To a Platonist, “separable form” is an inherently self-contradictory term: For if one were actually able to separate an existent from its “form,” it would no longer be what it is: It would be some other thing, or nothing at all. From the point of view of a Platonist, Aristotle’s study of creature thus involves an untenable reduction in the first place. (The human race is still quibbling over such distinctions, after all this time -- +2,500 years and counting.)
Aristotle, however, argued that the idea of separable form, living as it were in a transcendent realm, was perfectly redundant, superfluous; for what is ultimate in nature is not form, but substance. And since Aristotle thought of individual substances as hylomorphic compounds – that is, constituted of matter and form, the latter generated by means of movements of material bodies subject to the laws of causation -- form is a product of immanent, not transcendent reality.
Yet a Platonist might object: But nothing in this tells us what “form” is, as it is “in itself”; that is, in its principal nature. For matter to “form” – either itself or more complex bodies -- it needs a principle to follow; and matter – ubiquitous and uniform – does not itself generate such a principle. And neither do the laws of causation; for the causal laws generally are contingent on the presence of suitable arrangements or dispositions of matter for their application. Therefore, “form” cannot explain itself as a product of immanent reality; it must have a transcendent source.
The consistent failure of science to demonstrate abiogenesis – the theory that holds that inorganic matter can “boot-strap itself” into living matter – suggests the possibility that Plato was right about the need of a transcendent input for the creation of life. But I digress.
As Eric Voegelin points out (in Order and History, Vol 3: Plato and Aristotle), Aristotle, in his shift of attention from creation to creature, “paid the great price of eliminating the problem of transcendental form….
“Aristotle rejected the ideas as separate existences, but [he did not] repudiate the experiences in which the notion of a realm of ideas originated nor did he abandon the order of being that had become visible through the experiences of the philosophers since Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Xenophanes. The consequence is a curious transformation of the experience of transcendence which can perhaps be described as an intellectual thinning out. The fullness of experience which Plato expressed in the richness of his myth is in Aristotle reduced to the conception of God as the prime mover, as the noesis noeseos, the “thinking on thinking.” The Eros toward the Agathon [Plato’s main motivation] correspondingly is reduced to the agapesis, the delight in cognitive action for its own sake. Moreover, no longer is the soul as a whole immortal but only that part in it which Aristotle calls active intellect; the passive intellect, including memory, perishes. And finally, the mystical via negativa by which the soul ascends to the vision of the Idea in the Symposium is thinned out to the rise toward the dianoetic virtues and the bios theoretikos [i.e., the “life of the mind”].
Aristotle’s “reduction” or “derailment” effectively cancels out Plato’s great “leap in being,” which enabled him “to differentiate world-transcendent Being as the source of all being,” which recognition “correspondingly attaches to the ‘world’ the character of immanence.” Later on, Voegelin notes that Aristotle focused his attention “so thoroughly on a particular problem that the wider range of being is lost from sight.”
Sorry for this long ramble! But it’s the “set-up” of my answer to your question: “do the concepts of a ‘beyond’ and ‘transcendence’ suggest some sort of dualism or can we somehow speak of both?”
It seems to me dualism does not principally consist in the relation between the ‘beyond’ or ‘transcendence’ on the one hand (I think both terms refer to a single, albeit “non-existent” reality); and ‘immanence’ on the other (i.e., existent reality). It seems to me that dualism refers to an intrinsic property of the immanent or created world, and we see it everywhere. For instance, there is the particle-wave dualism of the constituents of physical matter, of the matter-spirit split of Cartesian dualism, of the space-time dualism of relativity theory, etc. Yet in each case, we must understand these “dualisms” to be the two different faces of a single unity which cannot simultaneously be seen “together” in their ultimate nature as a single unity from the standpoint of immanent, or space-time reality as we experience it. Yet to understand such things as “Lorenz-transformable items” already tells us we are viewing them from the standpoint of transcendence; or as we might say, under the aspect of Spirit. And that transcendence or Spirit is not a datum of ordinary immanent experience, but belongs to the “Beyond” of the universe. That is: to God, Who created the universe.
One might say dualism is the way the unity of the Beyond expresses in immanent space-time reality; but that under the aspect of transcendence the "faces" or "parts" of the dualism are inseparably one. If I might put it crudely, when spirit is incarnated in matter, dualisms start cropping up all over the place….
I very much like the observation of Hermes Trismagistus (who may or not have been a fictional being) on this subject. I’m paraphrasing from memory here:
Every living being is made up of a part that a man can see, and a part that a man cannot see.
This suggests to my mind the ultimate dualism expressing in living beings. Yet each “part” is necessary to express the total aliveness and oneness of existing things, which taken collectively point in turn to the Oneness of the living universe that can only be envisioned spiritually, from the aspect of a transcendent “Beyond” of the universe -- which is the Source that comprises, orders, and sustains it.
Finally the word “universe” itself speaks to this issue. It translates as “one turn,” which some have interpreted as meaning that everything that exists “turns to (or into) the One.” Which is to speak of that Unity which is constituted by the diversity of all existents.
This signifies to my mind that the "single living being" is to be grasped as the unity of the multiplicity of "all that exists." Transcendence (spirit) and immanence (the condition of all that exists) together comprise "the single, living organism."
Well, I don’t know how well I’ve articulated these views. It’s a most difficult subject, to be sure. In any case, this is where I’m “at” right now; and so my view is subject to change, contingent on future experience and new evidence. Certainly I’m not proposing any kind of "doctrine" here. I just want to follow in the footsteps of the masters: Neither Plato nor Aristotle left us with “doctrines”: They were not system builders. They were both much more interested in propounding the seminal questions, and were quite content to leave the answers to posterity. And sure enough, posterity is still arguing about these very questions!
Both Plato and Aristotle believed that one must follow the evidence, wherever it leads, without regard to any pre-existing notions; that truth is never the final possession of any man, but a quest. And Plato believed (I’m not completely sure about Aristotle on this) that the terminus of the quest for Truth can only be found in the Beyond which transcends the immanent world; for the Beyond is its Source.
Indeed, cornelis -- this post has been a very rich banquet! I’m so grateful to everyone who is participating in this wide-ranging discussion. I hope I’ll have the time to digest it all sooner rather than later. It’s been an education so far. Thank you so much for writing cornelis!
One might say dualism is the way the unity of the Beyond expresses in immanent space-time reality; but that under the aspect of transcendence the "faces" or "parts" of the dualism are inseparably one.
At post 217, I offered a link as an introduction to Geometry and String Theory. A quick read will show that duality and mirror symmetry are built into space/time (that which has a beginning).
The very last page of the narrative (7 of 8) I believe will be particularly interesting to both of you wrt the concept of the inseparability of dualities, i.e. of the form and its manifestation - even in the worldview of string theory. (We saw the same kind of relationship in Tegmark's Level IV mathematical structures.)
To a Platonist, "separable form" is an inherently self-contradictory term
Exactly what Aristotle says: "It's impossible for the ousia to be separate from the ousia. For how could the formal ousia be separate from the ousia of things?" (Metaphysics 991b.1) Self-contradictory then, to both the Aristotelian and Platonist.
Aristotle knows that this problem doesn't disappear with the removal of Plato's forms. He considers form in thought as separate and that without fallacy. So, the idea of transcendence must be qualified. That is, the problem persists because as soon as any thinker posits transcendence, that thinker is still committed to show how it is related. I won't play Voegelin's Aristotle and eliminate that distance altogether with a reduction. At the other extreme of a reductive collapse is the complete alienation from what is transcendent.
Your "digression" into abiogenesis has triggered a storm of words (something unusual about it) that has pointed out the need for understanding at what point something can be considered transcendent.
At a more appropriate time I'd like to return to this aspect of monism and dualism--all to work up to the important distinction between created and uncreated existence.
Again, thanks for your reply.