in search of God | Richibi's Weblog

March 7, 2013

Nemo – “Ennead I” by Plotinus (7)‏

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:45:49 +0000
To: Richibi’s Weblog

From: comment-reply@wordpress.com
Subject: [New comment] “Ennead I” by Plotinus.

To apply Plotinus’ theory of memory to Alzheimer, and answer your earlier question. The disease damaged the first component of memory, i.e., our memory storage facility, but it leaves the second and third components intact, where “we” are most active. People afflicted with Alzheimer are no less human than the rest, because they still have their thoughts, emotions, desires, judgment and will.

To use analogy, I’d liken living with Alzheimer to walking on the beach. Our memory is like the footprints we leave in the sand, which are constantly washed away by the waves, but the lack of footprints doesn’t prevent us from continue walking/living

I have no doubt that there is a soul, a human

entity, behind even a vegetative living being,

Nemo, let me tell you a story, I worked for

years in a palliative care unit as a volunteer

after the death of my beloved, who had died

there in one of their first units in the late 80s,

it was my way of saying thank you

a woman there lay in extremis, making no

sense of the fray that stirred ceaselessly

about her, her family distraught over her

perilous state fussing and worrying,

helpless and trying to find nevertheless

purpose midst unfamiliar and stressful

feelings, awash in their stray, unsettled,

energy

their senior member, an actual pastor,

asked if I would sit by their mother’s side

while they all took a necessary break for

lunch, of course I immediately acceded,

that’s what I was there for

gently I sat by her side, I had found

solace in a particular Oriental esoteric

faith meanwhile for my own debilitating

anguish, which had bequeathed me a

chant that would settle often and with

reverence my most aggrieved moments,

little by little it had rendered

acknowledgment, resolve, and, dare I

say, even grace, to my distress

I began to murmur this chant as I lay my

hand upon her arm, she all aflutter from

her chronic delirium trying to find,

hopelessly it appeared, a place to settle,

I could only with my touch console

somewhat, I wistfully imagined

in my monotone I continued to issue

the palliative vowel sounds, surrounding

them with as much compassion and

gentle harmony as I could muster,

knowing that these must reach the soul,

something I had been discovering from

my own fraught experience

her body began to settle, there was no

question of reaching her mind, any kind

of intelligible conversation, but you do

that also with a very young child, and like

a very young child she continued to

respond

to my chant, which had been like a river

flowing, constant and murmuring, finding

the most soothing paths of a trickling

rhythm, she began to harmonize

row, row, row, your boat, she began

to sing, haltingly of course, at first

tentatively, but then with more and

more, though ever reliant, confidence

I believe that God had been talking

there to all of us, I turned to see the

family standing in the doorway, still

and hushed

where, Nemo, does that leave philosophy

therefore Proust

Richard

Leave a comment

March 6, 2013

Nemo – “Ennead I” by Plotinus (6)‏

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:54:23 +0000
To: Richibi’s Weblog

From: comment-reply@wordpress.com
Subject: [New comment] “Ennead I” by Plotinus

Hi Richard,

Actually Plotinus posited a memory model that might be quite similar to yours if I understand you correctly. There are three components in this model, the object stored in our memory, our act of remembering as if retrieving an object from storage, and the activated/retrieved image of the object in our mind. To answer your friend’s retort, we are all three components combined, though most prominent in the second component.

You object to the idea of thoughts having their object existence outside our consciousness, but you agree that we’re aware of our thoughts at the same time as we’re aware of our own existence. Is that a fair representation of your position?

If so, thoughts have just as valid an existence in our consciousness as ourselves. Ergo, there are thoughts. 🙂

P.S. People who speculate on this stuff have way too much time on their hands

if I haven’t replied forthwith, Nemo, to your

comment, it is that I found myself with too

little time on my hands to do other things

that required my more immediate, in my

opinion, attention, though I believe time

spent speculating is never a waste of

“way too much time on [one’s} hands“,

where would Plato be, or Descartes, or

Russell, Nietzsche, Proust, yes, Proust,

my most revered lingerer, and the answer

to all my philosophical prayers, but that’s

another story I’m sure we’ll get to, if they

hadn’t dawdled around profundities

and who’s to say we’re not up to the

mark, and who could say we are, but

for conversations that test the waters,

like this one

so I, for one, will deliberate when I get

the chance, which, incidentally, is not a

lot of the time, despite objections that I

might be nevertheless still wasting it

and I return to the fray like a kid to a

very candy shop

thanks

let me point out that Plato would be

proud of us, would’ve been proud of

us, to whose time frame should we

here, do you think, refer, I think Plato

this time could take prominence, if

you’ll allow this playful speculative

divergence

this, our talk, is his Socrates discussing

with his Euthyphro, or his other acolytes,

ephebes, describing the Socratic Method,

Nemo, we’re carrying on the tradition,

which 2500 years later still vigorously

applies

Plato, incidentally, c. 428 BC – c. 347 BC

there are a few problems in your argument,

from my perspective, you say “you agree that

we’re aware of our thoughts at the same time as

we’re aware of our own existence”, but that’s an

extrapolation, I am at the most aware of only

one thought, that thought being that

something is thinking, no more, no less

but reason interjects, applies itself to

consciousness, and concludes that

something has just thought, the element

of time and memory enters the fray here,

but not yet explicitly, they are the

handmaidens of consciousness

if something is thinking, which by the very

act of thinking this I am doing, something

must be doing it, I’ve already conceived of

this consciousness as, for me, irrefutably

real, having had already an impression

of it

whatever other impression I might add to

this composite, however, is arbitrary and

therefore moot with respect to what might

actually philosophically be real

the world and everything in it is in the eye

of the beholder

think about it

thoughts are an extrapolation from all

that we can be sure we know, but all

of it is nothing more than a dream

see Shakespeare

          “………………………..We are such stuff
           As dreams are made on; and our little life
            Is rounded with a sleep.”

“The Tempest“ – act 4, scene 1

lines 156 -158

Richard

Leave a comment

March 3, 2013

Nemo – “Ennead I” by Plotinus (5)‏

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 10:01:30 +0000
To: Richibi’s Weblog

From: comment-reply@wordpress.com
Subject: [New comment] “Ennead I” by Plotinus.

Let’s go through it point by point.

1. When someone says, “I think”, he is obviously thinking of something, i.e., thoughts. I’m aware and conscious of my thoughts.

2. “I think” necessarily means there are thoughts.

3. The difference between the statements “I think” and “there are thoughts” is that the latter does not presuppose the existence of the “I”.

4. To prove the existence of the “I”, we cannot presuppose its existence. Therefore, we cannot use the statement “I think” or anything with a subject “I”.

5. We are left with the statement, “There are thoughts”.

Which of the above arguments do you disagree with and why?

first of all, Nemo, let me say that I haven’t had as
much fun since a couple of weeks ago when a

friend and I were trying to come to a conclusion

about the meaning of memory, is memory all of

one’s memories, or is it the process of

remembering

I thought the process set the thing in motion

after which the memories themselves took

hold

but for the process to take hold you need at

least two memories, my friend more or less

retorted, I paraphrase

where does that leave us

I’m still thinking about it

perhaps we’ll end up at the same place,

loggerheads, but let’s try

I object to your second proposition, ““I

think” necessarily means there are thoughts“,

I believe “I think” to mean only “I think”,

nothing more, nothing less, these two

words are our speculative arena

but I admit you have a point, to think

presupposes a thought, and perhaps

not as peripherally as I’d thought

previously, if I refer to my earlier,

memory, model

but before you jump up and down in

apparent victory remember that the

thought cannot be thought without

the thinker, who initiates the thought

an apparent paradox, much like the

relation between energy and matter,

which came first

I believe the consciousness of my

consciousness came first, and from

there I evolved the process that gives

order to my world, memory, and then

its development into reason

but that’s just what I think, and, of

course, I could be wrong

essentially I, of course, must be wrong

somewhere, but I’ll never know where

nor will I know where I’m right, ever

on questions of philosophical speculation,

of course, without the advantage of

mathematics, the closest thing I can think

of, incidentally, to what we think of as God,

or is that, to what I think of, me, no one else,

what do I know of what others are thinking

of, as God, there goes He, She, It, out the

window, as a Jungian idea of collective

unified consciousness, or as a frozen

Platonic, universally conceded, ideal

what I do know is that I exist

that’s also, I think, all you know

the rest is entirely speculation

thank you Descartes

Richard

psst: all that speculation, note, is what has,

to my mind, made a paradise, for some,

of our world, for others a work of always

fascinating and wondrous invention

read Proust

Leave a comment

March 3, 2013

Nemo – “Ennead I” by Plotinus (4)

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 05:43:44 +0000
To: Richibi’s Weblog
From: comment-reply@wordpress.com
Subject: [New comment] “Ennead I” by Plotinus

The Latin “cogito ergo sum” is actually closer to the interpretation I had in mind at the beginning,”There are thoughts, therefore there is a thinker”. If you accept that as a valid argument, then you’re closer to accepting the existence of God. “There is creation, therefore there is a Creator”.

The Republic of Plato is not ruled by an autocrat, but by Reason and knowledge. Come to think of it, Plato should be hailed as the Father of Enlightenment. 🙂 I’ve written a post on the Republic too, if you like to discuss it further.

Plato’s theory of the nature of the universe in Timaeus encompasses both change and immutability, and Plotinus explains this in Ennead III.

“Cogito, ergo sum”, Nemo, I have to insist, is

not “There are thoughts“, as you argue, it is

“Cogito”, “I think”, “I grasp consciousness”,

“I perceive”, it is not an acknowledgment of

any more than its own consciousness, “there

are thoughts” is a further, and only peripheral,

application, thoughts themselves are entirely

speculative and without any firm basis but

conjecture

this is a fundamental disagreement in our
discussion which needs to be recognized
and acknowledged, it doesn’t seem to have
been as yet

“There is creation” therefore, in my opinion,
is presumptuous at best, though the
proposition seems manifestly, even
irrationally, obvious, which has nothing to
do, nevertheless, with Descartes, and what
we’re discussing

should you wish to discuss more intuitive
subjects, I’ll pass, cause faith, and oratory,
have no basis in anything other than mere
seduction, the Greeks called it rhetoric and
sophistry

reason, of the Greeks, and of our epoch, is
still my essential arbiter, though my own
personal mystical devotion is ardent and
true

it is however, my own personal mystical

devotion, merely evident and convincing
by example, not argument

but I digress

I’ll read your post on “The Republic“, a

treatise I’ve found even repulsive, I’ll read

again “Timaeus“, or as much of it as I can

again tolerate, and read your “Ennead III“,

or did Plotinus write three “Ennead”s, I

hope to discover enlightenment

cheers

Richard

psst: o my god, he wrote Vl

Leave a comment

March 2, 2013

Nemo – “Ennead I” by Plotinus (3)‏

having thrilled at the very first moment of an

apparent convergence on the Internet with

a kindred spirit, of the intellect, let me point

out, rather than of the more pressing, for

some, senses, I gurgled out a ready program

of philosophical positions to him meant to

engage and perhaps more profoundly

together ponder

to my delight the conversation took hold

and is ensuing, I thought I’d share

here is the third instalment, the first two are

available on my counterpart’s impressive blog,

“Books on Trial” at his first text on Plotinus’

“Ennead”, of which to date he’s got three

at the bottom in the comments section,

should you be interested

how, of course, could you not

Richard

_____________________

Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 19:19:11 +0000
To Richibi’s Weblog

From: comment-reply@wordpress.com
Subject: [New comment] “Ennead I” by Plotinus

Descartes did not prove the existence of “I”. To prove that something exists, you cannot presuppose its existence and say “something” does this or that. In other words, “I exist” is the condition that comes before “I think”, not after. If Descartes wanted to prove the existence of “I”, he made the mistake of circular logic, putting the cart before the horse.Even if we grant that the individual is conscious of the “I”. Does the “I” exist as a part, a mere concept, in his thoughts, just as other people exist as mere concepts of his thoughts, or is there an “I” beyond his consciousness? To borrow the imagery of Plotinus, does the Moon exist as part of the reflection in the water, or does it exist independently outside the water?

Plato’s theory encompasses both change and immutability. They are incomplete without the other, nay, they cannot exist without the other. This is proven by our own experience. We can observe changes only because we’re using something static as a reference

first of all, Nemo, thank you for this conversation,
I’m finding this exercise very stimulating, not many
have called me on my philosophical positions, not
many, I suspect, having given these positions much
thought in the first place, you are perhaps a kindred
spirit, what a delight

and as such I can only be, respectfully and humbly
ever, forthright

in a Socratic, as it were, contract

this part of Plato, incidentally, is the only part I accept,
his celebration of the Socratic Method, to put words
later into the greater philosopher’s mouth, to me, is
highly unethical, especially to spout with that authority
such drivel

you can tell I don’t like Plato

the flurry of consciousness is the clue, in Descartes,
the moment of realization, the inkling of perception,
that allows us to know that something is behind that,
producing that, without which there would be no
actuality, that something is what we call “I”

interestingly, “Cogito, ergo sum”, the Latin, often used,
translation of the original French, “Je pense, donc je
suis”, doesn’t show an “I” in its very grammar, which
is an apt demonstration of the proposition we are
discussing

if there is conscioussness of something being

conscious, something must be being conscious,

that something Descartes called “moi”, we call

“me”, others call whatever they call it

therefore I am

but I could not have done that without consciousness,

nebulous and indeterminate consciousness, but that’s

all we have, all we’ve ever had

Plato tried to fashion an alternate, paternalistic, I might

add, conscience driven, later driven-by-Christian-fear,

reality, somewhere out there, that lasted for all of the

Middle, did I say Middle or Dark, Ages, a good thousand,

count them, thousand, years, conservatively even

speaking

Nietzsche got rid of that, finally, but still all of nearly

five hundred years later

oof

where does Plato “encompass[–] both change and

immutability“, “The Republic” makes short shrift of

that, how is this “proven by our own experience”

I like “We can observe changes only because we’re

using something static as a reference“, where did

you get that, I’ll have to ponder it

but “static” is my stumbling block, in a world
I cannot see as in any way static, autocratic,
unbending

help

read also Ovid

cheers

Richard

psst: I’m putting this thrilling conversation on my

blog, look out for it

Leave a comment

February 27, 2013

“Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould”‏

“Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould“ is,

to my mind, one of the best films Canada has

had to offer, a study of the musical giant which

is probing, perceptive, and profoundly revealing,

and the impersonator, Colm Feore, is impeccable,

superlative, rendering the mystery of flights of

inspiration vivid and comprehensible, he is,

seamlessly and completely convincingly,

Glenn Gould

Glenn Gould is of course identified with his

book-end interpretations, his first release and

his last release of the Goldberg Variations,

the interval of not quite thirty years for him to

further appraise these epic pieces, both issues

are considered monumental, defining cultural

moments, both eclipse, have eclipsed, any

other, even celebrated, performance

the reference in the film’s title is to these

Goldberg Variations, of course, composed

of thirty variations on an opening “aria”,

which is repeated as a “coda”, an ending,

a musical last word, for a total of 32

segments

but I submit that the place of Beethoven’s own

“32 Variations in C minor On An Original Theme“

could not possibly have been overlooked in

the movie’s title, considering especially the

inclusion of that specific number, despite,

incidentally, the missing hyphen, an infelicitous,

I think, literary licence

the “Thirty Two Short Films“ are themselves,

not incidentally, a set of 32 filmic, note,

variations, on the subject, in this instance,

of the player himself, Glenn Gould

may his star shine bright forever

Richard

3 Comments

February 23, 2013

“An Etude in Cross-Pollination in Bee Major” – Bud Glory‏

An Etude in Cross-Pollination in Bee Major

Bouncing, boundless butterflies,
Bouncing in the balmy breeze,
Bouncing in the boundless skies,
Bounce between the brown-barked trees,
Bounce on by the bumble bees.

Buzzing, zipping bumble bees,
Buzzing in the zesty skies,
Buzzing in the zesty breeze,
Buzz into the butterflies,
Bumping—making butterbees.

Bud Glory – nom, surely, de plume

such as also, incidentally,

Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll,

George Orwell

at “ArtlessPoems“

do not miss his bio under “Preface“, one of the

most entertaining pieces of writing I’ve read in

a long while

“A MoonLit Walk“, another of his poems, is one

of the most irreverent, rating a hilarious 5-star

XXX

“The One I Love“, a love song in the metric guise

of a nursery rhyme, innocent and utterly guileless,

is also close to my own besotted heart, note,

incidentally, the Fauvist influence

Richard

Leave a comment

February 18, 2013

Paganini’s 24 “Caprices”‏

having heard one “Caprice“ of Paganini it’s not

much of a stretch to want to hear them all, and

to my delight and utter astonishment they are

available presently on the Internet in a

presentation so extraordinary it seems

accorded by the very gods, the violinist, an

unchastened Prometheus this one, Alexander

Markov, delivers unadulterated fire, he is, it is,

astounding, nothing short of outright Olympian

you’ve already heard him play the 24th, here are

the others

the “Caprices” are for Paganini what the

“Études”, opus 10, opus 25, were for Chopin,

each was exploring the intricacies of his own

particular instrument, which results to date

remain the standard, the Everest to be

conquered, of either by any aspirant

how do you keep your knees from knocking,

first of all, up there, in those headlights, I

would wonder of the performing artist, the

rest being of course, I’m aware, pure but

metaphysical merely physics, moderately

only incomprehensible

Alexander Markov is fully at home in these

pieces, making them electric but for a picayune

quibble, being of Russian extraction he is not

the Paganini I would want him to be, sensuous

and seductive instead of the more Nordic

commanding and fiery, the Mediterranean

Paganini was famously, after all, a Lothario,

a Casanova, with an especially lubricious,

apparently, fiddle

Paganini, incidentally, wrote the “Caprices“

between 1805 and 1809, smack in the middle

of the Romantic Period, you can hear the altered

audience in the distant concert hall, surely not

the aristocrats who would’ve found this music

presumptuous, impudent, in their privileged

salons, but throngs of the newly franchised –

note the French root in the word “franchised”,

probably stemming from the very French

Revolution – who were looking towards their

bold and liberated future

the music is strictly rhythmic, which is to say,

still Classical, keys don’t change within the

individual pieces, the harmonies are still

sufficiently tonal not to distract, though the

melodies are not simple to follow, the stage

is being set for more abstract stuff, Beethoven,

for instance, writing at the same time, being

much less eccentric, and again maybe less

Mediterranean in his own always nevertheless

beguiling flights of Romanticism

Richard

psst: the performance takes place at the

Teatro Municipale, Reggio Emilia, Italy,

in, I believe, 1989, for your info

note, incidentally, the white tie and tails,

an aristocratic, which is to say, atavistic,

even then, notion

we will always, all of us, conspire to

seem noble

Leave a comment

February 15, 2013

“Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini”/”Variations on a theme of Paganini”‏

a friend wrote me, after my most recent instalment
about musical variations, a few very probing
comments

I delight in sharing them

__________________

Richard,

An interesting counterpoint to your comment about variations being an “intellectual” form of composition. This is
only in the best of cases — the cases that have survived to this day.

In the period in which I centred my dissertation studies — the 1820s and 1830s in Paris — the bane of reviewers’
existence was the steady stream of variations for flute, for piano, for oboe, for every conceivable instrument from
every possible performer who wanted to make his mark as a “composer” as well as an instrumentalist. It was,
shall we say, a form of composition “light,” something that minor talents could write if they weren’t capable of
writing a longer form, such as a sonata.

And yet we have impressive sets of variations in the canon today, from composers such as Bach (the Goldbergs),
Haydn (his delicious piano set in F minor), Mozart (Ah vous dirai-je, maman), Beethoven (the epic C minor
variations that you rightly point to), Schumann (Symphonic Etudes), Schubert (last movement of the Trout Quintet),
Brahms (the Haydn & Paganini sets), Liszt (his Totentanz for piano & orchestra), Tschikovsky (Variations on a
Rococco Theme for cello & orchestra), Rachmaninoff (Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini), Dohnanyi (Variations
on a Nursery Rhyme), and Lutoslawski (Paganini Variations for 2 Pianos).

As you can see, the most fertile source of variations has been Paganini’s 24 Caprices, to which Marc Hamelin has
added his own contirbution:

The form has come a long way …

DONALD

___________________

I will gratefully accept implicit acknowledgment,
in his having confirmed me in my assertion, that
variations “in the best of cases” burn bright, are
“rendered transcendental”, timeless, much as my
friend states, “This is only in the best of cases”, he
says, dotting his contention with a peremptory
“only”, and I’m just fine with that, especially in
the light of so many, as he lists, “only{s}”

thanks, Donald

meanwhile the addition of a most recent set
of variations, this one on a theme of Paganini.
played right here at the Chan Centre in
Vancouver by the pianist who composed it,
Marc-André Hamelin, delights and astounds

it is the same theme, incidentally, as in
the wondrous Rachmaninoff composition
for piano and orchestra, essentially a
piano concerto but without the pauses
that would indicate alternate movements,
a unified musical concept therefore is in
order for its name, Rachmaninoff called it
his “Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini“,
though he could’ve easily called it his
“Variations on a Theme of Paganini“,
for being just that, a set of variations

I even called them his “Variations“ for
years before smartening up, though I
don’t remember the exact date

rhapsody is a much more Romantic term,
you’ll consider, and if Rachmaninoff was
anything at all it was ever Romantic, despite
being nearly a century late, the “Rhapsody“
was written in 1934, one of many similar
musical atavisms

his “Variations“ follow the Classical fast,
slow, fast template, in passing, variations 1
to 10 are fast, 11 to 18 slow, positively
melting, in fact, unforgettable, the rest, 19
to 24, again fast, in the very manner of the
concerto, just to confuse you, to push
the limits musically of evidently ultimately
arbitrary notions of form, another
particularly philosophical investigation

Richard

psst: here’s the original theme of Paganini,
his 24th, and last, Caprice

Leave a comment

February 13, 2013

Beethoven – 32 Variations In C Minor On An Original Theme, WoO 80‏

of all musical forms variations lend themselves

best to intellectual speculation, which is to say,

by way of concepts, words, objects of rational,

cohesive, not nebulous, thought

it is immediately evident that a set of variations

considers the many facets of a given subject, in

music represented by a theme to be analyzed,

dissected, explored and, in the best of cases,

rendered transcendental

this is of course also the case in any science

it is more difficult to so investigate a waltz, a

sarabande, a rhapsody, which speak a much

less literal language usually, unless of course

the verbal construct itself has been applied to

the composition, “The Carnival of the Animals“

or “Pictures at an Exhibition“, for instance, but

that’s putting the cart before the theoretical

horse, unfair and unethical

variations demand inherently cerebral

participation, a considered evaluation, a

nearly literal result, music finds its one-way

ticket thereby to veritable language

around the same time as he wrote the

“Waldstein” Sonata, 1806, Beethoven wrote

his 32 Variations In C Minor On An Original

Theme, WoO 80, my very favourite of his

sets of variations, courtesy here of the

inimitable Glenn Gould

note, in passing, the similarities between

the two contemporary works

here is another equally wonderful version

of the C minor Variations, however utterly

improbably, played by one Ivan Moravec,

an earlier great, accompanied by immensely

helpful annotated commentary the sum of

which is hugely more telling than its mere

point form parts, sharpening in the process,

inconspicuously but highly effectively, one’s

aesthetic pencil, pulse

what could be more fun than that

variations, incidentally, are a most democratic

form, where every iteration is the equal of the

other, given always, however, that fixed and

intractable initial model

an interesting interpolation, incidentally, that,

philosophically, of course, speaking, asking,

as it does, does democracy require, rest on,

a founding contextual blueprint, in light

especially of the infinite number of those

blueprints possible

is our democracy merely an arbitrary, and

only contingent, shade, therefore, of that

ideational abstract

you decide

Richard

psst: WoO is an acronym for Werke ohne

Opuszahl, or, in English, works

without opus number, Beethoven

seems to have been completely

unconcerned with naming his

compositions, that he’d written the

music had been apparently already

quite enough

1 Comment

	Tonyia on November / Month of the Sonata…
	how to listen to mus… on how to listen to music if you…
	how to listen to mus… on how to listen to music if you…
	how to listen to mus… on how to listen to music if you…
	richibi on “Metamorphoses” (The Giants…

Category: in search of God