![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sdiV. On the First Cause.
Next in order comes knowledge of the First Cause and the subsequent orders of the gods, then the nature of the world, the essence of intellect and of soul, then Providence, Fate, and Fortune, then to see Virtue and Vice and the various forms of social constitution good and bad that are formed from them, and from what possible source Evil came into the world.
Each of these subjects needs many long discussions; but there is perhaps no harm in stating them briefly, so that a disciple may not be completely ignorant about them.
It is proper to the First Cause to be One—for unity precedes multitude—and to surpass all things in power and goodness. Consequently all things must partake of it. For owing to its power nothing else can hinder it, and owing to its goodness it will not hold itself apart.
If the First Cause were Soul, all things would possess Soul.* If it were Mind, all things would possess Mind. If it were Being, all things would partake of Being.† And seeing this quality (i. e. Being) in all things, some men have thought that it was Being. Now if things simply were, without being good, this argument would be true, but if things that are are because of their goodness, and partake in the good, the First thing must needs be both beyond-Being and good. It is strong evidence of this that noble souls despise Being for the sake of the good, when they face death for their country or friends or for the sake of virtue.—After this inexpressible power come the orders of the Gods.
* Gilbert Murray notes (in an earlier note prefacing this work), "[I translate] ψυχή ['psyche'] always 'Soul,' to keep it distinct from ζωή ['zoe'], 'physical life,' though often 'Life' would be a more natural English equivalent." Soul, then, is the animating principle. Indeed, Taylor translates this line, "But if the first cause were soul, all things would be animated."
† Murray notes (in the same footnote as above), "[I translate] οὐσία ['ousia'] sometimes 'essence', sometimes 'being' (never 'substance' or 'nature')."
no subject
Date: 2021-12-02 08:00 pm (UTC)Here's a dumb example. My wife and I have consistently found that, while we consider most colors pretty similarly, we get hung up on greens and blues. If you take a color somewhere along the green/blue spectrum—say, turquoise—I tend to lump them in with the greens, and she tends to lump them in with the blues. There's a threshold somewhere, but we each have a different one. So we can't know that we perceive greens and blues the same. Heck, this generalizes: how can we know we perceive any color the same? Maybe we just use the same "names" for different "experiences!"
Let's take it a step further: I don't even perceive colors consistently. If I close my right eye, everything appears reddish; but if I close my left eye, everything appears blueish. I would therefore give different names to the same colors depending on which eye I have open. So I can't even perceive colors the same as myself!
At some point, you just have to say "screw it" and say the sky is blue.
By analogy, I really think at some point you have to say "screw it" and call the incomprehensible and ineffable not-thing from which all things arise "the Dao"/"the One"/etc. Yes, this is fraught, but once you've entered the realms of mysticism... well, all bets are off, aren't they?
(Take this with the caveat that while I've read a lot about Taoism—the Tao Te Ching, the Zhuangzi, the Liezi, the Zisi, the Huainanzi, the commentaries by several Zen masters, The Taoist Body by Schipper, the various books on the topic (especially The Watercourse Way) by Alan Watts, some light digging into western scholarship concerning Taoist alchemy, and others I'm certain I'm forgetting—I have no cultural connection to China whatsoever, find many of the higher goals of Taoism (such as life extension) generally uninteresting, and—embarrassingly—still haven't read the I Ching. :) )
no subject
Date: 2021-12-03 12:16 am (UTC)As for readings on Daoism, you've got me beat by a wide margin (my affinal cultural connection counts for little in this case). I mostly rely on the Dao De Jing, a little Chuangzi, now and again a little Confucius though I'm not so enamored of Confucianism's rigidity - then again, I'm not at all into popular Daoism much. But the Yijing? Now that is a keeper. It's on my "deserted island or quick evacuation" list. I very highly recommend the translation(s) by Stephen Karcher (Total I Ching is a good start, or if you want a deep dive, his full translation with concordance shows why his work blows the rest out of the water - he's managed to provide the layers of meaning [including changes over time] embedded in each character that a generalized translation doesn't access).
Ah, forgive me for pushing unasked-for books toward your TBR piles! :D
no subject
Date: 2021-12-03 03:57 pm (UTC)Thank you for the recommendation! I've ordered a copy (of the full translation, of course), and will dig in as inspiration strikes :)
no subject
Date: 2021-12-03 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-12-03 05:31 pm (UTC)Well, I'm told we're all the same being at root, though I have no idea how that works...
Anyway, thank you for the offer! I just went ahead and ordered a hardcopy, though: it's not much, but I figure you've earned a tip for all of the very helpful commentary you've given me over the last year or two :)
no subject
Date: 2021-12-03 06:03 pm (UTC)