Vamos a ver los ingredientes y pasos para realizar este plato.

Ensalada campera:
- Patata.
- Huevo duro.
- Tomate natural maduro.
- Pepino.
- Cebolla.
- Pimiento verde y rojo.
- Atun en aceite.
- Zanahoria.
- Judías verdes.
- Sal.
- Aceite.
- Vinagre.

Comenzamos por cocer las patatas peladas y troceadas y las judías verdes que es lo que más va a tardar en hacerse, además que deberemos dejar que se enfríen. Podemos cocerlas juntas ya troceadas simplemente sobre agua que las cubra ligeramente con alguna pastilla de concentrado de caldo. Las judías verdes para esta ensalada, es interesante cortarlas en juliana, es decir, en tiras muy estrechas.

En un cazo aparte con agua, sal y un chorrito de vinagre cocemos los huevos, dependiendo del número de comensales calculad 1 por persona aproximadamente.

Cortamos el tomate, la cebolla, el pepino y los pimientos en trozos pequeños y lo ponemos en una ensaladera junto a las patatas, las judías verdes, el atún escurrido y sobre ello decoramos con unas tiras de zanahoria en crudo (con el pelador de patatas podemos hacer unas tiras finas y graciosas) y el huevo duro picado.

Metemos en la nevera y dejamos que refresque antes de servir.

El aliño o vinagreta para esta ensalada es el más sencillo, simplemente aceite de oliva, sal y vinagre que conviene preparar y remover bien en un recipiente aparte.
Lo normal es poner 3 partes de aceite de oliva por una de vinagre, del mismo modo podréis emplear vinagres de vino, de Jerez, de sidra, balsámicos, etc., e incluso, sustituirlo por limón, pero como siempre eso ya al gusto.

Ya a la hora de servir, regaremos con el aliño la ensalada.

De interés:
- Pipirrana.
- Cóctel de marisco en barca de Piña.
- Ensalada de garbanzos.
- Ensaladilla rusa.
- Ensalada Malagueña.
- Ensalada de arroz.

It felt good to pull my well-worn copy of Robin Waterfield's translation of Plato's Republic off the shelf this morning and look at my teaching notes. If there was any doubt before that Republic was my favorite book to teach, this morning has dispelled it. Wherever I land in years to come, I imagine I'll do what I can to get it in my rotation again.

[edit: I just found out that Oxford World's Classics has published a new edition of the book. I'll be looking at some new covers this semester, I imagine. Unfortunately, the only image I could find was the silly Amazon "search inside" image. So it goes.  I did write the first Amazon review for this edition, so that's something.]

However let it not be said that there’s no reason to celebrate! Wealthy nobles no longer exert undue influence in government affairs; instead that role has been usurped by wealthy businessmen. There is also no ceremonious Senate who’s only perceivable roles are to enforce the whims of the Caesar and to appear somewhat dignified. That institution has been replaced with a Congress which capitulates to every demand of the president while occasionally composing a statement of disapproval so as not to appear completely impotent.

The more things change huh? Sometimes I think about Plato’s “philosopher king” or the legend of King Arthur and wonder if we’re really any better off.

Yours, Derek.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Taylor Adkins, from Fractal Ontology, has graciously shared with me some advanced rough drafts of his continuing translations of François Laruelle’s work from French into English. This morning I read one of the more introductory, programmatic pieces he sent — the preface and introduction to Principles of Non-Philosophy. This outlines in broad strokes Laruelle’s notion of “non-philosophy,” which, from what I gather, is one of the central themes of his work. The work exhibits an uncommon originality in its interpretations of traditional philosophical (and extra-philosophical) problems, accompanied by a casual erudition which appeals to my tastes greatly. Personally, I do foresee problems (or at least significant obstacles) which will present themselves to Laruelle’s enterprise, which may be dealt with more or less adequacy. Given the competence and ingenuity he displays in this short piece, however, I have no doubt that he will make an honest go of it. It would be ridiculous, in any case, to demand an exhaustive treatment or solution to these problems from a work which he openly admits is propaedeutic in its function (i.e., it only aims to be “the most complete introduction to non-philosophy in the absence of its realization”).

What follows are my initial thoughts in response to this piece. I will refrain from idle speculation into those sections which exceed my topical familiarity at present, and focus mostly on some of the references and implications which I take to be most plainly evident in the text. In this way I might perform some small service of gratitude to Taylor for offering his work for discussion, contributing the occasional insights my background makes available for those who are interested. It is quite possible that my own take on what Laruelle is trying to say is mistaken; aware of this fact, I welcome criticism and correction from all sides.

Departing from the continental orientation toward questions of ontology (the logic of Being) and its differential corollary of alterity which has predominated in recent years, Laruelle grounds his exposition of “non-philosophy” in its (ontology’s) traditional rival, henology (the logic of the One). This classification is misleading, however. For Laruelle’s conception of the One is highly idiosyncratic. It differs in many respects from the object of the classical Platonic, Stoical, and Spinozistic henologies — the One(s) which philosophically ground(s) the order of appearances in their modal correspondence and community with one another.

On this point we may elaborate. Specifically, Laruelle seems to take issue with the place the One occupies within philosophies and mystical tradition, as something which is accomplished or realized through the relation of its subsidiary modes. This holds whether the One is reached by speculative/dialectical ascent (as in transcendental and Hegelian logic) or through revelation or religious vision (as in mysticism). This is why categorizing Laruelle’s thought as henological is potentially confused, because any “logic” which is thought to articulate the One cannot be conceived as literal. It can appear only in scare-quotes, since the One “is immanent (to) itself rather than to a form of thought, to a ‘logic.’”

Instead of being a mere object of philosophical and mystical discourse, a metaphysical ultimate, Laruelle therefore suggests that the One is already the Real, and constitutes the sole ground by which experience (and thus philosophy) are even possible. The inversion lies here: the One does not philosophically ground reality; rather, the One really grounds philosophy (along with every other mode of knowledge or experience). Moreover, this ground is original — which is to say that it does not follow from anything, but everything follows from it. Hence his repeated emphasis on the transcendental status of the One (the Kantian “conditions necessary for the possibility of”). These two aspects, the original and the transcendental qualities of Laruelle’s One, together form the critical points on which the thrust of his argument rides.

These may be briefly elaborated. We shall begin hermeneutically, investigating the “original” dimension of Laruelle’s notion of the One. I assert that this lies plainly in its appellation as a “[r]adically immanent identity.” “Radical” is here not taken in its vulgar sense as indicating extremity, but rather in its more basic Latin sense (derived from radix, radicalis), designating the One’s originary status as the “root” of all else. Laruelle, well-versed in Kant, is doubtless aware of this meaning of “radical,” as Kant so famously employed it in his discussion of “radical evil” in his 1793 Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone.

The “transcendental” aspect of the One appears in the threefold delineation of the “terms” which Laruelle takes it to “contain.” He describes these terms as “[1] a real or indivisible identity—the One-Real; [2] a term = X properly called, received from transcendence and which therefore is not immanent; [3] finally a term called ‘transcendental Identity,’ a veritable clone of the One which the term = X extracts from the Real.” Laruelle quickly reminds the reader that “in reality” (the way it is in-itself) the One is not reducible to any of these “terms.”† However, an elucidation of these terms is appropriate to our discussion.

The first term bears the most similarity with mystical notions of the One, akin perhaps to the apeiron of Greek cosmology (the primal, formless chaos of Anaxagoras, Anaximander, etc.). It illustrates its primordial, undifferentiated identity.

The second term obviously alludes to the crucial passage in Kant’s “Transcendental Deduction” in the first (1781, A) edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, wherein he explains the proposition “A = B” (that is to say, the relation of subject to object, the “dyad” of which Laruelle speaks) rests on the transcendental possibility of their relation = X. As Laruelle writes, this term is “received from transcendence” because it transcendentally (noumenally) grounds the relation of a subject and a predicate which appear (phenomenally) unlike. Kant describes this as a necessary postulate of reason, a negative limit which can be invoked but not positively described. Laruelle later (implicitly) chides the reflective wonder which Kant tacitly adopted from Leibniz‡ in viewing the amenability of the objective world to subjective cognition of it as justifying “the postulation of a ‘miracle,’ common sense or pre-established harmony, which dedicates philosophy to begging the question.”

The final term, as Laruelle tells us, is abstracted/extracted (“over” and “out”) from this relation (X). In this respect the One is a clone (thereby ectypal) rather than original (archetypal) because it is conditioned by our empirical recognition of the relation by which we identify it. The dyad of A = B vows “revenge” on its duality, on its mutual alienation from its other, and “resigns its desire by extracting an image from the One (of) the One where the latter is not alienated.” I suspect this refers to the Hegelian henology, and accounts for the reciprocality of its 2/3 and 3/2 “fractional matrix.” The “3” side invariably refers to the transcendentally exterior “synthesis,” while the “2” refers to the immanently interior dualism of “thesis” and “antithesis” (to use crude Fichtean terms).

It is my belief that Laruelle intends to identify non-philosophy primarily with the first of these terms, the “One-Real.” Only this term is truly original and “radically immanent.” The second term, by contrast, is based on an observation of a relation in Being and is thus ontological; the third term simply takes this ontic relation and purifies it logically. Laruelle suggests that Marxism came close to making the “discovery/invention” (a beautiful paradox) of the One-in-One or One-Real, by inverting Hegel’s idealism into materialism/realism. Still, it had fallen prey to the old Hegelian practice of scolding the “common consciousness” (only now it was “false consciousness”) as an “ideological” byproduct over which it exalted itself as a material science. Again it fell back on assigning to ordinary cognition a regrettable status as non-philosophical, or “unscientific” (to use a Leninist epithet).

Laruelle says early on that philosophy should remove itself from its elitism, reconciled with “democracy.” In granting non-philosophy some efficacy of its own (autonomy), he hopes to liberate it from its theodical subordination to the triumph of philosophical consciousness. And while non-philosophy might never be “the educator of philosophy,” it should nevertheless be understood as equiprimordial with it. In providing a genetic account (from and not to) of their ontological bifurcation from the henological One, Laruelle might help philosophy forget its vanity and see the common origins (roots) it shares with non-philosophy, whether “common consciousness” or even regional knowledges (natural sciences, disciplines).

Most of the points I have made in support of my argument are not such as I can confidently assert; but that the belief in the duty of inquiring after what we do not know will make us better, braver and less helpless than the notion that there is not even a possibility of discovering what we do not knkow, nor any duty of inquiring after it - this is a point for which I am determined to do battle, so far as I am able, both in word and deed.

Plato, Meno 86B

El resultado (junto con un poco de ensalada) ha sido mi comida de hoy:

Dos cosas: Sí, está del revés pero como es un "tri-plato" que digo yo, da igual cómo lo pongas :P Y segundo, la calidad es mala por que la foto está hecha con la cámara del móvil, ya que la batería de la cámara de fotos estaba seca...

Lo bueno de ese tipo de plato (que en realidad es una bandeja de esas para poner olivas y demás XD ) es que sólo puedes poner dentro muy poquita cantidad, por que de lo contrario se cae todo.

Por cierto: las entrevistas de ayer fueron bien, pero como digo siempre, veremos cómo acaba la cosa. :)

I remember first learning what a reductio was while reading one of Plato's dialogues.  I can't remember exactly which one, probably The Theaetetus.  In any event, I came to the familiar question of how exactly to name my opposition to this particualr reductio.  Since a reductio ad absurdum is deductively invalid by definition, I could say "and this is inconsistent because..." The function of the argument WAS to be invalid and thus not sound.

I can't discuss the specifics, but needless to say, it was entertaining to see a familiar problem arise in a quite distinct context or discourse.

Here are a few legitimate sources of information on reductio ad absurdum's:

• Standard Encyclopedia article on Democritus

A reductio ad absurdum argument reported by Aristotle suggests that the atomists argued from the assumption that, if a magnitude is infinitely divisible, nothing prevents it actually having been divided at every point. The atomist then asks what would remain: if the answer is some extended particles, such as dust, then the hypothesized division has not yet been completed. If the answer is nothing or points, then the question is how an extended magnitude could be composed from what does not have extension

© Anthony E. Larson, 2002

 Learning from the Scriptures

"Search the scriptures," said the Savior. So, most Latter-day Saints do just that. We search for spiritual truths and counsel that might strengthen our testimonies and help us live better, more righteous lives.

But while those spiritual truths are vital, there is much more to the scriptures that we often overlook - things that we were meant to learn as well as the spiritual truths, things that, when internalized, can immensely enhance and correct our worldview.

Take the story of Joshua's long day, for example.

"Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed ...  So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10:12, 13.)

Joshua's story is a powerful example of the influence a prophet can wield when acting in the name of God, an astounding example of the use of priesthood power. This is the primary message of the story.

However, there is another side to the story - one generally overlooked. It is a secondary message, as in a parable, that holds a vital truth of its own and can prove most useful in shaping our view of science in general and astronomy in particular. Most importantly, it should teach us something about our Creator and the way he does things.

Since most readers overlook the historical accuracy of such extravagant scriptural accounts, they fail to grasp its more practical implications. In order to see this facet of the Joshua account clearly, we must focus on the implied physical nature of the event: the stopping and starting of Earth's rotation. Of course, such an implication is unthinkable to most of us. According to all we have been taught, all that we have experienced, the Earth's rotation cannot be stopped. The eminent astronomer, Carl Sagan, for example, declared it an impossibility.

So, what are we to make of the natural side of Joshua's account? If the Earth really did not stop turning, as Joshua reported, what do we make of it? Is this account's accuracy flawed? Are the scientists right, or are the scriptures right?

Happily, for Latter-day Saints there is another, unimpeachable witness in the scriptures that answers these questions definitively. That witness is the Book of Mormon.

Speaking of the power of God, Mormon editorializes, "Thus we see that ... if he say unto the earth - Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours - it is done;

"And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun."  (Helaman 12:11-15.)

If there was any doubt about Joshua's account, Mormon's statement erases it. He makes it crystal clear; there is no equivocation, no hedging. He even goes so far as to clearly define the proper relationship between the movement of the sun and the earth.

Mormon is no geocentrist. He cannot be accused of ignorance in things astronomical.

Latter-day Saints cannot question the validity of such a statement, since Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon to be "the most correct book."

So we have two scriptural witnesses that the earth can and has stopped turning. But there is a third, extra-scriptural witness.

The will of the Lord concerning extra-scriptural books is found in the Doctrine & Covenants.

"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

"... Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine ...

"Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass ...." (Doctrine & Covenants 88:118,78, 79.)

Thus, the Lord makes clear that studying theory that supports scriptural principle and doctrine is a worthy pursuit, so that we "may be instructed more perfectly."

An excellent example of extra-scriptural text in support of Joshua's observations is found in Plato's Timaeus wherein Plato reveals that a Greek myth about the sun's movement through the heavens is actually fact rather than fiction.

"There is a story ... that once upon a time Phaeton, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth ...." (Plato's Timaeus)

Plato, whose works surely qualify as among "the best books," makes clear that the Phaeton myth is actually about a time when the sun went out of its normal course.

Now we have three witnesses: two from the scriptures, one from profane or secular history.

Here is where "the rubber meets the road," as one adage puts it. Time to "fish or cut bait," according to another. Do Latter-day Saints continue to believe mainstream scientists who assert that it would be impossible to halt the earth's rotation and then restart it again, even though the scriptures plainly affirm that it has happened? Or, do we have enough faith to place our confidence in the scriptures by rejecting the view of mainstream science, even though it flies in the face of accepted scientific laws and assumptions?

So, now we have come full circle. When we read our scriptures, we are completely prepared to accept any spiritual truth offered. But, when the words of the prophets attempt to teach us concepts that belong in the realm of natural law or science, we find it difficult to accept. So, how much faith do we really have? How committed are we, in reality, to the words of the Prophets?

This is vital to a thoroughgoing study of the gospel. One cannot say that he or she believes or holds sacred the scriptures if a decision is made to accept only a part of what the scriptures offer while rejecting another part. We cannot embrace the spiritual message of Joshua's story and be ambivalent about the rest.

More importantly, rejecting the fullness of the prophets' message closes the door on untold learning and growing possibilities - both scientific and spiritual, because the two are really not in opposition once a few simple truths are established that are typically denied by modern science.

Seeing Joshua's story as an accurate, eyewitness account, Mormon's explanation as corroborating and supporting documentation and Plato's explanation as substantiation from another culture, we stand poised to learn much about the true nature of God's wondrous creation, the language of the Prophets, ancient history, prophecy and the symbolism of the scriptures.

"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come."  (Doctrine & Covenants 93:24.)  In this context, Joshua's account is truly a key to the scriptures and a test of our faith.

website

videos

Although there are other meanings it the song (equally unknown by the wise, and equally true), the one that is the focus of this post: Happiness can only be truly experienced when the person experiencing it is not aware that it is happiness (or in recalling memories of such)- the moment we realize what it is, it disappears. These theme is also hinted at in the Movie Gladiator: "There was a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish, it was so fragile."

From the words above, from philosophy class, and (ultimately and primarily) from my own insight, I have delved into a matter of great concern- a matter  that existentialism was (indirectly) founded to address.

there is a Bible verse, attributed to Jesus- Matthew 6:3 "But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." Although there is the more obvious maxim "don't do good for praise, or else you'll miss out on the long-term benefits" (Basically Karma, Jesus-style); but there is (IMO) another meaning, and is concerned with happiness and the soul, which will be addressed below:

In Illogical, I noted many questions that circled around the relationship of the "self" to the "consciousness", and also inferred a connection to the "soul" or "psyche". Plato believed that the soul was "caged" in the body, and "locked aware from true knowledge, and having to accept and adapt to deceptions of the truth, dim reflections of the brilliance it rightfully deserves. He illustrates these thoughts in his legendary "Myth of the Cave" allegory. Although I do not agree with Plato's dualism (I am in particular at odds with the "Forms"), I think that these particular thoughts can be reasonably adapted to illustrate the relationship between the consciousness, subconscious, the psyche (soul), and happiness.

[quote from the Matrix] "being the [happy] is just like being in love. No one needs to tell you you are in love, you just know it, through and through" (replaced "one" with "happy")

But here's the rub: We can believe that we're happy ("know"), we can be told (or tell others) we're happy, we can assume we're happy.....But if we actually consider whether we are, we lose that happiness. Try it sometime, and you'll see what I mean. Any time you try to measure your happiness, you will end up with a bittersweet mix of hope and anxiety. Now why is that? Anytime we *actually* are aware of our happiness, we lose it. Love (and being *the one*) doesn't have that advantage, so I guess you could say that's how they *aren't* alike :P

I think that it must be because "part of us" isn't happy- the "psyche", or as Sigmund Freud called it, the "Ego". This raises an important point, as the "Ego" is the "Consciousness". Does that mean we aren't conscious any time we're happy? Well that wouldn't work- but this is where Platos "Myth of the Cave" allegory comes in. The Ego, or soul, is deceived in order to adapt to this very circumstance, so that (And this is the fun part that makes me really "happy") "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing". Wow, I knew it would all come together, but I didn't think it would sound that cool! lol :P --you have to admit, even if you don't agree it comes together really nicely, doesn't it? And I swear I did not do it that well on purpose- this post is about 80% improvisation (pending knowledge/deductive reasoning/etc, but I've "got all those down". Okay, back to the point:

But this raises another point, and this is where existentialism comes in: If becoming self-conscious results in the corruption of happiness, does that mean our consciousness is unhappy. Platonic dualists would say yes. But what then, is the actual relationship of our subconscious (Id) to our conscious (Ego), and where do "we" (that which we perceive ourself to be overall) come in? Sigmund Freud, if I am understanding him correctly, would say that we identify with society- through the interactions between the Ego and the SuperEgo (our SuperConsciousness, where "super" means "beyond", and "society's consciousness is "consciousness beyond us") ; -- we identify with "ourself" (well more accurately, our "inner-self", or "heart of hearts") But all this is really a bit off-topic :P

Well, although it will take a while to grasp these complexities- at least in theory, the "self" that we are most familiar with, is likely a forced marriage between the Ego and Id. Now the Id is where Happiness actually comes from. That is also particularly interesting to me, because the soul obviously would not trap itself in the body for no reason. As I theorized (independently of philosophy, mind you) in my Reincarnation post (the second one), the soul felt the need to evolve, and found that it could not evolve efficiently without a body. So essentially (in my theory) souls sacrifice their freedom to ensure a better future.

This is where the Id comes in: The Id is pure desire- as such a baby is considered "pure Id". "I don't know what I want, or how to get what I want- all I know is that I want it, and I want it now." But more importantly, Id, as pure desire, is pure instict- the physical intuition. Physical desire, although useless by itself- souls knew it was the best bet for evolution. This resulted in the same irony which, in my experience, permeates the universe: The soul (Ego) controls the Id, but in return sacrifices its freedom, and is held hostage by it. Both Id and Ego are slave and master- quite the paradoxal combination.

But I still feel a sort of sympathy for the soul, because I have (by choice) gained a high level of self-awareness, and have felt much of its pain as a result. I really wonder how things will turn out In The End.

PLATO'S ORIGINAL idea was that there is such a thing as objective, 'absolute truth'. Plato's 'truth' idea (like all his ideas) was a product of his imagination.

He was the younger friend of Socrates whom he admired greatly and who was also his mentor. It was Socrates who invented the interrogatory style of argument involving strings of questions seeking either a YES or NO response. It's an old dinosaur known as the Socratic Method but it still survives in our legal system and could be seen on TV shows like LA Law and the O. J. Simpson trial.

Both Socrates and Plato became two of the greatest thinking hackers in Western history. To me, the most fascinating of Plato's works is Symposium because it's an insightful account of how it all began at a typical dinner-party back in Athens, around 400 BC, with Plato, Socrates and a few friends.

It's witty, entertaining and shows how their discussions and banter, laced with much wine and bawdy gossip, produced a small collection of thinking ploys, concepts, software and viruses that, amazingly, have dominated Western thinking right up to the 21st century.

Most destructive of all these inventions has been the Plato Truth Virus.

In the Western world, Plato is recognized as the one who put thinking on the map. Plato figured that the more one thought about matters and the more one tried to discover and understand their true essence or form, the more insights one could experience. But he also decided (and this is the killer) that thinking was NOT an open-ended process. Plato figured there must be a finite end to a thinker's relentless search for meaning, an ultimate destination to a thinker's efforts, so he called that destination objective 'truth'. Uh-oh! Big mistake!!

Today, 2,500 years later, much of Western society still behaves as though there actually is such a thing as an objective, absolute truth. Somehow oblivious to real world consequences, many Western universities and colleges are full of discussions about 'truth', 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'evil', 'honesty', 'justice' and so on. This all spills out into society so that Big Government, Big Religion, Big Business, Big Brother and other groups invoke these 'absolute truths' as the basis for their policies and the justification for their actions - so often with horrific consequences.

The trouble was that once Plato had invented his truth concept, it existed. Subsequently, when other thinkers came along Plato's invention infected their ideas like a virus - and so we name the virus after him, the Plato Truth Virus (PTV). Gradually the activity of thinking came to be subverted by the insidious truth virus. Some thinkers inevitably claimed to have found - The Truth.

PTV, the truth virus, began to control the thinker's set of intellectual claims and so we see a number of philosophies and doctrines and movements that claimed to have discovered absolute truth and gave notice of filing their claims: "Stop looking! ... We have the truth! ... We are right, you are wrong! ... We are good, you are evil! ... Believe in the truth or be damned! ... The truth is on our side! ... We know what's right! Do what we tell you, or else! - Crush the infidel! - Kill the unbeliever!"

My-Teacher-is-Right - Your-Teacher-is-Wrong

The problem for the observer is the number of conflicting claims to absolute truth and unique rightness. The seductiveness of PTV is also what makes it so destructive and deadly: everyone wants to be the one who has 'The Truth Therefore, everyone infected with the virus claims to b uniquely right and that's where the carnage begins.

From time to time teachers like Buddha, Jesus and Confucius have emerged in the different cultures of the world. Most people are free of PTV and many have benefited from their teachers' messages of goodwill.

Sadly, these teachers are often upstaged by greedy PTV-infected franchisees who claim to have exclusive rights on their teacher's intellectual property. Who can blame the original teachers for the sickness of their followers?

So often, in the name of peace and goodwill, infected followers fight with a sick rage and burning hatred. The brain virus so distorts the original message that it would be unrecognizable to the original messenger. People have become more interested in the 'truth status' of the message than the message itself. Perhaps it is more important to be an 'effective follower' than to be a 'right follower'.

Truth 'R' Us

Here is small sample of PTV-infected claims which have long since upstaged those claims made by the original teacher:

Christian Science: ... is unerring and Divine ... outside of Christian Science all is vague and hypothetical, the opposite of Truth.

Seventh-Day Adventists: The General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists is the highest authority that God has upon earth.

Jehovah's Witnesses: ... alone are God's true people, and all others without exception are followers of the Devil ... At Armageddon all of earth's inhabitants except Jehovah's Witnesses will be wiped out of existence.

Mormons: There is no salvation outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ... everybody, unless they repent and work righteousness, will be damned except Mormons.

Christadelphians: None but Christadelphians can be saved.

Islam: Mohammed is the messenger of God ... the last, and final exponent of God's mind, the seal of the prophets.

The Divtne Light Mission: The Guru Marahaj Ji alone has the key to the knowledge of the source of God.

The Unification Church: OnIy the Lord of the Second Advent, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, will be powerful enough to complete the restoration of man to God.

Chapter 4 - PTV SOFTWARE

IF PLATO WAS the hacker who invented the truth virus, Aristotle was the first to package it into a powerful cognitive operating system or thinking software package.

Aristotle started as a student in Plato's academy and remained there for 20 years until Plato, his mentor, died. By the time Plato died Aristotle was thoroughly infected with his mentor's truth virus and did much to establish "the search for certainty" as the basis of all intellectual endeavors.

Aristotle became a passionate and obsessive truth freak. Plato only went as far as saying that truth was what lay at the long end of a thinker's search, an ultimate destination. Not enough for Ari ... No sir! Aristotle said, "I want truth! I want it here! I want it now!".

Aristotle went on to insist that the ordinary fuzzy jumble of our daily reality was just not tidy enough. So, to bring order to the world he imposed a kind of truth template over everything.

Mail-Sorting and Labeling

Aristotle's medium was language. He assumed that the certainty of words could give certainty to the ineffable flow of experience. The untidy chaos of reality offended Aristotle's ordered, PTV-infected mind so he decided to break everything up into pigeonholes and categories - kind of like mail-sorting and labeling.

This goes here, that goes there, stick this label on this and that label on that! Let's just tidy everything up. Yes sir. A place for everything and everything in its place was Aristotle's motto.

In his classifying fervour Aristotle made up pigeonholes and sorted our daily reality into them. He tried to invent slots for everything. For example, he set about sorting 'government' into categories like:

'constitutional', 'tyrannical', 'monarchy', 'aristocracy', 'oligarchy', 'democracy'.

He then got busy breaking everything up into subjects like: politics, ethics, rhetoric (speech-making), metaphysics, physics, biology, meteorology. Finally, he invented his very own thinking software called logic.

Aristotle's Silly Syllogism

Aristotle's thinking software was already infected with the Plato Truth Virus from day one. For logic, Aristotle invented his silly syllogism. I say it's silly because it lacks wisdom and sense.

The syllogism starts with the so-called 'truth' as its premise. Then one simply matches up items that come along and out pops your conclusion. Simple really ... and very silly

Examples:

TRUTH: Swans are white.
ITEM: This is a swan.
LOGICAL EXTENSION: Therefore it is white.

TRUTH: Salespeople tell lies.
ITEM: Amy is a salesperson.
LOGICAL EXTENSION: Therefore Amy is lying.

TRUTH: Our church is the right church
ITEM: You are not a member.
LOGICAL EXTENSION: Therefore you are wrong.

TRUTH: The earth is flat.
ITEM: Therefore it has an edge.
LOGICAL EXTENSION: Therefore you will fall off the edge if you go too far from shore

TRUTH: President is the law.
ITEM: The President did something
LOGICAL EXTENSION: Therefore it is legal. (Aristotle's Logic software caused Nixon to believe this.)

TRUTH: boss's opinion is best.
ITEM: You are not a boss.
LOGICAL EXTENSION: So when we want your opinion we'll give it to you.

No Contradictions, Please!

For Aristotle, just thinking wasn't good enough. No, you have to think logically. Logic is obsessed with hunting down contradictions. In logic, a thing cannot be in box A and box NOT A at the same time. No, it must be sorted and classified into the 'correct' box.

Although real life is full of contradictions and paradoxes (is the glass half full or half empty?) this was just not good enough for our man Aristotle. Things must be cut up into pieces like a jig-saw and then sorted into their 'true' categories.

Judging Right from Wrong

Life, according to Aristotle, is a matter of sorting things out into 'right' and 'wrong'. Judgement is the key activity. This is right. That's wrong. I'm right. You're wrong. This is black. That is white. This is American. That's un-American. This is good. That is bad. This is the right answer. That is the wrong answer.

Greyness? Fuzziness? Uncertainty? Open-endedness? Paradox? Contradiction? Well, we cannot have that sort of thing around here. You've got to sort things out! Clean up your act! Get things right! In Aristotle's Lyceum, everything was covered by rules, rules, rules. The living arrangements, the study courses, the timetables were all dominated by rules and regulations.

Ancient Software

Aristotle craved order. He loved the order that his classifications brought to his ideas and thoughts. He assumed that the same order that he found he could impose on words and language could also be imposed on the real world. Many have made the same mistake.

Aristotle's cognitive operating system, logic, has dominated Western education for far too long. How come we still think this way 2,500 years after old Ari joined Socrates and Plato on Mount Olympus? How come this ancient software has survived so long? Who kept it alive? Who spread it around? Who programmed it into your brain? We will discuss this in the next chapter.

Have a look around. Try to notice Aristotle's PTV-infected logic software in operation. You should try to notice it in your own mental information-processing and also in that of others. Look for it in this book. Look for evidence of the virus in today's newspaper and on TV. Also, try to notice it in institutions and in common situations you come across in the next 24 hours. It is so pervasive that you may have difficulty noticing the very subtle manifestations.

Chapter 5 - SPREAD

IN THE LAST FEW chapters we looked at PTV, the Plato Truth Virus. We saw how the 'thinking' hackers of ancient Athens - Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - fooled around with 'thinking' software and how they developed and packaged the concept of 'absolute truth'.

In these next few chapters we'll explore how PTV was picked up and spread throughout the Western world, infecting millions of minds and killing millions of human beings and still flourishing 2,500 years later.

In tracking the spread of a virus, we can try to find our way back to the identification of its Patient Zero. Who was the first patient who really got the virus going? Who was the one to spread it around enough to let it take hold?

Well, when it came to the spreading of Aristotle's Logic Software (already infected with PTV) no-one was more successful than a young Italian nobleman, Thomas Aquinas.

Doctor Truth and The Truth - InDOCTORnation

Born in 1225 into powerful nobility near Naples, Aquinas outraged his family when he decided to become a Dominican friar. When it comes to truth freaks, Thomas was one of the greatest ever. He was Doctor Truth himself!

Thomas discovered a new translation of Aristotle from the Greek and so he set out to synthesise Aristotelian ideas in such a way that it was useful for defending The Truth.

Of course, as far as The Truth was concerned, there was never any doubt for our Fra Thomas. No need to look around. No need to search. He already knew exactly where and exactly what The Truth was. There was no further search required for The Truth as far as Aquinas was concerned. Just a matter of defending it and preserving it from any attempt to change it.

The Truth, proclaimed Thomas, was the teachings of the Church. And whose church might that be, Thomas? The Muslims? The Buddhists? The Jews? Picture Thomas opening the envelope, "And the winner is ... The Catholic Church".

That's it! Nothing else. Stop looking. Here it is. The lucky winner! Well, now, the winning True Church also happens to be YOUR church, Thomas old chap. What a coincidence! What a stroke of luck!

As it happened, Thomas' Church was an information monopoly. All European universities were run by the Church with head office in Rome. Rome literally owned all of knowledge and was busily exporting its corporate education system. The powerful but flawed thinking software, logic, was the cognitive operating system they used, courtesy of Aristotle via Aquinas.

This educational enterprise amounted to programming brains with what the church taught - verbatim - and repeating it back again. Scholarship was reduced to mere defence of Vatican teachings, which were known collectively as - The Truth.

Only Microsoft's export of Bill Gates' DOS has ever rivaled the Vatican's export of Thomas Aquinas' PTV.

Today, there are around 170 million PC users in the world and when they turn on their desktop or laptop computer the first thing 150 million of them see is "MS-DOS". This is an amazing accomplishment for Bill Gates and Microsoft in less than 20 years. This is only beaten by the fact that all 170 million PC users are also necktop users. And, all 170 million are using a Vatican-exported logic operating system to work their computers so they can work their PCs!

In the original Thomist Aristotle neuroware, operating system worked like this:

TRUTH: Vatican teaching is The Truth.
ITEM: Using Aristotle's logic to match things we are meant to ask: Does ITEM match TRUTH?
LOGICAL CONCLUSION: If YES, then it is RIGHT and it is TRUTH. If NO, then it is WRONG and it is HERESY.

Even people with the most superficial knowledge of history know what happened to heretics.

Truth Machines

I was recently in Amsterdam and paid a visit to the notorious Inquisition's Torture Museum. This popular tourist spot features a collection of the 'truth machines', an extraordinary array of macabre machines, racks, tongs, and spikes.

These and other implements of torture were used by the Inquisitors to 'purify' the heretics. One could only marvel uneasily at the cold-blooded ingenuity that went into the design of these instruments of truth.

The Inquisitors, invariably, were Fra Thomas's Dominicans. They were quite willing to inflict unspeakable horrors on thousands upon thousands of fellow human just for disagreeing. Thomist Aristotle doctrine could show up any contradictions.

It could show that their point-of-view did not exactly match The Truth and so they were heretics. Cut out their tongues! Crank up the rack! Get me the branding iron! Off to the stake!

It still sends shivers down my spine.

'Angelic Doctor" Truth

In the 14th century the "Angelic Doctor" was canonised for his great contribution to the defence of truth and Saint Thomas Aquinas became a kind of god in the church. There even is a famous painting by Zurburan called "The Apotheosis of St Thomas Aquinas" which shows Thomas, resplendent on a cloud in heaven in those frightening Dominican Inquisitorial robes, with popes and scholars at his feet. And below on earth, other popes and cardinals look up and pray to him in admiration.

John XXII said that to deny Aquinas was tantamount to heresy. Later, in 1879, Pope Leo XIII proclaimed that Thomist Aristotelian doctrine should be accepted as "the official doctrine of the church".

Exporting the Virus

Since Aquinas imbedded Aristotle's logic into the Vatican's education system it has become the main thinking software of Western civilisation, wherever it has been exported.

Since then, The Truth has been carried to all parts of the world with missionary zeal. In fact, Western education may be medieval Europe's most successful export.

*** Beware of the rationalist / pragmatic philosophies espoused in this online book.

http://www.buildfreedom.com/content/other/brain_software.html

Everyone wants happiness and love, deny it or accept it.

Sometimes we crave for them and sometimes we just move on saying, "C'est la vie".

We wake up everyday, half-hoping for a better day. We face our lives equipped nothing but our own courage and hope.

Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose.

Sometimes we laugh, sometimes we cry.

We want an angel to come into our lives and make us happy. I don't know if an angel will ever come into my life. But, I want to be the angel.

“A hug is the perfect gift; one size fits all, and nobody minds if you exchange it.”

I almost had a very bad day. I had a quarrel with an auto guy and it went a bit too far. Then I found this video on Desipundit. Thanks to Vinit. "Cheers to you man !! You've just lifted my spirits up."

This reminds me of the video footage played at the beginning of love actually.

The original inspiration is "Free Hugs Campaign" by Juan Mann. Heres the oringinal video. The track by sick puppies in the video is awesome. Its just perfect for the video. :)

Anyone for this at KGP? Let me know. Please comment. We'll plan it.

This paper was given by Kathryn LaFevers Evans
at ASE 3rd International Conference, “Esotericism, Religion, and Nature”
May 29 - June 1, 2008
College of Charleston, South Carolina

L’École Abstraite: Coincidentia Oppositorum as a Dialectic of Love:16th-18th Centuries

Textual examples of number symbolism document the propagation into Early Modern esotericism of a key concept: coincidence of opposites as a dialectic of love. The architecture of this fortification or Palace of Divine Love represents in physical geometric form the spiritual ideas of l’école abstraite, the abstract school of thought. The key texts compared herein—Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples’ De Magia naturali, François Rabelais’ Gargantua and Pantagruel, Jacob Boehme’s The ‘Key’, and Laurence Sterne’s The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman—demonstrate the inheritance of this subfield of esotericism, l’école abstraite.

Lefèvre (1455-1536) synthesized mythological, philosophical, theological and scientific theories and practices into a wholly-interpenetrating, esoteric worldview utilizing coincidentia oppositorum, termed such by the fifteenth-century cardinal, Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464). Particularly Book II of Lefèvre’s unpublished treatise On Natural Magic is exemplary of Early Modern esotericism’s inheritance of l’école abstraite, the abstract school of thought.

Kent Emery Jr. asserts that Lefèvre’s teachings contributed to the evolution of l’ecole abstraite, an indigenous French school of spirituality the influence of which reached to the philosophy of Hegel. Emery traces the tradition from John Scotus Erigena (800-877) to Ramon Lull (AmicAmat 1276-83) to Nicholas of Cusa, and emphasizes that Lefèvre reinforced teachings of mystic Church Fathers such as St. Bonaventure (1221-1274) and the Victorines, which were then later legitimized by Lefèvre’s students Josse Clichtove (1472-1543) and Charles de Bovelles (1479-1553), then by the Capuchin Benet of Canfield (1562-1611), then Laurent de Paris (1563-1631) who spoke of le palais de l’amour divin. Regarding Benet of Canfield, and his contemporary Laurent de Paris, Emery says, “For both, the principle of the coincidence of opposites is central” (Emery online, dates mine). In De Magia naturali Book II Chapter 4, Lefèvre himself claims a more ancient lineage for this tradition of numerical ascension along the chains to Idea:

Quam Mercurius, quam Zÿmoxchis, quam Zoroaster, denique divinus Plato,
posteaque eam Egiptios magos concesserat, tantopere desiderabant [. . .].Which Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus, which Zalmoxis, which Zoroaster, and
thereupon the divine Plato, and after he had departed the Egyptian magicians, of such measure were longing for [. . .]. (Evans II:58, f. 202)

Francois Rabelais

Categorized most specifically, I find that Book II embodies Christian Kabbalah, which is encompassed by the overarching abstract school of thought, later coined l’école abstraite by Benet of Canfield. The network during Lefèvre’s time of those now labeled Christian Kabbalists, included his compatriot François Rabelais (1483-1553). He is suggested to have used Lefèvre as the model for his satirized good theologian Hippothadée in The Third Book of Gargantua and Pantagruel (Œuvres Complètès L’Intégrale, Index des Personnages 998, “Hippothadée”). Jacob Boehme (1575-1624), a seventeenth-century self-identified receiver of God’s Will, in turn transmits l’école abstraite in The ‘Key’ through describing the physical architecture representing spiritual experiences. The primal architecture of this fortress or Palace of Divine Love is the binary juxtaposition of Above and below, married in a love-triangle or Trinitarian love-nexus generated out of that binary. Never tiring of the basic physical joke of satirically inverting sublime intimacies, Laurence Sterne (1713-1768), in Tristram Shandy, reenacts the key concept of coincidence of opposites as a dialectic of love through satirized incarnations of the binary, enacting a divine comedy to the very end of his voluminous text.

Where, in Lefèvre’s and Boehme’s texts we receive sublimely mythopoetic incarnations of divine love, through Rabelais and Sterne we receive a sacrifice of that dearest experience, yet offered in such a way as to effect the healing purpose of satirical learned wit. Each in their own way, these thinkers propagate an esoteric, wholly-interpenetrating worldview where all are in love, all are saved.

In the title of De Magia naturali Book II Chapter 10, Lefèvre employs the umbrella term, “Priscae velatae Theologiae” or “Ancient veils of Theology” (Evans II:80, f. 213). Throughout Book II, Lefèvre unveils mythology, theology, and philosophy to reveal a theory, practice and experience of number as Idea. He reveals how the limit of the metaphorical imagery in disciplines is duality, the binary coincidence of opposites, symbolized by the number 2. The Magic in Lefèvre’s number mysticism is based on human experience of numerical ascension from man to God, achieved through the number 3. Renaissance esotericists conceived of this prisca theologia as embodied in the Trinity through the Spirit of Christ. Theirs was a wholly-interpenetrating vision of universal Holy Spirit beyond dualistic boundaries, demonstrated in the topic of Lefèvre’s Book II, which he calls “Pythagorean philosophy”, and which he equates to “Cabala” and prophetic teachings (Evans Ch. 1 II:50, f. 198; Ch. 14 II:89-90, f. 217-218v). The Magic ternary or number 3 is identified in Chapter 1 as the Venusian love-nexus: “Venereum amorem, et inferioris potentiae appetitusque nexum . . . Venus is love, and love-nexus of the inferior power and longing . . .” (Evans II:51, f. 199v). In Chapter 3, Lefèvre details planetary effects on the earthly resulting from similars’ affinity to similars through the “benignity” of archetypes who embody this coincidence of opposites as a dialectic of love:

And Jupiter along with Venus, celestial love-nexus of benevolence, sound in unison their approach reciprocally nearest to benignity, as of all magical accordances, through their path benignity is sanctioned. And in truth not only the celestial to the celestial accord, but also the celestial to the earthly. [. . .] The influence consequently of the eighth circle, and also of the Moon, earth feels the greatest. Of Saturn and Mercury water, of Jove and Venus air, of Mars and Sun fire. And this agreed upon proportionate admixture of theirs, Empedocles of the Pythagoreans, who merely rightly inferred by conjecture, that matter is saved by concordant discord, by a love-relationship truly interior . (Evans Ch. 3 II:56-57, f. 201-202v)

This sexualized, though clearly metaphorical coincidence of opposites in ritual theological couples Lefèvre adopts as the primal mythopoetic scaffolding for De Magia naturali, describing that mythologized genesis of creation as “the mitigation of re-creation,” and justifying its use with the explanation “such that minds more easily understand” (Evans Ch. 7 II:67, f. 207v). Lefèvre delineates the inferior terrestrial numbers of the body and the Superior celestial numbers of the soul, forming the first binary relationship: “[. . .] primus ergo binarius.” “[. . .] the first [number] is therefore the binary .” This binary, the primal exilic metaphor of the Fall, he mythologizes as androgynous unity in the term “mons binarii,” “the mountain of the binary,” synonymous with the axis mundi or World Pillar. All other numbers emmanate from 2. (Evans Ch. 7 II:68-9, f. 207-208v)

For Christian Kabbalists, the exilic Fall from One to 2 is expressed mythologically in the story of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and in Jesus’ birth as the Son of God. The final Christian salvation from exile is expressed sacrificially through Jesus’ crucifixion when he becomes Christ, the Spirit that unites God and man, completing ascension to the Trinity. Likewise, Natural Magic resolves exile through number symbolism incarnate in mythological beings. Lefèvre employs the descending and ascending chains of the numerical, celestial and angelic spheres, on which man ascends to the divine. In Chapter 10, he claims that the numbers to the mystery of the magi (magicians) and the numbers to the mystery of the prophets are the same, that this “ancient veil of theology” is in concordance with Christian theology, and that Judaic Kabbalah is not unworthy (Evans II:80, f. 213; Ch. 14 II:89, f. 217). Eugene F. Rice explains how Lefèvre relates God’s delight in the number 3, and associates the triangle with the Trinity: “From the triangle all things come; it is the beginning, middle and end. [. . .] It inspires love of justice and equity, for the equilateral triangle is the figure of aequalitas” (“The De Magia Naturali of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples” 24)

Echoing Lefèvre, what the triangle symbolizes to Boehme is described thus: “Nothing and All; Alpha and Omega, the Eternal Beginning and the Eternal End; the Trinity Unmanifest” (The ‘Key’ 56).
I saw the Being of all Beings, the Ground and the Abyss, also the birth of the Holy Trinity, the origin and the first state of the world and of all creatures. I saw in myself the three worlds—the Divine or angelic world; the dark world, the original of Nature; and the external world, as a substance spoken forth out of the two spiritual worlds . . . In my inward man I saw it well, as in a great deep; for I saw right through as into a chaos where everything lay wrapped, but I could not unfold it. Yet from time to time it opened itself within me like a growing plant. […] The work is none of mine; I am but the Lord’s instrument, with which He does what He wills. (74)

Adam’s fall is symbolized as a divorce from Sophia into two triangles, which move again towards complete union, towards “the most significant Character in all the Universe” [the hexagram] (74).
Boehme describes the Holy Eucharist, Holy Communion in Divine Marriage:

[…] the Children of Adam [. . .] are Images of GOD […] Wherefore also they are distinguished from the Angels by this peculiar Character [hexagram symbol] which is not contrived by human Speculation, but is written in the Book of Nature by the Finger of God; for it points directly, not only at the Creation of this third Principle in six Days; but also at fallen and divorced Adam’s Reunion with the Divine Virgin SOPHIA. (80)

Laurence Sterne

The importance of mathematically generated symbols—such as the triangle and the hexagram—to esoteric thought is readily communicated through satire, since the satiric genre embodies the foundation from which to generate such symbols from Ideas: the comic juxtapositions and reversals of High and low. Satirists’ construction of the coincidence of opposites centers the Holy Spirit itself as the battleground between High and low, and thus the rightful territory of satire. The Ideas and forms of number symbolism have also long been ensconced in military allegory by its practioners, whether seriously or satirically, Ephraim Chamber's Cyclopedia cites this fact in the definition of fortification: “Some Authors go back to the Beginning of the World, for the Author and Origin of Military Architecture. According to them, GOD himself was the first Engeneer; and Paradice, or the Garden of Eden, the first Forteresse” (“Fortification” 79 U of Wisc online). Under the obsessive manipulations of Sterne’s military character Uncle Toby, the precious hexagram form is satirically distorted into a hexagon fortification, as Sterne would have seen Chamber’s “Fortification” just so illustrated.
D. W. Jefferson has pointed to the direct influence on Sterne’s Tristram Shandy of Urquhart and Motteux’s first English translation of Rabelais’ third book (Jefferson 150). Turning to The Third Book then, Neopythagoreanism, Neoplatonism and Christian Kabbalah are foundational throughout in such teachings as the significance of numbers. That significance is demonstrated through Panurge’s satirical defense of debtors:

Debts: A thing most precious and dainty, of great Use and Antiquity. Debts, (I say) surmounting the number of Syllables which may result from the Combinations of all the Consonants, with each of the Vowels heretofore projected, reckoned and calculated by the Noble Xenocrates. To judge of the perfection of Debtors by the Numerosity of their Creditors, is the readiest way for entring into the Mysteries of Practical Arithmetick. (310)

“Practical” here connotes the esoteric technique, or practice of number symbolism and numerical ascension. Reversing the mechanics of that cosmic hierarchy, Rabelais contends that Debt is the essential divine relationship rather than Love; Debt sets the universe in motion, not Love. The religious reversal is then amplified as Rabelais throws sex, and then war, into the equation. Panurge abstractly ponders the passion in his own nuptial coupling and what he concludes is the reason for the saying, “the Debt of Marriage” (Rabelais 317). Linking that chain next to a military allegory, Panurge denigrates second marriages to widows of war (320-21). Enter Sterne’s character Uncle Toby and the apparent impotence of a passionate desire, in the end, towards the Widow Wadman. Uncle Toby is obsessively practicing on his military Hobby-Horse in the central battleground of Holy Spirit. What endears this esoteric military allegory to us is that this interior territory, this love-relationship truly interior, embodies the touchstone of sacrifice. Therein is Uncle Toby’s double victory of sacrificing both passion and divine love, as demonstrated in the construction of his drawbridge:
“It turned it seems upon hinges at both ends of it, opening in the middle, one half of which turning to one side of the fosse, and the other to the other; the advantage of which was this, that by dividing the weight of the bridge into two equal portions, it impowered my uncle Toby to raise it up or let it down with the end of his crutch, and with one hand, which, as his garrison was weak, was as much as he could well spare—but the disadvantages of such a construction were insurmountable;—for by this means, he would say, I leave one half of my bridge in my enemy’s possession—and pray of what use is the other?” (Jefferson 21)

At the end of the story, after “THE INVOCATION” of Cervantes and his “mystic mantle,” I interpret that Sterne’s character Tristram recommends we sacrifice both divine love and human passion or debt:
[…] there must be ups and downs, or how the duce whould we get into vallies where Nature spreads so many tables of entertainment. […] for heaven’s and for your own sake, pay it—pay it with both hands open […]. (Sterne 571-72)

Hence, in a triangle of aequalitas, Uncle Toby’s Hobby-Horse drawbridge leverages both the camps of God and man in a spiritually redemptive sacrifice, thus securing victory. Melvyn New provides a clue to this conclusion in the Editor’s Introduction, where he describes the nature of Sterne’s sermons: “Above all, he denies the possibility of happiness or morality without religion, and asserts again and again the Providential design of the world […] from the first Adam’s fall to the second Adam’s (Christ’s) redemptive sacrifice” (xli). So I conclude that when satirists in the tradition of learned wit invert sublime intimacies through sexual and military allegory, neither an embrace nor an offense is intended, but rather complete surrender to Divine Will in love.

The telltale binary clue to Sterne’s propagation of the abstract school of thought is sounded loudly at the story’s end, where Tristram’s father’s “Bull,” lent for animal husbandry purposes to their servant, reappears. It is then that Sterne likens human progeny to such two-horned beasts as satyrs. So not only is the binary number 2 allegorized in the love-nexus between Uncle Toby and the Widow Wadman, but that same dialectic of love has borne the beastly fruit of Tristram, instead of the Holy Trinity. His father Walter embodies the coincidence of opposites in that the name Walter can be traced through its manifestations as Bon Gaultier, Merry Walter, Robin Goodfellow, Puck or Pooka, and thus back to the two-horned pagan god Bucca or Boucca (“Puck Through the Ages” online; “The Boucca Society” online). By all counts, the binary Walter should have spawned the Thrice-Blessed Trismegistus as planned. Fortunately for lovers of satirical learned wit, the mere mortal Tristram was born, and along with him this “Cock and Bull” tale for our instruction and delight.

Works Cited
Boehme, Jacob. The ‘Key’ of Jacob Boehme. Trans. William Law. Illus. D.A. Freher. Intro. Adam McLean. Grand Rapids: Phanes Press, 1991.
Emery, Kent Jr. “Mysticism and the Coincidence of Opposites in
Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century France.” Journal of the History of Ideas. (ABC-CLIO) 1984, vol. 45(1). 22 Jan. 2003. 3-23. JSTOR, (San Marcos, Calif.).
“Fortification.” University of Wisconsin. 20 February 2008.
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/HistSciTech/HistSciTech-idx?type=turn&entity=HistSciTech000900240826.
“Fortification Plate.” University of Wisconsin. 20 February 2008.
http://images.library.wisc.edu/HistSciTech/EFacs//Cyclopaedia/Cyclopaedia01/XL/0795.jpg.
Jefferson, D. W. “Tristram Shandy and the Tradition of Learned Wit.” Laurence Sterne: A Collection of Critical Essays. Twentieth Century Views. Ed. John Traugott. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 148-167.
“Puck Through the Ages.” BoldOutlaw. 20 February 2008.
http://www.boldoutlaw.com/puckrobin/puckages.html
Rabelais, François. Gargantua and Pantagruel. Tr. Sir Thomas Urquhart and Pierre Le Motteux. Intro. Terence Cave. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.
---. Œuvres Complètès. L’Intégrale. Ed. Guy Demerson. Paris: Seuil, 1973.
Reuchlin, Johannes. On the Art of the Kabbalah: De Arte Cabalistica. Trans. Martin and Sarah Goodman. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1994.

Sterne, Laurence. The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. Ed. Melvyn New and Joan New. London: Penguin, 2003.
“The Boucca Society.” Pagan Heart. 20 February 2008.
http://www.pagan-heart.co.uk/worldmoots/newzealandmoots.html

A static filled television screen: a well-known image of meaningless noise and light, and the repeated theatrical cause of groans as the pesky neighborhood pre-teen cuts the cable wire outside. Most people can't stand the glaring digital "snow" or the nonsensical "cccchhhh" that emanates from the speakers and rush to fix the cause of the problem. However, maybe the biggest problem, the greater static, occurs when that cable is plugged back in.

Let me stop you before you assume that I'm about to advocate more Americans going to take a hike in the woods instead of setting themselves down in front of the television every night. In the words of Edward R. Murrow television "can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire...There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance, and indifference. This weapon of Television could be useful." Yet in a country where 99% of households own a TV and the average kid watches 600 more hours of TV a year than they spend in a classroom, only 37% could find Iraq on a map in 2006 and 20% think Sudan is in Asia. OK so maybe kids care more about cartoons than Khartoum, but they're only kids.

But things don't get much better with age, as the Networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC, whose nightly news viewership falls mostly into the 25-54 category, offered a total of 126 segments on genocide in Sudan, compared to 8303 for Michael Jackson, Tom Cruise, and the Runaway Bride in June 2005. Don't get me wrong, these channels and those like Fox News and MSNBC do a fairly decent job on hot American issues such asthe Presidential Campaigns and Supreme Court rulings. However, it is nearly impossible to find something on international issues or a piece backed by the grinding investigative journalism that it takes to independently flesh out pertinent issues in today's environment of talking points and stock answers.

Now, please allow me a moment to reflect. It was in my freshman year philosophy course I learned of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. For those of you not familiar with it, essentially Plato creates a metaphor for society where individuals are chained in the bottom of a cave, forced to watch shadows on a wall cast by a fire behind them. These shadows were all they knew and therefore that was what they believed was reality. However if one could break free, they could find his or her way from the cave where they would be immediately blinded by the daylight but eventually see the true world. (For more on the Allegory, Youtube has tons of vids, this one narrated by Orson Welles) In a nutshell, Plato said that what we know of the world is merely orchestrated shadows and one must free oneself of their chains to journey to truth.

Fast forward a few months and I'm in my Sophomore Political Science class, writing a research paper on the Deregulation of the Communication industry and learning how 5 companies; Viacom, owner of CBS; Disney, owner of ABC; AOL, owner of Time Warner; GE, owner of NBC, and News Corp, of Fox Networks, own just about everything that comes through your TV screen. (You can read that paper here) So we have 5 money-making corporations controlling everything from ESPN to Sesame Street to what news you watch. Given the overwhelming amount of television people watch and recent studies showing how viewers absorb just about everything they see on TV, and I'd say we have an entity that has the ability to cast some shadows on the wall.

A few weeks later I turned on my television and sure enough there was Mickey Mouse, that little mascot of a company I now look at with the slightest skepticism. It was the Apprentice scene from Fantasia, and I had what my old English teacher would refer to as an "Aha!" moment as I watched that cunning little mouse work. In that dark dungeon, he dons his wizard cap and brings to life a broom to do his bidding, having him retrieve water from the outside and then pour down a well, as his shadows dance on the walls. Disney it seems, provided their own modern adaptation of the Allegory of the Cave, with their mascot controlling the broom in the cartoon and his parent company perhaps doing a bit of orchestrating of their own.

But can TV and companies like Disney be solely blamed for the issues Americans pay attention to? Of course not. After all, they are entertainment companies who are giving the consumer what they like best. Even though TV has a great power to influence, those geography statistics are inexcusable in a country with as many other resources. If one is compelled, good information and statistics on issues that matter can be searched out through libraries, the Internet, journals, etc. However, not even our elected politicians, who we entrust to make it their profession to guard our society can follow through. So for instance, when Colin Powell stood before The United Nations in 2003 and showed pictures of aluminum tubes that Iraq was to "use as centrifuge cylinders for enriching uranium for nuclear bombs" as part of his case for War, nobody on either side of the aisle within our government cared to check to see if he was right. Which is too bad, as even my college Poli Sci prof correctly identified them as plain old rocket tubes, incapable of uranium enrichment.

No, I fear that there are more people casting the shadows on our walls than Mickey Mouse, Rupert Murdoch, or Colin Powell. And I fear that unlike the prisoners in Plato's cave, Americans, from kids to the elderly have no chains to hold them. I fear we are mesmerized by the static TV, from staring at it too long. From our daily jobs or studies, to our video games or our magazines, we do not have the time nor inclination to investigate and help issues that matter most, and the news companies and politicians we trusted to help us with these tasks have proved inadequate. Somewhere, Plato and Murrow are turning over in their graves. However, if you remember that Fantasia scene, after Mickey slashes his unruly servant to pieces he falls asleep at the switch for only a minute. But when he awakens an army of thousands has sprung from the splinters, fought back, and is filling that dungeon with water from the lighted world outside. Through this blog I am taking up my buckets of water and washing out the dungeon, and instead of wasting my time perusing Facebook or catching up on Britney Spears' latest antics I will try and dig into the truth of some of the most pressing issues today. Are China and Global warming really a threat to our future? Is it McCain or Obama who is talking the straightest? Is there light at the end of tunnel in Iraq, or is the battle lost? Which sources can we really trust to help us? These questions mark the steps of my Ascent out of the cave, and I hope by posting my findings, it will help U journey too.

]]> http://remarkableordinary.wordpress.com/?p=75 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:56:22 +0000 Ray http://remarkableordinary.wordpress.com/?p=75 "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

To talk only for the sake of communication itself seems pretty unnecessary for some people. Well, it probably is. But there is more to it than most may realise. Small talk is like grooming. Primates form bonds of trust and build cooperation groups. They groom each other to get food, sex or other favours.
Maybe we don't go that far just with small talk but it's in a way the best option to start a conversation to get to know each other. The special thing about this form of phatic expressions is that it serves to find a way to communicate. It's about evaluating the spoken language, style and level. Some do this even only to overcome a waiting time or an uncomfortable silence. Imagine two computers just connecting to say 'hi, how you're doin'?' - sounds a bit pathetic, doesn't it?

In general, there are the following categories of conversations based upon their involved topics: ideas, concrete objects and facts, people, the self. Their different purposes are: extend understanding and awareness, consolidate a general view, boosting of self esteem, attracting attention. Anyway, to start talking about something with somebody, you might want to consider a topic that's neutral, without heavy personal information and hard questions. Make the talking part easy by staying simple!

In class Mitchell says his scholarship generally explores political theology in the West. By this he does not mean the liberationstyle theology of the past generation, feminist, third-word, etc. that passes in "progressive" seminaries. Rather Mitchell connects classic themes of political theory and theology, for example, by showing the influence of St. Augustine's errancy of the soul concept on Tocqueville's democracy. Mitchell's extensive same-page footnotes often draw connections between philosophic writing and Biblical principles (with chapter and verse!).

For Rene Girard's readers, this exploration of mimesis in political theory is familiar if in a distinct key. My explicit Girardian reflections appear after the review below.

Once again Professor Mitchell elucidates a central text of political theory, the caverns of the human soul, and, indeed, the trajectories of Western civilization. One cannot, however, assess the merits of this claim about PLATO'S FABLE (or previous Mitchell books) on an initial glance in the table of contents or a cursory reading. One must engage patiently with the text.

PLATO'S FABLE begins with an overview of contemporary political theory and one of its main misunderstandings -- an analysis of mimesis (that is, imitation) in human life. Reason, as understood by Habermas or Rawls, doesn't value the existence of mimesis and is blind to parts of the soul, such as honor, that are excluded from what Mitchell calls "The Fable of Liberalism." Identity politics and methodological individualism, identified as derivatives of Hegel, Rousseau and Luther, are also shown to lack a proper, balanced concept for imitation of earthly and divine patterns.

A full account of reason and the ability to think beyond these narrow Reformation categories of human association may come through a return to Plato, Mitchell sugests. The close reading of THE REPUBLIC which follows the lively introduction is not ordered simply from start to finish. Rather, Mitchell deftly and patiently summarizes Plato's strategies -- analogy, allegory, narrative -- to speak about the elements of the soul which Plato explores. Mitchell connects the central theme of THE REPUBLIC, the search for justice in the ideal city, to the ordering of the soul. Seekers of "justice" are lead astray by following various "mortal patterns" expressed by Plato's conversation partners. After examining Plato's interaction with Thrasymachus ("might = right"), Polemarchus and Cephalus (father and son focused on wealth), Adeimantus, and Glaucon, we begin to recognize the role of both imitation and the refusal to imitate, the predictable reasons for aping and ways new generations re-pattern, the soul in fever seeking pleasure and an enclosed soul seeking honor.

By the end of Chapter 2 one can identify the three types of souls central to Plato's text (honor-loving, wealth-seeking, and pleasure-seeking), relate the historical and personal evolution of these types, and apply these soul-types to diverse problems of public life such as democracy-building in non-Western environs, the popularity of genealogy and the search for "roots", the degeneration of "rights-talk" into monologues about preferences and the cost explosion of end-of-life medical treatment. Particularly clever and meaningful is Mitchell's talk of the "true prisoner's dilemma" to address the mortal condition. Here Plato's analogy of the cave and contemporary game-theory or "rational-choice economics" are playfully contrasted. In this comparison, the reader is struck by the numbingly narrow terms of contemporary political science and appreciates the recovery of conceptual tools that this book offers.

As Plato's discussants often leave unconvinced or still believing themselves correct, so, too, readers may leave unaware of essential the teaching of Mitchell and Plato. This is a shame, for at the heart of both texts rests a beautiful suggestion that readers are encouraged to glimpse and admire. Pursuit of philosophy, or the practice of "death properly understood", harmonizes the divisions of the confused soul and brings together things human and divine. The frenetic nature of the soul in a democracy, and here Mitchell recalls his earlier work on Tocqueville, serves as an essential step in the soul's journey, leading first to exhaustion. This exhaustion ultimately opens the possibility of receiving the gift of knowledge of The Good.

Returning to the role of imitation and the limits of reason, knowledge of The Good is considered a Divine Pattern that frees the soul from various defective mortal patterns. This central teaching -- that knowledge of The Good liberates by offering a Divine model and strengthens souls for the return into the cave -- cannot be proven, only verified by experience. To live justly, one cannot imitate teachers or role models. It is in this shadowy cave, elucidated by Mitchell, that we dwell.

This final line shows a difference between philosophy, properly focused on "death rightly understood", and what I understand to be the position of Gil Baile and Athos, for whom the existence of the Catholic Church serves an exemplary positive mimetic force through the ages. I am continuing to appreciate the depth and beauty of this teaching. The Church, through the Eucharist sacrament, brings the participant into the experience of the final sacrifice, God's own. The other sacraments are further reminders of human fidelity to the covenantal relationship. Saints stand as positive human models, as do, hopefully, the clergy.

My own sensibilities tend to value the experience of being relatively unmoored, a small vessel in the stormy ocean of liberal society. It is part of my own journey, true. Elements of Plato noted above (the soul in fever) and Tocqueville (perhaps via St. Augustine's autobiographical theology) suggest a truer freedom awaits the restless soul those who turn for salvation from the one place that remains unconsumed, the flame of the Divine.

I have considered the era of liberal modernity to successfully harness our drive to idolatry and mimetic violence. In pop culture, passion flows to the fads of the day, only to change directions.  The Cathars and other Gnostics threatened the faithful with heresy and a total takeover of the Church.  Fans of Zach Efron will grow up and turn to Johnny Depp, and the threat to sacred institutions is quite minimal.  Meanwhile, I appreciate the dangerous "catechism" (immersed teaching) which the young in liberal society face, with the increasing options of sexual and gender fluidity appearing and rabid anti-Western self-loathing.  How many must drown in these storms in flimsy vessels before addiction and mental disorder destroy from within or forms of fascism, progressive or otherwise, direct the unmoored souls to outward violence.  I remain troubled.

There's an old saying by them old folks that: "Love is a myth." While most sick cynical fucks rejoice at that idea, Aristophanes (Okay. Well, Plato) proves it by creating one of my favorite myths about love. Stephen Trask and John Cameron Mitchell rolled that one big chunk of speech and made it into a song: "The Origin of Love" which was written for the ultra-amazing rock musical, Hedwig and the Angry Inch (which incidentally, is very similar to the Brian Gorell-DJ Montano thing that happened this summer. Instead of money though, Hedwig wants his songs back).

Aristophanes's Speech which was from Plato's Symposium can be read by clicking here. While the specific performance from the film can be streamed from YouTube. It's better to watch the scene because it's much more emo and there's some really cool animation.

While there are already a lot of scientific hullabaloos concerning love and chemical reactions (like this TIME article here)--can I just say that while those things are very interesting, I still believe that love is something that doesn't need an explanation or something. Just like shit--love happens.

Plus, isn't it more interesting to swoon over something that tells you that your soul mate was originally something that was attached to your back? And that making love is your way of shoving ourselves back together? (That's just my own opinion.)

Yes, folks. I'm still one sick hopeless romantic fuck.

El bé, des de la perspectiva de Plató, per exemple, va estar assimilat pels estudiosos d’aquest pare de la filosofia política com un déu, ens ho diu clarament en el llibre VI de “La República”[1], en la metàfora del sol, on el filòsof grec ens assimila el concepte, la idea del bé, amb la perfecció i la veritat de les coses, quan Plató ens diu:

"-Doncs bé, heus ací –vaig continuar- el que pots dir que jo designava com a fill del bé, engendrat per aquest a la seva semblança com quelcom que, en la regió visible es comporta, respecta a la visió i a allò vist, de la mateixa manera com aquell en la regió intel·ligible respecta a la intel·ligència i lo aprés per ella.

 -Com? -digué-. Explica’m alguna cosa més.

–No saps, -vaig dir-, respecte als ull que quan no se’ls dirigeix a allò quins colors s’estén la llum del sol, sinó als que prenen les ombres nocturnes, veuen amb dificultat i semblen quasi cecs com si no hi hagués en ells visió clara?

-Efectivament -digué.

-En cavi, quan veuen perfectament el que el sol il·lumina, es mostra, crec jo, que aquesta visió existeix en aquells mateix ulls.

-Com no?

-Doncs bé, considera de la mateixa manera el següent respecte de l’ànima. Quan aquesta fixa la seva atenció sobre un objecte il·luminat per la veritat i el ser, aleshores ho compren i coneix i demostra tenir intel·ligència; però, quan la fixa en quelcom que està envoltat en penombres, que neix o sembla aleshores, com no veure-hi bé, l’ànima no fa més que concebre opinions sempre canviants i sembla trobar-se privada de tota intel·ligència.

-Tal sembla, en efecte.

-Pot, aleshores, dir que lo que proporciona la veritat als objectes del coneixement i la facultat de conèixer al que coneix és la idea del bé, a la qual has de concebre com objecte del coneixement, però també com causa de la ciència i de la veritat; i així per molt belles que siguin ambdues coses, el coneixement i la veritat, jutjaràs rectament si consideres aquesta idea com una altra cosa distinta y més bella encara que elles. I, en allò referit al coneixement i la veritat, de la mateixa manera que en aquell altre món es pot creure que la llum i la visió es semblen al sol, però no que siguin el mateix sol, de la mateixa manera en aquest és encertat de considerar que un i altra són similar al bé, però no ho és el tenir a un qualsevol dels dos per el bé mateix, doncs és molt més gran encara la consideració que es deu a la natura del bé.

-Quina inefable bellesa –digué- li atribueixes! Doncs, essent font del coneixement i de la veritat, supera a ambdós, segons tu, en bellesa. No crec, doncs, que ho vagis a identificar amb el plaer.

-Atura la teva llengua –vaig dir- Però continua considerant la seva imatge de la manera següent.

-Com?

-Del sol diràs, crec jo, que no sols proporciona a les coses que son vistes la facultat de ser-ho, sinó també la generació, el creixement i la alimentació; hom però, ell no és generació.

-Com havia de ser-ho?

-De la mateixa manera pots afirmar que a les coses intel·ligibles no només els arriba per altri  del bé la seva qualitat d’intel·ligibles, sinó també se’ls hi afegeix, per obra també d’aquell, el ser i l’essència; Hom però, el bé no és essència, sinó quelcom que està encara per sobre d’aquella en quan a la dignitat i el poder.”

El model ontològic de Plató és clar, situa en la cúspide del món sensible i intel·ligible al bé en conjunció amb el concepte triàdic de la filosofia platoniana, una tríada formada pel món del ser, pel món eidètic i el món del devenir; el Bé fonamenta i unifica el món de les idees i a la vegada és fonament i principi unificador del món sensible, cosmogonia que té el seu reflex en els móns personals i polítics, moment en el que ens cal recordar les tres instàncies de l’ànima segons el filòsof grec: concupiscible, irascible i racional; les seves corresponents virtuts: moderació, valentia i saviesa;  i la seva projecció política en els estaments bàsics establerts per Plató: productiu (en els productors), unitiu (en els guardians), cognoscitiu o directiu (en el filòsof rei). Resulta evident per al filòsof que el concepte del bé no pot ser altra cosa que la divinitat, no alguna cosa divina, sinó la mateixa i única divinitat a la que cal venerar: el bé.