zenpundit.com

[ by Charles Cameron — he was a man of word, wit and wisdom ]
.

The world was chastened last evening to learn of the passing from among us of Umberto Eco.

**

Zen has long admired Eco, as readers here will know, if for no other reason then as the original exponent of the concept of the antilibrary, here described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book, The Black Swan:

The writer Umberto Eco belongs to that small class of scholars who are encyclopedic, insightful, and nondull. He is the owner of a large personal library (containing thirty thousand books), and separates visitors into two categories: those who react with “Wow! Signore professore dottore Eco, what a library you have! How many of these books have you read?” and the others — a very small minority — who get the point that a private library is not an ego-boosting appendage but a research tool. Read books are far less valuable than unread ones. The library should contain as much of what you do not know as your financial means, mortgage rates, and the currently tight real-estate market allows you to put there. You will accumulate more knowledge and more books as you grow older, and the growing number of unread books on the shelves will look at you menacingly. Indeed, the more you know, the larger the rows of unread books. Let us call this collection of unread books an antilibrary.

My own taste, as you know, runs to th apocalyptic, and I have long lusted for his sumptuous edition for Franco Maria Ricci of the Beatus of Liebana commentary on the Book of Revelation. I am grateful to discover I do have in my possession the second issue of FMR magazine, with Eco’s essay Waiting for the Millennium (pp 63-92) containing a number of the plates from that larger work.

It was blog-friend Laura Walker who alerted me to Eco’s passing, with the graceful comment:

He is the best ambassador of the Middle Ages – thought, aesthetics, philosophy, humor, humanity – it’s as if he sends his works from there..

Indeed. We lament his passing.

[ by Charles Cameron — jihadist and western video versions of Marcel Proust’s memory of a madeleine ]
.

Jihad first, since this is a strategy blog:

The same tale, as told for a soft western audience:

Thank you for your kind attention.

[ by Charles Cameron — From Elkus to Furnish, Tolkien to Feynman, — too tired to write, not tired enough to sleep — ripe for the twitter feed ]
.

The occasion of mirth:

I’m going to introduce an authorization to use Military Force against ISIL that is not limited by Time, Geography or Means.

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) November 18, 2015

**

Adam Elkus identifies the zone:

Shit's getting metaphysical https://t.co/5aVdUtbk0j

— Adam Elkus (@Aelkus) November 19, 2015

The mirth:

@GrahamBlog This seems to be in open defiance of the laws of physics, for starters.

— Stuffing McGee (@lumpyprole) November 18, 2015

and:

ISIS on Infinite Earths https://t.co/FY0C1ocZXN

— Zeddonymous (@ZeddRebel) November 19, 2015

and:

.@GrahamBlog "We will fight ISIS in all multiverses. Also in Narnia, Middle Earth, Second Life and Legoland." pic.twitter.com/VWIFSeSbmI

— Peter Donnelly (@peter_donnelly) November 18, 2015

**

Meanwhile, Tim Furnish was there ahead of time, defending Tolkien & attacking IS:

Of all #ISIS atrocities, this is one of the worst…. #Tolkien #LordOfTheRings #hobbit #Rohirrim #socialmedia pic.twitter.com/wHf0fWc2Au

— Timothy Furnish, PhD (@Occidentaljihad) November 18, 2015

And now let’s get back to those laws of physics:

"If you don't like it, go somewhere else. To another universe, where the rules are simpler". – Richard Feynman on quantum mechanics

— Joby Otero (@JobyOtero) November 19, 2015

[ by Charles Cameron — quoting Emerson next to Arthur Waley on Li Po ]
.

[ by Charles Cameron — Aristotle, the Ismailis, CG Jung ]
.

Two is the first number:

From the tenth-century Rasa’il Ikhwan al-Safa’ (Epistles or Treatises of the Brethren of Purity) as found in Seyyed Hossein Nasr & Mehdi Aminrazavi, eds., An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia, vol. 2, Ismaili Thought in the Classical Age:

We say that one is the source and generator of the numbers because when one is removed from existence all the numbers are removed with it, but when the numbers are removed from existence, one is not removed. We say that two is the first whole number because numbers are a plurality of ones, and the first plurality is two.

**

I am delighted to find myself in the company of the Ismailis, having written in On two, one, seven plus or minus, and ten – towards infinity:

When I worked as senior analyst in a tiny think-shop, my boss would often ask me for an early indicator of some trend. My brain couldn’t handle that — I always needed two data points to see a pattern, and so I coined the mantra for myself, two is the first number.

One isn’t a number until there are two, because it’s limitless across all spectra and unique, and because it is its own, only context.

One isn’t a number unless there’s a mind to think of it — in which case it’s already an abstraction within that mind, and thus there are, minimally, two. At which point we are in the numbers game, and there may be many, many more than two — twenty, or plenty, or plenty-three, or the cube root of aleph null, or (ridiculous, I know) infinity-six…

Go, figure.

Two is the first number, because the two can mingle or separate, duel or duet: either way, there’s a connection, a link between them.

And in Of a non-comparative use of the DoubleQuotes method:

Putting it bluntly, one point is pointless — things could go anywhere from there. Two points suggest a line, a link, a connection — a possible, maybe even plausible, trend.

It’s that sense I have of two being the beginning of thought that makes me so fond of the DoubleQuotes format — and of Arthur Koestler‘s insight about creation occurring at the intersection of two spheres..

If I’m a fundamentalist about anything, it’s the notion that it takes two to tango!

**

Furthermore..

From CG Jung, A Psychological Approach to the Dogma of the Trinity, in Psychology and Western Religion:

The number one claims an exceptional position, which we meet again in the natural philosophy of the Middle Ages. According to this, one is not a number at all; the first number is two. Two is the first number because, with it, separation and multiplication begin, which alone make counting possible. With the appearance of the number two, another appears alongside the one, a happening which is so striking that in many languages “the other” and “the second” are expressed by the same word.

And from Leonardo Tarán, Speusippus of Athens: A Critical Study With a Collection of the Related Texts and Commentary:

Now we know that Speusippus did consider one to be the first odd number, whereas Aristotle thinks that two is the first number and explicitly denies that one is a number. [ … ]

Concerning the One, then, the differences between Speusippus and Aristotle amount to this: For the latter the One is not a number, nor a separately existing entity, but the principle of number because, each number being a plurality of abstract monads, the One is its measure.

**

As Emerson wrote:

The world is young; the former great men call to us affectionately.