Kalb and Martinez exchange on math and phil

-----Original Message-----
From: mrtnzfred@aol.com
To: mrtnzfred@aol.com; fredmartinez573@gmail.com <fredmartinez573@gmail.com>; ana.m.nino@gmail.com <ana.m.nino@gmail.com>; helenmarie211@gmail.com <helenmarie211@gmail.com>; efyore@aol.com <efyore@aol.com>; jessromero7@gmail.com <jessromero7@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Nov 15, 2021 10:22 am
Subject: Re: Thomism, etc.

-----Original Message-----
From: JEFFREY KALB <jkalb3@cox.net>
To: mrtnzfred@aol.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 14, 2021 10:03 pm
Subject: Re: Thomism, etc.

Hello, Fred.

You may likewise call me by my first name.

I was original an electrical engineer and materials scientist, but began to see some of the philosophical contradictions in quantum mechanics, and turned toward natural philosophy. From there it was a natural step to metaphysics and epistemology.

I have a very different take on Plato and Aristotle. The traditional (pious) representation of Aristotle is that he was the faithful student immersed in Plato's doctrine, only to exceed him and later criticize him. The ancient Greek sources paint a very different picture: a philosopher who was primarily interested in developing his own philosophy and used Plato to spar with. In fact, Plato used to call him "Polos," Greek for "colt," because when a colt wishes to nurse it kicks its mother. (The comparison suggests a degree of dependency but ingratitude on Aristotle's part.) At any rate, I've found that Aristotle often lifts the arguments of Plato directly, but fails to understand the use Plato was making of them. He appears to have been deeply engaged with Platonic doctrine, but still something of an outsider.  It is no wonder that Aristotle was not chosen to lead the Academy after Plato's death. And we must always remember that what we possess of Aristotle are merely the lecture notes of one or more of his students. His finished works (in dialogue form) were not preserved by antiquity.

Many disagreements between Scotists and Thomists are based on mere difference in terminology and tradition (with a good deal of institutional pride and competition thrown in). Effrem Bettoni wrote a wonderful book, "Duns Scotus," in which a lot of those merely apparent differences are brought to light. (If you want Scotus cliff-notes, this is the book.) For example, Scotus did not deny the doctrine of the "analogy of being," and his own understanding of the "univocity of being" merely meant that "being" could be used as a middle term in a syllogism, something Aquinas certainly would not have denied. Scotus' "formal distinction" (distinctio formalis) is viciously attacked by Thomists, but you will find that it is almost indistinguishable from their own "distinction of reason with a foundation in the thing" (distinctio rationis cum fundamento in re), which was developed in response to Scotus' arguments.

The question of will v. intellect is also highly overblown and misunderstood. Scotus, though he gave more scope to the will than Aquinas and located freedom in the will rather than in the intellect, was no voluntarist in the sense of Ockham... very far from it. Moreover, it was in fact Scotus, not Aquinas, who was the target of Ockham's nominalist criticism of philosophical realism. (How that makes Scotus a supposed nominalist "precursor" of Ockham I will never understand.) A lot of what you will be told about Scotus is simply false. Be careful of these narratives that have often been invented and repeated ad nauseam by institutional Thomists simply to discredit Scotus. You'll find that few Thomists who rail against Scotus have so much as read a single passage from the latter's works, let alone attempted to understand his arguments sympathetically.

As regards Einstein, many fail to recognize that the convertibility of space and time (space-time) in relativistic theory actually returns us a step closer to Thomas and Aristotle, who maintained that time was not some separate universal variable, as in Newtonian physics, but something fully grounded in the motion of things things themselves ("the number of motion"). I am not saying that there are not problems with relativistic theory, only that it is a step in the direction of traditional realism and is far superior to the Newtonian conception of time that its Thomistic critics often unwittingly uphold.

Jeff

On November 14, 2021 at 8:38 PM mrtnzfred@aol.com wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Martinez <fredmartinez573@gmail.com>
To: Fred Martinez <mrtnzfred@aol.com>
Sent: Sun, Nov 14, 2021 3:33 pm
Subject: Re: Thomism, etc.

Hello Mr. Kalb,

You can call me Fred if you want. In my opinion, we are living in a time similar to the Arian crisis just a bit more dumbed down by so-called academic careerists. I suspect the many of them are Jansenists like fideist Pascal who greatly influenced Gilson. I need to know more about Dr. MacArthur. I agree that younger Thomist and younger Traditionalist Catholics are more open to truth unlike many of the "intellectual" dinosaurs in more than one sense.

I'm looking forward to going through you music and math book from someone like your self who apparently knows his math. Wow! You and I are on the same page when you say am taking "aim at the entire edifices of modernity."

I got your Hamlet book, too. You and I are in good company because I think Shakespeare saw modernity coming and was attacking it. In a phrase "To be or not to be." Ockham, Luther, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel and the rest were in "not to be" and never got out of it to reality or "to be."

I friend of mine who recently pasted away who was a smart guy and a Aristotle Thomist thought Augustine and Platonism in their many forms was a big part of the problem, but I tend to think both honest Augustine and Plato would be Aristotle Thomists once they realize the truth of it and how it clarified and developed their insights.

Interesting stuff... a Greek language scholar bringing new insights about Plato. Tell me more.

My Thomist friend (RIP) thought Kant was nonsensical as do I, but I'm glad you a mathematic man thought the non-mathematical Kant had interesting ideas about math because from Thomist scholar a Fr. Chad Ripperger's youtube talk I know Einstein got something from him, however according to Ripperger even Einstein is problematic in his time ideas if I remember rightly.

Again, my friend thought Scotus was problematic as many Thomists do. I agree his placing the will in God above the intellect like Ockham leads to problems, but he was no nominalist. 

Another friend is a Scotist and has shown me the value of him especially in the theology of the Immaculate Conception. I was hoping someone would come along and do for Scotus what St. Thomas did for Augustine and Plato and even for Aristotle with help of Aristotle of course. Again, really interesting stuff.

I'm not a math or philosophy guy really, but more a journalist in the sense of G. K. Chesterton who is connecting dots and trying to see the big picture. Like Chesterton, I'm more an artist type who is trying see the THING without the words or the mathematical conceptual ideas although words and hopefully math ideas can help see the THING to use GK's way of speaking.

Thanks for all the great work you are doing and for sharing it with me. Like you time is a problem and may be getting worst now that my unemployment benefits ended. I will pray for you and your work.

In JMJ,

Fred

On Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:58 AM Fred Martinez <fredmartinez573@gmail.com> wrote:

 

On Sat, Nov 13, 2021, 12:54 AM JEFFREY KALB <jkalb3@cox.net> wrote:

Hello, Mr. Martinez. Thank you for writing.

I have found over the last 20 years that there is a great deal of condescension among the Thomists I have met (electronically), who don't seem to be able to refute what I say, but simply dismiss it with similar comments. We live in a society that cares little for truth and a good deal for status. It is difficult to admit that one's teachers have been incorrect and that one's own academic career (for that is what really irks a lot of them) is based upon fundamental misapprehensions. I think that Kuhn was right in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that old ideas (and Gilsonism is an old idea at this point) only die when their adherents die. I find that younger Thomists are quite open to what I have said. They don't have a revolution and ideology to defend. My most appreciative reader was actually Dr. Ronald MacArthur (R.I.P) of Thomas Aquinas College, who strongly disapproved of Gilson's attempt to divorce Aquinas from Aristotle, and offered to publish the original manuscript in their journal.

From what you have said, you are probably the only person in the world who has understood the ultimate meaning of "Music and Measurement." I really did take aim at the entire edifice of modernity. That is heartening, because I really don't sell any copies of that book. You may have seen the book on Shakespeare's "Hamlet," which I believe I have shown is from first to last a theological enactment of the question of Faith and Works. (The number and consistency of its Biblical references to this question is astounding.) I am currently trying to complete a commentary on Plato's "Euthyphro," a dialogue which I consider to be completely misunderstood and unappreciated. It really contains the whole metaphysical justification of Plato's doctrine Ideas, but this cannot even be grasped in translation. Greek possesses a middle voice in addition to the active and passive voice of English, and the metaphysical question depends upon a double-entendre between the passive and middle voices. I have taken up the interpretive method of Jacob Klein (St. John's College tutor and president) and expanded it. It really shows a much more profound view of Plato's doctrine. Perhaps sometime early next year...

For the future... My crown jewel will be "Taxology," in which I unite Thomistic and Scotistic metaphysics through the study of the convertibility of being and order. This also allows me to investigate more deeply the Trinity and create a material logic of the transcendentals. I have a critique of Kant's epistemology in which I introduce a new kind of abstraction, virtual abstraction, which accounts for mathematical objects and their manifest synthetic a priori validity. (Mathematics is prior to Aquinas' "abstractio formae" and "abstractio totius," but posterior to this "abstractio virtualis." Kant did have interesting observations about mathematics, but his metaphysics is mere rubbish founded upon a false mathematical analogy.) I also have a new and more basic foundation for plane geometry, from which I intend to demonstrate Hilbert's modern axioms as consequences.

I'm naturally attracted to the questions that change that "big picture" you describe. I just want to know what is real. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to write.

Back when I was an existential Thomist, I used to recommend Gilson to those who wanted an overview of St. Thomas. Having departed substantially from that view, I really am at a loss for any survey-level book recommendations.

I will certainly take a look at your website. Thank you again for contacting me.

In Christ,

Jeff Kalb

On November 11, 2021 at 6:44 PM Fred Martinez <fredmartinez573@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Kalb,

I'm buying most of your books including your Gilson book as well as another author's "Medieval Trinitarian thought from Aquinas to Ockham" that I deals with the semi-fideist Gilson's take on Ockham's fideism on Amazon. I am the person who runs The Catholic Monitor website where I've written on the destructive nature of Gilson's influence. 

On a quick search, I found a Fr. Barattero, IVE who says you don't understand Aquinas, but I suspect he never read McInerney's praeambula fidei that agrees in my opinion with your general Gilson thesis on his false takes on essence and existence in terms of Aquinas original writings.

I would like to know more about you writings and research. If your music book thesis is correct it destroys the Descartes/Bacon "Enlightenment" presumptions of modernity. You see the big picture in my opinion which is almost impossible to find even with smart guys like Feser and McInerney. Please send more info on your work with links.

I'm basically a journalist who is catching up on my Thomism with Ed Feser and McInerney, but I'm looking for a cliff notes type of work to give me a birds eye view. Any recommendations?

Thanks,

Fred Martinez  

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 10:34:22 AM PST, <mrtnzfred@aol.com> wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: mrtnzfred@aol.com
To: mrtnzfred@aol.com; fredmartinez573@gmail.com <fredmartinez573@gmail.com>; ana.m.nino@gmail.com <ana.m.nino@gmail.com>; helenmarie211@gmail.com <helenmarie211@gmail.com>; efyore@aol.com <efyore@aol.com>; jessromero7@gmail.com <jessromero7@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Nov 15, 2021 10:22 am
Subject: Re: Thomism, etc.

-----Original Message-----
From: JEFFREY KALB <jkalb3@cox.net>
To: mrtnzfred@aol.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 14, 2021 10:03 pm
Subject: Re: Thomism, etc.

Hello, Fred.

You may likewise call me by my first name.

I was original an electrical engineer and materials scientist, but began to see some of the philosophical contradictions in quantum mechanics, and turned toward natural philosophy. From there it was a natural step to metaphysics and epistemology.

I have a very different take on Plato and Aristotle. The traditional (pious) representation of Aristotle is that he was the faithful student immersed in Plato's doctrine, only to exceed him and later criticize him. The ancient Greek sources paint a very different picture: a philosopher who was primarily interested in developing his own philosophy and used Plato to spar with. In fact, Plato used to call him "Polos," Greek for "colt," because when a colt wishes to nurse it kicks its mother. (The comparison suggests a degree of dependency but ingratitude on Aristotle's part.) At any rate, I've found that Aristotle often lifts the arguments of Plato directly, but fails to understand the use Plato was making of them. He appears to have been deeply engaged with Platonic doctrine, but still something of an outsider.  It is no wonder that Aristotle was not chosen to lead the Academy after Plato's death. And we must always remember that what we possess of Aristotle are merely the lecture notes of one or more of his students. His finished works (in dialogue form) were not preserved by antiquity.

Many disagreements between Scotists and Thomists are based on mere difference in terminology and tradition (with a good deal of institutional pride and competition thrown in). Effrem Bettoni wrote a wonderful book, "Duns Scotus," in which a lot of those merely apparent differences are brought to light. (If you want Scotus cliff-notes, this is the book.) For example, Scotus did not deny the doctrine of the "analogy of being," and his own understanding of the "univocity of being" merely meant that "being" could be used as a middle term in a syllogism, something Aquinas certainly would not have denied. Scotus' "formal distinction" (distinctio formalis) is viciously attacked by Thomists, but you will find that it is almost indistinguishable from their own "distinction of reason with a foundation in the thing" (distinctio rationis cum fundamento in re), which was developed in response to Scotus' arguments.

The question of will v. intellect is also highly overblown and misunderstood. Scotus, though he gave more scope to the will than Aquinas and located freedom in the will rather than in the intellect, was no voluntarist in the sense of Ockham... very far from it. Moreover, it was in fact Scotus, not Aquinas, who was the target of Ockham's nominalist criticism of philosophical realism. (How that makes Scotus a supposed nominalist "precursor" of Ockham I will never understand.) A lot of what you will be told about Scotus is simply false. Be careful of these narratives that have often been invented and repeated ad nauseam by institutional Thomists simply to discredit Scotus. You'll find that few Thomists who rail against Scotus have so much as read a single passage from the latter's works, let alone attempted to understand his arguments sympathetically.

As regards Einstein, many fail to recognize that the convertibility of space and time (space-time) in relativistic theory actually returns us a step closer to Thomas and Aristotle, who maintained that time was not some separate universal variable, as in Newtonian physics, but something fully grounded in the motion of things things themselves ("the number of motion"). I am not saying that there are not problems with relativistic theory, only that it is a step in the direction of traditional realism and is far superior to the Newtonian conception of time that its Thomistic critics often unwittingly uphold.

Jeff

On November 14, 2021 at 8:38 PM mrtnzfred@aol.com wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Martinez <fredmartinez573@gmail.com>
To: Fred Martinez <mrtnzfred@aol.com>
Sent: Sun, Nov 14, 2021 3:33 pm
Subject: Re: Thomism, etc.

Hello Mr. Kalb,

You can call me Fred if you want. In my opinion, we are living in a time similar to the Arian crisis just a bit more dumbed down by so-called academic careerists. I suspect the many of them are Jansenists like fideist Pascal who greatly influenced Gilson. I need to know more about Dr. MacArthur. I agree that younger Thomist and younger Traditionalist Catholics are more open to truth unlike many of the "intellectual" dinosaurs in more than one sense.

I'm looking forward to going through you music and math book from someone like your self who apparently knows his math. Wow! You and I are on the same page when you say am taking "aim at the entire edifices of modernity."

I got your Hamlet book, too. You and I are in good company because I think Shakespeare saw modernity coming and was attacking it. In a phrase "To be or not to be." Ockham, Luther, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel and the rest were in "not to be" and never got out of it to reality or "to be."

I friend of mine who recently pasted away who was a smart guy and a Aristotle Thomist thought Augustine and Platonism in their many forms was a big part of the problem, but I tend to think both honest Augustine and Plato would be Aristotle Thomists once they realize the truth of it and how it clarified and developed their insights.

Interesting stuff... a Greek language scholar bringing new insights about Plato. Tell me more.

My Thomist friend (RIP) thought Kant was nonsensical as do I, but I'm glad you a mathematic man thought the non-mathematical Kant had interesting ideas about math because from Thomist scholar a Fr. Chad Ripperger's youtube talk I know Einstein got something from him, however according to Ripperger even Einstein is problematic in his time ideas if I remember rightly.

Again, my friend thought Scotus was problematic as many Thomists do. I agree his placing the will in God above the intellect like Ockham leads to problems, but he was no nominalist. 

Another friend is a Scotist and has shown me the value of him especially in the theology of the Immaculate Conception. I was hoping someone would come along and do for Scotus what St. Thomas did for Augustine and Plato and even for Aristotle with help of Aristotle of course. Again, really interesting stuff.

I'm not a math or philosophy guy really, but more a journalist in the sense of G. K. Chesterton who is connecting dots and trying to see the big picture. Like Chesterton, I'm more an artist type who is trying see the THING without the words or the mathematical conceptual ideas although words and hopefully math ideas can help see the THING to use GK's way of speaking.

Thanks for all the great work you are doing and for sharing it with me. Like you time is a problem and may be getting worst now that my unemployment benefits ended. I will pray for you and your work.

In JMJ,

Fred

On Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:58 AM Fred Martinez <fredmartinez573@gmail.com> wrote:

 

On Sat, Nov 13, 2021, 12:54 AM JEFFREY KALB <jkalb3@cox.net> wrote:

Hello, Mr. Martinez. Thank you for writing.

I have found over the last 20 years that there is a great deal of condescension among the Thomists I have met (electronically), who don't seem to be able to refute what I say, but simply dismiss it with similar comments. We live in a society that cares little for truth and a good deal for status. It is difficult to admit that one's teachers have been incorrect and that one's own academic career (for that is what really irks a lot of them) is based upon fundamental misapprehensions. I think that Kuhn was right in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that old ideas (and Gilsonism is an old idea at this point) only die when their adherents die. I find that younger Thomists are quite open to what I have said. They don't have a revolution and ideology to defend. My most appreciative reader was actually Dr. Ronald MacArthur (R.I.P) of Thomas Aquinas College, who strongly disapproved of Gilson's attempt to divorce Aquinas from Aristotle, and offered to publish the original manuscript in their journal.

From what you have said, you are probably the only person in the world who has understood the ultimate meaning of "Music and Measurement." I really did take aim at the entire edifice of modernity. That is heartening, because I really don't sell any copies of that book. You may have seen the book on Shakespeare's "Hamlet," which I believe I have shown is from first to last a theological enactment of the question of Faith and Works. (The number and consistency of its Biblical references to this question is astounding.) I am currently trying to complete a commentary on Plato's "Euthyphro," a dialogue which I consider to be completely misunderstood and unappreciated. It really contains the whole metaphysical justification of Plato's doctrine Ideas, but this cannot even be grasped in translation. Greek possesses a middle voice in addition to the active and passive voice of English, and the metaphysical question depends upon a double-entendre between the passive and middle voices. I have taken up the interpretive method of Jacob Klein (St. John's College tutor and president) and expanded it. It really shows a much more profound view of Plato's doctrine. Perhaps sometime early next year...

For the future... My crown jewel will be "Taxology," in which I unite Thomistic and Scotistic metaphysics through the study of the convertibility of being and order. This also allows me to investigate more deeply the Trinity and create a material logic of the transcendentals. I have a critique of Kant's epistemology in which I introduce a new kind of abstraction, virtual abstraction, which accounts for mathematical objects and their manifest synthetic a priori validity. (Mathematics is prior to Aquinas' "abstractio formae" and "abstractio totius," but posterior to this "abstractio virtualis." Kant did have interesting observations about mathematics, but his metaphysics is mere rubbish founded upon a false mathematical analogy.) I also have a new and more basic foundation for plane geometry, from which I intend to demonstrate Hilbert's modern axioms as consequences.

I'm naturally attracted to the questions that change that "big picture" you describe. I just want to know what is real. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to write.

Back when I was an existential Thomist, I used to recommend Gilson to those who wanted an overview of St. Thomas. Having departed substantially from that view, I really am at a loss for any survey-level book recommendations.

I will certainly take a look at your website. Thank you again for contacting me.

In Christ,

Jeff Kalb

On November 11, 2021 at 6:44 PM Fred Martinez <fredmartinez573@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Kalb,

I'm buying most of your books including your Gilson book as well as another author's "Medieval Trinitarian thought from Aquinas to Ockham" that I deals with the semi-fideist Gilson's take on Ockham's fideism on Amazon. I am the person who runs The Catholic Monitor website where I've written on the destructive nature of Gilson's influence. 

On a quick search, I found a Fr. Barattero, IVE who says you don't understand Aquinas, but I suspect he never read McInerney's praeambula fidei that agrees in my opinion with your general Gilson thesis on his false takes on essence and existence in terms of Aquinas original writings.

I would like to know more about you writings and research. If your music book thesis is correct it destroys the Descartes/Bacon "Enlightenment" presumptions of modernity. You see the big picture in my opinion which is almost impossible to find even with smart guys like Feser and McInerney. Please send more info on your work with links.

I'm basically a journalist who is catching up on my Thomism with Ed Feser and McInerney, but I'm looking for a cliff notes type of work to give me a birds eye view. Any recommendations?

Thanks,

Fred Martinez