It’s everything
— praxis

His - Plotinus's - "One" "cannot be any existing thing", nor is it merely the sum of all things, but "is prior to all existents". — Gus Lamarch

If you’re suggesting a contradiction then what is it?

If you’re suggesting a contradiction then what is it? — praxis

Are you reading the discussion? I doubt so.

Plotinus compared the One to "light", the Divine Intellect to the "Sun", and lastly the Soul to the "Moon" whose light is merely a "derivative conglomeration of light from the 'Sun'". The first light could exist without any celestial body.

Quoting Plotinus:

"Once you have uttered "The One", add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."

You could say the One, but not "The One is the One" because with that phrase, you introduce deficiency to it.

Actually, you have not. Try to find where you define it. It's not there. Also: — tim wood

Do you not know how to read Tim? I did not say that I offered you a definition, I offered you my preferred way of defining the term, and you rejected it. Therefore I did not proceed any further. Nor will I proceed any further.

If you’re suggesting a contradiction then what is it?
— praxis

Are you reading the discussion? I doubt so. — Gus Lamarch

That doesn't explain the contradiction, if you believe there is one.

Plotinus compared the One to "light", the Divine Intellect to the "Sun", and lastly the Soul to the "Moon" whose light is merely a "derivative conglomeration of light from the 'Sun'". The first light could exist without any celestial body. — Gus Lamarch

A sun is a celestial body.

That doesn't explain the contradiction, if you believe there is one. — praxis

I don't believe there is contradiction on the philosophy of Plotinus. You affirmed that there was.

A sun is a celestial body. — praxis

It really is impossible for you to try to understand a subject that you disagree with.

I'll quote Plotinus one more time:

"Our thought cannot grasp the One as long as any other image remains active in the soul. To this end, you must set free your soul from all outward things and turn wholly within yourself, with no more leaning to what lies outside, and lay your mind bare of ideal forms, as before of the objects of sense, and forget even yourself, and so come within sight of that One."

I get the impression that you’re being evasive for some reason. Your prerogative of course.

I get the impression that you’re being evasive for some reason. Your prerogative of course. — praxis

And I get that this discussion isn't going anywhere.

Are you seriously suggesting that radio waves and thoughts are physical objects at the human scale? — EricH

We're in search of something that runs like a thread through all physical phenomena, in effect unifying them, just as producing milk for offspring unifies a segment of the living world as mammals.

Your question is odd since you brought up the issue atoms. Doesn't that make anything, radio and thoughts, fair game for this discussion? By the way, the wavelength of radiowaves are, if I'm correct, in the meters and that's human scale, right?

My question is about how to abstract the One, without the deficiencies caused by our finitude. I came to the thinking that we could arrive at the conception of the One, through the division of concepts. - Ex: We would (?) describe (?) part (?) of the One by mathematics, another part by language, another by metaphysics, reason, emotion, etc ... - — Gus Lamarch

How could the One consist of parts in this way? Wouldn't this make it a multiplicity of distinct parts instead of being one? So for instance, doesn't the following statement describe a turning away from all such individualized parts?

"Our thought cannot grasp the One as long as any other image remains active in the soul. To this end, you must set free your soul from all outward things and turn wholly within yourself, with no more leaning to what lies outside, and lay your mind bare of ideal forms, as before of the objects of sense, and forget even yourself, and so come within sight of that One." — Gus Lamarch

Once we get beyond the idea of distinct things which we can talk about (ideal forms), only then can we approach the One. This is why the procedure takes us beyond finitude. as that which separate, individual forms are supposed to have.

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

At this point I'm still trying to understand what you're saying. When I first saw this sentence it seemed wrong to me since under the plain language usage of the word object - things you can bump into - there are clearly such physical attributes - mass, they occupy space, etc

But before pointing this out to you I wanted to double check how you were using the word objects in the context of this sentence. Hence my question about atoms, photons, etc.

And you responded that you were using the plain language definition

Yes, I'm referring to objects at the human scale - things we can, well, bump into. — TheMadFool

So clearly using YOUR definition/usage there ARE attributes that each and every object in the universe possesses.

We're in search of something that runs like a thread through all physical phenomena, in effect unifying them, just as producing milk for offspring unifies a segment of the living world as mammals. — TheMadFool

Now you seem to be changing things around. Instead of talking about objects you're now talking about physical phenomena. That's OK - perhaps "objects" was a poor choice of words (although it would be nice if you acknowledged that).

So one more time, and then I give up:

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

Dear sir or madam - please clarify what you mean by the word objects in this sentence. Thank you.

Plotinus describes his concept of "the One" as follows: — Gus Lamarch

The One is perhaps more appropriately described with a single word.

Space.

Scroll down to Google's Vocabulary Test

You'll be asked the question: Which word is similar to the word "object"?

"Our thought cannot grasp the One as long as any other image remains active in the soul. To this end, you must set free your soul from all outward things and turn wholly within yourself, with no more leaning to what lies outside, and lay your mind bare of ideal forms, as before of the objects of sense, and forget even yourself, and so come within sight of that One." — Gus Lamarch's Plotinus

At this point there is no longer any need of discussion (a deficiency). Sounds like a version of union with the universal soul in stillness, as in line with the pursuit of Advaita Vedanta ("nonduality").

The One is perhaps more appropriately described with a single word. — Hippyhead

The One.

Plotinus:

"Once you have uttered "The One", add no further thought."

At this point there is no longer any need of discussion (a deficiency). — Nils Loc

Agreed completely.

I'm not playing your games. Your inability after numerous requests to give a clear explanation of your terms demonstrates that you yourself don't understand what you're saying.

I give you the last word in this fruitless exchange.

Our thought cannot grasp the One as long as any other image remains active in the soul. To this end, you must set free your soul from all outward things and turn wholly within yourself, with no more leaning to what lies outside, and lay your mind bare of ideal forms, as before of the objects of sense, and forget even yourself, and so come within sight of that One. — Gus Lamarch

Perhaps what's needed here is a translation from one cultural language in to another? A less fancy more secular sounding way to put this could be....

We are made of thought. Thought operates by a process of division. Thus it's not possible to experience the unity of all things in that medium.

It seems possible to discuss such subjects from a purely mechanical perspective which doesn't introduce subjects like souls and so on. This may be useful when discussing such subjects with those who are alienated by more poetic language.

The reason I suggested using the word space to describe "The One" is that doing so translates an abstract religious sounding concept in to a tangible property of the natural world. Much of the language traditionally used to discuss such things was developed long before science came to dominate our culture. Translations may be helpful in reaching modern audiences.

You'd have to prove that simplicity is possible, that it exists, and that it is greater than matter — Gregory

Math is real, but it doesn't exist. So if someone were to ask that we prove that math exists we would be unable to do so, as it has no weight, no mass, no shape or form, is invisible etc.

I'm not playing your games. Your inability after numerous requests to give a clear explanation of your terms demonstrates that you yourself don't understand what you're saying.

I give you the last word in this fruitless exchange. — EricH

Sorry if it seems like I'm playing games. I'm not. What I've said is what (I think) is the truth which is that there's no real attribute that can be said to unite the contents of our universe as one single unit apart from what can be referred to as their thingness.

I get the impression that you’re being evasive for some reason. — praxis

I don't think he's being evasive, but is perhaps using language which isn't on the right channel for many readers of philosophy forums.

One way out of the endless round and round to nowhere which tends to afflict philosophy forums would be to shift the methodology of investigation from explanations to experience. To me, that's what's being implied by the philosophy being discussed.

The reason I suggested using the word space to describe "The One" is that doing so translates an abstract religious sounding concept in to a tangible property of the natural world. Much of the language traditionally used to discuss such things was developed long before science came to dominate our culture. Translations may be helpful in reaching modern audiences. — Hippyhead

Classical texts have already been adapted to contemporary vocabulary by translation into English and other languages. Adapting the vocabulary to the standards of the "new generations" is to distort the content and the message that the writer wanted to convey. The new generations that should adapt and try to understand the old texts, not the other way around.

Ancient texts is just some guy like us sharing his opinion at a time now long past. Being ancient doesn't mean anything in itself.

Once you have uttered 'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency. — Gus Lamarch

TRANSLATION: The more we try to define unity the farther we travel from it, because definitions are by their nature divisive.

The more we try to define unity the farther we travel from it, because definitions are by their nature divisive. — Hippyhead

This is not what Plotinus said. He said:

"Once you have uttered 'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."

Ancient texts is just some guy like us sharing his opinion at a time now long past. — Hippyhead

With the originality and attitude of having read Plato in Greek and trying to write in Latin and in Greek. If you want to read a work, you have to look for the context and the meaning that the writer wanted. Transforming this into another type of language simply to fit the current view is not translation, but revisionism.

I get the impression that you’re being evasive for some reason.
— praxis

I don't think he's being evasive, but is perhaps using language which isn't on the right channel for many readers of philosophy forums.

One way out of the endless round and round to nowhere which tends to afflict philosophy forums would be to shift the methodology of investigation from explanations to experience. To me, that's what's being implied by the philosophy being discussed. — Hippyhead

That’s where we got hung up, I was saying that we are always experiencing the absolute and we simply don’t realize it. It’s not like it’s some other reality or metaphysical dimension that we don’t have access to.

I was saying that we are always experiencing the absolute and we simply don’t realize it. It’s not like it’s some other reality or metaphysical dimension that we don’t have access to. — praxis

Yes, good point, I agree. So to build on that...

Why don't we realize we are experiencing the absolute? Imho, that's because most of the time our attention isn't focused on reality, but instead on our thoughts about reality. It's not a complicated mysterious thing, but just a matter of not paying attention, of being distracted.

We can use rational thought to understand that we aren't paying attention to reality itself. So far, so good. But if we wish to continue further then the job is to shift our focus from rational thought to the real world. We use philosophy as far as it can take us, and then set it aside. Or to put it another way, we shift our focus from explanations to experience.

An analogy might help clarify the relationship between explanations and experience. Explanations about food can help us find food and consume it intelligently. That's good. But if we want the nutrition we have to actually eat the food. The nutrition is in the food, not in the explanations.

The same can be said for God, the absolute, The One, or whatever name is used. The nutrition is in the experience, not the explanations. Thus, the most rational explanation is the one that provides the shortest most widely accessible path from explanation to experience. The rational person picks up the food and eats it, instead of standing there all day merely talking about it.

The more we try to define unity the farther we travel from it, because definitions are by their nature divisive. — Hippyhead

Once you have uttered 'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency." — Plotinus

Plotinus is saying that by adding further thought, a medium which operates by a process of division, we are polluting an understanding of The One with division, thus distorting it's unified nature.

Note how Plotinus says, "add no further thought". He's not saying that one thought is appropriate and that another one isn't. By using the all inclusive phrase "add no thought" he is referring to the medium of thought itself. He's saying, the more we think about this the more we're going to muck it up, because the divisive nature of thought will inevitably misperceive a phenomena which is beyond division. Plotinus is using philosophy, to point beyond philosophy.

What lies beyond philosophy is experience.

Adapting the vocabulary to the standards of the "new generations" is to distort the content and the message that the writer wanted to convey. — Gus Lamarch

That could happen yes. Not all translations are of equal quality, agreed. I wouldn't however agree that every translation is automatically a distortion.

Nor would I agree that's it's essential that we understand what Plotinus meant. He's another writer on the forum. He's said some things which have sparked interesting discussion. All that's good. To me, the bottom line is, how useful is that discussion to participants?

Once you have uttered 'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency." — Plotinus

Isn't there a difference between the Good and the One?

Usually the One is associated with Parmenides and the Good with Plato with the metaphysical distinction that the One is bounded whereas the Good is indeterminate. The Good is generative of all other Forms in an unspecified or yet to be specified manner. This way the One was complete but the Good remained a metaphysical puzzler.

It’s not like it’s some other reality or metaphysical dimension that we don’t have access to. — praxis

This is practically what Plotino claims the One is. If you disagree, that is a matter of opinion, but if it is about Plotinus' philosophy, it is a misinterpretation.

Nor would I agree that's it's essential that we understand what Plotinus meant. He's another writer on the forum. He's said some things which have sparked interesting discussion. All that's good. To me, the bottom line is, how useful is that discussion to participants? — Hippyhead

In this discussion, it is interesting to try to understand Plotinu's philosophy, as one of his philosophical aspects is the center of the argumentation.

If people are here, investing their time to respond and try to refute, or argue about the One, for these people, this matter is important. Obviously it will not be "useful" for all the forum participants, however, for this same reason this discussion is restricted to about 5 people.

This way the One was complete but the Good remained a metaphysical puzzler — magritte

Plotinus uses "the One" and "the Good" interchangeably.

Reminds me of Spinoza's Ethics, aside from the fact the Spinoza aimed at God as the source of all creation(I think) and Plotinus seemed to want to avoid all that. Seems also that Spinoza's results are in line with Plotinus' aims.

Reminds me of Spinoza's Ethics, aside from the fact the Spinoza aimed at God as the source of all creation(I think) and Plotinus seemed to want to avoid all that. Seems also that Spinoza's results are in line with Plotinus' aims. — creativesoul

A person who does not have an in-depth study of Plotinus' philosophy would easily have confused the concept of the One with God; it is a very easy mistake to make. But, yes, Plotinus tried to abstract all the "divine" perfection of a transcendental Being and put it in a type of non-characteristic "object" that was a central point of study of this metaphysical concept of "absolute". Apparently, his attempt was not successful, because decades later, Christians would use his concept of "hypostatic substance" to give more foundation to the concept of trinity - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, are nothing more than Christian versions of the One - The Father -, the Intellect - the Son - and the soul - the Holy Spirit -. Spinoza was from the time where the Christian version was already - for more than a thousand years - the norm, so its not impressive that he would try to aim at God rather than another thing - as the One -.