Found an info page on Chora (Khora) in Wiki, which looks good. — Corvus

I like the two well-chosen Plato quotes there from the Timaeus.

“Moreover, a third kind is that of the Khôra (χώρας), everlasting, not admitting destruction, granting an abode to all things having generation, itself to be apprehended with nonsensation, by a sort of bastard reckoning, hardly trustworthy; and looking toward which we dream and affirm that it is necessary that all that is be somewhere in some place and occupy some khôra; and that that which is neither on earth nor anywhere in the heaven is nothing." — Plato, Timaeus, 52a-b
"So likewise it is right that the substance which is to be fitted to receive frequently over its whole extent the copies of all things intelligible and eternal should itself, of its own nature, be void of all the forms. Wherefore, let us not speak of her that is the Mother and Receptacle of this generated world, which is perceptible by sight and all the senses, by the name of earth or air or fire or water, or any aggregates or constituents thereof: rather, if we describe her as a Kind invisible and unshaped, all-receptive, and in some most perplexing and most baffling partaking of the intelligible, we shall describe her truly."[4] — Plato, Timaeus, 51a

I complained before about the necessity of bringing a point of view to reading Plato. Even in the original, one can't tell whether a speech or argument is actually Plato's belief or just that of the dramatic speaker in the dialogue. Is the receptacle part of Plato's overall scheme or is it a tall tale from the Pythagorean sophist Timaeus? When it is emphasized as likely, is likely to be taken positively or negatively?

This sort of judgment needs to have its own justification on some basis, be it dramatic, psychological, political, historical, religious, or whatever might seem relevant to the reader. I try to base my reading on coherence to other things Plato said elsewhere in other dialogues hoping that his philosophy was logically founded.

My preference is for something like the SEP article Timaeus written by two experts who have a definite approach to Plato. Their view however is still only their view.

In its own right it is (part of) a totally characterless subject that temporarily in its various parts gets characterized in various ways. This is the receptacle—an enduring substratum, neutral in itself but temporarily taking on the various characterizations through traces of the four elements in it. The observed particulars just are parts of that receptacle so characterized (51b4–6). — D.Zeyl & B.Sattler

Could the quantum universe be in a possible world? Or would it be a legitimate existence in the universe? — Corvus

The quantum universe is just another description of the physical universe but at the smallest quantum level. Consequent observable that change at human scales are the cumulative effect of countless quantum events. Just as the river is the sum of all the waters flowing by another name. It isn't any existence but the entire makeup of the whole of what can be.

What is the World Soul? Do humans have souls? — Corvus

Here, my only interest in Plato's World Soul is as a rational intelligent agent that after the original divine origin, continues to create natural observable things by mixing definite finite forms with indefinite primal substantial elements. Of course, human agency, people with intelligent souls can do the same as craftsmen. This is part of the metaphysical mechanism the passes formal identity and properties to objects, and in turn recognizes things in this or that form as objects.

The quantum universe is proposed to be whole, and an intelligent agent in a Platonic sense. It is supposed to be acting instantaneously beyond our 3-D spacetime. Tempting sci-fi speculation but it hasn't been shown to be impossible partly because of real physics theories of extra space and time dimensions.

It sounds like Chora does things, moves, changes, generates imbued with souls and lives on, like God creates and time flows, but it may not exist in the material world for us to be able to perceive or sense. — Corvus

Yes. Quite different from an empty infinite space or a container of sorts.
Interestingly there is a modern quantum version of the World Soul. The idea is that the universe is quantum computer busy calculating its and our future

Cornford's framing of a Theory of the Forms assumes a level of explanation that may not be on offer. — Paine

Do you mean his explanation for the exclusion of Forms from the Theaetetus? Cornford was a unitarian with respect to Plato's underlying metaphysics and believed that beyond the many things said there was deeper coherence. He also consciously excluded later Aristotelian interpretative influence. There is a review (here).

Plato seems to have deliberately hidden his metaphysics by sparingly spreading it throughout the dialogues, I have the strange impression that since Plato was his own editor and publisher, he periodically revised earlier dialogues stashing key pieces here and there. Consequently early readers like Aristotle could genuinely be obsoleted without their awareness. Furthermore the Academics might have had a later more complete copy of the works than the Lyceum.

Cornford's 'Platonist' sought out the metaphysical fragments then reread the entirety with an unerring guidance from that knowledge. Unfortunately only advanced scholars have the mental capacity to follow that plan. Certainly not me.

One feature that does not appear in the pure substrate model is the "wet nurse" role of the "receptacle". — Paine

That opens up Pandora's box.
The demiurge creates natural things by informing the chaotic substrate. I say things that are images, copies of their forms, that become, move, change, and perish like the substrate, yet retain formal identity. Things interact by kind, and have identity and temporal properties that can potentially be sensed. Things are less real than their perfect Forms and cannot be known because they move and change constantly.

The receptacle must contain and nourish objective things.

What pops out is the puzzle of subjective sensation and the objects of perception as contrasted to the things of the chora.

A Platonic reading recognizes this distinction, an Aristotelian reading does not. Aristotle sees substantial objects where Plato sees dynamic things and perceived objects.

What is your definition, or rather, understanding of chora? — Corvus

A definition might be too strict for something that mostly does not exist to be defined, it is an extended boundless dynamic field of inter-penetrating proto-substances constantly moving and changing into each other. According to ancient physics, if substances are self-generating and self-moving then they are necessarily imbued with soul and must be alive in some sense.

Analytic philosophy cannot cross over the dictionary meanings of words, suppose — Corvus

If they did they would lose an objective common ground of communication. The lexicon has its own biases as well but where would we be without it? Plato resorted to dramatics, personalities, irony, and metaphors to paint over large gaps with a broad brush where the fine strokes of reason lacked.

I bought a few old books on Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Lucretius and Heraclitus recently, so will do some reading on them. — Corvus

I need to do the same. Boundless apeiron and fundamental material substances as arche originated with those early physicists and I often wonder what that lost book by Heraclitus would read like.

You make many cogent points in those posts that I have to think about as I write.

I take Gerson's point that a "likely account" does not refer to its "probabilistic" sense. — Paine

Describing chora as a place or as an extension is un-Platonic primarily because these are plainer ideas that stray too far from the complexities of text. Aristotle and Gerson attempt to assimilate what is taken to be Plato's word into their own simplified Aristotelian philosophical mindset. Plato is hard to read because the dialogues should force us to step outside of our practical self-serving schemas. If we don't take that step then we are left behind.

More importantly from my perspective, the metaphysical requirements of the chora as a theoretical entity override mere geometric (place) or dimensional (extent) considerations. The chora needs to be an indefinitely active maelstrom, a background that cannot be sensed in any way that randomly moves and changes itself and everything in it. Otherwise Plato's philosophy doesn't work for him.

The difficulty described by Timaeus is that the language of correspondence does not serve us as readily as it did in the other two models. — Paine

I agree with that take as it applies to chora and even to Plato's atomism. For one, the chora is too big and the atoms are too small to correspond to anything that we care to name given their ancient setting. OK, modern physics has caught up with language like universe, energy, forces, atoms and molecules but that cannot count except as conceptual crutches for us moderns.

The other difficulty is that third entity is prior to the other entities as a fundamental ground of natural being. — Paine

Yes, the chora must predate the gods and the entire creation story, just as the Forms must. Otherwise the demiurge has nothing to work with in creating the physical world, such as it seems. I'm not sure how that relates the heavens of the gods to the world though.

Wow an old thread — Corvus

A few years back I had to invade the library of a local seminary in search of an expensive Plato commentary. When I asked for help the young librarians instantly assumed that I was searching for God infusing Forms into Chora. So I figure this thread might be worth reviving.

Is it possible for philosophical interpretations on the original texts totally objective? — Corvus

The analytic philosophers of the last century tried to do that and they made amazing progress. But it left many readers wondering whether Plato was somehow lost in the process.

Would it not be inevitable that all interpretations are somewhat subjective? — Corvus

I don't see how that can ever be avoided if even the most solid translations mislead their readers in key passages of the text. Following up on previous comments,

I call upon God and beg him to be our savior out of a strange and unwonted inquiry, and to bring us to the haven of probability. — Plato, Timaeus, 48d, translated by Jowett

we must call upon God the Saviour to bring us safe through a novel and unwonted exposition [48e] to a conclusion based on likelihood — Plato, Timaeus, 48d, translated by Lamb

So now once again at the outset of our discourse let us call upon a protecting deity to grant us safe passage through a strange and unfamiliar exposition to the conclusion that probability dictates. — Plato, Timaeus, 48d, translated by Cornford

Let us ... call upon the god to be our savior this time, too, to give safe passage through a strange and unusual exposition, and lead us to a view of what is likely. — Plato, Timaeus, 48d, translated by Zeyl

Clearly we should now begin again, once we have called upon the god, our saviour, at the very outset of our deliberations to see us safely out of an unusual and unaccustomed exposition, to the doctrine of things probable. — Plato, Timaeus, 48d, translated by Horan

What's the difference and does it matter?
The sentence before this one belabored the perils of probabilistic guessing about the heavenly order imposed by a perfectly good god of reason. ("Remembering what I said at first about probability, I will do my best to give as probable an explanation as any other--or rather, more probable")
Therefore it is the Pythagorean theoretician who is in need of saving through divine inspiration and not us. God is not our savior but the savior of the true philosopher.

So, which translation should I start with?

I wonder if one could transcend the present time, when one is reading the past original texts. One will always read them from the stand point at he / she is in the time. One cannot be the original writers who lived 2500 years ago. — Corvus

Which is why it is only possible to misread Plato in one direction or another to a lesser or greater extent. Scholars' translations and readings are slanted as ethicist, moralist, mathematical, humanist, historical, literary, or holist. Each gives a picture yet none of them feel quite right for the others. Plato actively encouraged this diversity by exploring aspects of philosophy from the perspective of other philosophers (deliberately interpreted with a slant). I imagine his Academians were also vociferously divided.

only seven million deaths in the world and one million in the US — ssu

You're giving my calculator a headache

disabling agencies like the IRS, which is laying off 6000 more recent hires (made largely under Biden, I would guess) — BC

It would make sense for the DOGE to use AI to sift through administrative records of government contracts for suspected waste and corruption. Younger people with marketable skills and near retirees took the bonus and bailed out. They're eliminating social services as 'Marxist' and 'woke' agencies as promised to Trump supporters. But I can't tell how they so quickly single out individuals to be fired. If it is other than competence, is it by tweets? I imagine they're keeping all Trump supporters.

They want the MAGA revolution to happen in Europe too — ssu

Maybe they do, but perhaps they only need to create sufficient confusion and division to paralyze disjointed multinational leadership.

MAGA is a nationalist movement that encourages authoritarian cult leadership. Here in the US, Musk is busy downsizing government bureaucracy by swinging an executioners axe. Unfortunately no limbs are spared. Even essential services will be crippled.

A similar MEUGA might push European unification into overdrive to rebuild a militarily self-sufficient world power. As Trump already suggested military expenditure needs to dramatically increase. But instead of 5% the military expenditure should be nearer to 25% or even more if Europe is to survive.

Vice President JD Vance said in his speech at the conference on Friday that there was a new sheriff in town, President Donald Trump. He brought with him a change in the relationship between the United States and its European allies on the Atlantic.

The vice president then accused European leaders of censorship of social media, interference in elections and violations of the rights of Christians. “I believe that ignoring people, ignoring their concerns or, even worse, shutting down the media, blowing up elections or keeping the public out of the political process does not provide any protection,” Vance said. “In fact, I think that is one of the surest ways to destroy democracy,” — News Interview

Is this normal in tone and content coming from an ally? Sounds to me as another attempt to destabilize the European democracies, just as Musk is trying to do with his support of the extreme right wing. Who would benefit from the resulting confusion among the European leadership?

Plato suggested momentary collapse — magritte
Would you elaborate, please? — jgill

Plato lived in a mathematically rudimentary and physically primitive age, but his mode of thought was akin to today's physical theorists. He was quite aware of the dimensionality of space and the special importance of time in relating existence in mathematics and the Forms to the indeterminate physical and psychological worlds. He saw this as a mathematical problem which he suggested can be overcome by collapsing or expanding time. Even though he was quite explicit, this demonstrably sound solution still remains elusive to many.

Plato suggested momentary collapse.

Hence likely at some time the US will finally get out of Iraq and likely at some time from Syria too. — ssu

Yes. Isolationism has been a goal of the US conservatives for a long time now. We're tired of transplanting our ideals of democracy to ungrateful foreign lands.

The MRGA crowd, sorry, I meant MAGA will likely sweep the elections here. Trump will gain dictatorial powers and align us with the Kremlin. This might prevent a world war but at a very high cost (we're sorry, Ukraine).

American troops and military aid will be withdrawn from everywhere. And then what? The secondary powers will have military control of their regions and nuclear weapons will proliferate unchecked. Then we shall see if Russia and China have plans beyond just battling us imperialists.

if the IRA had killed 1200, then you would have been totally OK with air strikes — ssu

But it isn't just bombing.

The Hamas terrorists made it as personal and offensive as they could, exactly to provoke an oversized uncontrolled retaliatory counterattack., The purpose is to draw world sympathy away from the State of Israel and to direct sympathy to the Palestinian people who endure but still support Hamas. World outrage should be mobilized primarily against Hamas' barbarous acts but then also against the massive retaliatory strikes that surely must follow. The two are inextricably connected. While the hostages are still held there should be no peace for Gaza.

Israelis tell British MPs of evidence of Hamas sexual violence

Thank you. The problem I have is the same mentioned by . Darwin tried to sell natural selection by pointing out that selective breeding of animals and plants was an established practice already. For artificial selection there is a human breeder who is selector for some trait. But natural evolution is on autopilot, it is purely a discrete non-continuous mathematical system that responds time-to-time however it can to an independent therefore unknowable environment. Artificial selection of trait or function is directed by a God-like agent. Darwinian natural law relies on a Platonic mathematical statistical intermediary that automatically relates two unlike realms without the need for a selector other than de facto survival.

I suppose examples from organic and biochemistry might be more convincing but that would be still more technical. But then again I probably still don't understand what the authors are saying.

Darwin didn't say that the term evolution can't be applied to anything else, did he? — Danno

the new ‘law of increasing functional information’ states that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity, and complexity — Gnomon

I don't get the motivation why complex natural systems would ever want to 'evolve' into anything else if they already survive as they are. This is not a given. Most existent species will never evolve into anything else. Man will never become superman.

Perhaps I'm looking at this too much in a Darwinian sense of evolution being just one possible version of natural adaptation to an unpredictably changing world. Darwin started from a simple mathematical feature of all random statistical variation of traits becoming the effective connection between genetic inheritance and the unknowable physical world. Those that are not already adapted by chance die off. Where does information come into play?

if the populace acted as one — Janus

But that can only be an ideal theoretical possibility because, like the air or the clouds, the populace is not actually a permanent existent entity. It's only a Platonic concept. Historically, revolutions that do happen only turned power over to some new (usually worse) elite.

Regarding ownership of land, I don't know whether Israel needs to justify its own existence anymore than any other state. It exists and continues to exist. — BitconnectCarlos


I don't think it need justify its existence — Ciceronianus

Yes. Israel as all other states is a fact not an opinion. Justification for facts is empty verbiage. The people of Israel are likewise a fact but they are plural and diverse, as are Jews many and diverse all over the world. Confounding these three and assigning widespread ills of the world, such as universal social or legislated or enforced oppression of the oppressed, to any or all of them indiscriminately is antisemitism, whether that be open or covert.

Dutch politics is pathetic. Ridiculous virtue signaling. — Benkei

Maybe that's in acknowledgment of the shameful oppressive colonialist history and smug not-me attitudes of your country?

Terrorism has always been a reply — Benkei

And indiscriminate bombing has always been the reply to terrorism everywhere because there is no other effective answer. The answer to bombing is either annihilation of Hamas or escalation and spreading war to the entire region with the aim to eliminate Israel.

That's where Iran comes in. What is Iran's role as an instigator for Hamas to start the next regional war?

Israel is reaping what it sowed for years — Benkei

And so is Gaza. According to reasoned third-party judgment, the terrorists and the IDF are both proceeding according to the above discussed ideals of world justice.

Why is it so hard to separate Hamas from the people of Gaza?

Should it not be up to the people of Gaza to reject terrorists ensconced in a maze of tunnels under the city? In all the world news I still don't hear anything of the sort anywhere. Apparently it was the Israeli babies' and old women's own fault that they were massacred by righteous Gaza freedom fighters.

I am talking about drawing a circle that <is> a square thus not a circle. It must be in the same two dimensional plane — PL Olcott

On the surface of the Earth, imagine drawing squares centered on the North Pole with increasing length sides until the sides coincide with the circle of the equator. As said ,what can be done is all about unstated presumptions.

How viable is an independent state in the separated plots of land that basically the PA has? — ssu

You are saying all this on your own assumption of ethnic separation as the basis for peace. If this was in your own country would you want that for yourself? For a more distanced analogy how does this work in the US or Canada with indigenous peoples who were granted lands forever, do they want separation (Some in fact do, and claim 'historical' rights.)?

According to reliable unreachable sources the rocket was made of paper mache designed to disappear by itself on impact and filled with attack propaganda butterflies that cause an international fire storm upon public release. The weapon was designed at the secret Antarctic weapons facility.

At his point in time, given the lack of investigative evidence,

Any suggestion that it's clearly one or the other only reveals the bias of the person offering the opinion. — Hanover

:100: :up:

The doppler sound indicates a passing projectile, incoming then outgoing. The time delay, if the locations of the target and video were known would give a clue to the direction of the projectile. The size of the explosion does not necessarily suggest anything. Hamas has explosives big enough if that was their intent.

What PT says makes sense to me.

The question to ask is, is this mass hysteria or mass schizophrenia, or is is there a cause - by cause I mean a reason, right or wrong - for their actions? — FreeEmotion

I am sympathetic to your views on mass hysteria but not on the psychology of terrorists. In this I think both your take and the PT article are fundamentally mistaken. Psychology is not the place to look, as any psychological survey of terrorists will show random behavioral traits. The answer lies in sociology and in social psychology, in our gut irrational responses on a group, social, and tribal level. It's in the singing, the dancing, and the killing. :fear:

systematic analysis shows that this unitary retaliatory approach to terrorism frequently not only fails to deter and discourage it but may in fact only perpetuate endless cycles of retribution

Psychology Today is a fake science journal written by journalists whose opinions are as whimsical as the requests of their editors. Where are their references to alleged systematic analysis to unitary retaliatory approach? Perhaps personal surveys of news clippings from Pravda?

Free Palestine — 180 Proof

You mean free from Hamas and other terrorist organizations. What the world does not need is more Lebanons.

I think Hamas is multi-faceted. It has a terrorist wing, at the same time it's the "authority" we have to deal with in Gaza. — Benkei

Only one facet matters

Documents exclusively obtained by NBC News show that Hamas created detailed plans to target elementary schools and a youth center in the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Sa'ad, to "kill as many people as possible," seize hostages and quickly move them into the Gaza Strip.

That's a great mugshot. I'm going to remember it in case I'm arrested. — T Clark

or this one for the original teflon don

If Prigozhin is indeed dead, then the cause of death is quite obvious: he thought he made a deal with Putin. — Jabberwock

Prigozhin possibly had a deal with Putin which included a concession to stay out of Russian politics and foreign affairs. If he did, then he violated the terms of the deal by making sure he stayed in the public eye as a viable opposition leader both at home and abroad. Did he expect Putin to retire?

What a surprise

methane emissions degrade in the atmosphere relatively quickly, after about 12 years, and do not act cumulatively over long periods of time.

So they say that carbon dioxide is bad but methane which degrades, quickly or slowly, to carbon dioxide is not as bad?

I spent a few braincells wondering why the global temperature seemed to mimic the N. hemisphere seasons. Then i realised that the extremes of the seasonal temperature variation take place on land, and most of the land is in the N. — unenlightened

I think that point and others similar are reasons for doubt. Up to about 10 years ago I was uncommitted on global warming but the evidence kept piling on year after year until I gave in. Most importantly the Antarctic ice sheet was getting colder and thicker even after Greenland started melting. This plus that the Southern Hemisphere has longer and colder winters by a slight bit due to the Earth's orbit not being perfectly round. But sea levels and temperatures were rising globally and that was what I was watching for.

Sorry. I should have split the sentences and started a new heading. Even better, make a separate post for a philosophical rant.

Saying anything about any scientific subject at least implies an expressed or unexpressed position by the speaker and further that there exists some sort of scientific support for that position.

Pro or con.
But normally, on popularized scientific topics only the pro positions are acceptable for fear that children might believe them. For example, If I now propose a hypothetically possible case against global warming or one for a rapidly approaching ice age, rather than being ignored it will raise eyebrows and I might be accused of ignorance or ill will.