Al-Motashim was a prominent Chaliph of the Abbasid realm. He was victorious in yet another of the usual wars of his empire with the Byzantine one, and to a degree his realm was the replacement of the previous Sassanid antagonist for the Byzantines, now in the 9th century AD. Al-Motashim even sacked the birthplace of the current reigning dynasty, the city of Amorion, in Western-central Anatolia.
But much more importantly in this thread... Al Motashim is the name of the main figure in a short story by Borges. There he is a person that the protagonist of a (made-up by Borges) 21-volume novel, is looking for, in all of India of the interwar period in the 20th century.
The Al-Motashim is (much like his name signifies in Arabic) one who 'is seeking refuge', and in the story he also is granting refuge, to the protagonist. The comments with which Borges (or the narrator of the article on that novel) finished off this piece are presenting the possible explanation that the novel was written to signify that even if each person is seeking another person in the vast multitudes of people, maybe any other can equally be seeking another, with the set remaining bounded: cause each part of it - eg each person in the story's context- is not just placed in one position of a vast - or potentially infinite - set, but also at any other position of it as well, as intermediate between seeker and one sought, or as any of the main two edges of that set.
I ended my own second circle of the library program, as agreed with the people there, in a somewhat more literary-inclined number of pages on the notion of Infinity in ancient Greek philosophy but also in art. And mentioned this story by Borges, placing it next to the examined view of Parmenides: that an Eidos (incorrectly termed 'Idea' now in relation to Plato) cannot be itself part of human thought (but must be an eternal, and external category we merely can form an idol of in our thought) cause if it was then there should also be in our thought an Eidos of that Eidos, ie a type of what constitutes an Eidos, and then an eidos of the eidos of the eidos, and so on, forever.
But maybe Socrates was not that correct to bow out to that claim by Parmenides, given that maybe this infinite chain can exist even in human thought (deemed as non-infinite) provided that each part of it also has as many other functions in our thought as many different thoughts are needed to account for the infinite chain to begin with.
Thank you, i will be here all night answering your questions on reviving the corpse of Zeno in honor of Cantor.
*
Actually, the thread merely asks that you reflect on the points of Borges' story, or the idea that something infinite can be non-infinite as well if each part of it is also serving in some manner as each other part (or all other parts, like Plotinus in the 3rd century AD- long before he was an Admin- noted in his Enneads
).
But much more importantly in this thread... Al Motashim is the name of the main figure in a short story by Borges. There he is a person that the protagonist of a (made-up by Borges) 21-volume novel, is looking for, in all of India of the interwar period in the 20th century.
The Al-Motashim is (much like his name signifies in Arabic) one who 'is seeking refuge', and in the story he also is granting refuge, to the protagonist. The comments with which Borges (or the narrator of the article on that novel) finished off this piece are presenting the possible explanation that the novel was written to signify that even if each person is seeking another person in the vast multitudes of people, maybe any other can equally be seeking another, with the set remaining bounded: cause each part of it - eg each person in the story's context- is not just placed in one position of a vast - or potentially infinite - set, but also at any other position of it as well, as intermediate between seeker and one sought, or as any of the main two edges of that set.
I ended my own second circle of the library program, as agreed with the people there, in a somewhat more literary-inclined number of pages on the notion of Infinity in ancient Greek philosophy but also in art. And mentioned this story by Borges, placing it next to the examined view of Parmenides: that an Eidos (incorrectly termed 'Idea' now in relation to Plato) cannot be itself part of human thought (but must be an eternal, and external category we merely can form an idol of in our thought) cause if it was then there should also be in our thought an Eidos of that Eidos, ie a type of what constitutes an Eidos, and then an eidos of the eidos of the eidos, and so on, forever.
But maybe Socrates was not that correct to bow out to that claim by Parmenides, given that maybe this infinite chain can exist even in human thought (deemed as non-infinite) provided that each part of it also has as many other functions in our thought as many different thoughts are needed to account for the infinite chain to begin with.
Thank you, i will be here all night answering your questions on reviving the corpse of Zeno in honor of Cantor.
*
Actually, the thread merely asks that you reflect on the points of Borges' story, or the idea that something infinite can be non-infinite as well if each part of it is also serving in some manner as each other part (or all other parts, like Plotinus in the 3rd century AD- long before he was an Admin- noted in his Enneads
).
