I spent a few hours in Philosophy Chat forum.
An older crowd (30+) was present.
I mentioned a strange remark I once read, a passing remark, by Kojeve in his "Introduction to the Reading of Hegel's Phenomenology".
Kojeve wrote "... Plato (who believed that virtue can be taught)..."
I deduced, from the tenor of Kojeve's remark, that Kojeve himself did not believe that virtue could be taught.
The question has stayed with me through the years.
I feel that, as I examine my own life, I have "learned" certain virtues that were not natively present within me.
One virtue which has been imposed forcefully from without is neatness or orderliness. I was never neat or orderly by nature, but many different life experiences and acquaintanceships trained me to be neat and orderly to the degree that I now am.
In Philosopohy chat, I offered the example of the Piranha tribe in the Brazilian rain forests. They are the only aboriginals who have vigorously resisted assimilation into European society, and have withdrawn deeper into the rain forests, clinging to their unusual bird-like language, and refusing to use any other language. They have certain virtues or values, learned from their parents, and preserved as a cultural tradition. But they have no words for numbers, except "more" and "less". They have no fixed words for color, and when questioned, explain that color is of no importance ("who cares"). They do not cling to possessions or handicraft, beyond the bare essentials of cooking pots and a few tools. They have absolutely no creation myths. When questioned, they simply say "things have ALWAYS been this way."
Study of the Piranha awakens us to the understanding that certain of our notions, such as number or color, are learned rather than inherent in some a priori fashion.
One day I was walking by a Japanese restaurant, and I saw the owner
in the front devotedly tending to a beautiful little garden which he
had created. I paused to engage him in some conversation and ask his
views on life, the soul, and it's future. His answer was very simple.
He shrugged and said,
"I do not believe that there is anything more than this life, this
moment, these few years, this accidental existence and persona of
coincidence: consciousness by chance, and then it is over. But THAT
very impermanence is why one must make the very most of it while it
lasts. One must seek virtue and perfection, even though it is
transient and goes unnoticed and unrewarded, for without virtue,
excellence, this transience and impermanence has NO value. Perfection
is its own recompense. Beauty needs no adornment."
My favorite line in Milton is where Satan says "Evil, be thou my good."
This devilish aesthetic becomes interesting when examined in the light of
Socrates' proposition that "all by nature desire the good, and no one
willingly chooses what they consider to be not good", along with Plato's
Euthypro problem, "is the good good by fiat simply because it is what God
desires, or does God desire what is good for some inherent quality
residing in goodness (or substitute virtue, morality, holiness, or
righteousness for the word good,if you prefer).
I was a great fan of the cartoon series "Earthworm Jim". In one episode,
through some bizarre radioactive accident, Earthworm Jim spawns an evil
twin. They are about to battle to the death. The evil twin gives a speech
first, boasting essentially the boast of Milton's Satan, that he hates
everything that is good, and likes everything that is not good." So,
Earthworm Jim (who is not always the brightest of worms) reasons, "Well,
winning is good, and losing is bad, and since you like what is bad and hate
what is good, then surely I shall defeat you.) Of course, we know that our
hero, Jim, proceeds to dispatch his evil twin in no time flat.
To read a Platonic dialogue is to watch ideas in motion, not just any motion, but the special motion which takes place when giving birth. Socrates at times describes himself as a mid-wife, helping minds to give birth. There is a wonderful adjective for this role which Socrates plays; maiutic.
Socrates has two different nick-names in the dialogues; sting-ray and gadfly. In ancient Greek, the word for sting-ray is Nar-kay, or Narke, which is the root word for narcotic.
A sting from the tail of the sting-ray causes the body to become numb. Socrates was called narke because of his ability through a series of questions and answers, to numb his opponent into a motionless cul-de-sac, called in Greek "a-poria" which means "no way out."
Now, the gadfly nick-name denoted the very opposite of numbing. The gadfly, through its bites, could sting the lethargic horse of the state into motion. Socrates also stings up those who feel hopeless by "mytho-poiesis" or making a story or parable to give them a feeling of what it shall be like when they finally come to understand.
Someone who presumes to know is smug and complacent and does not seek or inquire. But also, those who have lost hope and given up do not seek or inquire.
Notice how these two opposite qualities of motion and rest are united in the one person of Socrates. We may better appreciate the conflict between motion and rest if we consider that Aristotle speaks of an "unmoved mover" as that one principle which somehow must exist as a source for everything else.
To understand Socrates' narcotic strategy, we must understand his theory of knowledge.
Socrates had a woman named Diotema as a mentor who instructed him in a theory of knowledge which is likened to a ladder of divine ascent, which describes an inductive ascent from love of objects, to sexual love, to love of mathematics, and finally to the love of the EIDOS of justice or beauty.
Socrates states that "God does not love wisdom, because he possesses it." Remember that the word "philo-sophia" means "love of wisdom." If we have something or believe that we possess it, then we do not go in search for it. We are smug and confident that the wisdom is ours. This smugness can be a form of illness, and the medicine to restore us to a state which is suitable for inquiry is refutation through a syllogistic chain of questions and answers which ultimately forces us to admit that we do not really possess true knowledge about a particular matter like justice or happiness.
We may see this theory of knowledge or dialectic illustrated in a well-known Sufi teaching story, made popularized in the many books of Idres Shah.
Nasrudin is a comical, sophomoric (or wise-fool) character. One day, someone sees Nasrudin frantically searching the street outside his house. When asked what has been lost, Nasrudin explains that he has lost his keys. When asked where he lost them, he explains that he lost them in the house. When asked why he is searching in the street for something lost in the house, Nasrudin explains that it is dark inside the house, and there is more light outside in the street.
Abraham Heschel illustrates something of this problem, in volume one of "The Prophets" when he writes (paraphrased) "We must learn to understand what it is that we see, and not merely see only that which we understand." Our compulsion is to search where the light is better, even if that means looking in the wrong place. Abraham Maslow put it differently: "When the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem tends to become a nail."
Most of what I explain here will be things that I learned at St. John's College in Annapolis in the 1960s. It is worth mentioning that the teachers there prefer to call themselves "tutors" rather than "professors", in honor of this Socratic method, since a "professor" professes to already know the truth, and will convey it to students in a lecture and for a price, much like the rhetorician Gorgias in this dialogue. The term "tutor" better reflects the role of a mid-wife who aids the student during this maiutic process of giving birth.
I would like to focus in quite a bit on this notion of uniting opposites, such as motion and rest.
Socrates and Odysseus share something interesting in common. Homer describes Odysseus bodily build as a paradigm of this uniting of opposites. Odysseus had very short legs, so that when he stood amongst the other Achaians, he was the shortest. But Odysseus had an unusually long trunk such that, when he sat in council, his head was above all the rest, and his words poured forth like a flurry of snow.
Socrates unites outer homeliness with inner beauty.
Rabelais made reference to this quality of Socrates in his Prologue.
Regarding Socrates' homeliness, I am reminded of that verse from Isaiah Ch. 53,2 "He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him."
This harmonizing or balancing of opposites is a very ancient notion. The Greeks called it the golden mean. The Buddha called it the middle way. According to legend, Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha (a term meaning "Awakened One"), had tried every form of philosophy and religion, and was meditating near a river's bank, close to death from fasting. A boat passed by on the river, and Siddhartha could hear the voice of a master musician instructing his disciple as the young student strung an instrument: "Do not leave it loose, or it shall not sound, nor tighten it overmuch lest the string break." Suddenly, Siddhartha realized the wisdom of "the middle way", the mean between extremes.
I realize that I might appear to you to be jumping about a bit with all these topics, but you must remember that when I read the Gorgias, all of these notions are within me at once, as a gestalt, and I perceive the dialogue through this lens of experience.
With regard to the similarity between Socrates and Odysseus, I want to make a certain point about the position of Odysseus' ship in Homer's "Catalog of Ships" in Book II of the Iliad. I am going to use the figures at this url to assist me:
Notice how the 12 ships of Odysseus are in the exact middle of this line-up of ships, as a mean or balance between extremes.
At one extreme of the line-up of ships along the shore is Ajax, who is so massive, that his epithet is bulwark or "wall".
Achilles epithet is "swift-footed".
Achilles and Ajax possess opposite virtues which are difficult to unite or harmonize; Ajax' size, and Achilles' speed.
We see Odysseus as a mean between these two extremes of opposite but necessary virtues.
Once, in Book Eight of the Iliad, we find one verse which clarifies the logic of positioning in the catalog of ships:
Again, in Book 11, we are reminded of this same geometry:
Ajax, who is massive but slower, is placed closest to Troy so that, during an attack, the approaching enemy will first encounter Ajax' massive strength.
Achilles is positioned furtherest from Troy, since his virtue of speed allows him to meet the approaching enemy before anyone else.
Plato stresses this role of Odysseus as a harmonious balance in The Republic
I suppose one might say that the assortment of possible lives for rebirth, spread out before the souls which have drawn lots, resembles the assortment of facts and phenomena in reality, spread out for the mind to choose, or the assortment of careers spread out before students.
But it is not the phenomenon or fact which casts the mind into a certain state, or the career which shapes the student, but rather it is the harmony of the mind, the balance of the student, which conditions the choice of attention and specialization. Hence the task of the Socratic method is not to offer facts upon a platter, or sheet music, but rather to fine tune and harmonize the mind of the student as a process rather than a destination.
It is not the scenery which colors the vision, but rather the harmony or focus of vision which determines the scenery.
What follows may seem a non sequitur, but it is good for the reader to have some insight into the educational philosophy of the college which influenced me; a college which attempts to put into practice the maiutic process harmonization which I describe.
The Motto of St. John's College Motto
Facio liberos ex liberis libris libraque ( I make free men from children by means of books and a balance)
This metaphor of our education as a lens which shapes our vision reminds me of a true story which I entitled "Eighth Grade Existentialism"
When studying Plato, it may be helpful to realize that, in the 20th century, Kurt Godel the mathematician was essentially a Platonist and viewed number as having some independent and mystical existence, along with Einstein, who was a personal friend of Godel. Opposite to the Platonist is the empiricist and positivist, who see number as a human instrument or construction, and a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. Remember that over the entrance to Plato's Lyceum was written "Let no one enter here who has not mastered Euclid's Elements of Geometry".
After this long prelude or prologue, we may begin to look at the Gorgias itself.
Gorgias is an orator and rhetorician. Socrates and his companion arrive late upon the scene, just missing Gorgias' demonstration of expository speaking.
We should keep in mind that one of the charges against Socrates at his trial, in addition to corrupting the youth of Athens, was that he taught people the art of "making the weaker argument defeat the stronger."
I sometimes wonder if our contemporary educational system isn't corrupting the youth by heaping scores of sheet music before the symphony and never attempting to tune the instruments in the orchestra. Society shall prepare and drink its own cup of hemlock for that crime.
An offer is made to have Gorgias repeat his performance for Socrates' benefit, but Socrates convinces Gorgias to enter into a simpler dialogue of brief questions and answers. Socrates gleefully compliments Gorgias on how well he complies with the rules of this simple form of dialogue.
Socrates is leading Gorgias into his dialectic trap. I once saw a cartoon in a magazine depicting a dog, who has laid down a trail of cat food, leading to an open dryer, hiding and gleefully waiting for the cat to step inside the dryer. Once the cat is in, the dog will slam the door shut and rejoice as the cat spins round and round. Once Gorgias agrees to enter Socrates' "laundromat" of syllogisms, then poor Gorgias will find his head spinning like that cat.
For me, the age old struggle between platonists and empiricists arrives at a dizzying plateau once the question is finally asked "is reality digital or analog?" which is related to issues of holism versus reductionism. It will be helpful to read this link as a refresher on holism and reductionism:
Perhaps by now some readers are ready to throw up their hands and shout
Sitaram! Whatever does this enormous mountain of baloney that you have amassed have to do with Plato's dialogue with Gorgias?
I am only beginning to realize one excellent answer to that question just now, after hours of reading and writing. The rhetoricians and sophists, such as Gorgias, quite possibly represent the empiricism and reductionism inchoate, while the socratic method of dialect inquiry represents the holists with their model theory.
I may be quite mistaken in my notion, but it is exciting to thing of the possibilities should such a notion be plausible.
With todays science and technology, we can take images, sound, and even the human genome, and digitize it to a sequence of numbers. If we should find one day that a digitized representation of reality can exactly match reality and be indistinguishable from it, then we may conclude that reality is digital. If, on the other hand, all attempts at digitization are doomed to be mere approximations to the original, or counterfeits, in the sense that the number pi is irrational, then we may conclude that reality and being are analog.
I was struck by all of this when I stumbled one day across a casual remark by Einstein to the effect (paraphrasing) that "no one could ever have arrived inductively at a notion of relativity simply from empirical observations." What Einstein is pointing to involves a branch of mathematics called "model theory". There are numerous axiomatic systems of mathematics (e.g. euclidean, hyperbolic, ellipical and riemmanian geometries) mutually exclusive to one another in how they describe space, and all dwelling in the human imagination much like Plato's "eidei" or ideal forms. One day, someone notices that one of these axiomatic systems resembles observable phenomena. Ptolemy could account for the observed motion of the planets with epicycles, with an accuracy equal to Kepler's system of ellipses. Model theory has to do with the initial phase of stumbling upon a system which seems to match observations, as well as the later phase of asking "is this system actually the way things are (i.e. the noumena)? or is the system only an ad hoc contrivance for measurement?"
The laws of relativity and quantum and thermodynamics in no way lead inductively to the existence and nature of bunny rabbits, and yet the existence of rabbits in no way violates those laws. The laws of statistics do not inductively lead to the rules of poker or blackjack. Such games of chance obey the laws of statistics and probability, yet we would not study statistics in order to learn how to play the games themselves.
The Socratic line of questions and answers, a series of syllogisms and predications, is the tail of the sting-ray. At the end of the tail is a stinger, the numbing and silencing narcotic of "aporia" and refutation.
And now, here is the story:
Long, long ago, a demon sent forth legions of mud-dwelling creatures from the bottom of the sea to capture the scriptures and thus destroy their content. And as the dark waters swallowed the knowledge of prayer, the higher values of life also sank into the depths. People forgot the difference between good and bad and could no longer distinguish between right and wrong. As their power of discrimination faded, acts of charity and other forms of selfless service vanished.
Fear, hunger, sleep, and sex became the motivating forces for all human activities.
Trust disappeared and with it any semblance of loving relationships between men and women. The population soared while the general state of health plummeted. Striving to appease their insatiable desires, humans plundered the natural world-laying waste to forests and valleys, polluting rivers and lakes, and robbing the soil of its vitality. Life was miserable for everyone but the demon and his bottom-dwelling minions.
Seeing how severely nature had been weakened, the demon then decided to finish it off by attacking and conquering the forces of nurturing -the soil, vegetation, water, fire, air, and clouds. The angels, bright beings who are the presiding forces of nature, fled and hid themselves. With the angels gone, the demon demolished natural law and imposed his own rule, ushering in his reign with earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, typhoons, wildfires, droughts, floods, and all manner of epidemics.
Chaos stalked the Earth, and the angels were in hiding, so the saints resolved to intervene. Approaching the Lord, the supreme force of protection and nourishment, they meditated on him with love and faith, asking him to come to their aid. In response the Lord told them, "With a one-pointed and disciplined mind, join forces to gather the divine knowledge once again, and while you fulfill this task I will bring the angels from their hiding place and dwell with them. Come and join
us there."
The Lord went forth and vanquished the demon.
Meanwhile the Saints had again gone into deep prayer, and had
re-discovered divine wisdom. There they asked the Lord's permission to bring the knowledge of the Vedas into practice for the benefit of all creation. In granting their request, the Lord said, "The secret of success lies in sacrifice, and the scriptures tell us how to walk this path. In every aspect of creation there is a continuous ceremony of sacrifice. Leaves decompose and nourish other organisms. It is the same with everything-nothing in creation is meant for itself. There is one sacrifice which is greatest among all sacrifices. Those who perform this sacrifice their personal desires for the sake of the larger welfare. They train and tame their mind and senses - and finally they share this harnessed energy with all living beings. This form of
sacrifice nourishes humankind and every other form of life. Let us now perform this sacrifice." So at the Lord's command all aspects of nature, the angles, their presiding forces, and the saints (the seers of divine wisdom), along with all the heavenly host, took part in this great sacrifice.
The sacrifice lasted for years, and by the time it was completed an astounding transformation was apparent everywhere. People had regained their interest in learning. They began to embrace the higher values in life and to take pleasure in performing acts of charity and selfless service. Their power of discrimination blossomed and the confusion between right and wrong vanished. Fear, hunger, sex, and sleep were no longer the motivating forces behind human activity. Relationships between men and women were now built on trust, and people once again understood the purpose of life. They remembered
how to live in harmony with the natural world, and as they did, the ecosystem came back into balance. Even the demons were
transformed: instead of trying to destroy sacred wisdom, they worked in concert with the angels and other forces of nurturing. And with the natural world once again bursting with vitality, peace and prosperity reigned. Seeing this, the saints and angels prostrated in gratitude at the feet of the Lord: "It is through your grace, O Lord, that we have been empowered and that all living beings have found their rightful place in this creation. The energy emanating from this great sacrifice has brought harmony out of chaos. For this reason we ask you to bless one sacred place of pilgrimage on earth so that it may
always be the most auspicious and powerful place on the Earth. May the energy emitting from this holy land guide humanity through all eternity. May all human endeavor undertaken here be auspicious.
May acts of charity and self-sacrifice performed here bear fruit
without limit."
The Lord readily granted their wish. "Be it so," he said. "From now on this place will also be known as "the field of pure consciousness" and "the lord of all holy places". The concentration of spiritual energy here will purify the way of the soul. By the simple act of coming here, even minds and hearts that are tainted by dreadful crimes over the course
of many lifetimes will be purified. One day's practice done here properly will bear the fruit of a decade of continuous practice
anywhere else. Periodically all the benevolent forces of creation, the energies of all holy places, the saints, and the angels will convene here. And just as darkness vanishes with the sunrise, obstacles to spiritual practices have no power to withstand the brilliance of this conjunction of time and place. Practices undertaken here at this time open the door to all possibilities."
Once during a time of material prosperity the higher virtues again fell into decline, and as a result the manna of holiness almost vanished from this earthly realm. All living beings and all aspects of nature became weak and pale. The angels and saints pleaded with the
Creator to recharge creation with fresh vitality, but were told that the sanctity in life now lay buried and obscured. People of all races and faiths joined forces to find and recover the sanctity. They set out to churn an entire ocean of words and texts, and churn they did, laboring night and day. But to their dismay the first fruit of their labor was not the sanctity they were seeking but a vial of poison so deadly that if it
were unleashed it would scorch all creation. The search could not go on until this menace was removed, yet no one had the capacity or the wisdom to dispose of it except the Lord who appeared and took upon himself all the sin.
This ceremony is known as "the spiritual gathering around the vessel."
When we attempt to procure holiness we must be ready to deal with poison; we can benefit from gathering around the vessel of holiness only when we realize that poison and manna go hand in hand.
Achieving even the noblest goal entails some degree of pain and temptation. And because our natural tendency is to avoid pain, the one who takes it on for the sake of others becomes like God, the most auspicious and benevolent of beings.
(to be continued when I find the list of virtues I collected from Plato's Republic)
============================
Here are some great study questions I found in google:
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: INTERPRETING AND APPRECIATING THE REPUBLIC
http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~demilio/2211unit2/plato.htm
-Do you accept Socrates’ reasons for shifting the discussion from the examination of individuals to a consideration of the city (p. 165)?
-Critically examine Socrates' explanations of why cities come into existence and how a division of labor arises in society (pp. 165-68).
-Should Socrates accept Glaucon's criticism (p. 169) and abandon the "city of pigs" for the "luxurious city"?
-Do you agree that dogs are lovers of wisdom (p. 173)? Why should the guardians of Socrates' city be "lovers of wisdom"?
-Why does Socrates propose to censor the stories of the poets?
-Compare Socrates' discussion of passages from the Iliad (pp. 176-77) with our own.
-How does Socrates wish the gods to be portrayed? Why?
-What does Socrates mean by a “necessary lie”? Why is it justifiable?
-What is the purpose of the story of the origins of the guardians (pp. 214-17)? Why is it important for the success of Plato’s ideal society?
-Consider the use of stories - like that of the ship of state (p. 286) or the myth of Er (pp. 415-22) in the Republic. What are their lessons? How are they similar to or different from the stories that Socrates condemned earlier in the Republic?
-The Republic concludes with the Myth of Er, a lengthy description of the afterlife and the process of reincarnation, alleged presented by a man who died and came back to life. This is the most elaborate description of an afterlife that we have encountered in the course. How does it contribute to Plato's discussion of morality and justice?
From these study questions alone, we may extract the beginnings of an outline for a storyboard.
Analysis of individual psyche vs state as "the soul written in large letters"
Division of labor and class or caste systems.
Dogs as lovers of wisdom.
City of pigs
Philosopher King
Portrayal of Gods
Noble Lie
Guardians
Ship of State
Myth of Er
+++++++++++
Here is a simply word processing extract of all lines which mention VIRTUE in the download of a translation of Plato's Republic.
I have used: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/repub11.txt
*****The Project Gutenberg Etext of The Republic, by Plato*****
Translated by Benjamin Jowett
I REALIZE THESE ARE CRUDE AND UNEDITED EXCERPTS, BUT SUCH USE OF A SEARCH ENGINE IS A POWERFUL TECHNIQUE TO FOCUS IN ON ONE CONCEPT, SUCH AS VIRTUE.
The virtues are based on justice, of which common honesty in
made to admit that justice is a thief, and that the virtues follow the
admit the still greater paradox that injustice is virtue and justice vice.
And is not the end of the soul
and then whether justice is virtue and wisdom, or evil and folly; and then
in an age when the arts and the virtues, like the moral and intellectual
and at first the comparison of the arts and the virtues was not perceived
end; good manners are both an art and a virtue; character is naturally
distinction of Aristotle, that 'virtue is concerned with action, art with
production' (Nic. Eth.), or that 'virtue implies intention and constancy of
an intimation conveyed that virtue is more than art. This is implied in
of virtue as fitness, and of freedom as obedience to law. The mathematical
of an end and a virtue directed towards the end, which again is suggested
guardians make reputation the incentive to virtue. And other advantages
festival, with garlands on their heads, enjoying as the meed of virtue a
virtue and trail behind me the fox of Archilochus. I hear some one saying
angry with others; for he knows also that more than human virtue is needed
ill; or that virtue is self-love or the love of power; or that war is the
'the homage which vice pays to virtue.'
is taken by Socrates to mean all virtue. May we not more
old question (Protag.), 'whether the virtues are one or many,' viz. that
Truth should have a high place among the virtues, for falsehood, as we were
we must first attain the elements or essential forms of the virtues, and
virtue'? But how can excessive care of health be inconsistent with an
ordinary occupation, and yet consistent with that practice of virtue which
imagines that every one is as bad as himself.
Vice may be known of virtue,
but cannot know virtue. This is the sort of medicine and this the sort of
other hand, have a knowledge of vice, but no knowledge of virtue. It may
virtue which gives an insight into vice. And the knowledge of character is
individual is certainly to be found in a life of virtue and goodness. But
the four virtues--wisdom, courage, temperance, justice.
Our second virtue is courage, which we have no difficulty in finding in
Two virtues remain; temperance and justice. More than the preceding
virtues temperance suggests the idea of harmony. Some light is thrown upon
the nature of this virtue by the popular description of a man as 'master of
describing this virtue as a harmony which is diffused through the whole,
but this was justice?
For 'every one having his own' is the great object of government;
residues. Each of the first three virtues corresponds to one of the three
If there be a fourth virtue, that can only be sought for in the relation of
virtues are eliminated, the justice and temperance of the Republic can with
difficulty be distinguished.
Temperance appears to be the virtue of a part
only, and one of three, whereas justice is a universal virtue of the whole
is a more abstract notion than the other virtues, and therefore, from
Plato (Protagoras; Arist. Nic. Ethics), 'Whether the virtues are one or
cardinal virtues (now for the first time brought together in ethical
conception of universal justice, virtue relative to others, but the whole
of virtue relative to the parts. To this universal conception of justice
the virtues of the State and of the individual are the same.
For wisdom is..
part of the soul which has authority and reason. The virtue of temperance
produce good or bad habits. And virtue is the health and beauty and well-
which overhangs the city and look down upon the single form of virtue, and
corresponds to the single form of virtue is that which we have been
a separate virtue or habit. We are tempted also to doubt whether Plato is
in his own nature to the contemplation of the absolute? All the virtues as
health, wealth, strength, rank, and the virtues themselves, when placed
other men), and is the creator of the virtues private as well as public.
of the virtues mention was made of a longer road, which you were satisfied
above the four virtues; and of the virtues too he must not only get an
reality; a man may desire the appearance of virtue, but he will not desire
Like Socrates, we may recapitulate the virtues of the philosopher. In
disguise of virtue or disinterestedness without having them, or veil
conversion; other virtues are almost like bodily habits, and may be
in virtue and wisdom, may bear rule. And the only life which is better
solid, diligent natures, who combine intellectual with moral virtues; not
is the just and good?' or proves that virtue is vice and vice virtue, and
virtue; lovers of money take the place of lovers of honour; misers of
not want remedies; they care only for money, and are as careless of virtue
but harmonizing the passions, and training them in virtue; in the timocracy
honour; this latter virtue, which is hardly to be esteemed a virtue, has
superseded all the rest. In the second stage of decline the virtues have
play, and the virtues and vices are impartially cultivated. But this
State or parts of the soul, the four virtues, the five forms of government.
them in comeliness of life and virtue!
justice as a cube, of virtue as an art of measuring (Prot.), saw no
all the arts and all the virtues, must we not infer that they are under a
forsake justice and virtue for the attractions of poetry, any more than for
And yet the rewards of virtue are greater far than I have described. 'And
hundred years--and the rewards of virtue were in the same proportion. He
afforded noble lessons and examples of virtue and patriotism, to which
chose last. But the virtue which is founded on habit is not sufficient to
enable a man to choose; he must add to virtue knowledge, if he is to act
hundred was an aristocracy of virtue. For once in the history of mankind
if we admit the physical basis, and resolve all virtue into health of body
of the relaxation of morality, but in spite of it, by virtue of a political
be forbidden. Who can weigh virtue, or even fortune against health, or
from the virtues--at least he is always arguing from one to the other. His
attained. When the virtues as yet presented no distinct conception to the
virtue is partly art, and has an outward form as well as an inward
He has long given up the notion that virtue cannot be taught; and he is
disposed to modify the thesis of the Protagoras, that the virtues are one
paradox that the virtues are one, and the kindred notion that all virtue is
moral virtues in the intellectual, and to centre all goodness in the
and virtue and good manners and good taste, that would be the best hope of
ever constitute a state more exalted in virtue, or truer or better than
successor of it, justified by the ancient virtues of the Romans and the
to a man that was once of excellent virtue or of famous glory, not only as
throughout all the world, not in bigness, but in virtue and power. Him
from those other philosophers who define virtue to be a life according to
are immediately applicable to practice, but there is a virtue flowing from
proper virtue of man?
And that human virtue is justice?
And what is your view about them? Would you call one of them virtue and
I suppose that you would call justice virtue and injustice vice?
wisdom and virtue, and justice with the opposite.
that you do not hesitate to rank injustice with wisdom and virtue.
Thrasymachus blushing.
As we were now agreed that justice was virtue and
and virtue, is easily shown to be stronger than injustice, if injustice is
consider whether justice is virtue and wisdom or evil and folly; and when
is not a virtue, nor can I say whether the just man is happy or unhappy.
highest meed of virtue. Some extend their rewards yet further; the
that justice and virtue are honourable, but grievous and toilsome; and that
about virtue and the gods: they say that the gods apportion calamity and
dwelling-place is near. But before virtue the gods have set toil,'
He proceeded: And now when the young hear all this said about virtue and
virtue to be the vestibule and exterior of my house; behind I will trail
is, as you know, sometimes spoken of as the virtue of an individual, and
sometimes as the virtue of a State.
I should prefer only to admit the pure imitator of virtue.
are the twin sisters of goodness and virtue and bear their likeness.
Or any affinity to virtue in general?
a livelihood he should practise virtue?
ourselves: Is the practice of virtue obligatory on the rich man, or can he
practice of virtue.
philosophy, and hence all practising or making trial of virtue in the
of them by himself: but when he gets into the company of men of virtue,
other; for vice cannot know virtue too, but a virtuous nature, educated by
time, will acquire a knowledge both of virtue and vice: the virtuous, and
to them, should be such as will neither impair their virtue as guardians,
And is not a similar method to be pursued about the virtues, which are also
First among the virtues found in the State, wisdom comes into view, and in
virtues has somehow or other been discovered.
The city will be courageous in virtue of a portion of herself which
Two virtues remain to be discovered in the State--first, temperance, and
Yes, I replied; I will; and as far as I can at present see, the virtue of
And so, I said, we may consider three out of the four virtues to have been
Because I think that this is the only virtue which remains in the State
when the other virtues of temperance and courage and wisdom are abstracted;
to compete with the other political virtues, wisdom, temperance, courage.
And the virtue which enters into this competition is justice?
virtue of the same quality which makes the State wise?
individual bear the same relation to all the other virtues?
And surely, I said, we have explained again and again how and by virtue of
Then virtue is the health and beauty and well-being of the soul, and vice
And do not good practices lead to virtue, and evil practices to vice?
and act justly and practise virtue, whether seen or unseen of gods and men,
that he is not to acquire justice and virtue, or to escape from injustice
some tower of speculation, a man may look down and see that virtue is one,
virtue of his sex, but the gifts of nature are alike diffused in both; all
Then let the wives of our guardians strip, for their virtue will be their
virtue, also know the very truth of each thing?
philosopher's virtues, as you will doubtless remember that courage,
In the first place there are their own virtues, their courage, temperance,
having proper nurture, must necessarily grow and mature into all virtue,
type of character which has had no other training in virtue but that which
is supplied by public opinion--I speak, my friend, of human virtue only;
as he can be, into the proportion and likeness of virtue--such a man ruling
justice, temperance, and every civil virtue?
justice and the other virtues?
Yes, I said, there is. And of the virtues too we must behold not the
virtues, we shall be satisfied.
And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to be akin to
implanted later by habit and exercise, the virtue of wisdom more than
will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue
other virtue, should we not carefully distinguish between the true son and
individual a friend, of one who, being defective in some part of virtue, is
in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of
avaricious nature in him, and is not single-minded towards virtue, having
in a man, and is the only saviour of his virtue throughout life.
fortune the less they think of virtue; for when riches and virtue are
And in proportion as riches and rich men are honoured in the State, virtue
reputation for honesty he coerces his bad passions by an enforced virtue;
yet the true virtue of a unanimous and harmonious soul will flee far away
pauper to the cultivation of virtue.
of wisdom and virtue, may be rightly called unnecessary?
re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not
And as State is to State in virtue and happiness, so is man in relation to
which is under a tyrant, how do they stand as to virtue?
enter, by the criterion of virtue and vice, happiness and misery.
knowledge and mind and all the different kinds of virtue?
Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with
in beauty and virtue?
at their head,
know all the arts and all things human, virtue as well as
are only in the second remove from truth in what you say of virtue, and not
Homer, are only imitators; they copy images of virtue and the like, but the
if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue.
the excitement of poetry, he neglect justice and virtue?
await virtue.
converse she seeks in virtue of her near kindred with the immortal and
How great are the rewards which justice and the other virtues procure to
as man can attain the divine likeness, by the pursuit of virtue?
collectively upon virtue; he should know what the effect of beauty is when
well-ordered State, but his virtue was a matter of habit only, and he had
follow after justice and virtue always.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Creating a Screenplay for Plato's Republic
I am reposting this from a different thread, because the project strikes me as one with some merit.
The challenge is to film a reading of Plato's Republic, and yet keep it engaging and informative. I am reminded of PBS 12 hour production of "Brideshead Revisited" which seems to include every sentence and scene in the entire novel.
It would be interesting to do an outline and story board. The final book, with Odysseus in the underworld, in the Myth of Er, would be quite sci-fi. And, hey, Plato's works are certainly in public domain.
I wonder if most of the movement of "drama" is "noetic", in the development of concepts and arguments, and would not come through in a film. Which might mean that only costumes and antics would provide entertainment. I wonder if a viewer of such a film could clearly follow the reading. The Republic seems like something one needs to pour over and study. If all this is true, then a two hour video might be either dull, or fatuous in its efforts to avoid dullness. My girlfriend and I took turns reading "The Pooh Perplex" aloud, and it was fun and amusing. We tried the same thing with "Death in Venice" and it didn't work at all. It was too heavy and cerebral. Perhaps if one assembled meaningful notes, commentary, which a narrator reads with shots of paintings or statues to illustrate, and then pan to certain passages where performers narrate the actual dialogue (sort of like a Nova or History Channel documentary), then it might be entertaining and also instructive. Hmm... I wonder what a good producer and director could come uo with for The Republic. Is it proper to say "screenplay" for the production of such a documentary. A story board would be a challenging project. It would be like those cartoon books that illustrate the thought of Sartre, Kant, et al.
I am looking for outlines and synopses to help me create a story board for a movie version of Plato's Republic. This is simply a fun exercise for me, inspired by some Facebook alumni who recall a staged non-stop reading of The Republic, and muse about doing it again, and videotaping it.
Here is a useful synopsis
The movie should allude to the meaning of characters
Polemarchus, which means "leader in battle," and was the name given to the third archon;
Cephalus, meaning "head" as in head of the family; and
Thrasymachus, meaning "schemer."]
Someone like Bernardo Bertolucci would be a good director for our movie version of The Republic
Little Buddha
A crucial move in the development of the argument occurs at this point. Socrates suggests that justice will be easier to recognize and to define in a city-state (POLIS) than in an individual, particularly if we conduct what we in the 20c C.E would come to call a thought experiment. The POLIS is the individual WRIT LARGE. So the argument begins with speculation about the foundation of an ideal POLIS. Initially this will be a small, circumscribed community brought together by the economics of basic material needs. Glaucon in particular finds this vision crude and unsatisfactory: he labels Socrates' idea a "city of pigs." In response, Socrates develops the implications and effects of the introduction of more "creature-comforts" and luxuries, chief among them war. The more luxurious POLIS inevitably is at risk from its neighbors and therefore must raise an army. With luxury and enhanced trade both the threat of war (and the necessity of defense) and the subdivision and specialization of labor inevitably follow. The POLIS requires Guardians (PHYLAKES.) As the argument of the Republic develops, the the role of the Guardians assumes greater and greater significance.
Education (PAIDEIA.) What should children be taught, and when? This in turn leads to a discussion of
Censorship. Are there stories (especially about the gods) that children should not be told.?
The crucial question is:
Who should rule? Those undergoing education must be regularly tested. Only the most devoted should qualify. They must pass all the tests. The Guardian class will eventually be divided into two groups: those who will be trained to rule and their assistants. The nub of the issue is character. Socrates relates the famous myth of the metals. Among human natures there are golden, silver, bronze and iron types. Education & training must identify the golden natures. They will rule. All the Guardians (both the gold and the silver) will be charged with the defense of the POLIS against its enemies, external and internal. There will be a strict conflict of interest provision: Guardians will be prohibited from owning private property, but their needs, not to extend to profligacy or luxury, will be supplied at state expense.
Socrates inventories the
Four Cardinal Virtues:
wisdom, courage, moderation, & justice. Wisdom will be found among the rulers; courage among the guardians; moderation (SOPHROSYNE) in everyone's being content with his own role in the POLIS. Justice (DIAKIOSYNE) is, therefore, the smooth ordering of society that results from everyone fulfilling his own special role and not meddling in the proper functions of others. Injustice, by contrast, consists precisely in such meddling.
justice in the individual will be the harmonious functioning of independent parts, each fulfilling its own appropriate function.
the soul has indeed three parts (reason, spirit, and appetite) that correspond to the three basic classes in the POLIS. Justice in the individual is, therefore, the condition under which each part of the soul fulfills its own special function, governed by reason, with spirit, as reason requires, restraining the passions (appetite.) Injustice in the individual is, by contrast, the state of imbalance and disorder, in which passions and drives rebel against the wise counsel of reason.
Four such ways in which disorder and rebellion can arise in the POLIS and/or the individual.
Gender Differences.
Although men are on average stronger and more capable than women, the skills of political leadership (ruling) are not sex-linked. Thus there will be female Guardians as well as male. All Guardians will have the same responsibilities (including fighting in wars) and must share the same training & education. The traditional family & marriage are obstacles to the education, rearing, and outlook of the Guardians. They must, therefore, be abolished for this class, because they create and foster affection for particular individuals. Unions for the sake of procreation will be temporary and arranged at festivals by subterfuge under carefully guarded conditions that will ensure that the socially most desirable pairings are achieved. For this purpose a rigged balloting system will be engineered by the rulers. Parents will not know their own children. Children will be raised in common. In times of war both women and men will fight, and provisions will be made for the children to witness the fighting from a safe vantage point. Wars between Greek cities must be regarded as civil wars and prosecuted accordingly. Even with barbarians war must be conducted according to what might be called "civilized" rules.
Socrates differentiates most human beings, captivated as they are by changing sights, sounds, and pleasures, from the philosophers, the "lovers of wisdom," who seek the real, unchanging objects of true knowledge.
Imagine a ship on which the crew believes that holding the wheel is true navigating and that consulting the positions of the stars is foolish speculation. As for wickedness,
when a man or woman of great philosophic ability is seduced by power, ambition or gain, the results can indeed be dangerous.
Philosophers must be capable of the most advanced studies, the study of the Good. When asked for an account of the Good, Socrates says he can only point to things most like it. The Good, he says, is to the true world as the sun is to the visible world. This metaphor is immediately followed by another, the Line, which illustrates the upward journey of the philosopher through the ascending scale of reality and knowledge, from passing sensation to the vision of the forms.
Myth of the Cave
The chained prisoners in the dark cave spend their days predicting the order of appearance of shadow images of crude puppets paraded behind them and reflected by the light of a fire at their backs of which they are ignorant on the wall they are forced to face. One of the prisoners eventually escapes his shackles and learns the truth of the shadow theater they observe. Eventually he finds his way out of the cave and, by the light of the sun, sees the "real" world of which their shadowy procession is a pale image, several times removed. Suppose, Socrates now says, that for the sake of his people this visitor from the nether world returns to the cave. His eyes will not readily adjust to his darkened surroundings. He will no longer be adept at predicting what image will appear next. He will have lost his skill at their game. Yet if he dares try to tell his erstwhile fellow prisoners the truth of what he has seen, they will denounce him as mad, and, if he persists, may grow so tired of his tedious tales that they kill him.
Education of a Political Leader:
Mathematics, followed by logic & dialectic, followed by a fifteen year apprenticeship in the practical world of politics (from age 35 to 50.) Only then can the final stages of the education (as the French would say formation) of the philosopher-ruler begin. Book VII ends with a reminder that some of these "philosopher-kings" will be women.
Corruption:
Why the ideal POLIS should suffer decline and erosion at all. The answer, Socrates explains in extremely elevated poetic language, is that whatever is born must die, according to a mathematical principle, which is expressed here as the so-called "Myth of the Platonic number." Complicated astrological calculations will regulate the precise timings of the fertility festivals. Errors in these calculations will result in iron and bronze types mixing with the golden and silver. When this happens the harmony of the ideal city will be compromised. Civil strife (STASIS) will arise from envy and hostility. The rulers, no longer governed by their best natures, seek compromises. They distribute land and private property, and concentrate their own activities on war and defense. Society forms into economic classes: the rich own land and property, the poor become wage-earners and serfs. Emphasis is on honor and martial arts (Socrates seems to have Sparta in mind.) Art " cutlure are neglected and education deteriorates. The rulers now secretly love money, but they cannot admit that they do. In the corresponding individual, the spirited element predominates over the rational.
Greed:
Money is openly prized, desired, and sought after. Wealth is now a sign of honor, and a qualification for high office. The gap between the rich and poor widens. This type of individual must still exercise restraint of the appetites & self-control but for the wrong reasons. By the third and following stage, self-control has disappeared completely. All desires are equal. We have arrived at the stage of democracy. Like the preceding stages in the decline of the POLIS, democracy is inherently unstable. Liberty has turned to licentiousness, and this leads inevitably to tyranny and complete loss of freedom. The people name a champion dictator, and grant him bodyguards. He seizes all power and privilege for himself.
The challenge is to film a reading of Plato's Republic, and yet keep it engaging and informative. I am reminded of PBS 12 hour production of "Brideshead Revisited" which seems to include every sentence and scene in the entire novel.
It would be interesting to do an outline and story board. The final book, with Odysseus in the underworld, in the Myth of Er, would be quite sci-fi. And, hey, Plato's works are certainly in public domain.
I wonder if most of the movement of "drama" is "noetic", in the development of concepts and arguments, and would not come through in a film. Which might mean that only costumes and antics would provide entertainment. I wonder if a viewer of such a film could clearly follow the reading. The Republic seems like something one needs to pour over and study. If all this is true, then a two hour video might be either dull, or fatuous in its efforts to avoid dullness. My girlfriend and I took turns reading "The Pooh Perplex" aloud, and it was fun and amusing. We tried the same thing with "Death in Venice" and it didn't work at all. It was too heavy and cerebral. Perhaps if one assembled meaningful notes, commentary, which a narrator reads with shots of paintings or statues to illustrate, and then pan to certain passages where performers narrate the actual dialogue (sort of like a Nova or History Channel documentary), then it might be entertaining and also instructive. Hmm... I wonder what a good producer and director could come uo with for The Republic. Is it proper to say "screenplay" for the production of such a documentary. A story board would be a challenging project. It would be like those cartoon books that illustrate the thought of Sartre, Kant, et al.
I am looking for outlines and synopses to help me create a story board for a movie version of Plato's Republic. This is simply a fun exercise for me, inspired by some Facebook alumni who recall a staged non-stop reading of The Republic, and muse about doing it again, and videotaping it.
Here is a useful synopsis
The movie should allude to the meaning of characters
Polemarchus, which means "leader in battle," and was the name given to the third archon;
Cephalus, meaning "head" as in head of the family; and
Thrasymachus, meaning "schemer."]
Someone like Bernardo Bertolucci would be a good director for our movie version of The Republic
Little Buddha
A crucial move in the development of the argument occurs at this point. Socrates suggests that justice will be easier to recognize and to define in a city-state (POLIS) than in an individual, particularly if we conduct what we in the 20c C.E would come to call a thought experiment. The POLIS is the individual WRIT LARGE. So the argument begins with speculation about the foundation of an ideal POLIS. Initially this will be a small, circumscribed community brought together by the economics of basic material needs. Glaucon in particular finds this vision crude and unsatisfactory: he labels Socrates' idea a "city of pigs." In response, Socrates develops the implications and effects of the introduction of more "creature-comforts" and luxuries, chief among them war. The more luxurious POLIS inevitably is at risk from its neighbors and therefore must raise an army. With luxury and enhanced trade both the threat of war (and the necessity of defense) and the subdivision and specialization of labor inevitably follow. The POLIS requires Guardians (PHYLAKES.) As the argument of the Republic develops, the the role of the Guardians assumes greater and greater significance.
Education (PAIDEIA.) What should children be taught, and when? This in turn leads to a discussion of
Censorship. Are there stories (especially about the gods) that children should not be told.?
The crucial question is:
Who should rule? Those undergoing education must be regularly tested. Only the most devoted should qualify. They must pass all the tests. The Guardian class will eventually be divided into two groups: those who will be trained to rule and their assistants. The nub of the issue is character. Socrates relates the famous myth of the metals. Among human natures there are golden, silver, bronze and iron types. Education & training must identify the golden natures. They will rule. All the Guardians (both the gold and the silver) will be charged with the defense of the POLIS against its enemies, external and internal. There will be a strict conflict of interest provision: Guardians will be prohibited from owning private property, but their needs, not to extend to profligacy or luxury, will be supplied at state expense.
Socrates inventories the
Four Cardinal Virtues:
wisdom, courage, moderation, & justice. Wisdom will be found among the rulers; courage among the guardians; moderation (SOPHROSYNE) in everyone's being content with his own role in the POLIS. Justice (DIAKIOSYNE) is, therefore, the smooth ordering of society that results from everyone fulfilling his own special role and not meddling in the proper functions of others. Injustice, by contrast, consists precisely in such meddling.
justice in the individual will be the harmonious functioning of independent parts, each fulfilling its own appropriate function.
the soul has indeed three parts (reason, spirit, and appetite) that correspond to the three basic classes in the POLIS. Justice in the individual is, therefore, the condition under which each part of the soul fulfills its own special function, governed by reason, with spirit, as reason requires, restraining the passions (appetite.) Injustice in the individual is, by contrast, the state of imbalance and disorder, in which passions and drives rebel against the wise counsel of reason.
Four such ways in which disorder and rebellion can arise in the POLIS and/or the individual.
Gender Differences.
Although men are on average stronger and more capable than women, the skills of political leadership (ruling) are not sex-linked. Thus there will be female Guardians as well as male. All Guardians will have the same responsibilities (including fighting in wars) and must share the same training & education. The traditional family & marriage are obstacles to the education, rearing, and outlook of the Guardians. They must, therefore, be abolished for this class, because they create and foster affection for particular individuals. Unions for the sake of procreation will be temporary and arranged at festivals by subterfuge under carefully guarded conditions that will ensure that the socially most desirable pairings are achieved. For this purpose a rigged balloting system will be engineered by the rulers. Parents will not know their own children. Children will be raised in common. In times of war both women and men will fight, and provisions will be made for the children to witness the fighting from a safe vantage point. Wars between Greek cities must be regarded as civil wars and prosecuted accordingly. Even with barbarians war must be conducted according to what might be called "civilized" rules.
Socrates differentiates most human beings, captivated as they are by changing sights, sounds, and pleasures, from the philosophers, the "lovers of wisdom," who seek the real, unchanging objects of true knowledge.
Imagine a ship on which the crew believes that holding the wheel is true navigating and that consulting the positions of the stars is foolish speculation. As for wickedness,
when a man or woman of great philosophic ability is seduced by power, ambition or gain, the results can indeed be dangerous.
Philosophers must be capable of the most advanced studies, the study of the Good. When asked for an account of the Good, Socrates says he can only point to things most like it. The Good, he says, is to the true world as the sun is to the visible world. This metaphor is immediately followed by another, the Line, which illustrates the upward journey of the philosopher through the ascending scale of reality and knowledge, from passing sensation to the vision of the forms.
Myth of the Cave
The chained prisoners in the dark cave spend their days predicting the order of appearance of shadow images of crude puppets paraded behind them and reflected by the light of a fire at their backs of which they are ignorant on the wall they are forced to face. One of the prisoners eventually escapes his shackles and learns the truth of the shadow theater they observe. Eventually he finds his way out of the cave and, by the light of the sun, sees the "real" world of which their shadowy procession is a pale image, several times removed. Suppose, Socrates now says, that for the sake of his people this visitor from the nether world returns to the cave. His eyes will not readily adjust to his darkened surroundings. He will no longer be adept at predicting what image will appear next. He will have lost his skill at their game. Yet if he dares try to tell his erstwhile fellow prisoners the truth of what he has seen, they will denounce him as mad, and, if he persists, may grow so tired of his tedious tales that they kill him.
Education of a Political Leader:
Mathematics, followed by logic & dialectic, followed by a fifteen year apprenticeship in the practical world of politics (from age 35 to 50.) Only then can the final stages of the education (as the French would say formation) of the philosopher-ruler begin. Book VII ends with a reminder that some of these "philosopher-kings" will be women.
Corruption:
Why the ideal POLIS should suffer decline and erosion at all. The answer, Socrates explains in extremely elevated poetic language, is that whatever is born must die, according to a mathematical principle, which is expressed here as the so-called "Myth of the Platonic number." Complicated astrological calculations will regulate the precise timings of the fertility festivals. Errors in these calculations will result in iron and bronze types mixing with the golden and silver. When this happens the harmony of the ideal city will be compromised. Civil strife (STASIS) will arise from envy and hostility. The rulers, no longer governed by their best natures, seek compromises. They distribute land and private property, and concentrate their own activities on war and defense. Society forms into economic classes: the rich own land and property, the poor become wage-earners and serfs. Emphasis is on honor and martial arts (Socrates seems to have Sparta in mind.) Art " cutlure are neglected and education deteriorates. The rulers now secretly love money, but they cannot admit that they do. In the corresponding individual, the spirited element predominates over the rational.
Greed:
Money is openly prized, desired, and sought after. Wealth is now a sign of honor, and a qualification for high office. The gap between the rich and poor widens. This type of individual must still exercise restraint of the appetites & self-control but for the wrong reasons. By the third and following stage, self-control has disappeared completely. All desires are equal. We have arrived at the stage of democracy. Like the preceding stages in the decline of the POLIS, democracy is inherently unstable. Liberty has turned to licentiousness, and this leads inevitably to tyranny and complete loss of freedom. The people name a champion dictator, and grant him bodyguards. He seizes all power and privilege for himself.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Sexual Orientation and Politics
William: do you have any opinions about the presidential race,... I favor Obama... but you are in Canada, right? So, if you ignore the us politics, i understand
Canadian: I do not have a TV for many years already, but the bits and pieces that I hear about, I am anti Republicans
William: aha, so, you share my views somewhat...
Canadian: I want Obama to win, we do have an election coming up too, and I hope we will get
rid of Harper, the conservative b'stard, a brother of bush of sorts
William: oh, and Obama is pro gay rights much more so than Republicans [my Canadian friend is gay]
Canadian: well the dems are mostly
William: my granddaughter is only 14, but she is in love openly with another girl for one year. so, when i saw a political action group in the streets, asking donations, i signed up and gave them $10 (because of granddaughter). So, Ii get their interesting emails, about political issues
My grandaughters parants give her a real hard time about her orientation too
and , they call her beloved "fugly" and "gorilla" , which i feel is unkind
Canadian: it is hard for parents to understand
William: right, and this girl has been seriously in love for one whole year, with the same person... so it is not just rebellion, or a phase
Canadian: of course not
William: Ii believe sexual orientation is not a choice, but some some mystery that we are born with, and discover often as early as age 5 or 6
Her mother was pretty wild as a teen, but she was straight... she forgets how it is
Canadian: well that is easy to forget
William: and when the girl is around us, she never talks about anything or flaunts anything, so it is not some attention getting device
William: i mean, i sense that for her it is a very private thing....... well, except that she posts photos of her girlfriend
Canadian: society and parents can be idiots at times
William: but, it is like this one movie i saw, nice movie, called "Saving Face" about two Chinese gay women in flushing NY... one is out, and the other is in the closet...
The one who is out finally complains, "i want you to fall in love with me in front of the worlds eyes"
it was rather touching scene
Ii think whether we are gay or straight, we want to fall in love, and part of that is a public statement of acceptance..
Canadian: I do not have that issue anymore
William: i mean, being publicly "together"
Canadian: I do not care if society accepts me or not, I am who I am and that is what matters
William: right!
Canadian: it took me a while to get here where I am, and from now onwards I am not hiding, those days are done with
William: good for you! thats the spirit!
Canadian: I can tell an absolute stranger I am gay and it would not matter if he accepts me or not
William: this is the best policy, i think
Canadian: like today at work this Moroccan guy is looking at this magazine with Megan Fox on it in a suggestive tongue on lips picture
and he says to me she is the most beautiful woman in the world
I told him, well not for me, it is not my department I am gay
I do not like women sexually
[01:25] William: and, they just make assumptions that YOU feel the same way that THEY do
Canadian: he was shocked at my open sincerity
William: a more sensitive and perceptive person might realize your orientation BEFORE you say anything, and be more considerate in his remarks
But, then, certain cultures seem so much more homophobic than others
Canadian: no I do not "look" gay
William: i work with some people from morocco/ in morocco
i know you dont look or act gay
Canadian: I look very masculine and almost straight
William: but... some people are more sensitive and perceptive about others
Canadian: not the straight people
They do not have that gaydar thing
William: besides, it is better to wait until you know someone better, before you blurt out such things
Yes, i have heard of that expression gaydar
Canadian: as opposed to radar
William: right... i just meant that, often, you can sense the way another relates to you
Canadian: but straight guys in general do not have that sensitivity
That is why they are straight
Iit does not register with them unless you are very open and come out and say it to their face
and I have no problem with that when the situation warrants it
William: right,... rather thick-headed i suppose, presumptuous..
William: we must define ourselves, and, in so doing, defend ourselves
Canadian: I have nothing to defend
I am not guilty of anything
William: No... not in that sense
Canadian: I am gay and that is that
William: i mean, we must always resist those forces which seek to overwhelm our individuality
just as a nation defends its boundaries
not guilt, but, rather, autonomy
Canadian: when The Beatles returned their MBE's to the Queen
Buckingham Palace, when asked for comment, said
the Queen is above embarassement
William: ah, very good!
Canadian: I have been hungry all day
I can not afford to have something during my break
shortage of money is very crucial as we speak
William: ok... take care... wish i could feed you something from here
Canadian: so I have to eat something now
William: bye... see you later
Canadian: I am very hungry
Bye for now
Canadian: I do not have a TV for many years already, but the bits and pieces that I hear about, I am anti Republicans
William: aha, so, you share my views somewhat...
Canadian: I want Obama to win, we do have an election coming up too, and I hope we will get
rid of Harper, the conservative b'stard, a brother of bush of sorts
William: oh, and Obama is pro gay rights much more so than Republicans [my Canadian friend is gay]
Canadian: well the dems are mostly
William: my granddaughter is only 14, but she is in love openly with another girl for one year. so, when i saw a political action group in the streets, asking donations, i signed up and gave them $10 (because of granddaughter). So, Ii get their interesting emails, about political issues
My grandaughters parants give her a real hard time about her orientation too
and , they call her beloved "fugly" and "gorilla" , which i feel is unkind
Canadian: it is hard for parents to understand
William: right, and this girl has been seriously in love for one whole year, with the same person... so it is not just rebellion, or a phase
Canadian: of course not
William: Ii believe sexual orientation is not a choice, but some some mystery that we are born with, and discover often as early as age 5 or 6
Her mother was pretty wild as a teen, but she was straight... she forgets how it is
Canadian: well that is easy to forget
William: and when the girl is around us, she never talks about anything or flaunts anything, so it is not some attention getting device
William: i mean, i sense that for her it is a very private thing....... well, except that she posts photos of her girlfriend
Canadian: society and parents can be idiots at times
William: but, it is like this one movie i saw, nice movie, called "Saving Face" about two Chinese gay women in flushing NY... one is out, and the other is in the closet...
The one who is out finally complains, "i want you to fall in love with me in front of the worlds eyes"
it was rather touching scene
Ii think whether we are gay or straight, we want to fall in love, and part of that is a public statement of acceptance..
Canadian: I do not have that issue anymore
William: i mean, being publicly "together"
Canadian: I do not care if society accepts me or not, I am who I am and that is what matters
William: right!
Canadian: it took me a while to get here where I am, and from now onwards I am not hiding, those days are done with
William: good for you! thats the spirit!
Canadian: I can tell an absolute stranger I am gay and it would not matter if he accepts me or not
William: this is the best policy, i think
Canadian: like today at work this Moroccan guy is looking at this magazine with Megan Fox on it in a suggestive tongue on lips picture
and he says to me she is the most beautiful woman in the world
I told him, well not for me, it is not my department I am gay
I do not like women sexually
[01:25] William: and, they just make assumptions that YOU feel the same way that THEY do
Canadian: he was shocked at my open sincerity
William: a more sensitive and perceptive person might realize your orientation BEFORE you say anything, and be more considerate in his remarks
But, then, certain cultures seem so much more homophobic than others
Canadian: no I do not "look" gay
William: i work with some people from morocco/ in morocco
i know you dont look or act gay
Canadian: I look very masculine and almost straight
William: but... some people are more sensitive and perceptive about others
Canadian: not the straight people
They do not have that gaydar thing
William: besides, it is better to wait until you know someone better, before you blurt out such things
Yes, i have heard of that expression gaydar
Canadian: as opposed to radar
William: right... i just meant that, often, you can sense the way another relates to you
Canadian: but straight guys in general do not have that sensitivity
That is why they are straight
Iit does not register with them unless you are very open and come out and say it to their face
and I have no problem with that when the situation warrants it
William: right,... rather thick-headed i suppose, presumptuous..
William: we must define ourselves, and, in so doing, defend ourselves
Canadian: I have nothing to defend
I am not guilty of anything
William: No... not in that sense
Canadian: I am gay and that is that
William: i mean, we must always resist those forces which seek to overwhelm our individuality
just as a nation defends its boundaries
not guilt, but, rather, autonomy
Canadian: when The Beatles returned their MBE's to the Queen
Buckingham Palace, when asked for comment, said
the Queen is above embarassement
William: ah, very good!
Canadian: I have been hungry all day
I can not afford to have something during my break
shortage of money is very crucial as we speak
William: ok... take care... wish i could feed you something from here
Canadian: so I have to eat something now
William: bye... see you later
Canadian: I am very hungry
Bye for now
The Climate Of Each Soul
(here is my dialogue with a friend in myspace IM, edited and reprinted with her permission)
Two years ago, I spent a lot of time at literature forums...
and wrote about things like Milan Kundera "The Unbearable Lightness of Being"
and Thomas Pynchon "The Crying of Lot 49"
and "Gravity's Rainbow"
She: I read that and could not understand it - Kundera
Me: OK... well.... here is a tip about Lundera's book... (oh, and the movie on DVD is THREE HOURS) AND it has a 3 hour commentary about the movie as well
anyway.... in the middle of the book... he starts talking about their dog,... Karenin
Now, Karenin is the male form of the name in Russian, but his wife is KARENINA which is the feminine ending so, it is a allusion to Tolstoy's Anna Karenina
and the first sentence of that novel is very famous,
namely "Happy families are all alike, but each unhappy family is unique in its unhappiness"
So, I will have to read it again with new insight. I find that to be all too true!
now.... this ties in with something which Kundera states about happiness, with relation to that dog, Karenin
Kundera says that human beings were CAST OUT of paradise... but the animals were NEVER cast out...
He seemed to have trouble believing in the existence of God.
so, Kundera explains,... that happiness, for the animals, for the dog, is CIRCULAR... and involves repetition, routine, and consistency...
they play a game with the dog Karenin, holding a biscuit in their mouth, teasing him, and then letting him eat it
Kundera says that the dog EXPECTS that circular repetition...
Now, all this ties in with the very last page...
The couple vacations at a small inn/tavern, which has rooms upstairs...
in the tavern, there is music,... celebration...
A chapter earlier, we learn that they later die in an auto accident...
but, there is a flashback to the scene where they mount the stairs in the inn, to their room which i think is number SIX
SIX is the first perfect number, being the sum of its prime factors
as they open the door, and turn on the light... they startle a nocturnal moth
who slowly CIRCLES the room....
Kundera wrote some essays collected and published under the title "The Art of the Novel"
to read those essays makes clear what Kundera is trying to do with his novels...
now, the last page ties in with the first chapter, the first several pages, which is the only place that he discusses the circular nature of Nietzsche's "eternal return"....
Nietzsche speculates that everything repeats over and over, endlessly, e.g. The French Revolution (all the beheadings by Robespierre)
Do you mean the eternal moment?
so Kundera says, that if this is true, then each of us must feel like Christ nailed to the cross,... if it is the case that each of our actions shall be repeated endlessly
BUT... the opposite situation, not circular, but linear,... that everything is a straight line, happening once, and ending forever...
well that is the UNBEARABLE lightness of being....
namely that, there are no consequences,... that it happens once, and then.... nothing
complicated!
yes...
but then at the end of the first 3 pages... Kundera throws in the concepts of light and heavy that Parmenides uses...
but, Kundera says it is difficult to know which is heavy and which is light (the circular or the linear)...
I like Nietszche's concept of the eternal moment. Live each moment as if you will have to do it over and over again for eternity.
yes, that is the heaviness, the burden, the crucifixion, of action... that we have responsibility as the author of our action
puts the responsibility on us for being the masters of our own fate and its consequences, which is overwhelming
She: What do you think he meant when he said "God is Dead?" literally ?
Me: well, Nietzsche was a bit unstable, and something of a maverick, somewhat antisocial
perhaps he meant that modern man does not need god the way the ancients did
or, does not take god seriously, the way the ancients did
Alice Miller says he was an abused child. Those are good possible explanations
My favorite quotation is from psychologist Alfred Adler
after a lecture, Adler was asked by someone in the audience "And what of God, Dr. Adler, what do you say"
Adler said, "If there is a God, the I would hope he is pleased with how I have chosen to lead my life."
She: Why did he break with Freud?
Me:well, stop and think, literally everyone broke with Freud, who was anyone
especially Jung
there is a book "Years of Friendship, Years of Loss" about the Jung Freud friendship and break up
but, you see Freud was very controlling...
he wanted to be certain that his creation of psychoanalysis would live on after him
So Freudian theories have been discredited, although he is still considered the father of psychoanalysis
he feared anti-Semitism, and Jung was a Christian who could carry on without that anti-Semitism
and look at Karen Horney (pronounced Horn-eye)
she was possibly the first woman MD in Germany
Freud studied people in a society of Victorian sexual repression.... and felt that the repression caused neurosis
I have always thought of Jung as something of a mystic, a believer in the best of human potential
but, Horney came to America and realized that, in a permissive sexual environment, it was the shy people who were neurotic
And he did not believe their stories of incest. He thought it was fantasy.
yes, that Canadian scholar, who wrote of how Freud suppressed the child abuse
the cover of the book has Freud with his glasses on backwards....
My friend who took psychology in college swears Freud was addicted to cocaine
one of Freud's students, who went on to invent an orgone machine....
yes, Freud was a cocaine addict
Freud came within months of discovering the legitimate use of cocaine as a local anesthetic
but someone else beat him to the punch....
Wilhelm Reich Freud disciple
tells of being a very small boy, and of his female caretakers doing sexual things with him...
She: I like the writings of Melanie Klein and Alice Miller
Me: I never got into Klein and Miller
Alice Miller grew up in the Nazi era and she wondered why so many respectable Germans followed Hitler and obeyed his orders. She is interested in the roots of violence.
There is a book called "Hitler's Willing Assassins" ,... the first page speaks about the role played by Martin Luther of the Protestant reformation, laying down the foundation of antisemitism
the Spanish Inquisition started as the popes attack on the Talmud
I never thought Martin Luther was anti-Semitic, I knew he was against the Catholic Church, but that was all I knew he wrote against.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen "Hitler's Willing EXECUTIONERS" THAT is the title
Martin Luther wrote a pamphlet called "The Jews and their Lies"
that suggested something similar to a holocaust
Oh, my goodness, well I never learned that in school. Was it against them for not believing in Jesus or for being Jews in general?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html
there are some excerpts from Luther's pamphlets
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and vehement his eyes on them.
Wow, and he is such a respected figure in religion and history
yes,.... but....one can easily see Luther's selfish evil side.... by one simple consideration...
In the Old Testament, it is written "Better never to vow at all, than to vow and not pay"
and in the Psalms, "Make your vows and pay them to the Lord"
Luther of his own free will took lifetime vows of celibacy
but... when he could not endure that....
he changed the religion, to say that celibacy is demonic
then he married a nun and had 12 children
Well, he was obviously more complex that I had ever been led to believe. I thought he was a great reformer
well.... in Judges, or one of those books,.... Jepethah made a vow during a battle to sacrifice the first thing he saw, when he returned home...
and it was his daughter he saw...
but she forced him to keep his vow...
so there is a teaching of how grievous a vow is
but.... Luther did not want to think of such passages
Luther was correct to see corruption in the Papacy... BUT, he could have gone to the eastern Orthodox, and kept his vows
his monastic vows
but such was not Luther's hidden agenda
and, his sermons are filled with lewd references to Mary's breasts, bursting with milk, feeding the baby Jesus...
Luther was a disturbed man
very, and we all think he is the great reformer. My friend Marcus is Lutheran. I wonder if he knows all this?
, and.... consider the Epistle of 2nd Peter, Ch. 3, (paraphrased) "Paul has written some things which are difficult to understand, and those weak in mind twist and distort such passages to their own destruction, as they do with other biblical verses"
well.... look.... Mohammed the Prophet: to me it is very obvious, but those raised Muslim are blind to his faults
he was very violent and yet they say "Peace be upon him."
Stop and think,... one of the most spectacular prophets of the Old Testament was Elijah, the great wonderworker... and Elijah was celibate
and, Jesus says of John the Baptist, "No greater man is born of woman", and John the Baptist was celibate
She: so you think there is a connection between greatness and celibacy?
Me: and Jesus says to the apostles, "Some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by others, and others make eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. For those to whom that grace has been given, let them take it up.
so there are three arguments why there is an important place for celibacy...
yet the protestants leave no role for celibacy to play....
other than to say that one need not marry, and it is not a sin...
but what does Paul say, "It is better to marry than to burn, but I would that all could be as I am (celibate"
for the Greek and Russian eastern orthodox,.... a priest may be married, but a bishop must be a celibate monastic
well, but... the tradition has been set down in the scriptures for many centuries...
so, when the church no longer resembles the scriptures, then, what can one say
Yes, but we do not respect that tradition. that it has modernized.
the first 1000 years of Christianity knew nothing, absolutely nothing, of protestant doctrine and practice
well.... i can put a lampshade on my head and declare myself grand puh-bah of the universe.... but what does it mean...
there would be no tradition, no heritage....
It means you are transforming the institution into what YOU want it to be.
well, yes... precisely
just because a nation has elections and a constitution does not make it a democracy
as one example
Many want the Catholic Church to change including most American and European Catholics
people want to have their cake and eat it too
they want a religion of convenience and the assurance of salvation with little effort
Then Catholicism will be a new religion. Precisely
Charles Stanley's son, also a preacher, gave a sermon on his dad's broadcast, entitled "The Cost of Discipleship"
saying "Salvation is free, but discipleship costs"
A religion that does not demand too much discipline and sacrifice and a promise of paradise to come
perhaps inspired by Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Cheap Grace"
Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran minister who returned to Germany and attempted to assassinate Hitler, but failed and was hanged by the Nazis
anyway... the whole argument of Charles Stanley is his "Eternal security of Salvation"
namely, that once you ask Jesus to be your savior (the magic words), then, nothing, absolutely nothing that you can do in the rest of your life can lose that salvation...
even becoming a serial killer...
there are protestants who object to Stanley's doctrine
I find that hard to believe. It lets you off the hook. It is too easy. nothing more is required of you
but, anyway, his son elaborated to say "salvation is free" (say the magic words), but discipleship costs (meaning, one day, your conscience will ask you to do something difficult
That I can accept.
one young man was suicidal, and went to his pastor and asked
"if i commit suicide will i go to hell"
that pastor preached the doctrine of eternal security of salvation
so the pastor said that there is no way to lose your salvation
not even suicide
... so, the young man committed suicide
true story
I often wonder if those who fight in wars are sinning and going to hell. That probably sounds strange, but I wonder.
aha... the movie "Zentropa"...
a German film with subtitles
a young idealistic German American returns to occupied Germany, to help with reconstruction... after WWII,
in the opening scenes, he meets a catholic priest and asks...
"Since both sides, German and allied, prayed to God for victory,... how does God decide, since only one side can win?
the priest answered, "It is written 'You are neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm, so I spew you out of my mouth
and then explained...
that it is not the absolute position of the governments, or sides... but it is each individual, on both sides.... the hmmmm... how shall i say, the "climate of their soul"
which, if it is true, makes judgment quite a subjective matter
but... consider David's 51st psalm, where he repents of coveting Bathsheba, and sending her husband Uriah, to the front lines, to certain death
Which allows us to do anything
no, not anything.... but merely that it is subjective
for example.... there is NOTHING in the actions of David which was sinful...
David was Commander of the Army, and could send whom he pleases to the front lines....
As king, he could take many wives....
Once Bathsheba was a widow, David was free to marry her....
but, the sin does not lie in the objective action....
the sin is in the wickedness of the intention...
such as a suicide bomber?
I forget the phrase just now, but there is a long motif in Old Testament about the darkness of the imagination
the wickedness of the human heart...
So if a soldier thinks his intentions are honorable, is he sinning?
well, it gets complex... and, who can know the mind of God, to have some calculus, and weigh each human life in the balance
but.... obviously, sin is not in the objective action per se, but in the intention of the imagination
So if you think your cause is righteous, your actions are justified and not sinful?
there is an old Chinese Taoist saying
When the wrong man employs the right methods, then the right methods yield the wrong results
One can see this in a way in Ursula LeGuinn's "The Lathe of Heaven"
a sci-fi story about a young man with a rare power of "effective dreams".... whenever he has an "effective dream", it changes all reality, past and present
but, a doctor of "oneirology" (the science of dreams), tries to harness that power, to "make the world right"....
but, the more the doctor tries to improve the world, the worse it becomes
until he is on the verge of destroying the universe with his megalomania ambition
you see, if things were not as I describe,... then we could have a "cookbook morality", such that
if you follow a certain recipe, you will always achieve the same results
religions which claim to be "the one true faith", fall prey to the danger of such a cookbook mentality
that one set of rules and teachings is right for all people in all times...
I once worked with a young woman who was a very modest, devout Jehovah's Witness, very proper....
One day, I said to her, "There is one circumstance in which it would be our duty to have sexual relations, and a sin if we did not" ... She was startled, but I explained, "if we were the last surviving male and female..."
and the very first commandment in Genesis is "be fruitful and multiply"
then, we would be bound by religious duty to try and produce offspring...
you see, in is not the action by itself, but the subjective circumstance, which determines the morality...
now,... in a world of six billion people.... if one million wanted to take vows of celibacy... there would seem to be no sin...
That seems to be saying there is no set morality, just changing circumstances.
but, if all six billion took lifetime vows of celibacy... then, it would be equal to a suicide of the human species
now,... if all six billion took a vow to have 20 children... then, this would be equally destructive to human life...
An act against Genesis.
now, here is a paradox.... consider the molecules in a chamber of gas....
each molecule appears to be totally free to behave in a random pattern... each with a different direction, thermal energy...
BUT, collectively, that chamber of gas, with millions of molecules, obeys very precise laws of temperature and pressure
so,.... individual people seem to enjoy a great latitude of personal freedom in their life choices...
but, collectively, an nations economy and politics obeys certain rules, and reflects the collective effects of all those individual choices
and if not-chaos?
aha, but, there is order in chaos
and there is chaos in order
on a galactic scale,.... we see very orderly movements of planets and solar systems.... but, on a subatomic quantum level, we see a frenzy of fluctuation between being/non-being, where time and space seem to lose meaning
and yet, those orderly galaxies are built up from that quantum chaos
so, chaos gives rise to order
and order harbors chaos
quantum physics is too abstract for me to get a handle on.
the details are difficult, but the conclusions are obvious, contrasting order on a galactic scale, with chaos on a subatomic scale
that makes more sense. is this the branch of mathematics called fuzzy logic?
yes, there is something called fuzzy logic.... which is specialized
but for the average person, even well educated... many things are "fuzzy"
we all use the internet, but few of us could assemble a computer, or explain how packets of information are structured
Two years ago, I spent a lot of time at literature forums...
and wrote about things like Milan Kundera "The Unbearable Lightness of Being"
and Thomas Pynchon "The Crying of Lot 49"
and "Gravity's Rainbow"
She: I read that and could not understand it - Kundera
Me: OK... well.... here is a tip about Lundera's book... (oh, and the movie on DVD is THREE HOURS) AND it has a 3 hour commentary about the movie as well
anyway.... in the middle of the book... he starts talking about their dog,... Karenin
Now, Karenin is the male form of the name in Russian, but his wife is KARENINA which is the feminine ending so, it is a allusion to Tolstoy's Anna Karenina
and the first sentence of that novel is very famous,
namely "Happy families are all alike, but each unhappy family is unique in its unhappiness"
So, I will have to read it again with new insight. I find that to be all too true!
now.... this ties in with something which Kundera states about happiness, with relation to that dog, Karenin
Kundera says that human beings were CAST OUT of paradise... but the animals were NEVER cast out...
He seemed to have trouble believing in the existence of God.
so, Kundera explains,... that happiness, for the animals, for the dog, is CIRCULAR... and involves repetition, routine, and consistency...
they play a game with the dog Karenin, holding a biscuit in their mouth, teasing him, and then letting him eat it
Kundera says that the dog EXPECTS that circular repetition...
Now, all this ties in with the very last page...
The couple vacations at a small inn/tavern, which has rooms upstairs...
in the tavern, there is music,... celebration...
A chapter earlier, we learn that they later die in an auto accident...
but, there is a flashback to the scene where they mount the stairs in the inn, to their room which i think is number SIX
SIX is the first perfect number, being the sum of its prime factors
as they open the door, and turn on the light... they startle a nocturnal moth
who slowly CIRCLES the room....
Kundera wrote some essays collected and published under the title "The Art of the Novel"
to read those essays makes clear what Kundera is trying to do with his novels...
now, the last page ties in with the first chapter, the first several pages, which is the only place that he discusses the circular nature of Nietzsche's "eternal return"....
Nietzsche speculates that everything repeats over and over, endlessly, e.g. The French Revolution (all the beheadings by Robespierre)
Do you mean the eternal moment?
so Kundera says, that if this is true, then each of us must feel like Christ nailed to the cross,... if it is the case that each of our actions shall be repeated endlessly
BUT... the opposite situation, not circular, but linear,... that everything is a straight line, happening once, and ending forever...
well that is the UNBEARABLE lightness of being....
namely that, there are no consequences,... that it happens once, and then.... nothing
complicated!
yes...
but then at the end of the first 3 pages... Kundera throws in the concepts of light and heavy that Parmenides uses...
but, Kundera says it is difficult to know which is heavy and which is light (the circular or the linear)...
I like Nietszche's concept of the eternal moment. Live each moment as if you will have to do it over and over again for eternity.
yes, that is the heaviness, the burden, the crucifixion, of action... that we have responsibility as the author of our action
puts the responsibility on us for being the masters of our own fate and its consequences, which is overwhelming
She: What do you think he meant when he said "God is Dead?" literally ?
Me: well, Nietzsche was a bit unstable, and something of a maverick, somewhat antisocial
perhaps he meant that modern man does not need god the way the ancients did
or, does not take god seriously, the way the ancients did
Alice Miller says he was an abused child. Those are good possible explanations
My favorite quotation is from psychologist Alfred Adler
after a lecture, Adler was asked by someone in the audience "And what of God, Dr. Adler, what do you say"
Adler said, "If there is a God, the I would hope he is pleased with how I have chosen to lead my life."
She: Why did he break with Freud?
Me:well, stop and think, literally everyone broke with Freud, who was anyone
especially Jung
there is a book "Years of Friendship, Years of Loss" about the Jung Freud friendship and break up
but, you see Freud was very controlling...
he wanted to be certain that his creation of psychoanalysis would live on after him
So Freudian theories have been discredited, although he is still considered the father of psychoanalysis
he feared anti-Semitism, and Jung was a Christian who could carry on without that anti-Semitism
and look at Karen Horney (pronounced Horn-eye)
she was possibly the first woman MD in Germany
Freud studied people in a society of Victorian sexual repression.... and felt that the repression caused neurosis
I have always thought of Jung as something of a mystic, a believer in the best of human potential
but, Horney came to America and realized that, in a permissive sexual environment, it was the shy people who were neurotic
And he did not believe their stories of incest. He thought it was fantasy.
yes, that Canadian scholar, who wrote of how Freud suppressed the child abuse
the cover of the book has Freud with his glasses on backwards....
My friend who took psychology in college swears Freud was addicted to cocaine
one of Freud's students, who went on to invent an orgone machine....
yes, Freud was a cocaine addict
Freud came within months of discovering the legitimate use of cocaine as a local anesthetic
but someone else beat him to the punch....
Wilhelm Reich Freud disciple
tells of being a very small boy, and of his female caretakers doing sexual things with him...
She: I like the writings of Melanie Klein and Alice Miller
Me: I never got into Klein and Miller
Alice Miller grew up in the Nazi era and she wondered why so many respectable Germans followed Hitler and obeyed his orders. She is interested in the roots of violence.
There is a book called "Hitler's Willing Assassins" ,... the first page speaks about the role played by Martin Luther of the Protestant reformation, laying down the foundation of antisemitism
the Spanish Inquisition started as the popes attack on the Talmud
I never thought Martin Luther was anti-Semitic, I knew he was against the Catholic Church, but that was all I knew he wrote against.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen "Hitler's Willing EXECUTIONERS" THAT is the title
Martin Luther wrote a pamphlet called "The Jews and their Lies"
that suggested something similar to a holocaust
Oh, my goodness, well I never learned that in school. Was it against them for not believing in Jesus or for being Jews in general?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html
there are some excerpts from Luther's pamphlets
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and vehement his eyes on them.
Wow, and he is such a respected figure in religion and history
yes,.... but....one can easily see Luther's selfish evil side.... by one simple consideration...
In the Old Testament, it is written "Better never to vow at all, than to vow and not pay"
and in the Psalms, "Make your vows and pay them to the Lord"
Luther of his own free will took lifetime vows of celibacy
but... when he could not endure that....
he changed the religion, to say that celibacy is demonic
then he married a nun and had 12 children
Well, he was obviously more complex that I had ever been led to believe. I thought he was a great reformer
well.... in Judges, or one of those books,.... Jepethah made a vow during a battle to sacrifice the first thing he saw, when he returned home...
and it was his daughter he saw...
but she forced him to keep his vow...
so there is a teaching of how grievous a vow is
but.... Luther did not want to think of such passages
Luther was correct to see corruption in the Papacy... BUT, he could have gone to the eastern Orthodox, and kept his vows
his monastic vows
but such was not Luther's hidden agenda
and, his sermons are filled with lewd references to Mary's breasts, bursting with milk, feeding the baby Jesus...
Luther was a disturbed man
very, and we all think he is the great reformer. My friend Marcus is Lutheran. I wonder if he knows all this?
, and.... consider the Epistle of 2nd Peter, Ch. 3, (paraphrased) "Paul has written some things which are difficult to understand, and those weak in mind twist and distort such passages to their own destruction, as they do with other biblical verses"
well.... look.... Mohammed the Prophet: to me it is very obvious, but those raised Muslim are blind to his faults
he was very violent and yet they say "Peace be upon him."
Stop and think,... one of the most spectacular prophets of the Old Testament was Elijah, the great wonderworker... and Elijah was celibate
and, Jesus says of John the Baptist, "No greater man is born of woman", and John the Baptist was celibate
She: so you think there is a connection between greatness and celibacy?
Me: and Jesus says to the apostles, "Some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by others, and others make eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. For those to whom that grace has been given, let them take it up.
so there are three arguments why there is an important place for celibacy...
yet the protestants leave no role for celibacy to play....
other than to say that one need not marry, and it is not a sin...
but what does Paul say, "It is better to marry than to burn, but I would that all could be as I am (celibate"
for the Greek and Russian eastern orthodox,.... a priest may be married, but a bishop must be a celibate monastic
well, but... the tradition has been set down in the scriptures for many centuries...
so, when the church no longer resembles the scriptures, then, what can one say
Yes, but we do not respect that tradition. that it has modernized.
the first 1000 years of Christianity knew nothing, absolutely nothing, of protestant doctrine and practice
well.... i can put a lampshade on my head and declare myself grand puh-bah of the universe.... but what does it mean...
there would be no tradition, no heritage....
It means you are transforming the institution into what YOU want it to be.
well, yes... precisely
just because a nation has elections and a constitution does not make it a democracy
as one example
Many want the Catholic Church to change including most American and European Catholics
people want to have their cake and eat it too
they want a religion of convenience and the assurance of salvation with little effort
Then Catholicism will be a new religion. Precisely
Charles Stanley's son, also a preacher, gave a sermon on his dad's broadcast, entitled "The Cost of Discipleship"
saying "Salvation is free, but discipleship costs"
A religion that does not demand too much discipline and sacrifice and a promise of paradise to come
perhaps inspired by Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Cheap Grace"
Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran minister who returned to Germany and attempted to assassinate Hitler, but failed and was hanged by the Nazis
anyway... the whole argument of Charles Stanley is his "Eternal security of Salvation"
namely, that once you ask Jesus to be your savior (the magic words), then, nothing, absolutely nothing that you can do in the rest of your life can lose that salvation...
even becoming a serial killer...
there are protestants who object to Stanley's doctrine
I find that hard to believe. It lets you off the hook. It is too easy. nothing more is required of you
but, anyway, his son elaborated to say "salvation is free" (say the magic words), but discipleship costs (meaning, one day, your conscience will ask you to do something difficult
That I can accept.
one young man was suicidal, and went to his pastor and asked
"if i commit suicide will i go to hell"
that pastor preached the doctrine of eternal security of salvation
so the pastor said that there is no way to lose your salvation
not even suicide
... so, the young man committed suicide
true story
I often wonder if those who fight in wars are sinning and going to hell. That probably sounds strange, but I wonder.
aha... the movie "Zentropa"...
a German film with subtitles
a young idealistic German American returns to occupied Germany, to help with reconstruction... after WWII,
in the opening scenes, he meets a catholic priest and asks...
"Since both sides, German and allied, prayed to God for victory,... how does God decide, since only one side can win?
the priest answered, "It is written 'You are neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm, so I spew you out of my mouth
and then explained...
that it is not the absolute position of the governments, or sides... but it is each individual, on both sides.... the hmmmm... how shall i say, the "climate of their soul"
which, if it is true, makes judgment quite a subjective matter
but... consider David's 51st psalm, where he repents of coveting Bathsheba, and sending her husband Uriah, to the front lines, to certain death
Which allows us to do anything
no, not anything.... but merely that it is subjective
for example.... there is NOTHING in the actions of David which was sinful...
David was Commander of the Army, and could send whom he pleases to the front lines....
As king, he could take many wives....
Once Bathsheba was a widow, David was free to marry her....
but, the sin does not lie in the objective action....
the sin is in the wickedness of the intention...
such as a suicide bomber?
I forget the phrase just now, but there is a long motif in Old Testament about the darkness of the imagination
the wickedness of the human heart...
So if a soldier thinks his intentions are honorable, is he sinning?
well, it gets complex... and, who can know the mind of God, to have some calculus, and weigh each human life in the balance
but.... obviously, sin is not in the objective action per se, but in the intention of the imagination
So if you think your cause is righteous, your actions are justified and not sinful?
there is an old Chinese Taoist saying
When the wrong man employs the right methods, then the right methods yield the wrong results
One can see this in a way in Ursula LeGuinn's "The Lathe of Heaven"
a sci-fi story about a young man with a rare power of "effective dreams".... whenever he has an "effective dream", it changes all reality, past and present
but, a doctor of "oneirology" (the science of dreams), tries to harness that power, to "make the world right"....
but, the more the doctor tries to improve the world, the worse it becomes
until he is on the verge of destroying the universe with his megalomania ambition
you see, if things were not as I describe,... then we could have a "cookbook morality", such that
if you follow a certain recipe, you will always achieve the same results
religions which claim to be "the one true faith", fall prey to the danger of such a cookbook mentality
that one set of rules and teachings is right for all people in all times...
I once worked with a young woman who was a very modest, devout Jehovah's Witness, very proper....
One day, I said to her, "There is one circumstance in which it would be our duty to have sexual relations, and a sin if we did not" ... She was startled, but I explained, "if we were the last surviving male and female..."
and the very first commandment in Genesis is "be fruitful and multiply"
then, we would be bound by religious duty to try and produce offspring...
you see, in is not the action by itself, but the subjective circumstance, which determines the morality...
now,... in a world of six billion people.... if one million wanted to take vows of celibacy... there would seem to be no sin...
That seems to be saying there is no set morality, just changing circumstances.
but, if all six billion took lifetime vows of celibacy... then, it would be equal to a suicide of the human species
now,... if all six billion took a vow to have 20 children... then, this would be equally destructive to human life...
An act against Genesis.
now, here is a paradox.... consider the molecules in a chamber of gas....
each molecule appears to be totally free to behave in a random pattern... each with a different direction, thermal energy...
BUT, collectively, that chamber of gas, with millions of molecules, obeys very precise laws of temperature and pressure
so,.... individual people seem to enjoy a great latitude of personal freedom in their life choices...
but, collectively, an nations economy and politics obeys certain rules, and reflects the collective effects of all those individual choices
and if not-chaos?
aha, but, there is order in chaos
and there is chaos in order
on a galactic scale,.... we see very orderly movements of planets and solar systems.... but, on a subatomic quantum level, we see a frenzy of fluctuation between being/non-being, where time and space seem to lose meaning
and yet, those orderly galaxies are built up from that quantum chaos
so, chaos gives rise to order
and order harbors chaos
quantum physics is too abstract for me to get a handle on.
the details are difficult, but the conclusions are obvious, contrasting order on a galactic scale, with chaos on a subatomic scale
that makes more sense. is this the branch of mathematics called fuzzy logic?
yes, there is something called fuzzy logic.... which is specialized
but for the average person, even well educated... many things are "fuzzy"
we all use the internet, but few of us could assemble a computer, or explain how packets of information are structured
The Stroller and the Troller
Here is my chat in the myspace PHILOSOPHY/RELIGION forum
Rebecca: I enjoy this chatroom, but the groups feature is very cumbersome, no way to track conversations you're following in high volume groups.
Sitaram: I have taken quite an interest over the years in writers such as Maimonides "Guide for the perplexed". Maimonides died 20 years before Thomas Aquinas was born. There are people who see Aquinas "Summa" as an attempt to do for Christianity what Maimonides did for Judaism
Rebecca: What I found most interesting is that *every* generation has had those who desire to understand and express their faiths more fully, but do not have the education to do so.
Sitaram: Maimonides, in his introduction, addresses "that one person who desires to know/understand".... Maimonides did not write to convince everyone
Rebecca: It is one place that I feel Judaism can do better, at least in the non-Orthodox movements, is opportunities for adult education. There's too much emphasis on 'waiting for enough people' to do a class or lecture, and the "one person" tends to get frustrated and give up in the meantime.
Sitaram: perhaps the Internet can make possible virtual classrooms
Rebecca: perhaps, and there are a lot of opportunities online, but it isn't the same
experience. I don't know if you have ever attended a Jewish lecture/study session, but it is a very different environment from traditional classes
Sitaram: yes, on line is not the same as in person
Sitaram: Rebecca, I read your blog, about the pain involved in artistic creation
I think it is Kierkegaard who likens the artist to the bronze bull, created by
Phaleres, mentioned by Dante... A king had the engineer, Phalares, construct the bronze bull as an oven with intricate pipes....
The groans of the victims were transmuted by the pipes into a haunting music but, the king cast the engineer, Phalares, into the bronze bull....
Anyway, Kierkegaard says that the artist is like that bronze bull....
transforming the inner suffering into something beautiful
Rebecca: please don't take this badly, but something I've been musing on lately is the human desire to validate their own thoughts and ideas by finding others who have thought the same. It seems that many don't like to share original thoughts (whether or not someone else has had the same original thought)
Sitaram: But, consider Newton who said "If I have seen farther than others, it is
because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants"/ What you describe is a problem of ego. Stop and think how impoverished our own ideas would be, if we did not have the foundation of a good education...
Rebecca: Oh I agree, wholeheartedly, but there is a difference between having an idea. . . let me give an example. As you may know, in Jewish tradition a portion of the Torah is read every week, so that the entire Torah is read in the course of a year.
We are very lucky in that we have thousands of years of commentary and insight on the Torah, from everyone from sages and Rabbonim, to the guy at the butcher shop. However, there is such a focus on studying *others* ideas, that you rarely hear people share ideas they have from the reading.
Sitaram: Consider what rabbi Kook, first Ashkanazie rabbi of Jerusalem, around
1920's, said regarding chapter 3 of Malachi in the TANAK
which reads "Those who fear Hashem converse, and it is written in a book."
Rebecca: If a discussion of alternate interpretations is found, it is usually one
luminaries opinion rather than another. Perhaps I'm just too opinionated. I have no problem saying that the idea that the. .
Sitaram: rabbi Kook comments, "We may converse with someone distant from us in history, by reading what they have written, and asking a question"
So Kook finds the entire Talmudic dialectical process in that one verse
As a young student, we begin as a slave, surrender our will, and do our
assignments,... but some of us become MASTERS of the subject
Mastery involves initial servitude.... but,.... we study what others have said,
but then make it our OWN...
Rebecca: My point is that one does not have to be a master of a subject to have valid insights. Study is important, even critical.
Sitaram: It might happen that, as you (the stroller) walk along the shore, a fish may jump out of the water and land at your feet... and so, you have caught a fish
But, who will catch more fish...
you on your casual walk...
or the person (the troller) who equips a boat, and spends every day and night on the
water?
Rebecca: Absolutely, but do you pass the fish by just because it wasn't caught by
unconventional methods?
Rebecca: I enjoy this chatroom, but the groups feature is very cumbersome, no way to track conversations you're following in high volume groups.
Sitaram: I have taken quite an interest over the years in writers such as Maimonides "Guide for the perplexed". Maimonides died 20 years before Thomas Aquinas was born. There are people who see Aquinas "Summa" as an attempt to do for Christianity what Maimonides did for Judaism
Rebecca: What I found most interesting is that *every* generation has had those who desire to understand and express their faiths more fully, but do not have the education to do so.
Sitaram: Maimonides, in his introduction, addresses "that one person who desires to know/understand".... Maimonides did not write to convince everyone
Rebecca: It is one place that I feel Judaism can do better, at least in the non-Orthodox movements, is opportunities for adult education. There's too much emphasis on 'waiting for enough people' to do a class or lecture, and the "one person" tends to get frustrated and give up in the meantime.
Sitaram: perhaps the Internet can make possible virtual classrooms
Rebecca: perhaps, and there are a lot of opportunities online, but it isn't the same
experience. I don't know if you have ever attended a Jewish lecture/study session, but it is a very different environment from traditional classes
Sitaram: yes, on line is not the same as in person
Sitaram: Rebecca, I read your blog, about the pain involved in artistic creation
I think it is Kierkegaard who likens the artist to the bronze bull, created by
Phaleres, mentioned by Dante... A king had the engineer, Phalares, construct the bronze bull as an oven with intricate pipes....
The groans of the victims were transmuted by the pipes into a haunting music but, the king cast the engineer, Phalares, into the bronze bull....
Anyway, Kierkegaard says that the artist is like that bronze bull....
transforming the inner suffering into something beautiful
Rebecca: please don't take this badly, but something I've been musing on lately is the human desire to validate their own thoughts and ideas by finding others who have thought the same. It seems that many don't like to share original thoughts (whether or not someone else has had the same original thought)
Sitaram: But, consider Newton who said "If I have seen farther than others, it is
because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants"/ What you describe is a problem of ego. Stop and think how impoverished our own ideas would be, if we did not have the foundation of a good education...
Rebecca: Oh I agree, wholeheartedly, but there is a difference between having an idea. . . let me give an example. As you may know, in Jewish tradition a portion of the Torah is read every week, so that the entire Torah is read in the course of a year.
We are very lucky in that we have thousands of years of commentary and insight on the Torah, from everyone from sages and Rabbonim, to the guy at the butcher shop. However, there is such a focus on studying *others* ideas, that you rarely hear people share ideas they have from the reading.
Sitaram: Consider what rabbi Kook, first Ashkanazie rabbi of Jerusalem, around
1920's, said regarding chapter 3 of Malachi in the TANAK
which reads "Those who fear Hashem converse, and it is written in a book."
Rebecca: If a discussion of alternate interpretations is found, it is usually one
luminaries opinion rather than another. Perhaps I'm just too opinionated. I have no problem saying that the idea that the. .
Sitaram: rabbi Kook comments, "We may converse with someone distant from us in history, by reading what they have written, and asking a question"
So Kook finds the entire Talmudic dialectical process in that one verse
As a young student, we begin as a slave, surrender our will, and do our
assignments,... but some of us become MASTERS of the subject
Mastery involves initial servitude.... but,.... we study what others have said,
but then make it our OWN...
Rebecca: My point is that one does not have to be a master of a subject to have valid insights. Study is important, even critical.
Sitaram: It might happen that, as you (the stroller) walk along the shore, a fish may jump out of the water and land at your feet... and so, you have caught a fish
But, who will catch more fish...
you on your casual walk...
or the person (the troller) who equips a boat, and spends every day and night on the
water?
Rebecca: Absolutely, but do you pass the fish by just because it wasn't caught by
unconventional methods?
I Do Not Think That God Desires Praise
If God possesses all virtues, and humility is a virtue, then God must be humble.
God does not desire praise from us.
For God, the autonomous individuality of our free will choices is praise enough.
The nature of God's creation is the praise.
God's praise is the nature of nature.
I am appending this postscript for Bad Grace, who is that graduate student with a good mind that I met in Myspace forum chat. He asks me regarding the "nature of nature" and what I might mean.
Perhaps it is clearer to say that the "nature of nature" may be understood as a "very good" that is seen when one stands back and surveys the panorama of all of creation, is the proof and substance of praisworthyness, and is better than empty words of praise from flawed beings who congregate in vast televised amphitheatres as choruses of parrots squawking Halleluia.
We read in Genesis that at the end of each day the first five days of creation, God sees that it is "good", but when creation is complete, God sees that it is "very good."
The Talmud interprets this "very good" related to the "yetzer hara" or tendency towards evil. If a man is greedy, then that is a bad thing, BUT, there is a way for a man to harness that evil so that he is greedy for TORAH knowledge (religious knowledge), and when that happens, an evil becomes a good. We see a hint of this when Joseph's brothers come to him in Egypt, to ask forgiveness, and Joseph answers "you intended evil, but God transformed your evil into good." They had intended to murder Joseph because of their jealousy, but instead sold him into slavery. But their action lead to Joseph rising to a high position of authority, which enabled him to save his family from famine and starvation.
Hegel stood back, surveyed the history of philosophy, and saw a grand pattern of thesis, followed by refutation and antithesis, only to be followed by a synthesis of seemingly opposing notions into a new thesis, from which the same process repeats, again and again, endlessly. This "meta-philosophy" Hegel called the "flower of philosophy", in that each stage or theory, thesis, antithesis, synthesis, is one petal of a flower unfolding.
Kurt Godel had his dispute with that other mathematician around 1905 (I must google for his name since I always forget it). That mathematician stated that if something is true in mathematics, it must be provable. Godel disagreed, and ultimately PROVED that there must of necessity in any axiomatic system be truths that cannot be proven true within the context of that axiomatic system. This "incompleteness" of axiomatic systems has to do with the limits of logic and axioms and postulates. For several centuries, mathematicians assumed that Fermat's Last Theorum was one such unprovable truth. But in recent years, that Princeton mathematician proved it.
One may see a similar notion of meta-religion in such religions as Jain, and in the Pusti Marga (Path of Grace) of Vallabhachaya.
Now, is it possible to take one step further back, and behold all of these meta-ologies as a meta-meta-ology. How many levels can there be?
Perhaps it is a third level that we take when we stand back and behold the similarities of all these meta-ologies.
Stephen Hawkings recently conceded, in a bet with a fellow physicist, that it is not possible for a black hole singularity to harbor within itself another expanding time-space continuum big bang. We such a thing possible, then our universe would itself be inside a black hole, and contain within it countless other black holes harboring baby universes. The whole thing might be termed a meta-universe.
I have on my bookshelf Fermat's Enigma by Simon Singh, which describes how Andrew Wiles solved Fermat's Last Theorem. It mentions that the opponent of Godel was Hilbert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert
Hilbert lived to see the Nazis purge many of the prominent faculty members at University of Göttingen, in 1933 [4]. Among those forced out were Hermann Weyl, who had taken Hilbert's chair when he retired in 1930, Emmy Noether and Edmund Landau. One of those who had to leave Germany was Paul Bernays, Hilbert's collaborator in mathematical logic, and co-author with him of the important book Grundlagen der Mathematik (which eventually appeared in two volumes, in 1934 and 1939). This was a sequel to the Hilbert-Ackermann book Principles of Theoretical Logic from 1928.
About a year later, he attended a banquet, and was seated next to the new Minister of Education, Bernhard Rust. Rust asked, "How is mathematics in Göttingen now that it has been freed of the Jewish influence?" Hilbert replied, "Mathematics in Göttingen? There is really none any more".[5]
By the time Hilbert died in 1943, the Nazis had nearly completely restructured the university, many of the former faculty being either Jewish or married to Jews. Hilbert's funeral was attended by fewer than a dozen people, only two of whom were fellow academics.[6]
On his tombstone, at Göttingen, one can read his epitaph:
Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen - We must know, we will know.
Ironically, the day before Hilbert pronounced this phrase, Kurt Gödel had presented his thesis, containing the famous incompleteness theorem.
......
St. Paul is basically speaking of a "meta-good" which is beyond good and evil, in one of the epistles, when he says that "all things work unto good for that person who loves God".
http://rev-ed.blogspot.com/2005/08/all-things-work-together-for-good.html
Romans 8:28
And Jorge Luise Borges makes a career of portraying such meta-structures in stories like "The Library of Babel"
http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.html
.....
and stories like "The Heretic" in which a righteous man (so he presumes), spends his life in pursuit of an "heresiarch" or heretical bishop (religious leader). He finally succeeds in executing the Heresiarch, and then later, dies himself, and in the afterlife learns that, in God's sight, the orthodox and the heresiarch are both cells or components in a much larger meta-organism.
God does not desire praise from us.
For God, the autonomous individuality of our free will choices is praise enough.
The nature of God's creation is the praise.
God's praise is the nature of nature.
I am appending this postscript for Bad Grace, who is that graduate student with a good mind that I met in Myspace forum chat. He asks me regarding the "nature of nature" and what I might mean.
Perhaps it is clearer to say that the "nature of nature" may be understood as a "very good" that is seen when one stands back and surveys the panorama of all of creation, is the proof and substance of praisworthyness, and is better than empty words of praise from flawed beings who congregate in vast televised amphitheatres as choruses of parrots squawking Halleluia.
We read in Genesis that at the end of each day the first five days of creation, God sees that it is "good", but when creation is complete, God sees that it is "very good."
The Talmud interprets this "very good" related to the "yetzer hara" or tendency towards evil. If a man is greedy, then that is a bad thing, BUT, there is a way for a man to harness that evil so that he is greedy for TORAH knowledge (religious knowledge), and when that happens, an evil becomes a good. We see a hint of this when Joseph's brothers come to him in Egypt, to ask forgiveness, and Joseph answers "you intended evil, but God transformed your evil into good." They had intended to murder Joseph because of their jealousy, but instead sold him into slavery. But their action lead to Joseph rising to a high position of authority, which enabled him to save his family from famine and starvation.
Hegel stood back, surveyed the history of philosophy, and saw a grand pattern of thesis, followed by refutation and antithesis, only to be followed by a synthesis of seemingly opposing notions into a new thesis, from which the same process repeats, again and again, endlessly. This "meta-philosophy" Hegel called the "flower of philosophy", in that each stage or theory, thesis, antithesis, synthesis, is one petal of a flower unfolding.
Kurt Godel had his dispute with that other mathematician around 1905 (I must google for his name since I always forget it). That mathematician stated that if something is true in mathematics, it must be provable. Godel disagreed, and ultimately PROVED that there must of necessity in any axiomatic system be truths that cannot be proven true within the context of that axiomatic system. This "incompleteness" of axiomatic systems has to do with the limits of logic and axioms and postulates. For several centuries, mathematicians assumed that Fermat's Last Theorum was one such unprovable truth. But in recent years, that Princeton mathematician proved it.
One may see a similar notion of meta-religion in such religions as Jain, and in the Pusti Marga (Path of Grace) of Vallabhachaya.
Now, is it possible to take one step further back, and behold all of these meta-ologies as a meta-meta-ology. How many levels can there be?
Perhaps it is a third level that we take when we stand back and behold the similarities of all these meta-ologies.
Stephen Hawkings recently conceded, in a bet with a fellow physicist, that it is not possible for a black hole singularity to harbor within itself another expanding time-space continuum big bang. We such a thing possible, then our universe would itself be inside a black hole, and contain within it countless other black holes harboring baby universes. The whole thing might be termed a meta-universe.
I have on my bookshelf Fermat's Enigma by Simon Singh, which describes how Andrew Wiles solved Fermat's Last Theorem. It mentions that the opponent of Godel was Hilbert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert
Hilbert lived to see the Nazis purge many of the prominent faculty members at University of Göttingen, in 1933 [4]. Among those forced out were Hermann Weyl, who had taken Hilbert's chair when he retired in 1930, Emmy Noether and Edmund Landau. One of those who had to leave Germany was Paul Bernays, Hilbert's collaborator in mathematical logic, and co-author with him of the important book Grundlagen der Mathematik (which eventually appeared in two volumes, in 1934 and 1939). This was a sequel to the Hilbert-Ackermann book Principles of Theoretical Logic from 1928.
About a year later, he attended a banquet, and was seated next to the new Minister of Education, Bernhard Rust. Rust asked, "How is mathematics in Göttingen now that it has been freed of the Jewish influence?" Hilbert replied, "Mathematics in Göttingen? There is really none any more".[5]
By the time Hilbert died in 1943, the Nazis had nearly completely restructured the university, many of the former faculty being either Jewish or married to Jews. Hilbert's funeral was attended by fewer than a dozen people, only two of whom were fellow academics.[6]
On his tombstone, at Göttingen, one can read his epitaph:
Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen - We must know, we will know.
Ironically, the day before Hilbert pronounced this phrase, Kurt Gödel had presented his thesis, containing the famous incompleteness theorem.
......
St. Paul is basically speaking of a "meta-good" which is beyond good and evil, in one of the epistles, when he says that "all things work unto good for that person who loves God".
http://rev-ed.blogspot.com/2005/08/all-things-work-together-for-good.html
Romans 8:28
And Jorge Luise Borges makes a career of portraying such meta-structures in stories like "The Library of Babel"
http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.html
.....
and stories like "The Heretic" in which a righteous man (so he presumes), spends his life in pursuit of an "heresiarch" or heretical bishop (religious leader). He finally succeeds in executing the Heresiarch, and then later, dies himself, and in the afterlife learns that, in God's sight, the orthodox and the heresiarch are both cells or components in a much larger meta-organism.
Geetanjali's First Question
One reader has written to me:
Dear Sitaram,
Who according to you is greater of our gods- Vishnu or Shiva and why? One personal question - who is your favorite ?
I read some time ago that one single
Ram Nama is equivalent to any 999 names of Vishnu. So
your parents, wife & children are blessed in that sense
that willingly or unwillingly they will chant Ram
Nama.
===================
Sitaram replies:
Thank you for writing and asking this excellent question.
You will notice that I entitle this post "Who Is Greatest?"
Your question pertains to Hinduism and is in regard to Lord Shiva vs. Lord Vishnu, but I am reminded of something which Jesus says in the Gospels: "The Father is greater than I."
I shall attempt to answer you, in part, by a consideration of certain aspects of Christian theology and, in part, by making reference to Tulsidas' Ramacharitamanassa ("Holy Lake of the Acts of Ram"), and Ramanand Sagar's wonderful movie version of the Ramayan.
In the Ramayan, Lord Vishnu incarnates in human form as the avatar, Ram. But Ram, in human form, must have a religion. So, whom does Ram worship? Lord Shiva!
Each child has two parents; a mother and a father. Which is greater, the mother or the father? Who loves the child more, the mother or the father? And which does the child love more. Yet, both a mother and a father are necessary. Without both a mother and a father, there is no child.
Back to the words of Jesus, "The Father is greater than I." I turned to my "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance" to find this verse. But what do I notice on the cover jacket of this large book? The jacket states that the words of Jesus are in red letters. Is it not most curious that it is not the words of the Father which are in red letters, but the words of Jesus, and yet Jesus says "The Father is greater than I."
Jesus says "The Father is greater than I" in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, verse 28. The ancient Greek theologians called this the "hypopantesis" or, roughly translated, the "placing beneath all." There is one icon depicting Christ dead in the tomb. This depiction of God's death is termed the "Extreme Humility" and symbolizes the "Kenosis", or emptying of Christ, renouncing all things, even life itself.
And yet various Ecumenical Councils and creeds of faith all stress that God is three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet one, and that all three Persons are totally equal, and no one is greater than the others.
It is said that Tulsidas had one brother who became a great devotee of Lord Krishna. One day Tulsidas went to visit his brother, who brought him to the mandir where there was a great stature of Lord Krishna. Tulsidas explained that he could worship no one except Lord Ram.
I am going to quote several footnotes from "The Ashta Chhap Poets", translated by Shyam Das.
One day, Tulsidas decided to journey to Gokul to see his younger brother. Arriving in Mathura after many days of travel, he asked some local people if a Brahmin by the name of Nandadas had come to their city. Someone advised him that Nandadas was a disciple of Shri Gusainji and that he could be found either in Gokul or near the Govardhana Hill. Tulsidas went to Gokul, but did not find Nandadas. Tulsidas, so enchanted with the beauty of the town, wondered how his brother could have ever left such a place. Hearing that Nandadas was at the Govardhana Hill with Shri Gusainji, Tulsidas headed in this direction. He found his brother in the town of Parasoli and insisted, "Come with me. If there is a beautiful town in this world, it is Ayodhya; Banares is the supreme city; of all mountains, most glorious is Chitrakuta, and among forests, the Dandkarnaya is the best. These areas Lord Ram has purified.
Nandadas replied to his brother in the following poem
If you like mountains,
live by the Govardhana Hill.
If you like towns,
then reside in Nandagam.
If you prefer cities,
live in Mathura,
an ocean of splendor,
extremely pleasing.
If you enjoy rivers,
stay by the banks of the Yamuna,
the fulfiller of all wishes.
Nandadas relishes the forest
and dwells in the land of Vrindavan.
After meeting with Suradas in Parasoli, Nandadas proceeded to Shri Nathji's temple, while Tulsidas followed behind. When Tulsidas had Shri Nathji's sight, he did not bow to Him. Nandadas then knew that Tulsidas would not bow before anyone other than his beloved Ram. Nandadas then considered, "I will show him that his Lord Ram is here as well as in Gokul. Only then will he come to know of Shri Krishna's greatness.
Nandadas then prayed to Shri Nathji.
Lord, so finely adorned,
what can I say of your splendor today?
Tulsi lowers his head only
when in your hand the bow and arrow stay.
Hearing Nandada's prayer, Shri Nathji thought, "Shri Gusainji's disciple is making a request. I should listen to him."
Shri Nathji then took on Lord Ram's form and held the bow and arrow. Tulsidas, seeing Shri Nathji as Lord Ram, prostrated himself flat on the ground. After having Shri Nathji's "darshan", Tulsidas and Nandadas went to Shri Gokul where Nandadas said to Shri Gusainji, "My brother, Tulsidas, will bow only to Lord Ram."
Footnotes:
In the Krishna Upanishad it is mentioned that once, while Rama and Sita were walking in the forest, the sages there, who were absorbed in the meditational state of Samadhi, saw Ram's divine beauty and suddenly desired to be his lover. They approached Ram, saying, "Give us the pleasure that you afford your wife, Sita."
Ram replied that in his current incarnation he was Maryada Purushottam, that is, The Supereme Personality under the bondage of scriptural restriction. Therefore, he could have only one wife. He consoled them that in his next life as Krishna, he would be Pushti Purushottam, the Supreme Personality who is dominated by grace. Then, he would fulfill all their wishes. These sages were born in Braja as Gopis during Krishna's life on earth and had all of their divine desires satisfied.
The fact that Tulsidas would not bow to Krishna reveals his single-minded devotion to his Lord, Ram, a quality so necessary in fostering bhava, devotional mood. His refusal to bow to Krishna was not disrespectful, but rather a statement of his immense and faithful love for Ram. Devotion to a single form of God is considered a sign of great grace.
Dear Sitaram,
Who according to you is greater of our gods- Vishnu or Shiva and why? One personal question - who is your favorite ?
I read some time ago that one single
Ram Nama is equivalent to any 999 names of Vishnu. So
your parents, wife & children are blessed in that sense
that willingly or unwillingly they will chant Ram
Nama.
===================
Sitaram replies:
Thank you for writing and asking this excellent question.
You will notice that I entitle this post "Who Is Greatest?"
Your question pertains to Hinduism and is in regard to Lord Shiva vs. Lord Vishnu, but I am reminded of something which Jesus says in the Gospels: "The Father is greater than I."
I shall attempt to answer you, in part, by a consideration of certain aspects of Christian theology and, in part, by making reference to Tulsidas' Ramacharitamanassa ("Holy Lake of the Acts of Ram"), and Ramanand Sagar's wonderful movie version of the Ramayan.
In the Ramayan, Lord Vishnu incarnates in human form as the avatar, Ram. But Ram, in human form, must have a religion. So, whom does Ram worship? Lord Shiva!
Each child has two parents; a mother and a father. Which is greater, the mother or the father? Who loves the child more, the mother or the father? And which does the child love more. Yet, both a mother and a father are necessary. Without both a mother and a father, there is no child.
Back to the words of Jesus, "The Father is greater than I." I turned to my "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance" to find this verse. But what do I notice on the cover jacket of this large book? The jacket states that the words of Jesus are in red letters. Is it not most curious that it is not the words of the Father which are in red letters, but the words of Jesus, and yet Jesus says "The Father is greater than I."
Jesus says "The Father is greater than I" in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, verse 28. The ancient Greek theologians called this the "hypopantesis" or, roughly translated, the "placing beneath all." There is one icon depicting Christ dead in the tomb. This depiction of God's death is termed the "Extreme Humility" and symbolizes the "Kenosis", or emptying of Christ, renouncing all things, even life itself.
And yet various Ecumenical Councils and creeds of faith all stress that God is three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet one, and that all three Persons are totally equal, and no one is greater than the others.
It is said that Tulsidas had one brother who became a great devotee of Lord Krishna. One day Tulsidas went to visit his brother, who brought him to the mandir where there was a great stature of Lord Krishna. Tulsidas explained that he could worship no one except Lord Ram.
I am going to quote several footnotes from "The Ashta Chhap Poets", translated by Shyam Das.
One day, Tulsidas decided to journey to Gokul to see his younger brother. Arriving in Mathura after many days of travel, he asked some local people if a Brahmin by the name of Nandadas had come to their city. Someone advised him that Nandadas was a disciple of Shri Gusainji and that he could be found either in Gokul or near the Govardhana Hill. Tulsidas went to Gokul, but did not find Nandadas. Tulsidas, so enchanted with the beauty of the town, wondered how his brother could have ever left such a place. Hearing that Nandadas was at the Govardhana Hill with Shri Gusainji, Tulsidas headed in this direction. He found his brother in the town of Parasoli and insisted, "Come with me. If there is a beautiful town in this world, it is Ayodhya; Banares is the supreme city; of all mountains, most glorious is Chitrakuta, and among forests, the Dandkarnaya is the best. These areas Lord Ram has purified.
Nandadas replied to his brother in the following poem
If you like mountains,
live by the Govardhana Hill.
If you like towns,
then reside in Nandagam.
If you prefer cities,
live in Mathura,
an ocean of splendor,
extremely pleasing.
If you enjoy rivers,
stay by the banks of the Yamuna,
the fulfiller of all wishes.
Nandadas relishes the forest
and dwells in the land of Vrindavan.
After meeting with Suradas in Parasoli, Nandadas proceeded to Shri Nathji's temple, while Tulsidas followed behind. When Tulsidas had Shri Nathji's sight, he did not bow to Him. Nandadas then knew that Tulsidas would not bow before anyone other than his beloved Ram. Nandadas then considered, "I will show him that his Lord Ram is here as well as in Gokul. Only then will he come to know of Shri Krishna's greatness.
Nandadas then prayed to Shri Nathji.
Lord, so finely adorned,
what can I say of your splendor today?
Tulsi lowers his head only
when in your hand the bow and arrow stay.
Hearing Nandada's prayer, Shri Nathji thought, "Shri Gusainji's disciple is making a request. I should listen to him."
Shri Nathji then took on Lord Ram's form and held the bow and arrow. Tulsidas, seeing Shri Nathji as Lord Ram, prostrated himself flat on the ground. After having Shri Nathji's "darshan", Tulsidas and Nandadas went to Shri Gokul where Nandadas said to Shri Gusainji, "My brother, Tulsidas, will bow only to Lord Ram."
Footnotes:
In the Krishna Upanishad it is mentioned that once, while Rama and Sita were walking in the forest, the sages there, who were absorbed in the meditational state of Samadhi, saw Ram's divine beauty and suddenly desired to be his lover. They approached Ram, saying, "Give us the pleasure that you afford your wife, Sita."
Ram replied that in his current incarnation he was Maryada Purushottam, that is, The Supereme Personality under the bondage of scriptural restriction. Therefore, he could have only one wife. He consoled them that in his next life as Krishna, he would be Pushti Purushottam, the Supreme Personality who is dominated by grace. Then, he would fulfill all their wishes. These sages were born in Braja as Gopis during Krishna's life on earth and had all of their divine desires satisfied.
The fact that Tulsidas would not bow to Krishna reveals his single-minded devotion to his Lord, Ram, a quality so necessary in fostering bhava, devotional mood. His refusal to bow to Krishna was not disrespectful, but rather a statement of his immense and faithful love for Ram. Devotion to a single form of God is considered a sign of great grace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)