Oligarchy- A Historical Look from Plato's Dialogues

Backreaction: A little less conversation, a little more science please

An Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military or religious hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγος olígos) and "rule" (ἀρχή arkhē). Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy.[citation needed] Oligarchies have been tyrannical throughout history, being completely reliant on public servitude to exist. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group. Some city-states from Ancient Greece were oligarchies.( bold added by me for emphasis)

Change "public servitude" to "consumerism" and this exemplifies for many what democracies have become?


***

Not only from a historical perspective do I introduce this material, but to indicate, that I along with many, have become disillusioned with the current politicization structures.

A desire then, for a more "introspective look" would then be accorded in a search for the political ideal. It was done for an "economic ideal," so it must be mustered in the same vain as the Economic Manhattan project where scientists had gathered for perspective. A desire then for a "21st Century View" toward a "just society."

See: Search function for concept here.


A search function listed by percentage of importance was then done in respect of Plato's commentary to be revealed in the Dialogues to offer perspective.

Plato : LAWS

Persons of the dialogue: An Athenian stranger - Cleinias, a Cretan
- Megillus, a Lacedaemonian
Translated by Benjamin Jowett - 60 Pages (Part 2)

Laws-Part 2 Page 23

Ath. I will do as you suggest. There is a tradition of the happy life of mankind in days when all things were spontaneous and abundant. And of this the reason is said to have been as follows: - Cronos knew what we ourselves were declaring, that no human nature invested with supreme power is able to order human affairs and not overflow with insolence and wrong. Which reflection led him to appoint not men but demigods, who are of a higher and more divine race, to be the kings and rulers of our cities; he did as we do with flocks of sheep and other tame animals. For we do not appoint oxen to be the lords of oxen, or goats of goats; but we ourselves are a superior race, and rule over them. In like manner God, in his love of mankind, placed over us the demons, who are a superior race, and they with great case and pleasure to themselves, and no less to us, taking care us and giving us peace and reverence and order and justice never failing, made the tribes of men happy and united. And this tradition, which is true, declares that cities of which some mortal man and not God is the ruler, have no escape from evils and toils. Still we must do all that we can to imitate the life which is said to have existed in the days of Cronos, and, as far as the principle of immortality dwells in us, to that we must hearken, both in private and public life, and regulate our cities and houses according to law, meaning by the very term "law," the distribution of mind. But if either a single person or an oligarchy or a democracy has a soul eager after pleasures and desires - wanting to be filled with them, yet retaining none of them, and perpetually afflicted with an endless and insatiable disorder; and this evil spirit, having first trampled the laws under foot, becomes the master either of a state or of an individual - then, as I was saying, salvation is hopeless. And now, Cleinias, we have to consider whether you will or will not accept this tale of mine.
Cle. Certainly we will.
Ath. You are aware - are you not? - that there are of said to be as many forms of laws as there are of governments, and of the latter we have already mentioned all those which are commonly recognized. Now you must regard this as a matter of first - rate importance. For what is to be the standard of just and unjust, is once more the point at issue. Men say that the law ought not to regard either military virtue, or virtue in general, but only the interests and power and preservation of the established form of government; this is thought by them to be the best way of expressing the natural definition of justice.
Cle. How?
Ath. Justice is said by them to be the interest of the stronger.
Cle. Speak plainer.

***

Plato:POLITEIA

Persons of the dialogue: Socrates - Glaucon - Polemarchus
- Adeimantus - Cephalus - Thrasymachus - Cleitophon
Translated by Benjamin Jowett - 71 Pages (Part 4) - Greek fonts

The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy —the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government.

True.

The excess of liberty, whether in states or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.

Yes, the natural order.

And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?

How Do You Stop a Oligarchy?

Was introduced from a "consumerism point of view." It was directed toward the idea of governments who "gather money" to operate "their ideal structures of government" while depleting the resources of the "private citizen for that government operation."

Tax grabs to support that positions?

I am trying to orientate myself amidst these political terrain and would like nothing better then to be set straight to remove wrong thinking directed toward finding a "just government?" How do you define a "just government?"

Searching for the "Ideal Government for the 21st Century?"


***

Then is Now?

The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy-Plato:POLITEIA

Can we recognize the decay in the processes of democratization?

It is when we are left with this "feeling of the electorate" to see that they have lost control of the government, that one senses this alienation from the process of democracy. Recognizes "agendas that are being played out," that were not part of the party stance with which they promised to govern before an election.

So what recourse then to see that the processes of legitimacy are recognized and drawn out, that it will become part of the rule of law and implemented, that there was really nothing that could have been done, citing petitions and initiatives toward recall.

Not so much now is there, as to what party and their allegiance, but to the recognition of democracy in decay that we all can now recognize.

The incapacitated people

The people feel disenfranchised. And it is disenfranchised. But the parliament) is directly legitimized by the electorate (at country level, the provincial assemblies. All other constitutional bodies, President and Chancellor (in progress), derive their legitimacy from it. Shift the political choices but from the circles of power in parliament and coalition rounds, who knows the Constitution does not, therefore, is sidelined by the Bundestag and abused only later to formally rubber-stamp, is a de facto policy demokratiefrei.

Sure I may point to "another country" to demonstrate the social construct of the democracy in question, but it is "not far" from what we can identify within our own, that we see the signs of the time?

The Rhetorician

This raises all sorts of questions, the most basic of which are: “What counts as `looking’ vs. `not looking’?” and “Do we really need a separate law of physics to describe the evolution of systems that are being looked at?” Sean Carroll

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

AN INQUIRY INTO VALUES

Robert M. Pirsig

Afterword

This book has a lot to say about Ancient Greek perspectives and their meaning but there is one perspective it misses. That is their view of time. They saw the future as something that came upon them from behind their backs with the past receding away before their eyes.

When you think about it, that's a more accurate metaphor than our present one. Who really can face the future? All you can do is project from the past, even when the past shows that such projections are often wrong. And who really can forget the past? What else is there to know?

Over the last couple of days my mind seems focused on time lines. It seems I am adjusting perspective, while knowing full well that while the day can be assessed, and so a life. One is facing the past as Pirsig did in writing his book. Imagine him actually looking to his past as it recedes to where the words become "a place" and behind, a sun shines. We see where such an adjustment of thinking here helps one to see what Pirsig was doing.

Plato:

So in that case it was not normal experience that suffered, but what came out of the sickness that allowed an "ultimate realization" that you or I do not have to contend with, but sick men who struggle to search and found something, that normal people would not. So this is why the time line is important to be realized.

It can indeed seem quite confusing but it is an interesting idea here, much as one could be unsettle here with the Chicken before the egg scenario. This took me back to some of the things Sean Carroll wrote. This is not about biology or creationism, but about how perspective has been orientated in a historical sense to how we see it today. For Pirsig and Nash, they had to recount their past in order for us to understand their struggle.

Sean Carroll has a interesting set of four entires about the backwardness of the arrow of time and how it would appear. This is an interesting exercise for me on how perception about the current direction of the universe could have represented "the Egg before the chicken" scenarios.

Incompatible Arrows, I: Martin Amis
Incompatible Arrows, II: Kurt Vonnegut
Incompatible Arrows, III: Lewis Carroll
Incompatible Arrows, IV: F. Scott Fitzgerald

Chicken or Egg

Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth century

Reverse chronology — narrating a story, or parts of one, backwards in time — is a venerable technique in literature, going back at least as far as Virgil’s Aeneid. Much more interesting is a story with incompatible arrows of time: some characters live “backwards” while others experience life normally.

***



PHAEDRUS. - Plato, The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 1 [387 AD]Edition used:

The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 1, translated into English with Analyses and Introductions by B. Jowett, M.A. in Five Volumes. 3rd edition revised and corrected (Oxford University Press, 1892).


Phaedr.I think that I understand you; but will you explain yourself?

Soc.When any one speaks of iron and silver, is not the same thing present in the minds of all?

Phaedr.Certainly.

Soc.But when any one speaks of justice and goodness we part company and are at odds with one another and with ourselves?

Phaedr.Precisely.

Soc.Then in some things we agree, but not in others?

Phaedr.That is true.

Soc.In which are we more likely to be deceived, and in which has rhetoric the greater power?

Phaedr.Clearly, in the uncertain class.

Soc.Then the rhetorician ought to make a regular division, and acquire a distinct notion of both classes, as well of that in which the many err, as of that in which they do not err?

Phaedr.He who made such a distinction would have an excellent principle.

Soc.Yes; and in the next place he must have a keen eye for the observation of particulars in speaking, and not make a mistake about the class to which they are to be referred.

Phaedr.Certainly.

Soc.Love belongs to the debatable class.

Now to which class does love belong—to the debatable or to the undisputed class?

Phaedr.To the debatable, clearly; for if not, do you think that love would have allowed you to say as you did, that he is an evil both to the lover and the beloved, and also the greatest possible good?

Soc.Capital. But will you tell me whether I defined love at the beginning of my speech? for, having been in an ecstasy, I cannot well remember.

Phaedr.Yes, indeed; that you did, and no mistake.

Soc.Lysias should have begun, as I did, by defining love.

Then I perceive that the Nymphs of Achelous and Pan the son of Hermes, who inspired me, were far better rhetoricians than Lysias the son of Cephalus. Alas! how inferior to them he is! But perhaps I am mistaken; and Lysias at the commencement of his lover’s speech did insist on our supposing love to be something or other which he fancied him to be, and according to this model he fashioned and framed the remainder of his discourse. Suppose we read his beginning over again:

Phaedr.If you please; but you will not find what you want.

Soc.Read, that I may have his exact words.
Phaedr.‘You know how matters stand with me, and how, as I conceive, they might be arranged for our common interest; and I maintain I ought not to fail in my suit because I am not your lover, for lovers repent of the kindnesses which they have shown, when their love is over.’
Soc.He begins at the end.

Here he appears to have done just the reverse of what he ought; for he has begun at the end, and is swimming on his back through the flood to the place of starting. His address to the fair youth begins where the lover would have ended. Am I not right, sweet Phaedrus?

Phaedr.Yes, indeed, Socrates; he does begin at the end.

Soc.No order or arrangement of parts in his discourse.

Then as to the other topics—are they not thrown down anyhow? Is there any principle in them? Why should the next topic follow next in order, or any other topic? I cannot help fancying in my ignorance that he wrote off boldly just what came into his head, but I dare say that you would recognize a rhetorical necessity in the succession of the several parts of the composition?

Phaedr.You have too good an opinion of me if you think that I have any such insight into his principles of composition.

Soc.At any rate, you will allow that every discourse ought to be a living creature, having a body of its own and a head and feet; there should be a middle, beginning, and end, adapted to one another and to the whole?

Phaedr.Every discourse should be a living creature, having a body, head, and feet.

Certainly.

Soc.Can this be said of the discourse of Lysias? See whether you can find any more connexion in his words than in the epitaph which is said by some to have been inscribed on the grave of Midas the Phrygian.

Phaedr.What is there remarkable in the epitaph?

Soc.It is as follows:—

 * ‘I am a maiden of bronze and lie on the tomb of Midas;
    * So long as water flows and tall trees grow,
    * So long here on this spot by his sad tomb abiding,
    * I shall declare to passers–by that Midas sleeps below.’

The discourse of Lysias had no more arrangement than the silliest of epitaphs.

Now in this rhyme whether a line comes first or comes last, as you will perceive, makes no difference.
Phaedr.You are making fun of that oration of ours.

Soc.Well, I will say no more about your friend’s speech lest I should give offence to you; although I think that it might furnish many other examples of what a man ought rather to avoid. But I will proceed to the other speech, which, as I think, is also suggestive to students of rhetoric.
Phaedr.In what way?

Soc.The two speeches, as you may remember, were unlike; the one argued that the lover and the other that the non–lover ought to be accepted.

Phaedr.And right manfully.

Soc.You should rather say ‘madly;’ and madness was the argument of them, for, as I said, ‘love is a madness.’
Phaedr.Yes.

Soc.And of madness there were two kinds; one produced by human infirmity, the other was a divine release of the soul from the yoke of custom and convention.

Phaedr.True.

Soc.Four subdivisions of madness—prophetic, initiatory, poetic, erotic.

The divine madness was subdivided into four kinds, prophetic, initiatory, poetic, erotic, having four gods presiding over them; the first was the inspiration of Apollo, the second that of Dionysus, the third that of the Muses, the fourth that of Aphrodite and Eros. In the description of the last kind of madness, which was also said to be the best, we spoke of the affection of love in a figure, into which we introduced a tolerably credible and possibly true through partly erring myth, which was also a hymn in honour of Love, who is your lord and also mine, Phaedrus, and the guardian of fair children, and to him we sung the hymn in measured and solemn strain.

Phaedr.I know that I had great pleasure in listening to you.

Soc.Let us take this instance and note how the transition was made from blame to praise.

Phaedr.What do you mean?

Soc.The myth was a creation of fancy, yet true principles were involved in it: (1) unity of particulars in a single note; (2) natural division into species.

I mean to say that the composition was mostly playful. Yet in these chance fancies of the hour were involved two principles of which we should be too glad to have a clearer description if art could give us one.

Phaedr.What are they?

Soc.First, the comprehension of scattered particulars in one idea; as in our definition of love, which whether true or false certainly gave clearness and consistency to the discourse, the speaker should define his several notions and so make his meaning clear.

Phaedr.What is the other principle, Socrates?

Soc.The second principle is that of division into species according to the natural formation, where the joint is, not breaking any part as a bad carver might. Just as our two discourses, alike assumed, first of all, a single form of unreason; and then, as the body which from being one becomes double and may be divided into a left side and right side, each having parts right and left of the same name—after this manner the speaker proceeded to divide the parts of the left side and did not desist until he found in them an evil or lefthanded love which he justly reviled; and the other discourse leading us to the madness which lay on the right side, found another love, also having the same name, but divine, which the speaker held up before us and applauded and affirmed to be the author of the greatest benefits.The dialectician is concerned with the one and many.

Phaedr.Most true.

Soc.I am myself a great lover of these processes of division and generalization; they help me to speak and to think. And if I find any man who is able to see ‘a One and Many’ in nature, him I follow, and ‘walk in his footsteps as if he were a god.’ And those who have this art, I have hitherto been in the habit of calling dialecticians; but God knows whether the name is right or not. And I should like to know what name you would give to your or to Lysias’ disciples, and whether this may not be that famous art of rhetoric which Thrasymachus and others teach and practise? Skilful speakers they are, and impart their skill to any who is willing to make kings of them and to bring gifts to them.


***

The idea here is that the argument can be held in objective analysis as a defining relation to perspective about what is real, in the here and now. So any describing from it's source to something more defined topologically in movement from the vacuum, is a move to a finer substrate of the reality? What shape in the valley? Which one?

While scientifically engaged, "what if" internally you face the past as a lesson in history, and look upon the world, as our sun? Change it up, and the world is our past, while internally a sun shines behind us. This asks that the internal world is configured according to this dimensional perspective. Subjective yes, but allegorical to what any state of mind garners as it rests to it's ideological state?

Heaven

In the modern age of science and space flight the idea that Heaven is a physical place in the observable universe has largely been abandoned.[citation needed] Religious views, however, still hold Heaven as having a dual status as a concept of mind or heart, but also possibly still physically existing in some way on another "plane of existence", dimension, or perhaps at a future time.[citation needed] According to science there are unobservable areas of the universe (everywhere beyond earth's Particle horizon), although by their very nature it is not possible to observe them.

In this examination of "position" we are always facing our past. If we are to examine our scientific position, is this then real in how we analyze all of the experiments that are currently being undertaken?

You see, looking to an event in the cosmos, this orientation of looking back is to place "a measure" between the earth we stand on, and the event. The event is receding as we are gazing. While some of this observation is picked out in Pirsig's afterword, the subsequent revelation given by Socrate to Phaedrus raises some perspective in my mind about what I had always believed.

As I look at the world, it is receding, yet, internally connected as if in a Ambigram of continuous rotation. It has to be symmetrical, in that asymmetry is to move into the world, while internally, it has always been where symmetry resides?

Why move into an objective status of scientific belief that what can exist in relation to the values that science call its dimensional, is the realization that such an existence is as if matched internally according to the degrees of freedom that we match according to the nature I had assigned Colour of Gravity.


***

See:

Incompatible Arrows

Our Consciousness can "Contain the Future?"

Memories Arise Out of a Equilibrium

Oh Dear!... How Technology has Changed Things

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beautya beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry.--BERTRAND RUSSELL, Study of Mathematics

The "Talking Pictures" Projection Wagon-

In the 1920's about the only entertainment that came to the rural community of Leakey, Texas was the traveling tent shows. This form of family entertainment would come to the canyon about once a year to the delight of all. Everyone looked forward to the horse drawn wagons that brought the much anticipated entertainment to town. In later years the horses were replaced by the Model T Fords but this form of transportation did not deter the excitement.

See:"Leakey's Last Picture Show" by Linda Kirkpatrick
Vintage photos courtesy Lloyd & Jackie Shultz

It is important sometimes to hone in on exactly what sets the mind to have it exemplify itself to a standard that bespeaks to the idealizations that can come forward from a most historical sense. It is in this way that while one can envision where the technological views have replaced the spoken word in movie pictures, we can see the theatre above as an emblazoned realization of what changes has been brought to society and what may have been lost in some peoples eyes.


This is a photograph of author and philosopher Robert M. Pirsigtaken by Ian Glendinning on the eve of the Liverpool conference of 7th July 2005.

What is in mind is a sort of Chautauqua...that's the only name I can think of for it...like the traveling tent-show Chautauquas that used to move across America, this America, the one that we are now in, an old-time series of popular talks intended to edify and entertain, improve the mind and bring culture and enlightenment to the ears and thoughts of the hearer. The Chautauquas were pushed aside by faster-paced radio, movies and TV, and it seems to me the change was not entirely an improvement. Perhaps because of these changes the stream of national consciousness moves faster now, and is broader, but it seems to run less deep. The old channels cannot contain it and in its search for new ones there seems to be growing havoc and destruction along its banks. In this Chautauqua I would like not to cut any new channels of consciousness but simply dig deeper into old ones that have become silted in with the debris of thoughts grown stale and platitudes too often repeated.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Part 1 Chapter 1.(Bold added by me for emphasis)

I wanted to take the conversation and book presented by Phil and immortalize it in a way by laying it out for examination. Regardless of my opinions and viewpoint, the world goes on and the written work of Robert Pirsig persists as a "object of the material." In the beginning, no matter the choice to illuminate the ideal, it has been transgressed in a way by giving the symbols of language to a discerning mind and verily brought to that same material world for examination. How ever frustrating this may seem for Pirsig, it is a fact of light that any after word will reveal more then what was first understood. Reflection has this way about it in the historical revelation, of how the times are changing. Things dying and becoming new. The moon a reflection of the first light.

The conclusion of the whole matter is just this,—that until a man knows the truth, and the manner of adapting the truth to the natures of other men, he cannot be a good orator; also, that the living is better than the written word, and that the principles of justice and truth when delivered by word of mouth are the legitimate offspring of a man’s own bosom, and their lawful descendants take up their abode in others. Such an orator as he is who is possessed of them, you and I would fain become. And to all composers in the world, poets, orators, legislators, we hereby announce that if their compositions are based upon these principles, then they are not only poets, orators, legislators, but philosophers.

Plato, The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 1 [387 AD] PHAEDRUS.


***

IN announcing himself in the written work with regards to the IQ given in signalling the identity of the character Phaedrus, it was important that one see this in a way that excuses are not made, and allowances not be set forth for what was to become the lone wolf. John Nash too, had his excursions into the bizarre as well, was to know that in the "end of his synopsized life," a certain contention that he had to deal with in this inflection of his disease, as part of his make-up. Was to deal with, while now, he continues to move on with his life. He is aware of the intrusions that personage can do as it infringes from the periphery, as ghosts of his mind too.

To me in reading John Nash's biography in historical movie drama, was to bring attention to what cannot be condoned by exception, when allowing genius to display it's talents, while causing a disruption not only to themself, but to see the elite make allowances for these transgressions. Pattern seeking is not to be be rifting the idea, that we cannot look into the very structure of reality and see what makes it tick? Just that we do not get lost in travelling the journey.

Practising escapism was to deny oneself the responsibility of becoming whole. To allow for genius, as an exception, would mean to not recognize that the intellect is part and parcel of the greater whole of the person called Robert Pirsig or John Nash.

Who of us shall placate failure as a sure sign of genius and allow the student 's failure as acceptable? This was a transgression seen from another perspective and as afterthought realized in a mistaken perception "about broadcasting Phaedrus" as some towering voice from the past as relevant in todays world, because of the location and time in history?


***


Click on link Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

While I may use the alias of Plato and look at the substance of his written work, it is also from that view point such a discussion had to take place within the context of the written prose about two people in this Socratic method, that while worlds in the dialogues existed in speech, no such persons were there at the time. Yet, such thoughts are transmitted and established in that historical sense, and moved forward to this time.


Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)


To me there are two lines of thought that are being established in science that in Lee Smolin's case is used to move away from the thinking of the idea of Plato's symmetry by example. To see such trademarks inherent in our leaders of science is too wonder how they to, have immortalize the figures of speech, while trying hard to portray the point of view that has been established in thought. These signatures have gone from Heisenberg to Hooft. And the list of names who have embedded this move to science, as a education tool, that is always inherent in the process. That reference is continually made.

IN this sense I do not feel I had done anything wrong other then to ignite the idealization I have about what that sun means to me, as the first light in a psychological sense. Where it resides in people. How divorce we can be from it while going on about our daily duties existing in the world. That there also resides this "experience about our beginnings." To ignite what the word of geometrics has done in the abstract sense. How much closer to the reality such a architecture is revealed in Nature's way, to know that we had pointed our observations back inside, to reveal the world outside.


***

See Also:

Stargazers and Hill Climbers

Evolutionary Game Theory

Inside the Mathematical Universe

Stargazers and Hill Climbers

AS with Einstein, who was Socrates daemon?:)

In Plato's Apology of Socrates, Socrates claimed to have a daimonion (literally, a "divine something")[6] that frequently warned him - in the form of a "voice" - against mistakes but never told him what to do

See:Fullerane and Allotropes

Some may even call "hills" mountains. Depends on where they think perspective is heighten in relation to where they see themself in the world, and where a better locations allows for a more expansive views of things. This is psychologically important to realize that inherent inside of us if one does follow the tenet of Know Thyself by Socrates. Such a plan would have been understood in the examination to see a relationship in continuity is topologically important with the world around them. Not be self-centred, but to move progressively in the world may call for understanding this relationship with the environment.

What shall proceed the understanding that the arche is fully understood as the central themes of characters, to see it exemplified in how you now approach the world in your own way? It becomes easier for you to understand, that this "imprint of the concrete in the painting I had selected of the Raphael" was to show such a school of thought, was exemplifying the truer principle of the wisdom seeking, while of course approaching the modern day world based on that Socratic method in science.

But I only show by example, and recognizing this facet of the nature of the individual is more the idea that what ever method you choose that it is consistent and recognizable, becomes second nature to the person seeking answers. Student of Science or Philosophy.

Death of Socrates by Jacques Davidthis picture depicts the closing moments of the life of Socrates. Condemned to death or exile by the Athenian government for his teaching methods which aroused scepticism and impiety in his students, Socrates heroicly rejected exile and accepted death from hemlock.

Self portrait of Jacques-Louis David, 1794, Musée du Louvre

Here the philosopher continues to speak even while reaching for the cup, demonstrating his indifference to death and his unyielding commitment to his ideals. Most of his disciplines and slaves swirl around him in grief, betraying the weakness of emotionalism. His wife is seen only in the distance leaving the prison. Only Plato, at the foot of the bed and Crito grasping his master's leg, seem in control of themselves.

See:Jacques-Louis David: The Death of Socrates

I think the idea is and can be unique, in that each can develop a process and means to an end( many travel far and wide while they should have never left home), that would allow this creative aspect of being "in the now" has potential. To be able to allow insight to manifest and spread across the mind in such lightning speed. It thusly leaves no doubt. This is a condensible feature of the complexity of information to be distill to it's essence. IN an abstract world, a rain drop can hold quite an lot of architectural meaning.

For Plato then it was the ideal city-state of Kallipolis

The Philosopher King

Plato defined a philosopher firstly as its eponymous occupation – wisdom-lover. He then distinguishes between one who loves true knowledge as opposed to simple sights or education by saying that a philosopher is the only man who has access to Forms – the archetypal entities that exist behind all representations of the form (such as Beauty itself as opposed to any one particular instance of beauty). It is next and in support of the idea that philosophers are the best rulers that Plato fashions the ship of state metaphor, one of his most often cited ideas (along with his allegory of the cave). "[A] true pilot must of necessity pay attention to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really to rule a ship" (The Republic, 6.488d). Plato claims that the sailors (i.e., the people of the city-state over whom the philosopher is the potential ruler) ignore the philosopher's "idle stargazing" because they have never encountered a true philosopher before.

Stargazers by Paul Rossetti Bjarnson, Pg 102, Chapter XV

***

Ever teacher has their progeny of students as has been exemplified in the context of our modern day scholars. Kip Thorne in relation to John Archibald Wheeler. Stephen Hawking and his doctoral students.

Dennis William Siahou Sciama FRS (November 18, 1926–December 18, 1999) was a British physicist who, through his own work and that of his students, played a major role in developing British physics after the Second World War.

Sciama also strongly influenced Roger Penrose, who dedicated his The Road to Reality to Sciama's memory. The 1960s group he led in Cambridge (which included Ellis, Hawking, Rees, and Carter), has proved of lasting influence.

I have already established this lineage and subsequent comments in relation to Penrose under this heading to exemplify the relationship and perspective in relation to each other externally in the progressive nature of moving forward in science.

***

For Plato, it is no less an important feature that at Socrates bedside he sees the wisdom of his teacher become the "guiding light source" of all that must exchange between those who hold a value to "dimensional significance in abstract" in our current day, would be able to see the world in a most significant way. It's no less progressive then, that such an example was given to an extent that the thought process of the Gendankin, would be set before Plato's own students, as John Wheeler did for his, to see that Aristotle is most selectively announced as a most brilliant student by answering to Plato's analogy of the Cave. Who becomes an extension of the "arche in principle" as one end being science, and in a open sweeping hand, to all that is for ever exemplify in the "arche contained" in the heading of this blog above.

Plotinus

Plotinus (Greek: Πλωτῖνος) (ca. AD 204–270) was a major philosopher of the ancient world who is widely considered the founder of Neoplatonism (along with his teacher Ammonius Saccas). Much of our biographical information about him comes from Porphyry's preface to his edition of Plotinus' Enneads.

Plotinus Theory

Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity or distinction; likewise it is beyond all categories of being and non-being. The concept of "being" is derived by us from the objects of human experience called the dyad, and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite, transcendent One is beyond all such objects, and therefore is beyond the concepts that we derive from them. The One "cannot be any existing thing", and cannot be merely the sum of all such things (compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence), but "is prior to all existents". Thus, no attributes can be assigned to the One. We can only identify it with the Good and the principle of Beauty. [I.6.9]

For example, thought cannot be attributed to the One because thought implies distinction between a thinker and an object of thought (again dyad). Even the self-contemplating intelligence (the noesis of the nous) must contain duality. "Once you have uttered 'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency." [III.8.10] Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action (ergon) to the One [V.6.6]. Rather, if we insist on describing it further, we must call the One a sheer Dynamis or potentiality without which nothing could exist. [III.8.10] As Plotinus explains in both places and elsewhere [e.g. V.6.3], it is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God. At [V.6.4], Plotinus compared the One to "light", the Divine Nous (first will towards Good) to the "Sun", and lastly the Soul to the "Moon" whose light is merely a "derivative conglomeration of light from the 'Sun'". The first light could exist without any celestial body.

While the arche then becomes a understanding and significant addition to ever place that self evident becomes real for the individual then how is it that such an relation cannot be seen in the world as a foundation principle to guarantee that they are on the right track. To see that "correlation of cognition" places a role in the factual attainment of information. No matter how insignificant or trivial the relation, as common knowledge, it becomes a reinforcing measure of how one is adapting and applying this model, which allows confidence to be built in pursuance of knowledge and truth.

γνώθι σεαυτόν

A stained glass window with the contracted version γνωθι σαυτόν.

The saying "Know thyself" may refer by extension to the ideal of understanding human behavior, morals, and thought, because ultimately to understand oneself is to understand other humans as well. However, the ancient Greek philosophers thought that no man can ever comprehend the human spirit and thought thoroughly, so it would have been almost inconceivable to know oneself fully. Therefore, the saying may refer to a less ambitious ideal, such as knowing one's own habits, morals, temperament, ability to control anger, and other aspects of human behavior that we struggle with on a daily basis.

It may also have a mystical interpretation. 'Thyself', is not meant in reference to the egotist, but the ego within self, the I AM consciousness.

Delphi became the site of a major temple to Phoebus Apollo, as well as the Pythian Games and the famous prehistoric oracle. Even in Roman times, hundreds of votive statues remained, described by Pliny the Younger and seen by Pausanias. Supposedly carved into the temple were three phrases: γνωθι σεαυτόν (gnothi seauton = "know thyself") and μηδέν άγαν (meden agan = "nothing in excess"), and Εγγύα πάρα δ'ατη (eggua para d'atē = "make a pledge and mischief is nigh"),[6] as well as a large letter E.[7] Among other things epsilon signifies the number 5. Plutarch's essay on the meaning of the “E at Delphi" is the only literary source for the inscription. In ancient times, the origin of these phrases was attributed to one or more of the Seven Sages of Greece,[8] though ancient as well as modern scholars have doubted the legitimacy of such ascriptions.[9] According to one pair of scholars, "The actual authorship of the three maxims set up on the Delphian temple may be left uncertain. Most likely they were popular proverbs, which tended later to be attributed to particular sages

"Let no one destitute of geometry enter my doors." Plato (c. 427 - 347 B.C.E.)

"[Geometry is] . . . persued for the sake of the knowledge of what eternally exists, and not of what comes for a moment into existence, and then perishes, ...[it] must draw the soul towards truth and give the finishing touch to the philosophic spirit."

***

See:

PLATO:Mathematician or Mystic ?

IN The Era of Quantum Gravity, will we be destitute?

Foundational Issues

Mathematics Problem That Remains Elusive — And Beautiful By Raymond Petersen

Dyson, one of the most highly-regarded scientists of his time, poignantly informed the young man that his findings into the distribution of prime numbers corresponded with the spacing and distribution of energy levels of a higher-ordered quantum state

See:Riemann Hypothesis: A Pure Love of Math

One will argue of course how such a natural thing can arise out of numbers and we see the Pascalian triangle as providing an encounter with probabilistic interpretations as our fortunes in the selection of scenarios. How natural then is siuch a progression to say the Fibonacci numbers are chosen this time in the connstruct of matter defined world?

But I should warn you, I think beyond the capabilities of experiment here to include a look into dynamics that are "not scientifically recorded in the human being," but hold to the understanding that "such resonances exist" just as well as numbers and spaces are allocated in relation to these jumps.

See: Foundational Perspectives Also see:PLATO:Mathematician or Mystic ?

If one were to look a little deeper into the essence of any home, one might find elements of Plato's own Academy hidden here to suggest, that the self accounting that goes on, might have been preceded by the pursuance of bringing a healthy response to the future in regard to that "universal language." This resides very deeply in the unconscious plethora of images that are revealed to the awareness of the observant mind and it's dealings with society.

Starring: Kevin Kline, Kristen Scott Thomas, Hayden Christensen, Jena Malone, Mary Steenburgen, Mike Weinberg, Scotty Leavenworth, Ian Somerhalder, Jamey Sheridan, Scott Bakula, Sandra Nelson, Sam Robards, John Pankow, Kim Delgado, Barry Primus Director: Irwin Winkler See: When Is a House A Home?

It has always been of some difficulty that I could get to one the "whole image in mind" to say it is complete, that to follow ALONG with what I am saying, had to preclude with some ground work first, before I could draw along those who better understand now, the full scope of what I am saying. It would indeed have been better that such a flash could indeed "take the time of all the work" then to have to endure pieces being selected and focused on, without the understanding of the language that is presented here. It requires enormous patience, and the endurance of ridicule to move beyond these limitations.

Plato here in this Bloggery siad,"

Most know of my time helping my son last year constructing his home. The journey of pictures that I have here within this bloggery. It has also some "dimensional aspect" in it's development, so I thought this might help those who are working Euclidean coordinates, may help to seal this process in some way, by being introduced to house construction.

" See:House Building

New Technological Freedoms in the Libraries.

Commerce is of trivial import; love, faith, truth of character, the aspiration of man, these are sacred.Ralph Waldo Emerson

Trinity College Library, Dublin. (Photo: Candida Höfer.) See:In today's Media, Has the Soul taken a Hiatus

Don't worry Mr. Chimpanzee, I wasn't invited either to Science's World View.:) Identifying niche markets? Oh, google will love you?:) I have nothing against Google either, even when I was not invited there too. I do like to play with the technologies to provide a service when using this medium. A creative outlet for sure when one gets to know different aspects of those same services.

I made a comment here that one might like to consider when we come to think of the future of our libraries and how they will serve the populations of the future.

At 10:39 AM, September 09, 2008:

Still no answer on attaching to libraries severs through the laptop(wifi)? I know there are hot zones that people use, I just wanted to know what people thought about attaching themselves to the "freedom of knowledge and speed" through such a outlet.

I contend with all sorts of difficulties in terms of the money I pay and what I actually get for service when I open the door to the internet(time usage and speed of large transfers of information) how to gather information, and yet, there are many books about all sorts of subjects that I can go freely and get, to accomplish certain tasks that are attempted in life.

I am not discriminated upon, given my distant locations from the libraries of Universities, when knowledge is accessible to the public, and what profit does the library seek, but to continue to provide for the service of those same populations, while that book and resource privileges are free? Only as a student then?

The Nefarious Organization that will Tumble Science?

Will it be to produce a blackhole in the LHC? Most certainly not. To gather information about the sciences involved, most certainly so, and to point out any discrepancies that are becoming known. Most certainly, as well.

This isn't to create illusive dominions of information, but to get to the essence of the information, and to meet "new walls being put up." These will only serve to bring down any hopes of the future of our societies, and the information they would like to gain assess too. An equality that must be inherent, pertains to all it's peoples, and the dissolution of the institutions that would profit from the likes of those with less then others.

So a poor man with a laptop. How strange? Yes I see this point and know that there is a service that is provided that allows those with a library card, punch time on this computer internet access. So why should this service not be open to those with laptops as they sit at the library desks, and take in the peacefulness of these halls of higher learning? Does a book discriminate between it' holders?

William Thurston

Xianfeng David Gu and Shing-Tung Yau
To a topologist, a rabbit is the same as a sphere. Neither has a hole. Longitude and latitude lines on the rabbit allow mathematicians to map it onto different forms while preserving information.

William Thurston of Cornell, the author of a deeper conjecture that includes Poincaré’s and that is now apparently proved, said, “Math is really about the human mind, about how people can think effectively, and why curiosity is quite a good guide,” explaining that curiosity is tied in some way with intuition.

“You don’t see what you’re seeing until you see it,” Dr. Thurston said, “but when you do see it, it lets you see many other things.”

Elusive Proof, Elusive Prover: A New Mathematical Mystery

Some of us are of course interested in how we can assign the relevance to perceptions the deeper recognition of the processes of nature. How we get there and where we believe they come from. As a layman I am always interested in this process, and of course, life's mysteries can indeed be a motivating factor. Motivating my interest about the nature of things that go unanswered and how we get there.


William Paul Thurston

(born October 30, 1946) is an American mathematician. He is a pioneer in the field of low-dimensional topology. In 1982, he was awarded the Fields medal for the depth and originality of his contributions to mathematics. He is currently a professor of mathematics and computer science at Cornell University (since 2003).

There are reasons with which I present this biography, as I did in relation to Poincaré and Klein. The basis of the question remains a philosophical one for me that I question the basis of proof and intuition while considering the mathematics.

Mathematical Induction

Mathematical Induction at a given statement is true of all natural numbers. It is done by proving that the first statement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, and then proving that if any one statement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, then so is the next one.

The method can be extended to prove statements about more general well-founded structures, such as trees; this generalization, known as structural induction, is used in mathematical logic and computer science.

Mathematical induction should not be misconstrued as a form of inductive reasoning, which is considered non-rigorous in mathematics (see Problem of induction for more information). In fact, mathematical induction is a form of deductive reasoning and is fully rigorous.

Deductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning is reasoning which uses deductive arguments to move from given statements (premises), which are assumed to be true, to conclusions, which must be true if the premises are true.[1]

The classic example of deductive reasoning, given by Aristotle, is

* All men are mortal. (major premise)
* Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
* Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

For a detailed treatment of deduction as it is understood in philosophy, see Logic. For a technical treatment of deduction as it is understood in mathematics, see mathematical logic.

Deductive reasoning is often contrasted with inductive reasoning, which reasons from a large number of particular examples to a general rule.

Alternative to deductive reasoning is inductive reasoning. The basic difference between the two can be summarized in the deductive dynamic of logically progressing from general evidence to a particular truth or conclusion; whereas with induction the logical dynamic is precisely the reverse. Inductive reasoning starts with a particular observation that is believed to be a demonstrative model for a truth or principle that is assumed to apply generally.

Deductive reasoning applies general principles to reach specific conclusions, whereas inductive reasoning examines specific information, perhaps many pieces of specific information, to impute a general principle. By thinking about phenomena such as how apples fall and how the planets move, Isaac Newton induced his theory of gravity. In the 19th century, Adams and LeVerrier applied Newton's theory (general principle) to deduce the existence, mass, position, and orbit of Neptune (specific conclusions) from perturbations in the observed orbit of Uranus (specific data).

Deduction and Induction

Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.

Back to the lumping in of theology alongside of Atlantis. Rebel dreams, it is hard to remove one's colour once they work from a certain premise. Atheistic, or not.

Seeking such clarity would be the attempt for me, with which to approach a point of limitation in our knowledge, as we may try to explain the process of the current state of the universe, and it's shape. Such warnings are indeed appropriate to me about what we are offering for views from a theoretical standpoint.

The basis presented here is from a layman standpoint while in context of Plato's work, brings some perspective to Raphael's painting, "The School of Athens." It is a central theme for me about what the basis of Inductive and deductive processes reveals about the "infinite regress of mathematics to the point of proof."

Such clarity seeking would in my mind contrast a theoretical technician with a philosopher who had such a background. Raises the philosophical question about where such information is derived from. If ,from a Platonic standpoint, then all knowledge already exists. We just have to become aware of this knowledge? How so?

Lawrence Crowell:

The ball on the Mexican hat peak will under the smallest perturbation or fluctuation begin to fall off the peak, roll into the trough and the universe tunnels out of the vacuum or nothing to become a “something.”

Whether I attach a indication of God to this knowledge does not in any way relegate the process to such a contention of theological significance. The question remains a inductive/deductive process?

I would think philosophers should weight in on the point of inductive/deductive processes as it relates to the search for new mathematics?

Allegory of the Cave

For me this was a difficult task with which to cypher the greater contextual meaning of where such mathematics arose from. That I should implore such methods would seem to be, to me, in standing with the problems and ultimates searches for meaning about our place in the universe. Whether I believe in the "God nature of that light" should hold no atheistic interpretation to my quest for the explanations about the talk on the origins of the universe.

See:

The Sound of Billiard Balls

Mathematical Structure of the Universe

Glaucon

Glaucon (Greek: Γλαύκων) (born circa 445 BC) son of Ariston, was the philosopher Plato's older brother. He is primarily known as a major conversant with Socrates in the Republic (Plato), and the questioner during the Allegory of the Cave. He is also referenced briefly in the beginnings of the dialogues of Plato Parmenides (Plato) and the Symposium (Plato).

While I of course understood this conversation between Plato and Glaucon, there is a statement of reference that needs to be explained. So that it is not misunderstood that "the object" and "state of the one who questions and the one questioned," are shown to be like "God as the Geometer?" It is an "innate feature to the state of enquiry." That it follows alongside mapping, which advanced my own position of "methodology by intuition." An accumulated to a state called"Correlation of Cognition."

So by introducing "this brother"( a figure in mind to advance the developmental methodology,) to create this "state of being" within us, is much like an artistic endeavour of a plot, a writer, since one may not have had this conversation other then to move this story forward. How?:)

So I am glad there is a Glaucon who would move the conversation for advancement.

As Socratic method requires both a questioner and one questioned to move forward, Glaucon, who is the most honest about his ignorance amongst the friends, will help “build” the ideal philosophical city by engaging Socrates without fighting his ideas.

Self Evident

We hold (they say) these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal. In what are they created equal? Is it in size, understanding, figure, moral or civil accomplishments, or situation of life?Benjamin Franklin-The Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 46, pp. 403–404)

Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.

"Deduction" is an interesting thing left on it's own. While we think it only as one avenue to the methodology of approach, it is not without pointing out that the "inductive part" is part of this philosophical adventure too. That it should leave one to understand that the "infinite regression" leaves one on a precipice of change. That what is self evident, becomes the "new stepping stone for advancement."

A VIEW OF MATHEMATICS by Alain CONNES

Most mathematicians adopt a pragmatic attitude and see themselves as the explorers of this mathematical world" whose existence they don't have any wish to question, and whose structure they uncover by a mixture of intuition, not so foreign from poetical desire", and of a great deal of rationality requiring intense periods of concentration.

Each generation builds a mental picture" of their own understanding of this world and constructs more and more penetrating mental tools to explore previously hidden aspects of that reality.

.......and again.

Alain Connes

Where a dictionary proceeds in a circular manner, defining a word by reference to another, the basic concepts of mathematics are infinitely closer to an indecomposable element", a kind of elementary particle" of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their definition.

The Light in the Cave

Newton's Translation of the Emerald Tablet

It is true without lying, certain and most true. That which is Below is like that which is Above and that which is Above is like that which is Below to do the miracles of the Only Thing. And as all things have been and arose from One by the mediation of One, so all things have their birth from this One Thing by adaptation. The Sun is its father; the Moon its mother; the Wind hath carried it in its belly; the Earth is its nurse. The father of all perfection in the whole world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into Earth. Separate the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the gross, sweetly with great industry. It ascends from the Earth to the Heavens and again it descends to the Earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world and thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. Its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. So was the world created. From this are and do come admirable adaptations, whereof the process is here in this. Hence am I called Hermes Trismegistus, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.

Plato's story of the cave is an interesting one to me.

The most beautiful experiment:The critical point by Robert P Crease

Beauty, Plato wrote, is not easy to define, but something that "slips through and evades us". For this reason, many logic-oriented philosophical approaches tend to divorce and even oppose truth and beauty. "The question of truth", wrote logician Gottlob Frege in one of his most influential works, "would cause us to abandon aesthetic delight for an attitude of scientific investigation."

Plato- Book VII of The Republic-The Allegory of the Cave

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

See here as well.


This above was taken from an earlier post so one understands that what is being expounded in shadow dancing, is derived from a better understanding of the analogy of the cave. And again below it is not without the understanding of the depth of of what is implicate din Plato's cave that we struggle to define aspects of the reality .

To them, I said,
the truth would be literally nothing
but the shadows of the images.
-Plato, The Republic (Book VII)

Of course, to Plato this story was just meant to symbolize mankind's struggle to reach enlightenment and understanding through reasoning and open-mindedness. We are all initially prisoners and the tangible world is our cave. Just as some prisoners may escape out into the sun, so may some people amass knowledge and ascend into the light of true reality.

What is equally interesting is the literal interpretation of Plato's tale: The idea that reality could be represented completely as `shadows' on the walls

Inside Out

3.1 As Cytowic notes, Plato and Socrates viewed emotion and reason as in a kind of struggle, one in which it was vitally important for reason to win out. Aristotle took a more moderate view, that both emotion and reason are integral parts of a complex human soul--a theory proposed by Aristotle in explicit opposition to Platonism (De Anima 414a 19ff). Cytowic appears to endorse the Platonic line, with the notable difference that he would apparently rather have emotion win out.

I am trying to "create a image" that will use the one above. It is important that the select quoted comment below is understood. This can't be done without some reference.

So while the exercise may be going on "inside" things are happening on the outside. Scientists have never been completely honest with themselves, while some may concern themselves with whose name said what?

I use Plato as a namesake obviously, because of what I saw of some of our influential minds speaking, all the while making inferences to Plato. When ever you read something that resonates with you, it is of value because it correlates to something that you already know. This is what I tried to get across in the previous post, about what is "self evident." Little do some people recognize that while I may have inferred the point of some philosophical foundations, it is not without recognizing that the "qualitative phrases" have to be reduced as well to a logic. To reason.

How do you do that? Well I'll tell you what I found and then you can think whether I understood reason in it's proper format. Whether I understood the "shadows of Plato" to mean something other then what could have been interpreted as being wrong. What is that analogy of the Cave really mean?

Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.

Yes I did not enter the halls of higher learning in the traditional ways. You can converse for many years, does not mean you become devoid of the lessons that spoken amongst the commentors. How is it you can think that while listening to scientists you cannot uncover the the processes they use? If I had given thirty years to study, what exactly had I studied? I am a doctor of nothing.:)

This is a torus (like a doughnut) on which several circles are located. Unlike on a Euclidean plane, on this surface it is impossible to determine which circle is inside of which, since if you go from the black circle to the blue, to the red, and to the grey, you can continuously come back to the initial black, and likewise if you go from the black to the grey, to the red, and to the blue, you can also come back to the black.

My quote at Backreaction on this and that, reveals not only part of the understanding gained through this "infinite regress," but also the understanding we have with the world around us. Some would be better served to see the image of the Klein bottle, but I wanted to show what is going on in a "abstract way" to what is happening inside of us, and at the same time, what is happening outside.



I had used the brain and head as a place of our conscious awareness within context of our environment, our bodies. The topological explanations of the numbers above, and used them in the next paragraph. There will be confusion with the colour lines, please disregard that.

While I talked of the emotive and mental realities. I included the spiritual development in the end. The way this interaction takes place, is sometimes just as the mental function(yellow). Other times, it is the emotive realization of the experience. It is coloured by our emotion(red).

While we interact with our environment, there is this turning inside out, continuously. Sometimes we may say that "1" is the emotive realization, while the number 2 is seen as a mental extension of the situation. While the areas overlap each other, an outward progression may mean that the spiritual progress is numbered 4, while the interaction of the emotive, mental and spiritual progression may be number 3. Ultimately the spiritual progression is 4 (Violet). All these colours can mix and are significant in themself. They reveal something about our very constitution.

While some may wonder how could any conceptualization ever integrate the "Synesthesia views" of the world when it sees itself presented with such a comparison? The journey of course leads to the "Colour of Gravity." Discard your body, and one will wonder about the "clear light." What it means, in the "perceptive state of existence." If one is prepared, then one shall not have "to much time on their hands" getting lost in the fog.

Plato and Aristotle, Up and Down by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.

Rafael has Plato pointing up and Aristotle gesturing down to indicate the difference in their metaphysics. For Plato, true existence is in the World of Forms, in relation to which this world (of Becoming) is a kind of shadow or image of the higher reality. Aristotle, on the other hand, regards individual objects in this world as "primary substance" and dismisses Plato's Forms -- except for God as a pure actuality, without matter.

However, when it comes to ethics and politics, the gestures should be reversed. Plato, like Socrates, believed that to do the good without error, one must know what the good is. Thus, we get the dramatic moment in the Republic where Plato says that philosophers, who have escaped from the Cave and come to understand the higher reality, must be forced to return to this world and rule, so that their wisdom can benefit the state. Aristotle, on the other hand, says that the "good" is simply the goal of various particular activities, without one meaning in Plato's sense. The particular activities of most human affairs involve phronésis, "practical wisdom." This is not sophía, true wisdom, for Aristotle, which involves the theoretical knowledge of the highest things, i.e. the gods, the heavens, and God.

Thus, for philosophy, Aristotle should point up and would represent a contemplative attitude that was certainly more congenial to religious practices in the Middle Ages. By the same token, Aristotle's contribution to what we now think of as science was hampered by his lack of interest in mathematics. Although Aristotle in general had a more empirical and experimental attitude than Plato, modern science did not come into its own until Plato's Pythagorean confidence in the mathematical nature of the world returned with Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. For instance, Aristotle, relying on a theory of opposites that is now only of historical interest, rejected Plato's attempt to match the Platonic Solids with the elements -- while Plato's expectations are realized in mineralogy and crystallography, where the Platonic Solids occur naturally.

Therefore, caution is in order when comparing the meaning of the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle with its significance for their attitudes towards ethics, politics, and science. Indeed, if the opposite of wisdom is, not ignorance, but folly, then Socrates and Plato certainly started off with the better insight.

It is good that you go to the top of the page of the linked quotes of Kelley L. Ross. You must know that I developed this site without really understanding the extent Mr. Ross had taken this issue. There is much that is familiar, and with him, an opposing view too.

See:

Induction and Deduction
Intuitively Balanced: Induction and Deduction