Kapyong

Gday all,

Thanks DCHindley - very helpful.
I'll look more closely at that information :-)


K.

spamandham

How is this any different from analyzing the "Matrix" series to try to figure out whether or not Zion actually exists or is just another Matrix withing the Matrix?

Ok, so if Jesus *does* reach earth in this ancient version of the Matrix, does that mean he actually existed? Does that mean Neo is historical figure too?

I understand that VoI is historically interesting from the perspective of understanding the culture that produced it, just as the Matrix will be interesting 2000 years from now to those trying to understand our culture, but surely the historical value of such fantasy does not extend much beyond that objective.

GakuseiDon

I think it probably eliminates the only piece of data that Doherty speculated supported his "World of Myth" concept. It doesn't make Jesus historical, but it does make Doherty's theory more implausible.

Kapyong

Gday,

OK then, so to make sure we understand each other - let me ask you then, G.Don -

What type of pair or counterparts ARE they ?

It's clearly a pair of counterparts - we see the clear comment about As Above So Below
and we see the clear concept :
a likeness on earth of what is in the firmament.

So, how do you compare this pair of counterparts to a Platonic pair?

What are the origins of this type of counterparts?

How do these counterparts compare to Platonic counterparts?

How does this set of counterparts fit into Doherty's theme?


K.

GakuseiDon

Hi Kapyong. Looks like we are covering the same ground on the AoI thread on RationalSkepticism board also. Perhaps it might be best if we go through this on the one thread? Maybe on this one?

They are not counterparts at all. They are **comparisons**. Here is the text:

(7):9. And we ascended to the firmament, I and he, and there I saw Satan and his hosts, and there was great fighting therein and the angels of Satan were envying one another. 10. And as above so on the earth also; for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is here on the earth.

Platonic counterparts are: things on earth are shadows of the 'true things' in heaven. But envying is part of the nature of sublunar beings. Demons envy, people envy. These are not Platonic counterparts, nor can they be. The notion that demons can be part of any 'true' or 'higher reality' goes against everything I've read on Platonism. It would be like removing the mind of God from the picture entirely, from a Middle Platonic perspective.

Middle Platonism isn't about one thing being a copy of another. It is material things being the shadows of heavenly "ideal forms", that exist within the mind of God.

Let me repeat what I wrote on the other thread:

I removed the "Platonic counterparts" section in my review of Doherty's book. Not because I thought it was wrong, but because it deserves more focus than I gave it. But I should put it back in, because I think a lot of people get confused by what Doherty writes on this. I suspect that this is because Doherty himself either doesn't understand the concept, or, more likely, he has problems jamming that "World of Myth" idea into Platonic counterparts between heaven and earth.

Take GA Wells comment for example (my emphasis):

Doherty interprets these passages from the Platonic premiss (sic) that things on Earth have their 'counterparts' in the heavens. Thus 'within the spirit realm' Christ could be of David's stock, etc. But, if the 'spiritual' reality was believed to correspond in some way to a material equivalent on Earth, then the existence of the latter is conceded.

Kapyong, you wrote:

There is no doubt where the real and the likeness are -
the original is in the firmament
the likeness is on Earth

If Christ's crucifixion and death was in the firmament, what is the likeness that takes place on earth? As Wells writes "if the 'spiritual' reality was believed to correspond in some way to a material equivalent on Earth, then the existence of the latter is conceded." What is the spiritual reality in the firmament, and what is the material equivalent on Earth?

Why can't we assume, for example, that the material equivalent on earth was Christ being crucified by Pilate, and the 'spiritual reality' was Christ being crucified by Satan and demons in the lower heavens? And that authors like Paul and that of the AoI only wanted to talk about the 'spiritual reality'?

You see, Doherty always assumes that everyone would have wanted to talk about the earthly part. But if it was the higher reality that was thought 'real' and important (as Doherty reminds us frequently throughout his book) why would they? Wouldn't they have wanted to talk about what is 'real'? (BTW, I'm not assuming that people thought in terms of a "World of Myth", but pointing out the consequences of what Doherty is proposing. THAT is what is missing -- the people investigating those consequences, the people chasing Doherty down that rabbit hole.)

Middle Platonists thought in terms of earthly bodies being shadows (which I think is the origin of the name of the movie about CS Lewis called "Shadowlands") of things in heaven, which is the realm of spirit and mind, with God being the ultimate reality behind all.

There is no ideal form of "envy". It is a corruption, a result of the material world diluting the spirit. Envying itself does not fit into that 'ultimate reality'. There are no shadowy versions, no ultimate spiritual reality being pointed to.

Quite obviously: it doesn't. Doherty has suggested this kind of 'demon as upper reality' position before. But if he tried to publish his view on this in a peer-reviewed publication, it would be ridiculed from here to under the Moon. It is only on these boards that he gets away with it. Demons and envy being part of the 'true' nature of spirit is not a part of any Platonism that I know about. A Platonist who worshipped demons might think that, but I can't imagine anyone back then thinking that.

DCHindley

Since everyone here loves Wikipedia, I'll quote in brief from the article on Plato's theory of Forms (aka Theory of Ideas):

Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. When used in this sense, the word form is often capitalized. Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory Plato's own views are much in doubt. Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals.

...

The "Intelligible Realm" Plato often invokes, particularly in the Phaedo, Republic and Phaedrus, poetic language to illustrate the mode in which the Forms are said to exist. Near the end of the Phaedo, for example, Plato describes the world of Forms as a pristine region of the physical universe located above the surface of the Earth (Phd. 109a-111c). In the Phaedrus the Forms are in a "place beyond heaven" (Phdr. 247c ff); and in the Republic the sensible world is contrasted with the intelligible world in the famous allegory of the cave.

It would be a mistake to take Plato's imagery as positing the intelligible world as a literally separate realm. Plato emphasizes that the Forms are not beings which are extended in space (or time), but rather subsist in a more abstract way. Such we read in the Symposium of the Form of Beauty: "It is not anywhere in another thing, as in an animal, or in earth, or in heaven, or in anything else, but itself by itself with itself," (211b). And in the Timaeus Plato writes: "Since these things are so, we must agree that that which keeps its own form unchangingly, which has not been brought into being and is not destroyed, which neither receives into itself anything else from anywhere else, nor itself enters into anything anywhere, is one thing," (52a, emphasis added).

The ideal state Socrates postulated a world of ideal Forms, which he admitted were impossible to know. Nevertheless he formulated a very specific description of that world, which did not match his metaphysical principles. Corresponding to the world of Forms is our world, that of the mimes, a corruption of the real one. This world was created by the Good according to the patterns of the Forms. Man's proper service to the Good is cooperation in the implementation of the ideal in the world of shadows; that is, in miming the Good.

To this end Plato wrote Republic detailing the proper imitation of the Good, despite his admission that Justice, Beauty, Courage, Temperance, etc., cannot be known. Apparently they can be known to some degree through the copies with great difficulty and to varying degrees by persons of varying ability.

Plato's theory of Forms/Ideas is about as close anyone is going to get to Dougherty's concept of "Platonic counterparts." That phrase, or the term "counterparts", is not used in secondary literature about Platonism, as Platonism has never had an idea that there are heavenly realities that are mimicked in the sublunar realm. Abstract Forms/Ideas exist in a realm beyond sense perception, but can only be known - in a corrupt manner - through sense perception. The world and the things we perceive in it are mimes of these forms.

D-C:H

GakuseiDon

That's right, though I think in Middle Platonism there was a view that God/the gods existed in the heavens, and forms were somehow held as ideas "in the mind of God".

Plutarch believed that Osiris was "uncontaminated and unpolluted and pure from all matter" (382f), which was consistent with him existing in the upper heavens, and gives the meaning of the Osiris myth in this way:

To put the matter briefly, it is not right to believe that water or the sun or the earth or the sky is Osiris or Isis; or again that fire or drought or the sea is Typhon, but simply if we attribute to Typhon whatever there is in these that is immoderate and disordered by reason of excesses or defects; and if we revere and honour what is orderly and good and beneficial as the work of Isis and as the image and reflection and reason of Osiris, we shall not be wrong. (376f)

No room for a "World of Myth" here, of course. No room for it anywhere, in fact.

From what I've read, the question of how much the early Christian writers were influenced by Platonism is a thorny one. No doubt they were influenced by Hellenistic culture, but Paul doesn't appear to have Middle Platonic tendencies. The Book of Hebrews does, though even then the question is how much. Christianity appeared to adopt features of Middle Platonism in the Second Century, when it introduced its own brand of the Logos, e.g. Justin Martyr... a 'historicist'.

DCHindley

GDon,

I'm trying to figure where Dougherty gets his ideas, but here is Plato Phaedo 109a-111c:

Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1 translated by Harold North Fowler; Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1966.

[109a] … “Secondly,” said he, “I believe that the earth is very large and that we who dwell between the pillars of Hercules [109b] and the river Phasis live in a small part of it about the sea, like ants or frogs about a pond, and that many other people live in many other such regions.

For I believe there are in all directions on the earth many hollows of very various forms and sizes, into which the water and mist and air have run together;

but the earth itself is pure and is situated in the pure heaven in which the stars are, the heaven which [109c] those who discourse about such matters call the ether;

the water, mist and air are the sediment of this and flow together into the hollows of the earth.

Now we do not perceive that we live in the hollows, but think we live on the upper surface of the earth, just as if someone who lives in the depth of the ocean should think he lived on the surface of the sea, and, seeing the sun and the stars through the water, should think the sea was the sky, and should, by reason of sluggishness or [109d] feebleness, never have reached the surface of the sea, and should never have seen, by rising and lifting his head out of the sea into our upper world, and should never have heard from anyone who had seen, how much purer and fairer it is than the world he lived in.

I believe this is just the case with us; for we dwell in a hollow of the earth and think we dwell on its upper surface; and the air we call the heaven, and think that is the heaven in which the stars move.

But the fact is the same, [109e] that by reason of feebleness and sluggishness, we are unable to attain to the upper surface of the air;

for if anyone should come to the top of the air or should get wings and fly up, he could lift his head above it and see, as fishes lift their heads out of the water and see the things in our world, so he would see things in that upper world;

and, if his nature were strong enough to bear the sight, he would recognize that that is the real heaven [110a] and the real light and the real earth.

For this earth of ours, and the stones and the whole region where we live, are injured and corroded, as in the sea things are injured by the brine, and nothing of any account grows in the sea, and there is, one might say, nothing perfect there, but caverns and sand and endless mud and mire, where there is earth also, and there is nothing at all worthy to be compared with the beautiful things of our world.

But the things in that world above would be seen to be even more superior to those in this world of ours.

[110b] If I may tell a story, Simmias, about the things on the earth that is below the heaven, and what they are like, it is well worth hearing.”

“By all means, Socrates,” said Simmias; “we should be glad to hear this story.”

“Well then, my friend,” said he, “to begin with, the earth when seen from above is said to look like those balls that are covered with twelve pieces of leather; it is divided into patches of various colors, of which the colors which we see here may be regarded as samples, such as painters use.

[110c] But there the whole earth is of such colors, and they are much brighter and purer than ours;

for one part is purple of wonderful beauty, and one is golden, and one is white, whiter than chalk or snow, and the earth is made up of the other colors likewise, and they are more in number and more beautiful than those which we see here.

For those very hollows of the earth which are full of water and air, present an appearance [110d] of color as they glisten amid the variety of the other colors, so that the whole produces one continuous effect of variety.

And in this fair earth the things that grow, the trees, and flowers and fruits, are correspondingly beautiful;

and so too the mountains and the stones are smoother, and more transparent and more lovely in color than ours.

In fact, our highly prized stones, sards and [110e] jaspers, and emeralds, and other gems, are fragments of those there, but there everything is like these or still more beautiful.

And the reason of this is that there the stones are pure, and not corroded or defiled, as ours are, with filth and brine by the vapors and liquids which flow together here and which cause ugliness and disease in earth and stones and animals and plants.

And the earth there is adorned with all the jewels and also with gold and [111a] silver and everything of the sort.

For there they are in plain sight, abundant and large and in many places, so that the earth is a sight to make those blessed who look upon it.

And there are many animals upon it, and men also, some dwelling inland, others on the coasts of the air, as we dwell about the sea, and others on islands, which the air flows around, near the mainland; and in short, what water and the sea are [111b] in our lives, air is in theirs, and what the air is to us, ether is to them.

And the seasons are so tempered that people there have no diseases and live much longer than we, and in sight and hearing and wisdom and all such things are as much superior to us as air is purer than water or the ether than air.

And they have sacred groves and temples of the gods, in which the gods really dwell, and they have intercourse with the gods by speech and prophecies and visions, [111c] and they see the sun and moon and stars as they really are, and in all other ways their blessedness is in accord with this.

Such then is the nature of the earth as a whole, and of the things around it.

This suggests that the world of Ideas (his bright and shiny world that looks down on us from afar) exists as a purer part of creation (the pure earth that exists in the ether where the stars abide). Yet in this "pure earth" there exist degrees of matter, some higher up than us, so that "what water and the sea are in our lives, air is in theirs, and what the air is to us, ether is to them" ... "as air is purer than water or the ether than air".

That is not the same thing, though, as saying that the things of the mundane world we live in are images imitating the actions of, or reacting to the commands of, beings in a purer form of creation.

DCH

DCHindley

I was going to say something abouty this concept of world of Myth in the heavens (above the sublunar realm) yesterday, but got sidetracked. If he is talking about the theory of Forms/Ideas, which take the forms of abstract concepts, they are not myths. But Plato was not talking about Myths at all. He was saying this purer world of thought was there, but could not be fully comprehended by the senses of us who live in the more impure sediment of the earth. As a result, we imagine all sorts of things about Gods and these concepts, known to us in their mundane corrupt forms, and myths would actually be spun about our perceptions of these things, not what really is. It is not that the beings and things in heavens above the sublunar realm are myths, but we in the less refined part of the earth make myths about things we don't understand.

I think the best we can say is that the christology may have been influenced by middle-Platonic concepts, especially about AEONs that exist in a more perfect state than we do. It is not clear that the concept that one of these AEONs somehow descended to this world we know in order to effect the rescue of remnants of the AEON Sophia trapped in her Abortion (i.e., our world) is directly from platonic thought. It reflects their understanding of an abstract reality that is on a different plane than the one we know, but attributes motivations and actions to the key entities (Forms/Ideas) that occupy it, which they would not have in Platonic systems.

Well, I have to call some attorneys.

DCH

Kapyong

Gday,

Wow.
As Above So Below is NOT a pair of counterparts?
I asked you
"if they're not Platonic counterparts, what sort are they?"
and you answered in part :
"they are not Platonic counterparts"

Well, thanks for your time and effort G.Don,
but at this point I've come to the same view as Doherty :
It's a complete and utter waste of time discussing this with you - you have a bee in your bonnet about this which makes you disagree with everything every time. Somehow you appear to see Doherty as your arch-enemy who must be fought at every possible turn.

Almost every post of yours about Doherty and his ideas could be boiled down to the same thing :
"No it's not. Doherty is wrong".

So,
I don't plan to waste any more time with you on this.
All the best for the future :-)


K.