Macrocosm/Microcosm

[Clinias]

Metaphysics, the "after-physics", is about the laws and principles that undergird reality. It is that stuff that operate the cosmos. It is called the Laws of Nature or the Natural Law. The Natural Law is metaphysics.

To understand the beginning of metaphysics is to understand the principle of Macrocosm/microcosm which is a pretty fundamental element of the cosmos. Macrocosm/microcosm is not only a law of nature but it is the system inherent in nature as well.

Socrates and Plato both use this recurring phrase "according to nature" (kata physin).

This article Macrocosm Microcosm in Doric Thought lays out the groundwork and reconstitution of the Natural Law which was discovered by the Dorians which labelled it "The Logos".

This article lays the basis of the reconstituting of real metaphysics in Western Culture.

[chaz wyman]

Metaphysics, the "after-physics", is about the laws and principles that undergird reality. It is that stuff that operate the cosmos. It is called the Laws of Nature or the Natural Law. The Natural Law is metaphysics.

Meta is usually translated beyond or beside. Further, science is most often not described in these terms but understood in contradistinction to metaphysics. For example the metaphysical proposition of Plato's Theory of Forms is no science in any sense.

To understand the beginning of metaphysics is to understand the principle of Macrocosm/microcosm which is a pretty fundamental element of the cosmos. Macrocosm/microcosm is not only a law of nature but it is the system inherent in nature as well.

Metaphysics does not have to be 'fundemental'. Most metaphysical systems are nothing of the kind. They might pretend to be, though.

Socrates and Plato both use this recurring phrase "according to nature" (kata physin).

Socrates did not write anything down. Plato is the mouthpiece of Socrates and the word 'both" is meaningless in your assertion

This article Macrocosm Microcosm in Doric Thought lays out the groundwork and reconstitution of the Natural Law which was discovered by the Dorians which labelled it "The Logos".

This article lays the basis of the reconstituting of real metaphysics in Western Culture.

Your last sentence is ridiculous.

Even the article shows the contrary.

This was far from a universal principle, as at the same time there was also the opposite notion of the SUBLUNARY SPHERE demanded that the heavens (aether) work to different principles to the realm of the earth beneath the moon. Plato himself helped develop this notion, that pertained until Newton.

The closest scientific notion to this is uniformitarianism. So that the physical laws apply evenly across the universe. But that is not to say that you can understand the macrocosm by examining the microcosm. Physical laws change at extremes of temperature, pressure and size. The idea of micro-macro is simply not helpful.

[Thundril]

A brief observation to start:

We can see the rule of one if we look exclusively for it; eg how many nuclei are there in an atom.
we can see the tripartite ('command') structure if we look for that; cause, effect, and medium translating between.
And we can see all sorts of other numerical arrangements if we look for them. Thre quarks in a proton or neutron. Various numbers of protons and neutrons in a neucleus. Billions of neurons make up a single brain, which carries out very many different functions utilising a few different sorts of cells.
In sum, the article gives (IMO) an interesting insight into the working of the classical Greek mind, although I wouldn't know personally how reliable an insight it is.) But one can recognise, and even admire, the consistency and reasonableness of a particular mind-set, without necessarily agreeing with it. But because the writer simply describes this world-view without challenging and testing it, the reader is left with the distinct impression that the writer is recommending the Doric world-view uncritically.
And when the writer get onto the subject of the Holy Trinity, and makes highly questionable assumptions such as that the 'father' must be the 'head' of the family, I see a political/religious agenda, and I am at least unconvinced by the over-simplifications, and in places actually repelled by the crudity of the application.

[chaz wyman]

A brief observation to start:

We can see the rule of one if we look exclusively for it; eg how many nuclei are there in an atom.
we can see the tripartite ('command') structure if we look for that; cause, effect, and medium translating between.
And we can see all sorts of other numerical arrangements if we look for them. Thre quarks in a proton or neutron. Various numbers of protons and neutrons in a neucleus. Billions of neurons make up a single brain, which carries out very many different functions utilising a few different sorts of cells.

How is this relevant to the article?

In sum, the article gives (IMO) an interesting insight into the working of the classical Greek mind, although I wouldn't know personally how reliable an insight it is.) But one can recognise, and even admire, the consistency and reasonableness of a particular mind-set, without necessarily agreeing with it. But because the writer simply describes this world-view without challenging and testing it, the reader is left with the distinct impression that the writer is recommending the Doric world-view uncritically.

- and ignoring the notion of the superlunary/ sublunary world, rather conveniently.


And when the writer get onto the subject of the Holy Trinity, and makes highly questionable assumptions such as that the 'father' must be the 'head' of the family, I see a political/religious agenda, and I am at least unconvinced by the over-simplifications, and in places actually repelled by the crudity of the application.

All this system is doing is imposing a pre-defined ideology on things to which any other number of schemes might be put.
It is also cherry picking things that look like they might fit whilst ignoring all the others.
But for your metaphysics to be shown to be wrong all it take is one example where it does not apply.

If he is recommending this system as a means by which we can understand the universe then he has been proved wrong by history.
You can attribute ANY number to the idea of family from 1 - 100. What is happening is the imposition of the trinity - a concept, btw, which is NOT Christian, but Pagan.
It seems to have originated from India and borrowed by Plato's tripartite soul. It was a common feature of Celtic art, and was imposed on early Christianity in an act of assimilation like Xmas.

A scholar of some repute once said;" The Greeks could believe 12 different things before breakfast."
The 'that which is below is as above." is a direct contradiction of the idea of superlunary physics differs from the sublunary world.

[Thundril]

A brief observation to start:

We can see the rule of one if we look exclusively for it; eg how many nuclei are there in an atom.
we can see the tripartite ('command') structure if we look for that; cause, effect, and medium translating between.
And we can see all sorts of other numerical arrangements if we look for them. Thre quarks in a proton or neutron. Various numbers of protons and neutrons in a neucleus. Billions of neurons make up a single brain, which carries out very many different functions utilising a few different sorts of cells.

How is this relevant to the article?

Humans are pattern-seeking creatures. The article obsesses about certain patterns that can be observed. I am merely demonstrating that other, equally important structures can be observed which do not fit the rule-of-one or the tripartite-structure patterns.

[chaz wyman]

A brief observation to start:

We can see the rule of one if we look exclusively for it; eg how many nuclei are there in an atom.
we can see the tripartite ('command') structure if we look for that; cause, effect, and medium translating between.
And we can see all sorts of other numerical arrangements if we look for them. Thre quarks in a proton or neutron. Various numbers of protons and neutrons in a neucleus. Billions of neurons make up a single brain, which carries out very many different functions utilising a few different sorts of cells.

How is this relevant to the article?

Humans are pattern-seeking creatures. The article obsesses about certain patterns that can be observed. I am merely demonstrating that other, equally important structures can be observed which do not fit the rule-of-one or the tripartite-structure patterns.

The article is about the Doric conception of the world. They knew nothing of quarks and cells

[Thundril]

The article is about the Doric conception of the world. They knew nothing of quarks and cells

Quite.
As i said in my first response: it seems to start as an interesting look at the Doric world-view, but then ISTM the writer comends this world-view, uncritically, as a valid world-view for today. And today, as you point out, we know other things about how the world works.
I don't see that you and I are disagreeing about anything in this matter.

[chaz wyman]

The article is about the Doric conception of the world. They knew nothing of quarks and cells

Quite.
As i said in my first response: it seems to start as an interesting look at the Doric world-view, but then ISTM the writer comends this world-view, uncritically, as a valid world-view for today. And today, as you point out, we know other things about how the world works.
I don't see that you and I are disagreeing about anything in this matter.

Okay.

I wonder what happened to Clinias - a hit and run man?

[Clinias]

I did not disappear. I posted on Apr 20, and it took to June to get any response to it. I'm glad someone has looked at it.

Macrocosm/Microcosm is not uniformitarianism. I would think that Einstein's Theory of Relativity demolished that. Each physical system is different across the board.

But Metaphysics, being meta-physical, are the same across the board. Einstein's Theory of Relativity does NOT apply to metaphysics. The Natural Law is the same where ever one goes in the Universe.

And this goes to the dismissal of the Trinity in the article as some sort of "political/religious agenda". The Natural Law goes for ALL things, from the God on down.

Yes, the article is simple and to you crude. Truth is both simple and complex. It has not mumbo-jumbo academicese to it.

This article is built on several bases. First it is Classical Studies. So it is about reconstituting Classical thought. Doric Thought was simple to the extreme; that of capturing an essence. Second, it is Philosophy. Philosophy being "the Love of Wisdom" and wisdom is ensconced in proverbs and maxims. It is very simple. Third, the article is written for all ages. Mathematics is very simple and crude. 2+2=4. Simple and easy. Even the Pythagorean equation is simple along with Einstien's E=mc(2).

Philosophy is not Hegelian and Kantian elaborate meanderings that as of to date no one can really figure it out. There is no need to "decipher" what I wrote. It is is in plain, understandable English. The Trinity is as well, very understandable. In the second part, I hope you read the second part, Plato is shown to have believed in a trinitarian godhead of Nous, Demiurge, and world soul. This was part of the Hellenistic culture that formed Christianity. This Platonic formula laid the concept and groundwork for the acceptance and revelation of the Trinity. How did Plato get there? I showed you in the paper. This is why the Spartans held fast to their tripartite government, a republic, because it was "according to nature". This "according to nature" was very, very, very important to them. This "according to nature" is what is meant by Philosophy---the original meaning of philosophy!

This paper also undermines the Socianist movement in the so-called Enligthenment on purpose. The natural law in the Enlightenment was considered "atomism" which undercut the Christian Trinity. This faulty premise created the Socianist movement, the Quakers and others. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson were Socianists. Also, this influenced Freemasonry. The erroneous idea of atomism lead greater fuel to the acceptance of democracy and undercut the Old Order of Monarchy, Aristocracy and commons.

To dismiss this article as "political/religious" posturing is faulty, since many thinkers did bring about many innovations in Western thought to expressly bring about changes and they used this, like atomism, like weapons to tear Christendom apart!

The natural law is the natural law and NO human can change that. You may be flustered, you may rail against it, you may condemn it, but you can't change it, you can't escape it. Truth is a Unitary whole! What this article proves is the unitary whole of Truth, religious and political. Christendom had this! This article proves and upholds Christendom. That is the third reason of this article.

[Clinias]

I don't think you guys responding here have read the second part of the article! The second part was linked, but I don't think any of you read it. Here is the link to the second part: MacrocosmMicrocosm in Doric Thought Part II.

What this simple law explains is the unity of divine truth and physical truth. The Unity is the Law of Nature, or Natural Law.

[Clinias]

As to the charge:

"But because the writer simply describes this world-view without challenging and testing it, the reader is left with the distinct impression that the writer is recommending the Doric world-view uncritically."

Because I was "Uncritical"?

I posted numerous examples of Modern Academia and what they espoused Macrocosm/microcosm to mean. They don't have a friggin' clue! The online Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy? They don't have a clue either!

How many articles do you know of on macrocosm/microcosm tie it to the Natural Law? How many tie "As above, so below" to the Natural Order? NONE.

Being critical?

If I write a disertation on 2+2=4, how can I criticize that? Or how about "Does the Sun rise in the East"? No, it doesn't! That is just stupid talk! "As above, so below" is how the world works. As the sun rises in the East, as 2+2=4, "As above, so below". You can't argue against that or you rail against Mathematics! It is just there.

Who said I have to be "critical"? I proved the thesis, I proved it by the many demonstrations in the text to natural phenomena! That is all that is necessary. I proved macrocosm/microcosm's existence and I can put in many more examples. I also proved by quotations where this existed in Doric thought.

It just amazes me how people missed this for the last 400 years in academia! And from the numerous quotations from scholarly books and from Popper himself---them guys really don't know what the hell they are talking about!