tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3494697161252038542.post5993952406079970411..comments2023-04-28T06:08:36.287-07:00Comments on Being Sufficiently: God as the Eternal "No" - Illness, Disease and Catastrophe in The Ages of the WorldChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550200863030353202noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3494697161252038542.post-63260846764595072422013-01-07T01:44:24.514-08:002013-01-07T01:44:24.514-08:00where in Plato does he discuss irrational numbers?...where in Plato does he discuss irrational numbers? could you give me a stephanus number, i'd be fascinated to read the passage<br />cheerspeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16832366700843323043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3494697161252038542.post-69607802065608123952013-01-06T00:50:29.423-08:002013-01-06T00:50:29.423-08:00Schelling seems to be dealing with the Genesis nar...Schelling seems to be dealing with the Genesis narrative in saying that Nature comes out of what is blind, dark, and unspeakable in God. The hebrew says "tohu wabohu" which is typically translated as some kind of chaos. <br /><br />Because of this framing, it seems that all discussion of the Godhead is filtered by issues of myth -- "likely stories" -- and revelation. <br /><br />My introduction to Schelling came from a Jewish Philosophy seminar at Arizona State University with Dr. Norbert Samuelson, where we read Franz Rosenzweig's The Star of Redemption. If you have time, you will find a great deal of insight from reading the Rosenzweig's introduction to his masterwork. Rosenzweig wrote to his friends that he thought Schelling's work was of all philosophers the nearest in style and intention to his own. <br /><br />As for the term "chaos", are you using this mathematically? Because there is deep mathematical order to chaos. Randomness is a different concept mathematically, but there are different kinds of randomness. <br /><br />Anyway, good luck. <br /><br />Oh, note also that in Plato, the remainder and the irrational are rooted in the very geometry of the 45-45-90 unit right triangle, whose hypotenuse is the square root of two (an irrational number.)<br /><br />But that is still a philosophy rooted in the unity of being, which is something Kant shatters into God-World-Man. It may be important to keep the elements separate, if Schelling does so. I may be reading Rosenzweig into Schelling, not sure. For Rosenzweig, God-World-Man are the elements, and Creation-Revelation-Redemption are the courses/relationships between the elements. They form a six-pointed star, a picture, and for Rosenzweig building that picture is the best philosophy can do.<br /><br />Take a look at The Star and see what you think. It's an amazing book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3494697161252038542.post-21453181298404659272013-01-05T20:16:04.450-08:002013-01-05T20:16:04.450-08:00hey chris, sounds like your presentation was fasci...hey chris, sounds like your presentation was fascinating and I'd be really interested to read your essay if its on the same material. <br /><br />the order out of chaos is the same area I latched onto in Schelling's work, although I focused on its relationship to truth and the question of why would anything in particular emerge from an infinite abyss of chaos (do you remember the crazy fitness landscape diagrams I did?). I tried to use Kauffman's notion of attractors in phase space to try and explain IHG's Schellingian account of how the unlimited becomes limited. <br />I'd be really interested to see how you attempt to use autopoesis in conjunction with this account of the metaphysical relationship between chaos and order.<br /><br />In regards to this, John H Spencer (The Eternal Law, 2012) has recently raised an interesting point in regards to the notion of the necessity of eternal laws. If reason emerges from chaos, as it seems to do for Schelling, then it either does so according to a "higher order" - what JHS calls an eternal law - a la Plato - or it is random (page22). He then goes on to utter Meillassoux's "frequentialist implication" (if it could change randomly, then it would do so constantly). I think Meillassoux does great work in forming a negative defence against this (i.e. one that knocks-down prima facie arguments against it); but so far a positive account of order from an irrational-irreducible chaos is forthcoming - do you think autopoesis can solve this without instilling a higher order? I suppose this would be a form of lawfulness immanent to chaos but random enough to not be predictive or limiting of the godhead's freedom? peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16832366700843323043noreply@blogger.com