2021-05-23 NSPRM - Plato - Parmenides, Republic; Plotinus - Enneads (1.3.20) - What Is A Dialectic? - Info and Reading Options

The Internet Archive:

<h3>Synopsis</h3><p>A “Brilliant” Sunday morning with Pierre. He lays out the path to an experience of Real Being (and later Brilliant Light of Being) by studying Plato's <em>Republic</em>, and then asks us to again look at the dialectic, and consider the many kinds.</p><h3>Highlights</h3><ul><li>2:57 warm up with JulieH on Homer and Achilles<ul><li>private understanding. Lacks generality, and ability for verification from others.</li><li>2:58 How is Achilles functioning (at the end) in the games and with Priam, that he did not, and likely, could not do, before? What kinds of virtues are being exhibited? What state of mind is he now occupied in, where there was no evidence of such a state of mind, prior?</li><li>2:59 Achilles had to give up his private use of the word, "understanding" because understanding is not private. It is public. And can be shared, and when it is understood, it can be completely grasped.</li><li>3:00 Does he show that ability prior to (the great) chapter 18?</li><li>One of the problems mankind has, is that he thinks understanding is private and personal. It is neither. (To think such about understanding is a pathologos, and inadequate.)- The everyday (modern) use of the word understanding is not shared or universal. It lacks this.</li></ul></li><li>3:02 Pierre puts up a diagram on his 2nd web-cam: An example of Understanding</li><li>3:02:47 to 3:04:43 -- sound goes out on Pierre's mic</li><li>3:05 Two ways to work on Plato:<ul><li>a. focus on what he is saying is <em>not</em> true (ie., what is being said by the Many, or popular, rather than philosophical). (Lower lines under the ideas: appearance)</li><li>b. focus on the higher forms of these ideas (the lines above the ideas: "Reality")<ul><li>The bottom 2 (of the lines above) are particular to the subject. True statements, philosophically.</li><li>The upper 2 (of the lines above) describe Beauty in the most general terms. Those same general terms will show up for the other ideas too.</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>3:07 “Being”: a mode of existence that each of these ideas has (but only in the upper realm).</li><li>3:08 Gather all those together into a Unity.</li><li>What would happen then if you kept those ideas going for yourself that just reflect the unity of those ideas alone?</li><li>Does it have its own “Reality”? Walk around. Keep it on your mind. Reflect. Is this true?</li><li>For Plato, this prepares the mind for an experience of “Real Being”, and from that onward to the Brilliant Light of Being (Hypothesis 2 of Parmenides).</li><li>(The highest box, however -- which is not the goal of Plato's Republic -- is the One/Self. (Hypothesis 1 of Parmenides))</li><li>3:11 But something more important: How does this fit with the dialectic? But there are multiple dialectics. Which model of the dialectic would fit?</li><li>3:12 if it did fit, what would that mean?</li><li>3:15 comparing Plato and Proclus' study of Plato's <em>Parmenides</em>, is it likely that among them, we can find differences?</li><li>3:16 Which of the (9) hypotheses (in Plato's <em>Parmenides</em>) would uniquely fit what we're doing?</li><li>3:21 (with JeffL) Plotinus on dialectic</li><li>3:26 what model of the dialectic are we going to use? what did Plotinus <em>not</em> include in his model?</li><li>3:27 what do we mean by model?</li><li>3:37 do we need the word, "ideal" when we talk about model?</li><li>3:38 Is there a model for reasoning?</li><li>3:40 Proclus' dialectic on Providence: What makes this different from the other models Proclus provides?</li><li>3:41 Why are the last 12 (of the 24) stages not needed in the dialectic on Providence?</li><li>3:43 What do the negative 12 stages of the Proclus dialectic do?</li><li>3:44 (with Barbara) Do we have an example of a dialectic where the last (negative) 12 stages do <em>not</em> reveal the truth of the subject under discussion by showing what its absence would bring about?</li><li>3:45 (with Eldar) Actually, Proclus' dialectic on Providence <em>does</em> have all 24 stages</li><li>3:46-49 (Eldar and JulieH) is the negative on Providence its absence? or, rather, the existence of Providence <em>in the popular view</em>?</li><li>3:49 Why doesn't Plato have negatives of the 9 hypotheses? Why doesn't he also include (after each one), "And if it were not the case..", and continue the discussion?</li><li>3:49-50 (Barbara) Aren't the remaining 8 hypotheses all "negatives" of the 1st?</li><li>3:50 Therefore, there are not just 12, but 12 x 4 (= 48)! (Four positives, and four negatives)</li><li>3:51 Does the 1st (Plato/<em>Parmenides</em>) hypothesis stand to the last 8 hypotheses as the positives do to the negatives when he (Proclus) is talking about (doing dialectics on) Soul, or Providence (etc.)?</li><li>3:52 The so-called "negatives" (the lower 12 stages in a Proclean dialectic) are not really negatives, but are the consequences which follow from the <em>absence</em> of the subject under consideration.</li><li>3:54 (Bradley) is the 5th (Parmenidean) hypothesis the opposite of the 1st?</li><li>3:55 Are the 5th and the 9th expressing "negatives" different than what we just described? Or <em>are</em> they under the same principle (similar)?</li><li>3:56/7 (Pierre accidentally mis-words his statement about "if the negatives are true": I'm pretty sure he meant to have said <em>NOT true</em>), and Jed asks him about it. Then Pierre gives the "ghost" example, but again, the lesson learned from it is (IMHO) backwards from his intention. Nevertheless, the general idea is that the negatives (ie the 12 results from "absences") and the positives oppose each other by looking at all possibilities, and force us to reflect on which might ultimately be true: the existence (and its consequences, ie the "positives") or the absence (and its consequences ie the "negatives").</li><li>3:58 (Regina) considering the absence of something implies its existence</li><li>3:58 (Bradley) considering all of this as a quality or part of Ousia..</li><li>3:59 (Eldar) yes, very complete</li><li>4:00 (JeffS) If the negatives (i.e., absences or the "without-which"s) reach an absurdity, then the negatives have to be negated -- i.e., we have to flip back and accept the positive ( existence)</li><li>4:01 Then we should be able to find the totality of all the absurdities (if we have exhausted the dialectic and all of its possible useful ideas (i.e., the 24 considerations or stages))</li><li>4:02 Then whatever you are left with (after having exhausted all the absurdities) must be true.</li><li>4:02 (Eldar) Being and non-Being complete each other. Like the moon and the sky. You have to have the canvas of non-Being (sky) to have Being (the moon)</li><li>4:02 You have to leave the world of the absurd to enter into the intelligible</li><li>4:04 Gina, <em>Sophist</em>: The goal to show that there is a reality in Being to Not Being</li><li>4:06 Back to: Which hypothesis is most applicable to our purpose?</li><li>4:07 Is it possible to look at these ideas as all positive? Therefore there is an inherent weakness if non-Being exists in that category: Truly-existing ideas.</li><li>If that can be maintained, then doesn't that show the metaphysical necessity for irrationality?</li><li>4:08 If so, should we have a dialectic on its existence? A Dialectic on the Irrational</li><li>4:09 Therefore non-Being exists and has ..</li><li>therefore good and evil follow, and a metaphysics to follow from each</li><li>JulieH: If you are doing a dialectic on the irrational. Therefore, non-Being exists. Therefore non-Being has Being.</li><li>Should the idea of non-Being be equivalent to "evil"?</li><li>Should evil be a principle as part of Creation?</li><li>Where would it come from?</li><li>4:12 if it is true that non-Being exists, then Being itself doesn't exist.</li><li>the metaphysics of ignorance</li><li>4:17 ignorance: just an incomplete search for the Truth</li><li>4:19 are all 24 necessary? Can we apply it to Plato's <em>Parmenides</em>?</li><li>4:20 (Barbara) is there a reason to pursue "Does the Soul exist?" via the dialectic?</li><li>4:21 PG: Put them into a hierarchy and then see if you can find a totality.</li><li>4:22 (Julie) Are there other kinds of dialectic (e.g., Hegel's )</li><li>4:26 can tehre be a dialectic with AI?</li><li>4:29 (JeffS) dialectics on Ignorance and Irrationality: Related? Could we string out a tree on dialectics?</li><li>4:30 PMW and dialectic (a chapter in Pierre's book)</li><li>4:31 (JeffL) Is the Prajna Paramita a dialectic (with all its negations)?</li><li>4:32 also Buddhist dialectics (and books on such) and Nagarjuna's dialectic, Kant's, Marx's</li><li>4:33 Geometry as a dialectic?</li><li>4:39 but it doesn't have a set of negatives</li><li>4:43 (Jed) comparing Proclus' dialectic vs Plato's <em>Parmenides</em>, and painting/Beauty</li><li>4:44 What is the purpose of the dialectic?</li><li>4:50 Again, we need a good definition of "dialectic".</li></ul><h3>References / Resources</h3><ul><li>Plotinus, <em>Enneads</em>. (Elmer O'Brien's Essential Plotinus)</li><li>Plato. <em>Parmenides</em>. (primarily Balboa)</li></ul><p>See our <a href="https://archive.org/details/ns-reading-list" rel="nofollow">NS Reading List</a> for these.</p><h3>Usage License</h3><p><a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/" rel="nofollow">CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License</a></p><h3>Please Help Support the Project</h3><p>Do you enjoy our free audios and videos? Please consider supporting Pierre, the NS, and our archiving activity by giving a small amount monthly to support our work.</p><p>Go to <a href="http://noeticsociety.org" rel="nofollow">noeticsociety.org</a> and the 'Support the Project' section. Look for the Paypal or other link.</p><p>We'd love it if you chose to 'Make this a monthly donation', as well -- rather than just one-time -- in whatever small amount is within your regular monthly budget.</p><p>Also, please consider <a href="https://archive.org/donate/" rel="nofollow">donating to the Internet Archive</a>, which stores our work here free of charge, as well.</p><p>Thank you!</p><h3>More Info</h3><ul><li><a href="http://noeticsociety.org/psg" rel="nofollow">The NS Parmenides Study Group</a></li><li><a href="https://archive.org/details/parmenides-balboa" rel="nofollow">Plato's Parmenides: The Juan and Maria Balboa Translation</a></li><li><a href="http://noeticsociety.org/pierre-grimes/" rel="nofollow">Pierre Grimes and Philosophical Midwifery</a></li><li><a href="http://noeticsociety.org/" rel="nofollow">The Noetic Society</a></li><li>The <a href="https://archive.org/details/noeticsociety?sort=-publicdate" rel="nofollow">Pierre Grimes and the Noetic Society collection</a> here on archive.org.</li></ul>

Search for “2021-05-23 NSPRM - Plato - Parmenides, Republic; Plotinus - Enneads (1.3.20) - What Is A Dialectic?” downloads:

Visit our Downloads Search page to see if downloads are available.

Find “2021-05-23 NSPRM - Plato - Parmenides, Republic; Plotinus - Enneads (1.3.20) - What Is A Dialectic?” in Libraries Near You:

Read or borrow “2021-05-23 NSPRM - Plato - Parmenides, Republic; Plotinus - Enneads (1.3.20) - What Is A Dialectic?” from your local library.

• The WorldCat Libraries Catalog: Find a copy of “2021-05-23 NSPRM - Plato - Parmenides, Republic; Plotinus - Enneads (1.3.20) - What Is A Dialectic?” at a library near you.