The Wit and Wisdom of Plato

[someone else]

 

 

Rather than throwing a wet blanket on Plato, wouldn't it be more fun to just participate in the discussion?

Not wet blanket, I live very close to his old school! Platonas actually very practical, not like neoplatonic who take practical out. Plato want to make Athens better place. He want to make ruler wise.

[Brian]

Rather than throwing a wet blanket on Plato, wouldn't it be more fun to just participate in the discussion?

Not sure it was really a wet blanket, Manitou. More like a context-setting, I think. Plato's motivation came from a desire to calm troubled waters by helping the elite see more clearly. (The elite being the only ones with leisure time to spend studying and contemplating such things...)

[Brian]

Not wet blanket, I live very close to his old school! Platonas actually very practical, not like neoplatonic who take practical out. Plato want to make Athens better place. He want to make ruler wise.

Guess I should have read a bit farther in the thread, huh?

[manitou]

Agreed. My suggestion is that if you disagree with some of Plato's words that we are discussing here, that you argue your position as to why his words are wrong in your estimation, rather than discarding him because you perceive his motivation as wrong. No offense intended, I just think he came across with some seriously good stuff. As you know, even enlightened words can come out of what you may consider to be unenlightened individuals.

 

I am currently about to join a service organization here in town. It is filled to the brim with Caucasian women who have an entitled mindset; old money left over from the days when this town was the pottery capital of the U.S., if not the world. My personal 'cause' is to be part of the solution in this town, not part of the problem. There is a huge disparity between black and white here; most black people live down on East End, dirt poor, and they go to the same Baptist Church. I've been attending that Baptist church to get to know and love the black members of our community. A black woman invited me to the next club meeting (she is the only black member of the club and she certainly 'feels' the differentiation between herself and the entitled white ladies / old money ladies in the club). I admire her courage for even going to the meetings. She has asked me to join, to go to a meeting next month with her. I will do so. I will intentionally throw myself into the lion's mouth, the den of the Entitled, just as Plato may have intended to do.

 

I don't think the old schoolers are to blame for their sense of entitlement. It's the template they were given at birth; their parents were given it at birth, and so were their parents. And ad infinitum. But I can get in there and mix it up with my black lady friend from church and respond lovingly but with intent to slowly bring around the mindsets of the entitled old ladies there. One day at a time, one situation that presents itself to me at a time. Perhaps this was Plato's mindset as well, and he can't be blamed for the circumstances into which he was born. I was born into the same ugly mindset of entitlement; but at some point as we get to know ourselves better we learn to love our brother as ourselves; regardless of what situation they were born into or from where in the world they come. We are all One.

 

P.S. I belong to your 'Overthinkers Anonymous' as well

Edited October 28, 2013 by manitou

[manitou]

Since awakening is a never ending spectrum of evolution, we too are the flame of the candle in our own right, giving warmth and light to those around us. We know what we are feeling as the kundalini runs through us. Those whose snake has not yet risen cannot know what we are feeling, only what they are feeling as they sense the energy in us. Sometimes someone is called upon to be a conduit for healing energy to aid in correcting a "problem" in another. The healed person knows what it is like to be healed but not what it is like to have the snake awakened within, to be a healer.

 

This is the is the essence of Christian Science healing as well. The practitioners, however, still need to use the I Am consciousness of Jesus, rather than getting down to their own I Am consciousness. My guess is that if the practitioners worked on themselves and their own ego blockage a bit more, they wouldn't need the proxy.

[someone else]

Ah but aristocracy mean to be ariston, to be the best, so aristocratic mean the best rule. If not the best, than by their own idea they should not rule. So Platonas saw they were not the best and try to make them the best. This his own motivation. He used mystic to get them to see they are mortal, but he is not reject wealth like Sokrates.

 

Black woman you discuss is very brave.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I am currently about to join a service organization here in town. It is filled to the brim with Caucasian women who have an entitled mindset; old money left over from the days when this town was the pottery capital of the U.S., if not the world. My personal 'cause' is to be part of the solution in this town, not part of the problem. There is a huge disparity between black and white here; most black people live down on East End, dirt poor, and they go to the same Baptist Church. I've been attending that Baptist church to get to know and love the black members of our community. A black woman invited me to the next club meeting (she is the only black member of the club and she certainly 'feels' the differentiation between herself and the entitled white ladies / old money ladies in the club). I admire her courage for even going to the meetings. She has asked me to join, to go to a meeting next month with her. I will do so. I will intentionally throw myself into the lion's mouth, the den of the Entitled, just as Plato may have intended to do.

 

I don't think the old schoolers are to blame for their sense of entitlement. It's the template they were given at birth; their parents were given it at birth, and so were their parents. And ad infinitum. But I can get in there and mix it up with my black lady friend from church and respond lovingly but with intent to slowly bring around the mindsets of the entitled old ladies there. One day at a time, one situation that presents itself to me at a time. Perhaps this was Plato's mindset as well, and he can't be blamed for the circumstances into which he was born. I was born into the same ugly mindset of entitlement; but at some point as we get to know ourselves better we learn to love our brother as ourselves; regardless of what situation they were born into or from where in the world they come. We are all One.

 

Whatever 'mindset' Plato was born into, he wrote about the liberated mind of the Philosopher:

 

Hearing of enormous landed proprietors of ten thousand acres and more, our philosopher deems this to be a trifle, because he has been accustomed to think of the whole earth; and when they sing the praises of family, and say that someone is a gentleman because he can show seven generations of wealthy ancestors, he thinks that their sentiments only betray a dull and narrow vision in those who utter them, and who are not educated enough to look at the whole, nor to consider that every man has had thousands and ten thousands of progenitors, and among them have been rich and poor, kings and slaves, Hellenes and barbarians, innumerable. And when people pride themselves on having a pedigree of twenty-five ancestors, which goes back to Heracles, the son of Amphitryon, he cannot understand their poverty of ideas. Why are they unable to calculate that Amphitryon had a twenty-fifth ancestor, who might have been anybody, and was such as fortune made him, and he had a fiftieth, and so on? He amuses himself with the notion that t hey cannot count, and thinks that a little arithmetic would have got rid of their senseless vanity. (Plato, Theaetetus, 174e -175b

 

There is never too much of the right kind of thinking, far too much of the wrong. If I have time I will post more.

 

[manitou]

He used mystic to get them to see they are mortal, but he is not reject wealth like Sokrates.

 

Black woman you discuss is very brave.

 

What is wealth or money other than stuck energy? If stuck energy remains piled in your back yard because your father had lots of stuck energy, is it wrong? Perhaps the wisdom lies in recognizing physical wealth as the stuck energy as it is, and then using it wisely to alleviate the pains of the least of our brothers. But the operative word is wisely, not ostentatiously so others can see us as a type of savior throwing money around. I remember a book called The Magnificent Obsession I read as a child (can't remember the author) where he was obsessed with anonymously supplying money where it was needed.

 

Yes, the black woman I describe is very brave indeed. She is graceful, beautiful, and she quietly Shines. She has taken on the mantle of trying to equalizing things for many years. Quietly, but no doubt with much effect when she is thrown into the mix. I will team up with her

[manitou]

Zhong - please take the time to write more later. It is most important that your beautiful mind insert your elevated thoughts into this virtual universe we call the Internet. To offset the porno and baser things. We'd be honored if you'd do it here.

 

I do have a question for you, relating to one of the quotes in your signature lines:

 

Confucius writes: "Only the man of virtue knows whom to love and whom to hate". Was Confucius correct in assuming that it is of value to hate anyone?

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Zhong - please take the time to write more later. It is most important that your beautiful mind insert your elevated thoughts into this virtual universe we call the Internet. To offset the porno and baser things. We'd be honored if you'd do it here.

 

I do have a question for you, relating to one of the quotes in your signature lines:

 

Confucius writes: "Only the man of virtue knows whom to love and whom to hate". Was Confucius correct in assuming that it is of value to hate anyone?

 

Manitou,

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

To answer your question, knowing whom to love or to hate is not the same thing as deciding to love or hate anyone. Only how to treat them according to lǐ (礼, the rites, propriety). The fundamental principle of lǐ, is to maximize the potential for harmony in any situation. Those people worthy to be loved will naturally cooperate in this endeavor, those people worthy to be hated will need to be guided in ways that are the Confucian equivalent of 'skillful means', even if that simply means guiding them out the door. That's the short answer.

[Brian]

Agreed. My suggestion is that if you disagree with some of Plato's words that we are discussing here, that you argue your position as to why his words are wrong in your estimation, rather than discarding him because you perceive his motivation as wrong. No offense intended, I just think he came across with some seriously good stuff. As you know, even enlightened words can come out of what you may consider to be unenlightened individuals.

 

I am currently about to join a service organization here in town. It is filled to the brim with Caucasian women who have an entitled mindset; old money left over from the days when this town was the pottery capital of the U.S., if not the world. My personal 'cause' is to be part of the solution in this town, not part of the problem. There is a huge disparity between black and white here; most black people live down on East End, dirt poor, and they go to the same Baptist Church. I've been attending that Baptist church to get to know and love the black members of our community. A black woman invited me to the next club meeting (she is the only black member of the club and she certainly 'feels' the differentiation between herself and the entitled white ladies / old money ladies in the club). I admire her courage for even going to the meetings. She has asked me to join, to go to a meeting next month with her. I will do so. I will intentionally throw myself into the lion's mouth, the den of the Entitled, just as Plato may have intended to do.

 

I don't think the old schoolers are to blame for their sense of entitlement. It's the template they were given at birth; their parents were given it at birth, and so were their parents. And ad infinitum. But I can get in there and mix it up with my black lady friend from church and respond lovingly but with intent to slowly bring around the mindsets of the entitled old ladies there. One day at a time, one situation that presents itself to me at a time. Perhaps this was Plato's mindset as well, and he can't be blamed for the circumstances into which he was born. I was born into the same ugly mindset of entitlement; but at some point as we get to know ourselves better we learn to love our brother as ourselves; regardless of what situation they were born into or from where in the world they come. We are all One.

 

P.S. I belong to your 'Overthinkers Anonymous' as well

 

Not sure if the opening paragraph was directed towards me, manitou, but I am not in disagreement with you or with Plato.

 

[manitou]

When I first read Someone Else's first post (and your subsequent post) I wrongly assumed that he was putting Plato down. In his later post he clarified that for me, when he spoke of teaching the rich and ruling class to be better leaders. My apologies for any offense this may have caused. My bad.

[Brian]

None taken!

[Stosh]

 

To answer your question, knowing whom to love or to hate is not the same thing as deciding to love or hate anyone. Only how to treat them according to lǐ (礼, the rites, propriety). The fundamental principle of lǐ, is to maximize the potential for harmony in any situation. Those people worthy to be loved will naturally cooperate in this endeavor, those people worthy to be hated will need to be guided in ways that are the Confucian equivalent of 'skillful means', even if that simply means guiding them out the door. That's the short answer.

Just wondering what is meant by harmony as you mean it,

is that sword meeting sword

or sword meeting neck?

( there is no "worthy", that is not arbitrary opinion)

Edited October 29, 2013 by Stosh

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Just wondering what is meant by harmony as you mean it,

is that sword meeting sword

or sword meeting neck?

( there is no "worthy", that is not arbitrary opinion)

 

there is no "worthy", that is not arbitrary opinion: Can you justify your 'arbitrary opinion' in this matter? The question is rhetorical. I don't have time now to enter into a detailed discussion of the differences between 'right opinion', 'good opinion' and other types of opinions and their relationship to 'knowledge' and I don't think you have time to justify this assertion of yours either. I am fully familiar with the historical development of such ideas from antiquity to the present. I have also done decades of thought and study which leads me to think that it is not correct.

 

The short answer is, the word translated as 'the man of virtue' is rén (仁, humanity (in the sense of one's humanity or as I prefer, 'human potential'), benevolence). Let's focus on the second meaning, benevolence, which comes from the Latin for 'good will' (benevolentia), its opposite is bad will (Latin, Malevolentia). Confucius believes the rén person is a good judge of character and recognizes 'good will' and 'bad will'. Between people of good will harmony will arise naturally as respectful cooperation. When 'bad will' enters the picture the situation becomes unstable and this instabilities must be dealt with in a way that preserves the most harmony for the good of all. As an example, there is a big difference between an intelligent, honest and competent investment adviser and a Bernie Madoff.

 

And no, I don't want to hear, 'there is no "good and bad will", that is not arbitrary opinion', what I have said above would hold for it also.

 

If I continue to post in this thread I will address more time to this matter, until that time as far as I am concerned the matter is closed and I will not enter into further discussion. I have a book list with a critical discussion of each book, I may post that to make some aspects of my thinking on this matter clearer.

[Stosh]

'there is no "good and bad will", that is not arbitrary opinion'

Yes, I would say thats true too.

Confucius believes the rén person is a good judge of character and recognizes 'good will' and 'bad will'.

I dont claim to agree with Confucious in this matter , he is wrong and very confused.

I have also done decades of thought and study which leads me to think that it is not correct.

So that puts you in good company , but still wrong.

Im closing in on two and a half decades thought and study myself.

Lemme know when you have time, and are of temperment , for me to clarify it all for you, since the short version wasnt sufficient.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Stosh

[manitou]

 

Manitou,

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

To answer your question, knowing whom to love or to hate is not the same thing as deciding to love or hate anyone. Only how to treat them according to lǐ (礼, the rites, propriety). The fundamental principle of lǐ, is to maximize the potential for harmony in any situation. Those people worthy to be loved will naturally cooperate in this endeavor, those people worthy to be hated will need to be guided in ways that are the Confucian equivalent of 'skillful means', even if that simply means guiding them out the door. That's the short answer.

 

 

What a beautiful distinction this is between the observation and the choice of action. I am in full agreement; there is quite a skill involved in how to respond to the unharmonious one. And still that is best guided by Love. Love of our brother as our self. Even if the most loving thing we are capable of doing is to 'not do something', like stopping a visceral reaction of flipping off someone who just cut us off in traffic. The operative thing, in my opinion, is to see us all as tentacles of the same octopus. To see the Void, God, Dao in the black spots of the eyes of every man and animal that walks the planet. Who's to hate?

 

I suppose we will always have to live with the visceral reaction, I'm not sure this goes away. Maybe it does, I don't know. Mine is pretty well controlled, and when I am capable of the rare Christ consciousness, it is not an issue at all. But riding the ox - well, that involves much balance and trying to stay on top of myself at all times. It just gets easier throughout the years and after much inner digging to tame the ego and get down to clarity.

Edited October 30, 2013 by manitou

[someone else]

When I first read Someone Else's first post (and your subsequent post) I wrongly assumed that he was putting Plato down. In his later post he clarified that for me, when he spoke of teaching the rich and ruling class to be better leaders. My apologies for any offense this may have caused. My bad.

No apology needed. Sorry My English is so bad.

 

I think of Plato every workday because I drive buy Academy to go to work. But I think he is disappointed. Because in Syracuse he try to make good government but fail. Socrates is killed by politician. I think Plato want to be practical. He want philosopher to be head in body of society.

[manitou]

Only a philosopher / one who knows how to rule by not-ruling, can work the wu-wei needed at the level of the State. He is of necessity a philosopher, and IMO that's only the beginning; that much more than the entry level of philosophy is needed, it is also inner wisdom. I love the part in the DDJ where it speaks of 'when rules are needed, the Dao is lost', each translation being different of course but the idea remains the same.

[Marblehead]

I love the part in the DDJ where it speaks of 'when rules are needed, the Dao is lost', ...

Yep. When a society cannot police itself it needs police. Anarchy is lost too.

[traveler]

When Joseph Smith was asked how he kept such good order in his city of Navoo, he said, "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves."

Edited October 31, 2013 by traveler

[manitou]

 

Re-noting the Plato quote from post #25, does anyone have any ideas as to what the enigmatic ROYAL SECRET is?

 

 

 

We see the Soul, Plato said, as men see the statue of Glaucus, recovered from the sea wherein it had lain many years - which viewing, it was not easy, if possible, to discern what was its original nature, its limbs having been partly broken and partly worn and by defacement changed, by the action of the waves, and shells, weeds, and pebbles adhering to it, so that it more resemble some strange monster than that which it was when it left its Divine Source. Even so, he said, we see the Soul, deformed by innumerable things that have done it harm, have mutilated and defaced it. But the Mason who hath the ROYAL SECRET can also with him argue, from beholding its love of wisdom, its tendency toward association with what is divine and immortal, its larger aspirations, its struggles, though they may have ended in defeat, with the impediments and enthrallments of the senses and the passions, that when it shall have been rescued from the material environments that now prove too strong for it, and be freed from the deforming and disfiguring accretions that here adhere to it, it will again be seen in its true nature, and by degrees ascend the mystic ladder of the Spheres, to its first home and place of origin."

[traveler]

The Royal Secret refers to the Royal Arch of Yorkrite Masonry. Some say that the arch is the corpus callosum, the arch-shaped nerve which connects the right and left brain hemispheres. Masonic tradition says that the ceiling of the Lodge room represents the sky, notably the starry sky of nighttime. This ceiling/sky is the bottom side of the corpus callosum as seen from the center of the brain or septum pellucidum, also called the Cave of Brahma by the Hindus and the Empty Space in the Secret of the Golden Flower. In the Royal Arch ritual work, when the arch is activated the work is finished and the workers lay down their tools and aprons, and celebrate.

 

Jose Arguelles had this to say:

 

The ultimate purpose of learning the 441 cube matrix system is to learn how to operate the Holomind Perceiver, a new sense organ located in the corpus callosum. The Holomind Perceiver facilitates the integration of time, space and mind as the principle of radialized synchronization informing the totality of our being. Then we can begin to learn the language of telepathy or the language of Number. (http://www.lawoftime.org/lawoftime/synchronotron.html)

 

Jose further teaches that the Holomind Perceiver located within the corpus callosum (Royal Arch) is a gateway into "galactic consciousness". I will also venture to suggest that the Taoist term Heavenly Gate and the Hindu term Aperture of Brahma refer to this same gateway.

 

If so how can the immortal seed develop? Without the immortal seed how can the immortal foetus develop? Without the immortal foetus how can you leave the body through the heavenly gate (aperture of Brahma at the top of the skull) to become a heavenly immortal? (Taoist Yoga, by Charles Luk)

 

The Royal Arch ritual was rejected by the Grand Lodge of England a long time ago but the Irish Masons refused to discard it and thus preserved it. Later, the ritual came to the USA and is part of the Yorkrite Masonry here. Seeing the arch as being inside the head is not mainstream Masonic thought. But, neither am I alone in the assumptions I have made. Also, what I have presented here is an over simplified explanation. Experience is the best teacher. Stand in the center of your head and look up. What do you see? There is no right or wrong answer to that question. What is seen there shifts as you reach deeper and deeper levels of consciousness in meditation.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Thanks Traveler, an interesting discussion.

Whatever a modern or Nineteenth Century Mason might think the Royal Secret to be, by selective quoting Pike has concealed an important part of what Plato said. Here again is the Pike quote:

 

Re-noting the Plato quote from post #25, does anyone have any ideas as to what the enigmatic ROYAL SECRET is?

We see the Soul, Plato said, as men see the statue of Glaucus, recovered from the sea wherein it had lain many years - which viewing, it was not easy, if possible, to discern what was its original nature, its limbs having been partly broken and partly worn and by defacement changed, by the action of the waves, and shells, weeds, and pebbles adhering to it, so that it more resemble some strange monster than that which it was when it left its Divine Source. Even so, he said, we see the Soul, deformed by innumerable things that have done it harm, have mutilated and defaced it. But the Mason who hath the ROYAL SECRET can also with him argue, from beholding its love of wisdom, its tendency toward association with what is divine and immortal, its larger aspirations, its struggles, though they may have ended in defeat, with the impediments and enthrallments of the senses and the passions, that when it shall have been rescued from the material environments that now prove too strong for it, and be freed from the deforming and disfiguring accretions that here adhere to it, it will again be seen in its true nature, and by degrees ascend the mystic ladder of the Spheres, to its first home and place of origin."

Here is the original from the Republic Book Ten:

 

(Socrates) Her (the soul's, referred to in feminine because the Greek psyche is a feminine noun, ZYD) immortality is demonstrated by the previous argument, and there are many other proofs; but to see her as she really is, not as we now behold her, marred by communion with the body and other miseries, you must contemplate her with the eye of reason, in her original purity; and then her beauty will be revealed, and justice and injustice and all the things which we have described will be manifested more clearly. Thus far, we have spoken the truth concerning her as she appears at present, but we must remember also that we have seen her only in a condition which may be compared to that of the sea-god Glaucus, whose original image can hardly be discerned because his natural members are broken off and crushed and damaged by the waves in all sorts of ways, and incrustations have grown over them of seaweed and shells and stones, so that he is more like some monster than he is to his own natural form. And the soul which we behold is in a similar condition, disfigured by ten thousand ills. But not there, Glaucon, not there must we look.

 

(Glaucon) Where then?

 

(Socrates) At her love of wisdom. Let us see whom she affects, and what society and converse she seeks in virtue of her near kindred with the immortal and eternal and divine; also how different she would become if wholly following this superior principle, and borne by a divine impulse out of the ocean in which she now is, and disengaged from the stones and shells and things of earth and rock which in wild variety spring up around her because she feeds upon earth, and is overgrown by the good things of this life as they are termed: then you would see her as she is, and know whether she have one shape only or many, or what her nature is. Of her affections and of the forms which she takes in this present life I think that we have now said enough. (Plato, Republic, X, 611 C, Jowett's translation, my emphasis ZYD.)

 

The passage is well known in Plato studies and Pike may have thought that his readers would grasp what he was saying fairly quickly.

 

This brings up the interesting question of Plato's third eye, with which he was credited in antiquity and is the reason that Diogenes the Cynic, referred to in an early post, could not see the forms, having only the two eyes of sense, whereas Plato, whose "eye of Reason" was open could see them quite clearly.

 

Traveler's discussion points to the location often assigned to it in relation to the body.

 

I had already intended to post on Plato's third eye and its relation to his theory of knowledge anyway. Perhaps with this discussion as a lead in I will try to put something together in the next day or so.

 

 

Edit: Change Republic to Republic in two locations.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Zhongyongdaoist

[manitou]

Yep. When a society cannot police itself it needs police. Anarchy is lost too.

The only difference I can see between anarchy and the loss of the Dao, is that loss of the Dao would be the loss of the original manifestation of man, where man would inherently know to love his brother as himself. There would be no reason for rules, people would take the interests of others as seriously as they take their own.

 

Anarchy seems to have an undertone of anger and rebellion, as though stemming from a previous system that had broken down. Ultimately there would have to be another system put in place, or society in general would be destroyed. It's almost like looking at the glass of water as either half empty or half full.

 

Wow. As to the last two posts by Traveler and ZYD, I need to chew on those for a while...