The material about religious belief from Tetralogy Nine rivals that from Tetralogy Eight. Drawing on a favorite specialist term ‘episkepsis’, which comes to dominate the infinite-process steps in all-but-one proposition of Euclid on Cones and Cylinder one is enabled to put it ‘nearly a Whole Heaven remote’ from Euthyphro.
I call special attention refer to Books 12 and 12a of the Heiberg edition(s) of this work. Much more work is now needed, possibly by T. Echterling and ‘those around him’. Some of these latter overlap with the ‘flock’ or ‘cohort’ in Paris and Helsinki. As I now judge this to be, Heriberg gets full answer to his implied question: what is going on here in 12a ? He wrote that its purpose is near unintelligible: its Zweck seemed kaum erkennbar. This little appendicated piece to Euclid12 may be by Philip of Opus.
Likely Copenhagen/Saxo alongside Paris and Helsinki can be co-hortative, conceivably some near Cambridge USA in shifting the ‘home’ position ahead. What Nancy Demand calls metoikesis. As I diagram this, the needed move is leftward. From the North ‘when one looks downward from above’, this is rightward. New Socrates, the one emerging now, is at the ready. My hunch is that 12a has like the same relation to 12 which the present editions of Epinomis have to present editions of LAWS
Who exactly is behind the pointed reference to ‘my’ way of speaking [or arguing] ? Not the same ‘me’ of Seventh Letter !
If (as I believe true) this below quip about ‘akosmia’ was written by Plato’s student Philip during the lifetime of Plato, and if (as I also believe true) my friend and colleague from the Massif Centrale Jonathan Barnes has the right range of dates for ps.-Aristotle’s Peri Kosmou, namely -350 through -200, many of us, myself included, will want to locate its date near the very earliest, the mid-4th century BC.
This little pseudepigraphic tract on the World or Cosmos has its author achieving his wordplay and his witty joke, but only after paying a high price. I mean a price in the matter of logic theory: He contrives a serious confusion of his mentions with his uses ! He mentions “akosmia” (ill-arranged) and “akolasia” (ill-disciplined), and yet deliberately omits any markers or hints that it is the signs, not the things-signified at issue.
There is an analogy to our little joke : “sure I’ll help find the sympathy you’re seeking — You’ll find it very near the end of the ‘S’ section of our dictionary here’ [pointing to Timaeus-the-Sophist’s dictionary, or the SUDA, the letter ‘Sigma’ down here]”. The seek-whence points back to what Philip of Opus, before that Timaeus, would know as “our alphabet”. This of course puts the answer into an inconsistency or inconcinnity with anything so to speak ‘here’, like you or me or our lower world of winds and disturbances like those caused. In other words we must return to the sub-lunar world that includes personal emotions, such as fellow-feeling, the sympathy which was the true quaesitum.
See if you can work through this following on “follow” and “furrow”, a little witticism more narrowly limited to the English language: my theories have it written by Philip of Opus, in his tract π. κοσμοῦ , very near the date 5 years after Seventh Letter. My date puts its writing while Plato is still alive, still adding some harmlessly distractive anacoluthia to his Timaeus [please see webpage of Timaeus ]
A little harmless aside here, parallel to the main task: Jonathan Barnes is as hellenic in his lexical interests as is his twin-in-lexicography Julian Barnes. Witness the famous never-ending END to Julian’s recent (yet ongoing) book on a subject we may call Barnesian slow-motion dying. There is a causal sequence which takes the listener or reader back to Odysseus and the second of two logician-jokes he plays on one-eyed or no-eyed giant POLYPHEMUS.
Recall the first paradox from Odysseus : it was perhaps prefiguring DeMorgan’s naming the editor for that singular edition of Thales. It got prominence much earlier than the epic about the hunt for Thales (Itinerario de trenes, 2002) — ‘2 volumes, Folio’ — of Thales’s quasi-complete works. DeMorgan called him Prof. Niemand ( = call me ‘Nobody’). Where was the location of the actual publication ( = call it ‘Nowhere’). It is a set of expressions that do not truly refer, not at all. But what about the #2 point, applicable after Polyphemus has had the poignant first encounter inside Homer’s cave: I am deliberately making you, O Nobody, my final meal, final for this little flood or flock of quasi-sheep, — comedians such as Mark Maron have since A.D. 2005 called us ‘sheeple’ — all of whom I intend, O Nobody, to devour !
I do not hold that the ‘incertus Auctor’ of the π. κοσμοῦ is to some low level of confidence Plato’s amanuensis Philip of Opus. After all many another tract fits comfortably under SUDA’s final phrase ‘…and many others [sc. works]’. I hold, rather, this to be true, but at a reasonably high level of confidence.
Two main thoughts promote my own confidence here: (1) The little and syntactically bumpy anacoluthion Plato added to his Timaeus 28 b2-4 near writing Letters #7, #8 is aimed polemically against Philip and (2) the multi-faceted joke about ‘akosmia’ and ‘akolasia’ and the alphabet is a snappy retort to the effect ‘I know how to entitle my DeMundo, thank you Dear Prominence here in our flock of academicians, and it’s a far better than the unCosmic name than your piece entitled ‘Timaeus’ !
Date of composition of π. κοσμοῦ same Olympiad as the Year -349
[anacoluthon aimed at my friend Julian: have you recently met any ps.-Ar. “de-occultations” try Bonitz s.v. ‘anaphainesthai’]
Please give it the necessary close look, a look at this snapshot of the TLG text of Euthydemus. In particular please look closely at that dialogue’s cluster, or flock or herd of the specialist term aei/aiei,
Now in Chapt. 22 of Euthydemus, which runs to only 32 lines, it is given a striking emphasis by being put inside quotation marks by the always-careful Oxford editor John Burnet.
Such ‘encrustation’ is of course open to a reasonable reader’s scepticism. John Cooper inaugurated this point of criticism in his Complete Plato, (Hackett, Indianapolis 1997). On the other hand this is Plato’s way of writing our ‘eternal’ or ‘always’.
This is clearly a term Plato puts much emphasis on. Further, it is a concept close to the heart of Amphinomus, who is well known to Proclus and other commentators on Euclid. It is likely he to whom we owe Scholion #18 to Euclid I, which complains about the opening proposition. What complaint, exactly ? Well it is not a Theorem proper, but rather a construction. Thus its product appears to be one of those hitherto-non-existent items, just ‘at this moment’ built by our geometer. He is scornful toward the ‘tote=trigwnon’, i.e. the ‘then-triangle’. It is as if Triangle weren’t an eternal object !
Plato had used the term in many of the centrally platonic contexts — well over 700 specimens of this occur corpus-wide — either in its 3-letter or its 4-letter variant.
This seemingly small variation of spelling has a very direct bearing on the report in Dionysius of Halicarnassus — the remark that Plato was fond of and preferential towards a diphthongal pair of letters, ahead of using the simpler monophongal variant. This latter variant, == which I have echoed here just a dozen or so lines below this — harks back to an earlier, Pre-Plato Attic.
Quite possibly young Theaetetus grew up writing this older style of Attic in Sunium, as witness the 70% preference shown at the beginning of Euclid X, where it very likely to be his authorship. This is exactly where potentially infinite ongoing processes come over the mathematical horizon in early Greek mathematics. the Theaetetus
On the literary side a chief model of that centenary-earlier writing is Thucydides, who favors it by a 128:0 ratio over the simpler form ἀεὶ .
Here is the snapshot of our ‘flock’ of αἰεὶ
Consider Bury’s fine note to Symp 209C near Diotima speech, with Tim 26 d and joint search urbanely invited by optatives there:
Chapt 1: 17 a1
Chapt 2: 19 b3
Chapt 3: 21 a7
Chapt 4: 25 d7
Chapt 5: 27 c1
It is quite natural if we call Pythagoras of Samos a direct ancestor of the ancient group or society whom Plato is soon to call Friends of Forms. Certainly he is more strongly associated with these than with those called Ionian, or Ionians, — Friends of Earth, Plato calls them.
In Timaeus Ch. V, Plato launches his discourse on the world’s body and its sensible and tangible aspect. This recognises the all-but-complete dominion of a cosmic Nous over this lower world’s necessity. Here is a brief discussion of ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ and how scientists of Plato’s day (post Pythagoras, but prior to Aristotle) dealt with ‘the nature of things’. It is a curious lexical sidelight on this that the De rerum Natura recognises ‘swerve’ or ‘parenklisis‘ [παρέγκισις] amongst the world’s atoms, its basic bodies. Further, possibly tracing back as far as Aristotle or even his ancestors near the time of Pythagoras, thus well before Euclid and Epicurus themselves, put forward the definition of Right Angle different from how Euclid defines it. They made their definition specify ‘exemption from parenklisis’.
Heiberg relayed this seemingly old-elementarian’s [an academician’s ?] definition from our best ms. of Euclid, — its scholia, or marginalia. The Stamatis edition keeps this seemingly old definition, which also embodies a lexical rarity, the word DICHOTOMHMA. It is adjacent parcels of such half-pieces that exhibit their orthogonal quality, by being ‘without parenklisis’.
Here you will find some of my observations on Plato, Aristotle and Younger Socrates, particularly on pre-Epicurean thinking about the world’s (created) body : heavenly-vs.-sublunar-science-5
Chapt 6: 29 d7
Chapt 7: 31 b4
Chapt 8: 34 a8
Chapt 9: 36 d8
Chapt 10: 37 c6
Chapt 11: 38 b6
Chapt 12: 39 e3
Chapt 13: 40 d6
Chapt 14: 41 d4
Chapt 15: 42 e5
Chapt 16: 44 d3
Chapt 17: 47 e3
Chapt 18: 48 e2
Chapt 19: 52 d2
Chapt 20: 53 c4
Chapt 21: 55 c7
Chapt 22: 56 c8
Chapt 23: 57 d7
Chapt 24: 58 c5
Chapt 25: 60 b6
Chapt 26: 61 c3
Chapt 27: 64 a2
Chapt 28: 65 b4
Chapt 29: 66 d1
Chapt 30: 67 c4
Chapt 31: 69 a6
Chapt 32: 70 d7
Chapt 33: 72 d4
Chapt 34: 76 e7
Chapt 35: 77 c6
Chapt 36: 79 a5
Chapt 37: 79 e10
Chapt 38: 80 d1
Chapt 39: 81 e6
Chapt 40: 84 c8
Chapt 41: 86 b1
Chapt 42: 87 c1
Chapt 43: 89 d2