>>47509>Aristotle says the prime mover is at the rim of the cosmos, circular in motion, so that would explain the movement of the planets The Ancients distinguished between the realm of fixed stars (e.g. Zodiac) and the orbits of the seven planets ("planet" meaning "wandering star"). We can read Plato's cosmology and astrology, such as in Republic, Book X:
<they saw the ends of the chains of heaven let down from above: for this light is the belt of heaven, and holds together the circle of the universe, like the under-girders of a trireme. From these ends is extended the spindle of Necessity, on which all the revolutions turn […] The first and outermost whorl has the rim broadest, and the seven inner whorls are narrower […] The largest (of fixed stars) is spangled […] Now the whole spindle has the same motion; but, as the whole revolves in one direction, the seven inner circles move slowly in the other […] The eight together form one harmony; and round about, at equal intervals, there is another band, three in number, each sitting upon her throne: these are the Fates, daughters of NecessityNotice the terminology; "one harmony", like "universe". We further see the "three mothers", as reproduced in mythology, such as the Norse Norns, or the Gaelic Morrigan. I find that we also have the three mothers in the Bible, such as Jacob's three wives, who give birth to the 12 tribes of Israel (12 signs of the Zodiac). The three mothers are also spoken of in the earliest kabbalistic literature, such as the Sepher Yetzirah (~120 CE):
<The Foundation of all the other sounds and letters is provided by the Three Mothers, Aleph, Mem and Shin […] The Three Mothers, Aleph, Mem and Shin, are the Foundation, from them spring three Fathers, and from these have proceeded all things that are in the world.So then, this appears to be an esoteric truth. What is still interesting in Plato's account is the direction of motion he assigns to the "bands" (or "spheres"); he says that the inner seven turn one way and the fixed stars another, which is wholly reconciled with his previous comments in Statesman, regarding the Golden Age of the poets:
<There was a time when God directed the revolutions of the world, but at the completion of a certain cycle he let go; and the world, by a necessity of its nature, turned back, and went round the other way […] For the lord of moving things is alone self-moved; neither can piety allow that he goes at one time in one direction and at another time in another; or that God has given the universe opposite motions; or that there are two gods, one turning it in one direction, another in another. But the truth is, that there are two cycles of the world, and in one of them it is governed by an immediate Providence, and receives life and immortality, and in the other is let go again, and has a reverse action during infinite ages […] Such was the age of Cronos, and the age of Zeus is our own. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1738/1738-h/1738-h.htmSo then, there are two directions of time, which confer upon the universe different conditions. He sees that when God takes control of the universe, linear time reverses and so the old become young again, and the dead rise up from the grave. The idea of a cycle of ages is a perennial belief, but Plato gives a mechanism. It is said by astrologers that the zodiac operates counter-clockwise, in opposition to the time on earth, so we can then imagine a heavenly and earthly duration. Plato further sees the cause of motion as determined in the nature of the universe, but like all things, it grows old and begins to die, so God brings it back to life; Plato then imagines an eternal cycle in this way. On the origin of the universe, he gives his design in Timaeus, where he credits a superior God to the petty gods of mythology (like Brahmin to the Hindu pantheon in the Upanishads). He says that the universe is a perfect sphere, and in Phaedo, he says that the earth is in the centre of it.
>but he also says the prime mover is without parts, or dimensions!This is explored by Plato in "Parmenides" (which happens to place a character named Aristotle in it). Discussion upon the One is reminiscent of Lao Tzu's "Tao" and Heraclitus' "Logos", in that it is ungraspable. What can at least be said of the prime mover is that it must be outside of the conditions of matter (e.g. time and space), and must also be uncreated.
>Aristotle thinks the cosmos has been operating eternallyA final point on this is that in the Hermetic text Poimandres (Ch. VIII), God (Nous) is described as creating the universe as a sphere, and setting the order of matter in eternity; here we see a seeming paradox, that in the first place, disordered matter is implied as pre-existing (e.g. Chaos), and secondly, since the universe comes from eternity, the universe itself is eternal; thus it is as Plato writes most wonderfully [Timaeus, 37d]:
<Now it was the Living Thing’s [God's] nature to be eternal, but it isn’t possible to bestow eternity fully upon anything that is begotten. And so he began to think of making a moving image of eternity: at the same time as he brought order to the universe, he would make an eternal image, moving according to number, of eternity remaining in unity. This number, of course, is what we now call “time.”So then, time is an "image" of eternity (monad), established by number (dyad). This of course relates to the Book of John, which further relates to Genesis. The mystery I am elaborating on however, is that matter, as the realm of time and space, is really a reflection of the timeless and spaceless. Of course, this is unknowable by the intellect, so can be sought by Wisdom.
>since it doesn't really answer the question of what is the cause of the eternal universe. As we see, the Ancients reckoned that the universe is created, yet uncreated, so they trick themselves.
>I think my argument would be if there is a creator of the universe, He/She/it /they must be unlimited in powerWell, it is again paradoxical, since matter by its nature is uncreated (e.g. Newton), since imagining a subtraction of energy from the cosmos is impossible, so similarly, an addition would be impossible, unless it was by an original energy source, but that would make this being material itself, simply transferring its essence into an enclosed space (e.g. a sphere). As I thus recount, the Poimandres presupposes Chaos before Order, with orderliness being an intention upon matter, not its manifestation. The same is effectively recounted in Genesis, that "the earth was without form" before Light. Power in the deity also appears limited, since Nature has Laws which cannot be broken, and so the deity is obedient to his own creation (this is thematically dealt with in Plato's "Euthyphro"). The question then arises, can God create a thing he cannot lift? Epicurus decides that an all-powerful and all-good God is impossible, yet still pertains to a belief in limited and finite Daimons.
>they can only be some kind of disembodied mind.This is an even stranger assertion, since how can a mind create anything except what is mental? For this reason, we can only regard matter as a mode of mind. Thus, there are fixed, eternal truths, and relative truths - which we may regard as perceptual. Plato dissects this in Republic, and Kant later applies the same model (of moving from sensation to reason). This brings up a problem however, since if matter is made of energy, is the mind equally substantial? The theory of magic and sorcery must presuppose the substance of mind as active in the world, but again, can mind affect the laws of nature? Carlos Castaneda and Terrence McKenna both write of "true hallucinations" in the psychedelic state, which provide "miracles" to them, but we see the same claimed of schizophrenics, who have the absolute conviction of what is evidently incredulous. So, can the power of mind directly influence objects, or only indirectly? Synchronicity is a phenomenon written about by Carl Jung, who plainly sees that the coincidence of thinking and manifestation apply an "acausal" relationship which is nonetheless symbolised by the constitutive act. I have had this occur in seemingly impossible ways, but the only question is the cause. If two objects coincide, are the objects the cause, or is it something more (e.g. Providence)? If we finally consider a supreme mind in reality, then we have no ultimate choice in anything; everything is predetermined, like what plato writes regarding the Fates; all things abide by the great chains of Necessity (Plato also wrote about reincarnation and karma, displaying how all souls are caused in their journey back to eternity, by the prime mover, which sets things in their path, and so all souls drift by inertia to their inevitable end). One thing I have always hoped for is that there is an afterlife, just so that I can finally get some answers. But even then, if the afterife is embodied, are we not further limited, and thus uncertain in our knowledge? Oh, these divine riddles!
>limited in lifespanBy "dead" I simply mean fixed and immobile, like a corpse. If one enters the Pleroma to encounter the silence of truth, one ceases to have becoming, and is thus complete. But this is bittersweet, since the ends of spiritual life is spiritual death (e.g. Nirvana). Plato also glorifies death as a liberating event in Phaedo.