Very lovely, thanks for this, Nicholas. A few thoughts:
1. Regarding your narrative from cosmos to cosmic mechanism, I'm reminded of a point made by Jason Ananda Josephson-Storm in his book, *The Myth of Disenchantment.* There he notes that the "literalism," if you will, underwriting the new science of Newton and others, meant that the cosmos could only refer to its Creator as design refers to designer. In other words, a sort of mechanical literalism in reading not just scripture, but the cosmos itself, is all that remained for those who had abandoned "allegorical" or spiritual readings of things and yet sought to link creation to God. It's no accident, Josephson-Storm argues, that this is the same period within which allegorical readings of scripture were also viciously attacked and mostly abandoned (in the West).
2. I like the move from Plotinian "vertical meaning" to Maximian fulfillment of that meaning. What's important in such a move is twofold. First, the Incarnation itself creates the retrospective lack in Neoplatonism only by fulfilling the latter. That's to say, I regard Plotinus's metaphysics as eminently coherent in se. He senses no lack that an Incarnation must fill, and logically, probably didn't sense it because his vertical metaphysics didn't require it. He sees well that the One's absolute transcendence of all requires that same One's absolute and ubiquitous immanence to all (cf. Enn. VI.4-5, on the omnipresence of the One). And he refutes the so-called Gnostics in his (somewhat ambiguous, still) defense of the relative goodness and participation of informed matter in the One. He also sees that emanation, participation-participated, and other like vertical relations in no way diminish the free will of the One (cf. Enn. VI.8). This is all quite consistent in itself and indeed consonant with Christian metaphysics, as you rightly insist. But then the Incarnation appears no longer as a fulfillment clearly anticipated, but as an unimaginable fulfillment that thus reveals its own retroactive "need." Second, then, this is not to say that Neoplatonism and Christianity are simply two separate, self-contained systems between which one cannot adjudicate. In fact, Plotinian Platonism, particularly its laser-focus on the need for "apophaticism" of the One, has this interesting feature: that it cannot in principle deny such a thing as the Incarnation or Trinity. Why? As Marius Victorinus already knew (and he would if anyone would have!), the metaphysical primacy of the One entails the metaphysical uniqueness of the mode of that One's "First Act." In such a primacy, the preeminence of Cause necessitates peculiarity of Act. But then why couldn't the First's act be the "production" or generation of an "effect" that is itself essentially one with the Cause, without the slightest diminishment of essential oneness in productive distinction? And if that's at least possible, so then is the Incarnation of that "effect" without thereby contradicting Plotinus's own vertical metaphysics, at least not *in principle*? And so on. In sum, then, the relation between Christianity and Neoplatonism is indeed "fulfillment," I think, but a fulfillment that paradoxically wasn't anticipated, needn't have been, and yet impossible to deny on the grounds of the self-consistent Platonic "system" itself.
Anyhow, your presentation here is much clearer than my glosses. But I thought I'd share what did come to mind anyhow!
Thank you Jordan for this very thoughtful and informative reply. It marks out some nuances that I am now compelled or rather inspired to look into. Your capacity for grasping both the Big Picture and the finest of details necessary to ground this big picture truly amazes me. Your book the Whole mystery of Christ accomplishes this and because of this, I’m still learning from it. It’s hard when doing independent research—as opposed to when I was at university of Chicago Div school—to know how to orient your questions and reading. But every once in a while you find something that forces you down a new path with more useful and necessary questions, and for that I am truly grateful—especially because these questions are not only academic but vehicles to true contemplation.
On another note is there a translation of Plotinus that you’d particularly recommend? My greek is deplorable, but a translation that is rather translucent in its terminology helps.
McKenna’s is the most invigorating, though not always the most technically accurate. There’s a newer series with different translators for different volumes of the enneads (Perl, Gurtler, etc). Extremely accurate and great notes, but cost prohibitive. I still love Armstrong’s (Loeb) volumes, which I own and use. I don’t mind his English, which is readable and pretty accurate, and it’s diglot anyhow.
This was such a pleasure to read. It really resonated with me. These are ideas I’ve been interested in for a long time, but have always conceived of it in Vedic terms, because that is the tradition I’m familiar with and practice. So it was wonderful to see it presented from within the Western/Christian perspective.
In Sankhya yoga they describe the movement of creation from subtle to gross, from the rarified to the dense. I understand it in terms of a refraction of consciousness, the soul’s perspective is distorted by limiting its focus to matter, or the outer skin of reality.
The incompleteness of that perspective is more obvious when we experience higher states of consciousness, when the veil of the world thins to reveal the divine. But even ordinary states of consciousness can show us this is true. The soul transcends matter as a subject necessarily transcends its object. To even speak of “matter” requires being distinct from it. The materialists are in denial about this, vainly trying to squeeze consciousness into the naturalist worldview, and when that fails trying to eliminate it.
There is nothing more damaging to spiritual growth or awareness than naturalism. I've written a number of pieces dealing with the problems it presents without warrant to. I have been extraordinarily surprised of how natural and seamingly isomorphic Neo-Platonic thought can be with Vedanta or at least Advaita. Anyway, this is from a Christian perspective, but it might be better called an Eastern Christian perspective. I'm Eastern Orthodox and in particular because of the vision of reality it presents which I tried to get to above, which I see as a fulfillment of Neo-Platonic thought. Right now David Bentley Hart has been working a lot with navigating the territory between vedanta and Christianity and as I suggested, tends to see Vedanta as a correlate of Neo-Platonism. There are some stories that Plotinus headed East to persia or maybe India at one point in his life, but I think the larger reason for the correlation between Vedanta and Neoplatonism, is simply because--though I might add some qualifications--it is offers the best and most natural manner of looking at reality. In my perspective, it was fulfilled by Christ in such a manner as not rejecting neo-platonism, but rather, bringing it to an unforeseeable culmination which it had paved the way to being able to find articulation.
One of the most transformational moments of my life was when I realized, beyond any doubt, that the entire universe and everything in it has consciousness, will, and love. ♾️
Thanks for a good read Nicholas. Some respectful push back - I'm not sure Christianity completed Neoplatonism because while the incarnation brings the Nous/Logos "down" into Jesus of Nazareth, in the history of Christianity that is in practice where it has stayed.
Perhaps I need to read more Maximus (and/or actually finish Jordan's book), but I think the potential problem with Christianity is the hyper-focus on the Logos hypostatically united in Jesus of Nazareth that the Logos is, in practice, only revealed in Jesus. In the history of Christianity I don't see much focus on the idea that the Logos is also in the trees, the rocks, the stars, the spiritual heirarchy/the "gods".
I think Christianity *has* focused on saying that the Logos is in us, but always with the ready and somewhat urgent caveat "but not like the Logos is in Jesus!" And perhaps only so if we are baptised e.g. via grace. Christianity has been so concerned with protecting the uniqueness of Jesus that, again, in practice, the Logos is no longer the Logos of all manifestation but only Jesus.
I understand "Christianity" is too broad a term and I don't mean to be unfair to Christianity, but this is how I have experienced it.
As a way of counterpoint - I think the person who has the most claim to completing Neoplatonism is Iamblichus. He would say, as I understand him, that we must ascend to the One through the visible world and rituals which connect us with the gods/spirits in and "behind" the visible world. Because this is the chain of being - even the simple elements of creation are ultimately, though spiritual hierarchies, inhabited by the Logos, and hence by communing with those simple elements we also commune with the Logos (and the spiritual entities in between).
He saw clearly that the Nous/Logos and the One is present in everyday elements (including our own selves), and while some purification is required to *see* that (getting our ego out of the way), we take that seriously and ascend, in the opposite direction, via the original path of descent in the chain of being. In other words, we don't skip all the levels of being in between by shooting directly at the Nous or beyond into the One, but rather honour them all given each is also a manifestation of the Nous.
It seems to me that Christianity too often shoots directly to the Logos in Jesus, without considering that the Logos is present in simple things, and without giving any honour to the spiritual beings in between in whom the Logos is also present (no doubt due to fear of idolatry, pantheism and paganism). And therefore Christianity is, at least in part, responsible for the de-enchantment of the world in my view.
No offence is intended here - I am trying to work out my own understanding/future here with respect to Christianity. Thanks again for the essay.
For Maximus the Logos is the many logoi. The logoi are the divine wills, the structuring principles, the activity of God, God himself, in all things and thus whether something is a rock or a turtle or a human being, it holds infinite value. Maximus drew much on Dyonisius the Aeoropagite who essentially took Proclus and offered a Christian understanding of the hierarchy of being. I wouldn't say Maximus wouldn't in a sense allow similar thinking.
As for Iamblicus and him using the visible world as means to ascend to the the one through ritual--I think it's mistaken to see any sort of meaningful Christianity as not also full of ritual and of course the Eucharist which is the meeting place of heaven and earth, of God and man, and communicated to the communicate and through him or her the entire world. I think here what your saying about Christianity has more to do with its popular gnostic forms than true Christianity--the idea that God does not work through and in matter.
As for the intermediary gods / spirits, Christianity would demarcate different levels possibly of angels--which realistically are the same as archons or the powers and principalities of Paul except such angels are fallen. This does not necessarily rule out benign beings, but again, even if their are benign beings that are noetic or intelligible, there definitely are beings that are not good and ill-intentioned and this is not only an idea of Christians but any people who have not been Western secularized. The point of noting that is that I feel like within Iamblichus and pagan ritual there is a danger of lacking discernment. Just because something makes an idol or something tremble or move, does not make it good, it just makes it more likely to be worshipped and in that case are we not losing track of the One in favor of a dispersion of our worship to so many entities?
Just some thoughts. Much more beneficial I'd argue would be reading Maximus and Pseudo-Dyonisius the Aeropagite who builds on proclus.
Your summary of Plotinus's metaphysical spirituality is really helpful here, especially since Plotinus's thought can be so dense and hard to penetrate.
As I was reading, though, I was most reminded of The Cloud of Unknowing, which of course definitely draws on the Neoplatonist tradition, mainly though Pseudo-Dionysius. But the author of The Cloud uses this same language of interior verticality. Interestingly, it was one of the first books written in middle English, and so provides one example of the "eastern" tradition still alive and well in the west—though, of course, it had already become a minority report.
Have you ever heard of Unseen Warfare? In my mind it is in the same category as the philokalia or ladder of divine ascent or St. Isaac. It was written by a westerner. Read by an easterner and then adapted by him for Orthodox monastics and further edited by Theophan the recluse. Now it is seen as one of the most authoritative texts in Eastern monasticism. It seems to me that up to the 16th century, the west had examples of people retaining an eastern perspective for lack of a better word.
Very lovely, thanks for this, Nicholas. A few thoughts:
1. Regarding your narrative from cosmos to cosmic mechanism, I'm reminded of a point made by Jason Ananda Josephson-Storm in his book, *The Myth of Disenchantment.* There he notes that the "literalism," if you will, underwriting the new science of Newton and others, meant that the cosmos could only refer to its Creator as design refers to designer. In other words, a sort of mechanical literalism in reading not just scripture, but the cosmos itself, is all that remained for those who had abandoned "allegorical" or spiritual readings of things and yet sought to link creation to God. It's no accident, Josephson-Storm argues, that this is the same period within which allegorical readings of scripture were also viciously attacked and mostly abandoned (in the West).
2. I like the move from Plotinian "vertical meaning" to Maximian fulfillment of that meaning. What's important in such a move is twofold. First, the Incarnation itself creates the retrospective lack in Neoplatonism only by fulfilling the latter. That's to say, I regard Plotinus's metaphysics as eminently coherent in se. He senses no lack that an Incarnation must fill, and logically, probably didn't sense it because his vertical metaphysics didn't require it. He sees well that the One's absolute transcendence of all requires that same One's absolute and ubiquitous immanence to all (cf. Enn. VI.4-5, on the omnipresence of the One). And he refutes the so-called Gnostics in his (somewhat ambiguous, still) defense of the relative goodness and participation of informed matter in the One. He also sees that emanation, participation-participated, and other like vertical relations in no way diminish the free will of the One (cf. Enn. VI.8). This is all quite consistent in itself and indeed consonant with Christian metaphysics, as you rightly insist. But then the Incarnation appears no longer as a fulfillment clearly anticipated, but as an unimaginable fulfillment that thus reveals its own retroactive "need." Second, then, this is not to say that Neoplatonism and Christianity are simply two separate, self-contained systems between which one cannot adjudicate. In fact, Plotinian Platonism, particularly its laser-focus on the need for "apophaticism" of the One, has this interesting feature: that it cannot in principle deny such a thing as the Incarnation or Trinity. Why? As Marius Victorinus already knew (and he would if anyone would have!), the metaphysical primacy of the One entails the metaphysical uniqueness of the mode of that One's "First Act." In such a primacy, the preeminence of Cause necessitates peculiarity of Act. But then why couldn't the First's act be the "production" or generation of an "effect" that is itself essentially one with the Cause, without the slightest diminishment of essential oneness in productive distinction? And if that's at least possible, so then is the Incarnation of that "effect" without thereby contradicting Plotinus's own vertical metaphysics, at least not *in principle*? And so on. In sum, then, the relation between Christianity and Neoplatonism is indeed "fulfillment," I think, but a fulfillment that paradoxically wasn't anticipated, needn't have been, and yet impossible to deny on the grounds of the self-consistent Platonic "system" itself.
Anyhow, your presentation here is much clearer than my glosses. But I thought I'd share what did come to mind anyhow!
Thank you Jordan for this very thoughtful and informative reply. It marks out some nuances that I am now compelled or rather inspired to look into. Your capacity for grasping both the Big Picture and the finest of details necessary to ground this big picture truly amazes me. Your book the Whole mystery of Christ accomplishes this and because of this, I’m still learning from it. It’s hard when doing independent research—as opposed to when I was at university of Chicago Div school—to know how to orient your questions and reading. But every once in a while you find something that forces you down a new path with more useful and necessary questions, and for that I am truly grateful—especially because these questions are not only academic but vehicles to true contemplation.
On another note is there a translation of Plotinus that you’d particularly recommend? My greek is deplorable, but a translation that is rather translucent in its terminology helps.
McKenna’s is the most invigorating, though not always the most technically accurate. There’s a newer series with different translators for different volumes of the enneads (Perl, Gurtler, etc). Extremely accurate and great notes, but cost prohibitive. I still love Armstrong’s (Loeb) volumes, which I own and use. I don’t mind his English, which is readable and pretty accurate, and it’s diglot anyhow.
This was such a pleasure to read. It really resonated with me. These are ideas I’ve been interested in for a long time, but have always conceived of it in Vedic terms, because that is the tradition I’m familiar with and practice. So it was wonderful to see it presented from within the Western/Christian perspective.
In Sankhya yoga they describe the movement of creation from subtle to gross, from the rarified to the dense. I understand it in terms of a refraction of consciousness, the soul’s perspective is distorted by limiting its focus to matter, or the outer skin of reality.
The incompleteness of that perspective is more obvious when we experience higher states of consciousness, when the veil of the world thins to reveal the divine. But even ordinary states of consciousness can show us this is true. The soul transcends matter as a subject necessarily transcends its object. To even speak of “matter” requires being distinct from it. The materialists are in denial about this, vainly trying to squeeze consciousness into the naturalist worldview, and when that fails trying to eliminate it.
There is nothing more damaging to spiritual growth or awareness than naturalism. I've written a number of pieces dealing with the problems it presents without warrant to. I have been extraordinarily surprised of how natural and seamingly isomorphic Neo-Platonic thought can be with Vedanta or at least Advaita. Anyway, this is from a Christian perspective, but it might be better called an Eastern Christian perspective. I'm Eastern Orthodox and in particular because of the vision of reality it presents which I tried to get to above, which I see as a fulfillment of Neo-Platonic thought. Right now David Bentley Hart has been working a lot with navigating the territory between vedanta and Christianity and as I suggested, tends to see Vedanta as a correlate of Neo-Platonism. There are some stories that Plotinus headed East to persia or maybe India at one point in his life, but I think the larger reason for the correlation between Vedanta and Neoplatonism, is simply because--though I might add some qualifications--it is offers the best and most natural manner of looking at reality. In my perspective, it was fulfilled by Christ in such a manner as not rejecting neo-platonism, but rather, bringing it to an unforeseeable culmination which it had paved the way to being able to find articulation.
One of the most transformational moments of my life was when I realized, beyond any doubt, that the entire universe and everything in it has consciousness, will, and love. ♾️
Thanks for a good read Nicholas. Some respectful push back - I'm not sure Christianity completed Neoplatonism because while the incarnation brings the Nous/Logos "down" into Jesus of Nazareth, in the history of Christianity that is in practice where it has stayed.
Perhaps I need to read more Maximus (and/or actually finish Jordan's book), but I think the potential problem with Christianity is the hyper-focus on the Logos hypostatically united in Jesus of Nazareth that the Logos is, in practice, only revealed in Jesus. In the history of Christianity I don't see much focus on the idea that the Logos is also in the trees, the rocks, the stars, the spiritual heirarchy/the "gods".
I think Christianity *has* focused on saying that the Logos is in us, but always with the ready and somewhat urgent caveat "but not like the Logos is in Jesus!" And perhaps only so if we are baptised e.g. via grace. Christianity has been so concerned with protecting the uniqueness of Jesus that, again, in practice, the Logos is no longer the Logos of all manifestation but only Jesus.
I understand "Christianity" is too broad a term and I don't mean to be unfair to Christianity, but this is how I have experienced it.
As a way of counterpoint - I think the person who has the most claim to completing Neoplatonism is Iamblichus. He would say, as I understand him, that we must ascend to the One through the visible world and rituals which connect us with the gods/spirits in and "behind" the visible world. Because this is the chain of being - even the simple elements of creation are ultimately, though spiritual hierarchies, inhabited by the Logos, and hence by communing with those simple elements we also commune with the Logos (and the spiritual entities in between).
He saw clearly that the Nous/Logos and the One is present in everyday elements (including our own selves), and while some purification is required to *see* that (getting our ego out of the way), we take that seriously and ascend, in the opposite direction, via the original path of descent in the chain of being. In other words, we don't skip all the levels of being in between by shooting directly at the Nous or beyond into the One, but rather honour them all given each is also a manifestation of the Nous.
It seems to me that Christianity too often shoots directly to the Logos in Jesus, without considering that the Logos is present in simple things, and without giving any honour to the spiritual beings in between in whom the Logos is also present (no doubt due to fear of idolatry, pantheism and paganism). And therefore Christianity is, at least in part, responsible for the de-enchantment of the world in my view.
No offence is intended here - I am trying to work out my own understanding/future here with respect to Christianity. Thanks again for the essay.
For Maximus the Logos is the many logoi. The logoi are the divine wills, the structuring principles, the activity of God, God himself, in all things and thus whether something is a rock or a turtle or a human being, it holds infinite value. Maximus drew much on Dyonisius the Aeoropagite who essentially took Proclus and offered a Christian understanding of the hierarchy of being. I wouldn't say Maximus wouldn't in a sense allow similar thinking.
As for Iamblicus and him using the visible world as means to ascend to the the one through ritual--I think it's mistaken to see any sort of meaningful Christianity as not also full of ritual and of course the Eucharist which is the meeting place of heaven and earth, of God and man, and communicated to the communicate and through him or her the entire world. I think here what your saying about Christianity has more to do with its popular gnostic forms than true Christianity--the idea that God does not work through and in matter.
As for the intermediary gods / spirits, Christianity would demarcate different levels possibly of angels--which realistically are the same as archons or the powers and principalities of Paul except such angels are fallen. This does not necessarily rule out benign beings, but again, even if their are benign beings that are noetic or intelligible, there definitely are beings that are not good and ill-intentioned and this is not only an idea of Christians but any people who have not been Western secularized. The point of noting that is that I feel like within Iamblichus and pagan ritual there is a danger of lacking discernment. Just because something makes an idol or something tremble or move, does not make it good, it just makes it more likely to be worshipped and in that case are we not losing track of the One in favor of a dispersion of our worship to so many entities?
Just some thoughts. Much more beneficial I'd argue would be reading Maximus and Pseudo-Dyonisius the Aeropagite who builds on proclus.
Thanks for the thoughtful response Nicholas - I appreciate it
Your summary of Plotinus's metaphysical spirituality is really helpful here, especially since Plotinus's thought can be so dense and hard to penetrate.
As I was reading, though, I was most reminded of The Cloud of Unknowing, which of course definitely draws on the Neoplatonist tradition, mainly though Pseudo-Dionysius. But the author of The Cloud uses this same language of interior verticality. Interestingly, it was one of the first books written in middle English, and so provides one example of the "eastern" tradition still alive and well in the west—though, of course, it had already become a minority report.
Now I have to read it!
Have you ever heard of Unseen Warfare? In my mind it is in the same category as the philokalia or ladder of divine ascent or St. Isaac. It was written by a westerner. Read by an easterner and then adapted by him for Orthodox monastics and further edited by Theophan the recluse. Now it is seen as one of the most authoritative texts in Eastern monasticism. It seems to me that up to the 16th century, the west had examples of people retaining an eastern perspective for lack of a better word.
I don't think I've ever heard of it. Do you know the original author?
Unseen Warfare: The Spiritual Combat and Path to Paradise of Lorenzo Scupoli (English, Russian and Greek Edition)https://a.co/d/2zU5vBm
Excellent! "The ladder was never taken away, it just needs to be uncovered again"
Our Soul is of the lower(time) and the higher(eternity) where God is waiting for our "Yes"
Through a method of stillness one finds the Birth of the Word(Jesus/Incarnation) in the Soul.