Prayer, Magic and Memory in Plotinus’ Treatise on the Soul (Enneads iv 4 [28], 30-45)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In an environment where astrology was widely respected, Plotinus accepted the role of heavenly bodies in answering prayer. Considering them divine, he denied them the use of memory (iv 4, 6-8); how then could he explain response to prayer received after an interval of time? Plotinus was also concerned to deny attributing intentionality in any response given, for good or evil, since that would make the astral deities responsible also for morally dubious answers. In his treatment of the issue in this passage, Plotinus draws on a lengthy earlier discussion of the role of memory in the soul’s thinking and knowing (iv 3, 25-iv 4, 12), as associated primarily with that which exists in time and is characterized by αἴσθησις , i.e., the lower soul belonging to the composite living being (iv 3, 25.12-14; iv 4, 16-17). If astral deities have bodies, these are of a highly refined fiery nature, and can be affected only inasmuch as they participate in the cosmic circuit. What suppliants may regard as intentional response must therefore be understood as the effect of a type of ‘linking’ of the universe as a living organism in which all parts are coordinated in an interrelationship characterized by sympathy. This is why answers to prayer represent no more than the unintended reaction of natural forces in the universe, the very same forces also responsible for effective use of magic. If Plotinus does not assign much value to prayer, he does recognize that, as with magic, such incantations may have a harmful effect, if only for the lower soul. He therefore warns the wise person to guard against such outcomes by focusing the soul in its contemplation of what is higher, i.e., its inner life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".