Communion: Unity-in-Distinction

Рет қаралды 1,649

4 ай бұрын

Establishing "communal logic," refuting naturalism, critiquing Platonism, and ekstatically communing! Watch the full episode HERE: kzfaq.infotmX2YWSk...
LORE Coffee Roasters:
loreroasters.com/telosbound
(THE Orthodox Christian specialty coffee company)
ORTHODOX DEPOT (affordable crosses, icons, apparel, and more!): orthodoxdepot.com/?ref=telos
🎙️TELOSBOUND DISCORD: / discord
✍️SUBSTACK: substack.com/@telosbound
Reading List: shorturl.at/lmMU0
😇 PATREON: / telosbound
(includes many perks such as exclusive content, Q&A access, monthly calls with Trey, and more!)
👼 TREY’s book “Aphesis: The Impossibility of Subjectivity”: amzn.to/3hzxZAR
❤️ JOIN this channel to get access to perks:
/ @telosbound
☦️ CHECK out Seraphim Hamilton’s course on refuting Protestantism using the Bible alone: shorturl.at/dAO48
---------------------------
HASHTAGS:
#philosophy #theology #metaphysics #ontology #orthodox #christianity #orthodoxchristianity #communion #church #jesus #christ #catholic #bible #hegel #negation #dialectics #epistemology #psychoanalysis #logic #ethics #theory #socialtheory #apologetics #God #aphesis #subjectivity #paradox #contradiction #reading #books #intellectual #conservative #politicaltheory #sigma #staniloae #trinity

Пікірлер: 40

@miralupa8841 3 ай бұрын

Fascinating discussion! I’ve been working on this kind of thing for the past while.. I have a question: are you saying that all that gives The Father his identity (as The Father) is his not-being-Christ and his not-being-Spirit? If so, this purely negative, dialectical conception of identity seems to me to (1) presuppose the three terms’ minimal difference from one another and (2) to just be an inflated way of making the self-referential formulation A=A (whereby A=notB and B=notA), a formulation that, as you said, says nothing. Am I thinking about this the right way?

@andys3035 3 ай бұрын

Perfect timing. I am almost done listening to Jake the Muslim Metaphysician's critique of Dr. Beau Branson and their discussion on the monarchia of the Father. This is a topic that I am really interested in but have no philosophical background, so digesting this information takes time for me. Thanks for the Florovsky book recommendation.

@JChrist0AD 3 ай бұрын

can you do a video on the seven bowls of wrath in revelation?

@dunadan7136 3 ай бұрын

9:50 - Ok. I object to this conception of Platonism. What you're describing is not Platonism but a quasi-strawman of it. You must understand that once there is discourse about the One, anything said about it is intrinsically metaphorical, because the One is beyond everything. And Iamblichus AFAIK says that during henosis, the person merely "forgets" himself and is "left behind". So there is no reason to believe that Orthodox theosis is somehow incompatible with Neoplatonism. And Neoplatonism does not deny unity entering into distinction. Plotinus makes it very, very clear that Nous is unity-in-distinction. Since reality is simply Nous, therefore to be something is to also be a unity-in-distinction for Neoplatonists. In fact the entire point of Neoplatonism is that there is no real hard dualism between subject and object. So it makes little sense to say that Neoplatonists "hard-privilege" the universal over the particular, because that would be to imply hard dualism. The Neoplatonists must have viewed the universal and particular being mutually interior to at least a certain extent.

@sudabdjadjgasdajdk3120 3 ай бұрын

The trinity isn't even intended to conceptually define the One in EO so I don't even know why they bother.

@Aaron-xb4rq 3 ай бұрын

"Nous is unity-in-distinction...reality is simply Nous." Exactly. Nous is akin to the transcendent Father and Son the immanent cosmos. God is known in the cosmic Son by the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is a description of the inherent unity of the one and the many - that there is no ontological separation between subject and object.

@Christianity_and_Perennialism 3 ай бұрын

The relative is in communion with the Absolute, by necessity. This is what Christianity is showing symbolically, in its own particular way. Other religions have their own ways of showing the same concept l, suited to other peoples with other sensibilities. All true religion is about reconciling the relative with the Absolute; the many with the One.

@Aaron-xb4rq 3 ай бұрын

Exactly. That there is no separation between the one and the many. This is precisely what the Trinity is also describing.

@snesjkksdnuesjjsj 2 ай бұрын

EGO DEATH

@dubbelkastrull 3 ай бұрын

Not sold on the idea that A=A presupposes A=/=B

@dunadan7136 3 ай бұрын

I'm guessing he means that if you say A is A, then A is not not-A. Which makes sense. If A can be both A and not-A, then perception particular things becomes impossible. Or we would literally have to have some sort of split consciousness. Or there is some sort of entirely unprovable alternative reality or something.

@dubbelkastrull 3 ай бұрын

@@dunadan7136 I'm not convinced that A=A presupposes the idea of not-A.

@dunadan7136 3 ай бұрын

@@dubbelkastrull It has to, though. If not, how does perception work?

@dubbelkastrull 3 ай бұрын

@@dunadan7136 I mean, we probably presuppose not-A when we think about or write A=A. But that's kind of our "fault". I'm not convinced that the proposition or sentence "A=A" necessarily entails or presupposes the idea of not-A.

@dunadan7136 3 ай бұрын

@@dubbelkastrull Ok, then A can be both A and not-A. But why then in perception do we see A as A and B as B and not A as B or B as A? What you're suggesting makes no sense and would render perception of anything impossible, since anything can be anything. Everything might as well just be meaningless noise.

@dionysusfury3879 3 ай бұрын

Your framing of the dichotomy as unity/distinction is misleading. The the dichotomy platonist speak of is simplicity/complexity. Trinitarian view attributes complexity to the one and you haven't showed how that works.