Friday, May 1, 2020

Waiting



~by David Aiken~

From confinement.fr, 2020

DA_1972
A whole lot of our lives is spent just hanging around, waiting. Waiting, though, is a very singular occupation, and deeply deceptive. For behind the calm appearance of inaction there is an endless bustle of unseen, and certainly unobserved, action actually occurring.

There are nights that I still dream about diving… springboard diving—flying through the air with the greatest of ease, and all that jazz. I have had these dreams regularly for most of my adult life, and after all these years I still really do not know what to think about them.
In these dreams I “feel” myself to be in an emotionally neutral state—there is neither fear nor anticipation nor intimidation, although Lord knows that there were some dives I hated doing because they scared me to death; other dives I hated simply because I did not like diving from anything higher than a 1-meter diving board. But neither is there exhilaration in these dreams—although I can still clearly recall some rare moments of body-soaring splendor associated with deliberately falling through the air and entering taut into the waiting arms of receptive, womb-like blue waters.
In these dreams my body is both subject and object. It seems to be a distinctly different entity from my watching and “feeling” mind-self; and yet these two, mind and body, are co-happening in the same exact space using precisely the same tools. This is intuitive Cartesianism at its very best. My diving dreams involve me watching my body falling through unoccupied space as a detached outside observer would; but the observer is actually also watching and experiencing the action, and anticipating the various movements and gestures, unemotionally, from inside the plunging body.
These dream states do not even seem to involve my body-in-motion as a process of an object succumbing to gravity. But rather, like Zeno’s arrow, my body is in a series of quasi stop-motion images where I observe myself at different stations or static moments in the stop-action motion picture of the dive. Where the true Outsider sees the split-second fluidity of action, the inside observer, poised in space, feels an eternity of inaction—of holding fast, of waiting. A fine phenomenological moment for a dream, I suppose. But our reflection here is interested in the question of the meaning of such dreams.

I was a fine-enough diver for the day: high school varsity athlete and letter-man; MVP in my senior year; district high-point scorer; athletic scholarship to dive for a large state university; Olympic coaches—tout le biz, quoi. However, I knew even then that I was never going to be a truly excellent diver, because I detested competition—even in those days of my budding, I was the hippy philosopher… I was in the game for the beauty of the experience rather than for the competitive win. It was obvious to me early on that I was never going to be the great competitor, simply because I had started diving too late. As the high school hipster version of myself, I was going through some of the local diving camps, which were being flooded by 10-year old kids who were already doing more complicated dives (i.e., with higher degrees of difficulty) than I ever would do, and with much greater technical proficiency.
But I clearly excelled in at least one area: the undisputed consensus of anyone who has watched me dive was that in the air I was “truly beautiful to behold,” as Frank-N-Furter says about his newborn monster, Rocky. I was graceful; balletic; strong; …and pretty. There was also the wayward opinion that I had “sexy ankles” when pointed. So, I was a young man who, although he had some natural grace and gymnastic talent to recommend him, was always going to be in the wrong competitive game simply because he started the sport too late.

One interesting aspect of my dreams, is that they take me by the hand and lead me back into a reconstruction of body-memories and sensorial states; and this leaves me with a pleasant feeling when I wake up remembering. But this observation takes me no further along my path of trying to assess what these dreams might signify. I suppose it could simply be enough that I have some pleasure in just having of these dreams; but it seems to me there must be some additional meaning that my slumbering intelligence is trying to sort out through these body memories, which are becoming more and more remote from my waking reality with each passing day.

In the morning after having one of these dreams, I was telling my bride all about it, and she immediately looked up dreams at an online dream dictionary, here, and discovered about springboard diving dreams the following meanings:
·      To dream that you are diving into clear water indicates that you have overcome your obstacles and setbacks. You have a new sense of confidence. Things are looking up. Alternatively, the dream indicates that you are trying to get to the bottom of a current situation or the root of your problems or feelings. It may also refer exploration of your subconscious. 
·      To dream that you are diving into muddy water suggests that you are feeling anxious about how you have handled certain issues in your waking life.  
·      To see others diving in your dream represents psychological and emotional balance.
·      To see animals diving in your dream suggest that are exploring your instinctual and sexual urges which have been previously suppressed into your subconscious.

However, as none of these seem to be relevant interpretations or even interesting explanations of my diving dreams (animals diving?), we can blithely pass on, secure in remembering that, per Jung, ultimately only the dreamer can know the “truth” about his dream.

A second interpretative possibility for my dreams under the rubric, Diving Board (dreams):
·      To see or stand on a diving board in your dream indicates that you need to think things through carefully and thoroughly before you take the plunge. The dream may signal a new phase in your life. Consider the height of the diving board. The higher the diving board, the more significant and more difficult it is to take the next step and make the plunge.

This second possible interpretation proved a little more insightful, because I had this particular dream the night before my first class in the new academic semester. But, I still have to admit that these cheesola dream interpretation Internet sites are not terribly insightful, even if, on occasion, their nuclear bomb approach to dreams may hit the platitudinous interpretative peripheries on a possible target of meanings.

Sometimes, most of the time in fact, my diving dreams are about the specific mechanics of a particular dive. Perhaps my favorite dive, and the one that occupies almost all my recurrent diving dreams, was the half gainer, which is to say, the reverse dive in the layout position. You leave the board on a forward approach, reach up and back, push your chest up into the ceiling, and let the dive “happen” until you extend for entry into the water—stretching from the tips of the pointed toes all the way to the joined fists over the head that try to reach down into the center of the earth. Not a high-degree of difficulty dive, yet difficult to make look pretty.
Vitruvius_left; Diskobolos_right
In a pre-Olympic qualifying competition I once saw an excellent diver perform this dive with uncanny, quasi-military mechanical precision. I never saw such a thing – a true mechanical marvel, perfectly executed, worthy of a child of the mechanical revolution. And yet, although it was truly a perfect mechanical dive, it was not a beautiful dive by any definition. The dive was not lyrical, had no dancer’s soul to it… no imagination, no curve, no grace. It was simply a keenly executed, cog-type mechanism of a dive– a movement that was at home in the geometrical spaces of the world, like Leonardo’s Vitruvian Man, but which was not necessarily at ease, which is to say, beautiful, in those spaces. The Vitruvian Man, rather than Myron’s s-curved Diskobolos, was re-presented by that fine mechanical diver in that day’s competition.

Another beautiful dive is the back dive in the pike position, if the pike is done correctly, which is to say, with precision. However, the back dive in the layout position was another of my favorites because it is beautiful in the same way that the half-gainer is beautiful; after all, it is simply the half-gainer going in the other direction, starting backwards at the end of the board. The difference for me as the actor, on the other hand, was, to put it philosophically, entirely phenomenological. On the back dive my experience of time and of movement-through-space was much shorter than on the half gainer. Also, I could not “feel” myself in the same way – my visualization of myself laid-out and moving through framed space was somehow less visually complete.
Again from a phenomenological point of view, the front half-twist in the layout position was perhaps, from my insider’s visual point of view and feeling, most similar to the half-gainer layout, except that I had the additional and distinct “feeling” that I was dropping down into the world from the very top of space… I had the entire area of the pool in my field of vision, right down to the little point of water that was going to suck me into its vortex at entry. Then, at impact, there was that stretch right to the bottom of the world, and the hard point of the toes that would suck any splash down with it into the vortex, leaving only a telltale bubbling at the surface – the only indication that a moving body had recently passed through that tiny point in fluid space.

Sometimes, some of my diving dreams seem to focus on spatiality. During the half gainer, for instance, you leave the board going forward, stretch up to the ceiling and lift your face skyward, pushing your chest up and up and up. Then, just when the mechanic of the dive brings the body to the horizontal position, I have the distinct impression of seeing all of my body all the way to my toes, a view encompassing my entirety: extended arms, torso, legs, and pointed toes, and the water framing me as well… truly an interesting sensation. I remember once, during a competition with a local high school, that I was doing this half-gainer layout and getting some great altitude from the board, and I had the impression, because the ceiling on their pool was so low, that my chest was actually going to scrape against it. I hated diving at that pool – it “felt” a dingy yellow and made me feel claustrophobic in the air. Diving taught me more about my interior spatio-emotional states than any other activity in my life.

Then there were the entries. A diving entry is made beautiful by stretching to fit inside Zeno’s infinite line, which, he mused enigmatically, stretched out endlessly along points between, and separating forever, point A and point B. The fists are joined together above the head in order to punch a hole in the water for the body to pass through, and the toes are pointed so that it would almost cramp the calves. It is at this moment that the waiting becomes most intense… because there is really nothing else to do but fall; you just have to do it beautifully. Waiting in a dive is really an explosion of focused activity, although there will be periods within the 1.4 seconds you are in the air when you simply do not make any movement—nano-seconds of rock hard stillness. This time of inaction is necessary to create an appearance of ease, which hides the flurry of real muscular and mental activity.

I remember that my university had an enormous Olympic-quality swimming pool called Trees Hall. The main pool was 4-5 Olympic-sized pools “super-glued” side by side to make one giant pool; and the warm-up pool was just a simple, ordinary Olympic-sized pool in a smaller hall off to the side. The entire back hall of the main pool was glass, which meant that there were certain moments during a dive when, as if suspended in air, you could actually see yourself reflected in the glass. I remember two things from my time at Trees Hall. The first was that I was always cold. Perhaps it was the fact that one could see the snow or rain or simply the darkness through the glass, and then from inside the womb one got the feeling of the cold that was dominating the world on the outside. The other thing I remember is the 10-meter tower for platform diving.
I freely admit that I do not care for high places… never have and probably never will. Anything above the simple household ladder is profoundly uninteresting to me. However, at the end of the day one does have to steel one’s mind to the discipline at hand, whether painting ceilings on a ladder or dropping 10-meters from a tower into some water. So, I mounted the flights to the top of the tower – past the 5-meter platform, past the 7.5-meter platform, right up to the 10-meter platform. I remember standing on the edge of the platform staring off the tower, taking in the world that was unfolding itself to me at that height. Then I tried a simple swan dive in a layout position – very simple mechanically, with not a lot of thought and a great deal of body control. However, from the height of 10 meters, the time for the mechanism of this simple dive to happen is different from a departure at one or three meters. So came the over-rotation with Newtonian predictability… and an inappropriate physical impact upon arrival at destination.
“Sh#t may happen” as a matter of daily course, so goes the expression anyway, but eternity happens in just under 2 seconds… in about 1.43 seconds, to be more precise, which is the approximate amount of time one spends performing in the space between board and water. Think about it, which I did after the fact of my 10-meter fiasco, and for a very long time after that: the traveling speed of an object (my body) falling for just under 2 seconds + distance traveled (10 meters) + impact with a stationary surface upon arrival (H2O). Formulaically, this relationship would look something like this:
-10m = -1/2(9.8m/s2)t2
        t = 1.43s

Unfortunately, though, my particular experience on this occasion was not just about formulas. The most desirable arrival into the water from any dive normally occurs in the smallest possible space… in a straight up-and-down vertical alignment, whether standing up with toes pointed, or taking the impact through the fists, then the shoulders, then piking the body under water to continue pulling the surface water under with you in order to leave only bubbles on the surface. I, as an independently acting exception to either of these two more desirable solutions, had obviously opted for the over-rotated, full-body back splay from 10 meters. And, in what is perhaps the purest Archimedean experience of my life, in a Eureka moment, I grasped, I felt in all the spaces of my body, all of the world’s hidden forces—from inertia to velocity, from momentum to acceleration, and, finally, torque. After the water that was displaced by the entry of the falling object that was me, slammed through my entrejambe from behind with all of its reciprocating and displacing force, platform diving ceased to hold any interest for me.
It is a truism of diving, and certainly of many another activity of life, that the higher one climbs, the faster one drops. The problem is not the fall, which we can make interesting or not, pretty or not, but one does need to have some care with the stop at fall’s end.

When all is said and done, I am not sure that my diving dreams have any particular psychological significance in and of themselves, as gateway symbols to some other level of meaning about me or my progression through space and time. I think, rather, that these dreams constitute for me a sort of personal lament for a period of my life that is now relegated definitively to the past, a nostalgia for the beauty that, once, I used to know how to feel for myself, and to create for others, through my body. Those days and those gifts do not belong to my body-life now, but rather resurrect at night as dream-state memorials about the body that used to be mine.
My creations of beauty now must be of a different order, using the different gifts I am able to discern and awaken in myself. The springtime and summer days of my outside, my body-me, are revolved; now it is the season for gathering that which was sown and for bringing the harvest to shelter. It is time, and world enough, for my inside observer, the mind-me, to set about, as though there were no tomorrow, other Great Works that I might hope to accomplish.

In 1988, at the Olympic games in Seoul, the American diver, Greg Louganis, proved that he was indeed one of sport history’s more remarkable competitors. In the early rounds of the diving preliminaries Louganis injured himself by striking his head on the 3-meter springboard, requiring stitches… then he continued his performance to take the gold medal in the event. Louganis would win another gold medal in those games, in the 10-meter platform, and would take the Olympic Double gold in men's diving.
Here is a short video of almost perfect body motion—at times perfectly motionless, waiting, fully occupied, as it falls through space. This is a must view for any definition of human loveliness and integrity; and in the midst and flurry of all the action, just watch him WAIT for the moment when the dive would “happen.”

The lovely GL in a compilation from the 1988 Olympic diving finals, for your viewing pleasure: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP20D5vQsmM].


(Reprised from a Phrontisterion essay posted in February 2014)

Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Erotica – Thinking about Plato’s Symposium


~by David Aiken~

At times my email exchanges with former students go something like this:

Student: What do you think about witchcraft? Do you have any favorite books?

Teacher: Excuse me?!! Do I look like Wikipedia? You can't just continue to ask me questions without giving any of you...!What about the plan to sail around the world? Who are your favorite storytellers?

Student: Okay okay... Forget the witchcraft talk... Let's talk about Love instead... What do you think of love? A goal of life? What's your take on soulmates?

Teacher: Good morning, kiddo! I'm afraid I don't do the soulmate thing... the idea first came out of Aristophanes, a comedic poet who fuses the souls of Robin Williams, George Carlin, and Eddie Murphy. So, the idea is not born of a reasoning at all, but rather of comedic inspiration! What would I say about Love? I suppose it would be something like: keep the sentimentality, but don't be blinded by it; and keep up, daily, the discipline of being actively considerate of the Other. Does that do anything for you?

Student: Ha, those words of wisdom inspired a smirk...

The most recent thread with this particular student begins with yet another in a running string of random questions, which happened, this time, to be ‘about’ —kind of — witchcraft. Of course, this rather scanty exchange is only representative; but I have to admit that many times these long-distance dialogical nuggets leave me bemused, other times stymied.
This particular interrogative snippet had the virtue of leaving me both bemused and stymied. Such is the alchemy of the philosophical life of the mind, however, that it also got me to think along the track of the Goals & Purposes of our life.

Georgia O'Keefe's Black Iris
It is a peculiarity about our world that continues to mystify us—which is to say that sometimes, just like with Georgia O’Keefe’s images, things are not entirely as they seem to be. There are going to be times, for example, when a flower is really not just simply a flower…
            Like Life itself attending to its vast variety of flowering activities, Thinking, as well, is fundamentally an erotic activity. And True Philosophy, which seeks to grasp in its noetic embrace whatever Insight and Clarity may be obtained from thinking about Man-in-the-world, is the highest of all erotic activities.
            In contrast, in those rare moments where we take the proverbial step back in order to take stock of our life and times, often enough it just seems that the life that looks back at us in the mirror of our mind’s eye, reflects a disturbing reality: that we are losing our way in the meandering Trivia Vitae of the day-to-day. And yet we start out so well!
When we are young… looking forward to changing the world—the world, and the actualization of our Life in that world, seems to us such a haven of promise and potential. Then at some point we seem to enter into a mist-bedecked bog of banalities, which encumber and indeed constitute the part-and-parcel reality of living day to day… cleaning toilets; washing dishes; doing laundry; getting achy, or sick, even just a little sneezy and coughy; cleaning up after the dog, or the children; folding clothes; eating; drinking; staring out the window; cleaning up in the garden; reading; watching movies; talking; not-talking; crying; feeling sad; feeling joy; feeling nothing in particular; remembering; wondering what could have been. These are the quotidian non-events that end up marking the path of our individual and rather trifling passage through the spaces of the world.

Yet, there is a wisdom tradition in Western philosophy that tries to show us a way out of the bog—how we may transcend the banality of simply-living. This is a wisdom that inspires us to craft our Life as an erotic composition; to transform ourselves into design art.
To be sure: we did not ask to be thrown into this Flood of Life. So, it is easy to believe, as we swim around looking for handholds to help keep our heads above water, that there is no particular purpose to our particular life. Yet, as a matter of fact, there are actually an infinite number of erotic purposes to our being in the world, each one of which takes the form of the Other. Including the Other that is our-self.

One of the truly inspired, and inspiring, erotic traditions of the West can be found in the philosophical framing of Plato’s dialogue, the Symposium, in which he dramatically stages for our viewing pleasure and edification an episode from the life of Socrates. Plato’s principal purpose in writing the Symposium, from this point of view, may well have been to represent to us that it is not the body-life, but the philosophical life of the individual, that is in fact the highest form of the truly erotic life.
On this argument, the basic ephemerality that characterizes sexual pleasure, is an obvious indication that such transient eroticism subsists on only the very lowest rungs of the ladder of eroticism. However, worlds beyond the fleeting physicality of bodily eroticism, there exists the enduring eroticism that awakens the soul’s or mind’s desire to be united with Understanding and Meaning—with Knowledge. This is the story of Socrates in the Symposium. Or, to put it as does James Arieti (1991, 99): “[E]ach speaker takes the topic of sex and etherealizes it until we get the quintessential transformation of sex into philosophy by Socrates.”

§ Madness in the tradition of Eros & the Daimon. Making sense of Diotima’s argument in Plato’s Symposium.
In the history of western philosophical ideas, bliss and madness have been most famously linked either with the erotic (e.g., Eros, in the Symposium), or with the demonic (e.g., the Daimon, in the Euthyphro). Tracing that extended history would be a work unto itself. The immediate interest of this reflection, however, is to appreciate the significance of Diotima’s curious argument recounted by Socrates and represented by Plato in the Symposium (setting ca. 416 b.c.e.). For it shall turn out that Diotima’s argument, as well as Plato’s mise en scène of Socrates’ retelling of that argument, shall ultimately constitute the cornerstone in the history of an idea whose dramatis personae shall be both Eros and the Daimon.
The general consensus of just about everyone who has an opinion on the topic, is that the subject of the Symposium concerns “Love.” This idea shall consequently go on to become the cornerstone in the history of the multi-faceted idea of Love in Western thought. Despite the popularity of this opinion, i.e., that the philosophical subject of the Symposium is really about Love and things erotic, this ‘read’ necessarily ignores or chooses to understate the clear textual-narrative import, perhaps not of the decontextualized Symposium qua keystone text in a constructed tradition of erotic literature, but certainly of Diotima’s speech, which textually constitutes the Symposium’s Socratic frontispiece.
Socrates is clearly the protagonist of this dramatic piece, which is more or less to be expected in Platonic literature. And, while Plato uses Diotima’s speech in an interesting twist, structurally, to represent Socrates’ own ‘position’, her speech, i.e., Socrates’ rendering and interpretation of her speech, is wholly devoted to theological, rather than to sexual, ideas, both in its framing and in its import.

The importance of the textual structure of the Symposium needs no longer to be established, following Allan Bloom’s decisive analysis in Love & Friendship. But, as usual with academics, the debate does not end there. Cobb (7-8), for instance, takes Arieti to task, citing his view on this point to be too “extreme.” Because, per Cobb: “[Arieti] argues that the dialogue is not a serious philosophical investigation of the nature of love. Rather it is a demonstration of the craft of theologizing. […] What the drama shows us […] is how the depicted nature of the god in each case bears a striking resemblance to the character of the speaker who is characterizing him. In other words, the Symposium is a dramatic depiction of the fact that when human beings discuss the gods, they tend to make the gods in their own images.”
While it seems that Cobb reads Arieti correctly, this theologizing interpretation of the Symposium is absolutely not extreme. In fact, it is right on the money. With Arieti, it is clear that we are not far removed from a type of skeptical thinking that defined the Pre-Socratic poet-philosopher-theologian Xenophanes, one of Plato’s philosophical predecessors, who was the first of the ancient philosophers to espouse a pragmatic skepticism concerning the gods:  Fragment 6. “But if cattle or lions had hands, so as to paint with their hands and produce works of art as men do, they would paint their gods and give them bodies in form like their own-horses like horses, cattle like cattle.”
This early form of philosophical skepticism vis-à-vis things divine, of course, will also pave the way for the later epistemological skepticism concerning things of the gods that will come to define Socrates’ famous claim to ignorance:  The god who speaks through the oracle, he says, is truly wise, whereas human wisdom is worth little or nothing (Apology 23a).” This is not a Socratic one-off, either; because theological skepticism also entirely frames Socrates’ argument against young Euthyphro, who believes he is carrying out the will and purpose of the gods.

And yet, oddly enough, it is in fact seldom that one finds in the scholarly literature a voice, such as Arieti’s, that actually recognizes the profound otherworldliness of Plato’s Symposium. And even when there is such a voice for Platonic literature in general, its interest in things theological in the Symposium is usually cursory. Such is the case with Martha Nussbaum’s treatment, for example, when she asserts that, from Plato’s point of view, the Symposium is actually a “condemnation of Socrates’ otherworldliness.” Whatever. The approach adopted by Stanley Rosen (1968: xxxv, xxxvii) is only marginally broader, for his study of the ‘erotic’ in the Symposium skips over the most obvious, baser conditions of physical eroticism, which, however, constitute the majority of the speeches in the Symposium, and jumps automatically into bed with philosophical eroticism.
As we know from the Republic, Eros is inseparable from hybris; according to the Phaedrus, it may take the form of a divine madness. In the Symposium we are presented with a “phenomenological” account of the transformation of human hybris into the divine madness of the philosopher. Thus the most important theme of the Symposium is the hybris of Socrates, as well as the problem raised by his peculiarly unerotic nature. […] I have found it necessary to deal at greater length with sexuality and pederasty in particular than with such topics as the theory of Ideas or the nature of rational discourse. This allotment of space is not an expression of the author’s tastes; it is dictated by the material under analysis.

But, then, all these divergent appreciations of the Symposium do nothing more than to reflect, in fact, the nut of the matter about how to interpret the Symposium philosophically. Diotima’s speech is central to understanding this drama. Per Cobb (1993:13): “There is some divergence of opinion among interpreters on this matter. Virtually everyone sees Diotima’s views as the key, but not everyone understands her vision in the same way.”

Diotima’s speech is about the gods and other types of divinities that populate the Greek religious and mythological landscape; it is not about things erotic in general; the layer of erotica constitutes only the framing for the mythological subtext. So then, in the final analysis, Diotima’s speech, and thus the Socratic point of view that is supposed to win out over the other points of view represented in the Symposium, is not directly relevant either to things erotic or to a supposed Western tradition of Love. Although this argument directly contradicts Simon Goldhill’s thesis, who argues that the West has inherited the ‘Greek Body’; and who (2004:72) will therefore see the Symposium as an element of an erotic inheritance from the Greeks, “the bible of Greek love.”
            I would also like to suggest, additionally, and somewhat counter to the interests of the chronologizing tradition of historians of philosophy, that Plato composed the theologically rich Symposium in order to explain, amplify upon, and perhaps to justify, the legal charges made against Socrates in the Apology. Socrates was executed by the Athenian state on charges that he corrupted the youth of Athens and that he introduced new gods [read: his daimon] into Athenian society. In a further step, it is also extremely plausible, in light of the blasphemy changes made against Socrates at his trial, to argue for an explanatory and contextual narrative linking of both the Symposium and the Euthyphro with the Apology.

Generally speaking, Socrates, and especially the Socrates of the Apology, is presented through a politicized prism. Leo Strauss is perhaps most obvious in this regard: “According to [Our Great Tradition], political philosophy was founded by Socrates.” Similarly, the great historian of philosophy Frederick Copleston (1946:108) also suggests that as a rule of thumb it is clear that the Socrates of the Apology was principally concerned “with political life in its ethical aspect. It was of the greatest importance for the Greek who wished to lead the good life to realize what the State is and what being a citizen means, for we cannot care for the State unless we know the nature of the State and what a good State is. Knowledge is sought as a means to ethical action.” This political perspective is fairly representative of the philosophical party line on how to interpret the Socrates of the Apology.
            William James (1965: 324), on the other hand, who delivered his Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion between 1904-1906, maintains with infinitely more insight that despite the law-court framing of the narrative, the ‘focus’ of the Apology is clearly religious, because it evolves around the divine ‘ministry’ of Socrates to Athens. It is clear from the Apology, he says, “[t]hat Socrates conceived himself as a divinely-appointed minister to Athens.” The textual support that can be mustered for his point is just short of becoming a litany.
“It is the God who has laid this duty upon me…” (Apology 33C); “[M]en of Athens, so far from pleading my own cause, …I am pleading yours, lest by condemning me ye should sin in the matter of God’s gift to you…” (30D ff.); “[I]f I say that to do this [i.e., go away, dwell in exile, keep silent] would be to disobey the God, you will not believe me, but think I speak ironically.” (37E); “I should be guilty of a crime indeed, if…I should desert the post to which I am assigned by the God; for the God ordains…that I should follow after wisdom and examine myself and others.” (28E).

Fowler (1995: 66) confirms the relevance of this interpretation of the Socrates of the Apology when he says: “The high moral character and genuine religious faith of Socrates are made abundantly clear throughout this whole discourse.”

In the best of cases, the historical dating of Plato’s dialogues into “early,” “middle,” and “late,” is a hazardous task. The Symposium, for example, is putatively dated from 385-380 b.c.e., and therefore assigned to the ‘middle-period’ by most scholars. Kenneth Dover, however, compellingly argues for a composition date of 384-379, which would, in his estimation, make it one of Plato’s early period dialogues. To add to this historicizing complexity, no less an authority than Gregory Vlastos (1995:6ff) makes a compelling argument for the early composition of the Apology, although scholarly consensus considers this traditionally to be one of Plato’s middle-period dialogues, dating from around 385-380.
At the end of the day, though, Rosen’s (1968: xxxiv) argument is more compelling, that the historical evolutionary theory that frames nineteenth century hermeneutics, and which motivates the placement and occasionally the very interpretation of Plato’s dialogues, is unsubstantiated by antiquity and “ignores the … nature of the dialogue form.” Strauss (1980, 3) agrees with Dover’s assessment: “Whatever we might have to think of these decisions [about dating and sequencing the dialogues], the Platonic dialogues are admittedly not reports, but works of art; they do not permit us to distinguish incontestably between what Socrates himself thought and the thoughts that Plato merely ascribed to him.” Finally, Howland (1991:194ff; cf. esp. 196, nt. 16) asserts that the dating of the narratives has no bearing on meaning in the various texts: “the chronological order of Plato’s writings, if it is relevant at all, has no special claim to interpretative significance,” and is quite thorough in combing through the relevant literature of antiquity.

So, in an attempt to avoid unnecessarily stepping on any historical philosophical toes, and because treating of things erotic per se is really quite rare in Greek literature or philosophy (and in fact this “treatise” may well be unique in the literature), I will argue for a not entirely new idea: that of a narratival rather than a chronological linking between the Symposium and the Apology.
There are two good reasons for suggesting such a narrative link. In the first place, it has the historicizing advantage of offering an adequate explanation for why Plato writes the Symposium. Secondly, linking the Symposium to the Apology has the felicitous advantage of being efficient, in an Ockham’s razor sort of way, because then one does not need to ‘invent’ an erotic ‘tradition’ to explain anomalous texts. Cobb (1993:2) does this, for example, when he reduces the Symposium to a compilation of ‘monologues’ about the nature of love. And while Allan Bloom (1993:33) claims not to do this, he nonetheless knows of such a tradition: “I have constructed no schema to act as a clothesline on which to hang all the books of the tradition, as the estimable and enduring Denis de Rougemont does in his Love in the Western World.”
So, rather than positioning the Symposium in a dubious tradition of Greek Love literature, it is preferable to adopt an interpretative strategy that links both the Symposium and the Euthyphro to the Apology. This reading strategy allows for the more satisfactory explanation of Socrates’, via Diotima’s, apparently non-sequitur theological perambulation on the distinction between gods and daimoni. In our view, we simply allow for the original purview of their evening’s reflections, which was to be a series of encomia on Eros, the god. We are not compelled to embark on the very long road of explaining in what way Diotima’s speech, which is not overtly or even remotely about things erotic, must really be fundamentally erotic in nature.

Further readings and references:
·      Arieti, James. 1990. Interpreting Plato: The Dialogues as Drama. MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
·      Bloom, Allan. 1993. Love & Friendship. NY: Simon & Schuster.
·      Cobb, William S. 1993. Plato’s Erotic Dialogues. The Symposium and The Phaedrus. Translated by William S. Cobb. NY: SUNY Press.
·      Rosen, Stanley. 1968. Plato’s Symposium. Hew Haven: Yale University Press.
·      Martha Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, 165-199), quoted by Cobb (1993, 8).
·       Goldhill, Simon. 2004. Love, Sex & Tragedy. How the Ancient World Shapes Our Lives. London: John Murray (Publishers).
·       Strauss, Leo. 1986. Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
·       Copleston, Frederick. 1946. A History of Philosophy, Vol. I. NJ: Paulist Press.
·       James, William. 1902. Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion London: Longmans, Green.
·       Fowler, Harold North. 1995. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Translated by Harold North Fowler. MA: Harvard University Press (Loeb).
·       Dover, Kenneth. 1965. “The Date of Plato’s Symposium,” in Phronesis, 10, pp. 2-20.
·       Vlasto, Gregory. 1995. Studies in Greek Philosophy, Vol. II: Socrates, Plato, and Their Tradition. NJ: Princeton University Press.
·       Howland, Jacob. “Re-Reading Plato: The Problem of Platonic Chronology,” Phoenix, Vol. 45, No. 3. (Autumn, 1991), pp. 189-214.
·       Cobb, William S. 1993. Plato’s Erotic Dialogues. The Symposium and The Phaedrus. Translated by William S. Cobb. NY: SUNY Press.



Sunday, March 1, 2020

American Pie, Redux Edition.



~by David Aiken~

Gary Price's The Thinker
§ Do You Recall What was Revealed/
The Day that Thinking Died…?

In last month’s reprised Phrontisterion essay, entitled Sightedness, there is this statement in our consideration of Shakespeare’s Macbeth: “More than a simple exercise in morality, however, Macbeth is also a study in the different types of ambiguities that exist, or that can exist, in a world in which gods, and knowledge touching upon gods, are hidden behind an impenetrable cloak of obscurity. This is precisely the problem in the ‘world’ of Christianity, after all: that knowledge has been replaced by belief; and, at best, belief is subject to any All and Sundry’s uninformed, blind, interpretation.”

A Christian Reader responded at some length to the premise of this idea. 
I liked your piece but felt like I had to take you to task on it… […]"For now we see through a glass darkly".  These are the words spoken by a man many years after his own blind eyes were made to see.  Before making this proclamation he also said, "For we know in part", acknowledging that for all of the enlightenment given to him, and acquired over the course of a lifetime, he remained, essentially, in the dark.  And is that not the real plight of everyman as clearly reflected in the literary treatises of the world?

What world literature demonstrates time and again is that everyman, in every literary culture of the world, has struggled with the question of - "what lies beyond the veil after the silver cord is cut?".  And ultimately, everyman must come to terms with the fact that this is just as unknowable as the question of "where did we come from?".  And so we see the writers of great literature puzzling over these great questions and illustrating both the questions and the struggles through the lives of the characters in their stories.  The endurance of these stories over time lies in their ability to resonate with a particular audience.  The real question about the stories may not be so much in whether they are factually true in every detail as it is about their ability to inspire the Christian Reader in a way that motivates him or her to strive to be something greater than the natural bent of his or her character.  The problem with the non-Christian world is the tendency to embrace those stories that affirm their natural bent and to reject those that challenge their own sense of self-goodness.

When considered objectively, the "Christian" narrative is quite different from the other narratives in the world which employ a device representing an appeal to some sort of divinity. The gods of world literature are fickle, selfish, narcissistic, and cruel.  While the same may be said for the portrayal of the God of the Old Testament, the Christian narrative is radically different.  Accept it as historical fact, or reject it as pure mythology, there is no denying that the message of the narrative is drastically unlike any other literary story in the world.  One may stumble over the essential premise that all men are sinners deserving of death, but God's answer to that problem is a narrative far superior to any other story ever written from the beginning of time.

It is the story of the Divine Person leaving His lofty and Holy abode in order to take residency in the humble state of humanity and then to take it upon Himself to pay the penalty that everyman deserves and thus free everyman from the condemnation that was the ultimate outcome of his humanity.  One may reject the idea that such a narrative is even necessary, but only in the world of Alice can it be denied that this narrative represents the highest form of ethical construction ever conceived, either before or since His time; the ethic which says that love drives a man to lay down his own life for another.

[One] may object to the premise that everyman stands guilty in the eyes of the Christian God and thus reject the free gift that he offers in the form of a pardon.  I personally find myself lacking the ability to rise to His ethical standard.


§ “Did you write the book of love /
And do you have faith in God above /
If the Bible tells you so?”
While an essayist may love the idea of an engaged Readership, Christian or not, it is not quite clear that this Christian Reader is actually “taking me to task” for any particular ideas from the Sightedness essay! The Apostle Paul does perhaps says more universally and more eloquently with his “now we see darkly,” what my essay also expressed, with a perhaps poorer image, of the Christian Everyman’s self-ordained Protesting right to interpret the Writ, heedless of insight, sightedness, or competence; but then I have no quarrel with Paul’s thinking, and, in fact, obviously side with his impression on this question. To be Uninformed is to be Blind in the truest sense of that word.

I also agree with the “uniqueness” point the Christian Reader raises about the Christian narrative. However, it would seem that some of our conclusions clearly differ about possible meanings surrounding that uniqueness. The reasoning animal has the native right, as well as an inherited obligation to those who will come after, to ponder and consider the world around him – such is, at any rate, the premise advanced not only by the philosophical traditions of the pagan thinkers, but also by Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and a long line Christian thinkers. Consequently, I do not consider the uniqueness of any mytho-narrative, and particularly that of the Christian tradition, to be a selling feature. Because the Christian narrative has been constructed over long centuries by interested parties, and is therefore no longer either well-grounded in the Biblical texts nor propositionally neutral in terms of its historical value. Nor are the texts themselves, when considered in their own right as documents of history, necessarily competent and neutral records of historical events. Also, because it is possible to measure the Christianly constructed Theological Narrative over and against the biblical texts, which activity yields any number of irregularities to thinking or to reason, i.e., paradoxes or irrationalities, it is becoming more and more apparent to Thinking Man that neither the Christian narrative nor the biblical texts make a particularly strong showing in the cold and unforgiving light of Thoughtful, Reasoned Day. Unfortunately. Because thinking about these matters would be so much easier were all the records of human historical experience clean and simple, and the Christian stories more reliant on the Biblical records.

We have made the case elsewhere that, as a part of its historical inheritance, the Christian story (Jesus + Messiah) has neither intrinsic ethic nor worldview, both of which it borrowed from surrounding thought cultures, infinitely more from Greek philosophy than from Jewish religion. This reminder is relevant to our Christian Reader’s question in a follow-up essay: “How is it then, that in this day and age, Christian sermons appear to be more structured as philosophical arguments? Why is it that sermons today sound more like persuasion than proclamation? Is it possible that Christianity has somehow lost its way by straying from the essence and structure of the original message?
            It is clear that the Christian Reader’s conclusion is that we should jettison all the highfaluting philosophical trappings of Christian historical theology, and should, much like Martin Luther of old, return again ad fontes in order to refresh ourselves in the cool waters of the original “pristine” proclamation of the Jesus message. However, that “original” message is also itself, unfortunately, indelibly framed by the historicized and edited and philosophically informed interpretative traditions that religions have found for the biblical texts in general; and these doctrinal traditions invite us, unavoidably, to interpret the Message, which is far less pristine than many imagine, some through literalism, others through mythology, and still others through metaphor or allegory.
Where does the “Truth” lay in that minefield?
           
§ “And we sang dirges in the dark /
The day the music died”
There are entire libraries dedicated to the study of the Judeo-Christian texts and teachings, and one will find ferreted away in the most obscure corners of those libraries all the research that concerns the connections of Judeo-Christianity to Greek philosophy, Jewish religion, and other ancient Near Eastern religions and mythologies. The evidence is prodigious, both from within the biblical texts and from without, that Christian doctrine and hence the Christian system of belief is the reasoning handiwork of human philosophical speculation. This evidence extends all the way up to the heavens themselves to embrace the profile of the Christian God -- He is a creature of whole-cloth philosophical speculation. This is not to say that there are no gods, only that they have been constrained and therefore changed by our interpretive framings and filters. There is no pristine narrative fountain to go back to—all information, all data, is woven into the warp and woof of our understanding through our thinking and our words… and transformed in and by that action.
            If this is in fact an accurate assessment of the way in which truth becomes truthful for Men, with all of the dangers and foibles that beset that way, then the Christian Reader’s frustration will only increase by remaining committed to the method of trying to go back to some “original” message, which is suggested in a responsive essay later penned by our Christian Reader.
The central idea [of this essay] is simply that Christianity was never intended to be a philosophy. Philosophy draws from various sources of knowledge and employs the tools of reason and logic to ascertain truth. The fact is that the truth presented by the life and teachings of Jesus could never be arrived at by reason and logic. Even with the source of knowledge provided by the Old Testament scriptures, it required additional revelation in order for the disciples of Jesus to grasp the truth of who he was and what he was accomplishing. It was not reason and logic that revealed these things to the disciples, it was the divine revelation afforded by Jesus himself.”
[…]
“Perhaps it is well past time to rethink Christianity altogether and to begin divorce proceedings with the philosophical concepts which have obscured and corrupted the original message. The original gospel was meant to be proclaimed not deduced. And the followers of Christ were never instructed to develop cleverly designed arguments intended to persuade. Like the Dude, they were merely instructed to abide (John 15:4-7, 10, KJV).”

For these reasons, at the very least, the Christian Reader’s conclusion to return ad fontes is simply not compelling. The study of philosophy and religion would be so much more convenient were it really the case that we could simply open a Book, almost any book, to discover the truth about our past and ourselves. But things are never that easy!
            Instead, it seems that the gods have stepped completely out of the world… and that We Mortals are left alone to explain however we may, rationally and irrationally, the ostensibly closed-system vacuum in this existential puzzle-paradise we call Our World. This kind of study is not about what might truly have been Once Upon a Time in the youthful days of Man’s adventures in the world, but rather whether knowledge of those days can be deciphered by Us today with any degree of reasonability or reliability. And in this playing field all the available evidence seems to point to the factum that we are alone in the world—left to sort ourselves out, however we may or may choose, with the other co-inhabitants of this Place.

To return again to the idea of narrative “uniqueness,” and linked to that idea, the Christian Reader also makes an appeal to the high ethical standards of the Christian God. Yet this, precisely, is what I do not have the sight to see. The rhetoric of faith has it that God is just; but can we really not “hear” the words of the Christian argument: that the Justice of this Christian God is to slaughter an Innocent Son of His, which act, magically, has some value, individually, for a world full of human failure. This is no act of Justice; and it is in fact and to the very highest degree, profoundly Unjust. Therefore, at the very least the interpretation that Christian Theology has given to this act must change. Even should I accept the historical death of Jesus, the narrative that reads this as an act of Justice is unacceptable to reasoning and just men. This is no justice that Men can divine, therefore it is not justice… just an unusual and irrational narrative that asks us to understand as justice an act that is not just, in diametrical opposition to the justice of one such as Socrates, which is clear and reasonable, and has the virtue of making the just man also the beautiful man.
            So it has long seemed to me that the Christian narrative must have taken a wrong turn at some point in its history to arrive at this conclusion about Christian Justice, which is no Justice at all, or at least not any type of Justice known to men who have been thinking about justice since the dawn of human history. My interest and the years of my study have always been dedicated to finding out where these types of thinking mistakes were made in the history of constructing the Christian narrative, and then to trying my hand at reconstructing a better narrative interpretation. Because for me it is to insult Reason itself to attribute to God, for example, a notion of Justice that is actually its exact opposite—an injustice. This is to render God irrational, and, by extension, the crown of His creation intellectually vacuous. To ask anyone to then believe such a narrative in an act of faith, is evil.

§ “And in the streets, the children screamed /
The lovers cried and the poets dreamed /
But not a word was spoken /
The church bells all were broken”
Thinking died for Christianity on a summer’s day in Nicaea (in what is today Turkey) in the year 325 A.D.
           
Belief and the death of thinking…
It is imperative that we do not simply take up our intellectual abode in the authority surrounding the various ideas that we have held dear and in which we are persuaded to put our faith; but we must insist on putting to the test everything, both in- and outside our authoritarian belief box—our Truth, in order to determine whether our reasons and our reasoning are and remain equitable. It is only in this manner, after all, that we keep justice or rightness [Dίκη] in Thinking. In this respect I am much like the cultivated Greek of the 2nd century transplanted into the 21st century… I have chosen to take a stand concerning my Thinking Life using logismos, reasoned conviction, which is grounded in the archaic notion of phronesis or intellectual insight, and which is the rational basis for the ancient Greek philosophical virtues of courage, self-control, and justice. It is an interesting irony of history that these same Stoic philosophical virtues would be quickly subsumed into Christian Thought, except for the grounding virtue of phronesis.
            It has become a reasonable choice for me, then, that I would disdain the religious conception of pistis or faith, an inferior conception of “knowledge” derived from a Platonic thought tradition, which embodies intellectual “blindness” in the sense that it is irrational and unexamined. According to E. R. Dodds (Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety, 1968, 120ff), faith “was the state of mind of the uneducated [Greeks], who believe things on hearsay without being able to give reasons for their belief.” It is an unfortunate circumstance of history that the Apostle Paul would come to represent “as the very foundation of the Christian life” the idea of pistis instead of logismos.
            To sketch out briefly the lines of the history of an idea, in our West pistis would become the foundational or sine qua non virtue for framing religious belief, both among Christians and later Neo-Platonist philosophers. So it seems to me that we are in dire need of a new Reformation, that it is high time we began to challenge again the statu quo of Christian arguments and beliefs that were, frankly, intellectually obscure and therefore barely plausible on the day the ink was still drying on the Council codicils—indeed, it still offends Intelligence that the Church was brazen enough to encourage thinking men, on pain of death, to accept “concepts” that were already defined as paradoxes and articles of faith in that day, and which today are simply whacky. In this New World of ours, in order to matter Christianity must return to a even earlier age, to a day when logismos mattered more than pistis. The life of the Church depends on it; and if it does not happen, then in due course Christianity will take its place alongside other narratives for children and those of more simple faith as merely another variation on a Mother Goose theme, or as another moral tale that will eventually fade away because it does not make any sense. This was Nietzsche’s prediction.
            So at the Council of Nicaea, in 325 C.E., an authoritarian or authoritative “Truth” concerning the Christian message was codified—God was defined as triune. And Thinking died. Ever since, those who have not been persuaded by the details of the specific interpretative ‘truth’ articulated and promulgated at Nicaea have been systematically anathematized—sentenced to spend eternity in hell. And, yet, if truth be told, even Paul and his NT conceptualization about the Cosmic Christ, does not belong to post-Nicaean Christianity. If one may judge by the Pauline and distinctly non-Trinitarian gospel-kerygma he leaves behind in his first letter to the Corinthians (Ch. 15)–
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.”

After Nicaea, only the filters of Nicaean Christianity became the acceptable measure of interpretative truth about the Christian message, which puts Paul and many others, myself included, in pretty much the same rudderless boat at some 2000 years remove—hell-bound.
            Perhaps the Christ crucified was Paul’s idea of a skandalon, a stumbling block, or foolishness (I Cor. 1:23); it would seem, however, that he should have reserved that kind of tag for the resurrection, which is, if ever there was, an event of a mythological order in the fine narrative tradition of dying and resurrecting gods, such as Dionysius and Osiris. Men’s dying for one another is an act that is generous and beautiful in the world of human history; Gods’ dying and resurrecting, on the other hand, seems only to have echo in the world of legends and myths. Against the empirical and crushing weight of a world given over to material death and decay, the literal interpretation of the NT stories of bodily resurrections, of Lazarus [Jn. 11], Jairus’s daughter [Mk. 5:35ff], Tabitha [Acts 9:36ff], and of Jesus himself, are simply too unique to belong meaningfully to real-time and literal interpretations without some sort of reasonable support from empirical sources. Such events as these are more at home in mythological time than in historical time; and their meanings are actually much more meaningful in that former realm of translation.
            Professor Ehrman, an American Professor of Religious Studies, has suggested that new research is pointing to the fact that maybe Jesus was pretty sure he was a prophet, but that the texts do not support that he thought himself a god… Did Jesus think he was God? New insights on Jesus’ own self-image. And so the intrigue continues and will not be solved here today.

§ “And the three men I admire most /
The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost /
They caught the last train for the coast /
The day the music died.”
To return again to the theme of uniqueness – imagine that, in a universe where planets all rotate in one direction, one day, one planet decides to rotate in the counter direction, only for one day. Then it becomes sensible again and spins merrily along in harmony with the other planets. Imagine, as well, that there is some witness of or evidence for this occurrence. This, one might argue, is a unique event—an historical singularity no less so than any mathematical singularity; and even if there were some record of its occurrence, every reasonable man would be absolutely in his right mind to question the “meaning” or “possible consequences” of such an unusual event. So it is also with resurrections when they are literally read, and not interpreted as myths and metaphors.
            It is indisputable that such events as resurrections have mytho-meaning, but it simply is not so clear that they have much reasonable or inherent currency in a heavily physical dimension, such as ours, which is dominated, saturated by raw empirical subsistence. This is the difference between the stories of resurrections when read by Jewish Pharisees, who were always literalists, and the same exact stories read by Jewish Sadducees, who were anything but literalists. In the first instance, one argues that the resurrection has empirical value, as real-time event, and in the second instance, one reads the resurrection as metaphor, as a spiritual transformation or conversion of the individual to a new life. From an interpretative point of view, it is simply not possible to make plausibly the case that the non-literalist interpretation of the event is not the correct (or the also correct) first reading.
           
So, at the end of the day, it seems that my being “taken to task” by our Christian Reader is actually related to the idea that I do not take a specific Christian stance concerning the questions I raise. Yet I cannot take this stance with such a flawed, yet I think perhaps ultimately fixable narrative. This fixing is the story of my scholarly life.

Simple Belief darkens the mind. Kierkegaard, in his essay “Every Good and Perfect Gift,” (p. 32), seems to allude to this passive darkness of the mind in response to a text from the NT book of James:
’Every good and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.’ So they sat in their quiet sorrow; they did not harden themselves against the consolation of the word; they were humble enough to acknowledge that life is a dark saying, and as in their thought they were swift to listen to see if there might be an explanatory word, so were they also slow to speak and slow to wrath. They did not presume to give up the word; they longed only for the opportune hour to come. If that came, then they would be saved.”

In this redux version of American Pie: Do You recall what was revealed / The Day that Thinking Died…?