13.vii.20 this clip from Aristotle’s fragment 313 has some remaining fixes needed. Please be patient while this fixing proceeds… I judge that frag. 313 contains various significant pointers. toward the idea of using ‘athroisma’ as metaphor for a foregathering of — or an anticipation of –universalisation as in the Posterior Analytics , work going on at Early Academy. This exemplifies the Early Academy’s ‘joint search dialectic’ on cases we may call ‘amia’ or ‘deprived of its loner status’: work towards a new view, echoed in Timaeus repeatedly, of a significant meaning of ‘katholou’ There is of course a quite natural opposition between One (identity) and the ‘More or less’
This puts the new amia- or the athroisis-akin concept into an unfamiliar place from a logical point of view —- The privative form of ‘One’ is not ‘No-One’ but one not a scattered mix of manifoldness, rather a ‘congregating’ of perhaps a natural kind. These are points that touch upon many issues, one lead example being the ‘focal meaning’ concept publicised by GEL Owen. The focused manifold now becomes something Proclus claims a Platonic ancestry for. An intermediate type between the purely Platonic Unitary Substantial Form, and a mere take-away aspect via aristotle’s getting to a universal: ‘aphairesis‘. A third thing rather: a self-congregant manyness, neither singular nor disorderly in its manifoldness. Many flocks may coexist here, each tending towards a herd or school or several distinct things such as experience reveals to us. Rudy Rucker’s ‘Lifebox’ book has several passages devoted to what he calls ‘flocking’, one allowing for a pair of flocks to congregatively co-flock (see Timaeus’s specialist terms derivative of ‘sunathroisis’) . But purely as a non-singular, our non-loner remains alongside others within items logically more generic, but in a way opposite to the ‘One’ and ‘Singular’. Difficult to pinpoint all the levels of sameness, of substance, and of difference. But this is explored with great skill by David Wiggins in his ‘Sameness and Substance, renewed’.
All of this puts the Amia or ‘lacking its singleness [ universality !] puts it forward as the ‘always or for the most part‘ formula, so common in Aristotle. Thus a ‘flocking’ universal, like so many summer swallows. Logically, then, it forms a part of the ‘ Dyad of greater-or-lesser’ and is a non-loner alongside its flock, the newly formed near-Universal. Are the origins Pythagorean ? Intriguing if they were to be Boeotian/Theban in origin, relayed indirectly as pseudepigraphus aristotelicus, — via academician and teacher of Aristotle: Philip from Opus !
Meantime, in Timaeus and in Politicus there are repeated clustering of terms like ‘athoisma’ or ‘sunathroisma’ . Yet elsewhere in the corpus-in-the-making [see Fink, ed., 2012] these terms are rarities — even loners.
Use of a ‘chisel’ is connected — not very indirectly — with Plato’s ‘gold example’. The man performing deceitfulness wants to take unfair advantage of gold’s foundational feature, its having no least part, but is rather a universal in every ‘shaving’ or ‘comma’, their foundational feature being ‘like every other shaving, and like the whole gold coin, it is pure gold.’ Anaxagorean form of ‘abstraction’ under surveillance here ? Eudoxus wanting the least part, if any there be, of the Idea of Whiteness being fundamentally like all others, and like the Whole Idea, Whiteness Itself, mixed together with things such as are large enough to escape the ‘unperceivably small’ or obscure-to-sense. Eudoxus’s theorems now in Euclid XII, 3 and 5 are explicitly ‘homoiomeric’ about solids, and their infinitely continued subdivisions. Shavings we may call the below-notice levels of this continued ‘salva qualitate’ level of smallness inside the mix.
Plato refers at Timaeus 52b2 to a certain ‘logismos nothos’, combined with ‘anaesthesia’. Interpreters often think him referring to aesthesis rather than to an-aesthesis. But he may be pointing in this very direction and to the Eudoxan theory of forms, alluded to in Parmenides. Again the evidences are written.
Plato’s personal acquaintance Alexis comicus seems to have been familiar his fellow-self-colloquiser, who habitually paced up and down in ‘aporia’, or perplexity. I may usefully bring to bear some remarks made to me [one self-colloquiser overhearing his fellow]. Here you will see some lore and wisdom from the OED, as if commenting on Alexis or on a doubled Ryle, self-colloquising like Plato. Each persona or prosrhEma seems to want a self-doubling, or self-fellowing. But this type of self-replication occurs in several locations in the later dialogues, once where the face seen in Theaetetus’ mirror was more than a mere look-alike, but a shade coming face-to-face with a fellowing self.
Wiggins no doubt can decode all of this, in- or outside of Plato. E.R. Dodds in his colloquial memoir ‘Missing Persons’ adds a ‘demon’ who made use of the name Eric Robertson Dodds. Did we once have two Theaetetuses? Alexis and Plato appear to say Yes. Dodds’s personae number at least two by his own count. Nor are these provably only dreams or a form of experienced madness. Ryle, during his late-1967 trip to my home in New Jersey was not fellowing his contemporary Dodds (who had still not published written his memoir about his own multiple selves). Nor did Ryle admit his outloud self-colloquising. He did, however, firmly reject my point that I sometimes talked to myself. Until, that is, I cited to Ryle my example of a well-dressed Manhattanite. This same external man had committed the ‘allotriosynic’ act of interrupting the two of us, then and there in the late 1960s.
the boundary separating text from marginalium: often a porous boundary, with material leaking forward and backward over centuries of time. Please see this sample from Ibycus , by clicking here: Note a few discrepancies between Ibycus’s wordings and this echoing, in or near or passing that boundary:
Lyric poet Ibycus’s lines located (as of Ephraim’s time) outside Plato’s text, but local to Ephraim’s marginalia. John Cooper’s Complete Works Plato [Hackett], also inside his texts, presents a fine lyrical poet — in Plato’s lovely Love epigrams ! I sense something autobiographical here, linking real-life prize-winning aethletic lover (and also ‘aesthlosic’) — see Cooper’s edition of Love Epigram I) lover Plato to real-life tired Old-Man Plato. We need only see under the surface here some equivalence relations. Amphinomus=Philip=SocratesAlternate=ASTER!