Oil On Water Clean up

   There are better ways of getting oil spills cleaned up, related to the vortex sweeper already available for commercial cleanups. Oil sticks to itself on the surface of water, and slides off, into, for example, an open pop bottle held upright (not sideways) under the water, so that the opening is just under the surface. What water that gets in with the oil then separates, and could be drained off the bottom with a tap. In the gulf, this principle could also have been applied to protect the shore. The best method now used seems to be floating berms, deployed to physically block the oil from floating on the shore. But with underwater pipe-drains, reaching from the shore, under the water to the Gulf side of the floating berms, the oily side, a votex can be opened under the oil, into the pipe or hose.. The hoses then collect the oil into below ground level receivers on shore, before it is pumped into trucks for reclaiming. Waves out at sea were said to be a problem, but I do not believe this insurmountable. A large ship might have a chamber which lets in the oily water and calms it, before collecting the oil off the surface by the vortex method. The key is to work from under the water level, and open a place into which the oil can slide. I have seen ships, maybe in the Great Lakes, using a rotary sponge contraption, trying to lift the oil off the water from above. But in the Gulf, the decision was made to disperse the oil rather than clean it up, so they were not even trying. I wish I had a better idea for the coast once the oil is on it, and the birds. But the shore can be defended by the above method before the oil arrives there.

I saw this principle while trying to clean a pond in my yard that had an oil slick. Then I found two guys on the internet with floating devices.

Platonic Psych Tweets

   What would Psychology and Psychiatry look like set upon a Socratic or Platonic base? But as with teachers for pay, they would be non-profiteering, and a lot more humble, knowing that there are the questions of the soul.
Politics and psych would not be so separate: Instead of an animal man in an artificial state, Plato has three kinds of soul set upon a frame of three kinds of city. The bad forms give us 6, and then per Statesman there is the 7th- the best regime.
There is a study of tyranny, too, quite beyond our assumptions “authoritarianism” and “psych”- opathy or “socio”-pathy. Consider the werewolf in Books VIII-IX of the Republic. Drones. And here’s a biscuit: Who is the first thinker to suggest the equality of women in law and ed?
We say the knowledge of such things is “in” the human soul, and hence, self knowledge is possible. Plato also allows the question of the difference between madness, vice and ignorance, and between 4 types of divine madness and other types. Ever -iatros must know these things.
 
…Or we would not let them practice -iatreia. Let alone drug people for profit.
What is the same in these two- city and soul- is an example of what Jung calls an “archetype.” Socrates calls it the model and the form. Nations are of course different from cities. And for the artificial “state?” We have 50 of them, and none are yet like Machiavelli.
Politics and psych would not be so separate: Instead of an animal man in an artificial state, Plato has three kinds of soul set upon a frame of three kinds of city. The bad forms give us 6, and then per Statesman there is the 7th- the best regime.
Because there is a difference between philosopher and king.
What is the thought or theory regarding the health of the soul that is assumed by our modern psychiatry? For five years, we have asked this question on Twitter and wordpress, and no one has even attempted to state an answer. Anyone? Our Psych is mute- theory-less, THOUGHTLESS
Consider Allan Bloom (Closing, p. 356) on the world view of modern science: “But where natural science ends, trouble begins. It ends at man, the one being outside its purview, or, to be exact, it ends at that part or aspect of man which is not body, whatever that may be”
Bloom’s comment is the occasion of a 3 page study of modern psych in my “Shakespeare’s King Lear with the Tempest” book, notes 28-30 to Chapter V, because they bring in the doctor to treat the maddened Lear. It’s philosophy of psych- a whole new subject.
I have just found the original notes from the Conversation with Joseph Campbell, demonstrating that wholeness sought is the health of the soul, and good- and hence psychiatry assumes an objective good.
The knowledge in the soul is hence “in” an “unconscious,” and the highest faculties asleep in man. Theoretical virtue is its integration into “consciousness.”
The faculties that sleep in man, and the philosopher and king- are the measure unawares, of every human life- unaware as Oberon is to Theseus in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

Twenty First Century Platonism: Tweets

 The penalty of injustice cannot be avoided- one becomes unjust. What we do to others is done to us. “Vengeance is mine,” says you know Who. Hence, he treads the wine press alone.
Mankind is not a politeuma.
Nor is a single man
Its like: family, tribe, village, polis, state, nation. One might stick in some colonies and township, and notice many intermediate political bodies. But the “world” is not a politeuma.
The delusion, though, carried over from the images, characterizes bioth tghe left and right forms of Twentieth century totalitarianism.
The “world state” is of course an impiety and a delusion. No more is mankind governed by a man…the redeemed are a part of the Bride of the Lord. The angels may be too. The righteous deeds of the saints are the linen of her garment.
We’re about to beat up Dante on monarchy, and start over, like from the three mentions of the crown in Proverbs and wise rule.
The sacraments are also images of mysteries- at least that and the Chrism. Jesus did Baptism and transfiguration. The Straussians think of it as if a thing made by man. But given the popularity of Dante, that is not surprising!
The first miracle is performed at a wedding.
So, what if everyone had gotten all worked up protesting the “Wall,” only to find it a non-issue. Trump literally does not care what his policies are, and if we ignore him, he may soon forget. On his level, seriously, he may not be able to do much harm- without our help.
He literally has no domestic powers not given by Congress. Nor any domestic funds. He does not get this. We can impeach him again, have the Court void the 2016 election, or invoke the 25th A, the latter not because he is ignorant nor a plant nor ethically unfit, but incapacitated
 
The Trumpsters simply will not admit that 90% of the Corvid deaths were preventable with the leadership of any nation other than those where Putin turned the election. No amount of “proof,” including war with Iran nor burying our grandchildren will give pause:
The penalty of injustice cannot be avoided- one becomes unjust. What we do to others is done to us. “Vengeance is mine,” says you know Who. Hence, he treads the wine press alone.
The Trumpsters simply will not admit that 90% of the Corvid deaths were preventable with the leadership of any nation other than those where Putin turned the election. No amount of “proof,” including war with Iran nor burying our grandchildren will give pause:
Watching emergency school board mtg re:opening. A veteran just stood up & said “The ghosts of the people I’ve killed to keep you all safe haunt me every night. Are you prepared to be haunted by the ghosts of the children & faculty for whom you are responsible?”
Or just go around them. As the Governors do in responding to Corona.
No one even raises the obvious question of KGB Putin and his relation to the left- Marxism- and right- white guy forms of Twentieth Century Totalitarianism. Has he raised the right in these elections to later raise the left? Brazil/ Venezuela?
If Putin were enacting a thirty year plan to destroy America, he could hardly do better, nor would we be able to discern it. Kaspersky controlled 400 million computer security accounts from Moscow in 2016, and we do not YET see the significance.
 The Don of course visited Russia as early as 1989, and they began grooming him, just in case.

Leo Strauss lectures on Plato’s Meno 1 – [1966] youtu.be/LpZKKmVZ1DY via

Leo Strauss lectures on Plato’s Meno 1 – [1966]
University of Chicago Spring 1966
youtube.com
There is a hierarchy of ends of the soul, and a consequent order of the soul. Ethics is about priorities. Is there a natural order of “values” characteristic of the “healthy or well ordered soul? We seek to know this. “The sage leaves that, and chooses this.” -Lao Tzu
Nazism will also speak of or a hierarchy, following Nietzsche. The new fascists seek to use both this conservatism and Leo Strauss, as at the University of Toronto, etc. The hierarchy in Nietzsche is up-side-down, based upon, as we say, upon a diabolic inversion of the soul.

Gen Michael Hayden
@GenMhayden

 

Paul Rosenzweig
@Rosenzweig
If they voted to acquit Trump they have no merit. The conservative view will only be revived if authoritarian accommodationists are repudiated. Vote all of them out.
For the first time tonight there is officially a Wall of Veterans in Portland.
“All political action point toward the knowledge of the good.”

Constitution Day 2012 youtu.be/DyBuF_91a8U via

Constitution Day 2012
On September 16, 2012, Dr. Leo Paul de Alvarez gave this address at the University of Dallas’ annual Constitution Day dinner, hosted by the Politics Departme…
youtube.com

The Principle of American Politics and the Bible

Reflecting back on the Revolution, Ben Franklin is cited as having written:
…”God grant that not only the love of liberty, but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man, may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say, “This is my country.”
                                                             Commager & Morris, The Spirit of ’76
   We are working on how the Bible and American politics DO fit together, in the fundamentals of political theory. Madison’s Letter on Remonstrance: What is a duty to God is a right in relation to other men. Liberty is primary because of the Imago Dei– the “image of God” in man that is the the basis of all law- that  especially in the modern state. Or,as they say, rights take precedence over duties.” The colony, state or nation does not know the good, and cannot provide it. But neither is that its purpose. Rather, the purpose of government is “to secure these ” rights.
Of religion, Madison writes:
It [religion] is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.
So, the principle in Madison’s Remonstrance is the same as that of the second sentence of the Declaration: They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life…etc. See? murder is wrong. But here, in political as distinct from Biblical terms, it is a violation of the right to life of the one murdered.
   It is because of the Imago Dei- the basis of all law- that Liberty is primary, for the polis as well, but certainly for the modern state. Otherwise, things made by man, or artificial, would be allowed to rule over the divine in man. The image of God in man is the reason that murder is wrong (Genesis 9:6) and the basis of ethics regarding love as well (Genesis 1:26). It is the nature of man and the basis of the law- all law, including our Declaration. What is astonishing is how Jefferson and the Committee have fit together these “sacred and undeniable,” or in Franklin’s words, “self evident” truths with the simple absence of the essence of man or spark of the divine from the political realm. Where the world of medieval chivalry is Christian by analogy, the American way, suited too to the multiplicity of European sects, is to leave their roofs open, or allowing a place where the divine, too, might enter.

   The purpose of human government is not to make men good as a final cause but as an efficient cause, for example preventing thefts (or securing the rights of property) so that businesses and estates can get started and prosper. Because even for a single small city, we are not going to have a single, identifiable “philosopher King,” this liberty is better than almost any attempt a character formation, and surely better than any we are likely to otherwise find.
   In a definition of Liberty which we think excels Jefferson, the Frenchman Montesquieu writes that political liberty is where we are forbid to do nothing truly good, nor compelled to do injustice (Spirit of the Laws, XI).
   Because government does not know the good, and the American principle allow for that truth, the American principle fits well too with the Socratic knowledge of ignorance, and, if philosophy is the best life, allows the natural right to the pursuit of happiness according to the nature of man, called reason and “Nous. or intellect, the life of the rational element. Nous is the imago Dei in man. It has a nature, and what is like it, we call “noble” or “beautiful.”
   One wonders what the enemies of liberty, as Vladimir Putin or Karl Marx would answer such an argument for liberty. They seem still to be imagining the founders as did the students from Charles Beard, rich self interested “White” guys. The founders simply do not speak of “capitalism,” nor institute a “Capitalist system. It’s how liberty looks to tyrants.

The James Madison Essay:

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,”1 and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

1.   Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”2 The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.3

2.   Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people.4 The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

3.   Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.5 We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

4.   Because the Bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If “all men are by nature equally free and independent,”6 all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an “equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience.”7 Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? Can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

5.   Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy.8 The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

6.   Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

7.   Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

8.   Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

9.   Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his Troubles.

10.   Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.

11.   Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State.9 If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed “that Christian forbearance, love and charity,”10 which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

12.   Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation11 from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.

13.   Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?

14.   Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. “The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly.”12 But the representation must be made equal, before the voice either of the Representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.

15.   Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the “Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government,”13 it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of14 our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]dound15 to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.

St. Lucius: The First Christian King. Anywhere, 156 AD.

   In a Sixth Century book called Liber Pontificus, or Lives of the Popes, and repeated in Bede’s History of the Church in England, St. Lucius was the first Christian king of Britain, and, we note the first King anywhere to convert, making this the first example of the Christian King or the question of Christianity and kingship. The Emperor Constantine did not convert Rome until the Fourth Century. According to the story in Wikipedia:

   The story became widespread after it was repeated in the 8th century by Bede, who added the detail that after Eleutherius granted Lucius’ request, the Britons followed their king in conversion and maintained the Christian faith until the Diocletianic Persecution of 303.

The English monk Bede included the Lucius story in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, completed in 731. He may have heard it from a contemporary who had been to Rome, such as Nothhelm.[1] Bede adds the detail that Lucius’ new faith was thereafter adopted by his people, who maintained it until the Diocletianic Persecution. Following Bede, versions of the Lucius story appeared in the 9th-century Historia Brittonum, and in 12th-century works such as Geoffrey of Monmouth‘s Historia Regum BritanniaeWilliam of Malmesbury‘s Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, and the Book of Llandaff.[1][6] The most influential of these accounts was Geoffrey’s, which emphasizes Lucius’ virtues and gives a detailed, if fanciful, account of the spread of Christianity during his reign.[7] In his version, Lucius is the son of the benevolent King Coilus and rules in the manner of his father.[8] Hearing of the miracles and good works performed by Christian disciples, he writes to Pope Eleutherius asking for assistance in his conversion. Eleutherius sends two missionaries, Fuganus and Duvianus, who baptise the king and establish a successful Christian order throughout Britain. They convert the commoners and flamens, turn pagan temples into churches, and establish dioceses and archdioceses where the flamens had previously held power.[8] The pope is pleased with their accomplishments, and Fuganus and Duvianus recruit another wave of missionaries to aid the cause.[9] Lucius responds by granting land and privileges to the Church. He dies without heir in AD 156, thereby weakening Roman influence in Britain.[10]

Later traditions are mostly based on one of these accounts, probably including a medieval inscription at the church of St Peter-upon-Cornhill in Cornhill, London in the City of London. There, he is credited with having founded the church in AD 179.

Bede, in the fourth chapter of the first book of his History, writes:

In the year of our Lord’s incarnation 156, Marcus Antonius Verus, fourteenth from Augustus, became emperor jointly with his brother Aurelius Commodus. During their reign, and while the Holy Eleutherus ruled the Roman Church, Lucius, a British King, sent him a letter, asking to be made a Christian by his direction The pious request was quickly granted, and the Britons received the faith and held it peacefully in all its purity and fullness until the time of the Emperor Diocletian.

And from the Liber Pontificus, listing the oldest listing of the Bishops of Rome:

XIV . ELEUTHERIUS

Eleuther, by nationality a Greek, son of Habundius, from the town of Nicopolis, occupied the see 5 years, 3 months and 2 days.  He was bishop in the time of Antoninus and Commodus until the year when Paternus and Bradu a were consuls (AD 185). He received a letter from Lucius, king of Britain, asking him to appoint a way by which Lucius might become a Christian. He also decreed He also confirmed again the decree that no kind of food in common use should be rejected especially by the Christian faithful, inasmuch as God created it; provided, however, it were rational food and fit for human kind He held 3 ordinations in the month of December, 2 priests, 8 deacons, 5 bishops in divers places. He also was buried near the body of the blessed Peter in the Batican, May 24. And the bishopric was empty 15 days.

As to the meaning of the Greek name of Pope Eleutherius, Google answers:

The Greek word “ἐλευθερία” (capitalized Ἐλευθερία; Attic Greek pronunciation: [eleu̯tʰeˈria]), transliterated as eleutheria, is an Ancient Greek term for, and personification of, liberty. … In Ancient GreeceEleutheria was also an epithet for the goddess Artemis, and as such she was worshipped in Myra of Lycia.

Nennius, about 809, [22] writes:

Lucius, the British king, received baptism, with all the underkings of the British nation, 167 years after the coming of Christ, after a legation had been sent by the roman emperors and by Eucharistus, the Roman Pope.

   According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Lucius died without an heir, and the rule of Britain was quickly usurped before Severus Restored the rule of Rome in the early 200’s. Oddly, Geoffrey refers to Gildas , though Gildas seems to leave out the story of Lucius. If Britain was converted in 156, and Bishoprics established by 176, we would have about one century, three or four generations, to connect the Cole line of Lucius to the Colchester father of St. Helen.

St Lucius of Britain… and Chur

Laodicea

Just before Christmas I received a copy of King Lucius of Britain by David J. Knight. This actually came out in 2008 but I omitted to order a copy until recently. Lucius of Britain is a second century ‘King’ of Britain who was converted to Christianity and asked Pope St Eleutherius for missionaries to receive him into the Church. This story first appears in the Liber Pontificalis which dates from the fifth or sixth century. It is also reported in Bede. Obviously, there was no king in the mediaeval sense in the Roman province of Britannia in the second century. But it is not only possible but likely that there were indigenous Romanised aristocrats using such titles in their own circles. There is thus nothing intrinsically implausible about the account. It is of course deeply unpopular with Protestants and Modernists because it implies the recognition of the universal primacy…

View original post 344 more words

July 4th 2020: 76 candidates for the 17 best NOISY Rock Songs!

Ok, beginning the 76 candidates for the 17 best of all noisy Rock tunes. The Brits were out last night, heard in skirmishes in the distance. This’ll be # 76 this year:
IRON BUTTERFLY – IN A GADDA DA VIDA – 1968 (ORIGINAL FULL VERSION) CD SO… youtu.be/UIVe-rZBcm4 via @YouTube

Again at # 75 as pure Rock even though dance music is re-emerging here: David Bowie – Stay youtu.be/_DanDvAfCcs via

#74 Pink Floyd – See Emily Play https://youtu.be/7c0EDM-Yu9o via @YouTube

Ok, we’ll give the Bowie version #74 David Bowie – See Emily Play youtu.be/yjg5_0ztQI4 via

David Bowie – See Emily Play
See Emily Play is a song written by Syd Barret and performed here by David Bowie. It is from the album Pin Ups in 1973. Lyrics: Emily tries but misunderstand…
youtube.com

#73 White Stripes – Blue Orchid https://youtu.be/QKntY8WkNYQ via @YouTube

We’ll keep Blue Orchid at #73- a great Rock tune, especially if the meaning begins to show through: The White Orchid is the lapel worn at weddings.

#72, per the suggestion of Cup of Remembrance: The patriotism is wrapped in the liberty for sarcasm of a Viet Vet. The hippies, of course, gave the vets a bad conscience on purpose, having forgotten WWII and the purpose of limiting Twentieth Century Totalitarianis- as we Centrists, all grown up, now say.

# 71 The Byrds Eight Miles High:

Classic Version, #71: The story is that this is about when the American answer to the British invasion landed in London. The Byrds- Eight Miles High (HQ) youtu.be/J74ttSR8lEg via

The Byrds- Eight Miles High (HQ)
Our High School WAS literally on Eight Mile, imagine that. I taught there as a sub, and the saying is still true:
The Byrds – Eight Miles High – 9/23/1970 – Fillmore East (Official) https://youtu.be/2ymkBEhdHBE via @YouTube

This is about when the American reverberation of the British invasion landed in London by airplane.

# 70 Amboy Dukes– Journey To The Center Of The Mind https://youtu.be/Beh1ipK3hN0 via @YouTube

#70 in the classic countdown of the philosophic DJ Dr. MMac. Detroit’s own Ted, before he became a….

This is Crazy Ted BEFORE he took up hunting! Dude did not learn that from a journey to the center of mind! Oh well, he never said we’d MAKE it !

Beyond thought and “what” is of course interesting, because the Lord too is said to be beyond being or logos. He calls it the center, too, as of a circle. He warns of the danger of becoming trapped in the products of the imagination: Jung speaks of getting “possessed” by an “archetype-” the sources of the products of the imagination in the knowledge that is within the soul. We integrate the contents, by understanding, or else these disintegrate us. Hence the danger of psychedelic drugs especially for those who do too much, are not friends with themselves, and do not have the patience to sleep off a bad trip. One wonders if Ted did not get possessed, as by an Artemis the huntress archetype! Apologies from Michigan!

#69: The Bob Seger System – White Wall  via 

Now we’re warming up, getting in some Detroit Rock. Were looking for deep poetry, or we’d do more Pop Seger: The Bob Seger System – White Wall youtu.be/1CNDIl0mbd8 via

This whole album is a classic, with most of my favorite Bob on it.

#68: Creed – Beautiful  via  Self indulgence: (Not as famous as it should be). Platonic contemplaters of the beautiful should get it.

We’re doing the 76 candidates for the 17 best Rock songs, to forget the Corvid for a while and for the liberty of the Fourth: Now 244 years, and nearly 300 million people- give or take a few hundred thousand, depending on whether we wear masks and be more cautious.

It seemed to us that very few continued the Classic Rock strain at this level among the “newer” stars, that is, after the Eighties. “Arms Wide Open” is of course another.

#67:

Definitely of the stature of a possible top 17: Creed- Higher https://youtu.be/sHcYaS3m1c4 via @YouTube

#66:

Hensley is in music what a white wizard would be in the human world: Traveler in Time. (2017 Remastered) youtu.be/qh5o7uH88cM via

Traveller in Time (2017 Remastered)
Provided to YouTube by Sanctuary Records Traveller in Time (2017 Remastered) · Uriah Heep Demons and Wizards ℗ 2017 Sanctuary Records Group Ltd., a BMG Compa…
youtube.com
 
 We hold these Truths to be self evident: that all Men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain  unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Purs…
mmcdonald77.wordpress.com
Ming Solenya Nethery
@MingGao26
Why think Gaetz was threatening Cohen?
Bob Dylan “…Songs, to me, were more important than just entertainment. They were my preceptor and guide into some altered consciousness of reality, some different republic, some liberated republic. Grail Marcus,…
Grail Marcus, the music historian, would some thirty years later call it “the invisible republic.” Chronicles I, pp. 34-35

#65: Uriah Heep – Wizard  via 

#64: Uriah Heep – Stealin  via 

At # 64, some penance blues:
Uriah Heep – Stealin https://youtu.be/j73OsXo19vI via @YouTube

Ignore Amazon, though, and buy from Barnes and Noble. Bozo puts YOU in HIS shopping Cart! Uugh, what America has become! Like a Rolling Stone: Bob Dylan at the Crossroads by Greil Marcus amazon.com/dp/158648382X/ via

#63: The James Gang – Walk Away  via 

#62: Fantasy will set you free: Steppenwolf – Magic Carpet Ride 1968 HQ  via 

Caption: George III when he/she read Jefferson: (Or was it when he learned his favorite petticoat was not back yet from the cleaners?)

   ‘Least ‘e remembered t’ poof ‘is f’n whig! Dudes were cross-dressin back then! French fashions.

Crispus Attucks | Boston Massacre | Crispus Attucks Boston Massacre  via 

#61: Fortunate Son (Live At Cobo Hall 1986)- Bob Seger (Vinyl Restoration)  via 

That we had to draw the line on Communism expanding does not mean we had to draw it there at that time. But the North Vietnamese have not had good years under the tyranny if it was unavoidable. In Mi Lai, one sees that justice is in the end most for advantage.of arms, eh?

#59: The Who – Won’t Get Fooled Again (Live at Kilburn 1977)  via 

Mesmerizing Townshend, with lots of new notes!
Bet we get fooled again, though- Big Time!
#58: At # 58, the tragedy of the father:
Jethro Tull – Locomotive Breath (Live)  via 

Lets have 57 again live. I don’t think we quite heard him: Car. Girl. Head. Liberty. Deep Purple – Highway Star 1972 Video HQ youtu.be/UAKCR7kQMTQ via

Deep Purple – Highway Star 1972 Video HQ
Classic Rock Deep Purple – Highway Star 1972 (Single, Album Machine Head) Ritchie Blackmore – Guitar Jon Lord – Keyboards, Organ Ian Paice – Drums Ian Gillan…
youtube.com
A personal favorite:
  “Gimmie my release, Come on…”

Twitter DJ is a strange occupation. It of course does not work in a certain way, but we get some Tweet-ees in Europe, eh? Right, no one likes the 76 candidates for the 17 greatest rock tunes of all time!

#54: Robin Trower – The Fool and Me.  via 

#53: Robin Trower – Bridge Of Sighs – 07 – Lady Love  via 

We’ll give this one #52 1/2 if it doesn’t have a number yet! Bryan Ferry & Roxy Music – Both Ends Burning youtu.be/LFeqtXMKZ4U via

Bryan Ferry & Roxy Music – Both Ends Burning
A Roxy Track To Blow Your Socks Off! 1975.. :p
youtube.com
#52 Lou Reed – Sweet Jane from Rock n Roll Animal  via 

#50: Blind Faith – Presence of the Lord  via 

Oops, that’s a religion hymn, and a bit too mellow. Move up # 52 1/2!

#49: Sunshine Of Your Love  via 

Guest Lyricist- some roadie!

This one was written by some roadie. Prob’ly some St. John’s college reject #46 Cream – Tales of Brave Ulysses https://youtu.be/J2CCfxiQ5QY via @YouTube

Soon the noise bombs, then the fireworks come out to cover the skirmishes in the edges of town, if there are any Redcoats about…

#44 The Who – Magic Bus – Live At Leeds HQ  via 

#41: The Who – I Can See For Miles  via 

#40: The Who ~ Summertime Blues  via 

#39: The Who ~ Substitute  via 

#38: Jethro Tull – My God  via 

37: Time of the Season – The Zombies (Lyrics on the screen)  via 

Janis Joplin- Summertime
Summertime, time, time, Child, the living’s easy. Fish are jumping out And the cotton, Lord, Cotton’s high, Lord, so high. Your daddy’s rich And your ma is s…
youtube.com

#34 Remember the book “Go ask Alice? Jefferson Airplane -White Rabbit- youtu.be/WANNqr-vcx0 via

Jefferson Airplane -White Rabbit-
http://mx.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=3FAD6DF689FC6C23 Jefferson Airplane “White Rabbit” Live on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour.
The whole Declaration is to be read on the Fourth, as it was in Lincoln’s day and at the Constitutional Convention. + it has a list of examples of tyranny, + ethics of war. The Second Sentence of the Declaration  via 
#29: Day Of The Eagle – Robin Trower.  via 
Interlude: Some Contemporary Tunes:

 Counting Crows – Mr. Jones (Official Video)  via 

Counting Crows – Round Here (Official Video)  via 

#26: Dream On – Aerosmith  via 

#25: Led Zeppelin – The Rover (Physical Graffiti)  via 

#24: Led Zeppelin – Ramble On (Official Audio) youtu.be/EAmIuTI4wRg via

Led Zeppelin – Ramble On (Official Audio)
You’re listening to the remastered version of Led Zeppelin’s iconic song “Ramble On” from “Led Zeppelin II”. “Ramble On” is co-written by Jimmy Page and Robe…
For in the darkest depths of Mordor I met a girl so fair But Gollum and the evil Lord Crept up and slipped away with her.

#21: Aerosmith – Sweet Emotion (Official Music Video)  via 

# 19: Ziggy Stardust (2012 Remaster) youtu.be/7KEn0uOEILs via

Side 2 is THE rock tragedy.

Ziggy Stardust (2012 Remaster)
Provided to YouTube by Parlophone UK Ziggy Stardust (2012 Remaster) · David Bowie The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars ℗ 1972, 2012 …
youtube.com

#18: Jethro Tull – Cross-Eyed Mary  via via 

#17: David Bowie – Panic In Detroit youtu.be/Rf0fmqWS-kI via

Bowie met a 60’s violent revolutionary. His answer is “I wished someone would phone.” Human connectedness in the modern world is the cause of twentieth century totalitarianism in each case.

David Bowie – Panic In Detroit
Artist: David Bowie Song: Panic In Detroit Album: Aladdin Sane Lyrics Ah oooh He looked a lot like Che Guevara, drove a diesel van Kept his gun in quiet secl…
youtube.com
#15: TheAnimals – We Gotta Get Out Of This Place (1965) HD/widescreen ♫♥  via 

#14: The Who : The Real Me  via 

Jimmy the Mod goes to the doctor, then the mother, then the preacher in an attempt to cure his teen age Quadrophrenia. Given that the preacher showed him “to the Golden Gate,” one sees what Plant means about the evangelicals in Stairway. Not that Jimmy needs a robed exorcist! The plea of Jimmy is surely not comprehensible to our science of psychiatry, which is why music is better at the healing of the soul than our over-paid “doctors.” They killed Nick Drake, for Chrissakes!

On the Philosophic Ascent in Plato’s Republic

An updated version is usually over in the philosophy section of the menu above.

[In progress]

   The following is the reworking of an old class paper for an exam question. It attempts to find the study of the soul and man in what is called the “allegorical line,” a reading of the line as an image of the objects considered not in math and all speech, but especially in politics and psychology, or what might if the name were not taken, be called the study of man or “Anthropology.”

 

 

It is not only now that these things must be heard,

but they must all be returned to many times in the future

                                                                                  -Glaucon, 532 d 3-4

 

Bring me to the test, and I the matter will reword…

Hamlet, III, iv, 143-5

 

[The plates are over on Twitter, but we have not been able to transfwer them yet.]

Plate 1:Image

Plate 2:Image

Photos by Marti Blackwood

    Philosophy and politics are inseparable in Plato’s Republic. The central idea of the work is that Philosophy and kingship must coincide if the the regime described in speech is ever to “come forth from nature insofar as possible and see the light of the sun” (473 c10-e5). It is the idea of the good, or the good itself that is to be used as a pattern for ordering men and cities (484 c1-d4; 500c-501b: 517 a7-c6; 540 a6-b1; 592 b2-5). The best rulers by nature, the philosopher kings, are to rule by virtue of their knowledge of the idea of the good or the good itself. This contemplative sight of the eye of the soul results in or allows access to a “divine pattern,” “in the soul,” (484 c3) or “in heaven perhaps” (592 b2,) by which the painters of the regime “produce the image of man, taking hints from exactly that phenomenon in human beings which Homer too called god-like and the image of god” (501 b3-7). [Note 1] It may be for the sake of this pattern that the dialogue of the Republic is undertaken (472 c4). Of the idea of the good, it is said that the man who is going to act prudently in public or private must see it (517 c5-6. The practical wisdom of politics or kingship thus said to be dependent upon this contemplative sight.

    But after the center of the book announcing that philosophers must rule as kings, Socrates delivers an account of the philosophic education which, as Benardete comments, appears “alien from its own setting” [Note 2] within the political study of the of the regime which led up to it. It is not clear how the things described: the mathematical beings of geometry and arithmetic; the physical things, things drawn, and visible reflections- are to facilitate and ascent to the contemplative sight on which all rule depends. Stated directly, the question is quite obvious: just when do the philosopher kings study politics? The account of the philosophic education appears to have little to do with the pursuit of self knowledge or the study of the human things, and it is not clear how to place the famous account of the Socratic turn from pre-Socratic philosophy within the the outline of the study. Hence, it is unclear why Plato apparently presents the account of the highest things in a work titled “the Regime,” more accurately translating Politea, in which Socrates is shown founding political philosophy by the construction in speech of the best regime. The account of the education of the philosophers appears to have little to do with the study of the regime, the nature of man, nor is it clear how self knowledge would be especially involved in the ascent. Theoretical and practical wisdom appear to be as distinct as are the theoretical studies of a Thales, Democritus or Anaxagoras from the practice of a Perikles [Note 3], so that we must wonder when Socrates says of the end of this ascent that the one who is to be prudent in public or private must see it, and that without this contemplative ascent there is no practical wisdom. We must wonder, then, how we are to understand how the section of the Republic on the education of the philosopher kings, and how this section fits within the whole.

   The account of the education of the philosophers is presented through three images: The Child of the good, the divided line and the allegory of the cave. These three are presented in explanation of an earlier famous image, the parable of the ship. The three images are explicitly intended to be drawn together (Plate 1). First, the divided line is drawn directly from the division of the visible and intelligible in the child of the good, and as a further explanation of the analogy (509d 4-6; Brann, Music, p. 15). Then Socrates states that that the allegory of the cave “must be connected with what was said before” regarding the visible and intelligible in the child of the good (517 a9-c4). The two fundamental levels or kinds of beings, and the four levels of beings and their reflections, ought then, correspond to one another throughout the three images. But the instructions for drawing the images raises difficulties regarding the discernment of the forms or levels described along the way of the ascent, especially going from the line to the cave. While it is obvious that the things inside the cave are to be read allegorically, the divided line appears to be literally about the objects of sense and mathematics. While this literal line is genuinely present, and quite revealing, we will suggest that the diligent attempt to see the images together reveals something like an allegorical line, and going back and forth proves most helpful. The levels of the soul and being presented in accounting for the education of the philosophers is in turn an image, and one which at first sight seems to have no place in the the divided line, except as a visible and mathematical object. It is not clear where the philosophers of the beautiful city ever study epistemology or ascend through such images as the allegory of the cave. But that is the question and the account which the present essay will attempt to follow out.

The Fraudulent Account of the Offspring of the Good

   [from p. 9] Right from the start, Socrates cautions Glaucon to beware that he does not in some way unwillingly deceive him in the account of the Child of the Good. The offspring and not the parent is presented because the account of the father is beyond their reach. The warning is repeated again before the account of the divided line. Our argument here asserts that the unwilling deception of Glaucon by the fraudulent offspring of the good does occur, and that it involves the replacement of the opinable things, “visible not by the eye of the body but only by imagination and belief, with the literally visible things- the physical objects. The undoing of this deception is the starting point of the a double or allegorical reading of the offspring of the good and the divided line, by which we hope to avoid a literal reading of the allegory of the cave. And so let us go back to this discussion distinguishing the opinable and the knowable, in an attempt to find the true particulars involved in the bondage of humans regarding education and the philosophic ascent.]

   The question of the good arises when Socrates undertakes to to reconsider what concerns the rulers “from the beginning” (502 c).  He reminds Adeimantus of their earlier discussion of what concerns the rulers, and then recalls the separating out of the three forms in the soul by which they figured out what justice, moderation, courage and wisdom each is,” based upon the corresponding parts and virtues found in the city (in book IV). Socrates recalls that there he had said that the method by which they were proceeding was inadequate, and that in order to get a precise grasp of the forms in the soul, “another longer and further road” would have to be taken (435 c10). But then Socrates was stopped and compelled to take this road (Book V), through the account of the three “waves,” , which culminate in the introduction of the philosopher-kings. Once philosophy and the philosophic nature is introduced,  the account of virtue is to be taken up from a new principle. Glaucon and Adeimantus are here told of a study greater than justice and the virtues previously sketched: the study of the idea of the good (505a).

   The Ethics of Aristotle follows the same pattern as Plato’s Republic in this regard. After describing the justice which preserves the political community as “the practice of complete virtue” and the whole of virtue practiced in relation to others (V,i, 1129 12- 1130 a), there is a new beginning in the discussion of intellectual virtue (VI.3; 1139 b13), and then a new beginning in the discussion of virtue and vice (VII.1, 1145 a15). The philosophic life shows the nature of man, the principle in light of which vulgar virtue is crafted (Republic, 500 d7). The philosophic education addressed in this section of the Republic corresponds to the Aristotelian treatment of intellectual virtue, while the Platonic “vulgar virtue” (518 d)  corresponds to the Aristotelian ethical virtue, according to the same division. [Appendice A].  

   The question of what the good is first appears as the question of what, among the goods pursued, is the good for man. Socrates says that in the opinion of the many, the good is pleasure, although the more refined think it to be prudence (phronesis, as is taken up again in Plato’s Philebus). But these definitions are inadequate. There are bad pleasures, and if one asks the refined few  what sort of prudence, they must finally say, “about the good, as though we knew what was meant when the name of the good is uttered. Socrates notes that while men are content to appear just or fair, no one is satisfied with things merely opined  to be good, but here, everyone “seeks the things that are,” and “despises opinion.” Even the unjust man in Book II seeks his real advantage while using the appearance of justice. The good is what every soul pursues, [Note 4], yet while the soul divines that it is something, the soul is at a loss and unable to grasp just what it is, or even able to attain a “stable trust” about it as is had about “the rest.” But, Socrates divines, “no one will adequately know the just and the fair things until it is known in what way these are good. The just and noble things won’t have a guardian worth much before these things are known, while it will be perfectly ordered if one who knows this oversees. Glaucon and Adeimantus learn, then, of a study greater than justice, the greatest and most fitting study, of the idea of the good (505 a).

   The action which stands as the portico to the presentation of the image of the good is a good example of the importance of the dramatic context in reading the dialogues. Socrates delivers his account not of the good but of the child of the good, as a compromise. He refuses to give an account of the good itself, but when Glaucon persists, saying it doesn’t appear just for Socrates to tell the opinions of others and not his own. Socrates hesitates, answering that it is not just to speak of what one does not know as if one knew. Adeimantus agrees, but says that one ought be willing to state what one supposes (hoimai) as one’s supposition.” Socrates remains hesitant, responding by asking Adeimantus if he has not noticed that all opinions without knowledge are ugly, and at best blind Nearing this peak, he speaks out of opinion, asking Adeimantus if men who opine something true without intelligence seem to him any different from blind men who travel the right road. Glaucon intervenes, saying he is not about to withdraw when they have arrived “as it were at the end,” But Socrates remains unchanged, saying that he fears suffering the penalty of ridicule for “cutting a graceless figure” in his eagerness. The image called a child of the good is a result of a compromise between this insistent pursuit and the hesitance of Socrates. As Socrates enters into the display of the analogy between the sun and the idea of the good, he tells Glaucon:

…lets leave aside for the time being what the good itself is- for it looks to me as though it’s out of the range of our present thrust to attain the opinions I now hold about it. But I am willing to tell what looks like a child of the good and most similar to it (506 e).

Glaucon accepts, saying “another time you’ll pay us what is due on the father’s narrative.” Socrates, taking up the pun in the language of debt, tells Glaucon:

“I could wish …that I were able to pay, and you were able to receive it itself, and not just the interest (or offspring, tokos). Anyhow receive this interest and child of the good itself (ton tokon te kai ekgonon). But be careful that I don’t in some way unwillingly deceive you in rendering the account of the interest (tokos [Note 4] fraudulent.

  We will argue that this unwilling deception does occur, and that, and includes the replacement of the opinable with the visible, and so opinion with vision.  Before entering the account of the divided line, too, Socrates says that he supposes he will leave quite a bit out, but says he will not leave anything out “willingly” (509c; 382 a7-8), so that the warning is repeated again before drawing the divided line.

   Soon this offspring of the good is identified with the visible sun, which the good is said to have begotten in proportion with itself using this image, Socrates gives an analogical account of the good according to which the good is to intelligence and things intellected (vooumena) as the the sun is to the eye and things seen.

   Before beginning the account of the offspring, Socrates reminds Glaucon of an earlier distinction between (471d-480a) between the many things- as the noble, the good- and the one idea of each kind of things, as the noble itself and the good itself (507b). It is on the basis of this earlier distinction between the many things and the singular ideas- the visible and the intelligible- that the child of the good and the divided line are based. The ideas are what “really is,” (or what is in “being”), and are intellected, while the many things are seen but not intellected. In book V, these two are called the “knowable” and the “opinable, but throughout the account of the child of the good, Socrates neglects to remind Glaucon of these names, and what was said about them. He allows the opinable to be equated with the physical, literally visible things and this appears to be the unwilling deception of Glaucon and those hearing. But the deception can be done in reading the account veiled in the images of the philosophic ascent.

   The distinction between the knowable and opinable arose just after the assertion that if the best regime is ever to  to come forth from nature,” and “see the light of the sun,” philosophers must rule as kings. There Socrates attempted to defend himself by distinguishing “whom we mean when we dare to assert that philosophers must rule as kings.” The philosophers are identified as those who desire all of wisdom, loving every kind of learning, rather than those who desire one part and not another. The philosophers,, as the “lovers of the sight of the truth,” who delight in what each thing is itself are distinguished for Glaucon from the “lovers of sights” and the lovers of “hearing (475d),” or the “lovers of sights, the arts and the practical men.” (476a). Here Glaucon uses the terms of the bodily senses of sight and hearing to refer to opinable particulars which cannot really be seen with the literal bodily senses. No explicit example of the lovers of sights is given in the recapitulation, but Glaucon identifies the lovers of hearing as those who “run around to every chorus at the Dionysia, missing none in the cities or villages” (475 d). Allan Bloom notes that the Dionysia was a festival held in honor of the god Dionysus each spring at Athens and the villages around Attica [Note  ]. Three days of the festival were devoted to the presentation of comedies and tragedies, and it is to the lovers of the hearing of these choruses that Glaucon refers. The lovers of learning  and sights, Socrates says, “delight in fair sounds and colors and all that craft makes from such things, but their thought is unable to see and delight in the nature of the fair (Kalon) itself. These are not connoisseurs of the literally visible objects of bodily sense, nor do men go to see dramas literally for the sounds and colors Rather, these lovers of sounds are the lovers of the imitations crafted by the dramatic poet. If the lovers of sights, too, are to be distinguished from the lovers of hearing, their identity is not here disclosed. But of these, Socrates says that they can in no way endure it if anyone asserts that that the fair is one, the just is one and so on with the rest (479 a). Those who held that there are many noble/beautiful things, but not that there is the kalon itself, and are unable to follow one who would lead them to the knowledge of it are said to be dreaming, believing the likeness of something to be not a likeness but the thing itself which it is like,. Meanwhile those seeing both beauty itself and what participates in it are agreed to be awake (476 d). Along these lines, of those dreaming and those awake, Socrates distinguishes those whose thought (dianoian) is knowledge and those whose is opinion (476 d) Opinion is to be located between knowledge and ignorance, and so the opinable doxaston [Note 6] is sought between what is and what is not, as something which participates in both “to be and not to be.” The opinable is exemplified by the various manys (oi polloi) 476c). or the many fair things, the many just things, etc. (479 a)Socrates says, ” Then we have found, as it seems, that the many beliefs (nomidzma) of the many  about what’s fair and about the other things roll around somewhere between not being (me on) and being purely and simply (479 d). Bloom notes that nomidzma, derived from nomos, usually means “the customary or lawful” (Note 41 to book V 479). Filling out the opinable, the lovers of sights, corresponding to the lovers of hearing as the lovers of dramatic poetry, those who are dreaming and not awake and who cannot endure anyone asserting that the fair itself is one and the just is one and so on are likely to be those attached not to the artifacts of the dramatic poet, but to the beliefs and images that make up the various customs or nomoi to which the peoples are attached. The association with craftsmen suggests politicians, too. In distinguishing the “opinable,” Socrates speaks not of the  singular ideas of every kind of thing, but only of the fair itself, the just itself, etc, ie, especially the parts of virtue and the human things. The opinable, then, looks like it includes the things made by man, the images and the laws made by the poets and legislators, as distinct from what is not made. It probably also includes the things done, the actions, and so the virtues of the practical man. (476 a9) These opinable manys are spoken of before the Child of the Good as visible only playfully.

   Similarly, there is no place in either the telling of the child of the good or the divided line for  imagination and belief as distinct from the sight and hearing of physical objects and their reflections. Rather, it looks like Socrates, while presenting a true analogy regarding the sun and sight with the sight of the intellect for the divided line, veils the brightness of the account of the philosophic ascent by replacing, in his fraudulent account of the offspring, the things made by the poets and legislators and the particulars of all the human things with the visible physical things and artifacts. What will not be endured from the philosopher is not that there is a square itself or a diagonal itself, but, nor worse yet, a rock, a car or tree, but that the many beliefs and images to which the peoples are attached, about the most important things, which make up their cosmos, that these are not knowledge or the truth itself. It is for this that Socrates himself was tried and put to death by the Athenians for impiety.

   There are certain perplexities resulting from the account of the opinable and knowable which might be kept in mind: One is the apparent implication, felt by many readers, that the particulars are unknowable, while what is would be un-opinable For it seems to us that the many things are more immediate and in our experience, and this acquaintance seems to be a kind of knowledge, if only an acquaintance, as we say such a person is “known” to us, while we do not seem to have knowledge of what man in general is. It seems too that we can be mistaken or correct, as when we say that if I drop this ball it will fall, though we might on occasion be surprised, as by helium. Aristotle begins his Physics with reference to this difference between what is first simply and first for us when we set out to inquire into nature. At the same time, it seems that what we have opinion and not knowledge about is especially the eternal or divine and natural things., or specifically regarding “what is” that we have opinion and not knowledge. The Republic itself has proceeded through various opinions of what justice itself is., each partly right though at a point deficient. And as Eva Brann points out, “About the greatest studies, …Socrates himself has, as he repeatedly says, only opinion (506 c4; e2; 509c3; 517 b7, 533 a4; e8; Phaedrus 278d). Not knowing fully what is just or good, it seems we have opinion not only of the many things opined to be just or beautiful in light of the suppositions, but also of what justice is and what the good is.

   Aristotle apparently, identifies the faculty of opinion with logistikon, the calculative faculty by which we apprehend the “things that can be other than they are.” The virtue of this faculty is not  sophia or theoretical wisdom, but practical wisdom (phronesis) Practical wisdom is the virtue of the part of the rational element of the soul that forms opinions, for opinion as well as practical wisdom deals with things that can be other than they are.” (Ethics, VI.7; 1140 b 27-29).

   Aristotle also uses the word for perception (aesthesis) not only in reference to the five senses, but also in reference to an activity of the intellect (nous) in practical wisdom (1143 b5). Perhaps echoing the Socratic account of the opinable of which there is not knowledge, (gnosis), Aristotle (Ostwald Tr.) states that practical wisdom has as its object the “ultimate (final) particular fact,” of which there is perception but no scientific knowledge” (episteme):

This is not the kind of perception with which each of the five senses apprehends its proper object, but the kind with which we perceive that in mathematics the triangle is the ultimate figure for in this direction, we shall have to reach a stop.

   In this way, the right thing to be done, the sight of the one right thing to be done, which is the end of practical wisdom at which deliberation too stops, is also called a kind of perception.

A second consideration from Aristotle is the possibility that the “faculty that forms opinion” has a double meaning, referring also to the faculty involved in legislation, forming the opinions of the citizens, selecting the best images and opinions to be cultivated in having the best customs for a particular people.It is the work of practical wisdom to give “a true conviction of the end or what is conducive to the end of action.” Book VI opens with another summary in which Socrates asks Glaucon, “Is it a blind or a sharp-sighted guardian who ought to keep watch over anything?” (484c).

   On the assumption that knowledge and opinion are two different powers, Socrates and Glaucon agree that the opinable and the knowable are different objects of these powers. Opinion is located as lying between knowledge and ignorance, and the opinable is sought between what is and what is not. Strangely, the opinable was called the “wanderer between, seized by the power between” (479 d7)…. The imagination too is sometimes represented as as a sea navigable to another shore, and the soul itself in some sense might be the opinable, in the sense of a collective unconscious between the seeker and knowledge. Socrates notes that unlike hearing, sight and the objects seen are in need of a third thing, light, in order to be yoked together in vision. The sun is called an “offspring of the good, begot in proportion with itself. Among the visible things, the sun is to sight and the things seen as the good is to intelligence and the things intellected. Just as the eye sees when light illuminates the colors of visible objects,, but appears nearly blind when in darkness, so the soul, Socrates teaches, “intellects, knows, and appears to possess intelligence when it is turned toward that which is “illuminated by truth and that which is,” but focusing on coming into being and passing away, or on what is mixed with darkness, it opines and is dimmed. As the sun isa visible, but neither is it vision nor the objects it illuminates, So the good, as the cause of knowledge and truth, can be understood to be a thing known, though it is yet something different than knowledge and truth. And as the sun provides what is seen with generation, growth and nourishment, so also existence and being are in the things known as a result of the good, although the good isn’t being but is still beyond being, exceeding it in dignity. As it is beyond the things that are, it is no wonder that Socrates is hesitant to say what it is.

Notes

Note 1: The word is theo-eides te kai theo eikelov, “divine of form” and “god-like.” Most sun formed is halio-eidestatoi, at 508b. The reference is apparently to the Homeric epithet as this is used for example of Achilles by Agamemnon (Iliad, I, 131) and of Odysseus Thrasymedes and Telemachos Odyssey,  III, 398, 414, 416). In Homer, the word is unlikely to have the significance of the image of God in man by which the legislator produces the the image of man. The legislator (at 500c-501b) uses the image of god in man as the philosopher-kings are later said to use the good itself (540 a9-b1) as a pattern in ruling all that that they rule.

Note 2: Benardete, Seth “Sun, Line and Cave,” p. 327. Benardete continues that the account in the Republic “appears to be prior to and is posterior to the discovery of political philosophy.”

Note 3: Aristotle, Ethics VI, 12140 b8 and 1141 b4. Aristotle’s examples of natural philosophers and non-philosophic politicians leads one to wonder about the distinction of Socratic wisdom from these kinds of theoretical and practical wisdom.

Note 4: Tokos means both interest and offspring Usury, lending at interest- is considered suspect because unlike profit from the natural reproduction a herd of sheep or cattle, interest is the “unnatural breed of barren metal.” (Yet lending capital might itself generate value.)

Note 5: Allan Bloom, Interpretive Essay,   .

Note 6: Jacob Klein notes that there is an “ironic ambiguity” in the term doxaston, because in addition to the opinable” it can also mean “what is held in honor,” as at 511 a8 dedoxamenois). See also Aristotle’s Ethics I.12. The Glory” in scripture is similarly the Doxan,” and an illumination around the Presence.

 

Bibliography

Bloom, Alan. Plato’s Republic. Interpretive Essay

Brann, Eva. The Music of the Republic

Strauss, Leo. The City and Man.