Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Fri May 17, 2013 8:12 am

reasonvemotion wrote:
........It is almost pertaining to religion.
I won't pretend it isn't difficult for me to comprehend some of the terminology

Lyssa wrote:

Which fragments make you say that?

Reading the translated version of Heraclitus, would probably block the natural formation and some things will inevitably be lost to the reader or perhaps even make it obscure.

Omnipotent, would have been a better choice, than "religion". Most things had a god or goddess attached to them at that time, but I imagine more than that. It seems to me, he (Heraclitus) was referring to a divine one, yet he does not declare this. It is more an underlying divinity.

Perhaps because I am reading this intuitively, I may be misinterpreting it. A point to be made is the theories of the elements I would think, have had an important influence today and in particular psychology, with its similarity to intuition, sensation, thinking and feeling.

It is premature for me to comment on the Fragments, as I think, I would like to read it more than once to digest fully the significance of it. Something I have never explored before.






Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Tue May 28, 2013 3:57 pm

reasonvemotion wrote:
reasonvemotion wrote:
........It is almost pertaining to religion.
I won't pretend it isn't difficult for me to comprehend some of the terminology

Lyssa wrote:

Which fragments make you say that?

Reading the translated version of Heraclitus, would probably block the natural formation and some things will inevitably be lost to the reader or perhaps even make it obscure.

Omnipotent, would have been a better choice, than "religion".   Most things had a god or goddess attached to them at that time, but I imagine more than that.  It seems to me, he (Heraclitus) was referring to a divine one, yet he does not declare this.  It is more an underlying divinity.

Perhaps because I am reading this intuitively, I may be misinterpreting it.  A point to be made is the theories of the elements I would think, have had an important influence today and in particular psychology, with its similarity to intuition, sensation, thinking and feeling.

It is premature for me to comment on the Fragments, as I think, I would like to read it more than once to digest fully the significance of it.  Something I have never explored before.


So you see the foundation of a natural elemental basis to astrology, and from there on as you say... psychology.

Omnipotence suggests a Being, an all-powerful Being; Heraclitus speaks of an all-pervasive arche, a justice-structure in the sense of encountering natural limits upon which something rebounds back upon itself perpetuating the cycle, the ever-burning fire.

I'll continue with the fragments, but I've decided to post the reputed classical scholar Guthrie's simple introduction to him and his thoughts too - separate thread.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Thu May 30, 2013 3:42 am

XLIIIA (D. A13) Censorinus: [There is a Year . . . whose winter is a great flood (cataclysmos) and whose summer is an ecpyrosis, that is, a world con- flagration. For it is thought that in these alternating periods the world is now going up in flames, now turning to water. Heraclitus and Linus 10,800 years.]

XLIIIB (D. A5) Simplicius: [Heraclitus posits a certain order (taxis) and fixed time for the change of the cosmos according to some fated necessity (heimar- mene ananke.]



Here again we must wade into the swamp of the doxographical tradition in order to retrieve some information about what Heraclitus said. We begin with XLIIIB, which is free of Stoic contamination.

Simplicius' source is Theophrastus (fr. 1, Diels, Doxographi Graeci p. 475). This is guaranteed by verbal parallels in independent versions of the doxography. Thus Diogenes Laertius: 'The cosmos is generated from fire and again ignited according to certain alternating cycles throughout eternity; and this occurs according to fate (kath' heimarmenen).'^^ In Diogenes the abstract word for 'fate' replaces the adjectival form 'fated necessity' in Simplicius. The latter prob- ably reproduces Theophrastus' own text. The original connection also shows through in Aetius: 'Heraclitus [held that] all things occur according to fate, which is the same as necessity.'

So, according to Theophrastus, Heraclitus spoke of the 'fated necessity' of a periodic change in the world order, involving the generation of all things from fire and their eventual dissolution into fire again. In this respect, the only thing new in the Stoic version is the term 'ecpyrosis' for the conflagration.

I have argued that in recognizing allusions to such a cycle in the fragments Theophrastus was essentially right. We must now ask whether (a) he is also right in saying that Heraclitus posited 'a definite time' for the change, and (b) whether he is correct in speaking of 'fated necessity'. There is no direct evidence, but the indirect evidence supports an affirmative response to (b).

The term 'necessity' is attested in a similar connection for Empedocles (fr. 115); and the cosmic appli- cation, implicit in Empedocles, is explicit in the almost contemporary fragment of Leucippus: 'nothing happens at random, but all things take place for some reason (logos) and by necessity (ananke)' (DK 80.B 2). The same term occurs in Heraclitean imitations in the treatise On Regimen, where 'necessity' is paralleled by expressions for Fate: 'everything occurs by divine necessity (ananke) . . . each thing fulfills its allotted destiny (pepromene mo^Va).'181 There is thus no reason to doubt Theophrastus when he asserts that Heraclitus used similar language.

We are left with question (a), whether Theophrastus is also to be credited when he reports a definite time for the cosmic change. This is ambiguous. It can mean either (a.l) that Heraclitus asserted that the cycle lasted a definite time, without saying how long, or (a.2) that he specified a definite temporal interval. Now on (a.l) the report is unproblematic, even trivial: if Heraclitus spoke of a cosmic cycle, he certainly thought of it as fixed and definite: that would follow naturally from the importance he assigns to 'measures'. But (a.2) is more interest- ing: if we follow Theophrastus on this point, we must combine his information with the doxography from Censorinus, which tells us just what that temporal measure is supposed to be.

Censorinus' source is not Theophrastus but some Stoic author, perhaps Diogenes of Babylonia, a pupil of Chrysippus, active in the first half of the sec- ond century B.C.182 By this time the Stoics had been interpreting Heraclitus according to their own lights for at least a century. Was one of them prepared to go further and furnish a number for the cosmic cycle lacking in Heraclitus' text?

Nothing in the preserved fragments would lead us to expect a definite num- ber like 10,800 years: the only number given for a cosmic change is a rough one: half and half (in XXXVIII, D. 31 A). But the number 10,800 is indirectly con- firmed by the much better attested number 30 for a generation (XCV, D. A19). For 10,800 is 30 X 360: it represents a 'year' in which each 'day' is a generation. Since the number 30 is almost certainly genuine, the number 10,800 is likely to be so as well. Or are we to suppose that some Stoic commentator invented a cos- mic number to fit Heraclitus' own number for a generation? Anything is possible here; but the doubt just expressed seems to carry scepticism a bit too far. Most scholars have felt, with reason, that the two numbers stand or fall together; and nearly all have accepted both as authentic.183 What they have not all seen, how- ever, is that if we accept the number 10,800 for Heraclitus' great year, we can scarcely separate it from Theophrastus' report about a 'definite time' for cosmic change. If the number 10,800 is genuine, that must be what Theophrastus is referring to.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Thu May 30, 2013 3:45 am

XLIV (D. 94) The sun will not transgress his measures. If he does, the Furies,
ministers of Justice (Dike), will find him out.


The text poses two questions:

(1) what are the measures of the sun? and

(2) why is Justice involved?


(1) The measures which the sun will not 'overstep' (hyperbesetai) must be his visible path through the sky which varies with the season of the year, as the Greeks (and before them the Babylonians) knew very well. They laid out their maps according to the direction both of the summer sunrise and sunset and also of the winter sunrise and sunset; in between they defined due east and due west as the 'equi- noctial rising' and the 'equinoctial setting'.186 Thus the annual vari- ations in the sun's path were taken as a basis for establishing what we call the points of the compass. And the same variations serve to define the four fixed points in a scientific calendar: summer and winter solstices (tropai), with spring and autumn equinoxes.

When star charts are drawn to plot the sun's course through the zodiac, the annual variations in the visible path are correlated with stages in its invisible path among the constellations; points of solstice and equinox mark off the astronomical seasons as four sections of this course. When the geometry of the celestial sphere is fully understood, the two equinoctial points will be determined by the intersection of the ecliptic (the sun's annual path) with the celestial equator.

It is unlikely that Heraclitus was familiar with this last conception. Although the theory of the celestial sphere seems to have begun in sixth- century Miletus, we do not know whether it reached this degree of geometrical clarity before the time of Oenopides in the middle of the fifth century.187 But anyone like Heraclitus, who had access to the astronomical knowledge available in Miletus and Samos at the end of the sixth century, must have been familiar with the correlations be- tween the annual changes in the sun's visible path and its less con- spicuous course among the stars. It was the latter, after all, that per- mitted the astronomers and calendar-makers to mark off the progress of the seasons on a day-to-day basis — directly, once the zodiac was in use, and indirectly earlier, by reference to such events as the rising and setting of Arcturus just before or just after the sun.

Now for Heraclitus 'the invisible fitting-together (harmonie) is better than the visible' (LXXX, D. 54). So if, initially, the measures of the sun are represented by its path in the sky on any given day, these measures must also be traced in the pattern of annual variation from solstice (trope) to solstice and back again. The measures of the sun are ultimately the measures of the solar year. The imaginary situ- ation of the sun's overstepping these measures might be realized by a deviation from its course on any given day. But the more dramatic, and humanly more meaningful transgression would be for the sun to continue, in the winter, to rise later and farther to the south, and finally fail to rise altogether. This fear of the sun going outas the days grow shorter seems to have played a great role in archaic religions. It accounts for so many festivals (including Christmas) in the vicinity of the winter solstice, mostly festivals of celebration once the days have begun to lengthen again as the sun rises further to the north. Thus we celebrate our own 'new year' shortly after this reversal of direction. In Mediterranean lands the shortening of the nights towards the summer solstice is less dramatic than in northern Europe. But in modern Greece at any rate, St John's Day (24 June) is traditionally celebrated with bonfires as in the north, and associated with the solstice. Some villagers observe the custom of rising 'early on this day in order to see the sun turning like a "windmill or a wheel", as they say'.

(2) The cosmic guarantee against the primitive fear of the sun's failure to rise (or, in summer, to set) is appropriately expressed by Heraclitus in the strongest imagery of Greek religion, where the Furies (Erinyes) represent relentless, primitive vengeance against moral and ritual transgression. But the mention of Dike indicates that the order in question is not one of blind vengeance. Dike represents the enlightened principle of the Justice of Zeus, his daughter by Themis or 'law', whose sisters are named Lawfulness (Eunomie) and Peace (Eirene) in the standard genealogy (Theogony 901f.).
It was Anaximander who first articulated this notion of justice and fate as a cosmic reparation between opposing powers 'according to the ordering of time'. (See text above, p. 18). The role assigned to Dike by Heraclitus in XLIV is a personified expression of Anaxi- mander's concept of cosmic justice, insofar as both authors see the regularity of nature as exemplified in the order of the seasons.

For other references to Justice, see on LXIX (D. 23), LXXXII (D. 80), LXXXVII (D. 28B); compare XL (D. 90), CXXI (D. 66), and CXXII(D. 16).

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:44 am

I am aware that God can be a source of ridicule, the mark of a dullard for some people, however, I noticed some similarities throughout H's fragments. I have cited one with corresponding verse from Scripture.

Corpses are more fit to be thrown out than dung. (96)

He sees the emptiness of funeral ceremonies, the dead lack the one basic human quality of Life. Hence it is a corpse, a cavader, nothing more. The dead know nothing.

Job 14:21
His sons come to honor, and he knows it not; and they are brought low, but he perceives it not of them.

Immortals become mortals, mortals become immortals; they live in each other's death and die in each other's life.

I don't understand this. Does it mean there are two worlds after death? It is not easy to comprehend as it seems to be in direct opposition to what he states above.

Fire and "all things are momentary" are ideas shared with early schools of Buddhism. Buddha likens man's existence to the flame of a candle that is constantly renewed and also the analogy of the river, never being the same for a moment, but this was not H's analogy, was it. Can it be assumed that what is written by H, is not essentially unique.

It is important to note that his book was written in an obscure way, with intent, to limit access to it and if this were so, then Heraclitus would be considered an elitist, believing his writings to be read only by a worthy minority, which is perplexing, as it appears that it has similarities, with other sources.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:43 pm

reasonvemotion wrote:
I am aware that God can be a source of ridicule, the mark of a dullard for some people,

What is your mature understanding of God?

Btw., what did you conclude on the exploration you started last year if Socrates was or was not an atheist?


Quote :
however, I noticed some similarities throughout H's fragments. I have cited one with corresponding verse from Scripture.

Corpses are more fit to be thrown out than dung. (96)

He sees the emptiness of funeral ceremonies, the dead lack the one basic human quality of Life. Hence it is a corpse, a cavader, nothing more. The dead know nothing.

No, he is against deification of anything, including Life. He says,
"And they pray to these images as if they were chatting with houses, not recognizing what gods or even heroes are like." [Fr. CXVII]

The proper quote goes,
"Corpses should be thrown out quicker than dung." [Fr. LXXXVIII]

He is ranting against the fools who involved in various mystery cults, eleusian immortality who cannot see the Logos in the perishing of all things; that Logos which is kindled and goes out in equal measures.

He also says, in an obscure fragment,
" . . . to rise up (?) and become wakeful watchers of living men and corpses." [Fr. CX]

I take this to mean, wisdom, vigilance is to see the One Law acting through all opposites, living men and corpses.


Quote :
Job 14:21
His sons come to honor, and he knows it not; and they are brought low, but he perceives it not of them.

That sounds bla to me. But I can do better, to set Judaism side by side with Heraclitus;

A "legend" from second century B.C.E;
"When the sun sank, and the stars came forth, he [Abraham] said, "These are the gods!" But the dawn came, and the stars could be seen no longer, and then he said, "I will not pay worship to these, for they are no gods." Thereupon the sun came forth, and he spoke, "This is my god, him will I extol."
But again the sun set, and he said, "He is no god", and beholding the moon, he called her his god to whom he would pay Divine homage. Then the moon was obscured, and he cries out: "This, too, is no god! There is One who sets them all in motion."" [L.Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews]

The famous legend is told to describe how Abraham supposedly came to the conclusion, by means of a process of gradual deduction, that the true and only God is the "One who sets them all in motion", and so is said to have discovered God before he received the revelation of the One True God.

Even though this is not accepted by the Rabbis and Rabbinic Judaism, but still assuming this is true, we see how to Heraclitus, the Logos itself is a kindling and extinguishing of itself in just measures, but to the Semite, the One True God stands apart to set them in motion like a controller.
There is no bridging this mindset. Athens vs. Jerusalem.


Quote :
Immortals become mortals, mortals become immortals; they live in each other's death and die in each other's life.

I don't understand this. Does it mean there are two worlds after death? It is not easy to comprehend as it seems to be in direct opposition to what he states above.

I interpret this as his meaning, the Immortals/Gods exist only in the imagination and minds of mortal men, and so when they perish, the Immortals become mortals too. And likewise, when mortals perish, they live on and are venerated as immortals; mortals become immortals and some also because of fame, glory.

Quote :
Fire and "all things are momentary" are ideas shared with early schools of Buddhism. Buddha likens man's existence to the flame of a candle that is constantly renewed and also the analogy of the river, never being the same for a moment, but this was not H's analogy, was it. Can it be assumed that what is written by H, is not essentially unique.

Both Buddha and Heraclitus see impermanence, and the world/samsara as set on Fire, not just the individual. Both conclude the same thing; Buddha says, Your Self is your only Refuge, self that is Brahman-become. The Middle path is a perspective of moving beyond all dualities of good and evil.
Heraclitus says, "I went in search of myself", or "I searched myself", or "I enquired of myself" - he takes the Self alone as his refuge; the Logos/dharma is all, the ever-living Fire. He too moves beyond the Anaximanderian dualism.
The difference is, Buddhism brings in cause/effect to explain the world, Heraclitus calls it a game, a play of an aion child...
Buddha was an Apollonian, speaking from a self-centric perspective; Heraclitus is a Dionysian, speaking from a cosmic perspective. [He says, if it weren't for the fact that cults were dedicated to Dionysus, the behaviour of the cultists would appear truly shameful. The wet/drunk fragment is often confused with his anti-Dionysianism, I think its misleading.]

Quote :
It is important to note that his book was written in an obscure way, with intent, to limit access to it and if this were so, then Heraclitus would be considered an elitist, believing his writings to be read only by a worthy minority, which is perplexing, as it appears that it has similarities, with other sources.

Nietzsche's intro:


Quote :
"We observe the entirely different forim of a superhuman self-glorification with Pythagoras and Heraclitus: the former certainly considered himself an incarnation of Apollo and acted with religious dignity, as Empedocles records. The self-glorification of Heraclitus contains nothing religious; he sees outside himself only error, illusion, an absence of knowledge - but no bridge leads him to his fellow man, no overpowering feeling of sympathetic stirring binds them to him. We can only with difficulty imagine the feelings of loneliness that tore through him: perhaps his style makes this most obvious, since he himself [uses language that] resembles the oracular proverns and the language of the Sibyls.

"The lord whose oracle is at Delphi neither speaks nor conceals, but gives signs."

"The Sibyl with raving mouth utters solemn, unadorned, unlovely wrds, but she reaches out over a thousand years with her voice because of the god within her."

Being a Greek, he dispenses with lightness and artificial decoration, foremost out of disgust at humanity and out of the defiant feeling of his eternity: yet he then speaks in entrancement, like the Pythia and the Sibyls, but truthfully.
That is, it is pride not in logical knowledge but rather in the intuitive grasping of the truth: we must recognize the enthusiastic and inspirational in his nature. We must conecive of such a grand, solitary, and inspired human being as placed in an isolated sanctum: he simply cannot live amongst his fellow man - at best he could still interact with children. He did not require humans or their sort of knowledge, since everything into which one may inquire he despises as history, in contrast to inward-turning wisdom. All learning from others was a sign of nonwisdom, because the wise man focuses his vision on the one intelligence [Logos] in all things. He characterizes his own philosophizing as a self-seeking and -investigating (As one investigates an oracle):
"He declared that he 'inquired of himself', and learned everything from himself." It [the exact fragmnet] ran, "I have searched myself." This was the proudest interpretation of the Delphic proverb: "And of the sentences that were written in Apollo's temple at Delphi, the most excellent and most divine seems to have been this, Know thyself."

...Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Socrates - the wise man as religious reformer; the wise man as proud, solitary searcher after truth; and the wise man as the eternal investigator of all things.
...These three types discovered three incredible unified ideas by which they developed away from the norm: Pythagoras by belief in the identity of the countless races of humanity, indeed moreso by the identification of all souls with all time; Socrates by his belief in the unity and binding power of thought, eternally the same for all time and in all places; and finally Heraclitus [by his belief in] the oneness and eternal lawfulness of nature's processes. These prototypes are distinguished in their complere emersion in these unifying notions; it rendered them blind and exclusive to all other strivings and insights.
Heraclitus, who found himself in solitude and who recognized the unified lawfulness of the world, was accordingly exclusive to all other human beings: their folly lies in this, that they live in the middle of lawfulness and yet do not notice - indeed, that they know nothing at all thereof, even when it is remarked on.
...As to that which everyone equally encounters: "Humans in all their activities and in any of their arts only emulate the natural law and nevertheless do not recognize this"; "Men are at variance with the one thing with which they are in the most unbroken communion, the Reason that administers the whole Universe";... "Wisdom is one - to know the intelligence by which all things are steered through all things."
His vision has been locked onto two sorts of considerations: eternal motion and the negation of all duration and persistence in the world.

...Well this is the intuitive perception of Heraclitus; there is no thing of which we may say, "it is". He rejects Being. He knows only Becoming, the flowing. He considers belief in something persistent as error and foolishness. To this he adds this thought:
that which becomes is one thing in eternal transformation, and the law of this eternal transformation, the Logos in all things, is precisely this One, fire (to pyr). Thus, the one overall Becoming is itself law; that it becomes and how it becomes is its work. Heraclitus thus sees only the One, but in the sense opposite to Parmenides'.
...In this manner, however, Becoming and Passing Away is no way a punishment. Thus Heraclitus presents a comodicy over against his great predecessor, the teacher of the injustice of the world (Anaximander).

And so along with Becoming, justice is the second main concept. ...The idea of war-justice (polemos-dike) is the first specifically Hellenic idea in philosophy - which is to say that it quualifies not as universal but rather as national. Moreover, only the Greeks were in the circumstances to discover such sublime thoughts as cosmodicy.

...Thus there is a double process. ...Since everything is fire, then whatever is not fire, which would be the opposite of fire, cannot exist at all. We must probably attribute to Heraclitus the argument against Anaximander that there is no absolute cold but only degrees of warmth, which is physiologically easier to prove. heraclitus, then, departs for a second time from a dualism in the teachings of Anaximander.

...The highest form of nature is not humanity but fire. There exists no clash. To the contrary, insofar as humanity is fiery, it is rational; insofar as he [man] is watery, he is irrational. There is no necessity, qua human being, that he must acknowledge the Logos. The questions, Why does Water exist? and Why Earth? are very serious ones for Heraclitus, as is the question, Why are human beings such fools? Justice should not punish; it is itself immanent lawfulness, which demonstrates itself just as much among fools as among the highest human beings. The sole question worth posing in general is, Why is fire not always fire? He replies to that: "It is a game."
...At his core he is the opposite of a pessimist because he does not deny away sorrows and irrationality: for him, war reveals itself as the eternal process of the world. Yet he contents himself with an eternal universal law and, because it oversees all things, calls it Logos, intelligence.
This is genuinely Hellenic! it is in itself a harmony, yet one that touches on its opposite, bending back (palintropos). It is recognizable only to the contemplative god and to similar human beings." [Nietzsche, The Pre-Platonic Philosophers]


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:45 pm

Kahn presents the fragments in a logical sequence he's decided, but since you have asked for an explanation on this fragment, I'm jumping over, and so marking it.

XCII (D. 62) Immortals mortal, mortals immortal, living the others' death, dead in the others' life.

Quote :
This is in point of form Heraclitus' masterpiece, the most perfectly symmetrical of all the fragments. The first two clauses of two words each (with copula unexpressed in Greek) are mirror images, identical but for the word order: a-b-b-a. The third and fourth clauses involve more complex inversions: to the participle 'living' in the third clause corresponds the noun 'life' in the fourth; and conversely for 'death' in the former and 'dead' in the latter. The symmetry is again rein- forced by chiastic order: participle, noun phrase; noun phrase, par- ticiple. The two-to-two, four-to-four structuring of these twelve words points to some tight pattern of unity between life and death whose exact content is not easy to make out.

The interpretation poses two distinct problems: what is Heraclitus' own meaning here? and what is the place of this utterance in the Greek tradition of speculation about the afterlife? It is only the first question which directly concerns us; the second problem will be briefly touched on.
XCII asserts some equivalence between mortals and immortals by an interchange of death and life; it is the mode of interchange that is problematic. As a starting point for literal exegesis we may assume that the mortals and immortals mentioned here are the same as in the usual notion of men and gods, who are distinguished by War in LXXXIII (D. 53). Since the terms 'men' and 'mortals', 'gods' and 'immortals' are practically synonymous in Greek, it would be arbitrary to take them otherwise here unless we have some special reason to do so. Hence on a first interpretation we assign 'death' and 'dying' only to mortal men.

The second half of XCII then says: 'they (the gods) live our death; we are dead in their life'. On this, which I will call the weak reading, there is no reference to the death of the gods. The thought is: 'we mortal men are immortal in that our death is really a new kind of (divine) life; they, the gods, are mortal not because they die but because their life is derived from our death'.

A stronger interpretation will reverse the roles of men and gods, as the symmetry of the clauses seems to require. But first we develop the implications of the weaker reading, in which immortals are defined as beings whose life is nourished by our death. What beings are these? The initial reference must be to elemental bodies or powers — water, earth, and the funerary fire — into which our bodies, and perhaps our psyches also, pass after death. But the beings who live from our death should include also new forms of life that spring up from the earth: the grass, the budding plants and trees, the flowers of Greek autumn and spring, as well as those worms and other animals believed to be born from the soil. Now these beings are themselves mortal. So to pursue this thought will bring us to the second, stronger interpretation, where mortals and immortals change places with one another.

In other respects also the weaker reading pushes us in the same direction. For instance, if the death of mortals is life for immortals, then the latter will include elemental water, since (according to CII, D. 36) what is death for the (human) psyche is birth for water. Hence water is one of the 'immortals' who live from our death. But by the same token water is a 'mortal', since its death is the birth of earth (CII, D. 36). Or if we think of the death of mortals here in terms of the 'extinction' of night-time and sleeping in XC (D. 26), then the immortals will be represented by successive psychic states that come to life as our normal consciousness is quenched in darkness and sleep. Included among these 'immortals' will be the nocturnal psyche and the dead whom we encounter in dreams. So once again we end up with the stronger reading: the immortals turn out to include not only the mortals but the dead.

I conclude that no weak reading, which preserves the traditional dichotomy between mortals and immortals, can stand as a complete interpretation of XCII. And a strict equivalence between the two classes is strongly suggested by the formal reversibility of the first four words, where it makes no difference which term we take as subject, which as predicate. If we take the first pair of terms as affirming that mortals are immortal, the second will affirm that immortals are mortal, and conversely. But if it makes no difference which term is subject, then it makes no difference which term serves as antecedent for the possessive pronoun 'their' (ekeinon) in the two following clauses. The weaker reading construes the two occurrences of this pronoun in two different ways: the immortal gods live our death, the death of mortals; whereas we mortals are dead in their life, in the life of the gods. On the strong reading, accepting full equivalence, we reverse the antecedents and have:

Mortals live the death of immortals.
Immortals are dead in the life of mortals.

For the ordinary Greek view of the gods these claims are extraordi- narily shocking — scarcely less so than the contempt which Heraclitus expresses for the ritual regard for the dead. In early poetry and myth, freedom from death is the essential characteristic of the gods: mor- tality is what separates the human condition from the divine. By asserting the mortality of the gods in XCII, Heraclitus breaks com- pletely with traditional Greek piety. This heretical doctrine finds
some curious echoes in the literature of the fifth and fourth centuries, as we shall see. But before considering these parallels, we must pursue one step further the interpretation of XCII within the context of Heraclitus' own thought.

For a full interpretation, the strong reading requires two theses which reinforce one another and which may be seen as complemen- tary aspects of a single claim:

(1) the reversibility of the process of death, by analogy with sleeping and waking, day and night, summer and winter, and

(2) the complete relativization or generalization of the notion of death, conceived as any change of state in which something old gives way before something drastically new. Hence it will not be a metaphor to speak of the death of water (for instance, in evaporation) or of the death of day at nightfall, any more than it is metaphorical to speak of the dying out of spring vegetation in the long drought of Greek summer. Human death — the death of each of us, and of those dear to us — will have to be understood as a phenom- enon of precisely the same sort, a change of state within the total life cycle of nature. This thought will be developed in XCIII.

We may now note some historical parallels to this paradoxical view. Since the basic axiom of traditional Greek piety is that the gods are immortal, to speak of their death is the gravest sort of blasphemy. In the case of the one god, Dionysus, whose death was recounted in a myth of the classical period, the evidence is too obscure and com- plicated to be discussed here.
What is clear is that Herodotus, when he refers to a comparable Egyptian myth concerning Osiris (whom he identified with Dionysus), is always careful to hedge his report with something like mystic silence: 'who it is they mourn on this occasion, it is not pious (hosion) for me to say'.294 But if to speak of the death of a single god is an act of sacrilege, what are we to say of the general pronouncement that 'immortals are mortal'? As Wilamowitz observed, at Athens Heraclitus would have been put to death for impiety.

I do not know of any true parallel in the classical period to this insistence upon the mortality of the immortals. Empedocles does speak of powers 'swiftly growing mortal (thneta) which had previously learned to be immortal (athanata)' (fr. 35.14). Empedocles may be echoing Heraclitus, but his context is cosmogonic and allegorical:
he is referring to the formation of mortal compounds from the combination of elemental principles, under the influence of Love. Thus, although there is a genuine affinity of doctrine, the esoteric verses of Empedocles have nothing like the provocative force of XCII. It seems unlikely that any pious Greek was scandalized by this passage.

On the other hand the converse assertion, that a mortal can become a god, is announced by Empedocles in another poem, his Katharmoi or 'Purifications', in terms that must have been regarded as provocative: 'I greet you, I an immortal god, mortal no longer.'

To find a parallel to this extraordinary pronouncement in the classical period
we must look to the mystic promise preserved on two of the gold tablets from Thurii in South Italy, buried with a body in the grave: 'Fortunate and most blessed, you will be a god instead of a mortal.'

Now the claim that a mortal may become a god, however presump- tuous it may sound in the fifth century, has at least a mythic prece- dent in the story of Heracles' acceptance among the Olympians. The related thesis, that this human life is in reality the death of a higher being, is much more esoteric. Again we find a hint of such a view in the Purifications of Empedocles, where the body is described as an 'alien garment of flesh' (fr. 126) and birth seems to be referred to as the unwelcome arrival in an unfamiliar place, to be greeted by funereal cries and lamentation (fr. 118; cf. 119 and 125). Even closer parallels to XCII can be found in Attic literature:

Who knows if life be death, but death in turn
be recognized below as life? (Euripides, fr. 638 Nauck)
Plato quotes these Euripidean verses in the Gorgias (492E) as evidence for the view that 'perhaps we are truly dead'; and he speaks in this connection of a doctrine that regards the body (soma) as the tomb (sema) of the soul.

This is not the place to discuss the origins and ramifications of this non-standard view of the human psyche; my point was simply to illus- trate the affinity of language between XCII and certain mystic doc- trines associated with the so-called Orphic, more accurately Pythagorean, tradition. But it does not follow from the fact that Heraclitus uses the language of this tradition that he accepts the view of the psyche which it implies. The monistic tendency of his own thought is really incompatible with the doctrine of an individual psyche migrating from body to body. Heraclitus makes use of this mystic language in part for its shock effect, to suggest the drastic novelty of his own insight into the unity of life and death, the radically 'unexpected' truth that awaits men beyond the grave.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 03, 2013 3:16 am

Thank you.

My question to you.

I feel and see your exuberance and passion but....

Do you accept this?

I see it as problematic for most.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 03, 2013 3:28 am

Quote :
What is your mature understanding of God?

Btw., what did you conclude on the exploration you started last year if Socrates was or was not an atheist?

I would like to answer both these questions with an analogy presented by Kierkegaard.
Kierkegaard writes that Socrates, a non-Christian pagan philosopher, is his one true predecessor, that Socrates’ philosophical activity is the only thing analogous to his activity as a writer and thinker.

This taken from Kierkegaard’s Socratic Point of View expresses perfectly my own "mature" view of Christianity and Kierkegaard's opinion of Socrates. He, Kierkegaard, argues that the cultural phenomenon presenting itself as Christianity—what he calls Christendom, is permeated by a kind of sophistry. In particular, he compares the pastors and theologians of his day to the Sophists battled by Socrates.

"Christendom lies in an abyss of sophistry. Those legions of pastors and Christian assistant professors are all sophists, who by falsifying the definition of Christian have, for the sake of the business, gained millions and millions of Christians".

If the pastors and theologians correspond to the professional teachers of virtue in Socrates’ day, then the larger Christian public corresponds more broadly to those in Athens who think they know what virtue is when they do not.

He suggests that Socrates’ task in Athens has the same two-fold structure as his task:

"But as it went with you [Socrates] (according to what you say in your "defense", as you ironically enough have called the cruelest satire on a contemporary age)—namely that you made many enemies for yourself by making it manifest that the others were ignorant and that the others held a grudge against you out of envy since they assumed that you yourself must be what you could show that they were not—so has it also gone with me. That I can make it manifest that the others are even less Christian than I has given rise to indignation against me; I who nevertheless am so engaged with Christianity that I truly perceive and acknowledge that I am not a Christian".

Early on in "My Task" just after he claims that Socrates provides his only analogy, Kierkegaard openly addresses him:

"You, antiquity’s noble simple soul, you the only human being I admiringly acknowledge as a thinker: there is only a little preserved about you, of all people the only true martyr of intellectuality, just as great qua character as qua thinker; but how exceedingly much this little is! How I long, far from those battalions of thinkers that "Christendom" places in the field under the name of Christian thinkers…how I long to be able to speak—if only for half an hour—with you!" (modified).






Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 03, 2013 7:23 am

Socrates was how Plato promoted the values that would preserve the conditions that made him possible.

The wise man who has a deeper understanding of reality than the one he teaches, because some insights cannot be understood nor tolerated by those he relies upon to do the daily tasks that offer him the possibility for leisurely meditation.

A "noble lie" must be told to those who will then be grateful for its message.

Seduction, is relatively easy.
Then a seed is planted that may or may not grow and prosper.
Once it begins to flourish this seedling takes over the mother's life.
The mother, both loves and is burdened by her offspring.
It takes on a life of its own, eventually spreading its seed or being fertilized, and she admires it from afar, not fully relating nor totally detached.

Jesus appeared to his people as Socrates did to his: bringing good tidings and seeding them with ideas that would bind them to what they could not.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 03, 2013 7:28 am

reasonvemotion wrote:
Quote :
What is your mature understanding of God?

Btw., what did you conclude on the exploration you started last year if Socrates was or was not an atheist?

I would like to answer both these questions with an analogy presented by Kierkegaard.
Kierkegaard writes that Socrates, a non-Christian pagan philosopher, is his one true predecessor, that Socrates’ philosophical activity is the only thing analogous to his activity as a writer and thinker.

This taken from Kierkegaard’s Socratic Point of View expresses perfectly my own "mature" view of Christianity and Kierkegaard's opinion of Socrates. He, Kierkegaard, argues that the cultural phenomenon presenting itself as Christianity—what he calls Christendom, is permeated by a kind of sophistry. In particular, he compares the pastors and theologians of his day to the Sophists battled by Socrates.

"Christendom lies in an abyss of sophistry. Those legions of pastors and Christian assistant professors are all sophists, who by falsifying the definition of Christian have, for the sake of the business, gained millions and millions of Christians".

If the pastors and theologians correspond to the professional teachers of virtue in Socrates’ day, then the larger Christian public corresponds more broadly to those in Athens who think they know what virtue is when they do not.

He suggests that Socrates’ task in Athens has the same two-fold structure as his task:

"But as it went with you [Socrates] (according to what you say in your "defense", as you ironically enough have called the cruelest satire on a contemporary age)—namely that you made many enemies for yourself by making it manifest that the others were ignorant and that the others held a grudge against you out of envy since they assumed that you yourself must be what you could show that they were not—so has it also gone with me. That I can make it manifest that the others are even less Christian than I has given rise to indignation against me; I who nevertheless am so engaged with Christianity that I truly perceive and acknowledge that I am not a Christian".

Early on in "My Task" just after he claims that Socrates provides his only analogy, Kierkegaard openly addresses him:

"You, antiquity’s noble simple soul, you the only human being I admiringly acknowledge as a thinker: there is only a little preserved about you, of all people the only true martyr of intellectuality, just as great qua character as qua thinker; but how exceedingly much this little is! How I long, far from those battalions of thinkers that "Christendom" places in the field under the name of Christian thinkers…how I long to be able to speak—if only for half an hour—with you!" (modified).



The quotes say Nothing about the/your "mature" view of God, and your own opinion of Socrates' religious belief; it merely says Socrates had a truer understanding and what is considered Xt. so far is not real Xt.,... which is what? What is God to you and why do you need Him?
Fyi., this view of Socrates [as a parallel Christ, martyr of Reason, etc.] goes before Kierkegaard to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] who was Kierkegaard's mentor.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:23 am



Quote :
XCII (D. 62) Immortals mortal, mortals immortal, living the others' death, dead in the others' life.

Lyssa

Quote :
My question to you.

I feel and see your exuberance and passion but....

Do you accept this?

it as problematic for most.


I would be interested in your view on this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:36 am

reasonvemotion wrote:


Quote :
XCII (D. 62) Immortals mortal, mortals immortal, living the others' death, dead in the others' life.

Lyssa

Quote :
My question to you.

I feel and see your exuberance and passion but....

Do you accept this?

it as problematic for most.


I would be interested in your view on this.

I thought I answered that already:

Lyssa wrote:
I interpret this as his meaning, the Immortals/Gods exist only in the imagination and minds of mortal men, and so when they perish, the Immortals become mortals too. And likewise, when mortals perish, they live on and are venerated as immortals; mortals become immortals and some also because of fame, glory.


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:57 pm

XLV (D. 120) The limits (termata) of Dawn and Evening the Bear; and opposite the Bear, the Warder of luminous Zeus.

I interpret this as a commentary on XLIV. But there are some points that must be taken account of in any interpretation.

(1) 'Dawn and evening', the first two words in the Greek sentence, have a double sense: (a) the beginning and end of day, and (b) the directions of east (sunrise) and west (sunset).

(2) Termata ('limits') means the goal of a race or the completion of a journey; the stone or pillar around which runners or chariots turn before heading back to their starting point; and, by extension, the borders or limits of a region.

(3) 'The Bear' (arktos) must designate Ursa Major, our Big Dipper or Great Bear, a general mark for the celestial pole and hence for the north.

(4) The Warder (ouros) opposite the Bear (arktos) can only be the star Arcturus (Gr. Arkt-ouros), described as the Bear-watcher (arkto-phylax) in the astronomical poem of Aratus (Phainomena 92).1 9 0 Now the risings and settings of Arcturus are a familiar signal of the
seasons as early as Hesiod. In Works and Days 566 and 610, the evening and dawn risings of Arcturus (its 'limits of dawn and evening') correspond to the beginning of spring and fall, that is, roughly to the equinoxes.191 But in XLV Arcturus appears not as a seasonal sign but as the mythical guardian set by Zeus to watch the Bear. The unusual epithet 'luminous' or 'bright' (aithrios) can be a reference to his tra- ditional role as sky-god and weather-god (since aithrie means 'clear sky', 'good weather'), but also a reinterpretation of Zeus as celestial fire in the upper sky (aither).

So much is clear. What follows is my own best guess at unravelling the knot of the riddle.
Dawn and Evening stand not merely for east and west but for sun- rise and sunset, and hence as marks for the course of the sun. The Bear, or celestial pole, is the point or region around which the sun turns in its daily course. On first reading, taking termata as turning- point for the sun each day, it is only the Bear (and not the Bear- watcher) whose presence here is explained. Hence I propose a strong punctuation after 'Bear'.

On second reading, however, the termata may be understood as the 'limits' or extreme points for sunrise and sunset over the year, that is, as the tropai or solstitial points which mark the annual course of the sun. These risings and settings are at best alluded to in the enigmatic 'limits (termata) of dawn and evening'. How far the reader is willing to credit Heraclitus with this allusion is likely to depend on whether he has been convinced by my interpretation of XLIV.
What then of 'the Warder of luminous Zeus, opposite the Bear'? I read this second clause as a distinct thought. Opposite the Bear (and revolving around it, like the Sun) stands Arcturus, the star which in Hesiod gives the signal for spring and fall. If Arcturus is presented here as guardian of the Bear, it is because the Bear stands for the pole, and hence for the fixed regularity of solar and astral cycles. Its stellar guardian will preserve the measures of cosmic justice after the sun has set. (Compare the watcher 'that never sets' in CXXII, D. 16).

Just as 'luminous Zeus' here corresponds to Dike in XLIV, so Arcturus appears in the role of the Furies as celestial policeman. Once the sun has set, the daily and annual ordinances of bright Zeus are represented by the clockwork regularity of the fixed stars.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 03, 2013 7:24 pm

Quote :
Lyssa wrote:
I interpret this as his meaning, the Immortals/Gods exist only in the imagination and minds of mortal men, and so when they perish, the Immortals become mortals too. And likewise, when mortals perish, they live on and are venerated as immortals; mortals become immortals and some also because of fame, glory.


I am asking not for your interpretation, I am asking do you accept this, if so, why.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:36 pm

reasonvemotion wrote:
Quote :
Lyssa wrote:
I interpret this as his meaning, the Immortals/Gods exist only in the imagination and minds of mortal men, and so when they perish, the Immortals become mortals too. And likewise, when mortals perish, they live on and are venerated as immortals; mortals become immortals and some also because of fame, glory.


I am asking not for your interpretation, I am asking do you accept this, if so, why.

Martha Nussbaum's Psyche in Heraclitus, talks of what psyche first of all meant since Homer [1], and if Heraclitus believed in the survival of an personal individuality after death [2], and she concludes he doesn't, except and other than through fame and glory.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If human immortality and the survival of personality is accepted, then there remains no meaning, no reason, no purpose, to strife and to a heroic life, the winning of an immortal name, imperishable fame, to stand apart.

So a personality attains immortality/survives through heroic recognition, memetics.

In the case of procreation, I naturally believe personality survives and what is epigenetics.

In the case of no progeny, if there is no separation between us and our actions, one continuity, then the momentum we set, sets us off; we continue to live on in our actions which is a never-ending butterfly effect, forever unfolding and perhaps will recur [not reincarnate]. The
near-vaccum we create after death, a certain environment, a certain atmosphere through our deeds and dispositions, should logically favour and prove hospitable only to the creation of a similar disposition. I think it is in this sense, karma and dharma make sense; the Buddha's saying,

Quote :
"My action is my possession, my action is my inheritance, my action is the womb that bears me, my action is the family to which I am related, my action is my refuge." [Evola, Doctrine of Awakening]
Quote :
"...man always becomes what he would like to become, that is, whatever he desires and thirsts after; for whatever we think after, that we grasp. Of course this is not to be understood as if it meant that a mere wish would be sufficient; but what has directing force, is the nature of our willing and of our desire in its innermost depth, that means, our innermost character, as it appears in action as blind impulse, without being guided by the light of knowledge. For according to the foregoing expositions, exactly in this situation is our will at the decisive moment of death, when it determines our grasping of a new germ. To know to what kind of grasping our will may lead us, we must dive into the depths of our animal life, as it reveals itself when the dominating influence of reason is eliminated, thus, in emotion, or still more, in a state of intoxication, or in dream. Hence it is not decisive, if a person in rational reflection does not murder or steal, is neither unchaste nor heartless, but only if he is incapable of all this even in the height of passion, nay, even in his dreams. Only that which even in such conditions never more arises, never more can arise within us, of which therefore, as we can easily feel, we are absolutely incapable, only this is definitively eradicated from our will. Therefore it can never any more make itself felt when in death we have entirely abandoned consciousness, and precisely because of this, cannot say more as blind impulse determine our new grasping. If, for example, I know that I could not, under any circumstances, conceive the thought of killing, not evem in a dream, then I am sure that this inclination no longer exists within me, thus also can no longer determine my new grasping at death. But if I must confess, after having carefully studied myself, that in a state of clear consciousness I am indeed incapable of killing, but might become a murderer in an excited or drunken state, then my will is of such sort that in the future, if unilluminated by any consciousness, it might cause a grasping of a germ in a world where murders can be, and are, indeed, committed; and where perhaps also this capacity of will still asleep within me, under the appropriate external circumstances, - for instance, if I were born intoa rude and uncultured family - might some time or other flame up again and make a murderer. The fundamental condition for the certainty that after death I shall not become attached to a germ in a low-class, pain-laden world, is therefore this, that I know myself, at latest, in the hour of my death, to be definitively free from all bad inclinations. In so far as this is the case, in so far as a man has acquired confidence, virtue, experience, renunciation, wisdom, and thereby become nobler and purer and thereby more adapted to attachment in higher and purer spheres, he also has it in his own hands to bring about his rebirth in closely determined circles or spheres, be it in a power high-placed family, or in a world of gods. By incessantly and intensively occupying himself with thoughts relating to this, he may turn his entire striving in this direction, until he is quite absorbed, completely saturated with it, so that of itself the unshakeable certitude comes to him: After death I can no longer possibly sink into the depths, as little as coal-smoke, when cleansed, that is, freed from its heavier components, can settle in lower levels, but must rise upwards. Indeed, in this decisive unconscious condition, I can grasp no other germ but the one desired, because every other would be contrary to my innermost nature, that is, to the characteristic direction of my will, to my deepest thirst for a certain definite mode of existence, and therefore, without further ado, even though blind, would be rejected by it." [ib.]
Quote :
"Therefore the question arises, as to what it is which in such a case determines the new grasping upon death. The answer again is very simple. It depends upon whether the good or the bad striving comes into activity at the moment of death and thus determines the new grasping." [ib.]
Quote :
"The will lies smouldering, so to say, beneath the ashes, and need not enter consciousness for a long time. To understand this thoroughly, we have only to reflect how very few men really know their own character, that is, the sum of the tendecies of their will. Either the outer motives are wanting which might wake the impulses and inclinations slumbering within them, or external circumstances, more especially the laws of the state, hinder the expession of an evilly disposed will, but not this will itself." [ib.]
Quote :
"Though the causality of all willing is thus beyond all doubt, it does not necessaruly extend in every case beyond death into one of our future rebirths. This, on the contrary, is only the case, if the tendency of will, the outcome of which was a given deed, is present at all even though only in latent condition, at the moment of death, when the new grasping takes place. If at this moment it already again has been completely rooted out, then neither itself nor, of course, the deed resulting forces from it, can in any way be of causal importance for the new attachment and those that follow later on..." [ib.]


We live on in our desires, and the direction and discriminate intensity and degree of impeccability, self-resolve, self-certainty we give to it.

Heraclitus says, Our Character IS Our Fate.


Your turn. God - how you define the term, if you believe in His existence, and why you need Him. Is it God you are searching for?

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:38 pm

XLVI (D. 99) Plutarch: [Heraclitus says 'if there were no sun it would be night.']

XLVII (D. 3) Aetius: [Heraclitus says the sun is the size of a human foot.]

XLVIIIA (D. 6) Aristotle: [As Heraclitus says, the sun is new (or young) every day.]

XLVIIIB Plato: [The sun of Heraclitus . . . is extinguished in old age . . . but rekindled again.]


These four texts present two sets of contrasting elements in the description of the sun.

(1) It grows old and is extinguished every night; but it regains its youth and vitality when rekindled every morning.

(2) It is a small and insignificant portion of the universe, no bigger than it appears or about the size of a human foot, but also the cause of day and night, whose light exceeds that of the moon and all the stars together. The first antithesis is presupposed by Plato's text, and confirmed by the post-Aristotelian doxography. The second antithesis is not formulated as such in any extant testimony, but it makes a meaningful pair out of what are otherwise two isolated comments.

The commentators have debated whether or not Heraclitus' remark about the size of the sun is to be taken literally. My view is that he is exploiting, without endorsing or criticizing, the natural assumption that the sun is just the size it appears. Scientific specu- lation on the size of the sun was provoked by the geometric model for the heavens proposed by Anaximander and his successors. The earliest attested estimate, ascribed to Anaxagoras (DK 59.A 42.8 ), that the sun exceeds the Peloponnesus in size, must have seemed phantastically large at the time. A century later the diffusion of Ionian science had transformed the situation for an educated man. Aristotle takes for granted the belief that the sun is 'larger than the inhabited earth' (De Anima 428b4 ). But Heraclitus was living in the age when serious estimates of stellar distances and magnitudes were just beginning, when they were weakly grounded and known only to an enlightened few. In referring to the sun going out and being re- kindled Heraclitus again makes use of a naive point of view. It may be helpful to cite here a contemporary picture of a peasant mentality that still sees the world as most men will have seen it in Heraclitus' day. Solzhenitsyn reports or imagines the following conversation between his hero, Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, and an educated officer.

'Listen, captain, where according to that science of yours does the old moon go when it's through?'
'Where does it go? What ignorance! It simply isn't visible any more!'
Shukhov shook his head and laughed:
'Well, if it's not visible, how do you know it's there?'
'So, according to you,' said the captain, astonished, 'we get a
new moon every month?'
'What's so strange about that? People are born every day, why
shouldn't there be a new moon every four weeks?'
'Pfui!' The captain spat. 'I've never met such a dumb sailor as
you. So where do you think the old moon goes?'
'That's what I'm asking you — where?' Shukhov grinned. 'Well, where does it go, tell me?'
Shukhov sighed and said, hardly lisping:
'At home they used to say that God broke up the old moon for
stars.'
'What savages!' The captain laughed. 'I've never heard such a
thing! Do you believe in God, Shukhov?'
'Why not?' Shukhov replied, surprised. 'When you hear Him
thunder, you can't help believing in Him.'
'And why do you think God does that, then?'
'Does what?'
'Break the moon up into stars?'
'Well, don't you understand?' Shukhov shrugged his shoulders.
'The stars fall down from time to time and it's necessary to fill the gaps.' (One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, tr. G. Aitken (New York, 1971),p. Ill)

It is a view of the world something like this that Heraclitus is pre-supposing. I see no reason to believe that he uncritically accepted the naive view of the sun and stars, any more than the popular view of the Furies or some myth about Zeus setting Arcturus as a watchman over the stellar Bear. He makes use of traditional belief and imagery for his own purposes, in this case probably to stress the paradoxical contrast between the sun's relatively small appearance and its indispensable function in the cosmos, and certainly to suggest a pattern of periodic extinctions and rekindling that is both an example and a paradigm for the measured lighting and quenching of cosmic fire (in XXXVII, D. 30). The remark about the dependence of daylight on the sun was probably intended to point to the union of day and night (XIX, D. 57).

In XLIV (D. 94) the sun is presented as an anthropomorphic being pursuing his daily path. In XLVIII the sun is again animate, passing from youth to age; but its vitality is there conceived as fire, kindled and quenched. When we turn to the Theophrastean doxography, we find this imagery of kindling and quenching taken literally in a quasi- mechanical explanation of the sun, moon, and stars, according to which these phenomena are produced by the gathering and igniting of bright exhalations in certain celestial bowls or basins (skaphai). If we could accept Theophrastus' report as reliable, we would have a rather detailed account of astronomical and meteorological theories. But these doctrines are so different from the allusive and ambivalent manner of Heraclitus in the preserved fragments that I do not think we can rely upon them for an understanding of his thought. For this material see Appendix IIA.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:59 am

When I look at the reality around me, it is difficult to come to the conclusion there is life after death.

One of the fundamental things are that faith and proof are mutually exclusive. If you have faith you don't demand proof, it is a person's conviction. Faith is a word that can be rejected by many because of the religious connotations, but faith is also just another word for perseverance.

I believe I should strive always to be a better person, (reward in heaven is of no consequence to me).

Heraclitus, describes eloquently life and death and what he believes happens after death to the human body and mind, you choose to accept this. For myself, it is not for me to second guess the Almighty in terms of how he perceives what happens to me when I die. I choose this.

I can say with conviction, I don't think when we die we reach an abyss and drop off the edge of the world.

In conclusion to say, I can prove any of this, or that Heraclitus could prove any of his Fragments, is an impossible task.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:43 pm

reasonvemotion wrote:
When I look at the reality around me, it is difficult to come to the conclusion there is life after death.

Ae you saying you do not consider fame and progeny an extension of you after death?

Quote :
One of the fundamental things are that faith and proof are mutually exclusive. If you have faith you don't demand proof, it is a person's conviction. Faith is a word that can be rejected by many because of the religious connotations, but faith is also just another word for perseverance.

I believe I should strive always to be a better person, (reward in heaven is of no consequence to me).

What is being a "better" person, and what motivates you to want to be so?

Quote :
Heraclitus, describes eloquently life and death and what he believes happens after death to the human body and mind, you choose to accept this. For myself, it is not for me to second guess the Almighty in terms of how he perceives what happens to me when I die. I choose this.

You are yet to explain what the "Almighty" is and means to you?

Quote :
I can say with conviction, I don't think when we die we reach an abyss and drop off the edge of the world.

So then...?

Quote :
In conclusion to say, I can prove any of this, or that Heraclitus could prove any of his Fragments, is an impossible task.

Everyone has conjectures.


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:45 pm

XLIX (D. 126) Cold warms up, warm cools off, moist parches, dry dampens.

Heraclitus here describes qualitative changes between physical opposites in the language of felt experience rather than scientific observation.194 The verb theretai 'warm up' can be used of a person warming himself by the fire. The word for 'cools oi{\psychetai, suggests an application to human souls (psychai). This presentation of the cold and the hot as if they were living beings reflects Heraclitus' view of the underlying identity between the psyche and the physical elements. (See below on CII, D. 36.) When Heraclitus speaks of the cosmos as a living fire, we must take him at his word.

The conception of elemental opposites illustrated here comes from Miletus; it is found again in the fragments of Anaxagoras and other fifth-century writers, before being incorporated into the canonical doctrine of Aristotle (for whom the four elementary bodies are defined by one member from each of the two pairs: hot-cold, wet- dry). What Heraclitus expresses, then, is not so much his own thought as a common presupposition of Greek natural philosophy from Anaximander to Aristotle and beyond.195 It is precisely this notion of pervasive physical change that the Eleatics rejected as false (Melissus fr. 8.3), while the physicists took it for granted as an obvious truth of experience (Diogenes fr. 2). Plato has this in mind when he speaks of a doctrine of continual change and becoming that is held by Protagoras and Heraclitus and Empedocles 'and by all the wise men except Parmenides' (Theaetetus 152E) and which he finds in the Heraclitean image of the river, where 'everything moves on and nothing stands still' (Cratylus 402 A8). On Plato's reading, the choice of the opposites cold-warm and moist-dry is merely a tra- ditional scheme for expressing the thesis of radical flux.

In its historical context, however, it is precisely the change of opposites into one another that connects this sentence with the frag- ment of Anaximander and with the tradition illustrated in Anaxa- goras and Melissus. And it is this archaic notion of the opposites as opponents or adversaries that underlies Heraclitus' own conception of War as father and king of all (LXXXIII, D. 53). The four opposites mentioned here, and the processes they structure, point to the domain of meteorology, with its processes of evaporation and pre- cipitation, drought and rainfall, changes in temperature and humidity. We are reminded of Aristotle's description of the atmospheric cycle in Heraclitean language:

Now this cycle occurs in imitation of the circle described by the sun. For as the sun passes laterally back and forth, this cycle moves up and down. One must think of it as a river flowing in a circle up and down, common to air and to water. (Meteor. 1.9, 346b35-347a3)

For Heraclitus too these daily and seasonal changes may be regarded as a cosmic river, whose flux is structured by a system of which the opposites are the coordinates, and whose balance is maintained by its periodicity.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:48 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:03 pm

Quote :
reasonvemotion wrote:
When I look at the reality around me, it is difficult to come to the conclusion there is life after death.

Ae you saying you do not consider fame and progeny an extension of you after death?

No

Quote :
One of the fundamental things are that faith and proof are mutually exclusive. If you have faith you don't demand proof, it is a person's conviction. Faith is a word that can be rejected by many because of the religious connotations, but faith is also just another word for perseverance.

I believe I should strive always to be a better person, (reward in heaven is of no consequence to me).

What is being a "better" person, and what motivates you to want to be so?


To be in this world but not of it. To recognise truth from lies, to avoid the shallowness that is rampant in our society today.

Quote :
Heraclitus, describes eloquently life and death and what he believes happens after death to the human body and mind, you choose to accept this. For myself, it is not for me to second guess the Almighty in terms of how he perceives what happens to me when I die. I choose this.

You are yet to explain what the "Almighty" is and means to you?

A higher intelligence

Quote :
I can say with conviction, I don't think when we die we reach an abyss and drop off the edge of the world.

So then...?

I do not know. Do you?

Quote :
In conclusion to say, I can prove any of this, or that Heraclitus could prove any of his Fragments, is an impossible task.

Everyone has conjectures.

Some of us "unlimited" conjecture.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:03 am

reasonvemotion wrote:
Quote :
reasonvemotion wrote:
When I look at the reality around me, it is difficult to come to the conclusion there is life after death.

Ae you saying you do not consider fame and progeny an extension of you after death?

No

Then, neither do I or Heraclitus believe there is "life after death" in the sense you imply.

Quote :


To be in this world but not of it.

The Lotus-principle. Yes.

Quote :
To recognise truth from lies, to avoid the shallowness that is rampant in our society today.

Avoid? Can reality be avoided?
In any case, what standards do you use to differentiate truth from lies? How is truth recognized? When is something a lie?
What and all do you consider shallow in our society today? What do you think is the cause for or root of this shallowness?
Do you have a political stand?


Quote :
You are yet to explain what the "Almighty" is and means to you?

A higher intelligence

jibe * jibe * nudge * poke * I got that much!, go on...........
You are perhaps a Neoplatonist.

Quote :

Some of us "unlimited" conjecture.

Some people are perturbed by death and mortality to the point of faith, a sure refuge in something; I'm not one of those.
We tend to become what we desire, and what we desire is who we already are.
How we Tend to this world and at-tend to it attentively, is how we will ex-Tend into it.
Among the Germanics, is the concept of the Wyrd; what comes into existence once is woven forever into the fabric of all future becomings, progeny or no progeny; the past/present/future is an interconnected web of interactivity.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which you can download from there if you want to, is the best book on it.



_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:11 am

reasonvemotion:

When I look at the reality around me, it is difficult to come to the conclusion there is life after death.

Quote :
Lyssa:
Are you saying "you do not consider" fame and progeny an extension of you after death?

No

Quote :
Then, neither do I or Heraclitus believe there is "life after death" in the sense you imply.

Reread what you wrote. No, is the answer to your question "you do not consider" as I do consider, I would answer no to that question as I am not saying that.

Carl Jung states the psyche, isn't entirely confined to space and time, as one can have dreams or visions of the future, and if this is so, then the psyche is not under that obligation to live in time and space alone, which could mean that the psyche could have a practical continuation, a sort of physical existence beyond time and space.

To be in this world but not of it.

Quote :
The Lotus-principle. Yes.

No. Scripture.

To recognise truth from lies, to avoid the shallowness that is rampant in our society today

Quote :
Avoid? Can reality be avoided?

Avoided in the sense that one does not indulge in it, (shallowness),then shallowness can be avoided, but the reality of its existence cannot.

Quote :
In any case, what standards do you use to differentiate truth from lies? How is truth recognized? When is something a lie?

That would be telling wouldn't it.....LOL

There is no method for identifying deception, emphatically, when it exists.

Quote :
What and all do you consider shallow in our society today? What do you think is the cause for or root of this shallowness?

How often do people contemplate the mysteries of the incomprehensible things which give meaning to life, which requires going deeper into the reasons for our existence? With all the technology, this is being neglected and forgotten. We live in the shallowness of the materialist, consumer culture.

Quote :


Do you have a political stand?


This is beginning to feel like an inquisition.

Nevertheless my answer is No.


Quote :
You are yet to explain what the "Almighty" is


A higher intelligence


Quote :
jibe * jibe * nudge * poke * I got that much!, go on...........


The world is deafened by those who proclaim the answer to that unanswerable question, yet still they persist.

Quote :
and means to you?

That is something I have not considered. What does Heraclitus mean to you?


Quote :
You are perhaps a Neoplatonist.


You think so? When I am willing to fulfil the demands of rigorous self examination, may be then I will discover the answer to that one. I have not as yet had the fortitude to do so. Neutral

Some of us "unlimited" conjecture.


Quote :
Some people are perturbed by death and mortality to the point of faith, a sure refuge in something; I'm not one of those.


Perhaps that is because you disregard the complete end. Most people embrace myth, because reason shows men there is nothing but a great dark pit of finality.



Quote :
We tend to become what we desire, and what we desire is who we already are.


Desire is predicated on a sense of lack. Why would we desire what we have or are already.



Quote :
How we Tend to this world and at-tend to it attentively, is how we will ex-Tend into it.
Among the Germanics, is the concept of the Wyrd; what comes into existence once is woven forever into the fabric of all future becomings, progeny or no progeny; the past/present/future is an interconnected web of interactivity.
The Well and the Tree which you can download from there if you want to, is the best book on it.


Thanks.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:09 am

reasonvemotion wrote:
reasonvemotion:

When I look at the reality around me, it is difficult to come to the conclusion there is life after death.

Quote :
Lyssa:
Are you saying "you do not consider" fame and progeny an extension of you after death?

No

Quote :
Then, neither do I or Heraclitus believe there is "life after death" in the sense you imply.

Reread what you wrote. No, is the answer to your question "you do not consider" as I do consider, I would answer no to that question as I am not saying that.

I am saying, because you do consider fame and progeny an extension of you after death, but since you also say you find it hard to conclude there is some life after death, and that this is what you choose to believe whereas I have chosen to accept what Heraclitus said, you seem to imply as if I believe in life after death as some kind of possibility in reincarnation or something - I am clarifying I do not, although I do believe in the possibility of recurrence.


Quote :
Carl Jung states the psyche, isn't entirely confined to space and time, as one can have dreams or visions of the future, and if this is so, then the psyche is not under that obligation to live in time and space alone, which could mean that the psyche could have a practical continuation, a sort of physical existence beyond time and space.

I have not read Jung/Freud, etc. The soul is a subtler extension of the body, and the ancient irano-indo-greco-romans, celtics, and germanics believed in the idea of the genii, the fetch, and the fylgja respectively as a psyche or animal spirit that is able to detach from the body, travel and roam and gather the happenings when asleep and return before waking. So many folktales on this.
We believe our senses usually end with our finger-tips and toes and range of eyes, but these ideas are a way of denoting a degree of how much, how wide our body extends and is able to grasp, our fluidity. [see the links on psyche [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]


Quote :
The world is deafened by those who proclaim the answer to that unanswerable question, yet still they persist.

So, whatever cannot be explained for now and for a long time - you call God and higher intelligence? That's it?
Isn't it the human tendency to perceive order and then wonder at the "harmony" of so much order...


Quote :
Quote :
You are perhaps a Neoplatonist.


You think so?

You'd be one if you thought of God along these lines:

Quote :
"For since the nature of the One is generative of all things it is not any one of them. It is not therefore something or qualified or quantitative or intellect or soul; it is not in movement or at rest; not in place, not in time, but “itself by itself ” of single, or rather formless, being, before all form, before movement and before rest; for these pertain to being and are what make it many.
The One transcends multiplicity and all types of thinking (V.3.12–17), and the intelligible Forms are only images of the One (VI.7.17; V.5.5). The One is beyond thought and reason since it exists before the thought of it (VI.7.38.21–25); it is an absolute self-sufficient source in perfect contempla- tion of itself, alone by itself (VI.7.40.11–27), and, moreover, it does not need to have knowledge of itself, intellection of itself, or consciousness of itself, being beyond substance, life, and intelligence (VI.8.16–38). The One, being therefore beyond intelligence and thought, is absolutely tran- scendent, without oppositions or contradictions, and so incapable of absolute definitions. There is no definition for the One because the One is the defining principle of all (VI.8.9.43–50). For this reason the One is conceived and expressed more accurately through negative statements, and so is described in negative terms as the lifeless source of life, the formless source of form, the hyper-intelligent source of intelligence, the unmeasured and infinite source of measure and limit (V.5.4–11; VI.7.17). The One is not life but life is a trace of the One (VI.6.7.17), which is the source of beauty beyond beauty as it is be- yond being and existence (VI.7.32.33 ff.).
Quote :
"The One itself is partless and for this reason it is identified with the Pla- tonic Good (VI.7.18.40). Remaining loyal to Plato, Plotinus identifies the One with the “light of the Good” in the Republic (VI.7.22–3); the transparent “light” of the One “colors” the succeeding realities, giving them grace and love (VI.7.31). The One is like a light dispersed far and wide from some entity translucent in itself (VI.8.18.35). It is the active presence of light in the form of Good beyond intelligence (VI.8.15.19–20). This inner light leads the ascent of the human soul to the One where true freedom and independence belong. For this reason, freedom is the power in the human soul to ascend to the Good with- out hindrance (VI.8.4). Plotinus describes the ascent to the ultimate One through a “scale” of goods throughout the Hypostases (VI.7.25–30).11 According to this scale, form is the good for Matter, Soul is the good for Body, Intellect the good for Soul, and the One is the good for Intellect (VI.7.28). Thus, for Plotinus, everything derives from and aims at the Good, but the Good is not a predi- cate of the One (VI.7.38; V.3.10). Our desire to return to the One is explained by the immanent goodness of the One in every existence.
Quote :
"Thus, the One is the supreme universal source, unified and unifying, which connects and makes coherent all the Hypostases of Being from the highest level of Intellect to the lowest level of Soul. It is the “principle of everything” (VI.9.5.23; VI.7.15.15; V.5.10.13–15) as well as “cause of the cause” (VI.8.18.38), “source”) and “root” of the whole intelligible universe. It is termed the “simple”, the supreme “non-composite” prior to multiplicity, the ultimate “first” before all existences, the “one alone”, and the absolute “transcendent” (VI.9.9; V.4.1.1–17). As Plotinus argues, the One, as a principle of everything, has to be simple, since duality entails complexity which is a priori inferior to sim- plicity and therefore has no place in his metaphysical system (V.1.7.20 ff.). Since the Platonic Forms are originally multiple, they cannot be the princi- ple that we are seeking. Dominic O’Meara names this idea the “Principle of Prior Simplicity.”
Quote :
"As the productive source of everything, the One has to be “perfect” (τε}λειον) and “superabundant” (V.2.1). It is the generative cause of everything, the “seminal power of all things” (δυ}ναμις των πα} ντων) (III.8.10.1; V.1.7.9–10; V.3.15.33; V.4.1.36), due to the fact that all subsequent realities are derived from its perfection and plenitude (V.1.6.38 ff.). The One is “omnipotent,” sometimes in the sense of its power implying “potency” and sometimes “actual activity” (VI.8.1.1–14). Its power is “limitless” (VI.9.6.10–12; V.5.6.15 ff.), not, however, in size, number or measure but in its inexhaustible productive force which eternally produces in plenitude the whole intelligible universe. The Plotinian One spreads out its inexhaustible power to every single being that comes after it (V.5.5.1–2; V.2.1.7–10). It is like an inexhaustible spring of life which gives a plenitude of existence to all (III 8.10.5–14). Arthur Lovejoy names this idea the “Principle of Plenitude.”" [Stamatellos, Plotinus and the Pre-Socratics]


Quote :
Perhaps that is because you disregard the complete end.

I don't believe in absolutes.
No beginning, no end.

Quote :

Quote :
We tend to become what we desire, and what we desire is who we already are.


Desire is predicated on a sense of lack. Why would we desire what we have or are already.

My path is Dionysian; I'm referring to a sense of self-joy. Self-affirmation prompts self-desire.


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:11 am

L (D. 12) As they step into the same rivers, other and still other waters flow upon them.

This fragment is cited by Cleanthes in a comparison of Heraclitus' and Zeno's views of the soul. But the text itself contains no reference to the psyche. For Cleanthes' interpretation see CXIIIB.
The wording offers several oddities. There is the plural form of 'rivers': why is one river not enough? And there are four consecutive dative forms: potamoisin toisin autoisin embainousin, which can in principle be construed in either of two ways:

(1) 'into the same rivers, as they step', as in my translation, or

(2) 'into rivers, as the same [men] step'. This ambiguity would have been avoided if either bathers or rivers had been referred to in the singular. Thus the two oddities
of the sentence in fact coincide.

Since elsewhere Heraclitus makes deliberate use of syntactical ambiguity, it is possible that both constructions are intended here.196 If so, the ambiguity serves to emphasize a parallel between the ident- ity of the human bathers and that of the rivers; and this parallel would suggest that the men too remain the same only as a constant pattern imposed on incessant flow. This is a 'Heraclitean' thought familiar from Plato.

Mortal nature seeks . . . to be forever and to be immortal. But it can only do so by . . . leaving something else new behind in place of the old . . . as when a man is called the same from childhood to old age. He is called the same despite the fact that he does not
have the same hair and flesh and bones and blood and all the body, but he loses them and is always becoming new. And similarly for the soul: his dispositions and habits, opinions, desires, pleasures, pains, fears, none of these remains the same, but some are coming- to-be, others are lost. (Symposium 207D)

I take it that Plato is here sympathetically developing a Heraclitean insight.
A second reason for the repeated dative forms would be more properly stylistic: to suggest the incessant movement of the river water by the rhythm and assonance of the four words ending in -oisin or ousin, reinforced by the more explicit repetition in 'other and other waters'. (Thus the sentence structure imitates the river: the dative forms suggest the disappearance of water downstream, whereas the neuter plural subject hetera kai hetera hydata represents the oncoming waters from upstream.) Finally, the use of plural forms throughout implies generality: Heraclitus is referring not just to the Cayster or Maeander but to all rivers; not to a given moment or bather but to all moments and all men.

This is the only statement on the river whose wording is unmistak- ably Heraclitean. It does not deny the continuing identity of the rivers, but takes this for granted. (For the denial that we can step into the same river twice, see LI.) Hence the point here concerns neither the irreversibility of the flow of time, the uniqueness of an individual event or experience, nor the general instability of things. What is emphasized is that the structure and hence the identity of a given river remains fixed, despite or even because its substance is constantly changing. And if the parallel mentioned above is pressed, something similar is indicated about the structure and identity of individual human beings. Taken generally, the thought expressed by the river image reinforces that of the flame: the preservation of structure within a process of flux, where a unitary form is maintained while its material embodiment or 'filling' is constantly lost and replaced.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:35 am


Lyssa wrote;

Quote :
"It is in my view a great mistake to suppose that the psyche of a new-born child is a tabula rasa in the sense that there is absolutely nothing in it. In so far as the child is born with a differentiated brain that is predetermined by heredity and therefore individualized, it meets sensory stimuli coming from outside not with any aptitudes, but with specific ones, and this necessarily results in a particular, individual choice and pattern of apperception. These aptitudes can be shown to be inherited instincts and preformed patterns, the latter being the a priori and formal conditions of apperception that are based on instinct. Their presence gives the world of the child and the dreamer its anthropomorphic stamp. They are the archetypes, which direct all fantasy activity into its appointed paths and in this way produce, in the fantasy-images of children's dreams as well as in the delusions of schizophrenia, astonishing mythological parallels such as can also be found, though in lesser degree, in the dreams of normal persons and neurotics. It is not, therefore, a question of inherited ideas but of inherited possibilities of ideas." [Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious]


Lyssa wrote:

Quote :
I have not read Jung/Freud, etc.


and yet as we can read above you quote quite an extensive extract from Jung in another post.

I can only come to the conclusion you are a woman of no substance.


Heraclitus says, Our Character IS Our Fate.

Indeed.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:22 pm

Quote :
Lyssa wrote;

Quote :
"It is in my view a great mistake to suppose that the psyche of a new-born child is a tabula rasa in the sense that there is absolutely nothing in it. In so far as the child is born with a differentiated brain that is predetermined by heredity and therefore individualized, it meets sensory stimuli coming from outside not with any aptitudes, but with specific ones, and this necessarily results in a particular, individual choice and pattern of apperception. These aptitudes can be shown to be inherited instincts and preformed patterns, the latter being the a priori and formal conditions of apperception that are based on instinct. Their presence gives the world of the child and the dreamer its anthropomorphic stamp. They are the archetypes, which direct all fantasy activity into its appointed paths and in this way produce, in the fantasy-images of children's dreams as well as in the delusions of schizophrenia, astonishing mythological parallels such as can also be found, though in lesser degree, in the dreams of normal persons and neurotics. It is not, therefore, a question of inherited ideas but of inherited possibilities of ideas." [Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious]


Lyssa wrote:

Quote :
I have not read Jung/Freud, etc.


and yet as we can read above you quote quite an extensive extract from Jung in another post.


It is a quote from Jung I picked incorporated in another's text, or maybe from some discussion someone posted to me?!!

"unlimited conjectures" LOL

wow, what a fraud you've detected, what a secret cover-up you've stripped bare, I'm sweating... you give me the shivers...
wowman, I do not go about reading psychologists; if they happen on my way, and make sense, I take note.

Did the lights sting you too in(can)descently?
If this is some counter-inquisition! or you are some woman-bishop wanting my confession, pls. record, I have read Jung's seminar on N.'s Zarathustra and his short essay on Wotan, but not his psychological theories, etc.
I eagerly wait your verdict...

Quote :
I can only come to the conclusion you are a woman of no substance.

Wow, that's some progress then. You atleast now think I'm a "woman"..... it could have been worse, with you still stuck in your old paranoid retardation, 'satyr', 'anima', etc.
Butttt guess what? you'd be right; I'm a woman of no substance indeed.
I'm all Heart, just atmosphere.
But I've been telling you this since the first day... YOU show me what it means to be a woman of substance! YOU demonstrate it for me and all of us. Show me what you are made of.
Lead by example.

Do you find it thrilling exposing people - part of your hobby, photography and all...? Is it a sublimated habit, or are you always this sudden gangr type...
the full moon days or something, when they come out? your fangs? and fur..?

I see there are triggers;...
do inconsistencies make you go wild wowman?


Quote :
Heraclitus says, Our Character IS Our Fate.
Indeed.


Quote :
There is no method for identifying deception, emphatically, when it exists.

Indeed; how you operate, judge, conclude; in short, your intellect, you colour, your shallowness shows.
Pls. keep being that better person.
Don't give up.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:18 pm

[quote="reasonvemotion"]


Quote :
You are yet to explain what the "Almighty" is


A higher intelligence

./quote]This is funny for two basic reasons:

1- All value judgments are comparisons (name one which is not), and so comparing a known, an individual, a self, with some imagined projection is, is hilarious.
This would be like comparing your speed, for instance, with that of a pixie...The comparison here is with a projected, non-existent absolute.
In this case the mind takes strength, or any trait, and imagines, in an ambiguous way, an infinity of it.
Infinity can be imagined so it is felt.

2- "Higher" is a term meaning "superior".
In this case a "higher intelligence" means anyone superior in intelligence than the speaker or her evaluation of herself.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:01 am


Satyr:

Quote :
"Higher" is a term meaning "superior".
In this case a "higher intelligence" means anyone superior in intelligence than the speaker or her evaluation of herself.

Correct.

It is shown that the concept of the existence of a higher intelligence exterior to the material universe can be modelled rationally by means of the science of mathematics.

When concepts relative to the DNA molecule are modelled by means of information theory, one aspect of the obtained theoretical conclusions seems to defy human comprehension unless a very special postulate is assumed. As Wilder-Smith (1993) states:

"We are forced to come back to basics and assume that there must have been in the beginning; at the act of creation; an organ of the kind that makes the human brain tick (but infinitely more powerful, of course) to generate the concepts of biology on a much larger scale than the human brain can ever develop."


Under the further assumption that all life throughout the universe is associated with DNA type molecules and that such natural processes are amenable to human thought, then such a higher intelligence could not be assigned to biological entities within the universe itself. Using the term natural to refer to entities, processes, and the like that are within our universe, under these assumptions, information theory leads to the conclusion that the acceptance of a supernatural higher intelligence would be needed in order to properly comprehend the model.

Robert Hermann

Back to top Go down
View user profile
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:35 am

Lyssa,

Put your panties back on lady.

Perhaps you would prefer indifference to your posts.

I can comply willingly.







Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:03 am

Again...two things:

1-
Higher is a value judgment, and infinite regress has a reverse movement.

2-
The term "intelligence" refers to a sum of brain-functions, traits, which evolve to satisfy a need, or to satisfy needs.

Your need to mystify these brain functions is what defines your motives and limits your understanding.
Your model begins with assumptions, not perceptions, so as to build downwards towards a desirable goal.
You are a brain of top>down thinking.

I don't know what "information theory" you are using or how it says what you claim it does, but the fact that after all that about "natural" was done with you inserted, casually, the "supernatural" tells me that you are not firing on all pistons.

Maybe selective reasoning can also prove to you that you also make sense.
I'll await the essay on it.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:30 am

reasonvemotion wrote:
Lyssa,

Put your panties back on lady.

Is that what a "woman of substance" does? hahaha



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Come to me wowman, I'll heal all your grief and mourning...

She trickster

dances Demeter across pulsing boards ,

mirror ball snow glints against sparkled balaclava,

a stretched red sequinned boob tube over laughing torso, her

regulars stand at the bar, laugh and point, expect her usual grin

not bare-faced cheek covered with dead-pan expression, as

she spins a mourning goddess across her lit-up floor.

Hades keeps mothers in the underworld, under here

their heads push against the ceiling, engaged,

waiting for the earth to open like a womb,

to contract, push them gasping into

spring air, bloody, beautiful

un-bowed. Baubo reveals

herself to Demeter;

teases a

thaw.

Wink


Quote :
Perhaps you would prefer indifference to your posts.

I can comply willingly.


I don't know what I'd do without your attention. Please never take that away from me.

I even looked up Kierkegaard today..., to see what all the "mature view of God" was all about,, and have to say,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:30 am

LI (D. 91) Plutarch: [According to Heraclitus one cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but by the intensity and the rapidity of change it scatters and again gathers. Or rather, not again nor later but at the same time it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs.]

It is curious that the most celebrated and in a sense the most pro- found saying of Heraclitus, that you cannot step twice into the same river, is not unmistakably attested in his own words. It was already a famous saying in Plato's time; and even before Plato, Cratylus must have been familiar with the paradox, since he tried to cap it with one of his own. Cratylus denied that you could even step in the river once, since you are changing too.

Thus the statement seems to go back to Heraclitus himself. But Plato does not give a verbatim quotation: 'Heraclitus says, doesn't he, that all things move on and nothing stands still, and comparing things to the stream of a river he said that you cannot step twice into the same river' (Cratylus 402A). Like the formula panta rhei 'all things flow', which occurs later in the dialogue, the remark about the river seems to be paraphrase rather than quotation.199 The citation from Plutarch in LI is similar to Plato's except for the impersonal form. This is probably as close as we can get to Heraclitus' own wording, unless we assume with several recent editors that the famous statement is simply a free rendering of L (D. 12). (Kirk (pp. 374f., 381), Marcovich (p. 206). Cf. Reinhardt, Parmenides, p.
207n.)

But if it is strange that Heraclitus should have expressed himself twice in such similar terms, it seems even stranger that Cratylus or some anonymous predecessor should have invented this formula, which would have been enough to assure Heraclitus' immortality even if all his other words were lost. Hence I prefer to regard 'One cannot step twice' as an independent fragment, perhaps designed to complete L (D. 12) by drawing an even more radical conclusion: since new waters are ever flowing in, it is in fact not possible to step into the same river twice. Or, more plausibly, the formula of LI may have been stated first, with L following as its justification: 'One can never bathe twice in the same river. For as one steps into [what is supposed to be] the same rivers, new waters are flowing on.'

What follows in Plutarch is a long description of the fleeting character of mortal existence, along the lines of the passage from the Symposium. In the context of several citations from Heraclitus comes a series of phrases describing the transitory character of human exist- ence: 'It scatters and again gathers. (Or rather, not again nor later but at the same time) it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs.' The words in parenthesis are pretty clearly a Plutarchean interpolation, inspired by Plato's contrast between Heraclitus and Empedocles in the Sophist (242D—E). But the three pairs of contrasting verbs are intended to suggest Heraclitus' taste for antithesis; and any pair — or even all three — might reflect Heraclitus' text. The last pair ('it approaches and departs') would fit the river image perfectly; the other two suggest processes of cosmology or meteorology. All three pairs have had their advocates among modern scholars; no one pair has imposed itself as obviously authentic.201 Our best course is to admit uncertainty and turn to more reliable information.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:10 am

Quote :
You are a brain of top>down thinking.

Maybe selective reasoning can also prove to you that you also make sense.

I'll await the essay on it.

The road up and the road down, he (H) points out, are the same road. One cannot exist without the other, nor can we think of one without thinking of the other.

It is this relation of identity between opposites that Heraclitus is probably referring to when he claims that all things are one. All things are one, because all opposites form a unity through their connection to the logos. Through all of the daily, seasonal, social, and other cycles, unity is maintained because everything is a part of the divine law of the logos. It is this fact—the unity of all things through the logos—that we have to understand if we are going to make sense of our experience. In the search for knowledge, in other words, the first step is to come to grips with the fact that what seems to be a clash of opposites is really just the unity of a rational pattern.

and you......are a no brainer.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:20 am


Lyssa wrote:

Quote :
My path is Dionysian; I'm referring to a sense of self-joy. Self-affirmation prompts self-desire.



....promotes Self Flagellation?

Interesting, that explains quite a lot about Lyssa/Satyr.



A description of the Dionysian. "The Dionysian, is the freeing of unmeasured instinct, the breaking loose of the unbridled dynamis of the animal and the divine nature; hence in the Dionysian choir man appears as satyr, god above and goat below. It represents horror at the annihilation of the principle of individuation, and at the same time "rapturous delight" at its destruction.

Thus in the Dionysian state the Greek was anything but a 'work of art'; on the contrary, he was gripped by his own barbaric nature, robbed of his individuality, dissolved into all his collective constituents, made one with the collective unconscious (through the surrender of his individual goal), identified with "the genius of the race, even with Nature herself". To the Apollonian side which had already achieved a substantial domestication of Nature, this frenzied state that made a man forget both himself and his manhood and turned him into a mere creature of instinct, must have been altogether despicable; for this reason a violent conflict between the two instincts was inevitable.

Nietzsche quite forgets that in this battle between Apollo and Dionysos, and in their ultimate reconciliation, the problem for the Greeks was never an aesthetic but a religious question. The Dionysian satyr-feasts, according to every analogy, were a sort of totem-feast with an identification backward to a mythical ancestry or directly to the totem animal. The cult of Dionysos had in many ways a mystical and speculative tendency, and in any case exercised a very strong religious influence. The fact that Greek tragedy arose out of the original religious ceremony is at least as significant as the connection of our modern theatre with the medieval passion-play with its exclusively religious roots; such a consideration, therefore, scarcely permits the problem to be judged on its purely aesthetic aspect. Aesthetism is a modern glass, through which the psychological mysteries of the cult of Dionysos are seen in a light in which they were certainly never seen or experienced by the ancients. With Nietzsche, as with Schiller, the religious point-of-view is entirely overlooked, and its place is taken by the aesthetic".







Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:58 am

reasonvemotion wrote:
Quote :
You are a brain of top>down thinking.

Maybe selective reasoning can also prove to you that you also make sense.

I'll await the essay on it.

The road up and the road down, he (H) points out, are the same road. One cannot exist without the other, nor can we think of one without thinking of the other.

It is this relation of identity between opposites that Heraclitus is probably referring to when he claims that all things are one. All things are one, because all opposites form a unity through their connection to the logos. Through all of the daily, seasonal, social, and other cycles, unity is maintained because everything is a part of the divine law of the logos. It is this fact—the unity of all things through the logos—that we have to understand if we are going to make sense of our experience. In the search for knowledge, in other words, the first step is to come to grips with the fact that what seems to be a clash of opposites is really just the unity of a rational pattern.

and you......are a no brainer.




The unity is a human construct.

Bottom>Up thinkers begin with the sensual, dear.
Top>Down thinkers, like you, begin with the desirable, the end, then they try to justify their already formulated conclusions by using the sensual, or by totally disregarding it, like you and your kind.

The "clash of opposites", dear, is this disharmony between the real and the ideal. The ideal is a human abstraction, a static model, usually with a "positive" twist, whereas the real is Flux.
The "unity, dear, is one of observer and observed.

In your case, being a top>down thinker, the ideal IS real, or at par with it, and not merely a representation and projection of it. This would be like an artist considering his sculpture of a female to be an actual female, or better than the "real thing", and then creating a relationship with "her".

"Logos", dear, is the word.
The word is a symbol of a mental abstraction. A mental abstraction is a simplification/generalization, a static model, of the fluid real...the apparent....the phenomenon.

The word is this artistic representation, this ideal.

The fact that you think the world is entirely a "rational pattern", implying that it can be known or that it is knowable, tells me that you suffer from Modernitis....or Alexandrianitis.
A terrible disease of the mind.
It's insecurity overcompensating with exaggerated hubris.
I guess that's why you cannot escape the authority of a male-like, Paternalistic, power....a Deity.
You need the world to make sense, so as to explain what scares the shit out of you.
You must give it a reason...
Typically female. I bet you know a lot of males who are just as feminine in their psychology.

Entropy means that the world is increasingly random, and patterns are being diminished.
This is why the mind is attracted to them...or is, itself, an ordering tool.

I bet you still insist on thinking of Lyssa as my alter ego...no?
A "no brainer" in...deed.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:23 am

Quote :
In the search for knowledge, in other words, the first step is to come to grips with the fact that what seems to be a clash of opposites is really just the unity of a rational pattern.


Up or Down thinker are the same road. One cannot exist without the other, nor can we think of one without thinking of the other.

Up needs down and down needs up. What's your point.

Quote :
I bet you still insist on thinking of Lyssa as my alter ego...no?
A "no brainer" in...deed.

At the moment it is not obvious who she/he is.

Now I am not saying Satyr, you are not masculine, perhaps it is because Lyssa prefers Janeys, that this is causing the problem of identities. Wink


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:40 am

reasonvemotion wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Quote :
My path is Dionysian; I'm referring to a sense of self-joy. Self-affirmation prompts self-desire.



....promotes Self Flagellation?

Are you asking for it? I'll take that as a projection. Your reactive self-exposures are most interesting, and I have to assume the inability or refusal to let a strong man dominate you makes you desire and dream of a man with a "deep seductive" voice, authoritative, the wish to be ravished but unable to let him, do you feel like a good whiplash would liberate you...?
The one who cautioned "no rough sex pls."... might just be the one asking for it. Did not Jung too share your fear of the Barbarian, *because* he thought he was so akin to such states, waking up in cold sweats... wowman...
Don't live so self-tortured.


Quote :
Interesting, that explains quite a lot about Lyssa/Satyr.

What a pretentious coy wowman you are... if you want to know why Satyr calls himself Satyr, you should just ask; he'll tell you.
I don't believe you really believe he believes he's a Barbaric, no? Do you fancy his voice?


Quote :
A description of the Dionysian.

For the courtesy of others which the wowman has overlooked, her quote was taken from Jung.


wowman wrote:
"The Dionysian, is the freeing of unmeasured instinct, the breaking loose of the unbridled dynamis of the animal and the divine nature; hence in the Dionysian choir man appears as satyr, god above and goat below. It represents horror at the annihilation of the principle of individuation, and at the same time "rapturous delight" at its destruction.

Thus in the Dionysian state the Greek was anything but a 'work of art'; on the contrary, he was gripped by his own barbaric nature, robbed of his individuality, dissolved into all his collective constituents, made one with the collective unconscious (through the surrender of his individual goal), identified with "the genius of the race, even with Nature herself". To the Apollonian side which had already achieved a substantial domestication of Nature, this frenzied state that made a man forget both himself and his manhood and turned him into a mere creature of instinct, must have been altogether despicable; for this reason a violent conflict between the two instincts was inevitable.

Nietzsche quite forgets that in this battle between Apollo and Dionysos, and in their ultimate reconciliation, the problem for the Greeks was never an aesthetic but a religious question. The Dionysian satyr-feasts, according to every analogy, were a sort of totem-feast with an identification backward to a mythical ancestry or directly to the totem animal. The cult of Dionysos had in many ways a mystical and speculative tendency, and in any case exercised a very strong religious influence. The fact that Greek tragedy arose out of the original religious ceremony is at least as significant as the connection of our modern theatre with the medieval passion-play with its exclusively religious roots; such a consideration, therefore, scarcely permits the problem to be judged on its purely aesthetic aspect. Aesthetism is a modern glass, through which the psychological mysteries of the cult of Dionysos are seen in a light in which they were certainly never seen or experienced by the ancients. With Nietzsche, as with Schiller, the religious point-of-view is entirely overlooked, and its place is taken by the aesthetic".



"Nor was Jung ready to accept Nietzsche’s conclusion that Dionysus must oppose Christ: “Jung evolves a programme which will transform the Crucified back into the god of the grape, thereby releasing hitherto inhibited powers of vitality”.
As early as 1912, then, Jung had set his post-Nietzschean agenda for the transformation of faith into a secular, psychological religion” (107).
Nor would Nietzsche have accepted Jung’s insistence on a single, Kantian morality existing in each of us a priori. For Nietzsche, there are many possible moralities, and the Kantian is not a particularly effective one from the standpoint of selfhood and selfishness." [Review of Paul Bishop's 'The Dionysian Self']


Quote :
"Jung interprets Nietzsche’s god as Dionysus, the god of the body, and we saw that Jung does not acknowledge Nietzsche’s later usage of the term ‘Dionysus’ as ‘passion controlled’ (WP, 1050) – that is, a union of Apollo and Dionysus; Jung recognizes only his earlier formulation as ‘impassioned dissolution’ (Jung, 1936a, par. 118), that one-sided ‘barbarian’ (Jung, 1921, par. 346). This is relevant to the current argument, for it is Jung’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s Dionysus that causes him to find in Nietzsche’s model a mere sign and not the required symbol. In other words, a symbol requires both conscious and unconscious elements. But this finds full expression not in the Dionysus of BT (1872) but in the Dionysus of WP, 1050 (1888). If Jung had acknowledged this later formulation, he might have also acknowledged Nietzsche’s reconciliatory symbol.
Jung further misinterprets Nietzsche as failing to acknowledge the value of religion. Jung insists that in Nietzsche ‘the religious viewpoint is entirely overlooked and is replaced by the aesthetic’ (Jung, 1921, par. 231) so that (in BT) ‘Nietzsche quite forgets that in the struggle between Apollo and Dionysus and their ultimate reconciliation the problem for the Greeks was never an aesthetic one, but was essentially religious’. Jung then attempts to correct Nietzsche by claiming that ‘Greek tragedy arose out of an originally religious ceremony’. However, these comments are strongly at variance with the fact that Nietzsche recognized the religious origins of Greek tragedy.
As M. S. Silk and J. P. Stern note: ‘It is in the area of Greek religion, especially religious attitudes to life, that Nietzsche’s reinterpretation of Greece has had the greatest impact on classical studies’ (Silk and Stern, 1981, p. 159).

I contend that, from a Nietzschean perspective, the Jungian Self fails to unite the opposites satisfactorily because it seeks to unite the opposites in a source external to them and does not directly harness the energy inherent within the opposites themselves. Nietzsche’s model does not require a third element or an external medium to encourage the unification of opposites, for Nietzsche maintains that the opposites originate in each other as two elements that have become separated from one original source, and that they have a natural inclination for reunification (PTAG, 5). This natural inclination or motivating force in their separation and unification is the Will to Power. The Will to Power is the original underlying force or ‘oneness’ of which the opposites are part – the ‘development of one definite will into many forms’ (WP, 692; cf. 1050). If the opposites are to reunite they will do so under the ‘yoke’ of the Will to Power, for it is through this force that ‘all the strong, seemingly contradictory gifts and desires . . . go together’ (WP, 848). I believe it is Jung’s denial of the Will to Power as the only ‘driving . . . physical, dynamic or psychic force’ (WP, 688) that prevents him from uniting the opposites of Nietzsche’s model, and thereby failing to attain Übermenschlichkeit. Jung cannot unite Nietzsche’s opposites without their founding force; by failing to promote the Will to Power Jung is forced to look beyond the dyadic relationship and introduce an external element to try to ground and unite the opposites:

"[Although] Nietzsche’s view that ‘reality’ is constituted by the constantly changing disposition of the Will to Power has much in common with Jung’s view that ‘reality’ is constituted by the (archetypal) psychic images within us and, more importantly, the changes which they bring about in us . . . the chief difference between Jung and Nietzsche lies in the question of what it is that is said to structure existence. In Jung’s psychic monism, the archetypes function as categories of the imagination, canalizing the libido and, by giving it shape and form, endowing life with meaning . . . Nietzsche’s ‘volitionary’ monism by contrast knows no such structures, and the ceaseless flux of Becoming – the perpetual struggle of the Will to Power – resists attempts to exercise conceptual mastery over it." (Bishop, The Dionysian Self, p. 207)."
[Huskinson, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]




_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:43 am

Jung tries to stifle the agon and unite the opposites; Nietzsche does Not want to unite the opposites, as agon is the 'ground' through which Heraclitus' "unapparent harmony" emerges.
Quote :
"Affirmation of life even in its strangest and sternest problems . . . that is what I call the Dionysian, that is what I recognized as the bridge to the psychology of the tragic poet. Not so as to get rid of pity and terror, not so as to purify oneself of a dangerous emotion through its vehement discharge – it was thus Aristotle understood it – but, beyond pity and terror, to realize in oneself the eternal joy of becoming – that joy which also encompasses joy in destruction." [Twilight, ‘What I Owe to the Ancients’, 5; cf. Human, 212; Daybreak, 240]
Jung wants a 'Christ principle' in which all opposites are contained in a unity; this is NOT what N.'s Dionysian philsophy is about: the Dionysian will-to-unity itself incites limitations from within itself to oppose itself so as to again exceed itself in a perpetual agon;


Quote :
"Apollinian emerges as a vortical power – a whirlpool of apparent stability in a turbulent and ever-changing swell. Its uncanny calm, its slower tempo, gives it a semblance of difference from the surging waves but it is of the ocean and cannot exist without it. Such is to say that the Apollinian differs from the Dionysian without the Dionysian differing from it. Both Apollinian and Dionysian are differentiating powers without unity but there is a difference in tempo between them. The Apollinian is a power of individuation that differentiates the dissipative Dionysian energies and distinguishes itself from them without negation. Nietzsche counterposes the ‘eternalizing’ power of both Apollinian and Dionysian in terms of the ‘becoming-eternal’ of the phenomenon and the ‘eternal becoming’ of the Dionysian ‘will’ and it is this subtlety that marks the resistance of their sacred continuity to ideal abstractions (BT 16).

It is Dionysian insights that the Apollinian comes to eternalize. The Dionysian provokes the Apollinian power to the point at which it becomes something else – the illumination of the depths. Perhaps this is why the dreamer is compelled to dream on, despite the terrifying nature of the dream. There is necessity to this rush which is compulsively beautiful. While stately rhythm observes the laws of form and measure and as rules of composition may be taught, the mad haste of the continuously generating melody animates ‘the entire symbolism of the body’, suggestively communicating its pulsions to a language which strains to give it shape. The vital rhythms of the dancing, frenzied, orgiastic body which ‘reverberate’ at the core of the body of nature now resound in poetic images, repeating Dionysian insights at another level. The Dionysian impulse to repeat ‘ever again anew’ serves to reactivate the Apollinian drive to eternalize, like a wave that in its enigmatic pulsion and recurrent rise describes the impetus to compose once again the oceanic flux.
The Apollinian compulsion to idealize – to prolong the dream by perpetuating yet further dreams of dreams – is a superlative concentration of its own force, its primary self-overcoming or self-differentiation. This explains why it is both a life-affirming power and a potent formative
force. Whereas the reactive rational man constructs his concepts by negating unique, sensitive experience (TL 1), Apollinian form is achieved through supreme concentration of its energy. This clarifies Nietzsche’s assertion that idealization is not a matter of deducting the petty and the secondary but involves ‘an immense forcing out of the principal features’ (TI ‘Expeditions…’, 8 ). In short, it is not a different possibility of a given perceptual power that is here invoked but a difference created within the power of perception. The ‘organs’ refine themselves.

If Apollinian rapture names a differential power of concentration and contraction, the Dionysian designates a force of dissolution and dilation. Initially introduced in The Birth of Tragedy as a potent compound of destruction and delight, the Dionysian announces both the terror and ‘blissful ecstasy’ [wonnevolle Verzückung] that wells up from nature at the collapse of the principle of individuation (BT 1). Whether under the influence of narcotic draughts or with the intoxicating power of nature’s blossoming bounty, Dionysian excitations are aroused, exacerbated and transformed. Rausch designates this vital upsurge, the effervescent and explosive power of life. As with the image world of dreams, intoxicated reality ‘likewise does not heed the single unit’ (BT 1). It is immediately clear that, like the Apollinian, Dionysian rapture is a self-differentiating power, a force ‘in the intensification of which, the subjective vanishes into complete oblivion’ (BT 1).
Unlike Apollinian rapture, which concentrates and proliferates forms of itself, Dionysian rapture is trans-formative, both in the sense that it is a destructive, metamorphic power and in the sense that it seems to migrate between forms. Nietzsche suggests that Dionysian ecstasy impacts as ‘a mystic feeling of oneness’, a reconciliation with nature, but this sense of oneness is strangely non-unifying (BT 1). Dionysian ecstasy names a nomadic ubiquity, a sense of ‘sameness’ forged through constant differentiation between individuals: ‘the essential thing remains the ease of metamorphosis, the inability not to react’ (TI ‘Expeditions…’, 10 ). Like the hysteric, the Dionysian takes on any role at the slightest suggestion (ibid.). It is the nature of ‘the Dionysian man’ to constantly overcome his own becoming: ‘He enters into every skin, into every affect: he transforms himself constantly’ (TI ‘Expeditions…’, 10).

In the context of an early essay in praise of Wagner, Nietzsche asserts that the power of the great artist resides in his ‘demonic transmissibility’ (UM IV, 222). Such an artist embodies an overflowing energy through which ‘he’ (the pronoun is not generic) is
able to communicate with other natures, to both surrender to alien forces and to receive them in turn. Images of intensified life thus spark new intensities, drawing other lives into a new, intoxicating flow. Yet this power does not simply flow between beings, it flows between bodies, unmaking the ‘being’ of the body in the process.

Taken to the limit, neuroses of health would surely exhilarate us to death. But Nietzsche suggests that a limit is internally generated in these...
the Apollinian cuts itself out from the Dionysian swell with which it remains eternally continuous.

As John Sallis remarks: ‘Thus, in ecstasy transgression cannot but disrupt the limit. And yet, transgression is possible only in relation to the limit; that is, one can be outside oneself only if the self within continued somehow to be delimited’ (C 55). Dionysian ecstasy both exceeds the limit by which the self would be identified and it exceeds its own exceeding for ‘to disrupt the limit definitive of the opposition would be to disrupt the very limit by which the transgression, the being outside, would be defined (ibid.). Sallis concludes from this that ‘there can be transgressive disruption of the limit only if the limit is also redrawn, reinstated, as the very limit to be transgressed’ (ibid.).
It is in this sense that we might understand Klossowski’s remark that in order to be communicable an intensity ‘must take itself as
an object, and thus turn back on itself’
(NCV 97, NVC 60)." [Jill Marsden, After Nietzsche: Notes towards a Philosophy of Ecstasy]


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn

Back to top Go down
 
Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Heraclitus' Fragments: Kahn
» Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF director: into the hands of a womanizer!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA :: LYCEUM-
Jump to: