Plato & the world of ideas

[Katinka Hesselink]

I'd like to hear your opinions on Plato's world of ideas. What do you all think - is there such a world of prototypes? Or in Jungian terminology 'Archetypes' - that are eternal and universal?

If so, how do you understand them?

[Jenn]

Yes, well personally I wouldn't equate Plato's Idealism with Jung's Archetypes. Both live in the realm of the abstract though, which is where they get confused.

Plato talks about the eternal Idea or Ideal as the ultimate truth--a local river is merely a manifestation of the idea of River. I can see what he means, as we have begun to develop our higher minds, but if you stay in this state of Idealism, then I think disassociation and disconnection are inevitable. For example, once human language was based on its environment, set in context of time and place (which for ancient peoples were inseparable for there was no concept of disembodied idealistic "Time" per se) .... as oral became litteral (litteral, quoting Blake, to mean, written down) then written language was still connected to the natural world because at first whole words were depicted as what they were (a horse was drawn as a horse to signify a horse) .... but eventually the natural was watered down into letters ... (like in Egyptian hieroglyphs, letters still look like the sounds they represent ... the sound 'b' looks like a bull, etc). Then writing became something else. (booooo!) Writing became disembodied letters that were divorced from the natural world and came to represent purely the sounds, not the things themselves. This was marvelously clever, but it also meant that now we could sit in our little noosphere of human thought and not give a rat's arse about what was going on around us. Disconnection! So on that level, I don't particularly like the Platonic Ideal. I think it does indeed set up dualistic thinking.

Archetypes are different. Distinctively so in my opinion. Archetypes are not merely disembodied eternal ideas. They are based in the realm of the relational, like the channel through which the Ideal can flow. In that sense, yes they are like prototypes which pre-determine the shape an idea or eternal energy will manifest in the lower realms.

Jung broadly described archetype as numinous energy taking form. Now I really like the word "numinous" because it refers to what German theologian Rudolf Otto called the mysterium tremendum, terribile et fascinans (the terrible, fascinating and fearful mystery). Numinous is more about the divine mind, the higher mind, the perception of greater, higher qualities that draw us out— bring us to a place of awe. In this sense, an archetype then is this higher perception concentrated into a compact relational form. Or rather, what I should say is, it is a form which gives us easier access to the energy behind it. Therefore an archetype is not to be confused with the energy (or the eternal truth) perceived through it, just like a telescope gives us a greater concentrated view of the heavens, and should not be confused with the stars themselves. An archetype is merely the image through which the numinous speaks to us.

The famous example is that archetypes are like riverbeds. They predetermine where the river (the 'energy') will go or manifest, but they are not the energies themselves. The actual manifestations are all unique and you cannot equate them with one another, only relate them archetypally. For example, there is the archetype of the Sun God, which manifests through many cultures as Lleu, Apollo, Mithras, even Christ, etc –all "sun gods" within their own context. But to actually say that Lleu, Apollo, Mithras and Christ are all the same person or deity is a blatant disregard for the cultures from which they spring.

As James Hillman says, "They tend to be metaphors rather than things. We find ourselves less able to say what an archetype is literally and more inclined to describe them in images." .... Having said that, Plato perceived his Ideas to be abstract Things, not metaphors. Socrates, Plato's teacher, was always asking "What is Truth?" "What is Virture?" etc ... description was not enough. WIth archetypes, all you can do is describe. Yet another difference.

So to me, Plato's idea of Idea is more the numinous energy whereas archetypes are more the form they take. To say it another way, the Ideal lives in the realms of the eternal, but the Archetypal is more the bridge between the Higher and the Lower. Because Archetypal is about both realms, to me it is less dualistic than the Platonic Ideal and more about communion, or oneness. This is why the Archetypal works best in things like mythology, religion and real-life stuff, whereas the Ideal works best in things like science and philosophy.

Personally although I feel there is a need for both and for balance, I do feel more drawn to the archetypal because I feel it is where we can reach the edges of our present presence and move into our potential presence, thanks to the bridge-work of the archetypes. Ideas are almost too idealistic and unattainable otherwise--- too 'thing' or 'form' oriented and not enough 'verb' or 'action' oriented. Heck, our consumerist society is already too obsessed with Ideals and Things. We need less of that, not more.

Having said all this babble though, Archetypes can be just as dualistic as Ideas. Perhaps I have skewed the difference between the two of them a bit too far, because I'm really splitting hairs. Archetypes and Ideas are more similar than I'd like to admit! But really, I suppose what I'm hair splitting over is that archetypes are more related to the Image, than the Idea.

[Jenn]

haha btw, after all that ... I suddenly realised that my views on archetypes are not exactly like Jung's original ideas. Just to clarify, my interpretation has been influenced heavily from James Hillman and his Archetypal Psychology, which re-visions the whole concepts of Psyche, the Imaginal, the Platonic Ideal and Archetypes.

[Katinka Hesselink]

Thanks a lot for your elaboration. I agree: archetypes and Platonism are two different things - I lumped them together in the question - because well, one can do that in questions.

[Jenn]

*nods* I realize that and thought that you thought they were different. I suppose it was just useful to approach it in the way I did because it felt like the best way to "explain them".

Otherwise, not sure if I was on target with your original question. :S I think I went a bit off track hehe. I'm still thinking of more to say.

I was delighted when you posted this topic though! :D

[Katinka Hesselink]

Let me answer my own question then :)

I like your explanation of archetypes as a form of psychology (paraphrasing here): where it's easier to act like other people have acted. We tend to follow ancient patterns of behavior that are hard to step out of. This is linked, in a cosmic scheme, to Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance. In other words: there are patterns to all of creation and even the laws of nature are probably nothing more (nor less) than habits in nature that have become so strong we cannot step out of them.

Plato's world of ideas was rather crude in his explanation. But if you take it to another level of abstraction there does seem to be a point: that mathematical relationships are essential to the way the universe is shaped. For instance the importance of the number 3 in quantum mechanics/physics. proton+neutron+electron = 3 essential particles to matter.
I don't know the quarks by heart, but I do know that there are supposed to be a multiple of 3 types. (that is 6 or 9, forget which).

[David Melik]

I like both the theory of forms and archetypes, but I think archetypes were reinventing the wheel and if Socrates & Plato knew of earlier Hermetic and Sanatana Dharma Philosophy they sort of did that too. Except for math examples such as Katinka's above, I barely ever focus on monism, dualism, or the 'tetraism' & 'hexaism' & 'heptaism' on SD 157, etc.--at least I do not think they are exclusive. The Greek Philosophers would not have done so: numbers-based views are just viewpoints.

Ideas/ideal forms and archetypes are just consciousness. However some facts may not have been stated here yet. Ideal forms in fact include some material representations of them--for example a 'sufficiently good' enough shape to be an example for geometry. Archetypes are not only static or living things, but apparently they can be processes (e.g. 'archetypal deluge,') etc.. Archetypes can be dualistic or even higher numerical because Jung described levels of consciousness. One need not see the unconscious as separate from the conscious. If the senses cause 'unconscious' registering of data, then that is just biology--which is a type of consciousness, but it need not complicate higher psychology. The phrase 'know thyself' is important there, because as long as one remains in a state in which one knows the contents of one's mind--which is normal--one need not get into conscious vs unconscious dualism theory. Consciousness that can be described as 'mental' just has different processes than that which is 'biological,' etc.. That is clear by their definition, and one need not always separate them into levels and then try to mix them up like on a typical complicated diagram of conscious-unconscious with id-ego-superego. Such a diagram is not monist about 'levels' maybe unless it merely describes processes rather than some complicated conjectural mixture of levels and objects they focus on. The latter causes what some people call the problems or dualism with archetypes, though Jung does have some interesting ideas even with those about consciousness and its 'indivduation.'

In a sense the question is asking 'do objects of consciousness exist?' Consciousness is also an object of itself and is also subjective. (that is the principle of the highest description of reality in Advaita Vedanta and maybe other Sanatana Dharma Philosophies--maybe the one I read with the term 'I-That' on a diagram was Tantra.) If thoughts exist then ideas and ideal forms and certain archetypes exist. If mind, or better yet 'nous' (mind and beyond) exists, then subjective, living ideal forms (archetypes exist.) This can all be reasonable from a nihilist or gnostic viewpoint: one need only attain consciousness of itself in which the senses can be inward and in which the sense of oneself is based on some'thing' other than agnostic nothingness, i.e. one must meditate-contemplate to the point that one's be-ness is not rooted in material existence but in a reasonable state of being in which one is probably an enlightened autotheist. The former word in the term can simply mean 'inner light within being,' and the latter is a gnostic consequence of such a state of being, because one is not completely the body: one is an ideal form and living archetype of consciousness. That ideal form is just some'thing' that one senses completely different from the body, though it may be simultaneously sense, and it is not just a thought that that is true: it is the mentation from a viewpoint where there is no question of whether that is false. It is just the state of mentation (or similar higher processes) in which the nous is I-That and the body is 'that' but one is 'I am that I am,' and 'both' are unified in monism. You can call the body 'I' or not call it that but still only have the thought that thoughts might be anything but linguistically verbal or hazy or even spontaneous visual imaginings. However, the nous, i.e. soul, i.e. '7 souls' (or sheaths, i.e. koshas, or bases, i.e. upadhis, both with the vahan) is I-that and is not one's own 'nous,' i.e. 'I' as a limited self. I am taking both a Buddhist non-atman and Advaita Vedantist 'atma is selflessness' viewpoint. None of this nor the question of whether ideal-forms/archetypes/consciousness exists is relevent or maybe even comprehensible until one realizes Nous is nous is selflessness. 'Thou art that' and 'atman is transient and is really atma,' though it can be a subject-object with 'the 7 sprits' i.e. '7 atma(n)s.' The latter clause is only my own transient description.

If consciuosness is a reasonable idea, then somehow ideal forms and archetypes are reasonable. As Westerners or maybe even Taraka Raja Yogis (or people that want to be the latter) 'reasonable' also means what is reasonable in dialectic/dialogue or Jnana Yoga in which Mahatmas teach us and we teach each other. That is about the only 'reasonable' viewpoint possible in a dialogue, and each esoteric classification of 'principles' may be simplified to a smaller number that gets closer to 'The One' or the 'Divine Monad' or Hermetic 'The All,' but from 1 and 0 to infinite (and from all other numbers and back) is a loose definition, but what is reasonable beyond (a-posteriori) dialogue is not just transient but is divine as beyond manas as well as the body or even them monistically integrated--Monad can also mean all of infinity: if there are more viewpoints (even a-priori) that do not imply non-monism but just imply part of infinity. If one focuses the senses onto that and becomes rooted in it beyond one's conception of the transient mind-body, then one can really answer the questions 'Is there a world of consciousness/ideals/archetypes? Does "world" include "consciousness?"' A reasonable agnostic accepting and exploring definitions and realities of consciousness would answer 'yes' (at least somehow) but may not know. A reasonable gnostic using and exploring those definitions and realities would have to know the reality to be reasonable. Some theorems are proven unknowable, but I will just state: know thyself as an Aum and enlightenment vahan and not just as transient principles, koshas, or upadhis (which are also part of (Param)Atma-Mulaprakriti-Brahman.)

Even before or after one 'knows thyself' non-skeptically as the vahan atma ('vehicle spirit(ual;')) one can be transient between use of the two terms (Skt., Eng.) to be able to accept the idea by exploring it in a way that leads out of circular definitions--at least a few) and so one can know ideals/archetypes (even the personified, i.e. 'archetyped' Logos) are reasonable because one is one and one's best ideas are probably ones. Even then, one may only have a short-lasting viewpoint of I-that subject-object lucid spirit: equal complete (lucid; illumined) contemplation of other subjects such as ideals/archetypes within or 'distinguished from' 'one's nous' is a much harder matter.

Are the 'noumena' what is 'numinous?' (I have looked it up, but it has been a while.) If so, then in HPBs definitions ideals/archetpyes exist. Still, one must transcend the consciousness where one need ask the a-posteriori question to the one where one is an a-priori reality/answer to bother considering that. Maybe Quine would not agree if I also said 'analytic vs synthetic,' but that is a similar 'division.' It is not necessarily a division, just an unavoidable transient shift to a lucid viewpoint which one may lose. However, one does not lose the memory of it for long--i.e. one does not lose the effect it has changing 'oneself.'

What about discussing Plotinus? When people (even me) thought of Plato as dualist I started thinking of him more as a Pythagorean, thus too mathematical to be limited to numerical viewpoints, though one must consider those in different 'directions.'

Plato called the ideal form 'The One,' and I take his refutation of it with Socratic skepticism because Plotinus is said to have improved the theory of forms. I recently read his section on 'The One', but I did not really see why Plato had a problem and why Plotinus corrected it. I just know consciousness is real and the best description of reality (and intelligence and spirit are the best description of consciousness, and reality is a most excellent description of those, but I will stop there.) I do not care much yet why Plotinus corrected Plato. Plotinus does seem very reasonable, but other philosophers have had both of their viewpoints. (For example, 'What is (bodhi)chitta?')

It is said Plato had a problem because 'The One' was 'too unified,' as I would say. However Plotinus supposedly resolved that how HPB did: saying the Divine Monad is not just infinity or (Proto)logos but has duad (Duologos.) (etc.?) That supposedly allows more philosophical dimensions, i.e. more philosophical terminology that can clear up the problem. However, such a solution seemed implied in Plato's self-criticism. I do not see why anyone thought he did not know that or why a Duologos has to clear things up. It also just means a 2nd idea, but 'The One,' i.e. 'The Good' (also a duad of probably sufficient description) is also allegory (or metaphor, etc.) that just has to be understood lucidly. HPB called Plato an initiate; I do not recall what she called Plotinus. Maybe some of Plato and Plotinus' ideas would just be too much of a system about the Divine Monad. HPB also just described it with mythology, and maybe one cannot get to the core idea 'Monad' without analyzing myths. I do not mean 'analysis' like Quine, but nevertheless analysis just goes on to something else transiently. HPB was at least not a Pythagorean initiate earlier in her life, but her analyses make sense to me.

Even if one does not lucidly apperceive as spirit, one can still reach a reasonable definition of ideals/archetypes. I think both of you discussed those more than me; I just tried to from a viewpoint focusing on 'The One' ideal (Logos, also personified as archetypes.) IMO ideals are absolute, but to be explained rather than known they are explained in limited, i.e. relative, ways. I think everyone can have a definition of how ideals are reasonable (or real) to them, and many are universal but some vary among people(s.) Archetypes seem to be more of an analysis of myths, etc.. Just because Jung may not have been Pythagorean does not mean less-developed people who are scientists do not discover anything useful. In the West, the Psychodynamic school of psychology and its Jungian branch's archetypes are reasonable and provide a different viewpoint in psychology and even theosophy. Behaviourism may be what is now closest to atheism, though like the latter, when showing what other viewpoints are not it has strengths. Then there are ideals in Behaviourism also, but there are many ideals in non-Western spiritual Philosophy. Sanatana Dharma also has some strictly empirical/scientific schools of thought.

Thanks for the question and dialogue. (I wish I could edit this later; it is kind of big.)

[Martin Euser]

According to some Neo-Platonic scholars,such as Siorvanes, Plato's Ideas (sometimes equated with Forms) are *Gods*.
Proclus, the great Neo-Platonic sage, makes this identification.
Maybe, more precise, Forms are Noetic patterns which are embodied in some kind of Celestial Light.
This Light, then, is an expression of a Divine entity, or a hierarchy of such Gods.
The above assumes levels of being, an ontology, which is probably best described by Proclus.

As some theosophical writers have remarked, the "laws of nature" actually are the habits of Gods.
This is totally consistent with the theosophical philosophy of life, which states that consciousness-life is universal and omnipresent. Even minerals are alive, but in a kind of stasis ("trance-state"). Their focus of consciousness seems to have been transferred to another level of being.
The Noetic pattern can be likened to the Paradigma worked on or with by the Demiurgus (Zeus). It is copied, probably in part and in stages, to the lower spheres of existence where worlds such as ours are built or have been built.
This copy feature is being discussed by Proclus in his grand commentary on the Parmenides. It results in *eicons*, or images, which are used to model our world and take part in the processes maintaining our world.
We literally live in an image-world.
Is this a strange idea? No, not at all. One can observe this copying everywhere in life. From the DNA in the cell (the "master-pattern", from which partial images are extracted, via the RNA-protein synthesis pathway) to the human Imagination (from original idea to detailed plans to stepwise realization of as much as one can of the idea).
In raising a child one will see endless copying of behaviour and speech by the child, where the parents, etc., serve as a role-model. Example and copy, or Pattern and form (copy), seem to me to be integral to all processes of life.

[Joe Fulton]

The "information" has a life of its own and, as a result, is capable of replication, the same as any corporeal being. Physicality, so to speak, is acting as a reflection of more subtle layers of activity. Whether it is the Platonia of Julian Barbour which allows for consciousness to manifest at levels (or densities) of "interesting points" or the move from our culture as the discrete movement of individuals to our identities being defined as the data we generate, the idea is all the same. The "physical" ends up being the "grossest" manifestation of being...a shadow or symptom of reality and not the reality itself.

[James Davis]

Yes, there are archetypes.  They can be experienced. 

"It is not words only that are emblematic; it is things which are emblematic. Every natural fact is a symbol of some spiritual fact. The visible creation is the terminus or the circumference of the invisible world.”  Emerson

This being so, every encounter is an act of interpretation, an attempt to divine essential meaning. Every thing suggests its higher correspondence. The archetypal shines through everything in all its oceanic majesty. So, to the evolving eye, the entire universe, every person, flower, and event becomes a hyper-space doorway.

                      Best Thoughts,

                      James