Aristotle and Nicholas of Cusa: To be and/or not to be, that is the question

‘Now it is also the case that there can be nothing intermediate to an assertion and a denial. We must either assert or deny any single predicate of any single subject. The quickest way to show this is by defining truth and falsity. Well, falsity is the assertion that that which is is not or that that which is not is and truth is the assertion that that which is is and that that which is not is not. Thus anyone who asserts anything to be or not to be is either telling the truth or telling a falsehood. On the other hand, neither that which is is said either not to be or to be nor is that which is not.

And if there were an intermediate of contradictory statements, then it would either be like grey between black and white or like the non-man-non-horse between man and horse.’

Aristotle The Metaphysics, Gamma 7 1011b, Trans. and Introduction by Hugh Lawson-Tancred, Penguin, London, 2004, 107

‘I want to tell you of one more thing that I see to be marvellous above other things. ...since all things are singular, they are both similar, because they are singular, and dissimilar, because they are singular; (and they are not similar, because they are singular), and not dissimilar, because they are singular. A corresponding point holds regarding same and different, equal and unequal, singular and plural, one and many, even and odd, concordant and discordant, and the likes, although this (claim) seems absurd to the philosophers who adhere - even in theological matters - to the principle that each thing either is or is not (the case).’

Nicholas of Cusa, De Venatione Sapientiae (On the Pursuit of Wisdom), Nicholas of Cusa: Metaphysical Speculations, Six Latin Texts Translated into English, Trans., Jasper Hopkins, The Arthur J. Banning Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1998, 1320-21

On the Mystical Shaping of Self

One of the greatest, most fruitful and resonant metaphors in Western culture:

From Plotinus:

‘But how are you to see into a virtuous Soul and know its loveliness? Withdraw into yourself and look. And if you do not find yourself beautiful yet, act as does the creator of a statue that is to be made beautiful: he cuts away here, he smoothes there, he makes this line lighter, this other purer, until a lovely face has grown upon his work. So do you also: cut away all that is excessive, straighten all that is crooked, bring light to all that is overcast, labour to make all one glow of beauty and never cease chiselling your statue, until there shall shine out on you from it the godlike splendour of virtue, until you shall see the perfect goodness surely established in the stainless shrine.’

The Enneads, Trans., Stephen MacKenna, Penguin, London, 1991, 54, 1.6.9

through Christianity:

‘A sculptor who wishes to carve a figure out of a block uses his chisel, first cutting away great chunks of marble, then smaller pieces, until he finally reaches a point where only a brush of hand is needed to reveal the figure. In the same way, the soul has to undergo tremendous mortifications at first, and then more refined detachments, until finally its Divine image is revealed.’

From: https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/sculpting-our-souls-during-lent-3-quotes-from-ven-fulton-sheen/

to Cusanus:

‘For the wise thought as if [along the following line]: a craftsman [who] wants to chisel a statue in stone and [who] has in himself the form of the statue, as an idea, produces - through certain instruments which he moves - the form of the statue in imitation of the idea’

De Docta Ignorantia II.10, in Jasper Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa On Learned Ignorance (De Docta Ignorantia, 1440), The Arthur J. Banning Press, Minneapolis, 1985, 112

through Nietzsche:

‘Man is no longer an artist, he has become a work of art: the artistic power of the whole of nature reveals itself to the supreme gratification of the primal Oneness amidst the paroxysms of intoxication. The noblest clay, the most precious marble, man, is kneaded and hewn here, and to the chisel-blows of the Dionysiac world-artist there echoes the cry of the Eleusinian mysteries, “Do you bow low, multitudes? Do you sense the Creator, world?"'

Friedrich Nietzsche The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music (1872) Penguin, Trans., Shaun Whiteside, Ed., Michael Tanner 1993, 18

through Foucault:

‘This transformation of one’s self by one’s own knowledge is, I think, something rather close to the aesthetic experience. Why should a painter work if he is not transformed by his own painting?’

in Michel Foucault, Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings 1977-1984,  Ed., Lawrence D. Kritzman, Routledge, London, 1990, 14

And what does the concealed priesthood in academic philosophy, who have failed so profoundly in their social and intellectual responsibility have to say about all this mysticism in their and our midst?

The mystic Wittgenstein spoke for them: ‘What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.’

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), Trans., D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness, Routledge, New York, 2005

What does materialism have to do with mysticism?

Not only is materialism indebted to mysticism - as Marx implicitly acknowledged when he correctly described the Christian Neoplatonist Hegel’s philosophy as mystical1 - mysticism and its influence pervade Western culture.

The contribution of mysticism in all areas has been profound - to literature, the visual arts, religion, particularly to and through philosophy with its concealed priesthood (which priesthood was identified by the overt priest Nietzsche), to science - it inspired Copernicus to the greatest scientific hypothesis, and Kepler. In the West, its primarily Neoplatonic form, in reflecting the contradictory, poetic dynamism of the world - and having been stood on its feet by Marx - became the engine of dialectical materialism itself.2

We, in the West, on the back of all that has been achieved, believe a monumental lie, a monumental arrogance, a monumental delusion - that while others worship idols, stare at their navels, are committed to 'failed' or 'backward' ideologies or are obsessed with filial piety, we have risen above this to become the triumphal bearers of millennial ‘Reason’. We wear this self-awarded badge of ‘Reason’ as a cultural definition. It is the belief we have relied on to most distinguish the West from the rest.

The impact of mysticism argues against this. Linguistic reason, a core tool of all authoritarians from Plato onwards, is not the only form of reason. At the heart of mysticism is another - powerful and fluid, complex, subtle and evanescent. And in the inspiration of its 'connectedness', immensely creative.

Linguistic reason draws on this 'connectedness' as its proponents seek to contain and deny it. The artist and theologian Plato is a prime example. I refer you to the lyrical power of the Ion:

For a Poet is indeed a thing ethereally light, winged, and sacred...

Linguistic reason, while reason’s jewel, is but its tip. When we wake in the middle of the night with the solution to a long-standing problem, had we been dotting every ‘i’ and crossing every ‘t’, or might trotting chairs and fluttering wings have borne fruit in creative 'space'?

Or when you round a corner and bump into a stranger - no time for considered words and structured sentences - think of the richness, at multiple levels, of what has taken place in your brain - in a moment's silence. Such a cognitive experience (that of 'first impressions') is so intense it merges seamlessly with the physical. This thinking is the ever-present underlay of what is done linguistically.

Intuitive thought draws most directly on our connectedness - to all that comprises us, to what we remember, and to the world. It provides us with perhaps our deepest cognitive experience of the world. That this has been given not only religious but mystical meaning does not detract from its objective nature and potential.

In considering what comprises 'reason', the materialist must begin with how the brain functions in its totality, recognising that those functions bear on the whole dialectically, that they are inseparable and plastic, and not focus only on the brain's capacity for its highest product - linguistic expression.

Notes
1. Marx wrote: ‘I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker...The mystification which the dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general forms of motion in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be inverted, in order to discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.‘ Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1, Postface to the Second Edition 1873, Penguin, London, 1982, p. 103.

2. See William Franke's two volume anthology On What Cannot Be Said: Apophatic Discourses in Philosophy, Religion, Literature, and the Arts, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2007

*   *   *

Nicholas of Cusa: On the World

Who would not admire this Artisan, who with regard to the spheres, the stars, and the regions of the stars used such skill that there is - though without complete precision - both a harmony of all things and a diversity of all things? (This Artisan) considered in advance the sizes, the placing, and the motion of the stars in the one world; and He ordained the distances of the stars in such way that unless each region were as it is, it could neither exist nor exist in such a place and with such an order - nor could the universe exist. Moreover, He bestowed on all stars a differing brightness, influence, shape, colour, and heat. (Heat causally accompanies the brightness.) And He established the interrelationship of parts so proportionally that in each thing the motion of the parts is oriented toward the whole. With heavy things (the motion is) downward toward the centre, and with light things it is upward from the centre and around the centre (e.g., we perceive the motion of the stars as circular).

With regard to these objects, which are so worthy of admiration, so varied, and so different, we recognise - through learned ignorance and in accordance with the preceding points - that we cannot know the rationale for any of God's works but can only marvel; for the Lord is great, whose greatness is without end.

Nicholas of Cusa, De Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance), 1440, II.13, in Nicholas of Cusa on Learned Ignorance, Jasper Hopkins, The Arthur J. Banning Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1990, (online) p. 100

The Lucky Country: Part 12 - A Laid-Back, Happy People Help Their Friends

The Sydney Morning Herald, 18.02.14

1. Michael Bachelard, ‘The raw prawn: Marty Natalegawa takes swipe at Tony Abbott over prawn spying claim’

The latest spying revelations and Tony Abbott's response have once again irritated Indonesia, with Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa taking a barely veiled swipe at the Australian Prime Minister on Monday.

Pointedly, Dr Natalegawa made his comments during a joint press conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry, who is touring the region.

Apologising to Mr Kerry for doing so, and acknowledging it was not directly related to the subjects at hand, Dr Natalegawa raised new revelations that, in early 2013, the Australian Signals Directorate had spied on trade talks between the United States and Indonesia.

The talks were over a dispute involving Indonesian exports of prawns and clove cigarettes to the United States.

Dr Natalegawa said he had ''come across a statement'' by the Australian government on the matter ''and the reference that Australia collects intelligence to save Australian lives, to save the lives of other people and to promote Australian values''.

''Those are well understood…but...I find it a bit mind boggling, a little bit difficult, how I can connect or reconcile discussions about shrimps and how they impact on Australian security,'' Dr Natalegawa said.

His comment was a clear reference to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's statement on ABC Radio a few hours earlier, when he said: ''We don't collect intelligence for commercial purposes – we collect intelligence to save Australian lives, to save the lives of other people, to promote Australian values, to promote the universal values of humanity and to help our friends and neighbours, including Indonesia.''

Dr Natalegawa said the talks, which had been the subject of spying, had involved ''a very technical, bilateral, US-Indonesia issue''.

''To suggest as if the future of shrimp exports by Indonesia to the United States has an impact on Australian security is a little bit much and begs some kind of serious question about what it's all about.''

He added, as Mr Kerry looked on, that neighbours such as Australia and Indonesia should ''be looking out for each other, not turning against one an other; we should be listening to each other, not listening in''.

Mr Kerry, who has spent two days in Indonesia as part of a tour of Asia, said he understood ''completely'' and respected Dr Natalegawa's comments, adding the spying revelations of Edward Snowden and their effect on international relations were ''a challenge for all of us''.

''We take this issue very seriously, which is why President Obama laid out a series of concrete and substantial reforms,'' Mr Kerry said.

''The United States doesn't collect intelligence for the competitive advantage of US companies, or US commercial sectors.''

New reforms enacted since the Snowden revelations should ensure ''transparency and accountability''.

Mr Abbott took a different tone, insisting that intelligence gathering was all about security and fighting terrorism.

Asked about spying on trade talks, Mr Abbott replied: ''What I don't do is talk publicly about allegations of this nature and we don't comment on security matters – on intelligence matters.''

Intelligence had been ''instrumental in the prevention of numerous terrorist attacks, including terrorist attacks in Indonesia,'' the Prime Minister said.

The United States has at least 32 staff inside its Canberra embassy dedicated to sharing electronic eavesdropping on Australia's neighbourhood.

The existence of the Special US Liaison Office Canberra, or SUSLOC, within the embassy was not widely known until the weekend disclosure of leaked documents by former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, which revealed the Australian spying on the trade talks.

A US spokeswoman said the embassy did not discuss its personnel numbers. But a 2010 audit by the US State Department lists the special liaison office with 32 staff, making it the third-largest of the military sections within the embassy. The audit, marked ''sensitive but unclassified'', also shows other US intelligence ties to Australia.

On the broader issue of the bilateral relationship with Indonesia, Mr Abbott said talks towards a new code of conduct and to normalise relations were ''progressing slowly''.

He would like them to progress more quickly, he said.

The comment comes as Reuters reported a new Indonesian cabinet paper, prepared in January, that suggested it would be six months or more before the relationship was back on an even footing.

Deputy Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek said on Tuesday that it was clear there were serious issues in relations with Indonesia that need to be addressed.

''It's important to get that relationship back on track and it would be ideal if this was prioritised by the Australian government,'' she told ABC radio.

2. Sarah Whyte, ‘One person dead, others seriously injured during violent Manus Island clashes’

One asylum seeker has died, another is critically injured with a head injury while a third asylum seeker has been shot on a second night of violence in Manus Island, Immigration Minster Scott Morrison has confirmed.

Speaking to reporters in Darwin, Mr Morrison said the person died while on their way to hospital for treatment and 77 people have been injured, 13 seriously. The critically injured asylum seeker has been flown to Australia for treatment along with the gun-shot victim.

The Immigration Minister said PNG police ''were not in the centre'' at the time of the attack.

''The news of a death is a great tragedy,'' Mr Morrison told reporters.

''Our sympathies are extended to the transferees - that person's family and friends who would have been in the facility as well.''

Mr Morrison said those asylum seekers who ''breached'' the perimeter of the centre were putting themselves in danger and were subjecting themselves to the response of the local law.

''If people choose to remove themselves from that centre then they're obviously putting themselves at much greater risk and in an environment where there is violent behaviour,'' he said.

''Those who are breaching the perimeter fence and going out of the centre, then this is a disorderly environment in which there is always great risk.

''When there are people who are charged under Papua New Guinea law to maintain law and order in that situation, now if you behave an unruly way and in a disorderly way, then you subject yourself to the response of law enforcement.''

Refugee advocates said locals and police attacked the centre with machetes, knives and other weapons causing mass destruction and serious injuries including one gun-shot wound.

On Monday evening, asylum seekers said they were fearful of a violent attack by the local PNG police, which have been dubbed as the ''death squad'', and angry locals who they said would be wielding machetes, knives and guns.

At the same time, a spokesman from Mr Morrison told Fairfax Radio that any information about a second attack on Monday was ''completely untrue'' and we should be ''more skeptical of stories coming from activists''.

But refugees advocates have again slammed the offshore detention centre in Manus Island, saying it is lawless and that Australia has put the lives of people seeking asylum, who have already fled torture, war and gross human rights violations, at extreme risk.

''Last night's attack was a massacre,'' said Victoria Martin from the Refugee Rights Action Network said.

''It was a pre-meditated attack on unarmed and defenceless asylum seekers some of which have escaped war and are now being put back into, what is essentially a war zone. Manus Island is lawless. These are dangerous people.''

President of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs said Australia was not upholding its international responsibility to asylum seekers.

''Clearly there needs to be an inquiry into this,'' Professor Triggs told Fairfax Media.

''The primary obligation that Australia has is to offer protection for asylum seekers and we cannot abdicate that responsibility by sending people to a third country, in this case Papua New Guinea, but it is clear that responsibility is not being met.''

Professor Triggs said the Australian government had exposed asylum seekers to these conditions and it was inevitable asylum seekers would suffer mental illness, stress and, in some cases, violence.

But the security firm G4S, which manages the detention centre, said claims of ''internal attacks'' within the centre were unfounded.

In a statement, the firm said it had removed all ''non-essential'' staff from the compound with asylum seekers who were not participating in the protest. The statement said that the asylum seekers were injured once they left the detention centre.

On Sunday night, asylum seekers in Manus Island used pieces of bunk beds as weapons in battles with guards, destroyed fences and pulled down light poles.

A Beautiful Definition of Truth

Truth is the agreement of cognition with its object.

Will Capitalist Nations go to War with China?

SHANE MCLEOD: China's role in Australia's economy continues to grow - it's now our biggest trading partner and vies with Japan as our biggest export destination.

But there are some who believe that China's growing economic power will bring with it rising military power and conflict with the West.

That's the theory of Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago.

He says China will want to become the region's dominant power and it won't want to have the United States continuing to play a role in military defence in the region in countries like Japan and South Korea.

Professor Mearsheimer is in Australia this week as a guest of the University of Sydney, and in coming days he'll be giving a lecture about China's rise.

I caught up with him earlier today and asked him why he thinks that rise won't be peaceful.

JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, I think that as China gets economically more powerful than it is today, it will translate that economic might into military might and it will try to dominate the Asia Pacific region just the way the United States dominates the western hemisphere.

Great powers like to be all powerful in their own neighbourhood. They don't like neighbours that can threaten them and they don't like distant great powers coming into their backyard just the way the United States has this Munro-doctrine which effectively tells the European and Asian great powers to stay out of the western hemisphere.

I believe that as China gets more powerful it will do everything it can to push the United States away from its borders and ultimately out of the Asia Pacific region.

SHANE MCLEOD: Is there not a benefit for China though in the status quo as it currently stands? That the US is a major balancing power, it is a defence ally of countries like Japan, South Korea that could be potential threats to Chinese power in the region. Isn't there a benefit for China in keeping the US involved?

JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, I don't think that the Chinese is to get more powerful and even now view the United States as quite the benevolent force that you describe them to be. We have just had a controversy where the United States and the South Koreans decided that they were going to run naval exercises in the Yellow Sea to protest North Korean sinking of a South Korean ship.

This made the Chinese very upset because they view the American navy as threatening just as the United States would view a Chinese navy or a German navy or a Soviet navy on its doorstep as threatening.

So from a Chinese point of view, the best of all possible worlds would to have the Americans far away and for China, not the United States to provide the stabilising factor in the region.

SHANE MCLEOD: But if you take say the United States out of Japan then you have a country that has a constitution imposed by the US after World War II limiting its defence build up, its defence capability. Wouldn't a country like Japan for example, in a region without the United States there ramp up its own capabilities?

It wouldn't take much for Japan to become a nuclear power for example.

JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I think that is true but if you look at the balance of power over time between China and Japan, the gap which is now quite large is going to increase significantly, in large part for demographic reasons.

Japan has the most rapidly aging population in the world. It is going to get smaller and weaker over time.

China is going to get more powerful over time. In an ideal situation from China's point of view is one where the power gap between it and Japan is large and China has the ability to dominate Japan because that is the best way to ensure your security in a dangerous world.

SHANE MCLEOD: Does this happen by force or could China become the regional power through soft power, through coercion by showing itself to be the leader in the region? Would it be such a problem for countries like Japan, Korea, Vietnam, to look to China as the natural power in the region?

JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I think one can make an argument that China, if it continues to grow at the spectacular pace that it has been growing at over the past 30 years for the next 30 years then it will become so big and so powerful that it won't have to even countenance using force to dominate the region.

It will just be so powerful that countries like South Korea and Japan will have no choice but to in effect dance to China's tune. But there is a serious possibility along the way of conflict.

If you read the Australian White Paper from last year, it is quite clear from that White Paper that the Australian Government is nervous about the possibility and I want to underline the word possibility of conflict between China and other powers in the region as China continues to rise.

SHANE MCLEOD: How do you see Australia's role evolving in the region alongside a powerful China and what about the relationship with Australia's traditional allies, the United States?

JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, I think that as China continues to rise that a balancing coalition will form in this region. It will be aimed at containing China much the way we had balancing coalitions in Europe and Asia during the Cold War.

SHANE MCLEOD: They could never say that though could they?

JOHN MEARSHEIMER: No, no it is very hard to say that but I think behind closed doors that is how people are talking and I think that you see all sorts of evidence that the balancing coalition is beginning to form.

If you look at the close relations that now exist between India and the United States, if you look at relations between Vietnam and the United States, Singapore's approach to dealing with the United States these days.

It is just all sorts of evidence that countries in the region are worried about China as is the United States and this will cause them to eventually come together and form a balancing coalition and I would be shocked if Australia is not part of that balancing coalition as it was part of the balancing coalition against Japan in the 1940s.

SHANE MCLEOD: You made reference to it but the economic ties, will they have a calming effect do you think? If countries in this region like Australia are so strongly tied to China economically, will that offset the potential tensions in the strategic relationship?

JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, first of all it is possible that those economic ties could cause trouble. If you had a serious recession or a depression, it could be the case that those ties didn't work to cause peace - they in fact work to cause conflict between the relevant powers. So economic ties don't always produce peaceful outcomes.

But let's assume that they do. The historical record shows very clearly that before World War I, you had economic ties in Europe that should have produced peace yet you had World War I so I don't think it is impossible that in a world where you have a great deal of economic interdependence and where all the players are doing quite well economically, to still have a conflict between the opposing powers and that is a large part because when push comes to shove, politics dominates economics.

SHANE MCLEOD: That is Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago and there will be a longer version of that interview available on our website later today.

ABC Radio National/The World Today/02.08.10

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2970768.htm