Jake,
You might consider joining ISNS, the International Society for Neoplatonic
Studies. Many Neoplatonist scholars provide contact information through our
website, though it is not a listserv:
http://www.isns.us/
If you can travel, I would recommend attending AAR's 100th Anniversary
Meeting this coming fall in Atlanta, Georgia. The Platonism and Neoplatonism
Group's CFP reads:
Thinking about "The One" is a central concern of Platonism and Neoplatonism.
This Group invites papers on the following topics: 1) Ancient, medieval, and
modern Henology - this may include the interpretation of Hellenic henology
in subsequent Western philosophy, and/or conceptions of "The One" in Islamic
or Indic thought; and 2) Contemporary Henology - what role does the "The
One" play in contemporary philosophy and theology?
http://www.aarweb.org/Meetings/Annual_Meeting/Current_Meeting/Call_for_Papers/list-call.asp?PUNum=AARPU046
If travel is not an option, you at least have access through the AAR website
to this year's Platonism and Neoplatonism Chairs, as well as names and
topics of accepted presenters when the Program becomes available online, I
believe.
The Christian synthesis of Neoplatonism among participants in the Florentine
Platonic Academy is interesting, as that Italian Renaissance at the turn of
the 16th century is the time and place of the inception of Neoplatonism's
Christianization. Marsilio Ficino's 'Platonic Theology'; Pico della
Mirandola's 'Heptaplus' and 'On Being and the One'; Lefevre d'Etaples' 'De
Magia naturali' and 'Quincuplex Psalterium'. These works incorporate the
Neoplatonic One or Monad into a Christianized Henology, or according to
terminology adopted by some contemporary scholars, myself included, into a
Christian Kabbalah.
An example (still needs refining) from my transcription-translation work on
Lefevre's 'De Magia naturali Book II':
II:88 f. 217v Ch. 13
quietis. Senario tum universa completa sunt, finemque suum necta.
Quemadmodum divus cecinit Moses. Et septenario mundi[1] universorum auctor
ab opera quievit. Hinc septenarius quieti sacer non ignavus in arcanis
intelligitur.
(There is a small table inserted here that will have to be recreated: two
columns within a box; three rows per column; each row is underlined; the
first column lists the numbers 1, 2, 3 vertically descending; the second
column lists the numbers 6, 5, 4 vertically descending---think of it as a
numerical representation of the Ouroboros.)
Ordina ergo numeros ad sex usque duplici composita serie, vides principem
Monaden, cui proxime assidet binarius, idem et mundi intelligibilis numerus,
super intellectibilium omnia a parente Monade accipiens quem ternarius ex
genitrice Ideas pullulans proxime comitatur divinissimorum appetitus, qui
cum amore-nexuque coincidit. Vides rursum Ideam cum potentia coincidentem,
et principium cum fine. Videsque Monaden etiam Alpha et Omega principium et
finem, primum omnium et novissimum. Est enim Monas et senarius. Sed iunge
principium et finem septenarium complent omnium quietem. Iunge Idea numerum,
et potentiam septenarium complent omnium quietem. Iunge supremum appetitum,
et amorem appetitum in quem omnia in coelo et in terra surgentque,
septenarium complent omnium
II:89 f. 217 Ch. 13
quietem atque aequalitatem inter se respondent. Paterna monas potentia et
amor, quae rursum unitas aequalitas atque nexus Pÿthagorico more nomina sunt
sortita[2]. Ex monade ergo per aequalitatem, et ex aequalitate fiunt omnia.
Nam ut binarius exemplar aquae in se continens omnia. Idea est, et omnia
existens in aequalitate vero fiunt omnia, ut ipsa immensa et omnia complens
monas. Monas ergo nostra quies. Idea nostra quies amor rursum nostra
omniumque quies. Et haec tria unum sunt, et inter se equisona, et ad hunc
ternum, ternum mundi, principatum volunt magi cuncta produci, et ex eorum
numeris, qui primordiales simplicissimique sunt, quintum mortalibus fas
est-omnia coniectare atque per quiri.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] In margine: "Genesis", meaning that this Pythagorean formulation
describes the Biblical six-fold genesis of creation in seven days.
[2] In margine: "Sapientiae II, omnia in mensura, et numero et pondere
disposuisti:".
II:88 f. 217v Ch. 13
The senaries are as the complete universe, and the ends knot themselves. In
this manner Moses divinely sang. And the septenaries of the world the author
of the universe quieted from the work. This septenary quietude is understood
as sacred, not ignoble, within the mystery.
(Table, see transcription instructions.)
Therefore order the numbers to six as a double-composite series; of the
first empty Monad, which the binary sits next to-the number of the
intelligible world, above all of the intellectible from the parent Monad-the
generatrix out from which the ternary, longing for the divine, coincides
with the love-nexus. Emptiness back towards Idea is coincident with power,
and beginning with end[1],
II:89 f. 217 Ch. 13
offering quietude as well as equality between themselves. The father monad,
power and love, which are sent forth out of the dark name, return back
towards unity, equality, and the Pythagorean nexus[2]. Out of the monad
therefore through equality, and out of equality they make all. For as the
binary, exemplary of water containing all within itself, is Idea, and all
existing in equality in truth make all, just so the immense all itself fills
full the monad. The monad therefore is our quiet, Idea our quiet love
returning back towards our quiet all. And these three are one, and between
themselves sound equally, and to this triple, the triple of the world, the
magi will the principle to produce the entirety, and out of their numbers
that are the primordial and most simple, the fifth with mortality is
made-and through that cry all are connected.[3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] i.e., the Monad = Alpha; the senary = Omega; the manifest binary
Coincidence of Opposites emanates into the Trinity, then folds back upon
itself into a Unity. This may be best illustrated in the image of the
Ouroboros. [insert image here]
[2] Margin note: "Of the wisdom of II (2), all within measure, and the
ordering by number to ponder.
[3] Genesis of creation & God-making passage .Here Lefèvre begins to use
Pythagorean monochord harmonics as a metaphor for cosmological principles.
In other words, he is speaking of the Harmony of the Spheres. Now the poetic
self-reflective gaze of Narcissus is being set to music.
Hoping this was of interest, and helpful,
Kathryn
Kathryn LaFevers Evans
Independent Researcher
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake Stratton-Kent" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Religious Topics and Personal Judgements
> Thanks to all who answered, please excuse me getting my hard hat on;
> for me at least its much easier to figure out the rules by playing
> than by watching.
>
> On 26 March 2010 15:39, Samuel Wagar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> What I'm wondering is why my question about monist elements in pagan
>>> philosophy is apparently of no interest to academics here; even though
>>> they apparently have *some* basis for distinguishing paganism from
>>> polytheism.
>>
>> I'm a Wiccan High Priest (since 1985) and a History MA (since 2006) and
>> interested in both academic and occultist approaches.
>>
>> I'm a straight-up polytheist, personally. I am not personally interested
>> in
>> monism, or the more common duotheistic approaches (at least in Wicca). In
>> my
>> experience the various Goddesses do not reduce down to one, the Gods to
>> one
>> or the Two to One as Dion Fortune's dictum puts it.
>
> likewise, even when we sidestep compiled Greek myth to local level
> cult, there is a wider cast involved. Crowley's reduction to four is
> imperfect but far more workable, even if skewed towards generic
> qabalah.
>
> My area of current
>> academic interest is the sociology of modern neo-Paganism, so a mild
>> historical interest in neoPlatonism (but there were several of them and
>> they
>> differed widely, as did the variety of things called Gnostic etc...)isn't
>> going to make me try to comment on your question.
>>
>> The same lack of background or deep interest might explain why others
>> didn't
>> go with your initial question.
>
> I take your point, though my interest in sociology and modern isms -
> which seem to be a major part of academic occultism - is equally mild.
> From my position some 'low neoplatonism' seems well overdue, along
> with some focus on the Magical Papyri, a comparatively recent resource
> unavailable to the originators of our 'occult revival'.
>
> My patience with academic studies of contemporary movements will
> certainly suffer if not balanced by some such reappraisal of the roots
> of our traditions. Someone must be reading Burkert, Ogden, Iles
> Johnston etc. apart from me (perhaps they'd like to talk to me off
> list?)
>
>> Another factor might be that "paganism" is another very broad category
>
> true, though the outlines of a definition for the purposes of the
> discussion had already appeared, in the guise of classical synthesis
> of Hellenistic, Babylonian and Egyptian cults.The bedrock of the
> Western Magical Tradition' before the whitewash of 'Christian
> Hermeticism' and the grimoires obscured the fact.
>
> Somewhere some pagans are going to have to go sooner or later. When
> they do they will find the words 'Jake was here' waiting for them. ;)
>
>>and
>> that most versions of neo-Paganism are theologically and philosophically
>> incoherent, or at least inconsistent. Comes with the New Religious
>> Movement
>> territory.
>
> hence my interest in older roots that might offer some coherence as we
> go forward. I'm far more interested in ideas as tools for road
> clearance than for dissection. This also seems to distance me from the
> focus of occult academia, which seems to analyse from the sidelines.
>
>>Why do you think monism might be important? Why do you want to
>> find out about our opinions? Is there a particular question bugging you?
>
> another poster was very firm that pagan didn't describe their beliefs,
> and that polytheism did. I thought the distinction interesting and was
> seeking clarification. I did preface the question by excusing myself
> for perhaps going over familiar ground for longer subscribers to the
> list.
>
> Assessing the level of interest in ancient as opposed to modern magic
> was another motive.
>
>> In memory of Hypatia (noted neoPlatonist philosopher, mathematician and
>> teacher, but NOT Pagan),
>
> do elaborate if you have the time, in the classical sense mentioned
> above I'd have thought she was, though it may not have been
> particularly emphasised in her work.
>
> ALWays
>
> Jake
>
|
