Giordano BrunoGiordano Bruno: Cause, Principle and Unity: And Essays on Magic (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy)

Learning about a first cause after Kant became a philosophy homeboy in Germany for his Critique of Pure Reason (1781) demonstrating the antinomies that had been competing to determine the instant at which a universe was created by some transcendental ego is typical of the kind of education which gives students in modernity a series of errors leading to a complete lack of understanding.Combining a tremendous history of differing knowledge from different civilizations with a knowledge of the nature of scientific revolutions involving paradigm shifts produced by generational communities with different objectives, frequently motivated by the hatred of old men in societies that engage in prolonged warfare, it should be easy for comedy to proclaim:No person has ever been as brilliant as I have the right to be.There are some bright spots in Cause, Principle and Unity And Essays on Magic (1998) by Giordano Bruno, who wrote the main set of dialogues in England in 1584-5, but he went to Venice in 1591 and Bruno was denounced there in 1592. In 1593 the Roman Inquisition obtained a transfer of the trial from the Venetian Senate. In 1600 he was condemned for "the infinity of the world, the eternity of the universe, the allegation that Moses and Christ were magicians and impostors, and belief in pre-adamites." (p. xxxiii).The hatred of old men who have been born with a brain was so common that the church felt death would be far more effective than monetary extraction in protecting people who derived some comfort from belief in a first cause from the terrible thoughts that would be possible if some "internal artificer" (p. 38) had a more confusing way of shaping reality.My interest in sharing information which is frequently blocked by the institutional thinking of organizations which seek to control time, space, and the concept of cause gave me particular insight into understanding intellect as a cause or principle. As a result of philosophical doctrines about a transcendental ego that Platonists call a "world artificer," (p. 38) Bruno's character Teofilo reveals:The universal intellectis the innermost, mostreal and most proper facultyor potential part of theworld soul. It is that oneand the same thing that fillseverything, illuminates theuniverse and directs natureto produce her various speciessuitably. (p. 37).Orpheus calls it the "eyeof the world", because it seesboth the inside and outside ofall natural things, in order thatthey may may succeed in producingand maintaining themselves in theirproper proportions, intrinsically aswell as extrinsically. Empedoclescalls it "the differentiator", since itnever tires of distinguishing the formsconfused within nature's bosom, andof summoning the generation of onefrom the corruption of another. (p. 38).The first dialogue concerns the ways in which a philosopher may seek to defend himself, and a character called Elitropio compares:On one hand, a Scythian oaf . . . (p. 24)On the other hand, a Roman senatorand gentleman would demonstratevery scarce wisdom in abandoningthe mild banks of the Tiber, evenarmed with legitimate complaintand completely justified reprimand,to go try the Scythian oafs, who wouldseize the occasion to build, at his expense,towers and Babels of arguments of theutmost baseness, insolence and infamy,unleashing popular fury and stoning himin order to show other nations how muchdifference there is between dealing withhuman beings and with those who aremerely made in their image and likeness. (p. 25).In spite of such creatures, in the Fifth Dialogue Teofilo declares:The universe is, therefore, one,infinite and immobile.I say that the absolute possibilityis one, that the act is one;the form, or soul, is one,the matter, or body, is one,the thing is one, being is one.The maximum, and the optimum,is one: it cannot be comprehendedand is therefore indeterminableand not limitable, and hence infiniteand limitless, and consequentlyimmobile. (p. 87).Following on this, the character Dicsono mentions Heraclitus, and Teofilo says "Exactly." (p. 93).Herein lies the level of intelligence,because the inferior intellectscannot understand multiplicityexcept through many species,analogies and forms, superiorintellects do better with less,and the very best do perfectlywith very little. (p. 95).What explains that a contraryis the principle of its opposite,and that, therefore, the transmutationsare circular, if not the existence ofa subject, of a principle, of a term,and a continuity between the oneand its contrary? (p. 99).The decade is a unityin the same way,but it is more complex;The hundred is no lessa unity, but it is morecomplex. And what I tellyou in arithmetical terms,you must understand in thesense of a greater depthand a greater simplicityas regards the totalityof things.The supreme good,the supreme object of desire,the supreme perfection,the supreme beatitude consists in the unity which embracesthe whole. (p. 101).Teofilo. Praised be the gods,and may all living thingsmagnify the infinite,perfectly simple,unique,highest and absolute cause,principle and unity. (p. 101).The final selection in this book, A general account of bonding, (pp. 145-176) includes God among the list of bonding agents, along with:demons, souls, animals, nature, chance,luck and, finally, fate. (p. 145).Those who appreciate art are described as brute animals who "will shower his affections not on God but on His effects." (p. 146). There is a list of thirty topics after the observation:and a melancholicand unstable humouracts like a magneton evil spirits. (p. 155).Plotinus was able to turn back "the evil spells with which a certain Egyptian tried to bind and injure Plotinus" (p. 142) and a cosmic pogo stick hopping back and forth in the fields of religion and philosophy is even more obvious now than it was then.

This book is profoundly unique, and very well might be the oldest of its kind. The ideas expressed within it were doubtless in circulation long before Bruno's time, but Bruno is (as far as I know) the first to have both written them down and published them in a nonsectarian format. It's quite important stuff, and a subtle reading will reveal its influence on later thinkers like Nietzsche, Deleuze, Spinoza, and perhaps even Marx. This is extremely important reading for anyone interested in the origin of modern Philosophy and/or Metaphysics. I would rank it on the level of Descartes. The only problem is that a great deal of this thought is not much less heretical today than it was when Bruno was burned at the stake, albeit in a different way. This makes some of his ideas difficult to comprehend, because of how starkly they contrast to the truths we take as "given".Now, I must offer a mild disclaimer to the reader which should in no way discourage his or her perusal of its contents. Bruno, although often erroneously pegged as a Neoplatonist, is not in any way a Platonist. Although we've often heard talk that all of Western Philosophy, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Secular, or Hellenic, is essentially made up of "footnotes to Plato" (originally stated by A.N. Whitehead), we can see that Bruno not only understood Platonism very well, but made a very significant attempt to escape from it. For this fact alone, it should not be surprising that he was labelled a (dangerous) heretic. Heidegger thought that Nietzsche was the first reversal of Platonism. How wrong he was!Bruno's account of Form as dependent on Matter alone is enough evidence of this. Matter, which is traditionally relegated to the feminine role in Metaphysics, as receptive of the active Form which structures it, is also thought to be the source of obscurity, confusion, and occasionally (as in the case of Gnosticism), evil. Matter, for Bruno, is not only the "base matter" that it often became in Neoplatonism, but the "Mother" of Form. Form, says Bruno, would not exist without matter, and on this level, Neoplatonists would likely agree, as Form (with origins in the Good) is understood to be beyond Being. Yes, this means that form cannot properly exist on its own. It also means that existence is NOT primary (which is why Platonism has been accused of nihilism by Nietzsche & co).The "troubling" move is made when Bruno claims that Form is secondary to Matter. Form, wrote Bruno, emerges from the womb of matter on which it is wholly dependent, but it (Form) is, as far as I can tell, fatherless. We all know what that implies.. Without getting too deep into theological quandaries, I'd merely like to add that while Bruno edifies matter into a wholly independent agency from which literally All springs, he also describes it as being capricious and unchaste as it always has been, throwing off one form after another, until All have been "worn". Yet more unsavory comparisons come to mind. It's clear that although Matter has become more important than form, it remains very much worthy of suspicion, and not trust or any humanly veneration. This flies in the face of Neoplatonic practice, which seeks to improve what wants improving, under the assumption that there is a high idea(l) worth achieving. Bruno's goal seems to have been to make the high and the base indistinguishable, or at minimum reversible, and he made some very compelling arguments to this end.This means that the most spiritual of spiritualisms become more or less equivalent (or even subjugated) to the most material of materialisms. A very important move, to be sure, but one gets the feeling occasionally that Bruno has become so enraptured with his rebellion against tradition that he tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. There's a noteworthy absence of a meaningful ethics in his writings, and interpersonal engagement is viewed purely instrumentally. His writings on "bonding" are especially disturbing in this regard, with even Love taking on a Machiavellian, instrumental character. Love is less geared towards the improvement of life than towards the desire for combinatorics which are organized by the fickleness of the individual, independently of their worthiness.So then, I hope that you read this book. It truly is/was revolutionary, as I'd assume that the rest of Bruno's work is as well. It is far more rebellious than many of us are even prepared to comprehend. You'd do well to read some Hegel (who I'd characterize as a true modern Neoplatonist) or Plotinus alongside it.

I enjoyed this book very much.

The influence of Giordano Bruno on the development of philosophy is tremendous. This academic book has first class translations of 3 of Bruno's most important works, with a very instructive introduction. This is a book for the serious student. For those who seek an introduction to Hermetic philosophy the works of Frances Yates are a very good starting point, especially  Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Routledge Classics) , and The Art Of Memory . It is unlikely that anybody will truly understand Hermetic principles without an introduction to the ecstatic aspects of the philosophy. This can be found in  Divine Magic: HH Classics - Pythagoras: The Seven Sacred Secrets of Manifestation (Hay House Classics) . The Egyptian connection in Bruno's work can be checked against  Egyptian Cosmology: The Animated Universe . Those people able to understand Bruno's principles will find Cause, Principle, and Unity, and Essays on Magic truly enlightening. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Routledge Classics)The Art Of MemoryDivine Magic: HH Classics - Pythagoras: The Seven Sacred Secrets of Manifestation (Hay House Classics)Egyptian Cosmology: The Animated Universe

The e-book version is an insult to all who have ever read a book electronically. I own many hundreds of e-books but this one is so poor that I had to delete it from my collection. I have never seen so many mistakes in OCR parsing; random parts of the text, small and large, are hyperlinks; all hyperlinks, including the table of content, are dead.As I am interested in the content, I will have to buy the hard copy.Do not purchase the electronic version. It will surely disappoint you.