I so do regret that socially sanctioned dueling is no longer considered a viable way of settling disputes. It was certainly more civilized than how we handle matters of honor these days. Politics in this country could certainly benefit for reinstating this practice.
Coincidentally, DBH has written a lighthearted essay on the same topic named A Modest Proposal. Since the essay was published on a site with which he is no longer associated, I will refrain from linking to it directly, but you can easily find it. I am almost 100% sure that the essay was either reposted or at least referenced here, but for some reason I couldn't find it.
A heartbreaking tale. You could have sweetened it by telling us that your ancestor's opponent had met the same end as his famous namesake, but I guess that such a noble reckoning was way out of fashion by then. At least we can find solace in the fact that Graysteil's descendants had much better luck in love.
A completely unrelated question: I was just reading your essay "Metaphysics after Nicea", and it made me wonder if you still hold to your characterization of Neoplatonic metaphysics (henology) as a form of onto-theology?
It seems very clear to me that Plotinus and Proclus never considered the One to be present discretely at the top of an overarching hierarchy of hypostases. Otherwise, there wouldn't really be any point to distinguishing the henological from the merely ontological (of course ontology is not a univocal term, and could just as well be used to describe henology under a different context—a context that does not reduce the referent of "being" to a particular, intelligible object).
Who said anything about onto-theology? To say that the logic of Plotinus's system (not Proclus's) is henological rather than ontological does not mean that he thought of the One as an entity in a hierarchy. It means only that the logic is not expressed in terms of an ontology, but primarily in terms of the unity of being. (That is, being as such is the not the primary term).
You didn't say that the mere fact of it being henological makes it onto-theological, but you did make that identification for other reasons. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you. I'm thinking of this in particular:
"In this way, he is revealed as at once superior summo meo and interior intimo meo: not merely the supreme being set atop the summit of beings, but the one who is transcendently present in all beings, the ever more inward act within each finite act."
Weren't you drawing a contrast here between what you take to be Plotinus' thought (and that of almost every other metaphysician before Nicea) and Nicene ontology?
David, I would be interested in a piece of writing that chronicles your evolution from a writer for that journal whose name you can't remember into the person you are now. Have your views evolved? Or did that journal devolve? Was its nature slowly revealed to you? Or suddenly? I'd love to hear a blow-by-blow (if you will pardon the expression) account that would not only explain this movement, but perhaps use it as an occasion for a wider social commentary?
My views haven't altered, but in those days I felt free to be flippant about everything. Now I know it's not possible to do so safely, because someone out there will try to conscript anything one writes into a political project. As for the journal, however, it definitely devolved. Neuhaus was a conservative, but wouldn't have tolerated the far-right sympathies that became the journal's continuous subtext.
Interesting. May I ask another question? Would you say your worldview (I'd use the word weltanschaung but I don't know how to spell it) has evoloved/changed/altered much since you wrote The Beauty of the Infinite? If so, how? Or would you maybe say deepened? Broadened? Or perhaps you see implications of views you have always held which you previously did not see?
I so do regret that socially sanctioned dueling is no longer considered a viable way of settling disputes. It was certainly more civilized than how we handle matters of honor these days. Politics in this country could certainly benefit for reinstating this practice.
Coincidentally, DBH has written a lighthearted essay on the same topic named A Modest Proposal. Since the essay was published on a site with which he is no longer associated, I will refrain from linking to it directly, but you can easily find it. I am almost 100% sure that the essay was either reposted or at least referenced here, but for some reason I couldn't find it.
A Modest Proposal can also be found in The Dream-Child's Progress, if I recall correctly
A heartbreaking tale. You could have sweetened it by telling us that your ancestor's opponent had met the same end as his famous namesake, but I guess that such a noble reckoning was way out of fashion by then. At least we can find solace in the fact that Graysteil's descendants had much better luck in love.
Who knows what became of Max? I would have to go prowl through some archive or other in New Orleans to find out.
A completely unrelated question: I was just reading your essay "Metaphysics after Nicea", and it made me wonder if you still hold to your characterization of Neoplatonic metaphysics (henology) as a form of onto-theology?
It seems very clear to me that Plotinus and Proclus never considered the One to be present discretely at the top of an overarching hierarchy of hypostases. Otherwise, there wouldn't really be any point to distinguishing the henological from the merely ontological (of course ontology is not a univocal term, and could just as well be used to describe henology under a different context—a context that does not reduce the referent of "being" to a particular, intelligible object).
Who said anything about onto-theology? To say that the logic of Plotinus's system (not Proclus's) is henological rather than ontological does not mean that he thought of the One as an entity in a hierarchy. It means only that the logic is not expressed in terms of an ontology, but primarily in terms of the unity of being. (That is, being as such is the not the primary term).
You didn't say that the mere fact of it being henological makes it onto-theological, but you did make that identification for other reasons. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you. I'm thinking of this in particular:
"In this way, he is revealed as at once superior summo meo and interior intimo meo: not merely the supreme being set atop the summit of beings, but the one who is transcendently present in all beings, the ever more inward act within each finite act."
Weren't you drawing a contrast here between what you take to be Plotinus' thought (and that of almost every other metaphysician before Nicea) and Nicene ontology?
No, I wasn’t.
Okay, then. I probably just need to read it more carefully.
I’m sure I could have been clearer.
David, I would be interested in a piece of writing that chronicles your evolution from a writer for that journal whose name you can't remember into the person you are now. Have your views evolved? Or did that journal devolve? Was its nature slowly revealed to you? Or suddenly? I'd love to hear a blow-by-blow (if you will pardon the expression) account that would not only explain this movement, but perhaps use it as an occasion for a wider social commentary?
My views haven't altered, but in those days I felt free to be flippant about everything. Now I know it's not possible to do so safely, because someone out there will try to conscript anything one writes into a political project. As for the journal, however, it definitely devolved. Neuhaus was a conservative, but wouldn't have tolerated the far-right sympathies that became the journal's continuous subtext.
Interesting. May I ask another question? Would you say your worldview (I'd use the word weltanschaung but I don't know how to spell it) has evoloved/changed/altered much since you wrote The Beauty of the Infinite? If so, how? Or would you maybe say deepened? Broadened? Or perhaps you see implications of views you have always held which you previously did not see?
Somehow a comment thread seems an inadequate forum for such a discussion.
I'm even more metaphysically monist and religiously pluralist than I was when I wrote it.
That's why I am requesting a longer piece from you, if I may be so bold. I think it's a fruitful area for examination.
Not sure of that. I think I may already have exhausted all the pertinent information.
I never thought I would hear that from you, but you know best.