Talk:Primum movens

message: You directly implied Protologos ('Primum causa/movens') is not Logos Metakinethoun ('Motus causa/movens'), but Logos Asugkinetos ('Immotus causa/movens,') a.k.a. Logos Alogos ('Sine causa causa,') a.k.a. Aitia-ola ('Allatus-causa,') which some call ultimate.
Protologos is not Logos Alogos, a.k.a. (in Hellenismos) Chaos. What if one assumes Protologos is unmoved?  If Protologos is ultimate, such as asugkinetos ('unmoved,') then it has neither a beginning nor end; is alogos ('causeless.')  Primum is also 'in the first ('proto') place,' i.e. unus, and AFAIK a form of 'primo' (or vice-versa,) i.e. 'in the beginning.'  Hence, Protologos is beginningless-endless, unmoved, causeless, and Protologos is proto/ena--has a cause moving it into beginning-end, particularly ena ('one,' Protologos in Peano axioms, but not Logos Alogos.)  That is one to three contradictions.  One is bounded, but beyond are unbounded sets.  Therefore Protologos is Logos not Alogos.  Unbounded sets are used in dynamic/chaotic systems.  Therefore Chaos is Logos Alogos ('causeless cause.')
Compare all the Classical Philosophers that led to HPB, and ideas such as Godhead vs. God, and the implications of pralaya on Arianism.  Pralaya was defined by pre-Greek philosophers that led to HPB; they call Chaos Parabrahm.  They describe this as an omnipresent, eternal, boundless, immutable (sounds like 'immot.') cause of non-eternal causes (that cause everything else)--bounded in time--mutable--not present when only Parabrahm is--Dchmelik (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protologos

message: On second thoughts - sorry for being tardy in my thoughts - the article title and its introductory paragraph (lead) are not followed up with discussion of the First Mover idea. The rest of the article is on Aristotle's really quite different Unmoved Mover idea, and should, I think, be merged with unmoved mover. The title and introductory part, which is in line rather with Aquinas's thought, not Aristotle's, should perhaps be made a redirect to cosmological argument.  Platia (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second thoughts 

message: i don't have time to go through the whole article right now, and i may actually never get around to it, so i should mention here that this article is fraught with several pretty well-butchered sentences. so, if i don't get around to it, let's try to clean that up, shall we? 8-|  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.57.102 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence fragments??? 

message: I see that a few times in the past people have asked why this article is not merged with Unmoved mover, but the discussions have never gone very far, presumably because this article is short and not often seen. Personally I think that this article can be safely changed to a redirect. Two questions to anyone who watches this page:
1. Is there anything which comes under discussion of "primum movens" which would not also come into discussion of the "unmoved mover"? If not, let's get this done.
2. Concerning that merge, is there anything in this article which is better or more complete than what is currently in the unmoved mover article, that we should try to recover?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My explanation below is why I think this is a bad idea.--Dchmelik (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge to Unmoved mover 

message: As my (and apparently the) first argument on the page described, though rather unclearly, verbosely, and with at least one error, it is easy, especially in the West, to confuse first (but moved) cause (primum movens) with causeless cause (unmoved mover.)
As philosophers explain, and as in systems like most of Hinduism, and Kabbalah based on Semitic mythology like Genesis, and Jakob Boehme's texts, ideas/terminology of which are now common, these causes are different. The idea of causeless cause is that it always existed, exists, will exist. The first cause, as 'first,' denotes a point in time at which this cause came into motion--was moved--so its motion will eventually stop (but maybe reoccur.) This implies an earlier, non-numbered, unmoved/causeless cause that 'first' was moved/caused from.
In Hinduism, causeless cause is formless Para Brahman, and first cause (first Logos) is the first god, such as Brahma in post-Vedic Hinduism, and the first stage (like thought) in the sound Om. Kabbalah has the idea of causeless (void--not tikkun) and first (divine, tikkun--logos) causes, which in Jakob Boehme's mysticism are Godhead (not logos) and God (logos.) In Eastern and Western systems, first cause is 'protologos' and there are usually two subsequent divine logoi (in systems of triple manifestation.) Causeless cause--unmoved mover--is described as 'beyond divine:' the 'void' or Godhead is certainly not a god/logos, but is called the source of 'God,' and Parabrahm denotes 'beyond' (para) 'god' (brahma) (sometimes, perhaps incorrectly, called the supreme god.)
Earlier versions of this article discussing protologoi had advantages; this article should clarify the difference between unmoved/causeless and first causes. Of course, without the systems I mentioned, someone might argue first cause is causeless and 'the universe' only ever was caused at one time in the past. All such arguments have critical flaws.
Causeless cause with logoi is not the only causality theory: an alternate is dependent arising.
I want to suggest merging causeless cause into unmoved mover, but it might be original research associating 'causeless' with 'unmoved.' However, likely the language is similar enough that this is not true, and I think there is no plausible philosophy going against this.--Dchmelik (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're entirely correct and the Unmoved mover article attempts to reflect what you're saying here. Blavatsky's syncretic Secret Doctrine and “causeless cause”, while charming, are in no way relevant in the context of an Aristotle article. Given the typically appalling misconceptions in this article, I see no reason not to proceed with a “merge”, apart from the lack of anything worth “merging”.—Machine Elf 1735 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing first cause with causeless cause