God and time and space

[Juma]

Of course we classify stuff. That is hardwired way deep down into our neurosystem. "Universals" is the result of that. But what is so interesting with that?
I think you fall into the wrong rabbit hole if you think that that is some profound mystery/truth.

Pretty much what I expected from you. Contentious, clueless and content-free. "Nuerosystems" is a catchall for you. Unfortunately, it explains nothing. No matter, you can stick with Superman. At least he goes around doing cool stuff.

Your tirade about "the one" doesnt explain anything. Your tirades about eternal beauty doesnt explain anything, it doesnt even describe anything real, just your poetical hallucinations.

And you really didnt understand why I mentioned concepts such as superman. Pity.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but OK what point of yours am I missing about Superman?

 

[George S]

There exists reality. Well, a reality at least. We can make up a story about how our observable reality came to be. Any story will do.

Any story can be made up about unobservable reality. Any just-so story will do because it will never be observed and so can never, even in theory, be disproved if false. You want a God in your metaphysics? Cannot be disproved. I like an uncaused (equivalent to self-caused) reality. Cause-effect applies within reality but not to reality itself.

Sure, you can do that, that's one angle...

So, I could include in my metaphysical theory about reality that next year there will be a seriously malevolent God bent on making us suffer horribly and that our only escape route is to organise mankind to kill ourselves before this God comes around. If we manage to do that in time, we will be saved and forever happy!

And by your own account this is a reasonable theory. Let's do it?
EB

Who said "reasonable."

There are any number of just-so stories called, in some cases, religion. When these religions have violations of natural law that places them outside reality. It is this being outside reality is why any just-so story will do. It must be fiction. God turned the switch in his butt to the on position so he could exist to, in turn, create our universe as an artifact in his own (his own being a 3-d space with time running and our universe an object like a clay pot in his).

Here's a just-so story. The state of being nothing with nothing happening ended after an infinite time. The difference between this heretofore eternal nothing and something was small. So small it was the closest thing to nothing there could be. All the energy of our universe in the tiniest of spaces. Big Bang conditions is what happens when a universe gets tired of being nothing. Hey, it is a story.

And yes, the escape-route is the motivation for suicide. It is the escape-route from a predicted horrible fate for almost all suicides. The alternative routes seem worse. There are fates worse than death. Burning is painful, very painful. Many religions threaten burning as the fate for "sinners" in a containing universe which has two parts, at least, heaven and hell. It's a story.

String Theory? It is a story.

Big Bang and Inflation? Another story! A story about how the CMBR got to be as we see it.

The bi-collapsing universe(s) in which each causes the other has no particular beginning nor end -- just a middle where the big bang goes in both time directions. It is a story.

The thing is, any story is plausible, but not necessarily reasonable. Anything is possible with magic. A god worthy of the name can ignore natural law and common sense. The FSM is as plausible, and unreasonable, as any other.

I would favor the search for reasonable stories, myself.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Sure, you can do that, that's one angle...

So, I could include in my metaphysical theory about reality that next year there will be a seriously malevolent God bent on making us suffer horribly and that our only escape route is to organise mankind to kill ourselves before this God comes around. If we manage to do that in time, we will be saved and forever happy!

And by your own account this is a reasonable theory. Let's do it?
EB

Who said "reasonable."

There are any number of just-so stories called, in some cases, religion. When these religions have violations of natural law that places them outside reality. It is this being outside reality is why any just-so story will do. It must be fiction. God turned the switch in his butt to the on position so he could exist to, in turn, create our universe as an artifact in his own (his own being a 3-d space with time running and our universe an object like a clay pot in his).

Here's a just-so story. The state of being nothing with nothing happening ended after an infinite time. The difference between this heretofore eternal nothing and something was small. So small it was the closest thing to nothing there could be. All the energy of our universe in the tiniest of spaces. Big Bang conditions is what happens when a universe gets tired of being nothing. Hey, it is a story.

And yes, the escape-route is the motivation for suicide. It is the escape-route from a predicted horrible fate for almost all suicides. The alternative routes seem worse. There are fates worse than death. Burning is painful, very painful. Many religions threaten burning as the fate for "sinners" in a containing universe which has two parts, at least, heaven and hell. It's a story.

String Theory? It is a story.

Big Bang and Inflation? Another story! A story about how the CMBR got to be as we see it.

The bi-collapsing universe(s) in which each causes the other has no particular beginning nor end -- just a middle where the big bang goes in both time directions. It is a story.

The thing is, any story is plausible, but not necessarily reasonable. Anything is possible with magic. A god worthy of the name can ignore natural law and common sense. The FSM is as plausible, and unreasonable, as any other.

I would favor the search for reasonable stories, myself.

This problem comes up over and over. It's very difficult for people to see that because the life of the mind is real it does not follow all that ideas are of equal importance.

 

[Juma]

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but OK what point of yours am I missing about Superman?

You falsly claimed that I argued afainst the usefulness of concepts. I countered with the truth and then you ridiculed me and the post because of the examples.
To me that is nothing but bad manners and intellectual dishonesty.

The concept of beauty is not more profound than that of superman. It is just an older meme.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but OK what point of yours am I missing about Superman?

You falsly claimed that I argued afainst the usefulness of concepts. I countered with the truth and then you ridiculed me and the post because of the examples.
To me that is nothing but bad manners and intellectual dishonesty.

The concept of beauty is not more profound than that of superman. It is just an older meme.

Injured tone aside, I don't see any missed point here.

To compare a universal idea which for many makes life worth living with a fictional character that many in the world have never even heard of is worthy of ridicule. It is true that characters such as Superman, Luke Skywalker, Neo etc exert a mythic force on the minds of some of their fans. And they may participate in beauty while experiencing the stories. But that's a very long way from being on the same level as beauty itself. In any case, the character in a myth is a symbol, and it's the forces behind the symbol that begin to reach the realm of universals.

As for my manners, I've been subjected to condescending dismissals from the start, enough that other posters commented on it. Finally I decided to reply in kind. Unfortunately, it seems the more effective approach. You might want to reflect on that.

 

[Juma]

You falsly claimed that I argued afainst the usefulness of concepts. I countered with the truth and then you ridiculed me and the post because of the examples.
To me that is nothing but bad manners and intellectual dishonesty.

The concept of beauty is not more profound than that of superman. It is just an older meme.

Injured tone aside, I don't see any missed point here.

To compare a universal idea which for many makes life worth living with a fictional character that many in the world have never even heard of is worthy of ridicule. It is true that characters such as Superman, Luke Skywalker, Neo etc exert a mythic force on the minds of some of their fans. And they may participate in beauty while experiencing the stories. But that's a very long way from being on the same level as beauty itself. In any case, the character in a myth is a symbol, and it's the forces behind the symbol that begin to reach the realm of universals.

As for my manners, I've been subjected to condescending dismissals from the start, enough that other posters commented on it. Finally I decided to reply in kind. Unfortunately, it seems the more effective approach. You might want to reflect on that.

It is not about the tone but about the arguments. And you are still missing the point. You seem more of a life coacher than interested how stuff works.

What drives people is the probability of nice emotions. Something is beatiful because we feel good about it.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Injured tone aside, I don't see any missed point here.

To compare a universal idea which for many makes life worth living with a fictional character that many in the world have never even heard of is worthy of ridicule. It is true that characters such as Superman, Luke Skywalker, Neo etc exert a mythic force on the minds of some of their fans. And they may participate in beauty while experiencing the stories. But that's a very long way from being on the same level as beauty itself. In any case, the character in a myth is a symbol, and it's the forces behind the symbol that begin to reach the realm of universals.

As for my manners, I've been subjected to condescending dismissals from the start, enough that other posters commented on it. Finally I decided to reply in kind. Unfortunately, it seems the more effective approach. You might want to reflect on that.

It is not about the tone but about the arguments. And you are still missing the point. You seem more of a life coacher than interested how stuff works.

What drives people is the probability of nice emotions. Something is beatiful because we feel good about it.

If you could explain the point I might understand it.

I agree with your second statement, but I would state it more simply and consistently: all seek the good. They pursue actions that they perceive as benefitting themselves in some way. The second is redundant. Of course beauty is good. The point of dwelling on beauty, as I've explained, is its relatability. And it's the strongest argument for not adopting a mechanical view of reality. There is no use or need for beauty in a mechanical universe.

What you leave out is the force beauty has in our lives. The desirability of these states of mind and the lengths that people will go to achieve them is very important. To reduce them to the level of "nice emotions" creates a false impression.

I don't know what this life coach stuff is about. This is ancient Greek philosophy.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And by your own account this is a reasonable theory. Let's do it?
EB

Who said "reasonable."

<snip>

I would favor the search for reasonable stories, myself.

You said "reasonable".
EB

 

[Juma]

I agree with your second statement, but I would state it more simply and consistently: all seek the good. They pursue actions that they perceive as benefitting themselves in some way. The second is redundant. Of course beauty is good. The point of dwelling on beauty, as I've explained, is its relatability. And it's the strongest argument for not adopting a mechanical view of reality. There is no use or need for beauty in a mechanical universe.

What you leave out is the force beauty has in our lives. The desirability of these states of mind and the lengths that people will go to achieve them is very important. To reduce them to the level of "nice emotions" creates a false impression.

You are stuck in 2000 year old science. It has happened a lot since then.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I agree with your second statement, but I would state it more simply and consistently: all seek the good. They pursue actions that they perceive as benefitting themselves in some way. The second is redundant. Of course beauty is good. The point of dwelling on beauty, as I've explained, is its relatability. And it's the strongest argument for not adopting a mechanical view of reality. There is no use or need for beauty in a mechanical universe.

What you leave out is the force beauty has in our lives. The desirability of these states of mind and the lengths that people will go to achieve them is very important. To reduce them to the level of "nice emotions" creates a false impression.

You are stuck in 2000 year old science. It has happened a lot since then.

"Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know." - Bertrand Russell

Remember the OP? Not a scientific point.

Maybe one of these days you'll construct an actual argument instead of one red herring after another.

 

[Juma]

You are stuck in 2000 year old science. It has happened a lot since then.

"Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know." - Bertrand Russell

Remember the OP? Not a scientific point.

Existence of an entity? Of course that is a scientific point. What else? Poetic?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Also, strictly speaking, concepts are not necessary to our ideas about reality. I don't need a concept of traffic light to take it down with my car. Let alone anything eternal.

I disagree. You will have some concept of a traffic light if you interact with it. As experiences go, it's trivial, sure, but even the trivial exists within a metaphysics.

Suppose I come from a country where there're no traffic light. Suppose I've never heard of or seen any traffic lights. And then I visit your country (where people think traffic lights are eternal). Suppose I come across my first traffic light and the thing has been designed by an artist such that it does not look at all like any other traffic light except it has a red light, a green one and an amber one. I don't see why in this case it would be helpful, and even less necessary, to talk of me having a concept of traffic light, let alone the concept of a traffic light. I may form an idea of this particular traffic light, not as one among many traffic lights but just something I've never contemplated before in my life. Where would I need to have a concept of traffic light? Can you explain?

Eternity in this context means unchanging. Our minds are not eternal, but they are drawn to concepts of eternity(or timelessness). They therefore participate in eternity.

Eternity does not mean "unchanging". This is completely idiotic. Go back to school. Buy yourself a dictionary.

Because that is my experience and education. Because the clarity and unity of these ideas make it easier and more beautiful for me to interact with reality. Knowledge in this context is not simply a fact or a system. It has a spiritual quality, by which I mean my mental state is altered(for the better). From it, I gain insight into my own relationship with reality.

This is completely idiotic, too.

Also, you just contradicted yourself, again. Previously, you accepted that beauty and other concepts are real as mental objects, but mental objects are particulars, yet you insist here to say that beauty is not a particular. Can you explain which is which?

There's more than one thing going on. There's Beauty itself, seen as something external and eternal(not meant as an empirical statement), and then there's a particular experience through which a mind discerns beauty. So, while Beauty is conceived of as eternal, an experience is necessarily not.

So how do you know that there's external beauty? All you have and know are your experiences. How could you possibly know that your experiences are true of some external world? How would you know therefore that there is something like external beauty, let alone that it is eternal.

The difference between fantasy and reality in this realm is the degree to which the idea is universal and to the degree it influences one's life. Fantasies are real, they're just not very important. A fantasy, or "mental object" that's an intimate part of your life is much more than a simple imagining. If that idea, at this point "fantasy" is no longer appropriate, is part of the human condition, it is a reality. Beauty is perhaps the easiest way to see this.

I'm still not clear what you mean. Are there degrees in universality?! How come?

What is the use of claiming fantasies to be real? We call fantasies "fantasies" precisely to underline the fact they're not real. My idea of a leprechaun is real, not the leprechaun. The idea may be said to influence my life, the leprechaun cannot.
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

"Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know." - Bertrand Russell

Remember the OP? Not a scientific point.

Existence of an entity? Of course that is a scientific point. What else? Poetic?

First a red herring, now a straw man. 'round and round we go....

 

[Horatio Parker]

I disagree. You will have some concept of a traffic light if you interact with it. As experiences go, it's trivial, sure, but even the trivial exists within a metaphysics.

Suppose I come from a country where there're no traffic light. Suppose I've never heard of or seen any traffic lights. And then I visit your country (where people think traffic lights are eternal). Suppose I come across my first traffic light and the thing has been designed by an artist such that it does not look at all like any other traffic light except it has a red light, a green one and an amber one. I don't see why in this case it would be helpful, and even less necessary, to talk of me having a concept of traffic light, let alone the concept of a traffic light. I may form an idea of this particular traffic light, not as one among many traffic lights but just something I've never contemplated before in my life. Where would I need to have a concept of traffic light? Can you explain?

You answered your own question. BTW, I never said "the" traffic light.

Eternity in this context means unchanging. Our minds are not eternal, but they are drawn to concepts of eternity(or timelessness). They therefore participate in eternity.

Eternity does not mean "unchanging". This is completely idiotic. Go back to school. Buy yourself a dictionary.

From Wikipedia:

Some, such as Aristotle, would say the same about the natural cosmos in regard to both past and future eternal duration, and like the eternal Platonic Forms, immutability was considered essential.

"Immutability", Mr. Presumably-Not-An-Idiot, means "unchanging".

Also, you just contradicted yourself, again. Previously, you accepted that beauty and other concepts are real as mental objects, but mental objects are particulars, yet you insist here to say that beauty is not a particular. Can you explain which is which?

There's more than one thing going on. There's Beauty itself, seen as something external and eternal(not meant as an empirical statement), and then there's a particular experience through which a mind discerns beauty. So, while Beauty is conceived of as eternal, an experience is necessarily not.

So how do you know that there's external beauty? All you have and know are your experiences. How could you possibly know that your experiences are true of some external world? How would you know therefore that there is something like external beauty, let alone that it is eternal.

I don't know, in the sense that I know 2+2=4. I know in the sense that intense experiences of beauty feel larger than myself, and are consistently the same. I didn't write Beethoven's Pastorale Symphony, but I feel that my appreciation of it is similar to others.

The dual reality of Platonic metaphysics is where the eternal comes in. The vantage point of the beholder is in the world of sense and is viewing, through whatever sense experience, the upper world of eternal forms. It's that world that is eternal.

At this point it becomes helpful to realize that this approach isn't intended as a cut and dry dogmatic ordering of reality. It's a spiritual exercise. The practice of contemplating these ideas is intended to induce an altered state, similar to the experiences of beauty we've been discussing.

The difference between fantasy and reality in this realm is the degree to which the idea is universal and to the degree it influences one's life. Fantasies are real, they're just not very important. A fantasy, or "mental object" that's an intimate part of your life is much more than a simple imagining. If that idea, at this point "fantasy" is no longer appropriate, is part of the human condition, it is a reality. Beauty is perhaps the easiest way to see this.

I'm still not clear what you mean. Are there degrees in universality?! How come?

What is the use of claiming fantasies to be real? We call fantasies "fantasies" precisely to underline the fact they're not real. My idea of a leprechaun is real, not the leprechaun. The idea may be said to influence my life, the leprechaun cannot.
EB

The utility of admitting fantasies to be real is to distinguish them from more important thoughts that are more obviously real, such as mathematics.

You may prefer to believe that some of things your mind does are not real?

 

[Juma]

I know in the sense that intense experiences of beauty feel larger than myself, and are consistently the same. I didn't write Beethoven's Pastorale Symphony, but I feel that my appreciation of it is similar to others.

1) similar to whom? The chinese 5 year old that never heard western music? Shouldnt think so.

2) your experience is a result of your bodys reactionss. Change DNA somewhat and you very well feel something comletely different.

So what is "eternal" about beauty?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Suppose I come from a country where there're no traffic light. Suppose I've never heard of or seen any traffic lights. And then I visit your country (where people think traffic lights are eternal). Suppose I come across my first traffic light and the thing has been designed by an artist such that it does not look at all like any other traffic light except it has a red light, a green one and an amber one. I don't see why in this case it would be helpful, and even less necessary, to talk of me having a concept of traffic light, let alone the concept of a traffic light. I may form an idea of this particular traffic light, not as one among many traffic lights but just something I've never contemplated before in my life. Where would I need to have a concept of traffic light? Can you explain?

You answered your own question.

Please explain to me how I did that.

BTW, I never said "the" traffic light.

What is it you don't understand about my phase, "let alone the concept of a traffic light."

Each of your posts is a demonstration that you cannot hold a meaningful conversation.

Eternity in this context means unchanging. Our minds are not eternal, but they are drawn to concepts of eternity(or timelessness). They therefore participate in eternity.

Eternity does not mean "unchanging". This is completely idiotic. Go back to school. Buy yourself a dictionary.

From Wikipedia:

Some, such as Aristotle, would say the same about the natural cosmos in regard to both past and future eternal duration, and like the eternal Platonic Forms, immutability was considered essential.

"Immutability", Mr. Presumably-Not-An-Idiot, means "unchanging".

No even that is true! "Immutability" means "unchangeability", not "unchanging". "Unchanging" here is adjectival, while "Immutability" is a noun.

Now, even if we grant that what you meant was that "Immutability" means "unchangeability", it does not follow that "Eternity" means unchanging. We may think of eternity, if it exists at all, as an unlimited period of time throughout which things are always changing. Why not? Some philosophers seemed to have hold that belief. You may believe differently, and that would be sort of legitimate, but one still cannot say as you do that eternity means immutability or unchangeability (or whatever related to that).

Also, read again your quote of the text about Aristotle. It does not actually suggest, let alone say or claim, that eternity means unchanging, unchangeability, or immutability.

I don't know, in the sense that I know 2+2=4. I know in the sense that intense experiences of beauty feel larger than myself, and are consistently the same. I didn't write Beethoven's Pastorale Symphony, but I feel that my appreciation of it is similar to others.

And that's all your justification?

The dual reality of Platonic metaphysics is where the eternal comes in. The vantage point of the beholder is in the world of sense and is viewing, through whatever sense experience, the upper world of eternal forms. It's that world that is eternal.

At this point it becomes helpful to realize that this approach isn't intended as a cut and dry dogmatic ordering of reality. It's a spiritual exercise. The practice of contemplating these ideas is intended to induce an altered state, similar to the experiences of beauty we've been discussing.

You are again contradicting yourself. Either you want to insist on the extraordinary claim that there are some eternal things, such as "It's that world that is eternal", which would require adequate justification, or you are not claiming anything, just practising some spiritual exercises!

The utility of admitting fantasies to be real is to distinguish them from more important thoughts that are more obviously real, such as mathematics.

Nobody sane thinks fantasies are real. That's why sane people call them fantasies. That's what we actually mean. This is very practical because it allows us to make the distinction between less important thoughts, those about fantasies, from more important thoughts, those about things we think of as real. There is therefore no need whatsoever to pretend as you do that fantasies are real.

You may prefer to believe that some of things your mind does are not real?

Equivocation, again.

Whatever my mind does is real. This however does not imply that any fantasies I may be thinking about are real at all.
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

Please explain to me how I did that.

With the words I bolded:

I may form an idea of this particular traffic light

BTW, I never said "the" traffic light.

What is it you don't understand about my phase, "let alone the concept of a traffic light."

"The" traffic light as opposed to "a" could imply a universal. If you've no idea of a traffic light before encountering one, interacting with it and forming an idea of it, it can hardly be seen as a universal. That's why I was careful to say "a" traffic light.

No even that is true! "Immutability" means "unchangeability", not "unchanging". "Unchanging" here is adjectival, while "Immutability" is a noun.

Now, even if we grant that what you meant was that "Immutability" means "unchangeability", it does not follow that "Eternity" means unchanging. We may think of eternity, if it exists at all, as an unlimited period of time throughout which things are always changing. Why not? Some philosophers seemed to have hold that belief. You may believe differently, and that would be sort of legitimate, but one still cannot say as you do that eternity means immutability or unchangeability (or whatever related to that).

Also, read again your quote of the text about Aristotle. It does not actually suggest, let alone say or claim, that eternity means unchanging, unchangeability, or immutability.

The classic Greek conception of eternity is a class of things which exist outside of time.

Aristotle:

It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self sufficient of lives… From [the fulfilment of the whole heaven] derive the being and life which other things, some more or less articulately but other feebly, enjoy."[16]

Wikipedia on the Platonic forms:

A Form is aspatial (transcendent to space) and atemporal (transcendent to time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period, rather it provides the formal basis for time. It therefore formally grounds beginning, persisting and ending. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration. It exists transcendent to time altogether.[16] Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location.[17] They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental (i.e. real in the strictest sense of the word).[18]

A Form is an objective "blueprint" of perfection.[19] The Forms are perfect themselves because they are unchanging. For example, say we have a triangle drawn on a blackboard. A triangle is a polygon with 3 sides. The triangle as it is on the blackboard is far from perfect. However, it is only the intelligibility of the Form "triangle" that allows us to know the drawing on the chalkboard is a triangle, and the Form "triangle" is perfect and unchanging. It is exactly the same whenever anyone chooses to consider it; however, the time is that of the observer and not of the triangle.

Instead of quibbling, you could do some studying.

I don't know, in the sense that I know 2+2=4. I know in the sense that intense experiences of beauty feel larger than myself, and are consistently the same. I didn't write Beethoven's Pastorale Symphony, but I feel that my appreciation of it is similar to others.

And that's all your justification?

The dual reality of Platonic metaphysics is where the eternal comes in. The vantage point of the beholder is in the world of sense and is viewing, through whatever sense experience, the upper world of eternal forms. It's that world that is eternal.

At this point it becomes helpful to realize that this approach isn't intended as a cut and dry dogmatic ordering of reality. It's a spiritual exercise. The practice of contemplating these ideas is intended to induce an altered state, similar to the experiences of beauty we've been discussing.

You are again contradicting yourself. Either you want to insist on the extraordinary claim that there are some eternal things, such as "It's that world that is eternal", which would require adequate justification, or you are not claiming anything, just practising some spiritual exercises!

Good. You're starting to get it. We live much of our mental lives outside the realm of science, which provides no meaning. This is a system that provides meaning without requiring religious type beliefs. It's a method for envisioning reality.

Remember the OP. There is no empirical way to accommodate the notion of God existing outside time and space. This is a way, an ancient way with centuries of tradition and literature to do just that. And without an appeal to revelation.

Whatever my mind does is real. This however does not imply that any fantasies I may be thinking about are real at all.
EB

Contradiction.

 

[Juma]

The classic Greek conception of eternity is a class of things which exist outside of time.
.

No. Outside of time is "atemporal". "Eternal" inside time but forever.
Se your own example from wikipedia:

A Form is aspatial (transcendent to space) and atemporal (transcendent to time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period, [...] It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration.

 

[Horatio Parker]

No. Outside of time is "atemporal". "Eternal" inside time but forever.
Se your own example from wikipedia:

A Form is aspatial (transcendent to space) and atemporal (transcendent to time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period, [...] It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration.

Good grief. I'm dealing with two people who don't understand this system, but want to lecture me about it.

"Existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration'" are references to time. Your quoted sentence specifically states that forms are NOT eternal in that sense.

There are conceptions of eternity in time, such as the classic Christian variety. This is different. It was a reconciliation of Heraclitus, who argued that change was constant, and Parmenides, who argued that change was illusory. Plato proposed a duality: material things change, but the laws which govern them do not.