Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 95

18 May 2026

Brief Notes on Various Topics – 95

1.  Some Notes on the Periphyseon

I’ve been reading the Periphyseon: The Divisions of Nature by Johannes Scotus Eriugena, translated by I. P. Sheldon Williams.  I find it inspiring.  Eriugena lived about 810-877.  He was an Irish monk who ended up at the court of Charles the Bald, Emperor of the Carolingian Empire and grandson of Charlemagne.  The Periphyseon is a masterpiece in philosophy and theology that is heavily influenced by Platonism.

Eriugena translated from Greek to Latin the Mystical Theology, a short work, about five or six pages long.  Mystical Theology is one of several works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite.  This short treatise is foundational for Christian Mysticism both in the Latin West and the Orthodox East, its influence being extensive to the present day.  I’ve covered this before, but the dating of Dionysius and his works is highly controversial.  I won’t go into the details of these disputes, but for our purposes it is sufficient to know that Mystical Theology was written centuries before Eriugena and at the time of Eriugena there were no disputes about its authenticity or dating.

By bringing the Mystical Theology to the Latin West Eriugena was instrumental in transmitting the perspective of Mystical Platonism because the structure of both Mystical Theology and the Periphyseon are thoroughly Platonic.  For example, the emanationist structure of the hypostases is found in all these philosophers.  And the vision of a return to the ultimate, to the One, to God, is seen as the purpose of human life and it is what constitutes the task of the philosopher.

1.1  In the ‘Introduction’ to the Periphyseon Eriugena is quoted as writing, “no one enters  into heaven except through philosophy.”  This quote is not from the Periphyseon; rather it is from another of Eriugena’s works, a commentary on The Wedding of Philology and Mercury by Martianus Capella (who flourished in the early 400’s, or fifth century).  Unfortunately I have not read this work; it sounds very interesting.  It had a big impact on the Late Roman Empire and was widely read.  It is an elaborate allegory and is described as having weird or bizarre metaphors.  Eriugena knew the work well enough to write a commentary on it, which points to Eriugena’s wide reading and study.

1.2  But I want to return to the quote “no one enters into heaven except through philosophy.”  What I find in this quote is that Eriugena retains the view that philosophy is salvific.  And what Eriugena means by ‘philosophy’ is Platonism.

1.2.1  To give an idea of how thoroughly Eriugena has absorbed the Platonic tradition, here is a quote from the Periphyseon:

“For as there is nothing that is good by its nature, except (the divine nature) itself, but everything which is said to be good is so by participation in the One Supreme Good, so everything which is said to exist exists not in itself but by participation in the Nature which truly exists.”  (Page 40)

I see a quote like this as embedded in the Platonist tradition, particularly in Plotinus.

1.2.2  I think that the way Eriugena views philosophy as salvific is also to be found in the Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius.  It is Lady Philosophy who guides Boethius in his hour of need to a deeper understanding of his situation and how to transcend it.

1.2.3  What I think this suggests is that there is an early period of Christian philosophy that was prior to the separation of philosophy and theology in the Christian tradition.  What I pick up from works like the Consolation and Periphyseon is that there is an early period where Christianity was more porous, more open to, and had a less guarded attitude towards, Greek and Roman philosophy.  This is complicated because I think that there were definitely early Christian theologians who wanted to separate theology and philosophy.  But what Boethius and Eriugena suggest is that this view was not a done deal at the time, and that there were others who didn’t feel conflicted when they saw Philosophy, and Platonism in particular, as salvific; I mean that they didn’t see that being Christian and regarding philosophy as salvific as somehow undermining their Christian commitments.

I think that is difficult for us to grasp because for many centuries that is what Christianity has taught.  I mean that Christianity has taught that Philosophy is deficient, that Philosophy cannot, therefore, be salvific.  I’m not sure exactly when the shift occurred, but I doubt it was very long after Eriugena.  More study is necessary.

1.3  It is the salvific nature of Platonism that I am primarily referring to when I say that Platonism more closely resembles Dharma traditions than what philosophy has become in the modern period in the West.  The West has lost (abandoned?) the idea that philosophy has a purpose, a transcendental purpose, and without that purpose philosophy loses its center and wanders around in various analytical endeavors. 

Platonism offers the possibility of returning to a salvific understanding of philosophy, a return to transcendence and wisdom.

2.  The Spirituality of the Text

I was talking the other day, on the phone, with a friend who, like me, has a fondness for Plotinus.  One of the things we talked about was experiencing a kind of spiritual energy flowing from the Enneads when reading it.  It feels like a transmission of higher energy or higher wisdom.  It’s not easy to describe, but it’s there; kind of like the way it is difficult to describe how a piece of music has impacted one’s life.  We also talked about how this happens even though both of us read translations of Plotinus.  I think this indicates that there is a source that is prior to language which is being communicated through language in the writings of Plotinus.

3.  Paul Brunton Wanders the World

I was listening to a talk about Paul Brunton the other day.  The talk began with a brief biography.  One thing that struck me is that Brunton (1898 to 1981) had to do a lot of traveling to meet teachers from various traditions.  This included sojourns to India, Egypt, and other locations.  It was quite a journey.

This contrasts with our experience today where all the material that Brunton sought out is now available online making it easily accessible.  Brunton is a good contrast because he lived a short time ago and this shows us how the situation has dramatically changed in terms of accessing texts and teachers.  Even in my own life I can recall when I was in High School going to a bookstore and finding only a single work on Buddhism, a collection of edited quotes from various sources.  That began to change in the 60’s. 

I don’t think that makes the spiritual journey easier necessarily, but it is a change in the context of spirituality at this time compared to when Brunton was making his journeys.

4.  Edward P. Butler’s New Book

Edward P. Butler has published a collection of his essays through the Prometheus Trust (for those in the U.S. Prometheus Trust books are available at kindredstarbooks (dot) com).  The book promptly sold out after its release, which I think was last month.  I’m not sure when it will be back in stock, but the Prometheus Trust is fairly good about keeping its books available to people (I once saw that Thomas Taylor’s treatise on Aristotle sold out but it was soon back in stock). 

Butler is a prominent Neo-Pagan Platonist who is steeped in the writings of Proclus in particular.  He has worked on developing a Polytheistic Metaphysics and, as I understand it, argues that Polytheism as a metaphysical stance more closely aligns with Platonism than the other interpretations often associated with the Platonic tradition.

Personally, I lean towards a monistic interpretation of Platonism, but I think it is always helpful to test one’s understanding against what others think because even if one does not change one’s mind, such testing sharpens one’s understanding and clarifies why one has adopted the interpretation one has adopted.

5.  On Ritual

I have a fondness for ceremony and ritual.  When I was studying Buddhism one of the things I liked about Buddhism was the rich ceremonial life found in the Buddhist tradition.  Some spiritual traditions consist mostly of rituals with very little in the way of doctrine, theology, or philosophy; I am thinking in particular of the Shinto tradition.

At the same time, I have an aversion to theurgy; in particular the way theurgy was injected into Late Classical Platonism.  To my mind, theurgy weakened and undermined Platonism and continues to do so; I say this because from my perspective, theurgy undermines the ethics of Platonism as well as the metaphysics of Platonism.  I have posted about this before so I won’t repeat the sources of my aversion.

For those of us who think that ritual and ceremony can serve a useful function in spiritual traditions, and therefore a useful function in Platonism, I suggest that we need to break free from the virtual monopoly that theurgy has held on ritual in the Platonic tradition and explore other ritual modalities that might prove more useful and more aligned to Platonism as we see it.

A simple example is ritual veneration of Platonist Ancestors.  This has precedence in Platonic history and is mentioned in Porphyry’s The Life of Plotinus.  The ceremony consists of a shared vegetarian meal on the day dedicated to Plato and Socrates.  After the meal those present would share an essay, or an insight, related to Platonism.  We don’t have all the details of how this was done, exactly, at the home (ashram) of Plotinus, but we have the general outline.

I’m going to offer another example of a ritual that might find a home in the Platonic tradition if people find it inspiring enough.  I read about this ceremony many years ago in a book about Daoism, but I can’t recall which one (possible the book by Maspero, or perhaps John Blofeld).  I’m recalling the general outlines of the ceremony rather than the details; I’m not claiming that what is written below is a ‘Daoist Ritual’.  I’m using it because both Daoism and Platonism are emanationist traditions and the ritual emphasizes that understanding.

The ceremony begins in a darkened room, which means the curtains might be drawn and that the lighting should be muted. 

When the ceremony begins someone lights a large white candle on a table (note: today the candle might be an electric candle in which case the candle would be turned on).

Then the flame of the large white candle is used to light three candles that form a circle, or a triangle, around the central candle, or an arc in front of the central candle.  These three candles can be different colors and they should be smaller than the central candle.  From these three candles further candles are lit at various distances from the three candles; these are smaller still (they could be birthday cake size) and they are scattered throughout the room.  (If you are using electric candles all that is necessary is to walk from one candle to the next one and turn the candle on.)

Following some silence, the process is reversed until only the large white central candle remains lit.  The large central candle is extinguished and there is a period of silence as the room returns to muted darkness.  The ceremony could close by turning on the house lights and having a shared meal.

This is very simple.  It is also flexible.  In the Daoist ceremony, passages from the Dao De Ching that focus on emanation are chanted.  Something similar could be done in Platonism by reading topically relevant passages from the Dialogues or the Enneads.  And a simple chant, like ‘Return to the One’ could be effective.

Although I think this ceremony could be done at any time during the year, I also think it would be helpful to time, to align, the ceremony to one of the solar stations; personally I think the Spring Equinox is a good candidate, but other solar stations could also be used, and it would be possible to have this ceremony on more than one of the solar stations.  I make this suggestion because the sun is a major symbol in the Platonic tradition that is rich in meaning and it is, I think, helpful to connect with that symbolism. 

This is a simple ritual which is a kind of ceremonial metaphor for the process of emanation and its connection to the philosophical ascent.  It’s not difficult to access.  It’s not esoteric.  It’s a celebration of the One that gives rise to all things.

6.  Desert Wind

It has been very windy in the desert valley where I live.  The valley is surrounded by mountains, but there are two breaks in the mountain ranges and if the wind is coming from just the right direction it comes through and cools the heat of the desert valley. 

In a way spiritual experiences resemble a great wind.  Often spiritual experiences undermine how we previously viewed the world.  And this kind of experience isn’t like changing one’s mind about who is the best composer or who one should vote for.  A spiritual experience can be much more fundamental, impacting what we think the nature of existence is and what the purpose of human life is.

Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 64

15 September 2025

Brief Notes on Various Topics – 64

1.  Gaps in the History of Platonism

Two weeks ago, I posted about how I asked some AI sites for a list of what those sites considered are the most significant books in Metaphysics in Western Philosophy.  (This was Brief Notes on Various Topics – 62, dated 1 September 2025, Item 4.)  I have continued with investigating this focus this past week by downloading a few lists of essential reading in Western Philosophy that were compiled by Youtube Presenters who have channels focused on philosophy; I confined the downloads to people who have academic qualifications.

The reading lists mimicked what I found in AI; mainly, that there is a very long gap after Aristotle who is followed by early modern philosophers such as Descartes, Spinoza, and Hume.  What I would like to do here is to highlight two books from this timegap that I think are significant in the history of Platonism, and for philosophy in general, but do not appear in lists of significant philosophical literature when doing online searches of various types.

The first book to consider is The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius.  Boethius was born about 480 and died in 524.  Boethius lived after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and is often considered to be the last Classical Scholar of the Roman period due to his scholarly commitments and vast knowledge of the Classics. 

The Consolation was written when Boethius was imprisoned, charged with treason in a conspiracy that was hatched against Boethius by powerful forces at the court of the Ostrogothic King Theodoric. While in prison awaiting execution Boethius wrote the Consolation.

The book became a great success in the medieval period.  There are about 400 manuscript copies of the Consolation that have survived and that we can refer to, indicating the widespread circulation of this work.  It was hugely influential with images found in the book being widely used in art, and poems from the book being set to music.  For these reasons alone I consider the Consolation to be essential reading.  But there is more; the Consolation is a serious work of philosophy in the Platonic tradition.  It grapples with the nature of suffering, fate, and transcendence.  It is a book that has helped countless people down through the centuries right into the present.  The absence of the  Consolation is, to my mind, kind of embarrassing; it would seem to imply that contemporary academic philosophers are unaware of it, or haven’t read it, or both. 

For Platonists in particular who have an interest in how Platonism developed over the centuries, and how Platonism shaped Western culture, the Consolation is essential.  Even today it is widely read and talked about.   

The second book I want to highlight is the Periphyseon by Johannes Scotus Eriugena.  (I don’t think I’ve mentioned this book before on this blog.)  Eriugena lived from about 800 to 877 CE.  He was an Irishman who ended up at the Carolingian Court of Charles the Bald in about 845.  He wrote the Periphyseon in the 860’s. 

The Periphyseon is a work of Platonic Metaphysics and Theology.  But the specific heritage of Platonism that Eriugena connected with differs from that of the Classical Period of Platonist Philosophy.  His inspiration and grounding in Platonism was based on his reading of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite in which one finds such works as Mystical Theology and the Divine Names as well as works on celestial and terrestrial hierarchies.  Eriugena translated these works into Latin and in this way he became a conduit for philosophical mysticism in this period.  In contrast, Eriugena was not acquainted with Plotinus or Iamblichus or other late Classical Platonists (I suspect the availability of Plato and Aristotle was very limited; likely confined to translations by Boethius.)

I first encountered the Periphyseon (also known as The Divisions of Nature) many decades ago in the form of selected passages of the work; that was the only book available in English that I could find.  Later the University of Dublin translated the book, but their edition was very expensive and didn’t stay in print for very long.  Recently, though, a translation by I. P. Sheldon-Williams, edited by John O’Meara, has become available at a reasonable price.  Now those who are interested in the book in the English speaking world will be able to read it from cover to cover.

I have found the selections of this work that I have already read to be very inspiring.  The author frames his examination of nature, by which he means the cosmos as whole, including the transcendental, into four categories or divisions:

1.  That which creates and is not created

2.  That which creates and is created

3.  That which does not creates and is created

4.  That which neither creates nor is created

Spiritually, the idea unfolds of returning to the first category; so the purpose of the work is salvific. 

These are two examples of books that ‘fill in the gap’ that is present in most overviews of Western Philosophy at this time.  There are others, but for me these two are both significant and worthy of a Platonist’s time and attention.  Perhaps becoming aware of this gap in suggested reading material in the context of Western Metaphysics will inspire me to develop a reading list of my own.

2.  The Sentences of Porphyry: Sentence 10

We do not understand similarly in all things, but in a manner adapted to the essence of each.  For intellectual objects we understand intellectually; but those that pertain to soul rationally.  We understand plants spermatically; but bodies idolically (i.e. as images); and that which is above all these, super-intellectually and super-essentially.  (Thomas Taylor)

We do not think in the same manner in all things, but in a manner consonant with the essence of each.  In intellect, for example, we think intellectually; in soul, logically; in plants, seminally; in bodies, phantasmically; and in what transcends these, inconceivably and superessentially.  (Thomas Davidson)

Thought is not the same everywhere; it differs according to the nature of every being.  In intelligence, it is intellectual; in the soul it is rational; in the plant it is seminal; last, it is superior to intelligence and existence in the principle that surpasses all these [that is, the One – note by the translator].  (Kenneth Guthrie)

Everything exists in everything, but in a way that corresponds to the nature of each entity: in the mind - noetically, in the soul – rationally, in plants – through seeds, in bodies – in the form of images, and in the transcendent – unknown and beyond being. (Isaak Samarskyi)

2.1  Here Porphyry is presenting his view of how different types of things differ in their mode of understanding.  Deciphering this sentence feels complex because at times Porphyry seems to be referring to different types of biological things, such as plants as opposed to those biological things that have a mind. 

2.2  Porphyry seems to be saying that different things have different modes of thought, and I take thought as interacting with the material world.  But again, there is a source of confusion in that mind interacts noetically, which refers to the second level of existence, but the soul interacts rationally and the question that arises for me is if that aspect of reason is also noetic or does it refer to the material world. 

2.3  Maybe if we lay out the items referred to in a different way it might be helpful:

mind                          nous

soul                            reason

plants                         seeds

bodies                        images

transcendent             unknown and beyond being

Looked at in this way Porphyry is describing the path of ascent that goes through several means of understanding, ending in the transcendence of those modes in the One that is beyond being.  Looking at these categories and their interactions, I tend to see their relationships in this way:

plants                         seeds

bodies                        images

mind                          noetic differentiation

soul                             transcendence

2.3.1    I’m not exactly sure what Porphyry means by suggesting that the mode plants use to interact with the world are seeds.  But tentatively, the seeds of plants are responsive to things like temperature, rain, dry spells, and many other conditions.  It is through this interaction that the seed of a plant knows when to sprout.

2.3.2    Bodies interact with existence through images.  (I wonder if this includes dreams for Porphyry?)  In Platonism material images are often thought of as imitations; such as paintings being imitations of actual things.  Perhaps Porphyry is thinking of that kind of relationship.

2.3.3    The previous two types of things and their modes are materially bound.  In this third type of thing, mind, we move to the noetic.  Mind has the function of making differentiations and the source of these differentiations is nous.  (Incorrect differentiations are not found in nous; they are due to the diminished capacity of materially embodied minds to access noetic realities outside of contemplation.)  As an aside, discriminations by the mind that discriminate between that which is eternal from that which is ephemeral is the appearance of wisdom.

2.3.4    I understand the soul to be the presence of eternity in the ephemeral individual; this seems to differ from Porphyry’s schema a bit.  Porphyry links the soul with reason, but I tend to see reason as a function of mind, specifically as a tool, or set of tools, for noetic discrimination.  In a sense you could say that reason is noetic discrimination which is why the principles of reason transcend material instantiations.

3.  I listened to a short Youtube where two philosophers were talking about how philosophy should not be taught to young people because young people tend to like arguing too much.  They suggested that philosophy should have a kind of age requirement of about 30 years old. 

Looking back on my own philosophical studies I can understand what they mean.  I think it is easy for younger people to misinterpret arguments or views, to simplify discussions that are inherently complex. 

On the other hand, it seems to be the case that a lot of older philosophers are not exactly free of these tendencies.  Personally, I think what is needed is a good teacher who can show that there is more to philosophy than crafting arguments or unpacking the meaning of a word or phrase.  There are also ethical restraints, purifications that shape one’s life in the world, how that life manifests; and that is just one example.  This embeds philosophy into the life of the practitioner so that insights, as opposed to arguments, are tested in the realm of experience.

4.  A Manner of Speaking

Words are slippery things.  I mean that words are subject to shifting usages, definitional drift, and becoming and begoning as older words vanish and newer words emerge.  This applies to the context of Philosophy as much as any other area of life.

And I have been thinking about how this applies to contemporary Platonism.  Such a focus has started me thinking that contemporary Platonism needs to develop and cultivate its own vocabulary and terms.  I say this because key terms of academic Platonism are recent inventions that have become very widespread and in important ways misrepresent the Platonic tradition.  The obvious example is the word ‘Neoplatonism’ which I have discussed several times on this blog.  But there are others as well.  And there are terms, such as ‘reason’, that have a range of meanings in Classical Platonism that is absent from contemporary usages of that word and I think this leads to misreadings of works from the Classical Platonist period.

As Platonism re-emerges from its eclipse under modernity, I think it will be natural for Platonists to reconnect with key words and phrases from the Platonic tradition with the idea of understanding what these words mean in the context of Classical Platonism without having a thick layer of modernist assumptions making it difficult to access what is being said.  I have already seen a few contemporary Platonists spontaneously move in that direction.

In short, I think Platonism needs to discover a distinctly Platonic manner of speaking, a manner of speaking that is more congenial to its transcendental insights than what we currently have.