[Discussion] On the Gods and the World, Ch. V

[sdi]

Good morning, everyone! Once again, I wish you all a happy Wednesday. Let's pick the puzzle-box back up, shall we?

V. 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')."

Comments

[sdi]

I think Murray's wording here is a little confusing—this is one chapter where Taylor is actually a bit clearer despite his archaic style!—but the essence of the argument seems to be that Good must be prior to Being since even among we degenerate mortals there are those who would die (e. g. sacrifice at least some amount of Being) in favor of Good (e. g. their transcendant ideals, whatever those may be). (This seems to me to be an easy trade, but perhaps I just don't value life very much.)

In fact, rereading this chapter just now, makes me wonder... the various philosophical encyclopedias always describe "the Good" as slippery, difficult to apprehend, and this sets up the assumption that it's something we should try to make sense of, define. But we all know what Good is, right?

For many years, I was always trying to make myself a working definition of "Love," but I eventually gave up. Love isn't an intellectual process! It's not something you understand, it's just something you have to feel, experience. Having a definition won't help you feel it.

And so I wonder if that's the way it is with the Good, too. Trying to make sense of it intellectually might be using the wrong tool. By all means, use the mind to understand its implications, but...

[boccaderlupo]

Interesting observations on "Love" and on "The Good." I think this part may benefit, once again, from going to Proclus's Elements. Early on, his makes an argument about The One as both a principle of Unity, and then equates this with the "Good." These are interesting arguments in and of themselves, and it seems as though Sallustius is working from the same playbook, although he's condensing these points significantly.

I am assuming here that his First Cause is equivalent to "The One," which remains inexpressible and ineffable, although transcendent. I would suggest a comparison to 1 itself, where every number (barring 0, which is absence) could be construed as "participating" in 1 (2 = 1 + 1, 3 = 1 + 1 + 1...ad infinitum).

Partial digression: Currently reading Pseudo-Dionysius, whom I had read ages ago outside of the Neoplatonic context (as a mere youth I was into Alan Watts, and there's a Watts-Dionysius connection). But finding now a ton of resonance in his description of the Super-Essential Godhead in the Divine Names.

Axé

[sdi]

I'm also equating "the First Cause," "the One," and "the Good."

A while back, I worked my way through some Sacred Geometry texts, and I agree that there clearly appears to be a relationship between Unity in Neoplatonism and Unity in arithmetic. (In fact, other numbers—√2,√3, φ, etc.—each seem to bear a relationship to one or the other of the Gods of Neoplatonism.) I don't remember if this relationship was made explicitly or if it's just my brain squishing it all together, though.

I'm not very familiar with Pseudo-Dionysius, but I too have read a lot of Watts! I found him very helpful for getting re-started with spirituality in a non-Christian context.

[boccaderlupo]

Ha, I read (and listened to) a lot of Watts over the years, but if braced in an alleyway I couldn't tell you a thing the man said. He did, however, write some more complex material about the relationship between Eastern metaphysics and Christianity (The Supreme Identity) that I remember being compelling, but also that he apparently did something on Pseudo-Dionysius, and I suspect that Christianized Neoplatonism plays a larger role in his thought that is generally recognized.

[temporaryreality]

Interesting that I actually find Murray easier to understand here - Taylor trips me up in his last paragraph for some reason.

Am I correct in understanding, though, that we don't (yet?) have a way to conceive of the first principle?

Again this resonates so much with the Chinese tradition: The Dao (that cannot be constrained by naming it and that is itself unified, is also the interplay of yin and yang) is the originator or gives rise to the innate nature of the multitude things. It is recognized as beyond being and non-being and also as the fundamentall good (tianli - heavenly nature, but also de - virtue).

[temporaryreality]

I'd love to hear which sacred geometry texts you worked through. I'm eagerly awaiting JMG's upcoming book/course so I can work on the topic more systematically, but knowing you, you've got some spiffy recommendations up your sleeve. :)

[sdi]

I haven't seen anyone give a formal treatment of it, but yes, I'd also equate "the First Cause" with the Dao!

[sdi]

The one I recommend is Robert Lawlor's Sacred Geometry: Philosophy and Practice. Be advised it's written like an introductory textbook, as if for a class—there are homework assignments, and you should do them! Make sure you have a sketch pad, compass, and straightedge :)

(And, if you're anything like me, something to keep the drool off of the pages... there's lots of enchanting geometric constructions in there!)

[boccaderlupo]

In a previous comment I'd said that I was unfamiliar with Taoism, but that's not exactly right: When I was around 18 or so, I picked up the John C. H. Wu translation of the Tao Te Ching, which resonated profoundly with me. I can't say that I'm familiar with the entirety of that tradition, however, although I return frequently to reread that text and find it spiritually nourishing.

I tend to equate The One with the Tao, however given that I have such a limited understanding of Chinese tradition (just that one aforementioned book), I have some trepidation in drawing the parallel. Not only are we dealing with two ancient, formidable cultures, but we are reaching across time and space to try to grasp these threads...further, we are trying to put names to something which, fundamentally, is unfathomable.

And this is the issue with The One/The First Cause/etc. We cannot approach it in any meaningful way, except by approximations that always fall short due to it's "unknowing," ineffable nature. It remains eternally elusive, albeit eternally present. A core idea, however, its that the henads, as personifications of certain aspects of The One, are more approachable (at least, some of them). So by participating in a given cultus, one can begin the process of return.

To tie back in with Dionysius, however, any given cultus, while it provides a path, can itself become an obstacle if it is viewed as an end in itself. The symbol remains a symbol, and is only ever an effective approximation. There may arrive at a point on the path when the symbols have fallen away, and so the Via Negativa must commence, as the next stage in the voyage.

An aside to the previous aside about Pseudo-Dionysius: He does go into the nature of love in "The Divine Names," so might be worth a read...

[temporaryreality]

Now there's an interesting thought
(hang on, I'll get to it, but first what you said that prompted it):

"I have some trepidation in drawing the parallel. Not only are we dealing with two ancient, formidable cultures, but we are reaching across time and space to try to grasp these threads...further, we are trying to put names to something which, fundamentally, is unfathomable.

And this is the issue with The One/The First Cause/etc. We cannot approach it in any meaningful way, except by approximations that always fall short due to it's "unknowing," ineffable nature. It remains eternally elusive, albeit eternally present.

What the ancient Greeks meant when they gestured vaguely and said "you know, the ineffable and unnameable" might not be the same thing and might actually be constitutionally different from what the ancient Chinese meant when they said, "you know, the Dao that cannot be said" might not be the same thing WE MEAN when we say "you know, the unfathomable First Principle."

Do we even know we're talking about the same "it" rather than "they"?

heh.

[sdi]

Absolutely! But this doesn't just speak to cultures separated by vast distances in time and space, but also individuals within a culture separated by comparatively smaller distances in time and space, or different iterations of me, myself separated by comparatively insignificant distances in time and space.

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. :) )

[boccaderlupo]

Indeed. And that may be the rub...the fact that it is all of these things at once, and more. Far more.

Even to qualify it as "non-dual" or "ineffable" is almost a disservice, as it presumes that we have pigeon-holed it. Aha! So that's what it is. But it's not that...or at least not only that. Per Dionysius: "Concerning this then, as has been said, the super-essential and hidden Deity, it is not permitted to speak or even to think beyond the things divinely revealed to us in the sacred Oracles." Emphases mine.

(Apologies for turning this into Dionysius-fest...just top of mind as I'm in the middle of it.)

Alternately, though, that's where I suspect certain streams of mainline theology went off the rails in the early 20th century. The more and more it focused on considering the nature of "The Absolute" or "The Ground of All Being," the more intangible and disconnected it became from the Christian cultus, the more it lost its bearings. It's only after treading the peculiar, winding ways presented by a given path that (I suspect) one is able to begin to dimly navigate the higher mysteries.

[temporaryreality]

Textbooks are a-ok. Will check that out, thanks!

[sdi]

Apologies for turning this into Dionysius-fest...

No, by all means! It'll be a long time before I can read him myself, but these snippets are interesting!

[temporaryreality]

All that then, just to circle back around to my real point, which is that I have no such trepidation at drawing the parallels between Sallustius and the Dao De Jing et al. If we're nothing much more than many fractal aspects of the manifestation of a First Cause talking about other fractal aspects, then heck, I'm not a purist, let's look at the fingers pointing toward what we think is the moon (and of course view the moon(s?) itself, no matter out of which eye).

[temporaryreality]

Haha, are you me? I've got a little anecdote in the back of my book about having one hand over one eye, then the other... (my offer still stands, if you're in the least interested in light mythic fantasy short stories).

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

[boccaderlupo]

Yes, in short, I think there's something to the parallel. I just personally wouldn't want to be overly presumptuous when it comes to such a lofty theme!

Axé

[sdi]

I'm also not a fan of Confucius, but he prioritizes all the things that are closed to me—physical well-being, family, community, rootedness in the land, one place within the state, etc.—so that's not much of a surprise!

Thank you for the recommendation! I've ordered a copy (of the full translation, of course), and will dig in as inspiration strikes :)

[boccaderlupo]

To that end, consider this quote:

...It is Perfectionless in those that are perfect as transcending and anticipating their Perfection; It is the Form producing Form in the formless, as a Fount of every form; and it is Formless in the Forms, as being beyond all form; It is the Being that pervades all beings at once, though not affected by them; and It is Super-Essential, as transcending every being; it sets all bounds of Authority and Order, and yet It has Its seal beyond all Authority and Order. It is the Measure of the Universe; and it is Eternity, and above Eternity and before Eternity.

Tao or late Neoplatonism?

[temporaryreality]

That version is definitely a heavy-hitter, though I do still consult the smaller volume (still a full translation) for its slightly more condensed presentation.

[temporaryreality]

Ooo, that's spiffy. Unless it's Tao as translated by a Neoplatonist, I'd say the latter based on word choice. But boy that's spot-on for a fitting example.

[sdi]

Haha, are you me? I've got a little anecdote in the back of my book about having one hand over one eye, then the other... (my offer still stands, if you're in the least interested in light mythic fantasy short stories).

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 :)

[boccaderlupo]

I thought so, as well.

And yes, correct—it's Pseudo-Dionysius, remarking on "The Universal Cause," per this translation (C.E. Rolt). One can see why such phrasing might appeal to someone like Watts, who seemed to be trying to thread that East-West needle.

[temporaryreality]

Well aren't you kind. I hope you enjoy it. :)