literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

From: zen_forum@...
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:03 am
Subject: By the dog! om_namah_shi...
Offline
Send Email

http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?for...ilosophy&show=0&cid=80405

Astronomer Sir James Jeans once said: If the PURPOSE of the universe
is to produce consciousness, then it is curious that a machine of
such cosmic proportions should be employed to produce so little a
quantity of product

Perhaps we are in one of those dharma bum universes that has decided
to drop out and goof off.

Actually, Ptolemy, circa 200 C.E., in his Al Magist (astronomy),
deduced that there MUST be two places on the earth (the poles) where
one day each year (or is it two days per year), the sun simply rides
the horizon, never rising, never setting

There is a line in one of Vergil's poems which describes a ship
disappearing on the horizon (which suggests to some that there was a
knowledge of the earths roundness)

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html

We regard it as a certainty that the earth, enclosed between poles,
is bounded by a spherical surface. Why then do we still hesitate to
grant it the motion appropriate by nature to its form rather than
attribute a movement to the entire universe, whose limit is unknown
and unknowable? Why should we not admit, with regard to the daily
rotation, that the appearance is in the heavens and the reality in
the earth? This situation closely resembles what Vergil's Aeneas
says:

Nicholas Copernicus quotes Vergil:

Forth from the harbor we sail, and the land and the cities slip
backward [Aeneid, III, 72].

For when a ship is floating calmly along, the sailors see its motion
mirrored in everything outside, while on the other hand they suppose
that they are stationary, together with everything on board. In the
same way, the motion of the earth can unquestionably produce the
impression that The entire universe is rotating.

- from Nicholas Copernicus, De Revolutionibus (On the Revolutions),
1543 C.E

Aristophanes wrote "the clouds" (fog at high altitudes)

The Yale football cheer, "brakety ak koaks koaks" is actually ancient
Greek from aristophanes play "the frogs" (an onomatopoetic rendering
of what frogs say)

Narrative discourse (language) is by its very nature linear,
sequitrous, while thought and events are multidimensional and
contemporaneous.... so narration (and history) becomes a PROJECTION
of something with many dimensions, parameters, and simultaneous
events, projected onto some linear time line of narrative

Notice how popular in recent years it has become in movies to have
shows with multiple storylines...

We may notice that point in time when art discovered the technique of
perspective, and abandoned the flat iconographic style.... I would be
curious when it was that literature began to abandon the simple
linear narrative and have something more multidimensional. (i.e.
various story lines simultaneously)

Regarding the tilt of the polar axis, and the 23,000 years period of
the recession of the equinox... one of the pyramids in Egypt had a
long sighting tube carved from an inner chamber to the outer surface
(hundreds of feet long), which seemed to point to the belt of Orion.

When the procession of the equinox was factored into the
measurements, they discovered that 5000 years ago that sighting
tunnel was focused EXACTLY on Orion and a star significant to the
Egyptian deity of afterlife (i forget name just now)

It is curious how Socrates frequently exclaims "by the dog"... wonder
if that is related to the dog star, and Egyptian myth

I just did a search and came up with an essay on why Socrates
exclaims "by the dog"

http://www.academic.marist.edu/moweb/bythedog.htm

also

http://www.san.beck.org/SOCRATES1-Life.html

and

http://cat.xula.edu/apology/dictiona.htm

by the Dog Regarding Socrates unusual oath, Grace and Thomas West
write: "`By the dog' is an oath apparently unique to Socrates. He
swears `by the dog, the Egyptians' god' at Gorgias 482b; `the dog'
may be Anubis, the mediator between the upper and lower world, whose
Greek counterpart is Hermes." [Plato and Aristophanes, Four Texts on
Socrates, translated with notes by Thomas G. West and Grace Starry
West, introduction by Thomas G. West (Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press, 1984), n. 32, p. 70].

These seem like a very interesting, informative pages

http://academics.vmi.edu/psy_dr/Plato%20essay.htm

In the Republic Plato tries to answer the challenges of Thrasymachus
and Glaucon. Thrasymachus argues that morality or ethics or trying
to do the right thing is all a mug's game. The "right thing", he
says, is simply what those in power want others to do. These people
are not necessarily the government, although they are surely likely
to include politicians, but the slightly mysterious classes sometimes
referred to as the "power elites" or "social elites". To see
Thrasymachus's point it will help to think about how we train animals
and raise children.

What do we teach dogs, say, to do? Whatever we want. When a dog
does what we want it to do, we say "Good dog!" and give it a reward.
When it does something bad we punish it and say "Bad dog!" But what
are 'good' and 'bad'? Are they good and bad for the dog itself?
They might be, if we happen to want what is best for the dog. But
the defining characteristic of 'good' in doggy ethics is: whatever
your trainer or owner wants. And the defining characteristic
of 'bad' in doggy ethics is: whatever your trainer or owner does not
want. In fact, it is even more precise than this. When, after
all, is the dog told that it has been bad? Not when it does any
random thing that its owner does not want it to do. Dogs do not
behave randomly. 'Bad' behavior for dogs is behavior that dogs like
and their owners do not like. A well-trained dog is one that acts in
accordance with its owners wishes, not its own.

Why would it do this? There are two reasons. The first is the
threat of punishment for 'bad' behavior and the promise of reward
for 'good' behavior. The second is that eventually the dog
internalizes the owners' rules and behaves as the owners want even
when there is no likelihood of either punishment or reward. Acting
for the first kind of reason makes perfect sense to Thrasymachus, but
acting for the second kind is a sure sign that the dog has lost. It
is either a sucker or a victim, depending on how much intelligence or
free will you credit dogs with. If such conditioning cannot be
resisted then the dog is a victim. Its will has been taken over, if
not destroyed. If the conditioning could be resisted but is not,
then the dog is a fool.

So far you might be on Thrasymachus's side. But, you might say,
surely it is different for human beings. Well, consider children.
What do parents try to get their children to do? What the parents
want. This is likely to include behavior that we would recognize as
ethical. After all, few parents would want their children to lie to
them, steal from them, or murder them. Few parents would also want
their children to be regarded as weird or difficult by other adults,
such as their friends and their children's teachers. But the
particular behavior that will be encouraged by any given parent is
going to be whatever behavior that parent wants his or her child to
engage in (whether it be for selfish, moral, aesthetic, or other
reasons). As with dogs, 'bad' behavior is going to be behavior that
the child wants to engage in but the parent opposes. Children that
learn to be 'good' when their parents are around are probably smart.
Those that continue to be 'good', especially those that avoid 'bad'
behavior (i.e. doing what they want to do), even when nobody is
around to see them, are fools or victims.

Now what about adults? Well, where do our values come from? Largely
from our parents, but also from teachers, our peers, and from the
government that makes the laws. From whoever has power or influence
over us. What then should we do? Usually it is smart to bear in
mind the power these people have, and to behave accordingly. If
there is a cop on the road, slow down. But if there isn't? Do what
you want! The extent to which you refrain from 'bad' acts (i.e.
things that you want to do but others don't want you to do) is the
extent to which you are either a fool (if you do not see what is
going on) or a victim (of conditioning or simply a power imbalance).
Thrasymachus's conclusion is that it is good to be 'bad' and bad to
be 'good'. The absence of quotation marks in ancient Greek made
Thrasymachus sound as though he was contradicting himself, so in
Plato's dialogue Socrates (here speaking for Plato himself) wins and
Thrasymachus storms off in a huff. But in reality he seems to have a
point. Why would anyone but a loser actually believe in the goodness
of being 'good'?

After Thrasymachus has left the more moderate Glaucon raises a
similar problem. Most people, he says, think of goodness as a pain
in the neck. Ideally we could do whatever we liked, rampaging
through the world raping and pillaging, and murdering anyone who
stood in our way. But real life isn't that much fun. Those who
rape, pillage, and murder (even those who merely lie, cheat, and
steal) are ostracized and punished. There is also the problem that a
universal freedom to maim, kill, etc. brings with it the very
unpleasant possibility of being maimed, raped, or killed oneself. So
we compromise with reality and with each other and abide by a set of
ethical principles and government-enforced laws. Doing the right
thing is the lesser of two evils, the price we must pay in order to
make the world as little bad as possible.

What is Good?

The first thing Plato needs to do is to define what it means to be
good. Only then can he attempt a justification of such a life. He
says (through the character Socrates) that the best way to see what
goodness is would be to look at it on a large scale, so he proposes
to look at what makes for a good society rather than a good
individual. His answer is that a good society will need people to do
productive work, people to defend its citizens from criminals and
external enemies, and people to govern. Each job, he argues, should
be done not by everybody, nor by just anybody, but only by those best
suited to work of that kind. So the wisest people should govern (not
the most popular of those who want the job, as in a modern
democracy). The bravest, most loyal and toughest should do the
military and police work. And the rest should do the productive
work. The society will work best if it has each of these classes in
the right proportion and if each sticks to its own job. Thus the
wise will make the laws, the brave will enforce them, and the lower
types will obey them.

We do not need to pause to catalogue all the faults we can see in a
society of this kind. Instead we should consider what Plato is
trying to get at with regard to individual ethics. His main point is
that being good is not primarily about doing what you or anyone else
wants (so Thrasymachus was wrong). It is about being a certain way,
not doing. It is about having certain qualities of character, which
we call virtues.

But which way should we be? Plato says we should be ruled by our
rational part. And how should it be? It should be wise. The
rational part should rule over the lower part (the bodily appetites
and animal drives) with the help of the 'spirited' part. How should
this spirited part be? It should be brave and loyal, like a good
dog. And how should the appetitive part be? It should be temperate,
i.e. moderate in its tastes. If we have all three parts in the right
proportion each being as it should, then (by Plato's proposed
definition) we will be good.

Why is this good? Why should we accept Plato's definition of what it
means to be good? Surely not just because it isn't Thrasymachus's
definition. We want the truth, after all, not just a theory of
convenience. Plato offers two kinds of answer to the question of why
it would be good to be good in his sense.

Goodness as Self-Interest

The first kind of reason that Plato offers for being good in his
sense is that it will get you what you want more reliably than any
alternative will. Think of it this way. The rational part of your
mind -- which I will call reason -- is like a person. It might even
be the "real you." For instance, if you say something in the heat of
the moment to a friend and think it over later, what you "really
meant" or "really thought" is what your reason supports. So there
is some justification for thinking that you are your reason. The
spirited part of your mind -- which I will call spirit -- is like a
trusty dog or bodyguard. And the appetitive part of your mind is
like a monster, roaring with instinctual lusts. Now, who should be
in charge?

If the monster gets out of hand then you and your dog are in
trouble. Everyone (or virtually everyone) has a monster inside, but
people whose lives are ruled by their bodily appetites, unchecked by
reason or spirit (which might include conscience), are likely to end
up miserable. Consider the main bodily appetites for food, drink,
and sex. If you are not rational about what you eat you are likely
to end up either too fat or too thin for your own good. At the
extreme, if the monster is really in complete control, you will end
up dead, or at least too fat to move, in a very short space of time.
If you are not rational about your use of alcohol or other drugs you
are likely to end up addicted, which few addicts would recommend.
Again, of course, the danger of death is very real here too. Even an
addiction to non-lethal drugs is likely to be expensive and to
exclude you from large parts of society (you might lose your job, for
instance, or lose all taste in clothes and music, as many marijuana
smokers do). If you do not control your sexual appetites you are
likely to have trouble maintaining a monogamous relationship, others
(especially of the sex you are attracted to) will tend to look down
on you, you might find yourself seriously ill, and you could be
arrested. As with food and drink, some people claim to be addicted
to sex. This might not sound very bad or unusual, but the people who
make such claims are talking about an utter inability to
discriminate. They have sex with men, women, and animals. They are
not happy about it. Once again, rule by the monster is clearly
undesirable, solely in terms of getting the satisfaction we all want
out of life.

Rule by the dog would be little better. This, Plato suggests, is the
psychological equivalent of living in a police state. You are true
to the dictates of your spirit, which includes conscience but also a
strong sense of loyalty to friends and family. It is not a life of
reflection or independent thought. You are a kind of zombie,
neurotically slavish to the rules your parents imposed on you, or
else brainlessly loyal to the code of your tribe. You might make a
good servant (of a religious movement or of the Mafia) but never a
good leader. If this does not appeal, then what is left but the rule
of reason?

Rule by the inner human being, the real you, allows you to think for
yourself and decide what to do. You might indeed decide to do what
your spirit urges, but you might also decide to let the monster have
its way for a while. It is all up to you. And if the dog is on the
person's side then the monster can be brought under control -- or let
loose -- just as much or as little as you choose. Isn't this
obviously the best way to live?

It might be. But it might not be for two reasons. One is that part
of the appeal of this life as I have so far presented it is that it
allows for a fairly immoral life, as ordinary morality would see it.
It allows you to let the monster have its way, at least some of the
time. So the life of reason might well seem insufficiently moral.
That will be a problem with any kind of ethics based on self-interest
alone.

However, it does not follow that Plato is wrong, even if we give up
the idea of the mind as an object. As long as we accept that we do
have minds (whatever this might mean) then we can think of these
minds in Plato's terms. Those terms would have to be thought of as
optional or metaphorical rather than literal or scientifically based,
but that need not be a problem. We can and do think of reason and
appetite as part of our psychological makeup. Spirit is a more
foreign notion, but conscience isn't, and we are familiar with
emotions such as individual pride, patriotism, and school spirit
(even if these are only things we sneer at), which all belong to
Plato's category of spirit. We do not have to think of the mind in
Plato's terms, but we can do so. And if we do, then his idea that
reason should rule, with spirit at its side, seems quite attractive.
The problem now is how to show that this rational life would be the
life of a good person and not an evil genius hatching fiendish plots
and stroking his cat. Plato considers this problem (although not
quite in the terms I just used) and has an answer to it.

Obviously this all depends on the rather controversial idea that
there is an afterlife, but first we should consider whether it helps
Plato's case at all. If the good life referred to here is just a not
necessarily very moral life dominated by reason then this is no
advance on what we have seen already. But it might be more moral
than that. If you rationally choose to 'feed the monster' too much
then you run the risk of a bad afterlife. Furthermore, the good life
presented in the Phaedo is not just a life lived rationally, i.e.
prudently. It is a life in which the monster is kept down as much
as possible (for the reason just given) and in which the mind yearns
for purely intellectual things. These things are Plato's "forms"
or "ideas". Being completely non-physical and abstract they are hard
to describe, but roughly they are pure essences that physical objects
can only ever approximate. To give a very down to earth example, the
form of table would be what all tables have in common. We might call
it 'tableness'. If you believe in God you might think of the form of
human being as the idea that God had in His mind when He decided to
create human beings. That is roughly what forms are, but they are
not actually shapes or ideas at all. Being a table might involve
having a certain kind of shape (although you might wonder exactly
what this shape would be) but being human does not necessarily
require having a particular shape. We might even imagine a human
magically transformed into a table, but still really being human. In
this case, we imagine, the person's humanity (i.e. relation to the
form of the human) remains intact. Nor is this form an idea in
anyone's mind. Even if there were no minds, Plato believes, the
forms would live on.

The form of table or human being might sound absurd and not like
anything that reason would yearn for. But these are very humble
forms in the scheme of things. The big ones, what the rational mind
truly does love, are the forms of truth, beauty, and, above all,
goodness. The form of truth is basically just Truth. It is what all
true things (mostly statements) resemble, partake of, or point
towards. Beauty is what all beautiful things have in common. And
the form of the good is the pure essence of goodness itself. If the
rational life is the life of one who loves goodness above all else
then it will be a good life, not just a well-calculated life of
selfish indulgence. The question now is whether a rational person
would believe in and strive for any such thing as the form of the
good.

The Forms

Plato offers basically three reasons for believing in the forms. The
first has to do with epistemology (the theory of knowledge). Plato
believes that there is such a thing as true knowledge. But, he also
believes, it is impossible to have true knowledge of things that are
in flux. What is to be known must, as it were, stay still and
unchanging. Physical objects are not like this, though. Their
constituent atoms swirl around and interchange with those of
neighboring objects. Plato did not believe in atoms, but he would
agree that physical objects change, grow, and decay, all the time.
If they keep changing then the mind can never completely grasp them.
So we cannot know them. But knowledge is possible. So there
must be objects that are not physical, that do not change. These
unchanging metaphysical entities are the forms. Queer as they might
seem, they must exist.

This of course is no proof at all. Why accept that a very slowly
changing object cannot be known? Why insist on such an idealized
conception of knowledge? And even if unchanging, non-physical
objects exist (such as numbers, for instance), why accept that these
must be Plato's forms? Why, for instance, must goodness be one of
them?

Plato has another argument to fall back on. Rightly or wrongly, we
do seem to have certain idealized notions, or conceptions of
perfection. For instance, to use an example from the Phaedo, if we
see two sticks we will see that they are not exactly the same
length. Even if we cut them carefully they will never be exactly the
same length. No two things are. So where did we get this idea of
exact equality or sameness from? Consider also the truism, 'nobody's
perfect.' How do we know? It seems to Plato that we must compare
people against a standard of perfection and find that they all fall
short of the ideal. But where did we get the ideal from, if nothing
in this world is it? There must be another world, and we must have
existed previously in this world, that contains ideal things. These
ideal things are the forms. And, if we lived there before this life,
Plato reasons, there's a good chance we'll live there again once this
life is over.

Plato assumes that the only way to get an idea is experience. If we
have an idea of perfect goodness, say, then we must have experienced
perfect goodness (i.e. the form of the good). It is tempting to
reject this assumption, but then we have to come up with an
alternative origin of human concepts. This is not easy, so Plato's
argument this time is quite good.

One possibility is that we derive our concepts of perfection by
extrapolation, i.e. by extending (in imagination) a series of objects
of different levels of goodness. Take a lousy cheeseburger (raw,
rotten meat on a burnt bun, moldy cheese, no ketchup, etc.), then a
pretty bad burger (undercooked meat on a charred bun, cheap cheese,
too much ketchup, etc.), then an OK burger (cooked about right,
nothing special) and so on and so on. Eventually you will find
yourself imagining the perfect cheeseburger, even if nobody in
reality has ever eaten such a culinary delight. We could do the same
for sticks of roughly equal length, politicians of various degrees of
integrity, and so on. No need for a world of forms.

Plato would object though. This extrapolation depends on our ability
to order the burgers, politicians, or whatever in a series from the
less good to the more good. But doesn't this presuppose that we have
a standard of goodness to begin with? And won't this standard be
perfect, since it is the standard against which everything else is to
be judged? Possibly, but there are other alternatives. One is that
we order negatively. We know what we do not like (there's plenty of
that to experience in this world) and we call 'perfect' whatever has
the least flaws. Plato might object that the very idea of the least
flaws (flawlessness) is an ideal not to be found in this world, but
he strains credulity at this point. I will leave this argument
behind, damaged but still afloat.

By "the dog of Egypt," Socrates is presumably referring to Anubis,
the jackal-like god of judgment and discernment who makes the finest
distinctions among things in the world--and who is a prominent figure
in the Book of the Dead. To swear by the dog of Egypt is a dramatic
way of affirming the truth of a proposition.

In the republic... i notice Socrates also speaks of dogs, and their
habit of barking at strangers, simply because they
are "unaccustomed"... but elsewhere, Socrates speaks of the necessity
for us to become "accustomed" (through habit, practice) to ideas
which are true, but perhaps alien and unfamiliar

I am aware of the "cynic" nickname, but i believe that was because
those philosophers (known as cynics) were like homeless people,
wandering the streets, living in barrels or pots... so they were wild
and unwashed, like dogs

Lincoln said : people are about as happy as they make up their minds
to be.... so, the question of the quality of our lives, the
happiness, has as much to do with our outlook, attitude,
expectations, as it does with our actual material circumstances.

There was a prince who (much like ms. markos of the Philippines), was
obsessed with shoes, and bought a new pair every day. but he was
depressed because the latest pair had some flaw or defect...

Believe it or not.. there have been other people, (some in the near
past and some in the distant past), who had some good ideas... if the
question at hand is how does philosophy improve life...

That question of happiness has much to do with our own attitude, (as
Lincoln points out).... we are as happy as we decide we want to be...

But... surely you would concede that Plato was a philosopher, and
Socrates. yet... when we read Plato, we see many things which touch
upon what today is psychology, and many things which today would be
classified as theology...

Today, all those rigid departmental distinctions are somewhat
academic and arbitrary and forced, and sometimes do more harm than
good

You see, if it is our attitude (and our expectations) which plays a
role in our happiness, why then, that means that our education and
culture, which shapes our outlook and expectations, has as much or
more to do with happiness than our material circumstances or physical
health

Helen Keller once said: although the world is filled with suffering,
it is also filled with the OVERCOMING of suffering...

Someone like Helen keller, born deaf and blind, possibly lived a much
happier and fuller life then many who pass though life with perfect
health... and surely it had to do with her ATTITUDE and expectations
(as that Lincoln chap mentioned),....

Getting back to the story of the unhappy prince, depressed that his
new shoes were less than perfect... he hear someone happy and
whistling outside the window, and wondered who could possibly be
happy when the prince was miserable

The prince saw a poor man walking barefoot.... whistling and
singing... so here again we see Lincoln's point... that the prince
with his wealth and plenty, chose to be depressed

The 33rd stanza of the Way of the Tao says, "he who has learned to be
content with whatever he has, has achieved TRUE WEALTH"

Perhaps that is why Socrates used so many parables, myths, metaphors
(should we CHOOSE to see that as a problem, then yes indeed, it is
for us a problem)...

Just like our friend shann, who CHOOSES to look with some disdain
about what those people said 1700 years ago, or what Lincoln said, or
the "touchy feely", warm and fuzzy nature of a Helen keller quote

Each of us may be "hell bent" , if we choose, on our "agenda", the
poor man with no shoes was "hell bent" on being cheerful, while the
prince was "hell bent" on being gloomy and depressed

But that comes right back to the topic of the relationship
between "philosophy" and improving the human condition (which many
generically term "happiness")

Namely, that philosophy, or education, or culture, can give us
colored glasses through which we view ourselves and the world around
us, ..

Its a natural transition... to the extent one may otherwise end up
defending a view of philosophy as somehow tied to a lack of
improvement... but as I wanted to point out, all one needs say is
that truth is tied to improvement, and philosophy aims for truth (of
some form)

Those glasses may be rose colored....or they may be steel cold blue
(or even blinders).... but the point is that everything system,
outlook, is in some way an artificial construct

The carrot analogy is exactly what Socrates says about PHILO-SOPHIA
(love of wisdom)... namely, God DOES NOT love wisdom (possessing it
by definition)...

But humans only LOVE (desire) what they do not possess...

Hence, whenever Socrates saw someone who PRESUMED TO know,... (and
when we presume to know then we abandon seeking and inquiry)..

Then Socrates treated that person with the medicine of refutation, to
bring them to aporia (no way out), so they might exclaim, like the
slave boy in Meno : "Ala ma ton Dion O Sokrates, Ego ge ouk oida" (by
god Socrates, i JUST DONT KNOW)

It is quite simple,.. (and has nothing to do with whether a god or
gods really exist).. the word god, by definition (for many) implies
an omniscient all-knowing being (possessing all knowledge)...

But Socrates point is simply that when we POSSESS something, we do
not hanker after it... and if we PRESUME that we know it all, then we
do not question, seek, study, wonder....

Yet the dialogues of Plato have a popular level, which is politically
correct.... but then a deeper monotheistic level (which was not so
politically correct or prudent... which is why Socrates was sentenced
to death)

It is not I who put the nature of desire into philosophy, but Plato
in the dialogues.... and "love" "desire" and how it dynamically
affects the dialectic process..

Central to the issues in Plato's dialogues...

One sorry aspect of modern education is that it gives a lot of little
buzzwords to angry children (like stones), and they then proceed to
toss those stones (buzzwords) around at each other.... but with no
deep understanding of what such words mean, or where they came from

For mankind not to worship or admire or seek anything,... is
invitiating, enervating, weakening to the human spirit,.. even
atheists worship or admire something... truth, science... honesty....
the numinous spirit of man is man's dignity...

You speak of people performing for a reward, (like a dog who leaps
through a hoop for a yummy treat), but this is quid pro
quo "something in exchange for something"... rather the noble and
heroic person acts WITH NO HOPE of reward, in fact, like a martyr,
perhaps sacrifices all, life, (like Socrates), for the sake of an
ideal

It is not without reason that children say "sticks and stones can
break my bones, but words can never hurt me"... in point of fact,
words are weapons

I lived for a year in an old Russian monastery, and on the dining
room wall of the refectory, in old Slavonic, from the "philokalia",
(dobrotolubiya)... it said "Molchania taienstvo budusche vyek,
slovami orushia etot mir" (Silence is the mystery of the age to come,
but WORD are the weapons of this world)...

Silence is the mystery of the age to come. — St. Isaac the Syrian

http://www.watersedge.tv/disciplines_silencesolitude.htm

Silence is also necessary to free ourselves from our tendency to
control. Silence frees us from the tyranny we hold over others with
our words. Thomas Merton wrote, "It is not speaking that breaks our
silence, but the anxiety to be heard." When we are silent, it is much
more difficult to manipulate and control the people and circumstances
around us. Words are the weapons we lay down when we practice
silence. We give up our insistence of being heard and obeyed. Silence
forces us to surrender to the will of Another.

Solitude and silence, combined with an engaged mind. These are the
practices to open our lives up to the grace of God. God says, "Be
still, and know that I am God" (Psalm 46:10). They are the practices
of waiting on the Lord. They are active stillness. They are readying
one's heart to receive.

It is interesting to compare "philo-sophia" with "philo-kalia"

"He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone"....

by Leonard Cohen - Suzanne Lyrics

Suzanne takes you down to her place near the river
You can hear the boats go by
You can spend the night beside her
And you know that she's half crazy
But that's why you want to be there
And she feeds you tea and oranges
That come all the way from China

And just when you mean to tell her
That you have no love to give her
Then she gets you on her wavelength
And she lets the river answer
That you've always been her lover

And you want to travel with her
And you want to travel blind
And you know that she will trust you
For you've touched her perfect body with your mind.

And Jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said "All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them"

But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone

And you want to travel with him
And you want to travel blind
And you think maybe you'll trust him
For he's touched your perfect body with his mind.

Now Suzanne takes your hand
And she leads you to the river
She is wearing rags and feathers
From Salvation Army counters
And the sun pours down like honey
On our lady of the harbour
And she shows you where to look
Among the garbage and the flowers

There are heroes in the seaweed
There are children in the morning
They are leaning out for love
And they will lean that way forever
While Suzanne holds the mirror

And you want to travel with her
And you want to travel blind
And you know that you can trust her
For she's touched your perfect body with her mind.

Words are whatever we wish them to be: "twas brillig and the slythy
tovs did gyre and gimbol in the wabes" - from Jabberwocky by Lewis
Caroll

Death is the one dependable thing, no one ever cheats out of death...

Get your own free IRC Chat room