↪MysticMonist You mean something like a higher power? If yes, then certain issues crop up. — TheMadFool

Absolutely certain issues crop up! A mystical path has many potential pitfalls, so does philosophy but perhaps seeking God raises the stakes. It's easier to go crazy or become self righteous. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't embark at all, we just need to be careful and practice a healthy self renunciation.

The apophatic (negative theology) has a strong tradition here.

The most important though I think is to deny human authority about or in judging God. We can talk about God or make limited concepts about Him/Her. It's okay to use restrained rationally or other faculties like insight, just not with any authority.
Religions no matter how liberal assume some authority or special revelation about God. That's a problem, because no one can speak for God. Of course that's a trap too, since I don't know if I can even with certainty say that. Who am I to say God doesn't grant the gift of prophecy (the ability to actually speak for Him)? So all I can say is that I don't find authorathive revelation helpful in my path, but not that God cannot do so if He wishes. I know I am very likely incorrect and ask that God continue to correct and illumine me. That's what the whole thing is about seeking greater correction and illumination from God.

exist literally is to "have memory of". — Rich

Yet another wrinkle I didn't immediately think about. If it was from an object' point of view that yes only the immediate present exists. Perhaps even more limited that only the perceived immediate present. Does China or the Moon exist to me Right Now? It sort of dissolves into sophistry.
From the point of view of the object existence just falls apart as a meaningful or verifiable concept. Perhaps all of life does. If we are masters of our existence and the definers of our reality there basically is no reality at all just a jumble.
From the point of view of God, the source of all being, however we are known to God and are remembered by Him. Things become organized and have a purpose. In fact that's the only purpose to receive and seek union with the Absolute. It's the only reason the world exists and is the only context in which things make sense.

Can you explain this further? What do you mean? — TheMadFool

The top down/bottom up expression is used in my work with clinical reasoning (starting with symptoms versus looking at the big picture). I looked it up and I think it comes from design theory and while the universe is designed, I don't think it's the best to use here.
Maybe I should compare it to the question of morality instead. Some people say morality comes from a common source of the Good. I would say this is true and so does being. Something exists because it is has its source of being in the One. It exists because God breathes existence into it and it participates with all the other beings in God's creation. Things that don't exist because they aren't created by God.

A bottom up approach would be saying like in morality that it starts with individual who defines morality, it's not anything external. In being, this would be saying that objects or people exist and looking at from the point of the object or at least from the perceiver.

Here's a question: How would you know if you even found "truth"? Just for argument, lets say you find a nugget of truth, the absolute truth but how would you even know that is truth and not just you typical estimation of truth? — Jeremiah

That's exactly the problem with special revelation. A prophet revealed the Truth and gives a revealed message. But it's up to us to decide if it's true with eternal consequences. It hardly seems fair.

sometimes view the world as my own mind's creation — Pollywalls

You're technically right. We only ever experience our mind's conception, never the thing in and of itself.

So, existence in a physical universe depends on circular logic. — TheMadFool

Several of you have made this point and I'm beginning to agree.

"Existence means something is or has being" is circular. There's no way around it.

"Existence is when something participates in existence" is also circular, but I like it. There's no way to arrive an a more fundamental understanding of being. I like participation though because it's ontologically top down rather than bottom up.


A top down approach is helpful in general about being. I was driving in the morning and was caught by the blinding light of the sun. You have to look away or you'll crash or go blind. Maybe theologians, Kabbalists, and occultists and so on are all sun starers. They attempt to look directly at the Absolute and think they see Forms or Emanations or a Trinity (or not) or even a whole pantheon. They practice Cataphatic theology, God is this, God is that. Really the shapes they think they are seeing within the Godhead are the burning holes in their retinas!

I think it's okay to be a Christian and believe in the trinity, for example. The Catholics are right, it's a mystery. But what's not okay is claiming that you authoritatively know or to condemn those with a different view. So I can be a Platonist and roll with the Forms, for now, it's an concept that is useful. In the end though I know I'm probably wrong!

Wayfarer,

Thanks! I feel less crazy.

I left Buddhism and Judaism (though I never finished my conversion) both for personal reasons and not due to feeling those faiths were "wrong." The nice thing about Platonism is it's a philosophic approach rather than a religious approach. There's no church of it to join and no fights with my wife over it!!! It's treated as purely an intellectual or obscure hobby and it's not likely that anyone in my church will want to hear about it or understand it. Being Buddhist or Jewish is a different matter (though it shouldn't be in my opinion).

What kind of Buddhism did you study? I studied Soto Zen and Ch'an which was wonderful. The only reason I left is I felt so guilty and torn about being a theist in my "spiritual DNA" as That Nich Hahn would say. I just never was comfortable with the non-theism of Zen.
But now I think I may go back to more Mahayana and Pure Land texts in particular. I loved some of those texts in the past. That's the beauty of a philosophical approach I can draw from wherever with no issue.
I hear you about reading program. I have way more books to read then time left in my life!
I'm reading Plato's Republic and listening to Plotnius Enneads while I drive to work. I think reading all of Plato and Plotinus' works is pretty realistic. But there are so many "Neoplatonists". I think at that point (in a few months) I'll want to go back to the world scriptures again like the Torah, New Testament, Quran, the Gita, and Baha'i Wrintings with new eyes. Pure Land Buddhism and the gnostics would be cool too. Too many books, not enough decades to read them!

Plato was a philosopher in a totally different sense.

This is definitely true! I watched a Standford lecture where Dr, Cooper argued that many of the Greek philosophers saw philosophy as a way of life rather than just an intellectual opinion. I really love Plotinus and it's with his understanding that I read plato. (I don't use Neoplatonist because I think the neo is arbitrary). For me I'm a platonist in a pretty religious sense. I spend daily time in study and meditation and try to improve my moral character in order to become closer to the Absolute (God). I see the Oneness of God in all religions and I love prayers and scriptures across traditions. My "Platonism" informs my life as much as any involved and faithful church goer. I actually go to an episcopal church with my family but I don't consider myself Christian and I don't say the creeds. Other than that, I have no problem with Christianity.

I'm actually thinking about how to increase my contemplative practice in an authentic Platonic way. Study of philosophy and comparative religion is definitely part of it. Maybe a daily "examen" (Jesuit practice) of my moral behavior and ways to improve. I do silent meditation buts it not Zazen (Buddhist just sitting) it's with an intention of turning myself towards and receiving the Divine or observing the beauty around me. I think I'll celebrate Plato's birthday on May 7. Plotinus didn't celebrate his own birthday, so I don't think I should celebrate his.

Perhaps this might seem strange, but I am an ex-Zen Buddhist and an ex-Kabbalist so I'm very mystical oriented to begin with and Plotinus definitely offers a full enough philosophy to fill that. I'm tired of trying religions :)

Lord,
teach me to love
You my soul, my life, my all.
Teach me to pray
The prayers of silent adoration
Teach me to obey
The commandments of blissful submission
Teach me to study
The ecstasies of your rapturous embrace.
Teach me to forget
The prudish nit picking of the blind ones
Lord,
Lead me
Till I am lost in You.


Inspired by Plotinus' first Ennead

Try to see people as they are — T Clark

Clark,
I liked this a lot. It's very Taoist sage of you. I think most moral/ethical programs miss this first step of observation and understanding before acting. The Sage, in Taoism, realizes that often non-action is the best action. A good portion of the worlds problems are due to well intended meddling!!

Buddhism has two different models for ethics that I like. One is that we need to cultivate compassion and other virtues (becoming more our True Selves/our Buddha Nature) and moral action will occur naturally and spontaneously. I would translate that to saying that we need to seek God and His illumination and then He will instruct us and work thru us.

The second model is even better. Ahimsa or simply "Do no harm."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa
The argument is that it's great to try to do good, but we fail at that pretty often and we disagree on what "good" is. If we could just manage to do no harm we would end up being ethical and it would be a great start. This is hopefully something we can also agree on.

to be a a part of the world." Whatever that means... — Brian

To participate in the world soul, maybe? I guess I am a Platonist after all. The world soul is the interactions of all beings in the universe that are intimately interconnected that in turn are in relationship with God as their Source.

That's a wonderful top down definition of existence. As a mystical monist, I should be more focused on top down perspectives than bottom up of mind/body/soul issues.
Thanks!!! You solved my puzzle.

If you're interested in only what's 'relevant or useful' then you've probably joined the wrong forum. ;-) — Wayfarer

That's pretty funny! If I wanted things that were useful in the sense of helping me get my car fixed or lose weight, I wouldn't turn to philosophy at all. I studied with a Zen Master who said if you are sick see a doctor, if you want money see a banker, not a Zen Master. Zen is useless.

I also don't want to espouse utilitarianism. Not everything has a "cash value."

At the same time, though, I shouldn't be loosing sleep over if the Forms exist or if I have a soul, if I'm not primarily interested in metaphysics. I'm more interested in ethics.

A perfect example of this is my studies of Kabbalah. There is a vast Kabbalist cosmology with upper worlds and 10 sefriot (divine emanations) all with names and properties etc. Maybe it's meant to be figurative, but it is also treated pretty literally by most texts. I just don't care how many sefriot there are, especially since I can't verify if they exist at all. I was more interested in using it as a virtue training and as a meditative tool. But all the cosmology and the finer points of Torah observance (no cheeseburgers) was bogging me down. It wasn't useful to me. But the useful parts of prayer and self purification won't teach me to do my oil changes.

I'll also have to go to the library. I should check up on Godel.
But as Jeremiah in my other thread pointed out maybe I should just worry about what's relevant or useful. I'm not so sure about Forms and Realism and all that. However when Plato says Book 1 of the Republic (which I just finished) says the soul only works to guide us when it is of just character, in same way an eye only works when it's not blind. That is something I can really use in my life. I can be a "Platonist" in that sense, seeking virtue and a closer awareness (Plotinus says assimilation) with the One. This is a certain way of reading Plato that I think is just as valid as going really into his logical proofs or cosmology.
Again the gnostics would be pretty close as well, though differing in a few key areas. The gnostics are pretty popular these days, maybe I'll find some of them online. I'll take forum or Facebook recommendations if anyone has any.

Personally I think you should forget about "exist", "real" and "truth". They are too subjective to be useful formally, instead you should ask yourself: What is relevant? — Jeremiah

I think you are onto something. Especially since we can't pretend to know what we do not. Anyone can make up stuff.

Jeremiah,
I definitely agree that science is becoming more capable of answering these questions.
I'm no physicist, but gravity is a force/energy. Possibly a particle (gravitons).
I sense a trap here (or maybe I'm just reading too much Socrates). If I say energy exists because it's obvious it makes cars move and food cook, then I'm forgetting that energy is really just increased motion on an atomic level. Legs exist but does walking or is it just the movement from one point to another?
There are lots of examples of things that aren't material in and of themselves but is foolish to say they aren't real. A record doesn't hold music but a needle reads it to generate pulses of air movement at particular frequencies. So does the music not exist? Memories and thoughts are in some way simmilar to the record player, memories have to be stored physically somehow and it's electrical and chemical pulses that allow them to be read.
Perhaps the point is that material "existence" is to strict of a criteria and not all that meaningful.
Maybe the question should be what is real? There is a possibility that this isn't an all or nothing answer.

Wayfarer,

Thanks for the reply and the refresher on realism versus nominalism. My philosophy classes are coming back to me now.

I really love the idea of there being a blueprint or Logos or Will that grounds our reality in God. I need to study the stoics more. It's very poetic and comforting, but does that means it true?

T Clark,

I meant in just a very basic sense of a fan. Someone is also familiar with Plato or the Neoplatonist and is a good person to ask questions or bounce ideas off. Gnostics definitely fall into the category :)

Being Platonist is more tricky but someone who draws key elements of their thought from Plato's writings. But wouldn't that make most philosophers Platonists? Haha.

Thanks for all the replies! I'm definitely sticking around now. I mainly posted to help me retain what I read and what I gained from it. I wasn't expecting such good responses and you all are better versed in the stoics than I.

I ended up with the stoics by going backwards in time. I started with Paul Tillich's the Courage to Be and that made me pick up Spinoza's Ethics which made me pick up the stoics. Tillich was good, but Spinoza and Seneca are amazing.

I'll definitely read up on some recommendations here. I'm almost finished with Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

Anyone know much about Pythagoras and reading his monism? I've read plontinus but am not quite a Neoplatonist.

Thanks again for the welcome!!