School of Economic Science
Plato-Religion-Geometry-Science

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Plato DNA



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 44
Location: Illinois, US

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:56 am    Post subject: Plato-Religion-Geometry-Science Reply with quote

While researching into the Greek god Oceanus, or Okeanos, I discovered a lot of possible connections with Plato’s elements and also connections with different religious beliefs.

Okeanos is described as being an enormous river encircling the world. Most scholars interpret this as being the ‘world ocean’, or all the different oceans and seas. I believe this to be inaccurate. In Plato’s Theaetetus 152e we find him saying…”When Homer speaks of ‘Oceanus, source of the gods, and mother Tethys,’ he means that all things are the offspring of a flowing stream of change.” Right away I thought of magnetism, or time perhaps; they both can be said to encircle the earth and are constantly flowing and changing. While following Plato’s insight into the Greek gods, in his Phaedo at 112e he says…”Among these many various streams there are four in particular. The greatest of these, and the one which describes the outermost circle, is that which is called Oceanus.” Could these ‘particular’ four be the four main forces of physics, or maybe Plato’s elements? Plato also describes Oceanus and his consort/wife Tethys in his Timaeus at 40e as being “the children of Earth and Heaven, and from these sprang Phorcys and Cronus and Rhea, and all that generation, and from Cronus and Rhea sprang Zeus and Hera…” It reminds me of the very beginning of Genesis from the Holy Bible…”In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” And then skipping a couple verses…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven…And god said let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth…” So there are waters being divided from waters, and a firmament created so there were waters above heaven and under heaven…very interesting. I think this is where the Greek Oceanus resides and not in the waters that are created under heaven that are gathered to ‘one place’. I think of him to be the ‘waters which the spirit of God moved upon’ before they were divided, or while they were still 'gathered to one place'. It is interesting to note which words were in italics or capitalized in the Holy Bible. The words ‘was’ and ‘were’ in italics and earth; Earth, or heaven; Heaven, obviously expressing multiple meanings. The 'was' and 'were' both reflecting Plato's concept of being; what was, what IS, and what will be.

While talking about Plato and the Holy Bible, it is interesting that Plato describes his concept of the fire element as being the smallest, the most moveable, the most acute, and the most penetrating in every way. "Of the heavenly and divine, he created the greater part out of fire." It would appear as though we are immersed in this ever-burning fire, very similar to the concept of hell as interpreted mainly through the Bible. There are many other concepts of Plato's that seem to appear in the Bible, but perhaps another time.

When we look at Plato describing the elements and speaking of the earth element, it is usually translated as lowercase and when he spoke of ‘Oceanus and Tethys were the children of Earth and Heaven’ it is translated as a capital E. So there is a difference between Plato’s element and the Earth itself, but they both have the same name. So could we apply Plato’s geometry to the Earth? Earth is the ‘personification’ of the goddess Gaia, or Gaea, according to the ancient Greeks. So it would be reasonable to assign to Gaia the cube, Plato’s representation of the earth element. And her Ouranos, or Uranus; the Greek god of the ‘sky’ or the ‘heavens’, could we assign him the dodecahedron perhaps? The dodecahedron being the platonic solid that is not part of the four elements, and may reflect the constellations or zodiac as Plato describes. It is very interesting to think about how from the Greek gods Gaia and Ouranos, Earth and Heaven, possibly the cube and dodecahedron, sprang the twelve Titans, and the twelve Olympians; the cube has twelve edges and the dodecahedron has twelve sides. Might the twelve titans and olympians reflect the sides or faces of these most fundamental, equally balanced shapes? But there are many other twelve-twelve relationships between the platonic solids too, maybe it can be something that will work at different levels also.

The ancient Hindu’s believed that the Cosmos is bounded by four Walls of Heaven located to the East, West, North, and South. The four Walls held the Waters in as they extend upwards. Hindu cosmology mentions four Maharajas, great kings at the extremities of the four corners of the World. These four are Kings over the four quarters of the Earth. Their concept of four ’Walls’ could be interpreted as a square, and can be similar to Plato’s earth element or cube. Their four ‘great kings’ represent the four corners of the World, and could possibly correspond to the edges or sides, which are created from the corners that ‘extend’. And again we have the water concept, just as in ancient Greek, and the Holy Bible.

Modern science accepts four main forces, or fundamental interactions, as its basis; gravitation, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. All of math could be said to rest on four forces or functions; adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing. In science, the holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region. This theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure “painted” on the cosmological horizon. Also in modern science everything can be expressed as a ‘wave’. The way we measure this wave is with a flat line. Wave’s get interpreted through this flat plane as either curving or straight lines themselves; perpendicular to the flat plane. It is either rising above this plane or sinking below which creates the measurement. So maybe, in a way, some flat earth theorists could be correct. Since I mentioned flat earth, is it possible that some people in the past believed the earth was flat, not only for this reason, but maybe also from people misunderstanding Plato’s concept of earth being a cube, having flat sides? The square has four corners with each corner having two distances extending from it, with the possibility of eight concepts being attached one to each corner, and one to each distance. In a similar manner, if you extend a square, with three distances extending from each of its four corners, you have a cube, or 12 edges. In 3-D the simplest shape made with flat sides is a tetrahedron, a shape made of four sides.

There are many other religious beliefs that maintain similar concepts. Here are only a few examples of the many. The robes of some Chinese Emperors had a symbolic design. Taoist and Confucian philosophers explained that since they held their Emperor to be the representative of Heaven on the Earth, his garments were rounded from head to waist as the Heavens are a dome, and his garments were squared from his mid-section to the ground because the Earth is square. Or in Jainism we find belief that the entire cosmos exists in the form of the ‘cosmic man’. The shape of the cosmic man is that of three pyramids. These three pyramids consist of different levels within them called rajjus. The upper rajjus are the heavens, and the lower rajjus are the hells. The flat earth in which people live is in the middle of the structure. They believe the central continent is a flat circle surrounded by an ocean. Outside of this is a ring of land surrounded by another ocean which is surrounded by another ring of land and another ocean. Of the greatest importance is the existence in the middle of this circle of a mountain of tremendous height, extending into the heavenly rajjus, similar to that concept in the Greek of Mount Olympus. And don’t these ‘rings’ of land and water sound a lot like Plato’s description of Atlantis?

It really does sound like the ‘sky and earth correspond to one another like the roof and floor of a house.’

In Drunvalo Melchizedek’s ‘The Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life’, he describes an energy field surrounding ‘life’, (the merkaba) this energy field incorporates the platonic solids, and the outermost energy field seems to be the dodecahedron. This bears a striking resemblance to these ancient beliefs.


“The reality of the building does not consist in the roof and walls, but in the space within to be lived in.” -Lao Tzu

Jason


Last edited by Plato DNA on Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:10 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1103
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Jason,
I'm not ignoring this, just researching some of the ideas you present here.
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1103
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Jason,

Sorry for the delay in responding to this interesting post. I'll take your points in roughly the order you present them:

Quote:
In Plato’s Theaetetus 152e we find him saying…”When Homer speaks of ‘Oceanus, source of the gods, and mother Tethys,’ he means that all things are the offspring of a flowing stream of change.” Right away I thought of magnetism, or time perhaps; they both can be said to encircle the earth and are constantly flowing and changing.


I believe that at this point in Theaetetus Socrates is discussing the doctrine of Protagoras, a follower of Heraclitus. This doctrine concerns the theory of flux and is all to do with ‘becoming’, as you note. However I don't feel any compelling evidence for taking the extra step into magnetism that you do. Plato indicates that the rivers are all of the same water but pulsate differently according the forces within the earth. But again, it depends how it links into your thesis as a whole. That is, can you bring further evidence in order to make that extra step irresistible? Otherwise it remains hanging in the air (excuse the pun) and undeveloped as a notion. Does magnetism have a role in Platonic philosophy? I’m not sure that by going back to the Bible this step is made, because to me, it seems to merely beg the question.

A question that arises in my mind on reading this is: can the ecliptical relation between the circle of the Same and the circle(s) of the other be worked into this? The zodiac is in itself ambiguous in that it has a foot in both camps. It is inscribed on the dodecahedron along with all constellations of the Fixed Stars yet it is also tied to the tropical path of the sun, and therefore obeys the motion of the circles of the Other. I think you are digging up very interesting points of contact but as yet the artefact itself is still ‘in the ground, and undusted’.

Your point is taken regarding the names of the gods, mainly Gaia which seems to spring from the name of the element, earth – ‘ge’. The capital G is irrelevant though because Greeks only used capitals in Plato’s time. I’m not sure that we can say that Gaia herself was square shaped. Of course Plato confuses things somewhat at Phaedo 110b where Socrates claims that the earth when see from above resembles the dodecahedron (in that well known ‘blown up’ pentagonal pattern popular in footballs) although he reserves this shape in its pure form for the heaven itself in Timaeus at 55c. Nothing definitive here but again it might count as circumstantial evidence if you can provide something else.

I have always thought that Plato loved to expand men’s minds and release them from single, locked views. He seems to love ambiguity and often puts forward a model which can be read in different ways, yet his real aim, as is Socrates, is to purge and finally free the soul from its thralldom to the senses. His texts are always worked in such a way that they lead ‘away’ from the usual ‘concrete’ view and not necessarily to merely pose an alternative concrete view. He seemed to think that, of the things that can be clearly known, that is, dealt with authentically by the dialectic, number and geometry were the safest, because they had an ingredient of ousia or “is-ness” in them. Other things are certainly of gignomenon or becoming and cannot be clearly known. They have only the kind of impermanence that you encounter in patterns written on the sand by burrowing worms when the tide goes out, only be rewritten (but slightly differently) after the new tide has erased them.

You’ll note that in Timaeus, unlike the Physics of Aristotle, the whole work hinges on the special characteristic of the soul to infiltrate via its three means or mesai. Reason travels, via Soul, into the world of Necessity ‘persuading’ it to becoming evolutionary rather than follow the entropic path. Everything follows philosophy rather than natural science. That’s why his knowledge of natural science was hardly of the level that you might be imputing. Take for instance his ludicrous theory of ‘circular thrust’ at Timaeus (79a-e) which seems to tell us that he, like other Greeks, having no concept of momentum in moving bodies, thought that they were impelled forward from behind by the air rushing into the vacuum left by the initial forward movement. This is actually a serious impasse to your general theories that assume more mechanical and inductive knowledge than was available to Plato at the time. Apart from the pre-Socratic Thales, Aristotle seemed to be the first to make tentative steps in such a direction. To have knowledge of such a ‘scientific’ nature was a result of step by step accumulation with the addition of insight occurring at stages where gaps become bridgeable.

However, all that being said, there is something really innovative about the way you are approaching this, and I hope you take my criticisms, which are mild, in the light way I offer them. The truth is, there's good work here and I really want you to keep unearthing these things even for the selfish reason that I find them of great interest. For example, your description of the Genesis incipit is very evocative and needs thinking about. So, onward, I say!

Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Plato DNA



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 44
Location: Illinois, US

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Pete,

I really appreciate the interest and criticism; the one is refreshing, the other is motivational. I will try to explain in a little more detail.

Peter Blumsom wrote:
I believe that at this point in Theaetetus Socrates is discussing the doctrine of Protagoras, a follower of Heraclitus. This doctrine concerns the theory of flux and is all to do with ‘becoming’, as you note. However I don't feel any compelling evidence for taking the extra step into magnetism that you do. Plato indicates that the rivers are all of the same water but pulsate differently according the forces within the earth.


Pete, it appears to me like you are describing the concept of the magnetic field very accurately, and yet you say you don’t see my extra step of applying magnetism to the concept of Oceanus. From the Basics of Magnetism by Ron Kurtus…”A magnetic field consist of imaginary lines of flux coming from moving or spinning electrically charged particles…What a magnetic field actually consists of is somewhat of a mystery, but we do know it is a special property of space…The lines of magnetic flux flow from one end of the object to the other.” And according to Wiki…”A magnetic field is a mathematical description of the magnetic influence of electric currents and magnetic materials. The magnetic field at any given point is specified by both a direction and a magnitude……all materials are influenced varyingly by the presence of a magnetic field.” So…we have imaginary lines, flux, flow, and currents (appears to me the same concepts of a river or stream) that flow in and out of the earth, and encircle it. “Oceanus is a pseudo-geographical feature” according to Wiki, hence the ‘imaginary lines’, imaginary because they are not visible, not because they don’t exist (Oceanus is paired with Tethys, together could they be the north and south poles of a magnetic field?). Seems to me to describe accurately what is discussed in Theaetetus. And how you say…”Plato indicates that the rivers are all of the same water but pulsate differently according to the forces within the earth.” This to me is the same as talking about magnetism. Magnetism is always the same, and varies depending upon what material it is in, creating a magnetic field. On another note, isn’t it Einstein that equates space and time as interconnected, and we can say that magnetism and space are interconnected (and magnetism to electricity), can we be confident that space, time, and magnetism are interwoven? Can these represent Plato’s three distances? The three means of the Soul?

I referred to the Bible following the Oceanus concept because I feel that the very beginning of the Bible illustrates quite a few of the Greek gods, and I think accurately portrays the concept of Oceanus, and how is seems to distinguish him from being just the ocean, seas, and rivers. There are other Greek gods mentioned at the beginning of the Bible, the verses I skipped while quoting…”And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” All together we at least have these Greek gods at the very beginning of the Bible: Chaos, Tartarus (Abyss), Oceanus (water), Erebus (darkness), Aether (brightness), Nyx (night), Hemera (day), Gaia (Earth), and Uranus (heaven)….all these, just within the first few verses!

I think the relations between the circle of the Same and the Other can be worked into this, it just depends on how they are viewed. I noticed something else that ties into the Zodiac. Each of the twelve signs of the Zodiac are divided by 30 degrees. So the first few signs have…0, 30, 60, 90….again the 3, 6, 9 relationship, as I mentioned in my post ‘Plato describes DNA’. It is good to remember that of Plato’s two triangles that makeup his four elements, he seemed to prefer the 30, 60, 90 triangle.

In Plato’s Phaedo, I don’t think he confuses things when describing the earth as a football, it is not meant to be literal. It is an imaginative description of something that cannot be seen, much like the imaginary lines of magnetic fields. It could be compared to an energy grid or lay lines. And the colors he uses to describe its appearance are amazing. Purple, Golden, and White whiter than snow….all very spiritually significant colors and concepts (this also can be similar to experiencing seeing colors around people, or seeing their ‘auras’). To me they are viewing the world from a different level of consciousness, a different level of understanding that surpasses the physical…”If someone could reach to the summit, or put on wings and fly aloft, when he put up his head he would see the world above, just as fishes see our world when they put up their heads out of the sea. And if his nature were able to bear the sight, he would recognize that that is the true heaven and the true light and the true earth.” --Plato, Phaedo 109e. As a side note…”if his nature were able to bear the sight”…a reference to Plato’s famous cave allegory?

At Timaeus 79a-e, I find no ludicrous ‘circular thrust’ concept. I see an explanation for respiration of the human body. The breathing in and breathing out of the body and how it occurs. Anyways…his concepts here seem very opposite of believing in a vacuum. A vacuum implies an emptiness which is filled. Plato’s concepts here seem to suggest a fullness that doesn’t allow for emptiness. According to Cornford’s Timaeus at 79b…”Since there is no vacancy into which any moving body could make its way, and the air we breathe does move out from us, the consequence is at once plain to anyone: it does not go out into vacancy, but thrusts the neighbouring air out of its place.”

Does this make that extra step more reasonable?

Jason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1103
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

what is science?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Stocks



Joined: 28 Jul 2012
Posts: 652
Location: Wood Green, London

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HhhhhhhhhhhhhhhellO

OK Hit tHe tar-Kid, and drive...

yOu Have tHe Key

Here we KO

Our seat belts are wrapped and KrasH free

Our gentle reflection is working OK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Plato DNA



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 44
Location: Illinois, US

PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Pete, I don't think you will get a response. This is the exact same post that was left on Avital's thread about the genetic circle, but the profile name on that one is 'tazy gill'....pretty odd.


Science does not like the word soul or spirit either, and might as well say life too.


Infinity breaks through the sphere? How so? Doesn't the sphere contain infinity? You could even say the sphere is the embodiment of infinity. Who can say where its surface starts or ends? Who can limit the distance from its center to its circumference?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1103
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought there was something a bit 'disembodied' about this little group of new subscribers. Thanks for spotting that, Jason. We'll leave them to their own devices while they are behaving themselves and not exhibiting any troll-like tendencies and, anyway, at the moment they are making slightly more sense than Mark. Perhaps BOTS are becoming conscious entities and developing a liking for Plato?
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Stocks



Joined: 28 Jul 2012
Posts: 652
Location: Wood Green, London

PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Pete Smile

I feel Jason's typing here has great significance.

Can we swim in a notion that is truly conceived as such?

The finger tips may perhaps be quite pressing and swirl up an ocean of steps beyond the edges of what we are typing!

My feeling is that these finker tips may fly of coarse if they are not grounding the very words that we stand for.

My fingers though are feeling quite thumbs up at the moment.
If we make a space with the thumb and type with all fingers free this circle may be complete if such a true connection be formed in our enquiry.

I hope we all feel that our problem and energy is a baton that is being passed in the right direction.

'The essential element in personal magnetism is a consuming sincerity - an overwhelming faith in the importance of the work one has to do' - Bruce Barton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
This forum is sponsored by the School of Economic Science for use by its members; members of its branches; members
of affiliated schools worldwide and by all other Internet users interested in the study subjects presented.
Powered by phpBB Copyright © FSES, 2007. All Rights Reserved