Enneads II 1: On the Kosmos or on the Heavenly System

[sdi]

II 1: On the Kosmos or on the Heavenly System

Is the universe eternal, or does it have a beginning and an end?

Well, we are alive, and we are a part of the universe, so therefore the universe must be alive. Further, all living things have a body and a soul, and so the universe must also have a body and a soul. Now, our bodies are ever-changing, but our souls are eternal; the universe cannot exist in any lesser capacity than its parts, so the universe's soul, at least, must too be eternal.

But what about the universe's body? There is a fundamental difference between us and the universe: we are open systems, and take our bodies from outside of ourselves. But there is nothing outside of the universe, so it must be a closed system. So while we may discard our bodies again, the universe cannot: it must endlessly recycle itself. So the universe's body must also be eternal, and therefore the universe as a whole.

But everything follows its nature: that means the fundamental nature of our beings must be different than the fundamental nature of the universe's being. And so we are not of the same order: the universe is sprung from the primary God, while we are—at best!—sprung from secondary Gods that are themselves the offspring of that primary God.

I'm butchering Plotinus' argument, I'm sure, but that's no reason not to try!

Comments

[francis_tucker]

I wonder then if most of the world religions and spiritual systems that have asserted an "end of the world" were possibly receiving prophetic glimpses of the end of this particular planet... or solar system... or galaxy... or perhaps the hypothetical great universal contraction following the end of the current expansion, and subsequent next Big Bang... or something like that. Throw into the mix Blavatsky's (and Fortune's) teachings about new worlds replacing old ones (I can only speak in the most generaliest [sic] terms regarding this last, as I am a fresh. whipper-snapping noob when it comes to esoteric philosophy) and it makes more sense that "good" eschatology is talking about solve et coagula on a cosmic scale rather than a dead-all-over-like-Rover end to the universe. Does that make sense?

[sdi]

Good question! I simply don't know, but it sounds like a fruitful avenue for meditation.

In case it's helpful to you, there are some relevant comments on the topic on my post concerning Sallustius XVII.

[boccaderlupo]

Nothing really to add, but just wanted to say how much I enjoy reading your synopses and reflections on these.

Axé!
Fra' Lupo

[sdi]

😊