It is likely to be non-apparent at first glance, my point here that this OED reference to ‘two knowledges’ has direct relevance to the writings of Eudoxus of Cnidos . Eudoxus imposed a famous restriction — also a famously ambiguous restriction — on permitted ‘magnitudes’ allowed into an Eudoxan ‘logos’. The restriction is that they must be ‘homogeneous’. What is meant by ‘same genos’ here? The restriction, now standardly called by the name of a successor to, also an admirer of, this same Eudoxus, namely Archimedes. Let all allowed magnitudes be Archimedean. It is brought to bear in texts of today at Def 3 of Euclid’s eudoxus-sourced Book Five. Book Five contains nearly our earliest foundational work on equalities among logoi, i.e. foundational work on proportion theory (ana-logia). Please see the exchange of letters between Abraham Robinson and ‘Professor Brown’ of Brooklyn College, from early in of 1972, when I was an ‘assistant’ Professor there [I am now emeritus]. When are such things as magnitudes (we may ask of Robinson’s revered monad) not of the same ‘genos’ ? A scholion to Euclid’s first book on ‘stereometry’ clarifies this, saying things formerly thought to be from ‘two different knowleges’ (duain epistEmain) are henceforward seen to have all the needed ‘sameness’, i.e. the focal or flocked ‘familiarity’ GEOMETRY. At second glance here you may seem to see the countenance of Eudoxus of Cnidus [this countenance has been newly reconstructed from the Philosophenmosaik by David Dann of upstate New York, paradromically enough].
This ps-Plato person has much to gain — authorship of all of true-Plato’s corpus by penning this forgery. To compare: the diagram, (12th century scribe’s) showing an iconic Socrates figure with writing instruments to hand. alongside a Plato figure with unconcealed shock and anger. Plato figure is here gesturing with his left hand beside Socrates’s shoulder
Epistle II puts forward the following Ypung Socratic paradox: what if none of the Platonic corpus is truly traceable to Plato, 110% [to include the writings still to be made after
the Olympics of 360] , the true author having been, paradoxically, a Socrates ? Have a look at this false letter , written supposedly by the True Plato:
Here we see an iconic Socrates falsifyingly at work with his pen, a worried Plato figure gesturing in dismay:
Causing a string of letters to come apart, but only at that word’s joints may be just one thing. But it is quite another to ignore internal articulations, as Julian Barnes wrote recently in his book “Nothing[ness] to be Frightened of”. It is a book about various ways of coming to terms with one’s own dying. He has a dramatic flair, Julian does, and has an author busily doing his writing activity when, — FLASH — he dies at once. In mid-word even: it gets logged on his typescript at the word-torso ‘wor’ The END, finis, that’s all he wrote, and was. Prodicus the seductive would be proud of such a wordsmith, or (pardon the expression) a wordsm .
So would Philip of Opus, who wants to recite names, in his p. Kosmou , and to create clever variants on public or intra-academy schemes of naming, often drawn from the hypercleverness of Cratylus — which manages to decompose ‘swphrosyne’ into a pair, SWTERIA+PHRONESIS. Or, equally overclever, decompose ‘noEsis’ into ‘tou neou+Hesis’ Amongst the various meanings of this last phrase is this rather naughty one: OF THE YOUNG MAN, A CRAVING (!).
Plato seems to have had a personal craving for a young man Aster, whom he nicknames as Iros in ILIAD is nicknamed too, after his expertise, in our case Astronomy. So it is written in Epigram1 attributed to Plato by John Cooper (Hackett 1997) Can Aster have been a disciple very near Plato personally, like the certified astronomer Philip ? In any case it is Philip who calls himself in the final chapter, one filled with astronomy, the final chapter of EPINOMIS, by phrasing we might rightly render: the ’eminently wise, sophwtatos truly astronomer man‘ [=Ὁ σοφώτατος ἀληθῶς ἀστρονομος ]
In Philip’s account in p. Kosmou, some individual gods experience decay of consonants within their names, ‘Kronos’ decaying into ‘Chronos.’ One prominent individual is the chief sufferer under his own ‘polyonymy’ [this is a rare word in classical Greek], Zeus SWTHR or Zeus HETAIRIOS/PHILIOS (Bekker 401).
Do please consider the ms. evidence of some super-refined, we may even call it Rococo in its Prodican mannerism, of lengthening a word by inserting an Iota above the line in the middle of a 3-letter long word. Maybe its phoneme is nearly a hiccup or gastric belch ? Our best ms. of Philip’s work, the one some have facetiously nicknamed ‘the thirteenth book of Plato’s 12-book work NOMOI’ That is, Philip’s Epinomis. It is a central point at this present website, the equating of Philip, Amphinomus and Younger Socrates. Speusippus must have known all 3 men well, and known also if more than a single name was taken on by one or another, or still another.
There may be in addition a sly allusion to a man sometimes called ‘the Aster who can attract all eyes, including those 10,000 eyes of the star-struck man Plato. This allusion seems to come near the surface in a stretch of the Astronomy chapter (i.e. Chapt 10) of Republic VII a man whose name-fragments trace to the word-pair SWZEIN+KRATHS, at Steph 527e2, just 2 lines above the manifest allusion to the man there called the ‘true astronomer’, namely EU+DOKEIN: Philip=(SocratesAlternate). Part of the proof is this flock of supra lineam Iota marks, a mere quarter of the 4-letter word AIEI:
Consider further this evidence, based on a persistent unorthodoxy of Attic spellings: