School of Economic Science
the standstill of all things in the light of the element

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redundant fallibility
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:28 am    Post subject: the standstill of all things in the light of the element Reply with quote

Quote:
“I am awaiting your own thoughts on the discussion of motion. I hope your muteness on this doesn’t indicate a total cessation of thought. Motion in all its forms is, indeed, worthy of philosophic discussion.” - Peter



The Fate of Motion

We are not prepared to question motion, since these days all questioning has fallen out of practice, and likely will not be seen in the look of the pages of our people, those of this age. We do not have the slightest knowledge of the way towards this questioning which would vouchsafe us the inquiry of motion.

What presses towards thought in that which is there in the letters: motion? By what volition, what has caused it, whither this change and transmutation, the instigation, why this agitation, this unrest—why indeed life? Does the concept of motion necessarily lead us on to life, seething fury, to the movements in the bowels of the earth itself, to some fancy of the ancients, that wilful world animal [that thing which originates its own states and is not inert, but has impetus], or to ourselves and our lives which are always leaking out and away from ourselves? And always leading to ‘cases of death’. Whoever questions what is seen, what there has the look of motion, is somehow standing beyond, holding away, taking stock of their object. Is this motion the subject of a zoological inquiry? It seems to me necessary to point out that our answer has everything to do with our approach, to the way we handle this matter. We must face, most of all, then, the question of the questioning.

So far no one has vouchsafed us a look into this matter which might prepare us for what is good, in the sense of the sturdy and the useful. But what is most useful is not what answers our relevant problems, it does not solve the climate-change issue, it does not yield economic equality, it does not resolve the tensions with Putin and the turmoils in the Middle East. It dowers us with no special advantage over and against the others. It is like the element, it is not aware of embarrassment or the concern with the appropriate and inappropriate. The element is insufficient to reach the way towards this motion, but it is not at all a bad thing. It is yet a kind of usefulness we speak of, and not splendor.

The word is not enough, motion, we go at once beyond it. It is a common enough thing. It must be useful in some greater way or why else do we go past the mere saying, into the understanding and the picturing? In some way we nevertheless do not yet guess at. It is something remote that is still lurking close enough that we sometimes almost smell it, but one could think of bringing it towards what is close, if one were to spot it.

We say a car is in motion, that is, precisely when it is not sitting there, by the curb, parked and motionless. This which is closest to us, and strikes home, is denied by our furthest-going and most ‘fundamental’ sciences. Indeed, there is a subatomic frenzy and frission at bottom of the parked car, the curb, and the computer console sitting there still as a statue. For this science there is no rest, and we find in it an aporia which can not be resolved, motion is not differentiated, it loses its character which was defined over and against its limit state, that of rest, and becomes incommensurately inchoate. Ergo, the matter can not be resolved. We are told, physics is not ‘intuitive’, it is, rather, counter-intuitive. Such formulas grasp the thoughtless, such that they are done with the matter as soon as they finish making some fatuous comments about the astounding things one finds in the ‘natural world’.

Yet, human beings know of rest and stillness. How can that be, does not science bring resolution to all things? How can it be that something indestructible remains in this motion that is founded in contradistinction to its limit state, that of stillness?

We know of motion and stillness, just as we know of that agitated subatomic world behind this world. The one we have heard of from the knowledgeable, that other place they are acquainted with. And they move through both in their daily passages on the earth. Gignomai, τὸ γιγνόμενον, that which is something new, that that is the newness that is not sufficiently established. That which is not ontos, not most true, the moving is the deceptive, it is the commotion and the noise of that absurd thing, of something disharmonious, it is what has the look of a long story of tears. Thus it is history, the mad and the irrational. We do know that! But not the eternal, not the utopia, which one is only permitted to strive for. How does the mind stand in the near longing for the closeness of the remote? The mind? Not at all, it is the world itself, for what is close goes on roughly in the same way, it goes on elaborating itself, and we expect it to all the time. This notorious reflex, this leaking away that doesn't deplete any stock, becomes an ever-greater strangeness. It is the embarrassment of us all. Then have we only been permitted to suffer this jeering?

The questions more appropriate to these texts, thus associated with actual philosophical work, I intend to continue in the other thread. But I judged it to be worthwhile to put down this account for the little that it is worth.
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1104
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are three things I put above motion: a god, pattern and blessed peace.

For a god wills - wills 'this' to be 'there' for some reason, a pattern arises for the flow of motion to follow, and blessed peace ensures the god’s will is carried through ευ - well.

Quote:
<<That which is not ontos, not most true, the moving is the deceptive, it is the commotion and the noise of that absurd thing, of something disharmonious, it is what has the look of a long story of tears.>>


I think there is a distinction between disharmony and babble. The first is still under some kind of rational law, there is still motion available as a resolution. I presume you mean the latter, its absurdity being nothing more than irrationality.

You’re right. These interesting words should not stand in place of a fully reasoned conversation on the other thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redundant fallibility
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

“There are three things I put above motion: a god, pattern and blessed peace.” - Peter

“For a god wills - wills 'this' to be 'there' for some reason, a pattern arises for the flow of motion to follow, and blessed peace ensures the god’s will is carried through ευ - well.” - Peter


So you tacitly make a definition and say motion, sensible to the touch, is not will nor is motion, visible to the eye, form (or god). By inference this says, motion is not a matter of space and time. E.g., it is no matter of the eyes and ears nor of the nose.

We must hash out a few very important things, evoked by the answer, which itself leads to the matter of the technical definition in Plato. Which we can not just leap to, but must elaborate painfully, and very precisely.

Space and time in the Timaeus refer to so-called physical matter, i.e., what is solid to the touch as of earth, and moves by the radiation of material fire as of the fires or stars. However, this is a technical modification of the greater sense of movement known to man as man, it is a limit put to that. Such that we are then compelled to speak of eternity as something that does not involve movement at all in this definition or location.

This material (the Ionian, the Pythagorean, and the Platonic) is not the modern material. We must understand these rather-tiresome questions in adequate detail, and not be like those innumerable stupid people, who say at once, it is only a matter of semantics.

We can not avoid saying something about the nothing, and the many difficulties involved with that word. The nothing is said of what is of the will and of the forms, and thus it comes prior to the emergence of this matter in the myth. That this nothing nothings is like a movement for our vague understanding (but it is ruled out by the strict limitation of the definition). It is not the scientific or Christian nothing. The common rendering of the Hebrew Bible says, and there was movement upon the face of the waters. Thus the vault of heaven makes the rest. Makes, moves. I.e., the living nothing. Whereas, according to the Christian view, there is nothing and then something. The something is at once the material of physics, nature natured. It is the glimpsing from outside. Its will is nature naturing, it is the absolute of the Christian or scientific material as the originator of all states, or the laws of so-called nature upon which everything depends.

In the Timaeus’ myth, when we think according to the common-sense usage, we find movement in the demiurge, for he makes space and time. In the ‘strict’ definition, which you suppose, we are presented with an unmoving demiurge and so the ‘making’ either falls into total unintelligibility, or is regarded as mythological. Plato is, therefore, already operating with the ‘strict’ delimitation which has guided Peter’s view. Now, does the ‘strict’ sense of movement, as what belongs to space and time have its basis in the common sense word, movement, and so get built as a specific modification of that? One should bring out these points with the most-perfect clarity. At first they are schematic locators, but later they must be taken into factual-historical nearness.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
This forum is sponsored by the School of Economic Science for use by its members; members of its branches; members
of affiliated schools worldwide and by all other Internet users interested in the study subjects presented.
Powered by phpBB Copyright © FSES, 2007. All Rights Reserved