Members-only podcast episode
Danielle Layne on Synthemata, Late-Platonist Ritual Praxis, and Weird Platonism
This is a special podcast episode for SHWEP members only
Already a member? Log in here to view this episode
We are delighted to interview Dr Danielle Layne, Platonist scholar extraordinaire, on a number of subjects. Taking the doctrine of divine ‘signatures’ found in nature – an important mainstay of western esoteric traditions that may find its first strong formulation in the work of Iamblichus – we embark on a wide-ranging discussion of Platonism as lived tradition, then and now. Topics discussed include:
- The Late Platonist doctrine of synthēmata – divine signatures or traces in kosmic reality – and how it functions,
- The relationship of the Iamblichean philosopher to matter and embodiment as one calling for transformation and right comportment rather than escape,
- The necessity for doctrinal disagreement within the ‘broad church’ of Platonism (and philosophical disputation conceived of as spiritual practice),
- Platonic texts and ideas as living organisms whose mutations over time constitute Platonism,
- The problems inherent in scholarship when we try to get inside the heads of our historical writers, and of how we are to draw the line between the historical imagination in its constructive sense and anachronistic echo-chamberism,
- Dyadic Platonism and the Platonic oral teachings,
- The various traditions of reading Plato as an esoteric author – including the Tübingenschule – and their limitations,
- The loss of Socratic/Platonic playfulness in Late Platonism, and
- The immortal excellence of Apuleius, how Plotinus was just a great guy, and the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in weird Platonism.
Interview Bio:
Danielle A. Layne is Professor of Philosophy at Gonzaga University. She has published widely on Plato and the Platonic tradition. Layne, otherwise, is the alter ego of the superhero named “Hooker-boots Priestess”, combining her love of the erotic and Platonic spirituality. Hooker-boots loves to spend the day reading, writing and coyly smiling at adversity and ignorance while she prays to the gods that the erotic power of what it means to be human comes to radiate and embrace each present moment we find ourselves blessed to experience.
Works Cited in this Episode:
Primary:
Apuleius’ defense-speech: usually given the title Apology or Apologia: see Episode 74.
Aristotle on the Platonic oral teaching about the dyad: he discusses the ‘Great and Small’ at Metaph. 987a 29 ff. (and see Episode 25).
Plato:
- Philosophy as a serious game: Parm. 137a-b
- Diotima on ‘giving birth’: Symp. 204d-209a (and see Episodes 33 and 34).
- Tending to the garden of the generations that came before us: Phædr. 276d.
- In the serious is the playful, and in the playful is the serious, or On the Importance of the Mixed Life: Phileb. 276b.
- The silly figure of Dionysius refers to the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius, mentioned in the Seventh Platonic Epistle.
- Doing comedy and tragedy at the same time: Symp. 223d.
Secondary:
- Crystal Addey. Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism: Oracles of the Gods. Ashgate, Dorchester, 2014.
- Edward Butler, e.g. the papers included in the collection Essays on the Metaphysics of Polytheism in Proclus. Phaidra Editions, New York, NY, 2014 [we interview him on Proclus’ metaphysics of the One here].
- Danielle Layne. Philosophical Prayer in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. Review of Metaphysics, 67(2):345–68, 2013.
- Idem. Cosmic Etiology and Demiurgic Mimesis in Proclus’ Account of Prayer. In John Dillon and Andrei Timotin, editors, Platonic Theories of Prayer, pages 134–63. Brill, Leiden, 2016.
James Lomas
May 4, 2022
Weird Plato is a new favorite episode. Excellent work! Very entertaining with a playful dialectic that dives deep into the heart of it all. Thank you especially for all the new ideas about the power of play in Platonism.
Regarding the one and the dyad. First, Aristotle’s comment on the “Error of Socrates,” that Oneness is flawed because it has no diversity, like a song of a single beat. Second, I like the Pythagorean arithmological conception of these concepts with the English terms “oneness” and “twoness.” The oneness being the inconceivable whole and the twoness being the energy-generating contrasting of the something and nothing; that is, the specific particulars of reality in harmonic tension with the receptive and creative space of possibility. Very Yin and Yang.
So, I’d note that in the Taoist tradition, in the very profound chapter 42 of the Tao Te Ching, prior to the One there is the Tao. So, should one ever attempt to align East and West, one might refer to *dialectic* as a common first principle.
And, a quote from The Republic:
“And so, Glaucon, I said, we have at last arrived at the *hymn of dialectic.* This is that strain which is of the intellect only, but which the faculty of sight will nevertheless be found to imitate; for sight, as you may remember, was imagined by us after a while to behold the real animals and stars, and last of all the sun himself. And so with dialectic; when a person starts on the discovery of the absolute by the light of reason only, and without any assistance of sense, and perseveres until by pure intelligence he arrives at the perception of the absolute good, he at last finds himself at the end of the intellectual world, as in the case of sight at the end of the visible.”
Danielle Layne
May 8, 2022
Thanks so much for your kind remarks about play and Platonism. Also, thanks for the harmonic tension and yin and yang comments. The more I research both Toaism and Tantra the more I think these two traditions help us think of this relationship between the One and the Dyad. I will def go to the chapter you reference and see if it helps me think these things again and playfully in relationship to Plato via dialectic and what Latina feminist philosopher calls world-traveling. Her conception emphasizes less the intellectual playfulness but also the embodied playfulness that is required when we attempt to do cross-cultural connections. I suggest her work if you are interested in those attempts to “align” seemingly disparate worlds without collapsing them into sameness, i.e. a form of play that allows for the other to remain other but still in relation, still in contact, still in a dialogue where we belong together.
I love the quote from the Republic, I will have to think on it more in the context in which it arises. It reminds me of Plotinus’ own discussion on the noetic place and his experience of it. See Banner’s forthcoming article on that topic. It is a “banger”!
James Lomas
May 9, 2022
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240587262200003X
An article on harmony, recently published, with two translations of chapter 42 of the Tao Te Ching.
I hope you enjoy it, if you get a chance.
Danielle Layne
May 9, 2022
Thanks!
Saeeduddin Ahmed
May 7, 2022
Wow. She’s a superstar. I wish I would have had a philosophy teacher like her
Danielle Layne
May 8, 2022
You are too kind. I imagine I would love to have you as a conversational companion. Thanks for the comment. It made me smile.
Earl Fontainelle
July 4, 2022
Me too. I mean, I also wish I had a philosophy teacher like her.
Saeeduddin Ahmed
May 9, 2022
Professor Layne is engaging in this forum, so I’ll throw out a couple of questions, in case she is able to respond.
The first question is on different Platonic interpretative traditions, and is a follow-up on the discussion on the Tubingen school during the episode. The position of the school can perhaps be stated as (screenshot taken from Reale’s introduction to Kramer’s 1990 “Plato and the Foundations of Metaphysics”):
https://i.imgur.com/T6tiXZZ.png
So we have a written set of dialogues, but also an indirect tradition.
An alternative to this position is a primary emphasis on the dialogues (so no indirect tradition), and in particular Harold Cherniss’ position (layed out in his “Riddle of the Academy”, which was that we “could show, using the dialogues alone, a fundamentally consistent metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and psychological worldview maintained by Plato” [per Lloyd Gerson in 2014 – DOI: 10.1353/hph.2014.0059].
This latter position seems to be the one that Professor Layne is taking. Is that right? (primary emphasis on the dialogues)
Question two is on some interpretative trends in classics generally. A few years ago, a couple of websites emerged (Eidolon [sadly, now defunct] and Pharos [still going strong]) that aimed to address how classics were being analyzed and discussed in the current ‘academy’ and offer new approaches, and also to direct some attention on right-wing capture of these ancient texts and doctrines.
I wonder she has any thoughts on this?
Danielle Layne
May 9, 2022
What amazing questions! Thanks. I hope it isn’t too unusual to engage on this forum but I love conversation and having distractions from my own writing! So thanks for humoring me.
So, I would say both/and to your comments. I think that there is a consistent metaphysical, epistemological, ethical and psychological worldview throughout the dialogues and that the dialogues are the best “way in” to Platonism. However, I think the dialogues are saturated by the indirect tradition. Unlike many members of the Tubingen school, though, I don’t think merely certain passages reveal the “highest principles” (Plato sneaks them in every now and again). Rather, I believe that every dialogue and every moment is deeply immersed in Plato’s fundamental beliefs, beliefs that can appear to change and transform bc the fundamental commitments are about how each unique moment/individual will erotically reach out or participate with the highest kinds (the most intimate kinds) in ways that challenge us to always become/give birth to the beautiful in the beautiful, to discover how it is we each can highlight our unique connection. For Socrates that was the elenchos and creating images while for Parmenides it was dialectic while Diotima it was in priestcraft and initiation.
Obviously, you may surmise, this is why I believe Plato wrote dialogues with a variety of characters and contexts, showing that the most important thing about philosophy is that it “lights the fire of the soul” and allows us to see the reality already right in front of us, the reality of participation in separation, in our unique aloneness there is always contact if only we allow ourselves to see it and engage with it. This is why I believe Plato thought Pedagogy is First Philosophy. What matters most is bringing people out of the cave so that they can see the value of living in the uncanny realness of the both/and and the neither/nor, the pain and joy, the always being on the edge, the being who even in belonging is out of place (atopos). What matters is what we do with our understanding of being a dynamic erotic soul whose work it is to communicate or create in such a way as to reveal the ambiguity of being the being whose life or power connects the extremes of things like being and nothingness, sameness and difference, strength and weakness and that the mean between them is unique to your peculiar life. As Aristotle argued, the mean relative to us.
Consequently, this is why Platonism is so diverse. It will never be a dogmatic system but a network of people connected by the words that “light the soul”, the artistic or philosophical creations or movements (like dancing) that remind us of our connection with the absolutes, with the being and power or the something and nothing of it all. The tradition matters because it calls us to see how others engaged with Plato and asks us to agree/disagree/examine/analyze but most importantly to be inspired by the ways so many peoples have come into relation with Plato and the ideas regardless of the distance of time, place, culture, etc. Plato is not the only fount from which we can see this though – some of us need Aristotle or Plotinus or Proclus or Iamblichus to light that fire and bring us to our knees of knowing and not knowing, certainty and doubt, desire for the insatiable lust for what we already always possess, the beauty of being even in the darkest of hours. Or at least I like to think so.
This absolutely relates to your final question, i.e. how the classics needs to transform by bringing a variety of different voices. When I teach the erotic I have students read Anzaldua, Lorde, Lugones, Bornstein alongside Apuleius and Plato. Why? Well, they may not be self-identifying Platonists but their ideas about what it means to be beings “in-between” (Anzaldua’s mestiza consciousness) whose erotic power (Lorde) allows us to connect (Lugones uses playful world-traveling) with each other in our differences in a playful, performative dismantling of power as domination (Lorde/Bornstein) helps light that fire in students today. When I teach the Allegory of the Cave, I bring in bell hooks’ Teaching to Transgress because she sees the value of a kind of teaching that isn’t about static objective knowledge, i.e. teach the facts, don’t teach weird Platonism in my case. Rather for hooks and Plato alike we must teach in such a way that we inspire others to the conversion of the soul, to heal, to live to our fullest extent, to see that there our a variety of ways to create and evidence the absolute beauty of it all. So, yeah, hopefully this way of doing “classics” avoids the “right wing capture” but that is just a hope. Let me know if you have any ideas. I will look for those sites as I have not seen them yet.
Thanks for the comments.
Saeeduddin Ahmed
May 9, 2022
Wow – thank you ! I’ll take some time later to lookup the writers you mention in the last paragraph.
Re the two sites I mentioned, I first heard about this whole movement in a rather strange interview on a late-night program on Australian public radio a few years ago. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/taking-the-red-pill/10452032
The two sites are here:
https://pharos.vassarspaces.net/
https://eidolon.pub/
Danielle Layne
May 9, 2022
Thanks! During my next writing distraction moment, I will check it out.
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
May 11, 2022
I know that among scholars of the unwritten doctrines opinions differ as to whether there is a transcendent One above the two archai (One and Dyad), or etc. My question, which I’m afraid may be trivial and has probably often been addressed, is whether it’s significant that we attribute at least verbally a oneness to the Dyad–i.e., it is ONE of the principles. It seems like Proclus, at least, would say (in Dodds’s rendering) that it thus, like every thing, “participates unity” and is in this way dependent on, and therefore not of equal status with, the One.
If I were to defend the Dyad against this charge of participating unity I suppose I might say that this conceptual unity is not truly there, but that to speak of anything as a thing we have to make this verbal concession, and that the Dyad must otherwise involve us in apophasis as surely as does the One, in that it is a not-it, etc.
Nevertheless such a Platonist as Proclus, at least, seemed to think that the unity implicit in any concept whatsoever was a strong reason to accord the One the status of the basic fact of reality. Thoughts or reading recommendations?
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
May 11, 2022
I meant to add: thanks for a really great and vital interview. I’ve felt myself that the moments when I feel I’m most “getting” Plato are moments when my interpretation is the most idiosyncratic. Another way to say it is I’ve felt that I might well disagree with him on almost every particular, and yet still find the label “Platonism” supremely appropriate for the resulting picture. Thanks so much to Prof Layne for articulating this idea (and so much more) so strongly.
Earl Fontainelle
July 4, 2022
Trust your idiosyncratic reading! No one gets Plato, so your reading is a priori just as good as anyone else’s, and might well be better.
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
May 11, 2022
If I’m getting it, it sounds like Prof Layne’s reply to the idea I’m attributing to Proclus might be something along the lines of that, while every Thing “participates unity”, every Thing also in a way overflows unity, whether in the manner of a “field of corollaries” as she said, or otherwise. This would be a tougher idea to grasp than the corresponding one about unity (and so maybe more important for that reason). But I’m more hesitant to misattribute an idea to a guest than to Proclus! Thanks again– any guidance is welcome!
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
May 12, 2022
It occurred to me that the Limit / Unlimit (one/dyad) relation is perhaps also analogous to the Nietszche’s “Apollonian / Dionysian” distinction in artistic beauty, Apollonian beauty being the beauty of perfection (limit), Dionysian being, so to speak, the beauty of overflow/potential/power. It’s interesting to observe that “normal” platonism does seem to have somewhat less power in explaining this dionysian beauty than explaining the “formal” Apollonian kind (and this partly motivated nietszche’s avowed anti-platonism).
If metaphysics is an attempt to give a rational theory accounting for what began as personal spiritual experience (John Middleton Murry), then what I would take as a “normal” platonist account of dionysian beauty– viz that, by some special cognition, we experience some ineffable meaning– really is not better than sheer mysticism. Positing the basic existence of an Indefinite Dyad does seem (using murry’s definition of metaphysics) to make platonism more robust in this arena of art criticism.
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
May 12, 2022
Of course a weird “platonistic” (to use shwep’s term) metaphysics such as William Blake’s might well agree with nietszche’s sentiment without abandoning platonistic theology as an explanatory vehicle. This and the fact that Blake himself would probably take “platonistic theology” as fighting words speak again to Prof Layne’s thesis that platonism is properly a continuing dialectic.
Danielle Layne
May 12, 2022
Wow. This thread is amazing and I agree with almost all of these insights – they were beautifully inspiring and so thank you for sharing. As for the unity of the Dyad, I would say that she/they/it is the reaching principle who “touches” the One rather than consuming it absolutely so that her/their/it’s “Oneness” is an internalization which is not absolutely One but like the One. Said “connective” Oneness would indeed be a stretching, moving, dynamic aspect of all that IS and Becomes while the Oneness is reality’s Not-Being which constitutes that each thing is a perfect individual kind. Everything is unique insofar as in our being, we, like the Dyad, metaphorically reach toward what we are not (One) and in that reaching we never fully reach the One. Rather, we touch or commune, come into contact via embracing the power of the Dyad (the participatory principle) and her/their/it’s grasping of it’s opposing principle, the One (the absolutely unparticipated)…this unparticipated Not-Being is what we each also possess (it is the Dyad’s participation or touching of the unparticipated Not-Being) – The Not-Being in us, the image of the One in us, is that which we cannot not thematize or know but merely reach out for in our eternal dynamic movement, uniquely expressing the value and beauty of each particular thing from first to last. I better stop before this becomes an opus and so I will just say thank you for your amazing reflections. I am particularly fond of the Blake and Nietzsche ones!
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
May 14, 2022
Thank you so much for your reply to my question and for your kind words about my impressions. I’m obviously far from conversant about the subtleties of higher metaphysics (or most any other technical topic in philosophy for that matter), so thanks for being welcoming of the uninitiated! Your answer gives me a lot to meditate on, and reveals the scale of the gap between my understanding and these more paradoxical regions–which inspires rather than intimidates! Cheers and thanks once more
Danielle Layne
May 12, 2022
Also, I am probably going to stop replying to comments as it would mean I would need to check my own interview incessantly and well I don’t want to do that. Feel free though to email me if you have any burning questions as I love to chat with people when I find myself needing a break from writing. Thanks to all for listening and a special thanks to SHWEP for having this amazing podcast series. I have recommended it to several students since discovering it and it really is an invaluable resource and wonderful community!
Earl Fontainelle
July 4, 2022
Thanks, Dannielle. You, as several of our listeners have noted already, rock.
Michael Nelson
June 13, 2024
Can anyone point me toward the work mentioned at about 5:50? Earl called it the “Hermetic Kieranedes” (total shot in the dark on the spelling). Tried looking it up under a number of spellings, not finding anything.
Thanks!
Earl Fontainelle
June 13, 2024
Michæl, I can actually answer this one. The Kyranides is a very old, Græco-Egyptian manual of occult properties of stones, plants, birds, fish, and so on. It may go back (in some form) to the Hellenistic period, and continues to be read well into the modern period (in various versions, languages, adaptations, and so on), so it’s an important one! Also, its author may be known to you: Hermes Trismegistos.
There is a critical edition, attempting to isolate and study the earliest strata of the work:
@Book{Kamaikis1976,
title = {Die Kyraniden},
address = {Meisenheim},
publisher = {Anton Hain},
year = {1976},
editor = {Dimitris Kamaikis},
number = {76},
series = {Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie},
}
Michael Nelson
June 13, 2024
Ah-ha! thank you, sir.
Yes, I believe I’ve heard of this Hermes chap. If Wikipedia is to be believed, it says 4th century. I wonder if a copy found its way into Proclus’ hands.
Much appreciated!
Albert Hand
June 27, 2024
Powerful, mind blowing stuff that is helping me forgive the ignorance (and stuckness in having to know) of the analytic tradition, as well as those whom I still resent for having messed with my head in efforts to deliver me from same ignorance. Y’all are doing such important work here in stretching the boundaries of rational, dry scholarly approaches to the oogley boogley stuff. I particularly appreciated the clarification of how Iamblichus can disagree with Plotinus without being in fundamental conflict, under the broad church of late platonism. There was another question in the Proclus podcast with Dr Layne that hit me pretty hard, about whether he is Platonist or Platonic. The stuff in this episode on Platonic playfulness is really helping me sort it out. I’m starting to worry, however, that weird Platonism is not in fact so weird.
Earl Fontainelle
June 27, 2024
Albert,
Perhaps you’d care to purchase one of our MPWA ball-caps. It’s not about making Plato weird, it’s just about realising that he always was, and he’s been de-weirded by a tortured Enlightenment project which sometimes forgets about reality in the course of its insistence on reality.