School of Economic Science
Some thoughts on Plato's Same and Other.
Goto page 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
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1095
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:14 pm    Post subject: Some thoughts on Plato's Same and Other. Reply with quote

Re Same and Other:

In a very simple way the terms same and other describe the inner and outer lives of men and women. Sometimes things go smoothly, other times even the simplest things seem fraught with difficulty. Philosophy isn’t meant to be an escape from the joys and tribulations of everyday life. Its aim is to understand them.

One of the difficulties of studying ancient philosophy is that we come at it via all the mental paraphernalia of everyday modern life. The English word ‘same’ can be taken in different ways. Take the sentence ‘Everyday is the same’ or more so, “everyday is always the same’ - that is, "same old same old" , “to be avoided at all costs”; if we project that meaning onto the word ‘same’ then we are simply far away from the original Greek word, and far, far away from Plato’s intended meaning. We just cant get to that meaning from ‘samey’ or 'boring'.

Let’s look at it in a different way. We, all of us, crave, some kind of stability in ourselves, something that is unchanging in the face of the endless changes of everyday life. But we would not say we are not looking for something ultra boring, on the contrary, it is something spontaneous, something that can react creatively to whatever is thrown at us.

Now let’s look at the Greek word for ‘same’. It is also the same word for ‘self’ – autos or tautos for the same and the self. In the journey from birth to death no one came along and exchanged the self we began with for a new one. It is with us all the way. Anything that does change in us is other than the self – our selves – my self. It is and always has been the same self and though it never changes in any way it shares with us, with our souls, if you like, all the joys, set-backs, great meals, holidays, songs, love affairs, break-ups, all these things, without changing in the slightest degree. It is untouched by these things, but it is their witness. It evades the description 'samey', 'boring', because in these experiences it never was bored - never ever. If you were happy, it enabled this happiness, shared in it as the closest friend, an unchanging witness allowing soul, heart, mind to enjoy to the full. Get it?

Ah, if only it were this simple.

Although self is self-same, like the rolling stone that gathers no moss, there is something within us that is quite partial to a bit of moss, and is a habitual ‘gatherer’. When we look within, it is seldom the unchanging witness we are confronted by, not the 'now voyager' but this other traveller, with all the baggage it gathers as we stumble from one experience to the next. It thwarts us at every turn, messes up our plans, confuses us by obstructing our most natural tendencies, which, against all modern ‘moss-acquired’ wisdom, I pronounce to be good and decent.

It is the very nature of self that it always resides at the same place at the very centre of our being. But the Greeks, especially Plato and Socrates, and later, Plotinus, extended this idea of self to all things that can be understood as things - that is, things that exist. I don’t just mean objects that we sense through our eyes, hands, ears etc. but psychological things also. The cat walking down the drive, when seen, becomes an object in the mind. In a similar way, things that are in the mind, like beauty or justice, can be objects of thought, or as Plato called them Forms.

One such Form, according to Socrates, was 'equality'. This Form has many meanings for us. For example, Socrates says when we measure two pieces of wood against each other they can never be really equal; nothing we measure through our senses, can be ‘absolutely equal’ yet, nevertheless, we can know this absolute equality in our mind. Actually translations like ‘absolutely equal’ or even worse, ‘abstract equality’, do not faithfully render Socrates original phrase, auto to ison, the equal itself.

For Plato, something itself, or in itself, meant ‘the Form of…’. You have Red Rum, the horse - or Horse itself, the Form of which Red Rum is merely an example. Horse is something understood by mind or nous as the Greeks called it. But it is wrong to equate the shape of the horse with its Form as our modern language does. Everything that makes a horse, horse, including shape, belongs to its Form. The Greeks had different words for shape (morphe) and Form (eidos).

At the very beginning of Timaeus discourse he makes what we could call a dialectical division of all reality into 'Being' and 'becoming':

“We must begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes from that which is always becoming yet never really is.” Timaeus 27e

This is not the first time such words had been spoken. In the Gita Krisna is reported to have said the same thing, though not quite in identical form, to his friend Arjuna:

“That which is not, shall never be: that which is shall never cease to be. To the wise, these truths are self-evident.” Bhagavad Gita, Discourse 2.


Form, Same, Self as concepts belong together. They are not exactly the same but belong together under the heading: Being – ousia. All the rest, the other, is Becoming (gignomenon).

Every Form is itself, and also might be described as the Same (not 'same as', simply Same. So Same signifies at its most profound level simple being; or specifically, the simple being of any entity – Beauty that simply ‘is’ is Beauty itself.

The other, in this context, becomes all that is not simple beauty – things of greater or lesser beauty or even more removed from beauty (more otherly), which includes things that seem to have no beauty.

In Timaeus this other (heteros) seems to signify the whole realm of becoming. One can have no true knowledge of becoming due to its ever shifting nature, but when you see being in becoming, or Form in copy, or Justice in the decent act, or most basically for Plato, the One in the many, some kind of relation is apparent, however fleeting the experience.

This is referenced at 34c where Timaeus explains how being/existence enters the relation of same and other, resulting in the formation of the Soul. Soul has intimate knowledge of both being and becoming and also knows itself, (we know ourselves). Therefore, as Ficino comments, it easily makes this connection between same and other, and at 36e Plato goes into great detail regarding the operation of soul in these diverse realms.

Here is a simplified account of that process:

Soul was woven into that world of other, the world that by itself we could have no knowledge of, and provided it with a :divine source of unending and rational life for all time. The body of heaven is visible, but the soul is invisible and endowed with reason and harmony, being the best creation of intelligible and eternal things. And because it is formed as a harmony of Same, Different and Existence/Being, divided up and arranged proportionately, revolving upon itself, whenever this soul came into contact with anything whose being is either dispersed (that is, a thing of becoming) or indivisible, (something of being itself, such as a Form) it is moved throughout (as a whole) calculating similarity and difference in such a way that it will know whether this thing belongs to the changing world or to the eternal. And this knowledge will be communicated to the whole soul and if what the soul contacts is of the Other, a true opinion will arise in that soul but if the contact is with that of the Same then, by reason, true and unshakeable understanding will arise.

Simplified from Timaeus text 36e to 37a.


This is basically how The Same and The Other are treated in Timaeus, but the story doesn’t end there. He uses these primary concepts and varied forms throughout the mature dialogues. I’ll say more about this in a follow up post.

Pete


Last edited by Peter Blumsom on Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:40 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
One such Form, according to Socrates, was 'equality'


He could imagine eternal states beyond this incarnation where the soul has absolutely equality when measured along eternity of the soul. For he reasoned that all temporal states are an illusion (of course ) as one must if there is an authentic desire to sense equality. This was a far superior Utopia to Plato's for it refused to imagine other incarnations where once again the inquirer just happened to be the power aristocrat ( so forth ) - thus never taking ones place in society equally in ones metaphysics.

Only a fool dabbles with universal equilibrium for the purpose of elitism - a 5000bc slave is required to have been a 6000bc emperor if one is simply not a elitist dreamer with affairs of eternal soul - locked into the present illusion - not a free thinker whatsoever.

It is unclear what societal pressures ( or not ) caused Plato to recreate a utopia made of corporeal illusion rather than out of his far superior metaphysics when applied to Forms. The theory of forms shall have provided every archetypal tool required to have created total equilibrium in utopia by one must have the human soul rationale.

Plato lacked this - Socrates did not - and let us be realistic - this standing and similar others were the kind of reasons that he was murdered.

On this point i would place these reflections this way.

Materialism is a huge force even among persons of philosophical refinement. Socrates has been murdered every day since - even today because when it really comes down to the nitty gritty - the suggestion that the ideal state could consist of an eternity where souls ( hence materialistic circumstances ) are equal so long as ones metaphysics can detect that formulation of equality along am infinity - makes most influential persons feel sick. Because it challenges deep inner personal paradigms which have been emotionally managed - not logically managed.

For many the question actually is - how the intellect supply a model of the human soul where we can have 'utopia' - nonetheless be denialist of any societal power sharing by the human race = i.e - give me a timeless equality but do not expect myself ever to have been a Peasant - have died of leprosy - or have been a coercive controlling loser on the dole.

So on

Sometimes things are a process of elimination Peter - i am still looking for someone - just 1 person - who can relate greek philosophy in form & eternity frameworks without reinventing either their identical or enhanced position in their cosmos.

Appeal to Pathos - running away to emotion ( its only a bit of fun - why take it so seriously etc ) - is all very well. As is the tweak about looking at this as if in Greece speaking the lingo( which is rather nice yes ). But hardly is it much hope when used to escape reality.

Reality - what exactly is reality when concerned in a theory of forms?

I would suggest that the only real logical standing is a triplicity between the corporeal reality from whence we speak ( in the present ) - whatever the portal by which we used the metaphysics - and Eternity itself.

Are you sure though - that there are actually enough people around who want to grab the wrist which has the Hemlock ? - tbh i feel they seek a eternity of forms without equality - since all the peasants are in purgatory - but are never they.

Socrates when using such a basic axiom comparing wood has a most basic demonstration for matters infinitely profound. Many persons will look at the identical planks of decking in B&Q and would be absolutely perplexed as to the reason first - but furthermore - the point of stating that these are same & other. In actual fact it would take minor observation to note there are vast differences between such planks in terms of variance in weight, their constitution - and half a millimetre detection in the terms Socrates more accurately meant is a GULF. Because he isn't interested in the wood, maybe he likes woods but it isn't the point is it. The interesting thing is that though in his day all identical things were hand made thus did have tiny perceivable differences by sight. Even so - even though he did not even get the change to see and touch very identical things ( as we do today ) - really he is predicting that there shall be(1) - but more crucially that there is a impossible factor linked to identical things - and he is right.


If we take something simple like a cheap Biro Pen - then imagine 10 perfectly new ones together. We will probably have great difficulty telling them apart but in enough cases might just see a tiny burr of plastic edging on one - or slight ink level difference. Thus - this spoils the point also these are potentially identical things which miss it by a relative large margin if we are considering senses of a fine nature. Maybe beautifully perfectly new snooker balls then - and lets make this harder by having the maker send us 100 which have been weighed and measured by accurate means and give sameness on those scales. In cosmic terms none of them can be remotely similar because the count on an atomic scale would remained largely different - HUGE DIFFERENCE - but of course we cannot see it.

But Socrates wanted all of this to be reason to the effect that Infinity = Eternity = Forms

So really it was several efforts with axiomatic process leading to a Theorem - which he hoped his pupils could embrace = enhanced prospects of increasing the paradigms linked to the nature of Utopia - which itself is the search for the meaning of life isn't it ( reasonably ).

Reasonably then - if the belief in infinity and its accompaniment of eternity can be grasped by obtaining perceptions on scales going down into smallnesses is the beginning of the justification for concepts of same & otherness so long as further study as to where this applies to universe forms can be as accesible. - and hence Equilibrium

If on the other hand those who seek such intellectual flexibility but cannot give up the creature comforts of this life or a high status - it is waste of time at best, vaingloriously unintelligent at worst

Plato was forced into that position by the state- his utopia was a soap opera re-write where matters were even more luxurious for the now reincarnated aristocrat I do not believe he intended it, but those who caused him to produce it killed Socrates also because he ad the more reasonable narrative for Utopia.

Peter with respect- please do not use an anti modern anti enlightenment tool to airbrush probabilities away which ( in fact ) have nothing to do with the enlightenment. These are realistic reflections by a long term study even if they slightly violate your chosen modes of perception. After all -Nothing has moved on since Socrates even given liberal amounts of Neo- Platonism doen the years. Yet - Socrates made these observations but if nobody wants to imagine utopias in true equilibrium why even try ? - are they not just potential manuscripts by which a future elite may wish to dissonance their contempt for lower humanity by ?

The ability to dismiss ones status for that purpose is the lost chord - to implement all forms of humanity high or low Which only causes people to study is the discovery - elitist outer spaces are the anti thesis

Pointless - those ideals might as well just come right out with it and proclaim ( and realise ) - no ancient greek philosophy is needed if Misanthropy is the true objective

Socrates levelled that @ those who politically forced Plato compile Utopia - so they killed him

Then the intellectual elite today misuse the eruditions by casting illusions of societal compassion which is really a Grenfell Tower, In fact - that council are resigning because the people are discovering that these champions of socialism were all along the secret buy to let owners of many of the flats

An example of todays misanthropy dressed as Utopian style multi cultural respect for all humanity - no progress since Socrates @ that pretentiously educated alas intellectually unwashed council then - but most are believed to contain officials who own vast private property empires - former social housings

Misanthropy comes in many forms

Thus on the questions of how to help Socrates avail his same & other lesson - if he really was looking for an authentic human philosophy seeking equality across eternity and its forms * & all its consciousness free from avarice -we have to choose between retaining a status in perpetuity or gaining contrary insights regarding the meaning of ourselves

Tbh Peter - most are finding it too difficult to imagine the form of a house with anything but an elitist inside it in the 'imaginative architecture' or their metaphysics - the cosmic mistake of always imagining underling humans ( not equals ) linked to by whom shall take away the sewage

This is the epitome of a metaphysical crisis and possibly the definition which Socrates himself foretold the reasons to distribute equality in imaginations. For consider - if one cannot find the way to equally imagine a race in harmony in an all possibilities field such as Infinity - then philosophy is dead all bar the rigging up of its emotional detachments ( from reality ).

The reality that anyone is capable of seeking Equilibrium during imagination & metaphysics


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



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1095
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Yuri,

This is a fairly wide ranging post but there is this recurring theme about utopia and implied dystopia. I wonder if you can make distinct the difference between Socrates utopia and Plato's? Particularly I'd like to know what you are referring to when you say this:


Quote:
It is unclear what societal pressures ( or not ) caused Plato to recreate a utopia made of corporeal illusion rather than out of his far superior metaphysics when applied to Forms. The theory of forms shall have provided every archetypal tool required to have created total equilibrium in utopia by one must have the human soul rationale.


It's usually thought that this theory was Plato's more than Socrates, and that Socrates only went as far as talking of things under the same character. Would you agree? Of course we don't know any of this for certain, but I'm thinking of Socrates short conversation with Zeno and Parmenides, in that dialogue, where it seems as if Plato is using Socrates and Parmenides as mouthpieces in order to examine Plato's own general doctrine of Forms.

By the way, what do you think a Form, an eidos, is? Personally I feel that we should look at the whole subject of Forms again. Plato never said we shouldn't.

Pete

P.S. I am still looking at your post and might like to make other responses somewhere down the line.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More than a reasonable suggestion peter i so agree - lets flow a gentle stream free from semi invectives and look at the potentials themselves

Ok i'll share those kinds of thoughts with this shortly

Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

By the way, what do you think a Form, an eidos, is? Personally I feel that we should look at the whole subject of Forms again. Plato never said we shouldn't.


I admire your astute selection - i can say with all honesty that in my own case i may have eclectic thoughts but none ever match the quantity engaged with the theory of forms.

To ease us into an indubitable beginning it is certainly an aspect of a masterwork. I feel that for stones we might be forced to turn at least we know the sheer might of the theory of forms hence the huge stature of Plato as the result I.E i should personal fully agree with any sentiment given that TTOF's is something which should always be taken for granted

Another fundamental might be the way we can understand well and really grasp the meaning of universal archetypes thanks to Plato. But as many know, - matters can then stall should we wish to feel something for the tempo of the universe which causes the forms themselves. My feeling might be that the choice becomes either almost nothing in perpetuity of a baptism of fire with the Infinite - which does have us examining the nature of the subatomic kingdoms am sorry to remark. But again if we model that n the full knowledge that greek minds were looking for this it shall seem appropriate surely. Although a danger might be psychological allergies to some todays terminology which might want to manifest.

Surely it is worth it so long as the study is truly TTOF's oriented ?

Imagine if we will then - the yet unknown source somehow knows several things : ( only for arguments sake )

How to birth energies which knows how to shape into forms

How to cause energy to further cause the forms to incarnate

How to create a universal record of the events

How to produce a procession of animation -consciousness & its evolution

A workable bare minimum perhaps

I feel the matters we must avoid are what might be consider ( again for arguments sake ) 'grand universal paradoxes' - attempting to pinpoint a beginning for infinity. Something which gives the term Oxymoron more meaning than we can describe but that is about it.

So away from expectations of walking up to God and demanding to know where ( PC - she ) - alternately he started the Universe a creative awareness in the fabric of time space occurred at some point. Infinity tells us that we even violate the idea immediately should we expect 'at some point' as relevant tbh - since the only sense it gives is no beginning no end (ofc). Thus to be strictly accurate we should use meta-cognitions which avoid even that aspect of paradox - as irrelevant as it may seem. However although i may not accuse it here, a friend could be the riddle present somewhere here on this forum by a David Taylor ? - those words concerning centrality of universal ? - sacred symmetry? - experiences.

So we have a 'Zero Point' of a place of essences perhaps - one i fancy not to be confused much with various zero point energy ideas which abound U tube etc within fantastique advanced propulsion theories and so on. Symmetric Centrality would be better tbh for to simple marker of reference

I feel firstly that in fine greek tradition we'd need a worthy metaphysical stroke of luck in looking at this particular matter i the hope that the virtue following the good process might itself avail some objective idealist insight ?

These inquiries might look for :

What is the relationship between a form and ( this temporal marker term ) symmetric centrality

What is the significant of the inter-dimensional space time they may bridge

What subatomic smallnesses might be impossible to avoid in order to flow such metaphysics.

Taking it all literally that the dialogue is still quintessential - is there any choice but to attempt to discuss the subatomic - i feel not personally.


To place this into some kind of ( well it is obvious ) - perspective. This position at its most fundamental is similar as being unable to know by numbers happen @ the breakdown of the law of physics. I do not feel it is similar enough to perturb a metaphysician since that state of affairs has really been defined by using all all connectives all possibilities field already - how on earth are we to suggest it is otherwise ?. In this instance though - i feel the case is that metaphysics of this ilk allowed itself to baulk under the misconception that subatomics were beyond comprehension. Itself a paradox tbh since should they not have occurred regardless of the means to dec
cipher them?

I feel the group consciousness intellect interfered and made the decree to ignore such metaphysical exploration for fear of having no means to tackle measurement problems?

Why ? - perception of any measurement problem will have been subject to identical conditions for the person doing metaphysics all along - maters were always Infinite regardless of universal upscale or downscale. If not then those barriers in metaphysics conceptualisation violates infinity by expecting such a measurement to be available in say quantum mechanics. Simple Logic - Therefore we might have an inkling here how to avoid violations since really they are more acurately pointless metaphysical non performances by the introduction of logics which do not apply - but in digress

Forms - Centrality - Concepts - where the central is everywhere by nowhere. The Eidos ( as you you call it ) of these adventures cannot be understood by atomic scaled behaviours or gravitational & electromagnetic kingdoms as interesting as they are. A far more reliable centrality point is the Binary Sequence - unique arrangements of subatomic energy which something of the highest human controversy seems to know how to order.

A maker & beginning is not our remit as we stated

But roughly speaking Eidos = Sequential Cause - perhaps - when applied to energy fine enough - centrality positioned enough - and microcosmically inter-demonsionally present enough to cause a Form - so long as the consciousness which evolved exists otherwise such forms shall either have to create more - or cease to exist.

Did each cell of life spontaneously create on the atomic planes as each Eidos organised ?

Is Eidos somehow a theory of forms concerning 'Cells' ? - in the way that a Tree Form is the universal archetype of all the replications ..

Another potential way to regard this might be that only some sequences have enough potency to be omnipresent enough - perhaps are among other needs ancient enough in the infinite creation. Able to be pure enough in Essence, - are enabled to interact with consciousness perhaps by having evolved so slowly and had to ebb and flow according to the demand for their essence. Which might itself be linked to a definition of Form immune to Entropy where consciousness and its conceptual power is the chord of images ( not chaos ).

For this there has to be an exchange and flow with any suitable archiving concept such as Akashic Records - otherwise Perpetual Forms cannot logically be perpetual or accessible by an incarnate consciousness.

And thus exist indestructibly and be infinite a Form requires a plane not accessible by aforementioned inorganic - A Universal place of Utopia existing throughout all infinite time & space whilst all that is not a form cannot in lacking by in every essences needed for this - ( they lack the centrality and ability to draw power from Paradox Itself - so on ).

Where Centrality could as a working marker = (to) attachment to the infinite source regardless of how impossible it shall be to know that nature.

However it could be true to say that Paradoxes have vulnerabilities also. They may be secure in that they are protected by Infinity, - but this does not mean they are impossible to be recognised as infinity distributing sources. Which is why i feel there is such huge significance in infinite & symmetric centrality like ideas

These are bare minimums imho ( & tbh i'm sure there are more minimums )


Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Dear Yuri,

This is a fairly wide ranging post but there is this recurring theme about utopia and implied dystopia. I wonder if you can make distinct the difference between Socrates utopia and Plato's? Particularly I'd like to know what you are referring to when you say this:




It is unclear what societal pressures ( or not ) caused Plato to recreate a utopia made of corporeal illusion rather than out of his far superior metaphysics when applied to Forms. The theory of forms shall have provided every archetypal tool required to have created total equilibrium in utopia but one must have the human soul rationale.


Quote:
It's usually thought that this theory was Plato's more than Socrates, and that Socrates only went as far as talking of things under the same character. Would you agree? Of course we don't know any of this for certain, but I'm thinking of Socrates short conversation with Zeno and Parmenides, in that dialogue, where it seems as if Plato is using Socrates and Parmenides as mouthpieces in order to examine Plato's own general doctrine of Forms.


Yes - this has always been an area which nobody wants to misjudge even after casting aspersions as i have if they really care about the topic. To then confront the question properly instead of flagrantly exposes ones sense of dedication to it i suppose.

As you say who knows - although i would feel at a minimum that Socrates was blessed more greatly with conclusions he may have gathered by spending a higher proportion of his time focusing his metaphysics via his Conscience. By this he may have been able to see a huge discrepancy between notions that there existed a present state which was administering according to virtue, and thus have been dogged by a sense of outrage by the true lack of cohesion - which offended his philosophical being. This might have resulted in a long time anti status quo attitude which (ofc) went far from unnoticed but perhaps its reaction against him was for a long time a low level covert underlying menace - until it wasn't.

My best instincts are that Plato indeed discovered the theory of forms and was in every way the person who gave it its full coherences and strong identity being s crucial difference. In Socrates case i'd feel that he possessed in many ways more quantity of rationale concerning the same source of universal wisdom - but this could have actually have undone his own potential to publish something had not be able to reduce scattering of the concepts whilst Plato got on with the task.

It would be very relativistic to speculate about sliminesses - Plato's potentially more manageable lot is going to be vast lot in any circumstances - but if there is worthwhile conjecture here he may have rationalised it all better

If valid then - Plato is the correct and rightful author of TTOF'S - whilst Socrates confluent 'synchronicity' as it were a fortuitous aid to its overall prosperity was informed journeyman to its true author since they found similar meta cognitions.

With regard to the assertion i made that it seemed the state was coercive toward Plato with regard to Utopia, if this happened it would not be difficult to imagine the responsibility that can bear. Also - for all the wisdom there is one might feel obligated and that it is right to place the requested timbre.

A part which i suggested that might be more readily acceptable is the attitude of Socrates @ the state, - his Utopia had there been - most certainly will have carried a different complexion - the key reasons for his demise really are reliably linked to these kinds of matter imho.

Thus - having addressed these possible aspects with a bit more civility i feel Plato simply remains elevated by TTOF's - i do not believe that it is possible to gain such eloquence from universal accounts unless the conscience enable it - thus feel that there is an element of innocence & sincerity surrounding how exactly his version of Utopia was deemed so distasteful by Socrates.

On this i would stand by my sense that Plato was simply a person of predicament and consequence who could not avoid compelling Utopia in the way he did due to forces of influence far too large - Inner Circles which own a person - an Insider

Socrates had been a highly respected outsider where forces only gradually crept up.


I do not feel that it was actually Dystopia - just the there is a major discrepancy between everything quintessential in the study of Virtue if applied logically to Equibrium - and the lack of their cause & effect or 'realism' when one attempt to suspend disbelief into Utopia.

'Utopia' compared to even some fundamental imaginings regarding ideal society is surely embarrassingly not close in the republic. However ( i feel ) Plato might have detailed metaphysics describing how the state consciousness could be so pure that there is no crime. The altered consciousness so profound that there is no hate. The sense of self esteem consciousness so rational that there are no inferiors. The refinement of the society so illuminated that there is no division of status. Utopia the entity would have been the epic description of the way universal forces unlike any ever experienced by incarnates before altered all perceptions & conventions.

If he wished

When it is being light the republic is as many declare a charming journey. But always seemed to contain voids where Plato would have been expected to reach into profoundness .. but alas more salad happens

I do over think this work these days too -

And perhaps this is just impossible upon this Earth - Republic spoke in part of experience with a frail destiny. Then - maybe the whole point is to merely apply metaphysics to the complete universal set of forms since it cannot - who knows.

I cannot believe that Plato was capable of instigating certain kinds of inference in the republic unless he lacked editorial control of it - while it goes without saying that Karl Popper significantly over stated the alleged Totalitarianisms.

I have wondered substantial amounts of the real texts are missing


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



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1095
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Yuri,

If he wasn't the author of the theory of Forms, Socrates certainly was the discoverer of the dialectical questioning technique. You get the feeling that, for him, it was the hunt that mattered more the result. Take Lysis for example, the dialogue that searches for the essential character of friendship. He didn't find it but failed most beautifully. We and his young interlocutors gain an enhanced perception of what it is to be a friend. I guess this is the Socrates that you admire so at his most irresistible.

The need to give a more precise voice to this search for characterisation came to a head, as far as I can see, in the Phaedo, and one might imagine this was a Platonic intervention - a beautiful thing is so for no other reason that it shares in Beauty itself. However the passage leading up to that is undoubtedly characteristic of Socrates. He had been taken by the theories of Anaxagoras who maintained that "Nous orders all". Unfortunately it turned out that the older philosopher had a very materialistic conception of Nous. The original statement of Anaxagoras which had so impressed Socrates was along the lines that it is Nous that orders all things and puts each one of them where it is best for it to be - that being the ultimate meaning of Cosmos. However his exposition when further explained gave no heed to the primacy of soul. It was this disappointment that persuaded Socrates to look for a 'second best' non-causal explanation other than everything arising from and depending upon Nous alone. The theory of Forms seems to have been the outcome. As a notion we have in turn both exalted it and kicked it when it was down (Aristotle never missed a trick in that direction!) but it is, in essence, supremely simple and once lodged in the human mind has remained there in some form or other. We still say that he or she is materialistic or idealistic.

It is this concept of 'the best possible' that leads to accusations of elitism but it is quite natural for people to aspire for the best, to, as a Platonist would put it, stretch upwards towards the Form. The important distinction being: do we strive for ourselves alone or for the community or for all mankind? The wider the remit, the more abstract and less Form-like it becomes. This seems to be a law of some kind. In Laws, the Dialogue, and also Republic, it was the community that was to be the centre of focus, the mean between the individual and all humanity - the best way for a community to live while still respecting the individual and other communities. Laws was a more practical society whereas Republic was unashamedly idealistic, being founded on a heavenly model later expounded in Timaeus.

I'll finish with this question (at least I think it is) from your penultimate post.

Quote:
Is Eidos somehow a theory of forms concerning 'Cells' ? - in the way that a Tree Form is the universal archetype of all the replications ..


Eidos, interestingly enough, means 'look'. This can be unconsciously altered by the modern mind to 'looks to us' but I think this is not what eidos means. There is already a Greek word for 'looks to us' type thing - morphe or 'shape'. A Form may include shape but a shape is not a Form. Also one can, at will and with the senses, grasp 'shape' but in no way can we grasp Form. If we think of Form as a 'look' it looks
at us rather than we look at it. But even this is to give some kind of personality or self-will to what essentially is eternal, free and changeless in itself. According to Plato, we approach Form not through the senses but via the Dialectic.

One has to be wary of the Aristotelian approach. There is a very subtle difference between a perceived commonality arising from different species - a kind of 'result' as it were, or as Aristotle called it, a genus, and a living 'transmitting' arche in which things partake. An eidos is not a commonality or genus, but a beginning in itself. I think you realise this because of your use of 'archetype', but for readers generally, neither a genus nor a species as used by Aristotle is a Form in the sense that Plato means.

I'm aware that I have answered this 'in my own way' which usually means tangentially. If this is unsatisfactory, please let me know and I'll have another go - or perhaps you might yourself improve on what I have said.

Pete


Last edited by Peter Blumsom on Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I'm aware that I have answered this 'in my own way' which usually means tangentially. If this is unsatisfactory, please let me know and I'll have another go - or perhaps you might yourself improve on what I have said.


Dear Pete

Mere mortals we are but at least you always have great poise and gravitas - very measurable against my bull in a china shop.

I will just remark that Aristitotles criticisms has never impressed upon much nor would i class any of his ideas contra-indicating necessarily - i have respect for him as a devils advocate as any TTOF's core evaluation need harsh critique by the actual exponent imho let along he - it only makes them more compelling every time. Even from elsewhere - the gravity of say representationalism might well present a high probability of interferences that are unhelpful third parts of the ontology ..

But anyhow - your points are simply good news on the discourse and i'll get back

Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
One has to be wary of the Aristotelian approach. There is a very subtle difference between a perceived commonality arising from different species - a kind of 'result' as it were, or as Aristotle called it, a genus, and a living 'transmitting' arche in which things partake. An eidos is not a commonality or genus, but a beginning in itself. I think you realise this because of your use of 'archetype', but for readers generally, neither a genus nor a species as used by Aristotle is a Form in the sense that Plato means.


Yes- i have his possibly annoying habit of catching all with the word 'Archetype' - but certainly i intend it to be the prime of master form which maketh all which follow - probable reason that it cannot really be mistaken against the comparatively disparate flowings of the Aristotelian alternatives.

AS FOR FORM :

By use of - ( just a temporal this is ) - the term 'Cell' - i would be inferring a binary cell where such a nature cannot be compared to biological cells in the setting because it is reasonable that we should be seeking insight positioned way beyond the known law of physics. So in contemplating TTOF's in a cellular way as we know it upon earth we cannot compare nor dismiss because we have yet to seek a metaphysic concerning a cosmological form further down the smallnesses of infinity which might be suitable. To link our logic to biological cells would be illogical because it assumes at once that the biological cell is the comparative order of self similar units which we are attempting explain TTOF's by- invalid as we cannot negate the unitary purpose of a sub atomic cell formation.

Speaking of the way this matter of cell archetypes seemed to conjoin the animated form expectations of the Pupil - another consideration which might be significant is whether to expect to find the spark of Genesis with TTOF's itself. I'd feel not greatly - for the genesis of the life force of the soul of the incarnated entity itself might be a question of transformative force caused by stepping back into a below the beginning of infinity non binary analogue position for all we know - followed by life forces finding available biological systems by which to incarnate by.

So for example :

Our forms are not animate - they are relativistically alive but lifeless. In no possession of soul except the archetype - the whole - 'the idea'. Though all soul in potential by paradox since each must produce all subsequent examples for unique embodiements. Form thus may avail an equal compatibilty but the forms soul is locked in archetypal energy - thus needs pair with a secondary soul form = the Uniqueness

They ( for our efforts ) need to exist in regions of space time where no normal numbers can collate logics and no analogue or newtonian physics can apply - if we attempt to seek TTOF's below infinity we will fail. In these kingdoms it is only known to itself by infinite sequences concerning flows & groups of infinitely small particles.

Eidos without yet pinpoint on definition could be defined partly by its portion of the form when we consider those portions ( only reasonably this is ) - in a need to exist throughout infinity framework. Thus - there is no solid form of FORM - it cannot be located nor encountered wholly. The entire idea is infinite because it is indeed everywhere throughout the cosmos

Definition of eternal & infinite things = must have presence & all connectiveness within each layer of Infinity. If this premise is false we need a logic which can explain a better definition since TTOF's surely must insist

Please consider it this way :

We might need to pretend that we can represent infinity by only 10 - its an understatement - but if we consider 10 as infinity and have ten rooms ( in a ordinary house ) - each of which represent out converter infinite dimensions.

Then we have 'the form' or ideal of a Horse which we intend to have infinite separation of - but can't - so again its split into only 10 parts by which to very badly simulate infinite parts yet again.

Now we just put 1 part of the horse in each room

= Binary Cell ( or 'The Cell' is the Sequence ) - where the Form nowhere but everywhere - where Archetype = immortal = infinity - and must thus have infinite super positioning as simulated by 10 here for obvious practicality.

Hence - per dimension - the proportion of the form in existence = its sequence = its Cell.

Or else simple logic would tell us that a definition for a non infinite thing is of something which does not exist in all infinite circumstances. Thus without speculating yet what Eidos is - it will have to exist of all layers of infinity as must each Form. Similarly without resorting to the word 'Cell' the forms might have to be discussed as having groups of binary sequences acting as 'cells' - but in all exclusion of biologicallity ( naturally ).

Perhaps this is - or perhaps until a point when transposed into new words

Thus if the word 'Cell' isn't even required in the end- it has been used to hitch a lift on an apportionate & proportionate circumstance

Infinity must not be violated in any way during TTOF's - they cannot exist being attached to all of time and space.


Or not -someone say something better and it isn't -concerning such a sketch on a fag packet in a cafe ofc


No matter what we say it shall always be accused of being representationalism by empiricists because there isn't going to be a non infinite metaphysics for this state of affairs. Therefore regardless of any state of model one day found as satisfactory, i feel that the real endeavour is the elegance doing the metaphysical talking since no model of TTOF's will come in such a format that it is irrefutable - the opposite

AS FOR EIDOS

The way i use metaphysics is to search for specifics by not searching for those specifics. That is why i looked at FORM in the search for this insight instead. I like things to fail to hide themselves due to synchronicity if possible.

Thus something usable of a Eidos might well come along - i'd like to think the arrangement discussed is an intelligible form thus Eidos is somewhere present locally. I an not finding much cohesion by 'Look' either, the closest i could imagine was a kind of affair when something has to 'look' in relation to a universal flux element where the infinite Logos ( by which a mind attaches its reception ) is somehow in a convergence with Eidos inconstantly evolving adaptations of the IDEA - thus 'Looking'. But not a sense of this for the FORM itself - perhaps linked to the soul of the archetype which ( ofc ) must be sent forth in order to find its coupling.

Eidos might be the coupling then

We cannot deny the facets of evolution which clearly are correct - nonetheless - the universe isn't there to do the incarnate a big favour and settle the disputes about the meaning of life time & space



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



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1095
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Yuri,
I think you should always bear in mind the grandeur of the realm of the eide. It is quite challenging. True Plato is sometimes sidetracked into explanations which seem banal, such as Parmenides bating of the young and as yet unexperienced Socrates:

“And are you undecided about certain other things, which you might think rather ridiculous, such as hair, mud, dirt, or anything else particularly vile and worthless? Would you say that there is an idea of each of these distinct and different from the things with which we have to do, or not?”
“By no means,” said Socrates. “No, I think these things are such as they appear to us, and it would be quite absurd to believe that there is an idea of them; and yet I am sometimes disturbed by the thought that perhaps what is true of one thing is true of all. Then when I have taken up this position, I run away for fear of falling into some abyss of nonsense and perishing; so when I come to those things which we were just saying do have ideas, I stay and busy myself with them.”


I doubt whether Forms can be satisfactorily worked out at that level. In the Divided Line analogy of Republic Plato puts forward different levels of thought and their related objects. The Forms can only be understood fully by the nous-like noesis, what we might call a kind of divine insight, though that is only a way of making it understandable by our ordinary thinking which the Greeks called dianoia.

I try, on this forum, to convey the Greek view within which Plato and Socrates 'plied their trade'. A lot of modern notions would not be understandable nor taken too seriously by Greek thinkers. It has taken us a few thousand years to learn to think the way we do and hold certain concepts as sacrosanct and others as meaningless. I do believe that Plato might have thought the Jupiter Symphony a bit of a cacophony!

An idea of the otherness of Greek thought comes to light in their notion of peras and apeiron - Limit and Unlimit. I don't think they had a special word for infinity - it came under the unlimited. Their unshakeable conviction was that knowledge cannot be applied to what is infinite and without bound. Limit on the other hand fixes and makes cognisable, makes knowable. Of course, as Marsilio Ficino explained, God is Infinite to us, but to Himself, he is most simple. A human looks through his sense apparatus (to which he seems more and more addicted to) and sees the Complete (peras); he cannot grasp it, so and he immediately converts it into 'local currency' making it infinite. He cannot grasp that either. I wonder whether infinity is merely the shadow of the Complete in the human mind (dianoia). This, as I said, was not the Greek approach. They saw Cosmos as the sacred shrine for the gods, and Plato might have added, for the Forms. Just as the God is not in the shrine, the Forms are not in the Cosmos. The Cosmos 'shares' or 'partakes' in them - Greek word is meteko. When we try to explain it that sharing seems a complicated process (quite rightly) but the Forms themselves are, to stay with Greek notions, too simple to be thought about - at least by dianoia.

I've left much unsaid here, but it can be teased out if there is a will, but here is a little bit of doggerel that might add something:


The history of the mind
Is not chronological
And no genesis may be found
Along the dusty corridors of mortal time.
Time, Cronos, is the shadow of the moment
Cast as a fictional path
In both directions, past and to come.
No truth can be extracted from it;
The star systems, the Milky Way,
The constellations, island galaxies,
Are centreless.


We know more than the antique Greek
Who assumed his blessed plot
The turning moment of a discoid cosmos.
The Romans ventured no further.
We know more than Ptolemy
Who, with the rising sap of knowledge,
Plotted an astonishing universal dance
To accommodate that still central view
(So if man were to remain One,
The universe was compelled to trip
The light fantastic.)


We know more than Copernicus, Galileo,
Tycho Brahe, Kepler and all those other
Night gazers,
Who transferred centrality of power
To Sol. He of the fiery chariot
Was the new ruler, and transplanted Earth
Danced lonely with all the other vassals
Around Apollo, sat upon his burning throne.


But not for long, for the age of reason
Disgorged the age of the machine
And new thinkers, who knew how to calculate
But had not read the classics.
They had no respect, those ones,
For men in robes and addled brains,
And the fierce expectations of a former age
Were rent down like a curtain of dreams (pelmet too!)
From behind which, for so long,
Bearded schoolmen had speculated
Upon impressive but unlikely absolutes
(In matters we now consider largely relative).


We, oh we and this goodly lump of rock
We sit upon as merest microbes,
And that divine lamp
Which sprays the sky with just enough light
To make us fear the dark,
We oh we, all of us reside
Merely in the suburbs
Of a great celestial metropolis
The Piccadilly Circus of which
Lies, not a few miles from here
(A few stops on the tube)
But is measurable only in parsecs,
As the photon flies,
(No straight lines here).


It is so uncomfortable a thought
That we solve the problem
By not thinking about it.

Pete


Last edited by Peter Blumsom on Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting - i haven't got time other than to scribble @ this form of word graffiti - ( all of my posts are fast jottings rare checked for typos even )

But - yes i fully understand i have suggested they can be thought formed but never found and this strikes fear into insincere heart. Why ? - the quest to obtain the celestial itself has nothing to do with obtainable things - but for its metacognition hasn't been difficult like this since the beginning ?.

Love your poem - love the fact that it is so human. Other Materialism attitudes that run to the poetic trope for the non materialist ignore the poetic fate to facilitate the materialist perhaps. Yours seeks it and shares that humanism so differently

?? - you do not find that evidence of a flawed sense of metaphysics by frequent misuse of poetical energy ?

Seems you wish to seek some kind of falsification to avoid something - maybe by covert inner empiricist forces as they too seek us all the time. Certainly not because the state is desired if so only possessed by a unconscious one but since such gravity bespoke without regard for whom it arrests - it can any of us - we have to beware.

Those words are effectively a review from a large historical selection of platitudes and require no thought and all thought in going to Intuition at the end.. But manifold failure has become part of using them to expel fear - yours is hope perhaps. This time ? - i am not professing to know but we can state reasonably the concern is that someone didn't conceptualise solid planetoid ornaments shaped like trees or made of Gold. No the arrangement maximised universal type intelligence, worked in a way that intelligence would and not as though ones places things just in case a human is looking for them. It avoided the empiricist need to have universes that are made of 'Nothing' and have eventual points of solid nothings when they are 'Over' - and to manifold a list to mention related to every most crass construction a human can muster according to the way they hide intellectual politics - another force we can all be susceptible to.

Where the substances hidden only emerge once expected to work with unobtable heavenly systems. But one can either feel that the divine realm was built so that it is assailable for human exploration and discovery conveniently or not

1 nice little place in all that cosmos ? - with myself i feel not unless for a true Utopia but that has no re;action to archetypal form the 'Akashic Store' - that would be a plane that solidifies by force of the 'Godhead' - the form.

Do we want cause effect erosion etc - or want Forms to come under the effects of quantum gravity and such but still want forms to be Eternal - yeah rite

Cold Infinity instead - objects that are not objects as we know the if super positioned as i merely suggested. But really a problem on this forum might be that it hasn't learned a fundamental rule. Don't listen to the hysterics of empiricalism over representationalism as it is a non problem For if representationalism is taken literally it is almost a reflection of a what a linguistic instruction wishes -thus one is not technically fit to do metaphysics since a unconscious reflex is being manipulated by an outside source of doctrine.

Representationalism for instance the one i took the trouble to mention quite deliberately within the post. Its doctrine pretends it is a genuine concern - it isn't - it is a red herring. So just for example - M Theorists & ' Black Holists Particle Crunch'ist's - so on - are surely using representationalism dressed as scientific method. If so the result is similar to what happens politics - meanings spun & switched 18 to avoid any obstacle - but spiritual politics close to home can cause this also

I would never deliver such an abomination as a solid static FORM and propose a celestial map to it - would rather die at a stake and so should you all.

Forms :

They are solid relative to human perception - or not

They are static integrated things in a space time relative to human perception or not

They are finite relative to human perception or not

Not sure if - are trying to tell me their are wiser sets of specifications command these roles or that do not understand a 'remit'. That a solidity locality & objective integration according to human manufacturing ethos which has no relevance in the instance - is nonetheless appropriate somehow.

Frail destinies in metaphysics is THE common denominator Pete - it can cause someone to be an enemy of metaphysics at moments notice without even knowing. Can switch them back moments later without even knowing - doubt retained but unknown to exponent has been purged from mind or minds since collective hysteria is equally possible.

Another way to see this is that the unconscious mind ( and collective ) can hold all the components of direct anti thesis or take mind hostage. If so i 'd see little universal consciousness but desperation. Meaningless convolutions through words said to be sage but asking fir static complete solid ornaments in the sky.

I hear the nerd in that though - there is a Moon - there is Jupiter !!. What i cannot see is why objects if this like or anything solid is reasonably predicted for a subatomic kingdom or why someone can say 'lets keep it atomic' ( because Plato's forms are too hard otherwise ? ).

Are they mad or just trying reveal that their metaphysics isn't metaphysics ?

Unreasonable & pointless positions :

1 - Known physical matter only = might as well build plato's forms in @ a factory in Milton Keynes ( regarding social acceptance = metaphysics )

2 - Particles are not relevant = continue not to do metaphysics but imagine hidden template masters (we know what they look like) = physical environment concerned is unknown = metaphysics is = (to) predicting the existence of mythical environments not FORMS = Atlantis etc

3 - I dont understand any hypothesis linked to QM = lets use some quotes from Homer to convince others they cannot either

More of less a mixture of remote viewing, I Ching, psychomentry & clairesentience - it is not metaphysics


So the intellectual corruption seeking its own gain decided that the environment has to be X before anyone found out it is impossible to do metaphysics like this

If states like this happen we might only become religious of hard static planetoids horses et al for the Pathos in the face of paradox enabling some to only imagine a kind of mono or intergral positioning in electromagnetic finite space for the convenience of it - absolutely stupid

Then what is the point ? - that isn't metaphysics its rigging up the universe to suit the establishments emotional and social expectations of what sort of form is marketable in intellectual ways merely because it conforms to sub infinite space like a brick wall in this maya would.

Don't expect Plato's Form to do this as surely they won't

Like the republic - where logic of the universe seems to turn the needy establishments heart to stone the establishment appear to have found a way to be representative a Puppet Utopia -? In freedom we have to be sure what that heart desires is in equilibrium to the Universe. Establishments just want to misused ockhams razors for the narratives they can best apply to agendas

No amount bucket list style 'wisdom' is going to change they way this universe will dispossess every illusion of locatable solidarity regarding platonic style forms. Good metaphysical activity would be more likely to alter your perceptions or mine toward even more of this non group need friendly infinity - not the logical fallacy revues of the sages should so often sprinkled so randomly when fear strikes out at subjectivity.

With respect there is only silly human misconception with ensuing its emotional needs & vacuous intellectual industry linked the state which such a desire for form is insisted Finite & 'Available' - something which must be illustrated as a integral solid form in 4 dimensions. To conform is only expecting to construct an empirical model labelled 'Metaphysical' in order to avoid confrontation with representationalist fear and where the human concept 'representationalism is itself meaningless

Empiricist debunking tool float in the ethos like Memes and are able to ridicule not just metaphysics -but itself since it is a rogue autonomous reaction to all universal paradoxes - i.e we could equally demolish all theoretical activity with it.

Black Holes are representationalist concepts for instance

String Theory is

M - Theory

Higgs Boson

With Higgs Boson the corrupted science establishment were so desperate they labelled the representationalist Quark as the Boson instead. It all has to do with blowing peoples wealth for 'good reasons' etc - they are not - because the empiricist dummy is failing apart @ the LHC - that machine is only showing them that the universe is too infinite. But the point is - QM reality forced into electromagnetic ones is the total delusion

In case you had not noticed science quietly slipped into the divide it has its philosophical friendless deny others. But their own representationalism is rampant - it takes no friends - it can deny FORM without good reason anytime through anyone when paradoxically protected logic is the obstacle.

You feel you are well versed in anti empiricists ways ? - i am not so sure many are. The psychology of it is not known clearly to that many in respect of what is relevant argument concerning a relevant meta cognitive process is. Conditioned learned forces are able to be in an unconscious closet without 1 wit of an idea ( again including as a collective group ). Thus - for greatest fear yet of sounding just like the trolls who quite wrongly abuse your generosity here sometimes .. i fear you do not yet understand @ this 'This Metaphysics' but perhaps where same apply to it related to the FORMS i suggested in it.

Here no reservations are expressed intentionally ad hominem just because all i am saying its likely i am fully justified at lest in the logical sense intended - but misunderstood

However i would state that to your very good self & any you may have consulted on my post - there is no choice but to use infinite logics concerning plato's theory of forms. Any desire to produce logic which describe actual objects in a trackable position is frankly an absurd waste of time & universal consciousness.




Yuri

[quote]
I think you should always bear in mind the grandeur of the realm of the eide. It is quite challenging.[/quote

Really ? - yes it is true

The very act of containing no illusions that the universe has the power to compartment within infinity beyond humanity works according to good temperance. The simple admission that our means to behold objective notions is unwise - that our state is fragile & humble and that the universal is impossible to own states enough.

The need to pinpoint its objects literally simply does not - maybe you should listen to your own advices - maybe i also

There will never be a metaphysical work deemed correct nor any trophies we might understand that, we should not suffer fools lightly who will state to another that forms are so because they are collectives in knowable locations - surely just foolish for emotion attachment to a gain somehow.

The true search is for ways we might view these the cosmos and its proof is only measured through arts of living in the end - if anyone is capable of a Utopia where there is no money in currency - otherwise no unbiased views can happen. There is no future in schemes which talk about bewares of grandeur 1 second - but seek it objectively the next because all the influential remarks of it is being done by financial gainers or those terrified to challenge their intellects

For my own sense of this definition - humanity is trying to force the universe to conform to any 1 of a large set of hidden adjusters linked to a human gain archectecture every time it intellectually fights for the right to expect this atomic analog level of the universe to be applicable to the binary subatomic one = if things have to be decided because X respected Pro over there advises Y - but all of it is concern for whose going to pay for it ( or how will it pay us ) - isn't it - i mean are we sure there is a serious inquiry ?

? - because they cannot sell the stuff ( or get resesarch grants )

Then any professional life one has around metaphysics is a delusion of grandeur that is meaningless to all except the commercial reason for being a Don - so on

I't tend to feel that part of the search in metaphysics is completely old attitudes - completely present attitudes - & completely new attitudes but without us becoming unaware that they are attacking each other as we go - that seems to define the way nature designed the struggle.

So without wishing to seem bombastic about this i feel it is clear sometimes that obstacles can consist of that effect and should say Socrates been alive today - he might have advocated process that describe how to exercise balances across the three so that our unconscious does not interfere for any of the active or passive gains

I have continued to study regardless of knowing this for a long time frankly


Regards


Last edited by Yuri Leonardas on Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:34 pm; edited 7 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Pete

Quote:
I do believe that Plato might have thought the Jupiter Symphony a bit of a cacophony!


Hehe there

Sorry about my own maddening habit of going off on tangents - which shows here by another response needed just so there is some human being in it

Delightful response Pete thank you - i shall enjoy it for a while


Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bryan Carr



Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pete,

It's taken me a while to be able to come at this, and I've still only a little to say, but it comes down to this: it's deucedly difficult to make sense of the idea of talking about anything at all, if we can't say what we mean when asked "What are you talking about, here?" Identity, that is. If there is no identity, then it would be hard to argue that talk "about" anything is possible at all. This is why it philosophy seems to return to this again and again, and why it is sometimes held to be "anti-worldly" since our experience is arguably always with changeability. The bit you quote from the Gita -- “That which is not, shall never be: that which is shall never cease to be. To the wise, these truths are self-evident” -- seems to stand at the fountainhead of philosophy in the form of Parmenides' poem and its instructions about the two ways -- "It is" and "It is not" -- of which we are supposed always to take the first, he says (rather like the instructions to always turn right as we go through the maze, perhaps -- lest one make a tasty treat for a hungry minotaur?). But n.b. that old Heraclitus, supposedly Parmedides' enemy, the preacher of change rather than non-change, also says that "if you travel every path, you will not find the limits of the soul" -- which, since we are talking about Plato's account of the soul of the world (made up of the limited and the un-), seems relevant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1095
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because you are of a philosophic nature, Bryan, you are wary of the many brush-strokes which render the picture no clearer, and thus your careful words put all us all on alert.

The Gita quote might have continued: “To the unwise these truths are not self evident”

Can we go direct to true identity without some intervening passage of (through) false identity? Another way of putting that is: can we go to true identity and stay there? My answer is, not in this lifetime!

Truth is the uncovering of what is obscured while life seems to be going on regardless. That’s why I believe that philosophy is a reengagement with everyday life rather than an escape from it. I could rephrase that as the reengagement of the soul. It seems from my reading of the dialogues that we cannot avoid facing ‘Lethe’ if we are going to find out what she is covering. At least the old Mysteries got that bit right.

I relate my own approach towards this subject to a very simple experience which seemed at the time to explain so much without any words (though I have to use words to describe it!). You know that I am a carer. When I first started this business of caring I found it a complete slog. The worst task was the final one of the day of clearing the kitchen up after cooking the meal and eating it. It was so onerous that I literally couldn’t bear to look at the mess, and after I had slogged my way through it I was no good for anything but to drop into bed – goodbye cruel world, sort of thing.

It couldn’t go on and one evening I was forced to ‘reengage’ as it were. Strangely it arose from this notion of ‘identity’ you put forward in your post. Instead of looking at this blanket chaos I simply saw a pile of objects, each simple and benign in its own identity, and each in the wrong place. The task became the more simplified one of putting them in the right place.

Here’s the thing. Once the task had got retranslated an instruction simply arose in the mind. Here is a fork (I remember it clearly). Put it in the dishwasher cutlery basket. And it all started from there, and continued most beautifully I might add. Unbidden into my mind came that statement by Socrates from Phaedo: “nous sets everything in order and arranges each individual thing in the way that is best for it.” And this was the meaning of Kosmos, and it happened to be a complete revelation to me.

That is what I meant in my original post:

Quote:
Philosophy isn’t meant to be an escape from the joys and tribulations of everyday life. Its aim is to understand them.

I discussed this with my wife the other day, and she said, “Well I’m glad you found a way of coping with that. But this is the way one always does things, isn’t it?”

She had momentarily forgotten that I was a philosopher!

So one shouldn’t expect that philosophy is going to make you any better than anyone else it just brings you back from temporary insanity - or to mis-quote Kris Kristofferson, it helps you make it through the night.

The philosophical aspect to this is that ALL tasks, transitions, sequence of actions, avoided quests, posts to forums, etc. involve Kosmos in the same and other way, but it seems to need a lifetime to get an inkling of this.

Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Pete

Quote:
It is so uncomfortable a thought
That we solve the problem
By not thinking about it.


Agreed - but Nous or intuition isn't a catch all - moreover - doesn't that quote representationally negate act of study while it speaks ? Not to a critical degree, but it isn't a statement which resounds without a disadvantaged element in its own logic right ?. If there is noticable imperfection - if a statement in order to make its point (holds much truth) but makes it at the expense of the whole paradigm - surely something is anti-nous at the same time - paradox of it or not.

Matters often are - we make a valid point but the same point negates itself too - its frustrating Smile

I didn't really enter into many of your actual points because from i can see - and regardless of whether the terms happen to be finite/infinite - limited/unlimited - the unlimited arrangement in the suggestions does not actually violate anything Plato or any greek stated except Aristotle. With regard to Dianoia style thinking or any other ancient greek mode - it is more consistent than the alternatives - which actually are not consistent. Mainly it confluenced perfectly exactly what your good self quoted back - for nothing could be more demonstrable than its arrangement of form since its happenstances are completely within what the greeks said about the unobtainablity of such forms or objects.

Are we somehow confused between the literal non availability spoken of by greeks ( of divine forms) and the very metaphysics which is suppose to imagine them ? - and whose allowed to do it ?. In TTOF's case we are already anti handicapped by the fact that we know what each on looks like. But !! - even if we were to argue that forms might not be recognisable ( hence we don't ) - they are not recognisable in this set of suggestions - they are only recognisable the infinite/unlimited which might have intelligence in the fabric enough to detect a sequence hidden in each piece of non limitation. Why would a universe locate its Nous or forms in limited places or i segment of a Unlimitedverse ?.

We do realise surely what the alternatives for forms cannot explain the clustering of meamningful divine things in local areas ?

Limited - ( i.e not infinite or unlimited ) - somehow we have to forget 'Unlimittedness' and explain why limit is relevant ( nothing is solved but it does sound much more illogical just for the sake of a human finding them ? )

Forms that are found in 1 place - ( Not Unlimited in sequential location ) - no escape from a feeling of being 'sensational' or this silly perception of taking a place above our metaphysical station. The empiricists are going to ridicule finite limited ideas just the same.

The Empiricist design of logic is often 'Masonic Like ' in nature i.e they set artificial conditions ( or laws ) and set out to enrich by catching those who violate - and by enrichment made out of violating their own rules because there was never a genuine philosophical reason for the 'law' or design.

It is an extremely paradoxical position for yourself ever to have started these threads - ( and i'd not go as far as to suggest ( - 'enfold those people in a pseudo problem once they do' - since that would imply intention - its not your intention. I'm on about institutionalised attitudes & pseudo problems regarding what todays mortal can be deemed to understand versus the Greeks - today we just do not have the 'accident' - the greeks were an accident that you cannot make up - it feel together naturally and cannot be repeated because 'it has been done'. Plenty of us now would be fully accepted by them if we could travel to their time - be we cannot recreate the strength of the paradigm which powered their interest in each others ideas and excited them.

We are basically unexcited people who happen to be fairly dedicated at the same time, but 'PARADIGMLESS' - not able to trust a group consciousness as the greeks did due to this missing sense of expectation & wonderment

Lame in that respect

Actually there is nothing claimed to be solved nor particularly expected to feel 'big' in what i suggested. It voids these pseudo problems mainly - it at least seeks to dispose of establishment based emotional needs which merely fool people that they are inadequate unless their ideas describe something one can fly to and touch - reminding them that 'this isn't ancient greece here you know'.

As i stated a logic which feels like it discovers forms isn't going to happened with Plato's Forms. Only a far too attached and misplaced representationalist delusion / leak into general consciousness from an intellectual politic invects this effective as a sticky Meme by remote control Empiricism. If there is never going to be the discovery of objective platonic forms in a environmental location - what then is this strange philosophical force which insists that the relevant metaphysics would align to that ?

Empiricism & Representationalism - illogical - not done by fruition but existent in our societal reasoning

Representalism is the most Quarsi Meme because it attaches itself to metaphysics and pretends that its target is being the representationalist - very much like how fake Racism arguments work today it smothers and smears its victims with false disgrace. Being near linguistic in its installation via the group national consciousness ( hence rests subliminally & is unintentional ) - it brings a sort of embarrassment asks for evidence that is impossible to give and the mindset can be terrified to challenge its zeitgiest

At the same time !! all your self reflective points are reasonable. But !! by equal reasons myself imagines an obtainable unlimited in dimension splitting of form sequences by a fabric capable of Forms precisely because i'd never expect to 'know' anything specific about them - except that they are unlikely to set up home near a supermarket etc. In complaince then - to that which your good self seemed to set out as mild sounding objections ( you only do reasonable & mild )

So my suggestions do not actual mean anything that can be proven and did not try - but they comply to the reason already involved in the already lofty ( and guiding ) theory of forms. There is no case for forms to be local limited or solid by the existing definitions. Thus what i proposed made them as remote and impossible to know/obtain by the same kind of defaults set on what is universally accepted would apply should a God or intelligent universe exist

What i'd suggest is there a significant imbalance across several aspects - i.e too much respect for the ancient which marring the present experience. Also - trying to kill lots of birds with 1 stone by expecting philosophy in objective ways. A theory of forms zeitgeist wants to insist the divine is ( in fact ) LIMITED under a strange sale of theory of forms goods act via some kind of ingress as a group consciousness and is a strong force of such influence

Unless someone does well with popular philosophy as a job - there is nothing to gain from whatever the truth is about forms. All we can do is submit the least debunkable philosophical hypothesis and hope by conscience it is relevant to the god of all wisdom. Nothing will ever be proven, things could at maximum cause new ways for more people to understand such philosophy.

For me - a strongest hypothesis avoids the 'limited' since the divine does not appears to be as incarnates are. It avoids a silly state where immaculate cosmic forms are lying around somewhere in complete sculpture waiting to be found and perhaps vandalised even !!

That concept is so ridiculous

Thus - surely anything than the most unlimited - most disparately super positioned is more in harmony with all the accepted unlimited divine ideals.

Lets not forget that virtually every empiricist is Finite / Unlimited in aspiration. They expect no God - no Forms - a theory of everything and a physical explanation to everything using electro -magnetism ( Mass as humans know it ). Moreover - all i pointed out was a mere boundary condition such omnipotent templates surely needed to meet. Suitably eternal and indestructible as is appropriate to the stature of the theory

? - not convenience Smile

In other words they would need to be that immaculately untouchable to meet the size of the importance attached to them - not a word tried to pretend anything other than a reasonable boundary condition had been discovered - its a trifle actually just to state how forms might be sequentially displaced in all parts of the unlimited.

I have noticed your remarks a few times about being a Carer. I'm a full time carer to someone with MS myself. And a guitar player fanatic - i see you do this also.

Your reflections on a personal meaning and ones humble status in it all are interesting. I do not feel that we demonstrate respect by limiting ourselves to deliberately under performing the greeks. Surely matters linked to Conscience and what only each of us can know how we feel about our humble place is the true marker - once we have sure knowledge that of conscience acts with its thoughts in a universally humane way we gain the right to explore Nous.

We can experience unconscious fears yes - we were never designed to consider philosophy for 5 minutes and know precisely what is anything as you sort of infer. Either groups deem to understand each others reasoning and conscience or not.

The Greeks were often good at it - often not - being reasonable could often mean thou shall die - stark fact of nature:)

Quote:
They saw Cosmos as the sacred shrine for the gods, and Plato might have added, for the Forms. Just as the God is not in the shrine, the Forms are not in the Cosmos. The Cosmos 'shares' or 'partakes' in them - Greek word is meteko. When we try to explain it that sharing seems a complicated process (quite rightly) but the Forms themselves are, to stay with Greek notions, too simple to be thought about - at least by dianoia.



Tbh Pete it would make no difference what is rightly or not rightly considered the Cosmos or not. Either Forms redivide things which are eternally life force giving unlimitedly thus beyond our grasp of location ability or the entire theory is not viable. One can do no more with metaphysics than set reasonable boundary conditions and if they are as carefully worked out as what i suggest it is not a case of personal preference unless an agenda states otherwise. But reasonably - either things meet the unlimited time space demands the TTOF's very much impresses as a theory or not.

Please offer an architecture discussing a local concept & a solid 1 piece form for comparison ? - but surely these kinds of effort & yardsticks are what is needed if we are hoping to invoke Nous - I.E you push & push the logic until something falls out. Can you not sense this happening with the ancient greeks ?

But why debunk such products in profound disbelief it is possible by a mortal today ? - what is the point ?

These suggestion happen to do so but that is no big deal. It never was it claimed that proof could validate what the forms are why or where in the empiricist sense which by stealth really is somehow finding some inheritances here i feel - none of your doing OFC

What they 'are' remains within the paradigm of them which does exist - these kinds of suggestion alter nothing on that basis the TTOF's itself describes that. Provide a decent boundary logic as to back up all the historic notions about there pristine eternity ?

I have

Maybe - being Objective even though the western philosophical terms indeed is 'Objective Idealism' does absolutely nothing to the advantage of TTOF's

Quite the Opposite


Yuri


Yuri
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 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 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