Dr. Ginsu (jch1@voicenet.com) wrote:

: No, not you.

:

: This has to do with Plato's Eternal Forms. In the SYMPOSIUM, Diotima

: relates to Socrates, as related to us in Socrates' speech at the climax

: of the movement, that the Grandest Vision he had yet to see was that of

: the Eternal Form of the Good Itself. What does this mean? One must

: involve oneself with the admiration of the beauty of the carnal, the

: fleshy beauty, first. Inevitable. With luck, one comes (to realize)

: that the beauty you've seen, embodied incarnate as your lover, reflects

: a much larger beauty that all bodies share. Therefore you grow to

: appreciate the beauty of all bodies.

 

Plato was full of shit on this. Forms. Forms. So wait a second, for

every, say, Zoogz Rift CD, up in heaven there's a perfect version of

the Zoogz Rift CD, and all Zoogz Rift CDs here on the meat-roller-rink

are just cheap bastardizations of it? What a load of shit. Although

you bring up an interesting point. If you were going to look at the

eternal forms, if there were eternal forms, they wouldn't look the

damndest bit like Zoogz Rift CD, they'd be totally fuckin' different,

because the good stuff in question is really there all along. So to

speak. So Plato isn't really the most evil man in human history

after all, he's just misunderstood! By me, at least. Maybe some people

understand him. But I DON'T think meat-buckets or even bit-buckets

are necessarily inferior, I mean, you can take the peanut butter out of

the chocolate but you CAN'T take the chocolate out of the peanut butter,

see? This "evil" stuff isn't as "evil" as the "good" which Plato was

talking about, which is opposed to the good that most people put in

opposition to evil which isn't really any good at all which is why the

Buddhists want to get rid of it. Right? See, if you're going to have

LEVELS like this, which you shouldn't, really, you gotta get straight

what you're talking about when you use words like "nothingness" and

"desire" and "good". That's why words piss me off so much.

 

: Diotima goes on to lead Socrates to understand that a few worthy

: spirits understand that the beauty of all bodies can be much more

: clearly apprehended if one appreciated the goodness of the principle

: which established that those bodies would be beautiful. So here we make

: a switch, two switches actually: One, from the beautiful to the good;

: and two, from bodies (substantial) to abstract ideas/principles/laws

: (insubstantial). Struggling to keep up with the Goddess, Socrates then

: understood the beauty and goodness of no particular law, but the very

: possibility of ANY law. Human laws and administrations are therefore

: according to Plato to be admired. Any Discordian might argue with that,

: but you gotta take the bad with the good. Right. Anyway, Diotima then

: shows Socrates how to appreciate not the Law, but rather the Good-ness

: which that Law pivots upon; this good-ness being the over-all welfare

: that the Law is supposed to preserve, ideally.

 

Well, now, this I don't agree with at all, I mean, principles is all

philosophical wishy-washy stuff, and it's no surprise "socrates" would be

into that, being a philosopher and all, but the apprehensible contains the

seeds of the abstract, that is, I think the existence of the abstract is

dependent on the existence of the concrete and NOT vice versa. Laws to

be admired? Well, it's a worthy effort, that is, to try and incorporate

the "hundin" into everyday life, but one must make adjustments for the

fact that you ARE dealing with everyday life and realize that the ones

who are trying to carry it out are fucking it up horribly, and really it's

the worst travesty you could imagine, people who don't have any fucking

clue what they're on about trying to promote ideals, like Dead Kennedys

fans who didn't see that "Kill the Poor" was supposed to be SARCASM.

 

That's the kind of mentality we're dealing with with law enforcement

officials and lawmakers, and it's inevitable. So try to be faithful to

the principles as you can, but recognize that the arbiters of those

principles on the retard farm are just NOT getting it right. Idealism just

doesn't WORK, y'see.

 

: When we arrive, the Ultimate Vision for Socrates is that of the Good

: Itself. That abstract concept, mistakenly taken as substantial by

: generations afterwards, has caused more curious onlookers to waste their

: lives bullshitting about nonsense than even Dobbs Himself, or this

: newsgroup. But there is a catch: Plato's doctrine later established

: that there are Forms for all things: The Form of the Perfect Chair, the

: Perfect Hamburger, the Penultimate (Fill In the Blank). Hell, if he had

: only beaten Jesus to the punch he might have even dreamed up the form of

: God Itself, the Template from which all other Gods were cut. But one

: thing bothers me. These forms presumably live in the realm of

: mathematical truth. That means, no tangible existence in themselves,

 

Is the penultimate Hamburger established by the Forms as well as the

ultimate Hamburger? Did Plato mandate the second-best as well, the losers

as well as the winners? The Hamburger that just MIGHT have been perfect

if it had some Winking Lizard sauce? But yeah. Here Plato clearly went

loopy, and wrong, and stupid, and caused much of the idiocy that has plagued

philosophy for the past 2000 years. Ideally all of the philosophical

advancements of humanity should be torn down every ten minutes, not

every two thousand fucking years.

 

: only as instatiations of that which they represent: Chairs, Hamburgers,

: (Fill in the blank)'s, gods. However, what of the Form of the Perfect

: Unseen? Are not any of the many versions of the Unseen just as good as

: the Unseen Itself? I mean, you can't see any of them anyway, what does

: it matter if it is the Perfect Unseen or Not? ANY Unseen will do the

: job. So what gives? Do not all of the Eternal Forms live in this wild

: realm of mathematical truth, or are there different levels to the types

: of Forms, and only abstracts like the Good or the Just get to live

: there, while all the other forms enjoy some kind of mixed existence here

: on Earth?? This has been puzzling me. I bet DynaSoar could clear this

: up, and set me straight. But I bet that ten minutes later I would be

: wondering again.

 

I'll clear this up. The whole "form" thing is a load of shit. It doesn't

make any sort of sense, and isn't this whole thing the root of Anselm's

ontological argument? There's not this perfect little cerebral realm

unsullied by course reality. This is the very fucking definition of "ivory

tower".

 

: I'm thinking ... of bringing a box of butterflies to the X-Day Drill.

: One day I'm gonna open the cage and set them all free, and we can spend

: the afternoon chasing butterflies. Sound good?

 

Actually, that's a pretty damn good idea. Except I don't have any particular

desire to catch butterflies. I'd maybe just watch them. And then maybe

hit the spit-fight. Drink lots of beer first, I mean, pee is allowed, right?

 

: I just wasted a half an hour of work typing this. Praise "Bob".

 

It's time better spent than making fifty snappy one-line comments.

 

Substance, m'man. Substance is what this newsgroup should be about,

and what we'll be seeing lots more of come Freitag ("Free-Day"). That

shall be the day we declare our freedom from the Pinks.

--

GOD IS NOT MOCKED

 

 

David F Lynch wrote:

>

> Dr. Ginsu (jch1@voicenet.com) wrote:

>

> : only as instatiations of that which they represent: Chairs, Hamburgers,

> : (Fill in the blank)'s, gods. However, what of the Form of the Perfect

> : Unseen? Are not any of the many versions of the Unseen just as good as

> : the Unseen Itself? I mean, you can't see any of them anyway, what does

> : it matter if it is the Perfect Unseen or Not? ANY Unseen will do the

> : job. So what gives? Do not all of the Eternal Forms live in this wild

> : realm of mathematical truth, or are there different levels to the types

> : of Forms, and only abstracts like the Good or the Just get to live

> : there, while all the other forms enjoy some kind of mixed existence here

> : on Earth?? This has been puzzling me. I bet DynaSoar could clear this

> : up, and set me straight. But I bet that ten minutes later I would be

> : wondering again.

>

> I'll clear this up. The whole "form" thing is a load of shit. It doesn't

> make any sort of sense, and isn't this whole thing the root of Anselm's

> ontological argument? There's not this perfect little cerebral realm

> unsullied by course reality. This is the very fucking definition of "ivory

> tower".

 

The Forms just correspond to the Perfect Exemplars of all noun

categories. We can classify objects as being better or worse examples of

a category (ostriches are pretty bad examples of birds). It has been

suggested that we construct mental templates for noun categories by

generalizing from examples, and recognize things by comparing them to

these "perfectly typical" template forms. There are a few odd bits of

experimental evidence for this (obviously difficult to test). Plato has

it that we get a grip on them by soul-soaring roung The World Of Forms

before birth. Slight difference there, but the principle's similar.

 

Fine, it's a load of shit. It falls apart if you take it any further

than that (well, you can take it in other directions, but who the fuck

gives a fucking fuck?). It doesn't make any sense. 20,000,000 Plato fans

CAN be wrong. On the plus side, everything everyone else has ever said

is a load of shit too.

 

As for the Perfect Unseen, it's a thing you don't see. So you can't ever

see perfect examples of it, only the imperfect ones where you DO see

something but not properly. So it's like that, but more so. Kind of a

gigantic abstract meta-agnosia.

--

"You reason like a cancer cell might." -- Grantland