Fragment 49

I never intended to write a "Fragment" on "Exemplarism", but I felt there was a need. It seems these days almost everyone has trouble with exemplarism.Including Occultists, Theologians, and philosophers. Exemplarism played a pivotal role in the history of Western consciousness. So I shall try to define exemplarism, and provide why it was so crucial in the history of western consciousness. Most of the articles I have read and videos I have watched on "you tube" define exemplarism by saying "that it is the belief that the material world is dependent on Exemplars." Exemplars are, of course, identified as Platonic Forms. This is all true but it does not give the definition of Exemplarism. One can believe in Platonic Forms without believing in Exemplarism. After all Plato did not teach Exemplarism. It is best to examine the teaching that is opposed to Exemplariem to understand that doctrine is Ontologism. Both believe in Platonic Forms. The difference is that in ontologism one can reach the mind of God without any help. In Exemplarism one cannot reach the divine without the help of a God. In Ontologism one can reach God by one's own efforts. In Exemplarism one must have the help of a God to reach into the divine mind. In simple terms in Exemplarism one needs a God to pull the seeker over the finish line. Let us now move to a very brief history of the history and highlights of Exemplarism. The first person known who taught Exemplarism was Iamblichus (245 A.D-325 A.D.) Iamblichus taught Exemplarism in contrast to Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism. Plotinus taught that the Self can reach up to the divine Oneness by itself, without outside help. Plotinus divided the Self into higher and lower parts, but they are connected into one Self. Iamblichus taught that one needs an intervention of a god to pull one into the divine realms. There is an impassable line between the human intellect and the divine realms. Only a god can drag one over the finish line. As one might expect, the early Christian Fathers loved the idea of Exemplarism. They replaced Iamblichus polytheism with one God: Jesus the Son. For Christians only Jesus the Son can pull one over the finish line to the divine realms. Let us move ahead to St. Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century to observe how Exemparism developed in the Christian world, and the crucial effect it had on Western thought. In the metaphysics of both St. Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas our physical realm only contains analogies to the divine realm. A simple example should prove illustrative. Water is often used as an analogy to explain how electricity functions. But, no matter how much or how little water one has it is never electricity. Water is not electricity. In the philosophies of Bonaventure and Aquinas this is all we have of the knowledge we can have about the divine qualities, unless God intervenes. I have used Bonaventure and Aquinas because they were the last Christian thinkers to use Exemplarism in this way. The decisive break in the way Exemplarism works came with Duns Scotus. Duns Scotus redefined Exemplarism, instead of an analogy the difference between the physical realm and the divine realm is only power. In simpler terms God's power and love are the same as human love and power; it is just that God's love and power are a lot more powerful than human love and power. This was the crack that broke the qualitative paradigm, and brought about the present quantitative paradigm. People started to think if there is no difference except for quantity then there might not be a qualitative difference between the matter above and below the rotation of the Moon. After Duns Scotus, William of Ockham took a crowbar to the crack Duns Scotus had made. This is how the quantitative paradigm triumphed over the qualitative paradigm. Thus the modern world with the quantitative paradigm was born. I have decided to add some bonus material to this "Fragment". The reason being this "Fragment" is very short, and I do not have any place this material would fit. I could write another "Fragment" but that seems unnecessary. It seems that I am destined to play the part of Balaam to my Christian and Jewish friends and readers. As I am trying to take a third person view of the clash of Gods, and Goddesses. As a note Balaam is my favorite character in the Bible since I first met him in my youth when I first encountered him in Numbers 22-24. I want to present some ideas and they are speculative ideas on Moses and the ten commandments. The episode in Moses' life I want to explore is what the Isrealites were doing when Moses was on the mountain. The question I am trying to answer is: Why was Moses so angry at the Israelites when he came down from the mountain. According to the Catholic Bible I use, Moses ordered the slaughter of 50 men because of the incident. It seems an over reaction if all they were doing was feasting and doing sensual dances with glistening, oiled bodies. LIke it is usually portrayed in movies and comic book versions. So let us go back and examine the refugees that Moses was leading. The first thing we can get rid of out of the official narrative is the feasting. The crowd that followed Moses were starving and afraid. They were not carrying a lot of food. It hardly seems worth slaughtering 50 men over some dancing and sensuality. What I think happened. Moses left his afraid, starving people while he took a month to go talk to God. Leaving his starving, scared people leaderless. The key to what happened is the Golden Calf. The answer to our question lies in the symbol of the Golden Calf. The Golden Calf was a symbol of Moloch. The Bible tells us they were sacrificing, but what were they sacrificing? Probably not the animals they were so dependent on. The answer is of course they were sacrificing their children. Moloch is a God one looks to for prosperity. And I am sure Moloch would look kindly on eating some of the sacrificial victims, since our word for cannibal comes from the ancient term for a Priest of Baal, and probably for Moloch. The starving and afraid Israelites were sacrificing their children. This is why Moses was so extra-angry