In class when we talked about how there is the relationship between the reader of a text and the text itself it got me wondering how the reader's interpenetration of what they are reading affects its ability to have its potential reached. If someone is reading and engaging with the text, then the text will have meaning but what if a reader of a text misses the point of what is being written? When the writer writes something with one meaning and the reader takes a meaning away that is unrelated the text still meaningful?
I started wondering this when I found this website that invited its users to provide interpretations for the rap lyrics of various songs. Some could high light a section of the song and if it the artist used a lot of figurative language, someone could break down what was being said in layman's terms and allow others to talk about how their interpenetration differed from the one provided. And when I read through the meanings of particular verses they were taking away my first instinct was to say that they were wrong and missed the point. But since it is their opinion who am I to say they were wrong? And I found myself wondering if any neo-platinous would be able to say that the meaning one takes away from a text is wrong. Maybe the only wrong interpenetration would be to conclude that there is no meaning and leave the text lifeless.

We talked about the interpretation of text and there was a spark of interest in the nature of a text: whether it is objective or subjective. A thought a good modern example of this is Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury was overwhelmingly disappointed in the poor understanding of Fahrenheit 451. People thought it was about government censorship, because they claimed that temperature was the same temperature at which paper burned, and in turn the temperature at which book burnings can be committed (the temperature is actually 450 Celsius).

The book actually turns out to be about the numbing effects of technology. Bradbury, although a science fiction writer, was himself a Luddite. The government is not the problem, the people are. The irony of this is that the people of this society cannot recognize his message, perhaps because society has numbed them from working through the intricacies of a text.

Class Synopisis April 11th

We began class by talking about distinguishing between the contemporary way to read a text and the classical way. Neo-Platonists read him pedagogically, so as to progress from one part of philosophy to the next. Contemporary scholarship focuses on how Plato's philosophy develops as Plato himself develops. The classical way of reading Plato composed them into tetrarchies, containing three dramas and one seder play. Iamblicus was the one responsible for ordering the dialogues for the Neo-Platonists, moving from the particular good to the universal good. The Timaeus and Parmenides stand out as a synthesis of Plato's natural philosophy and religious philosophy respectively.

There is a purpose to this process though, reading a text as it is supposed to be read makes us one with the text. the Neo-Platonists did not fall into a post-modernism, were each person constructs meaning from the text. Because there is some objectivity to the relationship, we can get to the intended meaning of a text.

Next we moved to discussing the process of interpreting an actual text. There are six parts to it: matter (character, time, place), form (style), nature (either expository or investigative), soul (problems of the text), intellect (topic), and good (the transformation of myself and the text towards the One).

Next we talked about we talked the Commentary of Proclus on the Parmenides. Just as in epics, the commentary begins with an invocation of the gods interprets the text allegorically. We ended by dividing the text into four conversations.

"We are simply the universe experiencing itself"

I discovered this quote several weeks ago on my tumblr account, and because of how I found it, I cannot validate completely who it’s by, but it was attributed to Mercurius. Nevertheless, it is very relevant to Neo-Platonism and the relationship of the subject and the object. It reminded me of the thought exercise that we did in which I imagined everything that exists being contained within a sphere, and then asked “where am I?” I was both the subject, surveying all of existence, and myself part of existence. Just now the question might could be asked "am I the universe or am I experiencing it?" Both. It is us we are it. This quotation points out that even though we experience the universe, we are certainly part of it. All is one, ourselves included.

The Eternal Nature of Texts

After our discussion on Monday regarding the seemingly objective nature of texts, I have to say that I am somewhat inspired. The neo-platonic tradition is so unique in their practices, and I can see how this carries over into Christianity. This whole notion of the text taking on, not a life of its own, but rather, a life in the marriage of reader and text sounds ludacris, but I am inclined to agree that this is the case. In writing a text, the author has one thing in mind. If the text is never read, does it carry any weight or meaning, though? Clearly the neoplatonists would argue that it does not. Initially, I thought, "Hell yeah it does. What are you talking about?" I was so bothered by the notion that a book, novel, poem, or even article carries no meaning unless read. I don't think that is to say, though, that there is absolutely NO meaning whatsoever to the text. I think that is to say that its potential is only partially actualized in being written. In being read, however, the text takes on a completely different dynamic. Not only the first time it is read, but every time a text is read, a new relationship is built between text and reader. This gives the text a sort of limitless potential and eternal quality, and, to me, that is jsut delightful =)

Ancient Philosophy in Hegel

a few times in class we have brought up the the parallel between the way that Hegel posits his idea of the spirit and how it relates to the All Soul. They have many similarities in them, the main one being that the I or Soul in the case of the Neo-Platonist's must look at itself in order to reach Unity. Hegel's Spirit is a lot like this but in many ways it is different. The most obvious difference between the two is Hegel's focus on perception that is not present in the Neo-Platonist thought. Being that the I cannot directly look back at itself but must rather look at itself contemplating itself. Not: I->I ; but I->(I->object). Upon contemplating the two of them, I came to the realization that in many ways it has a connection to skepticism as well. Though it does claim that the spirit is something that one can know (which goes against skeptical thought) it does get to its conclusion in a very skeptical way. Unlike the Soul which reaches its logical end because being perfect it has no need of looking further. Hegel in a very skeptical manner reaches the spirit by way of negation. I fail to grasp all of it myself but from what I understand the spirit is infinite by negation. Hegel claims that it is the negation of its self and therefore if you use skeptical philosophy it will still be the same. kind of like this. Hegel uses the term the Infinate interchangeably with spirit, because it is its negation. I just thought it was interesting to see Ancient Philosophy in Hegel, especially one that I wasn't expecting to see.

Class Synopsis Friday April 8

We began class on Friday by reviewing Platinus, being sure to cover the major parts of Platinus’ theories that will be built upon by the later Neo-Platonists. The ones that seemed to stick out the most were Platinus’ monism (his belief that all is in all) and his theory about the One, Intellect, and the Soul. For this, we spent more time going over the distinctions between the three main parts and how they relate to each other. Specifically: the One being pure unity that looks at the Intellect, the Intellect is being that looks at the Soul, and the Soul being all. It is important to note that the reason why the soul cannot go beyond itself is because it is already all so there is no further for it to look. If it needed to look any further it would mean that the Soul is imperfect rather than perfect unity. From there we made a transition to other Neo-Platonists by way of how each philosopher posited that one could come upon unity.

Platinus believed that there were two paths to unity. One could get to unity by either faith or by way of knowledge. The next philosophers that we covered split greatly upon those lines. Porphry (232 AD in Athens) believed strongly that knowledge was the only way to get to the one. He rejected the allegorical truths and theurgies and instead believed that contemplation was the only way to get to the One. Conversely, Iamblicus (250-326 AD) believed the exact opposite. This was because he posited that the Soul was so descended that it knows the external world to much. He thought that religious rights are necessary for a person to turn inward and thus find unity. Additionally, he came up with the idea that aside from the monads (One, Intellect, and Soul) he thought there were more increments between the three which he called henads. A good example of this being the parts to the intellect: the intelligible- the objects of thought, the intelligible intellect- the thinking process, and the intellect- which had the ability to contemplate all these things. The henads would be very important to Proclus.

Proclus would take the henads along with Syrianus’ ideas of the participated and unanticipated and further the relationship of the One, Intellect, and Soul. Stating that in each part of the All Soul there is a division of participated and unanticipated, and within the participated there were further divisions in the Intellect just like in Iamblicus’ model. Additionally he came up with an analogy: the being- is intelligible or thing, life- being spirit, and the Soul- being creation (ie. what creates all of these). Damascius was written on the board but we did not cover him much, if at all.