wblakesx wrote:

>I came sceptical but open to LS, nuetral but well disposed ( much
>sounds patently absurd but I was prepared to see that as a failing in
>me )towards P. Now I find P more absurd and wonder how it could be
>that this student of S teacher of A could harbour such thoughts, like
>applying bufurcation like a kid with a hammer. For both it seems
>that too many people take too much on faith from those whose palpable
>errors are so obvious and egregious.
>
Mr. wblakesx,

Sometimes there are postings that have the initial effect of prompting
me to ask whether it is appropriate for me to respond, but I do
generally respond to any and all posts that are directed to me or in
response to what I wrote.

Were we both in Germany and writing in German, I would say to your
above-cited remarks that "Sie haben sich disqualifiziert." -- You have
disqualified yourself. I make that remark for the record. It may be
useful to others if I explain it.

You have reached the conclusion that Plato is absurd, and his errors
obvious and egregious. You have not identified an absurdity, nor errors.
You have not even identified a Platonic "thought" or what you understand
to be one. You assert an authority that requires that authority be
recognized by others or at least some one else, but you have written
nothing that asked anyone to recognize your authority. Your conclusion
asserts the premise that you have understood Plato. You have not been
sufficiently patient with yourself nor sufficiently kind to others to
state what your understanding is. Thus, your stated willingness to
consider your own failing is contradicted by your assertion of authority
and is likewise disqualified, as a rhetorical assertion belied by the
deed of the assertion of authority.

You, or someone else, might ask, 'why deal with this matter at this
level at all?' -- The reason is, firstly, that your attitude and
orientation is, sociologically speaking, all too normal, and, secondly,
that Socratic conversation and Platonic writing address themselves as a
challenge to just that attitude and orientation. Perhaps the possibility
that Socrates and Plato already know "where you are coming from" will be
intriguing enough to you to bear fruit in the future.

> I fear it's secret decoder rings
>all round. LS is clearly an interesting thinker but so am I as are
>millions of others. His position as teacher to the neocs, as a intense
> neoc leaves it difficult to repose "belief" in him when he steps
>around the corner
>
Mr. wblakesx, you manifest an inquisitional faith in gossip and rumor
and accept such as fact. That, once more, is all too normal. Perhaps you
will think again, and think about the fact that such nonsense
disqualifies you as a thinker, and therewith disqualifies your authority
to have made the above-cited assertions. I suggest that you think
through what you currently believe you know about science as well,
because what you have written indicates that, here too, you accept
gossip and rumor as fact. I further recommend that, before dealing with
a work like the *Minos*, you or others would fruitfully begin their
confrontation with Plato with the *Apology*. I suggest that you, in
particular, would recognize yourself to be one of Socrates' killers,
precisely and solely because of your faith in gossip and rumor. If you
find that your thinking makes you one of Socrates' killers, then argue
your thinking in the agora. I do not say that I think that such thinking
is legitimate, nor do I respect it, but I respect those who operate
openly in contrast to those who whisper behind some marble columns.

> ( incidently the previous comment re: belief, in the
>thread reminds of the idealism that attempted to suppress the
>enlightenment by silencing Copernicus, Gallileo, Leonardo, ..., ad
>nauseum ). In light the positions of his students, his reputed intense
>networks, and his conciets and affectations one might well place him
>under very intense analysis, perhaps bombarding him with shots to see
> how he breaks.
>
Mr. wblakesx, the agora is wide open: anything goes. I recommend that
you take yourself seriously and enter the fray.

I am always impressed by the cowardice of the word "perhaps." "Perhaps"
is the cop-out of those who decline to "put their money where their
mouth is," as the Americans say. In the case of this particular posting,
you may appreciate that you move full circle, first asserting baseless
authority, and then, with the word "perhaps," erase any trace of
authority. You have not done the work of "bombarding," so you have no
right to assert the preceding remarks. You have no right because you
have not earned it.

Best regards,

George