School of Economic Science
A Change of Timaeus
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
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: Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pete,

Very interesting find! I have not had much time to read or reflect on the posts recently, so I do apologize for the delay. We did indeed discuss Plato’s triangles; I am still fascinated by the idea. The one triangle being a single and only instance, just One.; and the other being the most perfect of the many. And I love how the concept of 3’s can be applied to these. It also strikes me how the concept of the number 9 can also apply, as well as the idea of 3, 6, and 9. Sorry for not being very ‘clear’ but these things are still baffling and intriguing to me.

I am not very musically inclined so the idea of octaves and the Lambda are still pretty confusing to me, but I can kind of understand what you are saying. I am convinced that music and harmony play a big part in the elementals and ‘building blocks’.

I am looking forward to your more comprehensive investigation and the ideas that you find. I have found a few websites that relate Plato’s geometric ‘elements’ to the structure of DNA, but am somewhat hesitant and do not know how accurate this information is. In one place I read that Pythagoras argued that the ‘elements’ can be correlated with certain sounds, and that this is somehow related to amino acids, and that this would be the ‘sound’ of DNA. I am very skeptical about this but I think there might be something to it all.

I am still very astonished at the whole idea of a description of DNA being in Plato’s writing, especially the placement of its occurrence; it seems way too much to be a misinterpretation or coincidence. If we were to insert the concept of DNA into the’ tale’ of Timaeus, it would fall in exactly the same place that I happened to find the description. Not only do all the details match, but also its placement in the overall writing. Just simply amazing!

I have found quite a few different correlations that can apply to the DNA concept. One is in Jeremy Narby’s book “The Cosmic Serpent and the Origins of Knowledge”, his views are quite different, but I can find an unusual similarity and ideas that connect, especially considering my electromagnetic theories.

...

Speaking of all this, it is my opinion that the Timaeus is a myth for the same reason that modern science is a myth, it is hypothetical. It rests on theories that are at best likely scenarios. The myths of Timaeus are most likely based on oral traditions that span thousands of years and are actually handed down through the Egyptians. Words change meaning over time and different concepts are added to stories that are passed down orally. For one instance of change over time, the English word nice actually used to mean stupid, which is pretty much the opposite of what it means today. Overtime it has had a complete different meaning; the same is true for the word myth, especially in the name of modern science, which apparently seems to make myth obsolete, which is actually quite far from the truth. Myths of ancient time convey truths about the “unseen” world, and at least ever since science, it has come to have the opposite meaning of the truth. Because modern day so called ‘scholars’ want to attribute material and physical attributes to these myths and degrade them to actual physical phenomenon is the reason that they become opposite of the truth, and appear so easy to debunk. But the truth is that many of these ancient myths are still far beyond the concepts of modern science.

...


I am still unclear what is actually relevant in this thread. Redundant started this thread as “A change of Timaueus”, but I am not quite sure what he or she means by this. And he or she adds to it that they want to treat Timaeus as a myth, but cannot seem to bring any examples or what they actually mean to the thread. They introduced lines provided by Pete in a different thread and then on closer examination were bothered by the investigation. At one point Redundant actually said “If we have a mythos or report, on the Timeous we may wish to open a new thread. I just offer some crude musings, which of course can not be compared to scholarship, but there are other things.” What this actually means is unclear. And if we are to make a “change of Timaeus” and discuss myth, but are not allowed to discuss myth in Timaeus or make a report, what is left? What is the point of this thread exactly? At another point it was said “I opened this thread mostly because of Joseph's Jacob Klein-commentary suggestion. However, here too, we are becoming too wide and ruffled.” Where are Jacob Klein’s comments? I don’t know who Jacob Klein is or what his comments are worth. Does he change Timaeus, how so? What exactly is this thread to be about? I still don’t know.

However, it was said that my opinions regarding Plato’s description of the soul that were brought forth through the introduction of Pete’s comments from another post were irrelevant and negligible. I was commenting how Plato’s visual description of the soul matches up with our ‘modern day’ description of the electromagnetic field. This apparently is unacceptable, and not only unacceptable but also easily refuted and not worthwhile, the idea brings a certain boring and lifeless attribute which is of yet unexplained. It apparently causes a threat of contamination to the thread. Exactly what is at risk of being contaminated is still beyond me.

So an idea that can bridge thousands of years of thought is not worthwhile. An idea that could reconcile two opposing belief systems, one is the belief in an invisible intellectual world, driven by the soul and spiritual understanding, and another world driven by observation and tangible things. Something that proves probable among myths from all over the world and is also at the same time a testament of modern science is apparently not worthwhile to explore. And actually is lifeless and adds contamination to this thread. How ridiculous!

My ideas are compared to some person Zizek, of which I have no idea. But apparently because “the reason that Zizek’s whole derivative trope of the ‘real real’ described with physics examples is shallow and poorly thought through we must keep this segregated from Timaeus.” I have no idea what this means. But because of this person I don’t know, it means my theories have no weight. This person and his or her ideas have nothing to do with me, I could care less what Zizek’s ideas do or don’t do, they actually have no reflection on my theories. If my ideas are easily refuted, don’t bring some third person into it, just refute my ideas. I hope your refutations are real ones and not just ones trying to bring us back to the conventional view and ‘scholarly’ way of looking at things. Post a new thread if you like so we don’t contaminate whatever it is that might get contaminated.

Maybe I need to add some adjectives to my writing, maybe some adjectives that are uncommon words just to make my writing seem a lot more extravagant than it really is.


Jason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Stocks



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

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

......and anyway it's thanks to Pete for petering out the shit so that we can collaborate in the clear...

and sublime




What time is it?

Oh shit!

I've got to dig up some more shit so that me knose can grow.......

A garden.........


P.S.

Witch thread is this?

Oh shit!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
redundant fallibility
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I said something about why this can not be taken as scholarship here (of course more can be said, if there is a sign of engagement):

Quote:
“We ourselves can not grow up in a Greek Polis. Neither can we turn to a classicist to tell us what some word means. We must, here and now, think through the matters. The classicists say something different daily, and if we look over the history of thought we will see they have always found in their universals (their presupposition or tacit claim that a word is a word is a word) something new, or some correction. The reason is that they have at best recourse to what makes sense in their own time. I.e., what truly they maintain when they consider the matters before them. We who know of this can not possibly stay with what is surely inadequate, their services we grant are of some use nonetheless. However we do not ‘add’ to their discipline in any way, nor do we aim at it.”


I’ve said many things, beside from this, to show the necessity of this procedure in my posts. Quite a bit on that appears in the section roughly framing this bit:

Quote:
““To become Plato? We have only a text to rehearse, like someone who brings only the correct reading of the philologists or classists. That means, at best, we can hope to gain a strong bookish knowledge of the Athenians.
(Ergo, any notional construal is not accompanied by the doxa-reality of the lived flow of experience.)

1. Is a sheer noetic understanding of any concern to us at all? The noetic is not doxa or what one lives in immediate understanding. It may be higher. In the Laws there is talk of, knowing that Crete is an island, out of the radiance of what shines forth. But, this ‘knowing’ is only doxa. So is there knowledge higher than doxa? For instance is Socrates's intellect's statement, his deliberate thought, in the Sophist, higher. He says: The life without inquiry is no human life. A definition of the human being itself, wrought out of the intelligence of the genie or daemon within. Note that one purposes the noetic as higher than the doxastic. So the opinion, the lived concept, is tied up with the superiority of the gods.

2. If we do not have the opinions of Plato, can we understand him through the intellectual things alone? Through the text (the only trace of the thing remaining which itself is the entree). The argument rests on the assumption that everything, even the stone and the chair and the chalk and the mud, do not have the same shimmering-forth with us as with Plato. For example, a man from the remote part of Afghanistan who has never seen a chair, does he form ther the immediate idea, chair? His doxa, his experience, is not ours, we who grew into the world of chairs. (Here I squeeze in an example of the concept, without touching on the issue of the conceptualization of the categories which themselves orient all concepts, and without moving to the being which is not reason, for it is not purposeful or meaningful.) Can we have merely a bookish knowledge of Plato, without this doxa, and expect to know anything at all?

3. If Plato talks to us, will we not speak back to him? And then the becoming-Plato loses its mystery, for it is only in the trace that we recover the doxa. And the doxa is our very selves. Yet, forever, the doxa stands with the intellect. And what troubles us is the flow and the seeping within the two which we would bring into our world and address so strangely; different times are at play. This is no time as the eternal or time as clock time. It is something else, it is the concern of the ground of being.”


We just have a case of zilch on the engagement front here. Whereas I have responded to Peter’s ideas and got only the answer: “My interpretation is satisfactory.”, or some such preposterous prate.

“Exactly what is at risk of being contaminated is still beyond me.”

If you are determined to raise this issue, I wish you would ask some simple question that can be answered and begin a dialog on it. Otherwise I find it is a matter long treated, one needs some more detail at the very least.

Contamination, yes. What I should like to do is raise an earlier way to practice, that of more serious inquiry. Contamination for the reason that if this is a Zizek idea, one gets drawn into rationalizations, this is what the Zizeks thrive on, they are carried forth without end, and examples to fit them come, many of which amount to what one calls brainwashing. This is what experts on ideology do. Beside that it all, contemporary social sciences and so-called theory, of which I am hoping to be done with and sick of, rests on superficial ideas of which I am long familiar.

One thinks here of Kafka, who said continual debate with an outsider about why they are not suited for inclusion amounts to inclusion. When one reads the Greeks, one has a sense of Greek things, not an expertise, simply an acquaintance, same for German thought of a certain period. When one reads the thought exemplified by Zizek, one gets the sense of the sheer vapidity of these Zizkes, and all that follows the rise of scientific education in the universities and the end of the former training and intellectual orientation. Ultimately one does not wish to engage with such an entertaining orientation.

What’s the meaning of the magnetic field metaphor? That something like matter is lively? Usually it's used to ask a question about collapsing the “hard problem of consciousness” and the dualism of matter and consciousness in a mise en abyme, all this is comme il faut to the old guard. This trope is an entirely non-Platonic question, a modern concern. Don't you see that you raise it due to the air you breath, you raise just what others raise, the trope is well nigh a platitude.

Now, we are not prevented from raising it, as if by force. I only say, look how it all stands.

Improving your use of adjectives, would, yes, be an ebullient addition to your life, and that of your readers. And that's no barzelletta (no joke)!

--

addendum:

Quote:
Where are Jacob Klein’s comments?


'Sblood, they aren't here! Like the good solid lines, maybe some from the Tufts website, we might let stand before us, we as yet ain't got them.
Back to top
Plato DNA



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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I may be mistaken, but are you more or less saying that all we can do is speculate?

You seem to equate doxa to experience, I have already said that I am not familiar with Greek terms, but is this close to its real meaning? So is doxa some kind of mix between experience, opinion, reality, and the lived concept? You mention “is there knowledge higher than doxa?” So is doxa a type of knowledge? So where exactly does the noetic or ‘noesis’ stand in relation to all this? And whose interpretation do we follow? How do we even begin to approach these things without reason or some kind of rationalization?

Quote:
Contamination for the reason that if this is a Zizek idea, one gets drawn into rationalizations, this is what the Zizeks thrive on


Didn’t I already state that I don’t even know who Zizek is? Is this a stereotyping of my ideas to fit them into some kind of pre-existing social standard? Why do you keep insisting that my ideas have something to do with Zizek?

My magnetic field theory is not a metaphor, but a quite literal interpretation. Does Zizek mention how Plato describes the earth’s electromagnetic field in his Phaedo (at 111)? Or does he say how Plato describes DNA with incredible detail in his Timaeus (at 43a)? Does he believe that there exist many things in our so called modern science that we think we discovered but are actually only rediscoveries of ancient mythological and spiritual concepts, rediscovered from a completely different way of thinking about them? Or is your contention that the world that science tries to understand is a completely different world than what the ancient people tried to understand? Though they have different methods of investigation they have discovered some of the same things.

Sure these are modern concepts, but I can find descriptions of them in Plato. How do we define what is Platonic or not? I mean, these concepts are right there in his writings. It even seems he describes the soul in the same manner as modern science describes an EM field. And sure this could directly relate to consciousness. Does the soul relate to consciousness? There are even neuroscientists from several different universities who think that consciousness is identical with certain patterns in the electromagnetic field or that our conscious mind could actually be an electromagnetic field.

Sometimes I use the word electromagnetic in a specific sense, like the earth’s electromagnetic field. But other times I generalize it, more or less, to represent the ‘four fundamental interactions of modern science’ or just a wave-field concept. I do this because modern science seems to understand the electromagnetic interaction better than the other three, and also because they seem to want to combine these forces or interactions into one unified system. Also, because in our lived experience, we seem to be able to relate to the wide ranging effects of the EM field more easily than the others. How the EM field relates to both electricity and magnetism, it protects us from the sun but is also light itself; it is radio waves, x-rays, infrared and so on. It also gives structure to things; your chair holds you up because of the structure of the atoms and molecules caused by the EM interactions. It is what is responsible for all our electronics, motors, and many of our modern ‘necessities’.


These ideas that I personally find, are not isolated to Plato’s writings, but I have found evidence and traces in most of the ancient mythologies from around the world. The problem is in interpretation. We tend to want to give a material, physical, and tangible quality to these ancient myths, when in actuality they were attempting to describe things that can’t normally be seen. As an example, the world serpent that encircles the world, biting its own tail. We see it as fanciful because we know there is not some giant snake going around the world. But when we hear of ‘wormholes’ in modern science, do we assume there is some mysterious worm making holes that might change our concepts of space and time? Do we dismiss this because we find no evidence for such a worm? Space travel would be so much easier if we could only find these strange worms!


Jason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redundant fallibility
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I shall come back to answer Plato DNA in the following days.

I can’t think through what Peter has written under the title Final Frontier just now. But I would like to correct a common error which he brought out.

Quote:
“Heidegger is curiously flat-footed in handling Time and Space in the way presented in Timaeus, that is the Pythagorean way.”


Heidegger speaks of space constantly and in all of his works. You’re misguided by the simple fact that he doesn't speak of Kantian space. That’s what people mean when they say Heidegger doesn't deal much with space, for the reason that Kant dealt with Newtonian space, and time as chief parts of his phenomenal-world teaching. (In passing, one ought to note that in the ordinary sense Heidegger does not speak about time either.) Space, in the vaguest sense, Heidegger simply calls the opening, ie experience simple. For instance in the lecture called What is Thinking?. His name for it is Denken, thinking, or what Descartes calls cognition. I have space so I am. Sometimes the word clearing is used. In this he is like the myth presented in the Timaeus, he is going out from reasoned space, reasoned time. That’s not what the myth speaks of in the section I call the element. Where the demiurge comes in, and the wandering or errant “cause” is becoming. Cause makes us think of rationality, of reason, but here we deal with some other sphere that now we are calling myth.
Back to top
redundant fallibility
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I may be mistaken, but are you more or less saying that all we can do is speculate?


No, we can live. That’s why I say one must become Plato (ie, to truly see his teaching in all its light and dignity).

Quote:

“You seem to equate doxa to experience”


Yea, doxa means cognized experience. Ie, I think there is a computer here, I maintain it because it is here. When I have a formal logic, I can say all computers are machines, this is a computer, and so it is a machine. Intellect concerns that kind of deduction and inference. And so ultimately all predictive maths.

The stuff of intellect doesn't mean anything without the doxa. A word without a doxic impression is very like this empty logic. We get the words from Plato but not the direct experiences he was having.

Quote:
“Why do you keep insisting that my ideas have something to do with Zizek?”


It’s because we live in the same time. And some people articulate better the ideas that we all are likely to come to. I mean, eg, Newton and Leibniz came up with their work at the same time, things are in the air.

Quote:
Plato describes the earth’s electromagnetic field in his Phaedo (at 111)?


Are you willing to bring us this? We would need to assay it more closely to see how much dignity the interpretation has.

Quote:
Or is your contention that the world that science tries to understand is a completely different world than what the ancient people tried to understand?


I think, yes, by in large. What happens is that once an idea is introduced it is seen everywhere and at all times. This is the fundementally the defintion of amature history. One needs to cultivate a much more strict vision. For instance, although the Chinese world knew nothing of formal logic before Westerns brought it in in the 17th century, and the books were put aside in an area of their own, when an idea of formal logic was built up, it was then found simply everywhere. But quite falsely. (cf The Discovery of Chinese Logic
By Joachim Kurtz)

Science, as knowledge, is a formal way of predicting things, but it has no content without the doxa or ordinary world. Science is also the world we live in, the doxa experience, when considered as the way of our society, ie, the greatest authority.

Quote:
How do we define what is Platonic or not?


It is taken up negatively, we are in a better situation with respect to saying what isn’t Platonic. Surely Plato knew nothing of Newton’s physics for example. But we can also think it over in terms of bringing questions. A room with chairs asks something else from a room with obstacles, even if the x which is an obstacle can abstractedly be the same thing as the x which is a chair it can’t in historical life. We could know all about Plato in our own terms and see little in his, it is a open question whether we can or can not find anything that is the same, that belongs with us as well.

What is the ‘same’ question that this EM business is supposed to answer that also belonged to Plato?

Why should we suppose plato knew anything of this EM field, Plato who knew nothing of predictive science or technological knowledge of a post Enlightenment kind, any more than the remote Afghanistani youth knows of seats for one person, ie, chairs?
Back to top
redundant fallibility
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An additional part of the story:

This passage Peter calls our attention to is of great importance, and, when thought properly, of surpassing beauty:

[50e] For were it similar to any of the entering forms, on receiving forms of an opposite or wholly different kind, as they arrived, it would copy them in a distressing manner, through obtruding its own visible shape. Wherefore it is that the substance which is to receive within itself all the kinds is void of all forms; just as with all fragrant ointments, men bring about this condition by handy work and make the liquids which are to receive the odors as odorless as possible; and all who essay to mold figures in any soft material utterly refuse to allow any previous figure to remain visible therein, and begin by making it even and as smooth as possible before they execute the work.

This liquid is odorless, and that liquid has a scent (it has oder, odor: Searle says, with peculiar plainness: water has a taste, it tastes like water. Does it also have smell, a certain hint of oderlessness?). Philolaus, the Pythagorean, is of extreme importance to Heidegger, who is concerned with harmonizing these two. This harmonizing he names attunement. We must invite a discussion on this matter.
Back to top
Plato DNA



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

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That’s why I say one must become Plato (ie, to truly see his teaching in all its light and dignity).


In order for this to happen, shouldn’t we start by reading some of Plato’s writings first hand and acknowledging some of Plato’s beliefs?

Quote:
When I have a formal logic, I can say all computers are machines, this is a computer, and so it is a machine. Intellect concerns that kind of deduction and inference.


So does formal logic also say that my brain is a computer? So I am a machine? What about my mind? But isn’t that different? Isn’t our mind different than our brain? And what is left for my soul? How does formal logic compute soul? Oh, I also have a spirit, how does formal logic relate to my spirit?

I think formal logic really has nothing to do with much, unless you think you know something about a world that is ever-changing. Formal logic seems only good for science or business; it depends on how you want to define ‘formal logic’.

I say intellect concerns all that is not formal logic.

Quote:

Intellect concerns that kind of deduction and inference. And so ultimately all predictive maths.


This is what you said of formal logic, but denied it to the early Chinese. So in spite of all the discoveries and advances made by the Chinese they still lacked this kind of logic? Are you sure, is this a legitimate statement? So without intellect or predictive math the early Chinese discovered papermaking, printing, the magnetic compass, and chemical explosives? What about Taoism, the I Ching, and Confuciansim? There are many more discoveries by the ancient Chinese that were apparently without intellect or predictive math’s, but yet seemed to support the basis for the whole of western culture.

Quote:
Quote:
Plato describes the earth’s electromagnetic field in his Phaedo (at 111)?


Are you willing to bring us this? We would need to assay it more closely to see how much dignity the interpretation has.


Yes, I did, it is in Plato’s Phaedo at 111, or am I supposed to read it to you? I also brought it about three years ago in my post “Electromagnetism in Plato”. You can find that thread in this forum, there is no point in reposting it here. I am sure you will find problems with it, I did write it in the vaguest way possible.

Quote:
Quote:
Or is your contention that the world that science tries to understand is a completely different world than what the ancient people tried to understand?


I think, yes, by in large. What happens is that once an idea is introduced it is seen everywhere and at all times. This is the fundementally the defintion of amature history. One needs to cultivate a much more strict vision. For instance, although the Chinese world knew nothing of formal logic before Westerns brought it in in the 17th century, and the books were put aside in an area of their own, when an idea of formal logic was built up, it was then found simply everywhere. But quite falsely. (cf The Discovery of Chinese Logic
By Joachim Kurtz)


Maybe I didn’t express my point clearly enough. I mean that despite relatively small variations, it is still the same earth, the same moon, the same sun, the same EM field that was here when Plato and the ancient Greeks were here. It has nothing to do with social standards, didn’t you say earlier that you were tired of social standards but you still seem to use these to define your beliefs.

When you said this I was thinking you were talking about the 100th monkey concept or an energy/consciousness grid, but then I realized that is not your style. Are you talking about the concept that when you pay particular attention to something you seem to notice it everywhere? Like when you purchase a new car you seem to see it everywhere you go? That actually has nothing to do with my original discoveries of DNA and the EM field in Plato. And what does that concept have to do with the question I was asking?

So formal logic was falsely found in Chinese even as of the 17th century? Maybe I have the wrong idea of what formal logic is? Kind of ironic that the Chinese discovered most of what made the Western system possible, but yet were only introduced to formal logic after the Westerners brought it? Quite a curious concept if you ask me.

This approach relies on one of the great misconceptions of our time, that is that things are linear and constantly progressing and advancing. I expected more from someone who keeps trying to write about the ‘genetic circle’, which I still don’t quite understand other than things seem to work in cycles?

Quote:
Science, as knowledge, is a formal way of predicting things, but it has no content without the doxa or ordinary world. Science is also the world we live in, the doxa experience, when considered as the way of our society, ie, the greatest authority.


And by reading Plato we realize that the ordinary world has very little content in the truth. The ordinary world is but shadows on a wall. The experience of the world we live in is an illusion to be overcome. The world we live in, or experience through the normal senses has no authority whatsoever. Though there may be a ‘direct experience’ to be had through the nous, which has nothing to do with what we call science.

Quote:
Quote:
How do we define what is Platonic or not?


It is taken up negatively, we are in a better situation with respect to saying what isn’t Platonic. Surely Plato knew nothing of Newton’s physics for example.


What do you mean by better? “This question of 'better' is a long question. To start with is it not a value (not a fact as it seems to be)? Someone might say, the goose has it right. End of story. Is faster, for instance, 'better'?”
Just giving you crap. (By the way, before had nothing to do with the geese; the thing about geese was just a side note. I actually was comparing aerodynamics to a system of something like anti-gravity, sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. Wouldn’t a system like anti-gravity most likely be able to meet and exceed all that aerodynamics offers? And the point was if we are stuck on aerodynamics we might not ever realize anti-gravity)

Surely Plato did not care much for anything that was like Newton’s physics. When did Newton’s physics become necessary to understanding the EM field or any other part of nature? We have already been over this but why would Plato be concerned with Newtonian physics? Would Plato concern himself with interpreting the shadows on the cave wall? Isn’t Plato more concerned with what is outside the cave?



Quote:
Why should we suppose plato knew anything of this EM field, Plato who knew nothing of predictive science or technological knowledge of a post Enlightenment kind, any more than the remote Afghanistani youth knows of seats for one person, ie, chairs?


Well, because a description of it can be found in his writing.

There is one major difference with your comparison here. Chairs are not a part of the natural world. Now I could argue that everything is of the natural world, so let us just say that chairs are the invention of man. The EM field and DNA are parts of this world whether man is here or not.

We should take it as a possibility that Plato or ancient people might have known about the EM field despite our own knowledge because these people were obviously brilliant. It has been a few thousand years and their ideas are still being discussed. Also they cared more deeply about the invisible unseen world than they did about the world that is ever changing. People with abilities to utilize their mind are not limited in time. Einstein came to a lot of his conclusions with ‘thought experiments’. Who can imagine riding on a beam of light and still have accurate details about this experience? Nikola Tesla could imagine a motor design and ‘test and tune’ it in his mind. The imagination, mind, and their power are not products of science, and are not bound to a certain time period.

“We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” –Werner Heisenberg

“As Einstein described it, constructing a new theory is not like tearing down old buildings to erect new skyscrapers. It is rather like climbing a hill from which you can get a better view. If you look back, you can still see your old theory—the place you started from. It has not disappeared, but it seems small and no longer as important as it used to be.” -Sympathetic Vibrations –K.C. Cole


Jason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redundant fallibility
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
That’s why I say one must become Plato (ie, to truly see his teaching in all its light and dignity).


In order for this to happen, shouldn’t we start by reading some of Plato’s writings first hand and acknowledging some of Plato’s beliefs?


On the path to Plato we come to a number of difficulties. Athenian Greek, Attic Greek, is known to people who didn’t live in the Athens of Plato. We are not in a position to know with great reliability what the general understanding of the language pointed to. If I go to Latin, for example, and reading Caesar I take up the word genus, and at once translate it as race I will be in a distressing position. Caesar knew nothing of Darwin.

If I take up the word genus as if it were the word race, and go ahead in my reading I would be like someone who all the time mistook a hoplite for a Navy Seal. I would simply be unable to stop translating hoplite into some current image and conception.

So, what is suggested, is that in reading Greek works, we start by getting a raw jist. I.e., of the Greek things. Yet, in going right to the Greek world we come to something we can’t know as we know the presence of the computer, here, of the tangible room here. When we take up lines from Plato we must dance about them. Only making tracks about them. This is the way to avoid the error of the classicists, who in taking up a notional view say what makes the most sense to us now, what is so now. They, indeed, know Plato best, in so far as Plato is what one calls Plato. That red letter text, that venerable and traditional construal of that ancient one. But the existence of what they know is always changing that object, and no one can keep to it. Neither is the interpretation of Aquinas on an unshakable ground, nor that of Brentano. Thus, being impressed by these difficulties, we must understand the matter not to be of a lack of information, but, in a manner, a necessary flaw.

Quote:
Quote:
When I have a formal logic, I can say all computers are machines, this is a computer, and so it is a machine. Intellect concerns that kind of deduction and inference.


So does formal logic also say that my brain is a computer? So I am a machine? What about my mind? But isn’t that different? Isn’t our mind different than our brain? And what is left for my soul? How does formal logic compute soul? Oh, I also have a spirit, how does formal logic relate to my spirit?


Quote:
I think formal logic really has nothing to do with much, unless you think you know something about a world that is ever-changing. Formal logic seems only good for science or business; it depends on how you want to define ‘formal logic’.


Quote:
I say intellect concerns all that is not formal logic.


If we ask this as an open question, what is intellect, and we seek the essence in its deepest ground, we will come to great difficulties. What I intended was to give an account of the way the matter, which is very famous, has been taken up by scholars who have followed the doctrine they understand themselves to have received in, say, the Republic of Plato. This is still in Kant. And still has something that blends into our own everyday understanding.

What Plato is taken to say is that since a man can deliberate and come to a decision, eg, cocaine is good, as he reasons that Freud took cocaine and he was a great man, and he too should be as that Austrian professor was. Coming to this conclusion with his intellect he finds fear, the emotion, prevents him from the regular use of the drug, for he trembles bodily at the danger to his health. The emotions, ergo: fear, passions, mean passive force, and they push us about. Thus Plato is taken to attempt to move the master of the emotions form external force, to deliberate reason.

He argues that if a man, at one and the same time, wishes to regularly rub cocaine into his gums, and bristles and won’t do it, all against his rational belief in what is best, the soul or mind must be two, and then also he finds willfulness as a third thing.

We, we ourselves, are not compelled to take up this understanding. But there is a certain advantage to asking what “Plato” thought, or, better, what the tradition, what dictionary definitions, accounts and the speeches of politicians and the lectures of revered professors took Plato to mean. Then we can say something without infinite battle between ourselves. This battle arises largely for the reason that people don’t like to be wrong, or to be accused of making an error in their views.


Quote:
Quote:

Intellect concerns that kind of deduction and inference. And so ultimately all predictive maths.



Quote:
This is what you said of formal logic, but denied it to the early Chinese. So in spite of all the discoveries and advances made by the Chinese they still lacked this kind of logic? Are you sure, is this a legitimate statement? So without intellect or predictive math the early Chinese discovered papermaking, printing, the magnetic compass, and chemical explosives? What about Taoism, the I Ching, and Confuciansim? There are many more discoveries by the ancient Chinese that were apparently without intellect or predictive math’s, but yet seemed to support the basis for the whole of western culture.


The claim was accepted by a man of very high authority in Japan, Nishida, whose school was called the Kyoto School, and still continues to this day. The issue has to do with what is mentioned above. If I go into an infinite space, assured by geometry translated into algebra, and then come back to the things I take up directly, a piece of wood or a pound of lead, it is claimed that in applying theory I do something of a different character then simple handicraft. Because handicraft lasted much longer in the Far East, it is held that manufactured and shoddy goods did not appear for the longest time. Rather the extreme finesse and skill we think of with respect to, say, the Japanese Noh theatre, or the art of flower arrangement, or many other things, were of a finer character than the works that owed their existence to the theoretical method, to the work of the technicians or scientists. This is a complex subject, I give only very rough comments. Einstein and Mach, for example, in some way bridled against this method at the dawn of modern theoretical physics for instance.


Quote:
Quote:
Plato describes the earth’s electromagnetic field in his Phaedo (at 111)?


Are you willing to bring us this? We would need to assay it more closely to see how much dignity the interpretation has.


Yes, I did, it is in Plato’s Phaedo at 111, or am I supposed to read it to you? I also brought it about three years ago in my post “Electromagnetism in Plato”. You can find that thread in this forum, there is no point in reposting it here. I am sure you will find problems with it, I did write it in the vaguest way possible.


Let me look at it and come back. There’s a difficulty in that our ordinary understanding of electromagnetism is not the scientific understanding strictly speaking. And then we would want to make clear which we were drawing on. At any rate the whole issue would need another thread.



Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Or is your contention that the world that science tries to understand is a completely different world than what the ancient people tried to understand?


I think, yes, by in large. What happens is that once an idea is introduced it is seen everywhere and at all times. This is the fundementally the defintion of amature history. One needs to cultivate a much more strict vision. For instance, although the Chinese world knew nothing of formal logic before Westerns brought it in in the 17th century, and the books were put aside in an area of their own, when an idea of formal logic was built up, it was then found simply everywhere. But quite falsely. (cf The Discovery of Chinese Logic
By Joachim Kurtz)


Maybe I didn’t express my point clearly enough. I mean that despite relatively small variations, it is still the same earth, the same moon, the same sun, the same EM field that was here when Plato and the ancient Greeks were here. It has nothing to do with social standards, didn’t you say earlier that you were tired of social standards but you still seem to use these to define your beliefs.


This ‘same’ is what we want to confront. If time is taken to mean motion, then we stay with the way a brain stands next to its objects. An object, say a book, can be said to be the same as some other book. An atom the same as some other. They are equal. But a book or atom, itself, is not equal to itself, it is the same. Same means identical. Same can also mean that because we understand some thing, the earth or moon, to be there, and some other person too, understands the moon or earth to be there, even though we each think something a bit different, one saying the moon is insufferable and should be destroyed, the other saying it is a ripe resource full of metals easily found because they must sit at the center of meteorite impacts, we all agree, they speak of the same moon. Yet, in what way does this ‘same’ explain the matter? Each man’s moon belongs to this same object. Yet, each only finds their object. It is not a denial of the object, which really does exist, as if by asserting the reality of the relative moons of each one, the one each knows directly in the only way anyone ever knows anything at all.

The question is not about knowledge, but about what the thing is. And how it is the knowledge about the thing that truly is, can somehow be called the same. How does our knowledge, that of say quantum physics, speak to that same moon? How does it belong with that moon which Plato possessed, as, say, that heavenly sphere in the hyper-Uranus, the upper air?

What causes us to make these two one? Plato’s moon and our own?

Quote:
When you said this I was thinking you were talking about the 100th monkey concept or an energy/consciousness grid, but then I realized that is not your style. Are you talking about the concept that when you pay particular attention to something you seem to notice it everywhere? Like when you purchase a new car you seem to see it everywhere you go? That actually has nothing to do with my original discoveries of DNA and the EM field in Plato. And what does that concept have to do with the question I was asking?


I mean the things we all grow into as children. That evolution is true, that morality is not from god but from man. That all these matters can be challenged, that we have only authority to hold them up. Or, for instance that a chair is a seat for one person, or that a human can be distinguished from a goat in a very striking way, such that the way we are to use them is unquestionably of extreme difference. What ever someone will say, because that is so, that they would not have said a hundred years ago. The example of genital mutilation is a good one. Abstractly we can say, that is a different practice, it is ‘x’, we call, given in translation, female circumcision. But the political person says, that is mutilation. They know it to be mutilation. They can hardly be impressed by idle questions about possible other interpretations of that affair.

Quote:
So formal logic was falsely found in Chinese even as of the 17th century? Maybe I have the wrong idea of what formal logic is? Kind of ironic that the Chinese discovered most of what made the Western system possible, but yet were only introduced to formal logic after the Westerners brought it? Quite a curious concept if you ask me.


It means mainly that once the things are denoted in words, because I look and say, that is mutilation, ie, I make the assessment, the thing can be treated mechanically, one can make a machine which pumps out inferences or deduction based on the ready-made assessment that will no longer matter for the logic. Mutilation is prevalent in Sudan, I am in Sudan, therefore I am in a place where mutilation is prevalent. The syllogism is the simple form of this logic, assured by the form or way it is ordered and taken up by trained thinking.

Quote:
This approach relies on one of the great misconceptions of our time, that is that things are linear and constantly progressing and advancing. I expected more from someone who keeps trying to write about the ‘genetic circle’, which I still don’t quite understand other than things seem to work in cycles?


But you see it’s a tremendous difficulty that we can’t just start as if we didn’t grow into these ideas, they also define how we know the things about us, eg a tree or a computer, a human or justice, like someone who would ignore everything. Because in a way all these things are what we are.

Quote:
Quote:
Science, as knowledge, is a formal way of predicting things, but it has no content without the doxa or ordinary world. Science is also the world we live in, the doxa experience, when considered as the way of our society, ie, the greatest authority.


And by reading Plato we realize that the ordinary world has very little content in the truth. The ordinary world is but shadows on a wall. The experience of the world we live in is an illusion to be overcome. The world we live in, or experience through the normal senses has no authority whatsoever. Though there may be a ‘direct experience’ to be had through the nous, which has nothing to do with what we call science.


That’s a long question. But we shouldn’t ignore the fact that many take science to be the culmination of the notion of truth or rationality or nous as the organ of the highest knowledge. Objective truth, ie, material fact is one answer to the problem of n number of wrong opinions. Even many vulgar followers of scientism, in a way, still think in a transfigured Greek manner, a derived manner, that laws of nature are true or objective, whereas folk ideas are subjective. This is very crudely put here, and I speak of vulgar followers and not of more thoughtful proponents of scientism or rationality, but I just wanted to suggest the difficulties.





Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How do we define what is Platonic or not?


It is taken up negatively, we are in a better situation with respect to saying what isn’t Platonic. Surely Plato knew nothing of Newton’s physics for example.


What do you mean by better? “This question of 'better' is a long question. To start with is it not a value (not a fact as it seems to be)? Someone might say, the goose has it right. End of story. Is faster, for instance, 'better'?”

Just giving you crap. (By the way, before had nothing to do with the geese; the thing about geese was just a side note. I actually was comparing aerodynamics to a system of something like anti-gravity, sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. Wouldn’t a system like anti-gravity most likely be able to meet and exceed all that aerodynamics offers? And the point was if we are stuck on aerodynamics we might not ever realize anti-gravity)


Yea, but someone might say, I don’t like anti-gravity, or as is more apposite, I don’t care to take EM shuttles to the moon in four hours. I like natural flight and avion grace. You’re assuming the infinite desire for speed and efficiency.

It seems we ought to continue with this issue, because I believe you're still not impressed with the message I wish to convey.

Quote:
Surely Plato did not care much for anything that was like Newton’s physics. When did Newton’s physics become necessary to understanding the EM field or any other part of nature? We have already been over this but why would Plato be concerned with Newtonian physics? Would Plato concern himself with interpreting the shadows on the cave wall? Isn’t Plato more concerned with what is outside the cave?


The shadows, it seems to me, still are attendant on the EM drive, for instance, because it shows up here in the world of our human concerns. Some say it should be scraped, some say it is absolutely amazing and must be made known everywhere. It’s truth is in question. Nobody can doubt that it objectively exists apart from our knowing it, but we don’t know what this ‘it’ speaks of. Plato’s concerns are, in a way, radically different from those of the technicians and scientists. I,e, they are not put to rest by technology or science, but the fog even thickens with respect to the simplest ground of our difficulties.



Quote:
Quote:
Why should we suppose plato knew anything of this EM field, Plato who knew nothing of predictive science or technological knowledge of a post Enlightenment kind, any more than the remote Afghanistani youth knows of seats for one person, ie, chairs?


Well, because a description of it can be found in his writing.


Quote:
There is one major difference with your comparison here. Chairs are not a part of the natural world. Now I could argue that everything is of the natural world, so let us just say that chairs are the invention of man. The EM field and DNA are parts of this world whether man is here or not.


You’re confused by the understanding we all grow into, it’s a subtle and deceptive dogma or, better put, it is our way as a society, our authority as is cannibalism the rule for cannibals. It's part of our education which we are obliged by law to inculcate and incorporate by public obligation to the parents. Chairs are part of the world, they exist objectively. The phrase ‘natural world’ is just code for true, not merely doxastic, mathematically conceived nature. I.e., under the models of some mathematics physics. We see chairs and touch them. Just as the object of the mathematical models of electromagnetics also exist. There’s something there, and because we understand it under the model, we use it as an electromagnetic field. Just as the real object we know, the chair, is used as a chair because we conceive it under the conception chair, the objects of physics are used according to those concepts learned by physicists.

Quote:
We should take it as a possibility that Plato or ancient people might have known about the EM field despite our own knowledge because these people were obviously brilliant.


I think this ‘possibility’ rests on a inadequate understanding of EM fields, and the way the math is used to propose them as objects. We would either need to look more closely at what the people who deal with such fields of force really are doing, or to treat EM field as a matter of real human experience. We would want to speak of what we really encounter, a microwave oven, not some vague generality posited as a pure x, ie, as an idea or universal. The objects would then turn out to be part of the world of our concerns, yea, like chairs.

Plato knew nothing of this universal. And the way he would have taken up the things we subsume under it seem likely to have been taken up with an accordingly different orientation. And not knowing of that general method of manipulating these things, ie, with the mathematical conception, is just one cause of the divergence with respect to these affairs.

Quote:
It has been a few thousand years and their ideas are still being discussed. Also they cared more deeply about the invisible unseen world than they did about the world that is ever changing.


This ‘unseen’ I believe is not chiefly concerned with such things as occur bodily, in the state of the things about us. The ‘unseen’ is the truth, but scientific nature is a formal construct, not the kind of entity Plato had in mind with his theory of ideas. His was a theory, a formal construct, about real entities, eidoi.

Quote:
People with abilities to utilize their mind are not limited in time. Einstein came to a lot of his conclusions with ‘thought experiments’. Who can imagine riding on a beam of light and still have accurate details about this experience? Nikola Tesla could imagine a motor design and ‘test and tune’ it in his mind. The imagination, mind, and their power are not products of science, and are not bound to a certain time period.


Yea, but Einstein was compelled to give up his philosophic ground in favor of incorporating his weaker understanding of mathematical models in order to produce results relevant to his time (cf. Einstein's relation to the ideas of Mach). The thing is that the method of questioning became the models in math, rather than the thinking of humans. Einstein bridled at that, but it lay perhaps in the hands of fate.

Quote:
“As Einstein described it, constructing a new theory is not like tearing down old buildings to erect new skyscrapers. It is rather like climbing a hill from which you can get a better view. If you look back, you can still see your old theory—the place you started from. It has not disappeared, but it seems small and no longer as important as it used to be.” -Sympathetic Vibrations –K.C. Cole


Yea, just as Newton's objects still exist alongside the more powerful models, his method for predicting the movement of say a small stone, or some object in space, to a certain degree of accuracy, so too the knowledge of a chair, how to use that thing or to make something into that thing, a chair, is always kicking around human life.
Back to top
Plato DNA



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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are not in a position to know anything with great reliability. The general understanding of the language pointed to? Even if we were thoroughly familiar with the Greek used by Plato, would that help us understand the meaning of his words? You and I are both familiar with a general understanding of the same language. Perhaps you don’t know what I mean when I say the ‘same’. We are both able to read and write in English. But you don’t seem to understand what I mean when I say ‘better’ or that some things could be the ‘same’. A general understanding of the Greek language really has nothing to do with the ideas that Plato was trying to express. Knowing the exact terms in Greek does nothing for the meaning an individual is attempting to explain. If we are thrown into confusion over such simple words as ‘better’ or ‘same’, how are we to understand more complex things like ‘space’ or ‘time’?

You say “Caesar knew nothing of Darwin.” Which is obvious, Darwin came many years later. But does Caesar need to know of Darwin to be able to have similar ideas? Not saying he did, but I am using your example to make a point. Following this example, Caesar could have proposed many of the same ideas but may have never expressed them thoroughly, we would not know.

When analyzing writing to find out the meanings of the words used, regardless of time or language, we must keep the words in context of the ideas being expressed by the author. This must be of ‘great difficulty’, for when I speak of subjective things, you seem to insist on objects, and when I speak objectively you seem to point to subjects, as if this is only some rhetoric game. I am only trying to have a discussion and you try turning it into some kind of competition to be won.

So you suggest “that in reading Greek works, we start by getting a raw jist. I.e, of the Greek things.” So I am from the US, does getting a jist of the US help you understand me any better? (Oh wait, you have difficulties with what is better and what is not because sometimes you want to focus on everyone else’s opinions instead of the context of the word.) Does your understanding of the US help you when I discuss my ideas regarding ‘space’, ‘stillness’, ‘emptiness’, or ‘time’? Does it help you describe to me what ‘blue’ is?

Plato is known to be Greek, but this doesn’t mean that his writings have anything to do with Greek beliefs. Most of the ancient Greek philosophers spent a lot of time studying in Egypt, and their ideas clashed with traditional Greek concepts. By isolating Plato’s writings to a Greek system would only add more confusion.

I am compelled to take up an ancient understanding, there is something lacking in the modern understanding of nature. Although scholars, professors, and dictionary definitions could be helpful, for me they are not the ‘greatest authority’. Often times they are too limited and think too much ‘inside the box’. Perhaps this is a poor example because some guy in some remote country might not know what a box is. I do acknowledge all of the physical and material benefits that scholars and scientists have contributed, to make living ‘easier’ and more convenient, but this does not necessarily make the world a ‘better’ place.

Infinite battle, tell me about it. I don’t mind being wrong, I actually look forward to it. If I am wrong or make an error, it gives me the opportunity to see what I forgot. To see something which I must have been ignoring. It motivates me to expand my thoughts and to dig deeper. If I assume I know something there is nothing more I can learn about it because I think I already know. Error forces you to remind yourself that you really do not know. I will avoid giving any examples since you try to use them to practice some kind of rhetorical game. When I give an example you seem to use it to change the subject, taking the words out of context. The point I was trying to make using an example of aerodynamics and antigravity; you avoid or ignore the point and take the words out of the context in which I was using them and try to form some kind of argument that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. And the argument you try creating is not even practical. Everyone has different opinions; this is no mystery or big philosophical debate. Because of a few people’s opinions, we will never know what it means that something could be ‘better’? Give me a break. Sure ‘better’ is a relativistic term just like many other words, but does this mean I cannot use certain words when trying to give an example? Didn’t I point out a while ago the ambiguity of words? That words only convey ideas and that everyone has different ideas, yet if I remember correctly you tried to argue against it. Now you are using the same concept that you didn’t agree with against me? Seriously?

I looked up Nishida and the Kyoto School, the whole thing seems pretty interesting. But I struggle with concepts like….”If I go into an infinite space, assured by geometry translated into algebra, and then come back to the things I take up directly, a piece of wood or a pound of lead, it is claimed that in applying theory I do something of a different character then simple handicraft.” Overall I do agree that there is a sort of ‘finesse’ that most theory, technicians, and scientist lack. But I don’t understand what it means to “go into an infinite space, assured by geometry translated into algebra, and then come back to the things I take up directly”. Maybe it is just my simple mindedness but how can I go in and out of an infinite space? I am reminded of something here, and it may not have anything to do with what you are saying, I do not understand the way science views infinity. Different theories when worked out mathematically end up with different infinities, and people see these as problems with the theory, or they invent ways to ‘cancel out’ these infinities. But what if this is part of nature? Aren’t there naturally infinities or concepts that are infinite, why should they be cancelled out or proof of error?

So when we want to have a ‘great authority’ on some particular thing, does the scholar or scientist take into account that there are actually billions of different moons, do they study each of these moons to get a really strict and precise meaning? “Plato’s moon and our own?” You just explained how everyone’s experience of the moon is different so what does it mean to say ‘our own’ moon? Your moon or my moon? Who’s moon? If Plato possessed it, how do I also possess it? I did not know I had a moon, maybe it is buried in my garage. It is not some big mystery how things can be equal, identical, or the same. It is also no big mystery how things that can be equal, identical, or the same are also always different. Perhaps you don’t have an adequate knowledge about the modern English language in the US.

You think EM is a shadow because it shows up here in the world of our human concerns? I understand we have different opinions when it comes to EM and Plato’s cave. You analyze my other statements with a microscope but you seem to over generalize this. Is this because you still insist on dismissing my theory? You still keep trying to refute my EM theory without actually knowing the details of the theory itself. Following from your reasoning on the EM being a shadow in the cave; we could say that the intellect, mind, spirit, and soul are in the world of human concerns too, so does this mean they are shadows also?

“The ‘natural world’ is just code for true”? Um, not for me, isn’t the natural world different for each person who experiences it? Just like the moon, we don’t have one moon we have billions, so the same for ‘natural world’; it is a phrase too and not just one word so we have multiplied the ‘difficulties’. You think it is a confused understanding that people refer to the things of nature as being of the ‘natural world’? So we need mathematical models in order to know what a chair is and touch it? I am not denying the importance of math but just modern models.

Quote:
Quote:
We should take it as a possibility that Plato or ancient people might have known about the EM field despite our own knowledge because these people were obviously brilliant.


I think this ‘possibility’ rests on a inadequate understanding of EM fields, and the way the math is used to propose them as objects. We would either need to look more closely at what the people who deal with such fields of force really are doing, or to treat EM field as a matter of real human experience. We would want to speak of what we really encounter, a microwave oven, not some vague generality posited as a pure x, ie, as an idea or universal. The objects would then turn out to be part of the world of our concerns, yea, like chairs.

Plato knew nothing of this universal. And the way he would have taken up the things we subsume under it seem likely to have been taken up with an accordingly different orientation. And not knowing of that general method of manipulating these things, ie, with the mathematical conception, is just one cause of the divergence with respect to these affairs.


Quote:
It has been a few thousand years and their ideas are still being discussed. Also they cared more deeply about the invisible unseen world than they did about the world that is ever changing.


This ‘unseen’ I believe is not chiefly concerned with such things as occur bodily, in the state of the things about us. The ‘unseen’ is the truth, but scientific nature is a formal construct, not the kind of entity Plato had in mind with his theory of ideas. His was a theory, a formal construct, about real entities, eidoi.


Wow! Right here you completely dismiss my theory without ever reading what my theory involves. I think that anyone would agree, that is just pure ignorance. You imply that I have an inadequate understanding of the EM field. Unless you can read minds you have no idea what my knowledge is of electromagnetism. My theory was so ‘easy to refute’ that you didn’t even have to read it? “We need to look more closely at what the people who deal with such fields of force really are doing”. What does this have to do with anything? So to better understand Plato’s concept of Justice should we go sit in a court room? What kind of logic is this? “scientific nature is a formal construct, not the kind of entity Plato had in mind with his theory of ideas. His was a theory, a formal construct, about real entities, eidoi.” So you say scientific theory is a formal construct but Plato’s ideas were different because they were a formal construct? What? You also say Plato’s ideas were real entities? So is science concerned with fake entities?

So you could refute my DNA theory in the same way. Maybe you would say I have an inadequate understanding of DNA so my theory is bogus. Or maybe we would need to look into what people who deal with DNA today are really doing. Then we could come to some kind of conclusion as to show why Plato really didn’t describe it. What a bunch of garbage.

I don’t think you have ever read any of Plato’s writings. You seem interested in some modern type of logic and just wish to entertain yourself with some rhetorical games and find pleasure in finding ways to disagree with people.


Jason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redundant fallibility
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
“We are not in a position to know anything with great reliability. The general understanding of the language pointed to? Even if we were thoroughly familiar with the Greek used by Plato, would that help us understand the meaning of his words? You and I are both familiar with a general understanding of the same language. Perhaps you don’t know what I mean when I say the ‘same’. We are both able to read and write in English. But you don’t seem to understand what I mean when I say ‘better’ or that some things could be the ‘same’. A general understanding of the Greek language really has nothing to do with the ideas that Plato was trying to express. Knowing the exact terms in Greek does nothing for the meaning an individual is attempting to explain. If we are thrown into confusion over such simple words as ‘better’ or ‘same’, how are we to understand more complex things like ‘space’ or ‘time’?”


We do know how better and same are used in ordinary speech. We would be relying on an honest appraisal of the continuum between what one immediately takes to be the case, and the I think it is so. We say, the same website, the Plato Forum. the same as I was at last week. Then, if we think a bit, here comes the genuinely troublesome the tediously cavilling and the so enigmatic objections without end. Challenging the ground of the term is something else again.

Plato too had a basic meaning, and then a departure into the I-think-it-is-so, and then a leap into the intellectual practices of drawing perfect inference by syllogism. In any case, this is how he is understood when we don’t inquire further into what any Greek would immediately maintain about the simple matters. What Plato or Aristotle said we must take to be carrying up of the simple into the light of the dialectic movement towards a sought knowledge.

The paradigm for this is, say, a man who having heard the impious objections of Anaxagoras, who being awakened from sleep, begins to make an unsettling examination of his views concerning the place of the gods in human life. In our own day, the same might happen to one who embraced, all their life, the principle of rationality, Chomsky is a good example of such a man, only then, in the darkening of old age, to catch scent of some difficulty. I.e., that the principle of rationality is a general interpretation of the way to the good, that it is but faith to keep pressing it against the things and occurrences of life as if it were that all-rescuing angel.

All the time, then, one is in one’s faith, but not being attentive to how one does take things and affairs to be, in their first commanding ground. This tells us something of why, in a certain sense, the mode of thinking that belongs to the behaviorists is appropriate to an understanding of Heidegger and most of all of Husserl, his master.


--

Quote:
“You say “Caesar knew nothing of Darwin.” Which is obvious, Darwin came many years later. But does Caesar need to know of Darwin to be able to have similar ideas? Not saying he did, but I am using your example to make a point. Following this example, Caesar could have proposed many of the same ideas but may have never expressed them thoroughly, we would not know.”


No. You’re picturing the same world. I.e., an equal world. A is a. This happens because the trace, what we have that is left of Caesar such that he comes to us in life, is but the text. Also the things, but they too have a tendency to, with immediate brilliance, incorporate themselves into our world so that we hardly question them. There’s something like the garden variety critique of anthropomorphism at work in such thinking. I see a stuffed animal, its glass eyes are rather lifelike, one can not help but hint, as if in play, to oneself, the inspirited being of the animal, provided it is a well made likeness. In a similar way, if we read of Caesar’s incursions into Britain, we can not help but think we conceive of the way things were with him.

An example of this timeliness is the film of Ten Commandments. One can see science has drenched the latest issue in it rationality. The same events are taken with different complexion. And this failure to keep to anything but the bareness of what is ‘same’ goes on and on.

The main objection to this kind of very strong claim, as to the history of being, is that it is not terribly fruitful. I.e., one stacks up very little information, one adds little to the discipline which one represents.

This obvious, if it jumps out to us in the light of Plato, might come to say to us, when thought with praise, we have advanced, for Plato is always saying, as with difficulty, more evident than that Crete is an Island, or less so. And if we take ourselves as degenerated, we will say, they say obvious mechanically, they don’t notice their ground. It is this ground, of the everyone agrees, they all hold it to be so, that, presumably we are watching when we speak to Plato. It is that that is not always explicitly grasped in the daily affairs of life. Yet, the question is whether it is an orientation in theory, or a thing we can notice in its sudden obviousness. In the coil of the turning of the obvious into the difficulty of the ground. Or is it that, in coming into a passion for finding this evidence, in its coursing through being like a draft of true water which drains out, we hypnotize ourselves and fall into utter deception.

Quote:
“When analyzing writing to find out the meanings of the words used, regardless of time or language, we must keep the words in context of the ideas being expressed by the author. This must be of ‘great difficulty’, for when I speak of subjective things, you seem to insist on objects, and when I speak objectively you seem to point to subjects, as if this is only some rhetoric game. I am only trying to have a discussion and you try turning it into some kind of competition to be won.”


Look: A chair. Do you call that subjective? It’s a thing, so is an atom. The point is that in knowing anything at all we must know it just as we do, I see a computer. That is my knowing of what is here, in its nature, a computer. Your stuck on a dogma. Make it clearer: everything that is called appearance in Plato, the whole human world, is called subjective. Everything that in any way matters to human beings as human beings. Then the true world, now, that is called objective. It is the mass and the measurement of energy flows of different kinds throughout the history of the measurable universe, quantifiable systems. But as soon as one encounters, personally, anything the maths, which the true world is built on, it becomes subjective. It is just the mechanization of a Plato rushed out of the texts to aid certain practices.

One must see that the math is invention, ie, what you call subjective. And the rest of the “natural world”’s shallow objectivity stands on this. Thus it is sheer deception and to speak of this break, and it should be dropped from your mind and language. Yet, this filth, speaks to us, for we grow into it. It is not something to be removed simply. It is us for we have grown into it. We can not be quite removed from this authority. One must keep in mind also the polemical requirements in this respect, one must speak to outsiders.

There is a second notion of object and subject, quite different, based on common sense. I think the problem is that you conflate them. The second is quite strong. It means merely that I take the chair to still be there when I’m not. The chair, not some fanciful formula that might help me make something, but is nothing but what it can help me to make, thought properly.

Quote:
“So you suggest “that in reading Greek works, we start by getting a raw jist. I.e, of the Greek things.” So I am from the US, does getting a jist of the US help you understand me any better? (Oh wait, you have difficulties with what is better and what is not because sometimes you want to focus on everyone else’s opinions instead of the context of the word.) Does your understanding of the US help you when I discuss my ideas regarding ‘space’, ‘stillness’, ‘emptiness’, or ‘time’? Does it help you describe to me what ‘blue’ is?”


I think a good example is that French in Action programmatic language learning. One doesn't necessarily pick up the speech, but it makes some impression. The way of saying hello has a different sense in France, in England, in America. It’s not chiefly the words, but the what-one-is-doing there. The Greek words are artifacts of the thinking. We can speak, almost at once as we enter these things, of a French way, of the essence of the French things. Yet, if asked to make a report they would remain in silence, by and large. Rite de passage a la pensee, the ritual of coming to that way of that thinking. Of course, the French are not so much different from us as would have been, eg, ancient Persians.

Quote:
“Plato is known to be Greek, but this doesn’t mean that his writings have anything to do with Greek beliefs. Most of the ancient Greek philosophers spent a lot of time studying in Egypt, and their ideas clashed with traditional Greek concepts. By isolating Plato’s writings to a Greek system would only add more confusion.”


That we ask about Plato in particular is not to say that, either the Greeks speak through him, or that other Greeks have nothing to say to us. In fact, in Plato we look more towards what is not Plato in Plato, what is still rough and unthought. Socrates says, an angler, a fisher, that we can point to, we need to make no dialectic there. We often find things standing out in that intellectually raw effulgence. The so-called myths, the consciously made myths, which are not at all like myths that are the product of what befalls one as fate, nonetheless seem of interest to us as well, but surely one can see the difference in the orientation with respect to the built things, as it were. One could speak here, in that Heideggerian mode, of a first stirring up of activity out of something animal, out of the captivation of the suddenly grasping of things in their impelling whatness.

Quote:
“I am compelled to take up an ancient understanding, there is something lacking in the modern understanding of nature. Although scholars, professors, and dictionary definitions could be helpful, for me they are not the ‘greatest authority’. Often times they are too limited and think too much ‘inside the box’. Perhaps this is a poor example because some guy in some remote country might not know what a box is. I do acknowledge all of the physical and material benefits that scholars and scientists have contributed, to make living ‘easier’ and more convenient, but this does not necessarily make the world a ‘better’ place.”


This is a dubious passion, escape from one’s fate, for the reason that Plato too, was compelled to take up a search for a solution to his very grueling difficulties. It suggests a becoming, then more then more. And not a being. All I’m doing here, in this objection, is suggesting vaguely. What is said is truly scanty. Being, we learn, then, is not truth, such as a place of rest from one’s difficulties in knowledge unchanging. This casts some shadow on the brightness of the happiness one might hope to reach in the compulsion to evade the lack of a home-like stay on the earth in the way of this technology or science-authority model.

Quote:
Infinite battle, tell me about it. I don’t mind being wrong, I actually look forward to it. If I am wrong or make an error, it gives me the opportunity to see what I forgot. To see something which I must have been ignoring. It motivates me to expand my thoughts and to dig deeper. If I assume I know something there is nothing more I can learn about it because I think I already know. Error forces you to remind yourself that you really do not know. I will avoid giving any examples since you try to use them to practice some kind of rhetorical game. When I give an example you seem to use it to change the subject, taking the words out of context. The point I was trying to make using an example of aerodynamics and antigravity; you avoid or ignore the point and take the words out of the context in which I was using them and try to form some kind of argument that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. And the argument you try creating is not even practical. Everyone has different opinions; this is no mystery or big philosophical debate. Because of a few people’s opinions, we will never know what it means that something could be ‘better’? Give me a break. Sure ‘better’ is a relativistic term just like many other words, but does this mean I cannot use certain words when trying to give an example?


Of course. I may have been rambling on a non-sequitur. Still, I thought the point had a general relevancy. The assumption of something like progress is dubious in such cases. I.e, that the faster is progress over and above the slower.

Quote:
Didn’t I point out a while ago the ambiguity of words? That words only convey ideas and that everyone has different ideas, yet if I remember correctly you tried to argue against it. Now you are using the same concept that you didn’t agree with against me? Seriously?


I think there’s a complicated ground here, I’m not evading your words. It’s because you don’t have the distinctions I’m making firmly in mind that it looks that way. For example the two, very real and clear uses of the subject object distinction mentioned above.

Quote:
I looked up Nishida and the Kyoto School, the whole thing seems pretty interesting. But I struggle with concepts like….”If I go into an infinite space, assured by geometry translated into algebra, and then come back to the things I take up directly, a piece of wood or a pound of lead, it is claimed that in applying theory I do something of a different character then simple handicraft.” Overall I do agree that there is a sort of ‘finesse’ that most theory, technicians, and scientist lack. But I don’t understand what it means to “go into an infinite space, assured by geometry translated into algebra, and then come back to the things I take up directly”. Maybe it is just my simple mindedness but how can I go in and out of an infinite space? I am reminded of something here, and it may not have anything to do with what you are saying, I do not understand the way science views infinity. Different theories when worked out mathematically end up with different infinities, and people see these as problems with the theory, or they invent ways to ‘cancel out’ these infinities. But what if this is part of nature? Aren’t there naturally infinities or concepts that are infinite, why should they be cancelled out or proof of error?


In simple terms a theorem is an invention. That I can then take it and use my understanding of it to do things with things means only that it helps me in making my machines or predictions. Not that it’s universal truth (or some portion thereof).

Infinite in mathamatical conception. Infinite in the imagination. I.e., in invention.

Quote:
“So when we want to have a ‘great authority’ on some particular thing, does the scholar or scientist take into account that there are actually billions of different moons, do they study each of these moons to get a really strict and precise meaning? “Plato’s moon and our own?” You just explained how everyone’s experience of the moon is different so what does it mean to say ‘our own’ moon? Your moon or my moon? Who’s moon? If Plato possessed it, how do I also possess it? I did not know I had a moon, maybe it is buried in my garage. It is not some big mystery how things can be equal, identical, or the same. It is also no big mystery how things that can be equal, identical, or the same are also always different. Perhaps you don’t have an adequate knowledge about the modern English language in the US.”

I mean literally. In the same way one knows there is a keyboard here. I see it, one knows it as that keyboard there. That’s it’s nature. A computer keyboard. By authority in that sense I don’t mean some prestigious or revered person such as Aristotle, but the way we know things immediately. The authority of thinking or knowing at once, holding it to be so. Once I think it so, only then do I bring it into a tremendous range of objections, thoughts, infatigable divagations and cruel wreckings.

Quote:
“You think EM is a shadow because it shows up here in the world of our human concerns? I understand we have different opinions when it comes to EM and Plato’s cave. You analyze my other statements with a microscope but you seem to over generalize this. Is this because you still insist on dismissing my theory? You still keep trying to refute my EM theory without actually knowing the details of the theory itself. Following from your reasoning on the EM being a shadow in the cave; we could say that the intellect, mind, spirit, and soul are in the world of human concerns too, so does this mean they are shadows also?”


I mean that EM, as all fields of force are, is a mathamatical model, an imagination, except when it shows up here, or there. When it shows up, it shows up as a conceptualized thing, just as a chair has this urging reality, based on what we grew into socially. It’s being offered as the natural-scientific object so-and-such to be used in such-and-so a fashion.



Quote:
Quote:
“The ‘natural world’ is just code for true”? Um, not for me, isn’t the natural world different for each person who experiences it? Just like the moon, we don’t have one moon we have billions, so the same for ‘natural world’; it is a phrase too and not just one word so we have multiplied the ‘difficulties’. You think it is a confused understanding that people refer to the things of nature as being of the ‘natural world’? So we need mathematical models in order to know what a chair is and touch it? I am not denying the importance of math but just modern models.”

Quote:
Quote:
We should take it as a possibility that Plato or ancient people might have known about the EM field despite our own knowledge because these people were obviously brilliant.



I think this ‘possibility’ rests on a inadequate understanding of EM fields, and the way the math is used to propose them as objects. We would either need to look more closely at what the people who deal with such fields of force really are doing, or to treat EM field as a matter of real human experience. We would want to speak of what we really encounter, a microwave oven, not some vague generality posited as a pure x, ie, as an idea or universal. The objects would then turn out to be part of the world of our concerns, yea, like chairs.

Plato knew nothing of this universal. And the way he would have taken up the things we subsume under it seem likely to have been taken up with an accordingly different orientation. And not knowing of that general method of manipulating these things, ie, with the mathematical conception, is just one cause of the divergence with respect to these affairs.


Quote:
Quote:
It has been a few thousand years and their ideas are still being discussed. Also they cared more deeply about the invisible unseen world than they did about the world that is ever changing.


This ‘unseen’ I believe is not chiefly concerned with such things as occur bodily, in the state of the things about us. The ‘unseen’ is the truth, but scientific nature is a formal construct, not the kind of entity Plato had in mind with his theory of ideas. His was a theory, a formal construct, about real entities, eidoi.


“Wow! Right here you completely dismiss my theory without ever reading what my theory involves. I think that anyone would agree, that is just pure ignorance. You imply that I have an inadequate understanding of the EM field. Unless you can read minds you have no idea what my knowledge is of electromagnetism. My theory was so ‘easy to refute’ that you didn’t even have to read it? “We need to look more closely at what the people who deal with such fields of force really are doing”. What does this have to do with anything? So to better understand Plato’s concept of Justice should we go sit in a court room? What kind of logic is this? “scientific nature is a formal construct, not the kind of entity Plato had in mind with his theory of ideas. His was a theory, a formal construct, about real entities, eidoi.” So you say scientific theory is a formal construct but Plato’s ideas were different because they were a formal construct? What? You also say Plato’s ideas were real entities? So is science concerned with fake entities?”


I was only addressing the sentence about the unseen. In order to situate the idea for discourse. Because in order to communicate one must open the mind and lay out the contents for savage and remorseless critique. But, there is no critique without a proper confrontation with what is thought, as opposed to some comedic distortion thereof. I think many of your accusations have something to do with the fact that it takes some time to illuminate and show ideas. As I said elsewhere a new thread would be needed to catch onto the thread of your notions.


Quote:
“So you could refute my DNA theory in the same way. Maybe you would say I have an inadequate understanding of DNA so my theory is bogus. Or maybe we would need to look into what people who deal with DNA today are really doing. Then we could come to some kind of conclusion as to show why Plato really didn’t describe it. What a bunch of garbage.”


Such ‘refutations’ are aimed at strengthening the material. Also, there are distinctions that are real and satisfying to intelligent mortals that might be established if we bring more expert knowledge to the matters. They aren't dismissals, your attitude is somewhat to lawyerly you know. I’m not aiming so much at bludgeoning argumentation for the sake of prevailing, but because I have certain views that I want taken into account I try to establish them without wholly sparing the harm that will be done to the ideas you bring. But it is necessary for conversation that comes into the mode of dialectic. One might say, only listen and accept everything, pure peaceable conversation. Yet, without agonistics there is no dialogue.

Quote:
“I don’t think you have ever read any of Plato’s writings. You seem interested in some modern type of logic and just wish to entertain yourself with some rhetorical games and find pleasure in finding ways to disagree with people.”


I have read them. What is more I’ve read many parts in a serious way, which is far different form simply reading them. Reading is of little importance, what matters is yanking insight out of the sense of the thinking. But the thinking is never in the words. One has to bring it oneself, to think it. If we read Plato plainly like anyone can, we push the tradition only. In its current state, the one no one ever keeps to. Go back and read the now refused thought’s on Plato, consider the mode of the textualists, philologists or classists, who build up knowledge is new. Consider those that preceded that pusing of that model. They too broke down and vanished in their explicit shimmering, though in history they are us. One needs a more serious approach in the light of the knowledge of the history of being, one can not keep to it. That movement of the self evident or obvious attested to in its most profound form in Husserl.
Back to top
redundant fallibility
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Addendum:

Three points leave me uneasy. One, the use of the word subjective is extremely naked. One should know of its development. We might go into the fact value distinction in the context of relatively recent times. And also that that is now indistinguishable in the common mind, the is ought distinction. These are assertions which have had great power only since roughly the time of the first world war, but one does not often dream of challenging them as mere arguments. Subjective in the common usage can mean value judgment. It can also mean doxa, rather than angelic intuition. Where there is a claim these days that angelic intuition (i.e., of truth) is simple sense data, uninfluenced by the mind, i.e., by the subject. It is a very weak idea in thought, but very powerful in fact of its promulgation and authority.

Secondly: Our direct grasp of things is no matter of “agreement”/convention, no one agrees to their doxa or thinking (as the immediate grasping of the essences [but not the beings]). It is indistinguishable from their knowledge of the world.

Lastly: I don’t believe basic terms were held to be particularly “ambiguous” by any ancient author (Aristotle on the pre-Socratics' darkness does not speak of simple ambiguity). There is no place where a term like cloak or stone brings a discussant to serious difficulties. The things one can point to require no explanation so far as the ancients are concerned, they are already plain. A term like better, as well, is not highly ambiguous, but only trivially so. If one says something is better it is obvious enough to everyone what one intends by that, ie, that the thing is liked more than some other thing. The question of, eg, what same means is not ambiguous as such, it is not a question of words and definitions, but in the sense of the being of what is spoken about it, what we find in the world, it is ambiguous.

We are modern and nothing but modern. This is a consequential issue that encroaches on all our considerations. It makes us treat words as abstract, rather than as speaking the things without having substance themselves.
Back to top
Plato DNA



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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
“You say “Caesar knew nothing of Darwin.” Which is obvious, Darwin came many years later. But does Caesar need to know of Darwin to be able to have similar ideas? Not saying he did, but I am using your example to make a point. Following this example, Caesar could have proposed many of the same ideas but may have never expressed them thoroughly, we would not know.”


“No. You’re picturing the same world. I.e., an equal world. A is a. This happens because the trace, what we have that is left of Caesar such that he comes to us in life, is but the text. Also the things, but they too have a tendency to, with immediate brilliance, incorporate themselves into our world so that we hardly question them. There’s something like the garden variety critique of anthropomorphism at work in such thinking. I see a stuffed animal, its glass eyes are rather lifelike, one can not help but hint, as if in play, to oneself, the inspirited being of the animal, provided it is a well made likeness. In a similar way, if we read of Caesar’s incursions into Britain, we can not help but think we conceive of the way things were with him.”


I don’t see how any of this, or your paragraphs following this, relate to the point I was trying to make. What does my point have to do with an equal or different world? So someone who came before Darwin could not have the same ideas? Why?

Quote:
“The main objection to this kind of very strong claim, as to the history of being, is that it is not terribly fruitful. I.e., one stacks up very little information, one adds little to the discipline which one represents.”


What very strong claim? What do you mean when you say the history of being? What is not fruitful? The discipline one represents? I was not aware that I represent a discipline, which one?

Quote:
Quote:
“When analyzing writing to find out the meanings of the words used, regardless of time or language, we must keep the words in context of the ideas being expressed by the author. This must be of ‘great difficulty’, for when I speak of subjective things, you seem to insist on objects, and when I speak objectively you seem to point to subjects, as if this is only some rhetoric game. I am only trying to have a discussion and you try turning it into some kind of competition to be won.”


“Look: A chair. Do you call that subjective? It’s a thing, so is an atom. The point is that in knowing anything at all we must know it just as we do, I see a computer. That is my knowing of what is here, in its nature, a computer. Your stuck on a dogma. Make it clearer: everything that is called appearance in Plato, the whole human world, is called subjective. Everything that in any way matters to human beings as human beings. Then the true world, now, that is called objective. It is the mass and the measurement of energy flows of different kinds throughout the history of the measurable universe, quantifiable systems.”


Perhaps my use of subject and object was over-simplified. I do realize these can be confusing words. Sometimes an object is a subject and sometimes a subject is an object. I will try to avoid using such senseless words in the future. We could use the word objects to mean sensible things, but then there could be confusion on the use of the word ‘sensible’. Maybe I will start using ‘material’ and ‘not material’ in their place, but things could get almost just as confusing, sometimes it is hard to make a clear distinction where one begins and the other ends, if they even begin or end at all.

Quote:

“Then the true world, now, that is called objective. It is the mass and the measurement of energy flows of different kinds throughout the history of the measurable universe, quantifiable systems.”


Mass and energy are not objects; they are properties objects can have. Because of that reason I would not call that objective. The true world I would also not call objective, the objective or sensible world is always changing and relative to the one observing it, there is hardly anything true about it. So for you the true world is based on the theories of science, isn’t science a dogma of its own and theories only likely stories?

You say I am stuck on a dogma? Keeping words and ideas in the context that the author uses them is some kind of dogma? What kind of dogma is that? Reading? What would not be considered a dogma? Is it my over-simplified use of the words object and subject that is a dogma? I have no particular authority, wisdom is everywhere.

Quote:
“But as soon as one encounters, personally, anything the maths, which the true world is built on, it becomes subjective.”

“One must see that the math is invention, ie, what you call subjective.”


So do we both agree that math is subjective? You seem really into logic, when I try to apply some logic to these statements, I find your ideas confusing. So if math is invention, someone invented it right? An invention needs an inventor doesn’t it? So I assume you would say man invented math? If we say man invents math, and also that the true world is built on math; doesn’t logic imply that man built the true world? Is this correct? If the true world is built on math, how did man invent math? So are scientific theories what built the true world?

Quote:
“This is a dubious passion, escape from one’s fate, for the reason that Plato too, was compelled to take up a search for a solution to his very grueling difficulties. It suggests a becoming, then more then more. And not a being.”


I think our understandings of Plato are as different as they worlds we live in. Maybe you can clarify what you mean when you say that Plato’s ideas suggest more and more of becoming and not a being?

Quote:
“I mean that EM, as all fields of force are, is a mathamatical model, an imagination, except when it shows up here, or there. When it shows up, it shows up as a conceptualized thing, just as a chair has this urging reality, based on what we grew into socially. It’s being offered as the natural-scientific object so-and-such to be used in such-and-so a fashion.”


This is a very inadequate rendering of what ‘fields’ are. You have a height and weight, I presume, so is that what you are? Because we can use mathematics to define certain qualities you have does that make you who you are? Fields are only imaginary when attempting to describe them, because they do not appeal to our senses, when describing something that is not normally sensible you have to be imaginative because you can’t actually see it.

when it shows up here, or there”? Everything in the universe is all made from fields and particles. Fields are more fundamental than particles because you can’t have a particle without a field but you can have a field without a particle, which gives fields their own independent existence, so they are dynamic entities. Particles are just ripples in the fields. Two of the four fundamental fields are said to have an infinite range, so they do not just show up here or there…they are everywhere. For example, the smallest particles and the biggest galaxies have EM fields. The EM field around our galaxy envelops everything within it. The EM field of our sun envelops everything in our solar system. The EM field of the earth envelops everything on and around earth. Everything we know of is nested among EM fields.

Quote:
“As I said elsewhere a new thread would be needed to catch onto the thread of your notions.”


As I said before too, there is already a thread called ‘Electromagnetism in Plato’, another new thread is not necessary.

Quote:
“I don’t believe basic terms were held to be particularly “ambiguous” by any ancient author… The things one can point to require no explanation so far as the ancients are concerned, they are already plain.”


The whole concept of writing was ambiguous to Socrates, why is it that he never wrote anything down? I think that is why Plato wrote in the form of dialogues, to get as close as possible to actual conversation or a question and answer style. Socrates and Plato had minimal interest in the things one can point to; they didn’t consider them real things. They were more concerned with the ideas behind the things, or the Forms.

I think this quote below is one of the points you were trying to make, I do understand this and agree. This is why we need to ‘empty our cup’, or to approach things without any preconceived notions. We cannot force our ideas in to the text, but we must let the ideas that are presented find us.

We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” -Anais Nin


Jason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redundant fallibility
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
“I don’t see how any of this, or your paragraphs following this, relate to the point I was trying to make. What does my point have to do with an equal or different world? So someone who came before Darwin could not have the same ideas? Why?”



I meant the same ideas with respect to what man is, and in connection to the ideas for which Darwin is relevant. Presumably all of our ideas are different form those of the distant past. I only wanted to give a specific clear example which shows that one ought to be dubitative with respect to the discovery of ‘same ideas’.


---

Quote:
“What very strong claim? What do you mean when you say the history of being? What is not fruitful? The discipline one represents? I was not aware that I represent a discipline, which one?”


The history of being refers to the view that there is no same world. Even stones and mud can not be the same for us as for the entire Greek world. This view on the true world, its remaining, has for its shadow an unthought presupposition. The Greeks were sure everyone lived in one same world. This was true of the deepest skeptics and the philosophers of the Stoa. This continued through the Christian fathers, and died only with Kant. With Kant the abyss of the history of being breaks forth. (I am aware that this is supposed by certain textbooks to occur only later, but that is simply not so.) So far Husserl is the most profound student of this matter.

Quote:
““We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” -Anais Nin”


This ‘as they are’ and ‘as we are’, is misleading. It suggests a true way ‘things are’, and a subjective view of the truth conditioned by the way ‘we are’’. We grow into a world, as it is. It’s a different world then that of the Greeks. One needs to amplify the questioning of the sense of the same with respect to what an idea and what a thing is at all.

You do 'represent' by virtue of growing up in a time when a certain curriculum determined by a particular regime, it's an absolute condition of your thinking, all human knowledge is in some way effected by this atmosphere, whether directly or through the common fever swamp. Academicians have incorporated into your person many things in school, even if indirectly. And, in a broader sense, simply by virtue of being around other human beings in this world situation. We live in a time dominated by several ideas, which are taken up with different levels of seriousness by the institutions which determine what we learn and how it is taught. One key event is the restructuring of the universities in the nineteenth century to allow for the division between the so-called sciences and the so-called humanities. Such things determine our entire world in its absolute register or essence.

--


Quote:
“Perhaps my use of subject and object was over-simplified. I do realize these can be confusing words. Sometimes an object is a subject and sometimes a subject is an object. I will try to avoid using such senseless words in the future. We could use the word objects to mean sensible things, but then there could be confusion on the use of the word ‘sensible’. Maybe I will start using ‘material’ and ‘not material’ in their place, but things could get almost just as confusing, sometimes it is hard to make a clear distinction where one begins and the other ends, if they even begin or end at all.”


The simple word ‘things’ is best. When people speak of facts they mean things, but the word fact is confused, because it is for us inseparable from the notion of values or evaluations. If someone says ‘that man is psychotic, and that is a fact’ the thing there is the psychotic man. This is not an ‘value’, provided it is honestly meant it is a fact about the thing there. I.e., a psychotic man. Where the word psychotic is not a technical term, but one of simple abuse. Everyone knows that the ‘psychotic man’ is a ‘nice man’ to his mother, and that the man is the ‘same’. But when do we ever encounter this ‘same’ man? Supposedly in the measurements which account for his factual existence. Yet those measurements say nothing about the human being. Someone's mass alone, as we are both now in the habit of saying, for instance, leaves him indistinguishable from a pig or a pile of bricks. It’s from this situation that Plato begins his so-called ascent to what is ‘much more real’.

-----

Quote:

“Then the true world, now, that is called objective. It is the mass and the measurement of energy flows of different kinds throughout the history of the measurable universe, quantifiable systems.” ”


Quote:
Mass and energy are not objects; they are properties objects can have. Because of that reason I would not call that objective. The true world I would also not call objective, the objective or sensible world is always changing and relative to the one observing it, there is hardly anything true about it. So for you the true world is based on the theories of science, isn’t science a dogma of its own and theories only likely stories?”


I said they were objective, not objects. They are what defines the truth of the objects of physics. The knowledge. The point is that this view didn’t come out of the sky, it grew from the tradition of which Plato and Aristotle were a part. I.e., the search for the true world. The rational, and so causally determined world of the rational personality of the highest god, Zeus.

This is the view we all tacitly live under. It is is largely identical to your belief that electromagnetic fields existed in the distant past. One might consider that Aquinas said that even god can not change the properties of a triangle. Omnipotence, in its technical sense, means that the rationality of the universe, wherever it is, is through god. It is a question about the cause for the states of being of the universe. The universe must in some way, originate its own states, on this view. Thus, the name for this god, in our own time, is rationality (reason, cause).

----

Quote:
You say I am stuck on a dogma? Keeping words and ideas in the context that the author uses them is some kind of dogma? What kind of dogma is that? Reading? What would not be considered a dogma? Is it my over-simplified use of the words object and subject that is a dogma? I have no particular authority, wisdom is everywhere.


The man from Afghanistan, in the (far) above example, doesn't see a chair. If you like these fancy things you can speak of scopic regimes. You seem to be into ‘theory’ quite a bit, and I suspect you already know of these things. Theory itself is a explosion of the problem, taking facile recourse in such superficial doctrinaire is a pivotal part of your numerous difficulties.

--

Quote:
So do we both agree that math is subjective? You seem really into logic, when I try to apply some logic to these statements, I find your ideas confusing. So if math is invention, someone invented it right? An invention needs an inventor doesn’t it? So I assume you would say man invented math? If we say man invents math, and also that the true world is built on math; doesn’t logic imply that man built the true world? Is this correct? If the true world is built on math, how did man invent math? So are scientific theories what built the true world?


No. It’s just to say it’s not of a fundamentally different character than anything else. If we stick with a fact value distinction, then the mass is objective, and the way we want to use the massive thing is subjective. But, ultimately that makes no sense. Counting is a way of using an object as well. One understands that a cat is like a tiger, that they in some way belong together, and that two and two are four. If someone invents a chair that is no different from inventing a particular math. They do what they do, the rocking chair made of wood, the math that translates algebra into geometry.

No, concerning formal logic, go back to what I mentioned about the logical appropriation of a phenomenon like ‘female genital mutilation’ in the example about the Republic. What matters with logic is the premise. That has to be made from lived experience. Only then can it be put into the formal system of a logic and float about at high altitudes.

---



Quote:
“I think our understandings of Plato are as different as they worlds we live in. Maybe you can clarify what you mean when you say that Plato’s ideas suggest more and more of becoming and not a being?”


I was referring to your statement about the compulsion to go to Plato. I.e., to leave one’s difficulties for those of some other is rather like pointing to the cause of a in b and the cause of b in c, and supposing one had made some progress….

---

Quote:
““I mean that EM, as all fields of force are, is a mathamatical model, an imagination, except when it shows up here, or there. When it shows up, it shows up as a conceptualized thing, just as a chair has this urging reality, based on what we grew into socially. It’s being offered as the natural-scientific object so-and-such to be used in such-and-so a fashion.”


This is a very inadequate rendering of what ‘fields’ are. You have a height and weight, I presume, so is that what you are? Because we can use mathematics to define certain qualities you have does that make you who you are? Fields are only imaginary when attempting to describe them, because they do not appeal to our senses, when describing something that is not normally sensible you have to be imaginative because you can’t actually see it.


Your example is like the ‘two tables’ business. The scientific table and the everyday table.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNiEsIIvWDM

Only there is, in this case, no everyday field of force. It’s an advanced mathematics model. We get it in a derivative way, in microwave ovens and other applications of the math. That is what the EM field is for ordinary experience. Yet, what this primary secondary quality model does not engage with, due to the medieval view that math is invisible, is that we experience math in everyday life. Math is indeed visible. It is only what we see of it.



----


Quote:
““I don’t believe basic terms were held to be particularly “ambiguous” by any ancient author… The things one can point to require no explanation so far as the ancients are concerned, they are already plain.””

The whole concept of writing was ambiguous to Socrates, why is it that he never wrote anything down? I think that is why Plato wrote in the form of dialogues, to get as close as possible to actual conversation or a question and answer style. Socrates and Plato had minimal interest in the things one can point to; they didn’t consider them real things. They were more concerned with the ideas behind the things, or the Forms.


No, 'the whole concept of writing' was not ambiguous to Plato, that is modern buffoonery. I said basic terms. Dog. It’s not ambiguous either to Plato or ourselves when we think in an ordinary way. It’s the thing that barks. What Plato referred to was complicated conceptual language. And the kind of ‘strict’ usages Socrates often introduces for the sake of clarification.

Show me any place where Plato struggles over a basic eidos, that of a door knob or a cloak for instance? You won't discover it. It is true that Parmenides and Zeno were struck by this determination of Socrates to abandon the kind of the simple. But that is for other reasons than one might surreptitiously wish to inject into the text.

Terms become truly ambiguous only when we consider that our basic lived experience is groundless. It is really only with Husserl that that comes quite clear.

---


Quote:
I think this cite below is one of the points you were trying to make, I do understand this and agree. This is why we need to ‘empty our cup’, or to approach things without any preconceived notions. We cannot force our ideas into the text, but we must let the ideas that are presented find us.


No. That would suppose that our judgment could transmute into that of Plato. It simply can’t. Thus we must abandon that profoundly empty ambition. It is the attempt to question the way we see things, in lived experience, that brings us to become Plato. It is that change in the things that don’t impress us as worthy of thought at all that brings our attention to the ground.
Back to top
Plato DNA



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

PostPosted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forgive the length of this post, I normally try to keep things as short and concise as possible, but I found quite a few thought provoking concepts.
Quote:

“The history of being refers to the view that there is no same world.”

Maybe you could explain this; I do not understanding your meaning. The ‘history of being’ has nothing to do with different understandings of what it means ‘to be’ or the act of ‘being’ throughout our history?

Quote:
“Even stones and mud can not be the same for us as for the entire Greek world.”

You and this ‘same’ world stuff. My original concept of ‘the same world’ was aimed at talking about the planet, the globe, the earth we live on. You keep, or insist on, taking it out of context. Most words have more than one meaning, and we must keep to the context in which it is used.

Besides, stones, mud, sticks, or whatever else you think of, is not the same for anybody, anywhere, or anytime. We process mud as a sensation; these sensations are registered through our bodies, mind, and soul and give rise to experiences. Everyone’s experiences are different or processed differently according to the individual. But this is only one way of viewing things. You seem to be switching between definitions of ‘world’ as if to trip me up or confuse me. Here you reference the “entire Greek world” as if all Greeks experience the same things in the same way and have the same beliefs, but then you use the term ‘world’ again to separate ancient views from modern because they had different beliefs and experiences.

No things are ever the exact same, or identical, this does not mean we can’t use these terms. Don’t we call things the same or identical depending on a degree of correspondence? Some things can even be the same and also different, depending on the classification and views being used.

Quote:
“With Kant the abyss of the history of being breaks forth. (I am aware that this is supposed by certain textbooks to occur only later, but that is simply not so.) So far Husserl is the most profound student of this matter.”

I guess this depends on your interpretation of ancient writings. It is evident, with thorough study, that the “history of being breaks forth” much earlier than Kant. I am not that familiar with Kant, but from what I see his ideas are kind of a magnification of some points found in Plato’s work and in the Vedas, only that Plato and the Vedas are expanded beyond the level of Kant. I think you are under the assumption that the more modern view is always better.

You also suggest that people used to believe in “one same world…but this died with Kant”. How did Kant dismiss one world and suggest many? What are some of the different worlds Kant discovered?

To divide or multiply consciousness is something meaningless. In truth, there is only one mind.”
-Erwin Schrodinger


Quote:
Quote:
““We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” -Anais Nin”


This ‘as they are’ and ‘as we are’, is misleading. It suggests a true way ‘things are’, and a subjective view of the truth conditioned by the way ‘we are’’.

This is a statement, not some absolute truth, or deep philosophical riddle. Most quotes are dynamic and can be taken however ‘we are'. You don’t believe in a true way things are? Isn’t math a true way? You don’t see the full scope of Plato or the Vedas and expound Kant to allow the ‘history of being to break forth', so you don’t see things as they really are but only how you understand them. We can see it is so because it is right there in the text, you can’t change what they wrote, but we can expand our awareness.

Quote:
“Academicians have incorporated into your person many things in school, even if indirectly. And, in a broader sense, simply by virtue of being around other human beings in this world situation. We live in a time dominated by several ideas, which are taken up with different levels of seriousness by the institutions which determine what we learn and how it is taught. One key event is the restructuring of the universities in the nineteenth century to allow for the division between the so-called sciences and the so-called humanities. Such things determine our entire world in its absolute register or essence.”

Yes, to a certain point. That is one reason why I will probably never go to college. In high school I always questioned what, why, and how they were teaching what they were. The effects of these things depend on the individual, not everyone is just a sheep in the flock.

Quote:
“The simple word ‘things’ is best. When people speak of facts they mean things, but the word fact is confused, because it is for us inseparable from the notion of values or evaluations.”

The word ‘things’ is not really any better than ‘objects’. Ideas could be things, but they are not really in the sensible world, there effects are but not the ideas themselves. A career is a thing but not really directly sensible either. ‘Things’ is used by quite a few people, along with the word ‘stuff’, but to me these are too general and could imply non-sensible ‘things’ too.

Quote:
“They are what defines the truth of the objects of physics. The knowledge. The point is that this view didn’t come out of the sky, it grew from the tradition of which Plato and Aristotle were a part. I.e., the search for the true world.”

Wait a minute, how can this be? Plato and Aristotle are from a completely different world. This is almost the same point I was trying to bring up earlier that you still insist on refuting, that Plato was investigating the ‘true world’ and so too does science today. So if either has found any real truth, there should be some correspondence. But you keep insisting that it can’t be because they are “by and large” two different worlds.

Quote:
“If you like these fancy things you can speak of scopic regimes. You seem to be into ‘theory’ quite a bit, and I suspect you already know of these things. Theory itself is a explosion of the problem, taking facile recourse in such superficial doctrinaire is a pivotal part of your numerous difficulties.”

No, I am not much into ‘theory’. I have never heard of scopic regimes. But theory is another one of those words with multiple meanings, it could be a tested ‘correct’ proposition, but it could also be speculation, or just guesswork. I do enjoy contemplating different ideas and concepts and am always on the lookout for understanding and chances to expand my awareness.

Quote:
“If someone invents a chair that is no different from inventing a particular math. They do what they do, the rocking chair made of wood, the math that translates algebra into geometry.”

The question may not be answerable with current knowledge, but I still lean more toward discovery. Mathematics is a way of expressing relationships with numbers, no one invents these relationships. No one decided that 3+4 should equal 7. No one invented division. And the fact these numerical relationships already exist in nature even if man does not exist, makes them more of a discovery. You cannot find a chair in nature; sure there are suitable places to sit, but not a ‘chair’. Someone had the idea and decided to make a chair, Einstein did not decide that energy should equal mass times the speed of light squared; he found the relationship. Relationships are found throughout nature, a bee has a relationship with flowers, getting food and pollinating the flowers. When man realizes it, we don’t say he invented it, it was already there. So too with numbers, their relationships already exist.

Quote:
Quote:
“I think our understandings of Plato are as different as they worlds we live in. Maybe you can clarify what you mean when you say that Plato’s ideas suggest more and more of becoming and not a being?”


“I was referring to your statement about the compulsion to go to Plato. I.e., to leave one’s difficulties for those of some other is rather like pointing to the cause of a in b and the cause of b in c, and supposing one had made some progress…”

This says nothing of your statement that Plato’s ideas suggest more and more of becoming and not a being. I suppose you can’t clarify that statement, because you don’t know.

How is this leaving my difficulties for another? Because I prefer ancient literature to find understanding that is not present in current literature, this is leaving my difficulties with some other? There are ideas that are thousands of years old that are still misunderstood and compatible even with all the so called ‘progress’ of science. This has nothing to do with difficulties, if so it is the difficulties of modern thought. How come you are always so focused on the problems and the difficulties? If you focus on possibilities you may find a way to overcome difficulties.


Quote:
Quote:
““I mean that EM, as all fields of force are, is a mathamatical model, an imagination, except when it shows up here, or there. When it shows up, it shows up as a conceptualized thing, just as a chair has this urging reality, based on what we grew into socially. It’s being offered as the natural-scientific object so-and-such to be used in such-and-so a fashion.”


This is a very inadequate rendering of what ‘fields’ are. You have a height and weight, I presume, so is that what you are? Because we can use mathematics to define certain qualities you have does that make you who you are? Fields are only imaginary when attempting to describe them, because they do not appeal to our senses, when describing something that is not normally sensible you have to be imaginative because you can’t actually see it.


“Your example is like the ‘two tables’ business. The scientific table and the everyday table.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNiEsIIvWDM

Only there is, in this case, no everyday field of force. It’s an advanced mathematics model. We get it in a derivative way, in microwave ovens and other applications of the math. That is what the EM field is for ordinary experience. Yet, what this primary secondary quality model does not engage with, due to the medieval view that math is invisible, is that we experience math in everyday life. Math is indeed visible. It is only what we see of it. “

No everyday field of force? What? Again, if EM=mathematics model, and you believe man invents math, we have to say that man invented EM! You can say scientists use a mathematical model to define or describe EM, but if that were all EM is, it would be misleading.

What is ordinary experience? You might not ever experience a field of force the same way you do a table. Fields do not appeal to our normal senses, tables do. But this is not to say there is no everyday field of force! How do you remain on Earth? What is it that keeps you from floating off into space every day? Isn’t that gravity, a field of force, and don’t you experience it daily? The earth’s EM field protects us from the sun, without that no one would have any experience at all. Don’t we see light every day? Don’t we rely on light? Many animals rely on the EM field for navigation and so do people. How do animals navigate with the help of the EM field if it is only a mathematical model?

What about the structure and shape of things. You couldn’t type on your keyboard if it wasn’t for the EM force. The ground would not support you if there was no EM. I am not sure if you noticed, but in the ‘two table’ video it even says that “EM force is responsible for the ‘solidness’ of objects that we experience…including our own bodies.”

There is no chair present in everyday life of the poor Afghanistan man. Does this mean that a chair is only a mathematical model to him?

I find the ‘two table’ video very interesting. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am constantly reminded of Plato’s theory of forms, which I find to be pretty similar to Eddington’s ‘scientific table’, it is actually quite shocking. I am not sure you will see the similarity; after all you did say this in the other thread…
Quote:
”If we labour under the illusion that the Greeks have an interest in the invisible we miss what is meant.”
This only shows your lack of understanding of Plato, perhaps that’s why you stereotype him as “the Greeks”. As if Plato and Aristotle had the same beliefs. Maybe you are confusing Aristotle’s view of the forms with that of Plato. You are a man of distinctions, clear distinctions you say, if you really had studied Plato how come you miss one of his main distinctions found throughout his writings, his theory of forms? His main distinction is that there is a sensible world (objects, material, corporeal) and an intelligible world (non-sensible, invisible, incorporeal). The sensible world is the world of everyday sense perceptions; the intelligible is only accessible to the mind and reason, it is what he refers to as ‘forms’. The ‘forms’ he considered to be ‘far more real’ than the sensible world. So for Plato, the invisible world was ‘much more real’, it is no illusion, and we are not missing what is meant.

Eddington’s ‘scientific table’ is not part of ‘ordinary experience’, just like Plato’s forms. Eddington’s ‘scientific table’ is superior to the normal one, just like Plato’s forms, for Plato the forms are ‘much more real’. Also Eddington says his scientific table is mostly space, pervaded by fields of force. Which matches that part of Phaedo where Socrates is describing the ‘true earth’ or ‘upper earth’, the one that is ‘much more real’, the “form” of the earth, and how he seems to be describing fields of force of the earth. Pretty amazing! Eddington even categorizes “things”, “influences”, “forms”, etc. and he sees a need to substitute a common background to all experience, very similar to Plato’s forms! Eddington states that through tests and logic science has assured that the ‘scientific table’ is the only one that is really there, and not the table that appeals to our senses. To Plato the forms don’t appeal to our senses but are ‘much more real’.

Eddington explains how the there is a vast difference between the ‘scientific table’ and the table of everyday life. There are like two different ‘worlds’ (Hmm…sounds familiar). He says…

You speak paradoxically of two worlds. Are they not really two aspects or two interpretations of one and the same world? Yes no doubt they are ultimately to be identified after some fashion. But the process by which the external world of physics is transformed into a world of familiar is outside the scope of physics. And so the world studied according to the methods of physics remains detached from the world familiar to consciousness.”

Eddington also says…”The external world of physics has thus become a world of shadows. In removing our illusions we have removed the substance of the world…Perhaps, reality is a child which cannot survive without its nurse illusion. But if so, that is of little concern to the scientist, who has good reasons for pursuing his investigations in the world of shadows and is content to leave the philosopher the determination of its status in regard to reality.” I found the use of the word shadows very interesting. In Plato’s cave allegory he refers to ‘shadows’ also, but in the opposite sense of Eddington. Eddington chooses to call the world that physics is concerned with as being a world of shadows, despite him stating that the scientific table is superior to the ordinary table. Shadows are imperfect copies of the objects that create them. So Plato’s use of shadow makes more sense to me.

Quote:
“Yet, what this primary secondary quality model does not engage with, due to the medieval view that math is invisible, is that we experience math in everyday life. Math is indeed visible. It is only what we see of it.”

I think this is stretching the concept of what it means for something to be visible. Under this same line or reasoning I think we can say the EM force is visible. It is responsible for the signals we send and receive as television, so you can plainly see it. Light too is part of the EM force and we definitely see that, in fact it is what allows us to see at all. We could even say that happiness is visible, because we can see a smile on someone’s face. But happiness itself is not visible neither is EM force, or math. We can see the effects of these ‘things’ but not the ‘things’ themselves. Isn’t math an expression of a relationship; numbers and their relations (adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing)? Math is about numbers and patterns and the way these numbers and patterns represent themselves through relationships. Sure patterns are visible but how do we express these patterns as math? Isn’t math an abstract way of looking at things compared to our ‘ordinary’ conscious experience? How do you justify that math is visible?

The medieval view that math is invisible”. Here you go again suggesting that only modern views are right.
Quote:

“No, 'the whole concept of writing' was not ambiguous to Plato, that is modern buffoonery.”

Seeing your lack for a basic understanding of Plato, I am not surprised by this comment. ‘Modern buffoonery' is just a mathematical model, which is a portion of the more encompassing mathematical model that represents or describes us as humans. It is amusing how you pretend to know something about Plato. Perhaps we can say that ‘modern buffoonery’ is when one tries to imitate another, in other words an imposter, or deceiver. Such as your ‘grounds’ in this forum, pretending to be another and pretending to know something about Plato, I would call that ‘modern buffoonery’.

He who thinks, then, that he has left behind him any art in writing, and he who receives it in the belief that anything in writing will be clear and certain, would be an utterly simple person, and in truth ignorant of the prophecy of Ammon, if he thinks [275d] written words are of any use except to remind him who knows the matter about which they are written……Writing, Phaedrus, has this strange quality, and is very like painting; for the creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if one asks them a question, they preserve a solemn silence. And so it is with written words; you might think they spoke as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing to know about their sayings, they always say only one and the same thing. And every word, when [275e] once it is written, is bandied about, alike among those who understand and those who have no interest in it, and it knows not to whom to speak or not to speak; when ill-treated or unjustly reviled it always needs its father to help it; for it has no power to protect or help itself.”

“But the man who thinks that in the written word there is necessarily much that is playful, and that no written discourse, whether in meter or in prose, deserves to be treated very seriously (and this applies also to the recitations of the rhapsodes, delivered to sway people's minds, without opportunity for questioning and teaching), [278a] but that the best of them really serve only to remind us of what we know

-Phaedrus

Or as Eddington puts it in the ‘my two tables’ video “That which is written in a book is symbolic of a story in real life…The symbol E is not the counterpart of anything in familiar life. Letters are abstract and sooner or later one has to realize it.”

We are what our thoughts have made us; so take care about what you think. Words are secondary. Thoughts live; they travel far.”
-Swami Vivekananda

Quote:
“I said basic terms. Dog. It’s not ambiguous either to Plato or ourselves when we think in an ordinary way. It’s the thing that barks.”

What does it mean to “think in an ordinary way”? Aren’t all terms ambiguous because each person has their own interpretation of them? Using your example, dog, for instance, to you it is a “thing that barks”. That is not what a dog is to me. Many animals ‘bark’, birds, deer, monkeys, even lizards and fish bark, other animals too. Am I to suppose that they are a dog too because they are a “thing that barks”?

Most words have multiple meanings which make them ambiguous. Even words that might have a single meaning still have different meanings for the people using them according to their experiences and the way in which they are using them.

Quote:
“Show me any place where Plato struggles over a basic eidos, that of a door knob or a cloak for instance? You won't discover it.”
I think your question here is ambiguous, because it rides on your interpretation on what a “basic eidos” is. I am pretty sure your interpretation on what a ‘form’ is does not follow Plato’s interpretation on what he calls a ‘form’. I think I already covered this above, but when you say door knob or cloak it is probably quite different than the cloak or doorknob I imagine. It has been awhile since I have done any thorough reading of Plato, and there may not be a particular reference in Plato for this but if we are to, like you say…” read many parts in a serious way, which is far different form simply reading them. Reading is of little importance, what matters is yanking insight out of the sense of the thinking. But the thinking is never in the words. One has to bring it oneself, to think it.”, I think anyone could discover it. If we take Plato’s theory of forms into consideration, that the sensible world is not real, only an illusion, an imperfect copy of what he refers to as ‘forms’. And the ‘forms’ are not accessible to our normal senses, only accessible to the mind. Words are tools we use to describe the sensible world, and words themselves are ‘snapshots’, or copies and images of things we experience, that more or less makes words a copy of a copy.

Quote:
“Terms become truly ambiguous only when we consider that our basic lived experience is groundless. It is really only with Husserl that that comes quite clear.”

I am not familiar with Husserl, and not quite sure by your view of lived experience being groundless. But I think it is clear from Plato’s theory of forms that lived experience is groundless. If all the things in our everyday experiences are only shadows in constant flux, imperfect copies of the forms that are ‘far more real’ and never change, it follows that our everyday life is deluded. For those who do not truly examine life with mind and reason are stuck in the delusion, only seeing shadows of the real things, and never really experience all there is.


Quote:
Quote:
I think this cite below is one of the points you were trying to make, I do understand this and agree. This is why we need to ‘empty our cup’, or to approach things without any preconceived notions. We cannot force our ideas into the text, but we must let the ideas that are presented find us.


“No. That would suppose that our judgment could transmute into that of Plato. It simply can’t. Thus we must abandon that profoundly empty ambition. It is the attempt to question the way we see things, in lived experience, that brings us to become Plato. It is that change in the things that don’t impress us as worthy of thought at all that brings our attention to the ground.”

This does not “suppose that our judgment could transmute into that of Plato”, but you saying “we must become Plato” does. We may never know what it is like to be someone else, but we can abandon our opinions, and imagine the ideas of another to get a close proximity to their experiences. If we live in a completely different world than Plato, as you suggest, how does questioning the way we see things in our lived experiences actually help us to become Plato? How will our modern experiences in this world help us at all to relate to Plato’s experience in his world?

Like Eddington says…” Are they not really two aspects or two interpretations of one and the same world? Yes no doubt they are ultimately to be identified after some fashion.”


Jason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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