There's nothing foolish about the content of PPM48, and, on the contrary, on this first day of April, the mood is quite somber and serious, as I make my way to the end of Plato's Allegory, letting lines 516-17 of the Republic have the final say as they describe the final paideia (turning) of the liberated cave-dweller, his call to re-turn to his demos, and the implications of this return: "Coming suddenly out of the sunlight, his eyes would be filled with darkness. He might be required once more to deliver his opinion on those shadows, in competition with the prisoners who had never been released, while his eyesight was still dim and unsteady; and it might take some time to become used to the darkness. They would laugh at him and say that he had gone up only to come back with his sight ruined; it was worth no one's while to attempt the ascent. If they could lay hands on the man who was trying to set them free and lead them up, the would kill him [concluded Socrates]. Yes, they would [agreed Glaucon]."
This is where we encounter the complexity of this blues tune, the full blown tragedy that is the Allegory. The demos feels one of their's has been ruined, and this is not untrue. And they seek to right the wrong, through violence. But, as we know, this is an example of legitimate violence (as I have discussed in previous PPMs in view of Hegel), and one that I discussed as the legitimate violence of the family, cosa nostra: Post Proelia Praemia. In this sense, the cave-dwellers are less a demos and more an oikos (family). But the Allegory is a strange piece of blues, and when we step back we realize that it is neither a demos nor an oikos but the polis that Plato is depicting with the cave, and the desire for vengeance a form of legitimate state violence inflicted as a 'precautionary' or for 'security' reasons. After all, as Arendt reminds us, Plato's Republic, and the Allegory in particular I would add, was written to prevent the state from sinning twice against philosophy. The first sin was the execution of his teacher Socrates, which is precisely what Plato is indexing at the culmination of the Allegory: "if they could lay hands on the man who was trying to set them free and lead them up, they would kill him." Athens did indeed kill Socrates. He was executed in 399BC. Perhaps an infanticide, if you read Plato's Crito from a particular angle. Regardless, it is a cautionary, serious piece of blues, a tune I heard from one of my New School mentors Agnes Heller: be careful, she counseled me when I was new grad student, and do not too rashly leap into the fray of revolution via philosophy or philosophy via revolution. Years later I have come to appreciate more and more what I heard from Agnes Heller, which was not to be over cautious or conservative, but, on the contrary, interesting, compelling, but also deeply humble with respect to the project that was always bigger than one philosopher could undertake on their own. Hence, why, for me, the reduction of Learning, as I say at the onset of PPM48, is always to relationality, to intersubjectivity, to the gathering of friends, the learning community.
This is where we encounter the complexity of this blues tune, the full blown tragedy that is the Allegory. The demos feels one of their's has been ruined, and this is not untrue. And they seek to right the wrong, through violence. But, as we know, this is an example of legitimate violence (as I have discussed in previous PPMs in view of Hegel), and one that I discussed as the legitimate violence of the family, cosa nostra: Post Proelia Praemia. In this sense, the cave-dwellers are less a demos and more an oikos (family). But the Allegory is a strange piece of blues, and when we step back we realize that it is neither a demos nor an oikos but the polis that Plato is depicting with the cave, and the desire for vengeance a form of legitimate state violence inflicted as a 'precautionary' or for 'security' reasons. After all, as Arendt reminds us, Plato's Republic, and the Allegory in particular I would add, was written to prevent the state from sinning twice against philosophy. The first sin was the execution of his teacher Socrates, which is precisely what Plato is indexing at the culmination of the Allegory: "if they could lay hands on the man who was trying to set them free and lead them up, they would kill him." Athens did indeed kill Socrates. He was executed in 399BC. Perhaps an infanticide, if you read Plato's Crito from a particular angle. Regardless, it is a cautionary, serious piece of blues, a tune I heard from one of my New School mentors Agnes Heller: be careful, she counseled me when I was new grad student, and do not too rashly leap into the fray of revolution via philosophy or philosophy via revolution. Years later I have come to appreciate more and more what I heard from Agnes Heller, which was not to be over cautious or conservative, but, on the contrary, interesting, compelling, but also deeply humble with respect to the project that was always bigger than one philosopher could undertake on their own. Hence, why, for me, the reduction of Learning, as I say at the onset of PPM48, is always to relationality, to intersubjectivity, to the gathering of friends, the learning community.
3.0 - First off, after reading the 2.0 commentary (above), I want to call attention to a common error I have made in the past, using "paideia" when the correct terms is "periagoge". The latter, which I wrote about in yesterday's 3.0 commentary refers to the process of being turned around, specifically, the turning of the soul around towards contemplation, which, for this project, refers to the phenomenological modality of attentiveness, receptivity, listening, perceiving. Paideia is the term used for education, in general, and probably is closely linked to the German Bildung, or cultural education, because paideia can also denote the culture of a society.
ReplyDelete3.0b - Ironically, coincidentally, by chance or whatever, on this April Fools Day the majority of original mediation (p. 86 in binder #1 Forest Green) is missing. The beginning of the PPM48 is there, and discusses the "final" stage of the freed cave-dweller's ascent: contemplation of the Sun as the source of all things. Today, I would emphasize, probably in the manner of Heidegger and in contrast to Plotinus, that the Sun symbolically can also denote what allows for things to be received, perceived. The light and the open region provide the conditions for the possibility of reception, and I would also include silence. Another important condition is "free time" or scholē, which the freed cave-dweller appears to have been allotted as soon as they leave the cave. But that too is limited, which is a point I made a few days ago in a 3.0 commentary: transcendence into the encounter with liberation is momentary, a flicker, or reverberation. One can't "measure" the kairological break from the chronological. By definition it is a qualitative experiential dimension of time, like duration. It "occurs" but can't be measured by clock time. At best one can say it has duration: it occurs and then is not occurring. This is message that Plato is conveying, and helps us to understand why the freed cave dweller is compelled to make the return descent. The time of contemplation, which Aristotle describes as the one that brings us the most joy, is a moment, an experience. Indeed, this temporal boundary and limit is what constitutes an experience, as such. "Being and Learning" p. 81 (PPM48) describes the freed prisoner's descent as motivated by a "longing to return to his companions."
ReplyDelete3.0c - Today I wouldn't describe the descent as motivated by feelings of homesickness, but of resignation. He has no choice, once the experience has concluded. This is another aspect of the boundary: he may be released from the chains that hold him in the cave, but he remains bound by the ontological strictures. This is why I wrote the other day about the Liberation as an Ideal residing in the U-topos (utopia), no-where land. Another boundary: the inaccessible Ideal. So the descent is motivated by a resignation that one can not choose against the ontological boundary. One can not reside in the Open Region. Thinking is experiential, momentary, occurring in a present that stands in-between past and future that one endures for a moment. The singularity of experience is a defining characteristic. Experiences stand out, and we recall them because they are significant and lasting. Learning is the general name for an experience. In PPM48 I use the word "event," which is one I continue to use as a supplement to "experience." Event describes the singularity of the experience, which in PP48 I call the "sublime revelation," and thereby link it to the mystical experience. PPM48 describes the sublime revelation as an experience with the "harmony of the world's relations." In the aftermath of that experience, I write, the freed cave-dweller remembers his friends. "He is held in wonder by this harmony." The example of Du Bois' John Jones being lifted by Wagner's music is recalled as an exemplar, and more so because Jones recognizes the contrast between the beauty held out before him and the ugliness of the world he has transcended. Plato's freed cave-dweller appears to remain passive, and perhaps recognizes the boundaries that continue to limit him, even in the experience with freedom. But in the wake of his transcendence, Jones is inspired to make change, to bring beauty into this ugly world. His is a poetic philosophical response. He is determined to make change, and to do it through education as a teacher. Plato's cave-dweller, perhaps still dizzy from the periagogē, returns, "happy for his change, but sorry for his friends who have remained below." The cave-dweller is not motivated by a will to make change, but returns, "bearing the news of his journey...with the hope that will want to join him...seeking their companionship, their fellowship..." But Plato insists they would ridicule him and the transformation he has undergone, and, what's more, would kill the guide who had taken him away and brought him back changed for the worse. Now this is, of course, a reference to the execution of Socrates, and a tale of resentment towards the one who has been changed by education. A question to be pursued in the upcoming 3.0 commentaries: to what extent are we "changed" or "transformed" in an educational experience?
ReplyDelete