say, Plato applies the term to the sensible as well as the intelligible, and that in each case the "eidos" is what enables the corresponding organ (i.e. either sense-perception or reason) to conceive the whole, in spite of it's manifold, accidental instances. What Plato hopes us to accomplish is not the leap from the sensible to the intelligible per se, but from illusions ("eikones") to the species ("eide") that appropriately represent "pragmata", with right belief ("orthe doxa") providing us a vision/intuition of such species to latch our inquiry onto (cf. Meno's paradox) and reason a consistent foundation for our conceptions of them (i.e. a way of _remembering_ them); hence Plato's definition of knowledge is not just account ("logos", the intelligible principle), but true belief with an account ("he meta logou alethe doxa", both sensible and intelligible).
"For example, you have five apples, one is of lower value than the other four and one is of the highest value or level of perfection with various degrees of perfection between them" You don't really understand Platonism if you think eide/universals entail a theory of value. "Nature itself is seen as a fallen version of some perfect archetype and human society itself an imperfect manifestation of some outwardly flawless model" No, please read the Timæus. For Plato, "eide" are _everywhere_ , even in the "imperfect" (your words, not his) material world; there's also a hierarchy of "eide", beginning with material "eide" arising from necessity all the way to eternal _"ideai"_ which transcend spatio-temporal boundaries. "the individual and society as a whole are the valuators" This is tautological. Obviously any value entails evaluation by an entity outside of what is being evaluated, but in what sense does that make it inherently meaningless or inextricably subjective? Unless of course you are willing to articulate the daring proposition that our evaluation of anything has no respect to them, and is really self-referent such as to constitute it's own world, separate (ontologically that is) from the present state of things that are evaluated, and thus we are not making judgements about anything in this world but something removed from it, lest of course we accept the absurdity that we are casting judgements on nothing (that is, once we have accepted that our values have no respect to what is being valued); yet if we affirm this then we must accept that there are as many worlds as there are evaluators, and fundamentally no evaluator can agree with another, much less interact in any meaningful level, since they will always be referring to different things in different worlds. "Evolution does't seek for perfection" Curious, I didn't realise evolution had intent. Have you spoken with it to truly ascertain whether or not it seeks perfection? "its simply the creative expansion of carbon chemistry to discover what works in certain environmental conditions" That *is* exemplary of perfection though. If evolution did not seek perfection, it wouldn't "discover what works in certain environmental conditions"; it would be something akin to mechanics, where things in motion preserve initial conditions regardless of it being suitable or not; a mechanistic rendition of evolution would kill it's explanatory power. "A false target that has driven humanity for thousands of years" You speak of false targets yet your own Nietzsche denies the possibility of facts; Nietzsche speaks of turning away from being towards the deep earth yet his own Übermensch is an ideal, which we must assume to be transcendental since he is able to speak of it meaningfully without it having been materialised, making it a cope _by your own standards_ .
Whose teaching is this, please? "Nature itself is seen as a fallen version of some perfect archetype and human society itself an imperfect manifestation of some outwardly flawless model." I agree with this. I most likely read it somewhere. I see this as a way to explain evil, if the One is Good, and all Good things come from the One. The world is an imperfect reflection of the perfect Mind of God. But we spend our time seeking for the perfect reflection.
I am on board with this but what’s the basis the Pythagoreans and Plato claimed behind this? Revelation or just rational conclusions because this seems consistent with ontology?
It's a broad syncretic tradition that owes most of its philosophical content to Platonism, but since it is so broad it contains valuable things that were worked out by a large community of magicians over a long time.
@@ericorwollthe wikipedia page I believe, it refers to the dyad as consisting of peras and apeiron, whereas the monad refers to the top of the triangle
@@CS-rx3yj There's some diversity in the use of these terms. The wiki page cites Guthries book, which I've read, and not all the sources there treat the monad as the same as the one. The reason I prefer to separate them is to reserve a category for a oneness which is exempt from participation, I'm following Proclus in that.
I believe Lil Wayne covers most of these concepts in a track titled “Uproar.”
“5, 4, 3, 2…where the ONE go.”
weezy & plato - the dyad we didn't know we needed
Plato is called a philosopher but he was actually a metaphysician. Hence the Platonic dialogues are somewhere between philosophy and sacred scripture.
But philosophers, at least certain ones, investigate and expound metaphysics, so I don't think that there's really a difference.
Metaphysics is part of philosophy. What you say is like saying that someone who studies life more properly is called a biologist and not a scientist. In fact, he is both.
Plato was a political philosopher first, or more precisely an agathologist: one who studies the _telos_ of reason (hint, hint, the allegory of the sun) and of life. Those who ascribe to him "unwritten doctrines" speak of a wisdom he didn't have, for he was merely a lover; he was not a master who imparted secrets, but a teacher who posed problems.
Theology is a branch of philosophy, ‘metaphysics’ is just an unfortunate name. The reason for this is that the primary aspect and objective of questioning is the soul, or in other words ‘that which is beyond sense experience which guides that within sense experience’.
As is pointed out to Parmenides by the goddess of night “being and thought are one”, yet thought can not completely encompass & comprehend being.
Search for Pierre Grimes.
@@alternateperson6600this is a silly word salad that might impress uneducated people but utterly fails to encapsulate Plato’s essence
The background is so saturated that it looks like an oil painting.
POV Aarvol just laced our joint.
@Aarvoll, There’s a physicist I like named Ray Fleming, who has a great book called the Zero Point Universe. He picks up ether physics from the point where it was abandoned in the 20th century and integrates these older ideas with modern quantum field theory and experimental observations like the Casimir effect. It’s fascinating. He gives a very compelling explanation of a unified field theory emanating from the quantum ether.
In his book the Onium theory (which I haven’t read yet), he lays out how all known particles are resonant states of electrons, protons and their antiparticles, which are all themselves derived from quantum fluctuations.
I am very new to platonism, just curious really, but the theory you explain in this video seems like it would map very well with Ray Fleming’s cosmology. I’d be super interested to hear your take on it. He has videos on UA-cam.
“Only geometry can hand us the thread which will lead”
I agree with you on things come when you are prepared. If most people listen to this they would change it and not care or not understand. That’s the long and short as why Plato is well known but not so much his deeper meaning. That’s why I love the neo platonists and don’t care to listen to many modern philosophers takes on Plato.
Is the One the ultimate form in a system that is ultimately a strange loop?
I always wondered, how does the One, the maximally complex object that admits of all properties, manifest consciousness if it has nothing to contrast itself to --- no object to its subject, for example --- but instead has to be divided up in itself in order to have consciousness occur "within" it --- and yet, when we perform this division (UG Krishnamurti once said, when you posit the number 1, you posit all the other numbers that come about out of that; obviously he was not remotely the first to realize this; infants realize it, I remember realizing it in my teens without any philosophical background; Meno is partly about realizing it), we create another series of discrete objects, each is One unto itself and has to in turn be further divided up again in order to get consciousness or the reflexivity that many philosophers of mind suggest creates the epiphenomenon of conscious. Can there truly be a top "One" where this hierarchy stops -- or is this seemingly "ultimate" One, in turn, just another part of a larger segment, a higher octave of the Many, that continues on forever, or perhaps even loops back upon itself?
I would kind of like to suggest that it surely must loop back upon itself in a strange loop, and thus the One truly is a form that, like all forms, is never ultimately instantiated, and the form of One is, in an ultimate sense, truly transcendental! I envision this process as like, turning a video camera back on the television that is outputting its input. You can never, never escape the scenario. As Buckminster Fuller says, you can escape from systems, but you can never escape from Scenarios --- and we are in Scenario: Universe, and there is no escape from that. This is why the doctrine of rebirth is a necessity, along with the doctrine of remembering, as Plato points out in the Meno.
The One isn't an essense or fixed identity, and it contains all things. It's the same as the concept of Brahman. You can think of it as a strange loop from our perspective, but I believe there is an in itself of the One and that state is the Good which all things ultimately seek.
@@ericorwoll I assume the average scientific materialist cosmology of today implies that stuff is finite, and in that cosmology Brahman is the one and only thing that instantiates the form of One. But I assume that can't be true, and that as you say the form of One is not an existence or an essence. But if Brahman itself doesnt truly instantiate the One, couldnt that open the door for some more nominalist or postmodern views. I was trying to answer this by saying, well, on a conventional level, there are clearly patterns that come from transcendental forms, and on an ultimate level, there is infinite recursion of flux, it loops back on itself, something like that, and maybe we can reconcile everything that way. Maybe we are talking about two different levels of reality, but they're both true, or something like that. Maybe I'm confused or maybe thats a cheap way out of the problem, or maybe its not actually problem as I'm seeing it
I'm not sure it makes sense to me to considering the most basic form is not the "indefinite dyad", but rather the Nothing.
It seems that the 0 has to precede the 1. The Monad is the perfect unity but the very fact that it is a unity means it has to have a boundary of some kind. In the same sense that before you can draw a circle you have to have an empty space in which to do so.
"The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things"
- _Tao Te Ching_
I suppose if one really thinks about it becomes evident why absolute nothingness and the absolute infinite are one and the same.
Perhaps this is why the universe always record, because when entropy finally runs its course, which is to say it shreds everything down to its absolute smallest infinite constituent parts, what it has really done is just create a new field of infinite potentiality, which the one moment contains 0 coherent and structures but in the next moment will have 1. The new Monad arises out of this, and the process begins once again.
@Conway's Glider I don't think it's self-refuting it's just simply highlighting the crisp boundaries and limits of rationalism, and especially linguistic rationalism. (You get caught in retarded circles like "If you have nothing then you have something so something is nothing", but that doesn't there any relation to reality, that's just a quirk of our words)
_The Tao that cannot be named is not the true Tao._
But, to use the broken tools of reason I suppose we could conceive of it like a difference between a unitary spherical creation which, even if it in Practical terms May completely consume you, has a boundary somewhere, versus an infinite plane that has no boundary anywhere. That is, no matter how much you zoom out you will never be able to perceive the totality of it, and it is completely empty.
Again, rationalism really cannot come to grips with this, but I think with this example weekend intuitively feel on some level the qualitative difference between them.
In Hindu religio-philosophy there is the path of jnana and bhaki. Jnana is the path of knowledge and bhakti is the path of love. Both paths will get you "there". I wonder if Platonism is the path of knowledge and jesus was teaching bhakti. This would make sense how the neo platonist and the early Christians were kind of trying to mix the two philosophies, whether consciously or not.
Yo Aarvoll you ever looked into Eriugena? While he didn't really have og Neoplatonic sources aside from Macrobius, he ended up reinventing pretty much all the theses of Neoplatonism from St. Augustine, Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos and Dionysius the Areopagite and a partial copy of Timaeus. However, his system is very unique. Feel like he'd be someone you'd enjoy looking into. Peep his Periphyseon/De Divisione Naturae. Stephen Gersh book "From Iamblichus to Eriugena" is also super autistically helpful in kinda weaving all these guys together.
But yea, Eriugena's angelology and cosmology are very explicitly mathematical harmonic and dialectical.
I’m reading the Periphyseon right now I’m on book 2 it’s amazing.
This is really interesting. I am genuinely fascinated by the way the Pythagoreans formed the ideas of The One, and then the Monad and the Dyad. Harmonica seems a little bit more complex, but since I have studied the Fourier Transforms I can understand what is being discussed here. It is when the temporal realm enters the discussion that things really go over my head, but it is nevertheless a great lecture and a fantastic video! Thank you for this.
Nicely done. In exploring the demiurge, have you tried to examine all the descriptions and compared that to the soul?
Abductive reasoning ... it well believed that pythagoras got his knowledge from egypt ... so why postulate a non occams razor proposal.... its kinda like being decieved by shadows on the walll....Egypt was known for developing first geometry via field management and architecture whence we get the imhotep myth....the rest is good but saying its atlantis is mere hope ....
Reminds me a lot of how Tolkien described the creation of things that they were "sang" into being. And through harmony and discord things like the world were created.
Just this morning I was talking to a friend about Plato's 'secret' teachings and the idea that Platonism may have been a mystery tradition, or patterned after mystery traditions; and then I saw this video. A nice example of the internet working in mysterious ways. // This is tangential, but you might be intrigued to know that there is a poetic form called 'Tetractys'; it was invented in the 1980's or 90's (by a Scott, I think). It is a five-line syllabic form with the syllable count as follows: 1-2-3-4-10. A small number of poets have written in the form and it is hard to know what kind of future it has. My experience is that the form works well in the hands of a good poet, and I enjoy the metaphysics behind the form. // Thanks for posting this video.
the golden thread somewhat..
unknown,shamanism,chaldeans,egypt priests,india brahmins(indoeuropean origin?),taoism,buddhism,orphism,pythagoreans,platonism,kabbalists,gnostics,neoplatonists,hermeticists-alchemists,sufism,knight templairs bring from crusades shia wisdom; get destroyed and freemasonry,etc
pythagoras probably learned from the chaldeans and remenants of atum cult
Cyrus conquered the indus valley in the mid 6th century bce. Shortly thereafter greek philosophy proper came into being, pythagoras, heraclitus and parmenides. This is not a coincidence. Pythagorean mathematics and ideas such as transmigration of souls, was not a known thing before that (eg in homer for example).
Socrates (in Phaedo I think) speaks of some lost book originating the Platonic idea of the arche (ontological source) being "mind".
Yeah right. Platonism originates in India.
Guenon in The Reign of Quanity has a chapter entitled Measure and Manifestation, where he refers to this temple and 'Let none but a geometrician enter here'
have you read jason reza jorjani?
Maybe rename this video "Introduction to Plato's Hidden Teaching" or "part 1."
Everything is better with sunshine, trees, and birdsong.
Thanks! What good books are there on this subject (intermediate level). It would be excellent if you did a video on your thought about the Demiurge concept!
Sick!
Regarding the decomposition of waves, I had this idea over a decade ago, but have not yet pursued it:
In the technical analysis of securities, we can de-trend a time series by running digital filters (e.g. Exponentially-Weighted Moving Averages or other) through it until we are left with what is apparently white noise.
We have then extracted all tradable signals from the time series, because the extracted trend - the product of all filters run through the series - contains within it a predictions of observations yet to come.
Or have we? We can observe the properties of the white noise series as with other waves, e.g. its apparent frequency, amplitude & period. Because we have extracted all perceptible trend out of the series, the residual "noise" is not truly random (i.e. a Markov Process) but e.g. the amplitude will be generally or probabilistically bounded, & there will be some perceptible frequency. The residual is thus also tradable, as one would trade a sine wave - it is mean-reverting over a long enough horizon.
So then, in our decomposition of waves, which is the signal & which the noise?
And strange to tell, among that Earthen Lot
Some could articulate, while others not:
And suddenly one more impatient cried-
"Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?"
- Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
Really, really Good video!
You mean Occult teachings? The occult (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret") is "knowledge of the hidden". I assume Plato would like one to use the language of his time and not a word foreign to him. You know some people might think you are turning Plato into a Cult. Of course you may know these words are different and have different meanings. None the less it did not seem to make much of a difference during the Salem Witch Trials.
Leads to the question: Should one play God, and remove all occult religions and beliefs? or allow God to sort it out as the one who will pass Judgment? I'm mindful that your video on Falun Gong is being used by those who would play God. I have concerns that if, those who would play God, were to understand Plato's Cave, Plato's republic, or Plato's The Apology, they would judge it no differently than they judge Falun Gong. That being said, Let the truth be known even if the heavens shall fall ... but you don't need to allow others to violate your copyright or change the intent of your video.
Now I don't support any occult teachings, beliefs, or superstitions, but I value the lives of those people with different beliefs than my own. I wish these people well, I don't seek to have them punished.
Matthew 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Can you expound more on your theory of how technology spreads and doesn’t spread? If it is hard to conceive of information being kept hidden it is even harder to conceive of technology being kept hidden. I mean it’s wild thinking about elites 2000 years ago using contemporary communication technology
Dude
Bruh
Hi Aarvoll, have you talked with Curt Doolittle? I wonder how your's and his ideas correlate.
I never knew that Mark Pellegrino was one of Our Guys…
Would you agree with the nietzchen idea that platonism is just a cope? In that sense what Plato is doing, he is taking these models and abstractions of reality which are the products of our imagination and which describe reality to a certain degree of accuracy suitable for us to manipulate it at a satisfactory degree for our survival, and raising these abstractions to the highest level of value? In that sense Plato is devaluing reality as imperfect in opposition to the products of the human mind which can be considered as having the highest level of perfection. But isn't that our internal cognitive sense of value which is common to all humans, where we seek the essence of perfection in terms of value in everything we do. For example, you have five apples, one is of lower value than the other four and one is of the highest value or level of perfection with various degrees of perfection between them. So it's this strange mangling up of how our brain at individual and social level discovers perfection and value and how that idea transposes itself within the natural world. Of course these types of ideas are very useful in establishing a progress and innovation based mercantilism society where discovering the next best thing, the next valuable thing, the better, the more perfect become the societal foundation. Nature itself is seen as a fallen version of some perfect archetype and human society itself an imperfect manifestation of some outwardly flawless model. The Platonist model does seem to be useful to our species as it allowed the development of mathematics and sciences, and nation states and capitalist societies, but it's inherently a false model. As the individual and society as a whole are the valuators, we decide at group level what is perfect and what is not, what is good and what is bad, what is worthwhile and what is pointless. Within the concept of the natural world, the concept of perfection is meaningless. Evolution does't seek for perfection, its simply the creative expansion of carbon chemistry to discover what works in certain environmental conditions. So the platonist ideal is an untenable proposition, it does not exist, it cannot be reached, it's an unachievable goal, it's simply a false target. A false target that has driven humanity for thousands of years, because the human animal becomes ultimately motivated when he is seeking for a treasure of infinite value with minimum chances for it to exist.
"Would you agree with the nietzchen idea that platonism is just a cope?"
I would argue you shouldn't heed the words of one who acquiesced to cuckoldry from a feminist and died from syphilis; for all his gloat about "life affirmance", Plato had a much more positive outlook on life than the insane Nietzsche.
"he is taking these models and abstractions of reality which are the products of our imagination"
What is reality? How can you so distinctively conceive of something you know so little about? Because you can touch and see it? But if what you had once grasped by the senses resides only in your memories, and you only fortuitously experienced those things, how can you aver that this is "reality", and not merely a superimposition of your memories? You are making too many presuppositions. Also, imagination is not the same as reason; you cannot imagine a chiliagon (without mistakenly imagining a circle, that is), but you can reason about it, and derive consistent demonstrations in so reasoning. Imagination is much nearer to the senses ('imagination' comes from the 'image', conveying a visual notion) than it is to reason, insofar as it is just as imprecise.
"which describe reality to a certain degree of accuracy suitable for us to manipulate it at a satisfactory degree for our survival, and raising these abstractions to the highest level of value?"
You haven't read the Phædo it seems. For Plato dialectical inferences are, as described by Socrates, a "beautiful risk": hypothetical principles that, in spite of the limits of reason, we must admit by sheer cogency of the argument if we hope to act in accordance with truth as much as possible. Plato does not feign to have transcendental insights, nor that any argument is absolutely binding, but even if infallible certainty is not attainable by human beings, nevertheless we should avoid becoming misologists; for not only is reason our best tool to scour reality, but to despise reason is to despise that which is most distinctive in human beings, therefore sinking into misanthropy.
"In that sense Plato is devaluing reality as imperfect in opposition to the products of the human mind which can be considered as having the highest level of perfection"
So you make an unfounded ontological assumption about "reality", then frame Plato as an escapist for not adhering to your arbitrary standards of "reality"? Besides, that's a wrongheaded interpretation of his works; Plato never posits two distinct realms that obey their own laws (and he explicitly disavows such dualism in the Parmenides and the Sophist), but two ways of observing the same world: one of a probable and conjectural nature (sensible/doxastic) and another inquisitive and axiomatic (intelligible/epistemic), and although the latter is more exact than the former, for Plato the true philosopher embraces both domains, which is why even the enlightened prisoner must return to the cave at some point lest he be blinded. Plato uses the term "eidos", usually translated as 'form' but more appropriately rendered by the Latins as "species", to denote any commonality in affections stemming from some "pragma" (which may readily be translated as 'thing', but that omits the nuance of it being active/affecting), as opposed to "eikon", an image or illusion, which may be of a visual (i.e. "pragmata" reflected by a medium rather than the "pragmata" themselves) or cognitive nature (i.e. appearances in general/likeness); contrary to what many say, Plato applies the term to the sensible as well as the intelligible, and that in each case the "eidos" is what enables the corresponding organ (i.e. either sense-perception or reason) to conceive the whole, in spite of it's manifold, accidental instances. What Plato hopes us to accomplish is not the leap from the sensible to the intelligible per se, but from illusions ("eikones") to the species ("eide") that appropriately represent "pragmata", with right belief ("orthe doxa") providing us a vision/intuition of such species to latch our inquiry onto (cf. Meno's paradox) and reason a consistent foundation for our conceptions of them (i.e. a way of _remembering_ them); hence Plato's definition of knowledge is not just account ("logos", the intelligible principle), but true belief with an account ("he meta logou alethe doxa", both sensible and intelligible).
"For example, you have five apples, one is of lower value than the other four and one is of the highest value or level of perfection with various degrees of perfection between them"
You don't really understand Platonism if you think eide/universals entail a theory of value.
"Nature itself is seen as a fallen version of some perfect archetype and human society itself an imperfect manifestation of some outwardly flawless model"
No, please read the Timæus. For Plato, "eide" are _everywhere_ , even in the "imperfect" (your words, not his) material world; there's also a hierarchy of "eide", beginning with material "eide" arising from necessity all the way to eternal _"ideai"_ which transcend spatio-temporal boundaries.
"the individual and society as a whole are the valuators"
This is tautological. Obviously any value entails evaluation by an entity outside of what is being evaluated, but in what sense does that make it inherently meaningless or inextricably subjective? Unless of course you are willing to articulate the daring proposition that our evaluation of anything has no respect to them, and is really self-referent such as to constitute it's own world, separate (ontologically that is) from the present state of things that are evaluated, and thus we are not making judgements about anything in this world but something removed from it, lest of course we accept the absurdity that we are casting judgements on nothing (that is, once we have accepted that our values have no respect to what is being valued); yet if we affirm this then we must accept that there are as many worlds as there are evaluators, and fundamentally no evaluator can agree with another, much less interact in any meaningful level, since they will always be referring to different things in different worlds.
"Evolution does't seek for perfection"
Curious, I didn't realise evolution had intent. Have you spoken with it to truly ascertain whether or not it seeks perfection?
"its simply the creative expansion of carbon chemistry to discover what works in certain environmental conditions"
That *is* exemplary of perfection though. If evolution did not seek perfection, it wouldn't "discover what works in certain environmental conditions"; it would be something akin to mechanics, where things in motion preserve initial conditions regardless of it being suitable or not; a mechanistic rendition of evolution would kill it's explanatory power.
"A false target that has driven humanity for thousands of years"
You speak of false targets yet your own Nietzsche denies the possibility of facts; Nietzsche speaks of turning away from being towards the deep earth yet his own Übermensch is an ideal, which we must assume to be transcendental since he is able to speak of it meaningfully without it having been materialised, making it a cope _by your own standards_ .
Whose teaching is this, please? "Nature itself is seen as a fallen version of some perfect archetype and human society itself an imperfect manifestation of some outwardly flawless model." I agree with this. I most likely read it somewhere. I see this as a way to explain evil, if the One is Good, and all Good things come from the One. The world is an imperfect reflection of the perfect Mind of God. But we spend our time seeking for the perfect reflection.
I am on board with this but what’s the basis the Pythagoreans and Plato claimed behind this? Revelation or just rational conclusions because this seems consistent with ontology?
Rational conclusions, but they had a method of dialectical reasoning that is not generally known.
What's your opinion on hermeticism?
It's a broad syncretic tradition that owes most of its philosophical content to Platonism, but since it is so broad it contains valuable things that were worked out by a large community of magicians over a long time.
Aarvoll, do you like Pierre Grimes?
Sure, what I've seen from him is good.
Excellent
I think you explained the pythagorean tetractys wrong, the one is the monad, peras and apeiron are the dyad.
What source uses the terms that way?
@@ericorwollthe wikipedia page I believe, it refers to the dyad as consisting of peras and apeiron, whereas the monad refers to the top of the triangle
@@CS-rx3yj There's some diversity in the use of these terms. The wiki page cites Guthries book, which I've read, and not all the sources there treat the monad as the same as the one. The reason I prefer to separate them is to reserve a category for a oneness which is exempt from participation, I'm following Proclus in that.
@@ericorwoll isn't that similar to the Christian filioque? 3in1 or 3+1
Meh. ;-/