Dialogue(s): theology-of-plato Chapters: book02;chap02;chap03 Attendees: Pierre, Barbara, Eldar, Julia, Regina
Pierre leads the Parmenides study group through the end of Book2/Chapter 2, and the beginning (1st para) of Book2/Chapter 3, of Proclus' Theology of Plato(*).
Book 2, Chapter 2
principle of beings / principles incorruptible and incorporeal
The One is prior to Essence (Ousia)
The One does not have Ousia in it.
Ousia cannot participate of the One, either
Participation vs Cause:
Sec 23: “Besides, every thing which is participated proceeds from another more excellent cause; since that which is imparticipable is better than that which is participable.” (!)
PG: Book 1, Chapter 3 has a very nice summary of the whole philosophy of Plato. (2nd para: “The divine narration however, of Plato alone..”)
PG suggests Eldar, Julie, then Regina give a talk on Book 1, Chapter 3, and grade Proclus on his understanding/review of Plato.
34:00 Pierre begins to draw on the board, and appears to want to start talking about something, but Regina interrups this line with a question about parsing and understanding a sentence that we'd read earlier (in what she calls 'paragraph 6' (Section 21, lines 10-13, if you have the Prometheus Trust margin-numbered version): “It is evident, indeed, that essence is not the same as the one. For it is not one and the same to say one, and that essence is one; but the former is not yet a sentence, and the latter is.”
It takes about 7 minutes to get Pierre off his earlier track and over to the question Regina has stopped him with.
41:00 resume with answering Regina's question
[IMHO, it would be better if Taylor's translation included adding single quotes around the two predicates, e.g.: “For it is not the same to say, 'One' and 'Essence is One'; but the former is not yet a sentence, and the latter is.”, or, clearer to English readers but more loosely translated: “For these are not equal: A) To say, 'One' and B) to say, 'Essence is One'. The former is not yet a sentence, and the latter is.” and/or, if someone around the table had made these changes for her. -JS]
This discussion gets dragged out to 1:02:45. (Apparently the thing Pierre had started writing and wanted to talk about is lost.)
1:03:00 Book2 Chapter 3.
the 'third argument'
(also a reference to Proposition 148 of Proclus' Elements of Theology)
ways of A and B to relate: either: i - in communion or ii - the latter participating in the prior
PG: in the case of i, a third thing is not necessarily present. [I disagree, and do not think that that is what Proclus is doing here, either. -JS]