The One and the Many

[@NanciKeatley]

Another great video from Dr. Shaw and CDU!

[@lunar-ix9vu]

I want more lessons from this person!

[@katet4255]

Great! So clearly explained and thought-provoking

[@peterbrown6612]

Thanks for watching!

[@peterbrown6612]

Thought provoking is what we were going for!

[@NatanKohen-b3k]

Are you differentiating between matter (manifest, stay for a while and, dissapeare) and spirit (it is permanent)?...

[@kensey007]

The essence of a tree is that it has properties matching how humans have chosen to define the word tree. There is no reason to think essence is causal rather than merely how we describe a thing. I describe an apple (some apples) as red. I describe the apple on my counter as real and existing. I describe the apple in my mind as red and shiny with a nice green stem and imaginary. That's not to say that our minds make a things properties. Sure, real objects are a certain way if and only if they exist. Imaginary objects are a certain way if and only if we imagine them that way.

[@lupinthe4th400]

Great lecture!

[@elyse3568]

Very deep and profound

[@willcaviness]

very helpful video. thanks!

[@henryspragge]

FANTASTIC!

[@Mahsen_Hollowell21]

Amazing video!

[@JohnCahillChapel]

Thank you. Very good. I am inclined to think that the most important “common factor” is the human namer/observer and its bandwidth of perception. I think we (each and socially) add various frames of coherence all such frames being possible because of a (co-) creative faculty as images of the Divine, naming, compositing and utilising according to our respect or otherwise of the Giver. Coherence and dissonance arise out of of various attitudes to the Giver or, alternatively to the projections of our own minds (works of our own hands). We are gifted with a creative fiat capacity, for limited good or I’ll, the context being sure and righteous(ness).

[@riche7691]

This question of the one and the many is hard to understand. Why does there have to be something that unifies everything. Why can’t we just say this exists as a particular object and this exists as a completely different particular object?

[@JohnCahillChapel]

@@riche7691 Your question exposes an important deficiency in human thought, behaviour and attitude. Whether or not coherence and Interdependence between things is an objective reality, the human mind demands coherence; thinking and communicating demands that we assume the interdependence of things. We cannot think or communicate unless we either perceive or impose an understanding of the relatedness of things (objects [thoughts are objects too]). All rational, logical, coherent, comprehensible and communicable thinking is dependent on a unifying principle. When we approach an object, do we see it for what it is in itself, i.e., despite any possible relationship or dependence it could have on surrounding objects? Can we even approach, perceive, think about or utilise any single object without assuming an untold multitude of relationships that it has with other objects? I don't think so. But your question still stands. It implies that we may be over-rating this idea of a unifying principle, unifying force or unifying frame, or perhaps that the nature of the unifying principle is not as we commonly assume. I think this (latter) is the case (i.e., that the nature of the unifying principle is not thought but love, a fruits of spirit! Can we "just say that this exists as a particular object and this exists as a completely different particular object?" Yes, there is a disposition of mind that can do that, and unless we do that [unless we "put to rest" the unifying impositions of thought (mind)] we cannot realise complete coherence, harmony, peace. Coherence, harmony, peace are not dependent on thought. Thought elevated to the status of ultimate agent of unity fails utterly. That is why thought has to be totally submissive to the qualities of love, trust, patience, and the like. If the above is understood, it becomes clear that we, both individually and socially (in consensus groups), have a certain capacity to impose unity on things. We are the unifiers of whatever things are given and perceivable to the bandwidth of respective capacities of perception and expression. This is both a privilege and a problem (a curse?); a privilege, because it elevates us to "gods" with astounding creative powers - we unify out of chaos but only partially as far as thought is concerned. We never seem to unify without creating disunity and conflict (conflict, exclusion); our unifying processes and consequences always exclude things such as other unifying principles and forces. Whenever and wherever we impose a unifying principle of thought, we simultaneously impose a new frontier of conflict. All we are doing is moving the fences within the field of thought when the field of thought is by no means inclusive of all things and conditions. This points up the deficiency alluded to in my opening sentence. The (rational) human mind is not up to the task of unifying existence perceived as innumerable objects. It is constantly and arrogantly hell bent on trying, but it always excludes, it is always by way of contrast (which is itself relatedness), and, as a self-sufficient loop, it is always in conflict with some other thing or some other composite, complex or assemblage of other things. Unify these here and you exclude those there. So, I think we are obliged to maintain a disposition that considers all our various unifying assumptions, principles and policies as opportunities for the impermanent expression of love in the perceivable circumstances and moment. My three year old grandson has two boxes of building blocks (one is by Lego). They consist of many unifying properties and features without which he could not impose meaning in the form of other objects like monsters, vehicles, towers, boats, according to his personal creative capacity. His mind prefers to impose form and meaning in the shape of tall towers. Sometimes the form and meaning that I want to impose on my blocks is unacceptable to him. The non-Lego blocks are bigger and generally not compatible with the Lego blocks. Both sets are plastic but they are not designed to work together. But they are plastic building blocks nonetheless. All these levels of meaning depend on the impositions of the human mind. Even when we submit to the unifying principles of other minds (governments, groups, cultures, religions, science, fields, gods ...) we are privileged and obliged to pass on meaning and coherence ourselves; as it is said, "Have you not heard? We are gods.". Since the mind's imposition of meaning and coherence always results in new boundaries of incoherence, exclusion and conflict, is it possible to experience unity, coherence, harmony with all perceivable things included. Well, if it is possible, it is not going to be fundamentally driven by thought because the unification accomplished by thought (the mind) is never all inclusive. By contrast, love "recognises" all and trusts, thus satisfying the human need for sense unification and harmony. Thought requires the presumption of distinguishing (even separating), of naming, of specific utility, of respective context, of qualified interest, and the disqualification of other elements. This disqualifies thought as an adequate source of total unification. It's not that things are un-related, rather it’s just that thought is not capable of satisfying our instinct for the harmony (unification) of all things. So what could be up to it? In some literature, a distinction is made between thought and the disposition of the mind, and if not in literature, it is known to happen in experience when trust is the disposition of the heart. Disposition is about quality of the mind by contrast with the (language based) content of thought. The management, quality, content and preferences of thought all depend on the disposition of the mind. Thought and action inevitably express the disposition of the mind, the soul, the spirit. Thought is not source, it is conditioned by source, The condition or disposition of the mind is the unifying principle of our respective minds. Thus, we sometimes, but not often or consciously enough, think of qualities such as fear/trust, fear/antagonism, fear/compassion and so on. The unifying principle that conditions the human management of all things - from perceiving to naming to utilising - is not thought, it is trust in the kindly disposition, intent and capability of the Giver and Sustainer of all things.

[@theodorestjohn1962]

@@JohnCahillChapel Wow! What an answer. I love it. @RichE Ask and ye shall receive.

[@minervamadera1425]

Super helpful!! Thank you

[@peterbrown6612]

Thanks for watching!

[@TheYellowshuttle]

It was a very nice video. I wish it was longer. Why does many need one to unify it? What happens if we say "many is" & "one is not"? The opposite premise from where Parmenides begins. Does that run into problems?

[@peterbrown6612]

Yes. That would run into problems. We don't have manyness without oneness.

[@coreymiller6581]

@@peterbrown6612 This is the same issue I have with the video. The speaker says manyness must have oneness, and gives examples of this. But examples of many things being enveloped by one thing doesn't prove that many things *must* be enveloped by one thing. Further, I struggle with why the distinct things must be united under the one as a matter of reality - why can't a logos principle exist within my mind, which subsequently organizes the many in recognizable patterns?

[@peterbrown6612]

@@coreymiller6581 are there examples of many of a kind of thing where there is not first just one of that kind of thing?

[@peterbrown6612]

@@coreymiller6581 also the distinct things are unified at least in that they have existence in common

[@miontorus]

Why is your Peter Brown?

[@ronron9019]

Is "essence" just the meaning we attach to words? The enumerated "essence of a tree" was just a description of a tree.

[@peterbrown6612]

Essence is whatever makes a thing what it is and not something else. You can see cell towers that arise from the ground and have limbs and leaves attached but aren't trees.

[@ronron9019]

@@peterbrown6612 But a child who never experienced cell towers before might very well see them as trees. I used to think bamboos are trees until it was pointed out to me that they are grass. I should point out the implication of my question. That "essence" is purely a construct of the human mind. An artefact of our use of language. Does this make sense?

[@peterbrown6612]

@@ronron9019 right. But essence is that which makes a thing what it is. At least, that is how we are presenting it.

[@ronron9019]

@@peterbrown6612 Seems this is just beyond my grasp. Thanks for responding.

[@HEL9000]

@@ronron9019 I think you're actually grasping it pretty well. You're just not deriving the conclusions authors of this channel want you to.

[@2BluntsLater]

I’ve always looked at the Trinity as Father - Form Son - Matter Holy Spirit - Bond God the unbegotten revealed, Son the word incarnate begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father bonding the created and uncreated realms All together you can understand the “essence” of whatever form you are talking about but you need all three to understand. Then from the energies you can understand the essence

[@jreyes5015]

The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics please... :]

[@etvaht-115]

Why would the existence of many things that didnt need to exist mean that there must be something that has to exist like a god? Atoms need to exist (we dont know why but they do) and they need to exist in some arrangement with each other since they share space in the universe. We are the ones that observe these arrangements and give them names. Sorry I just feel like I understood the entirety of the video except the very end conclusion

[@peterbrown6612]

Well they don't need to exist. The universe could have nothing rather than something. This is maybe the deepest philosophical question of all: why is there something rather than nothing? I'm not sure if this helps

[@etvaht-115]

@@peterbrown6612 okay I see where it's coming from now. But, at the same time, isnt it an equally ananswerable question "If something was created by someone, then who created the creator?"

[@peterbrown6612]

@@etvaht-115 no. Things that do exist but don't have to exist must get their existence from somewhere. If you think of a line of school kids each passing a book to the child to their right, for a kid to have the book he had to get it from someone who had it and could give it to him. But someone had to give the first kid in line the book to begin with. You can't give what you don't have. So if the thing being given is not a book but existence itself, you have to exist before you can give existence to something else. Things that could not exist but in fact do exist must therefore depend for their existence ultimately on something that must exist--or cannot NOT exist. Right?

[@etvaht-115]

@@peterbrown6612 I get the mindset but wouldnt it also just as equally mean that if things that dont have to exist could come from an infinite chain of things that also didnt have to exist? They both have an equally unprovable basis but if we are imagining them they make equal sense. One of them has a creator that has always existed and one has infinite creators. Both deal with the idea of infinity in some way and us accepting that factor without us being able to fully understand infinity since we have only ever lived on a planet with an end & edge to everything so we never had to evolve (my opinion) to really get it. But either way, if we are just accepting that a creator has to exist or that there were many creators (both of which we cant understand how* these magical seeming entities function & exist) is it any harder of a thing to accept that matter & energy has been here forever in some form?

[@peterbrown6612]

@@etvaht-115 Well imagine a paper clip that is hanging on another one which in turn is hanging on a 3rd one and so forth. Can the chain of clips really go up forever without the first one hanging on something?

[@lj4969]

But what _is_ the limiting tree essence?

[@peterbrown6612]

it's what keeps the tree a tree and not something else

[@lj4969]

@@peterbrown6612 it's simply an arbitrary definition of words as I see it. There is no identifiable essence exclusive to trees. But this video was so helpful, thanks!

[@peterbrown6612]

@@lj4969 were assuming the classical metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle. If you think of all the things that make a tree a tree...ie what is essential to a tree. That's tree essence.

[@coreymiller6581]

@@lj4969 If there is no identifiable essence exclusive to trees, then you would have no way of distinguishing trees from anything else.

[@jreyes5015]

more please

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

Great video, though some counterbalance with perspectives of other philosophers, would be nice. Essentialism is hardly subscribed to by any philosophers these days, after Wittgenstein's brilliant family resemblance theory for example. You don't need to go in depth, just go "oh hey, but this important guy disagrees, learn more about him if you're interested." Hell, you could even mention Hume if you wanted a more radical view, who argues the world doesn't come 'pre-carved' into things at all - we do the carving. Or why not mention Russel, who famously declared existence is not a predicate, not a property to assign to things at all? All very relevant views that weren't touched on or hinted at. Someone watching this video with no knowledge on the topic will come away with a very scewed perspective.

[@alfredhitchcock45]

Existence + Limiting Essence

[@TheBinaryWolf]

The answer to the problem you describe is easily found when answering the question, From where did matter come? Only one possibility exists. But for argument's sake, let us consider two: either it was always there (no origen), or it came into being (creation). If logic be the arbiter then only the latter is possible, since the former had no start. And if nothing started, nothing could be in progress or decline. In other words, say, a tree cannot be half grown if it had no start; or you cannot be half way finished building a house if you never started. Since trees and houses exist (to the coherent), they have a start as does everything that exists. This little insight I attribute to the Author of our existance. --GT.

[@alfredhitchcock45]

Existence is not part of essence

[@alfredhitchcock45]

Wonder Muscles

[@troids117]

Man. This is summed up as concept formation. Brutally over complicated.