Phaedrus

Socrates: Well, this is what I’ve heard. Among the ancient gods of Naucratis in Egypt there was one to whom the bird called the ibis is sacred. The name of that divinity was Theuth, and it was he who first discovered number and calculation, geometry and astronomy, as well as the games of draughts and dice, and, above all else writing. Now the king of Egypt at the time was Thamus, who lived in the great city in the upper region that the Greeks call Egyptian Thebes; Thamus they call Ammon. Theuth came to exhibit his arts to him and urged him to disseminate them to all the Egyptians. Thamus asked him about the usefulness of each art, and while Theuth was explaining it, Thamus praised him for whatever he thought was right in his explanation and criticized him for whatever he thought was wrong. The story goes that Thamus said much to Theuth, both for and against each art, which it would take too long to repeat. But when they came to writing, Theuth said: “O, King, here is something that, once learned, will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memory; I have discovered a potion for memory and for wisdom.” Thamus, however, replied, “O most expert Theuth, one man can give birth to elements of an art, but only another can judge how they can benefit or harm those who will use them. And now, since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own. You have not discovered a potion for remembering, but for reminding; you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality. Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so. Phaedrus: a scoffing [[laugh ->P01]]

Phaedrus: [[Insult->S02]] Socrates's abilities as a storyteller

Socrates Do you only consider who the speaker is and where he comes from, or do not more rightly consider whether his words are true or not. So then, tell me, are the words of King Thamus true or false? What do you think? Does writing hinder remembering? Repetition Phaedrus: [["Can you repeat the passage please?"->S01R]] Disagree Phaedrus: [["I'm not sure I agree Socrates"->P02A]] Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [["Your rebuke is just; and I think that Thamus is right in what he says about letters"->S03]]

Socrates: Which part do you need me to repeat? Phaedrus: Answer Socrates: Repeats the part asked for... Well, this is what I’ve heard. Among the ancient gods of Naucratis in Egypt there was one to whom the bird called the ibis is sacred. The name of that divinity was Theuth, and it was he who first discovered number and calculation, geometry and astronomy, as well as the games of draughts and dice, and, above all else writing. Now the king of Egypt at the time was Thamus, who lived in the great city in the upper region that the Greeks call Egyptian Thebes; Thamus they call Ammon. Theuth came to exhibit his arts to him and urged him to disseminate them to all the Egyptians. Thamus asked him about the usefulness of each art, and while Theuth was explaining it, Thamus praised him for whatever he thought was right in his explanation and criticized him for whatever he thought was wrong. The story goes that Thamus said much to Theuth, both for and against each art, which it would take too long to repeat. But when they came to writing, Theuth said: “O, King, here is something that, once learned, will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memory; I have discovered a potion for memory and for wisdom.” Thamus, however, replied, “O most expert Theuth, one man can give birth to elements of an art, but only another can judge how they can benefit or harm those who will use them. And now, since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own. You have not discovered a potion for remembering, but for reminding; you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality. Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so. Socrates: So, do you agree with Thamus? Disagree Phaedrus: [["I'm not sure I agree Socrates"->P02A]] Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [["Your rebuke is just; and I think that Thamus is right in what he says about letters"->S03]]

Phaedrus I have heard this idea many times before- that whenever we have a new technology, we wonder if it is good or not - if it will hinder our memory or not. But I just don’t buy it. New technologies, including writing are not a hinderance. If you didn’t have writing then everything would slip out of your experience. Socrates But if you didn’t have writing you would be forced to actually remember things. If nothing was written down you would have to contain facts in your head. Many say that an idea is learned with more substance when it is experienced rather than when it is merely read. Many would agree that mostly when students write notes, they write in place of actually knowing and learning. The notes, learned merely for a test, do not sink in and do not reflect real understanding. Phaedrus But what about the act of writing. Can’t the act of writing help process experience? Can't we write in order to help us understand what is happening in our lives and this writing can then clarify our beliefs, our values, our thoughts? Socrates : Ah, but perhaps this is a different kind of writing. In this case writing is merely a tool to help make a thing become internal. In this kind of writing, the product is superfluous and the process is all that is needed. One could merely throw out the writing afterwards. Perhaps we can call this a different kind of writing. And from now on when we talk about writing and criticize it we will speak only of the other kind of writing- writing that stays in the world and is interacted with after it is written. Are we in agreement? Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [[Yes.->S03]] Disagree with the distinction and make new ones Phaedrus: [[This distinction is not appropriate.->P02B(2)]] Disagree and go deeper into what memory is Phaedrus: [[Process-based writing has positive functions as a future product->P02B]]

Socrates So it would be quite naive and stupid to think that one can leave written instructions for an art and believe that these instructions will yield results that are clear or certain. Because words that have been written down can do no more than merely remind those who already know what the writing is about. Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [["Very true."->S04]] Partially disagree, but continue out of curiousity Phaedrus: [["I am not sure I entirely agree but I would like you to proceed to see what you will say next."->S04]] Discuss Phaedrus: [["I do not agree."-> P03]]

Socrates You know, writing shares a strange feature with painting. The offspring of painting stand there as if they are alive, but if anyone asks them anything, they remain most solemnly silent. The same is true of written words. You’d think they were speaking as if they had some understanding, but if you question anything that has been said because you want to learn more, it continues to signify just that very same thing forever. When it has once been written down, every discourse rolls about everywhere, reaching indiscriminately those with understanding no less than those who have no business with it, and it doesn’t know to whom it should speak and to whom it should not. And when it is faulted and attacked unfairly, it always needs its father’s support; alone, it can neither defend itself nor come to its own support. Do you think that all of this is true. Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [["You are quite right about that too."->S05]] Clarification of Terms Phaedrus: [["I have a few questions about the words you are using."->P04A]] Repetition Phaedrus: [["Can you repeat what you just said?"->S04A]] Disagreement Phaedrus: [["I disagree! Texts don't always say the same thing!"->P04B]]

Phaedrus Discuss keep discussing until you come to an agreement or you grow tired of discussing Socrates [[Shall we proceed? ->S04]]

Phaedrus Well, I’m not sure. Process-based writing that isn’t thrown out can be found again in the future and that process can then be re-enlivened. Socrates: But would this be a reminding or a remembering? Is this merely an aid for something we already understand? Phaedrus When you are remembering you have the thing active in your head. When you forget you send it back and a reminder would then call it back. Socrates: I dont understand. Phaedrus Let’s say this is the space of your brain. And if you remember something it’s there in your memory. But then there is another place behind the memory that most of our experience gets stored. And a reminder would bring this back into memory. One is passive the other is active. But one argument that is in favor of the potion for reminding is that if more things are passive, then we have more space in our mind for more active things. Socrates: But I’m not sure this is what memory is and how it works. Discuss Phaedrus: [[How then does memory work Socrates? What is this difference between a potion for reminding and true remembering?-> P02C]] Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [[Let us hold off going into great detail about memory and please continue with your line of thought.->S03]] Disagree & Make New Distinctions Phaedrus: [[I want to return to the distinction you made about process vs product writing.->P02B(2)]]

Phaedrus Discuss keep discussing until you come to an agreement or you grow tired of discussing Socrates [[Shall we proceed?->S03]]

Phaedrus: Writing as process cannot but be an aid for the product of writing. And this product, when encountered, will bring you to door of experience, understanding and intuition. Without it, you are merely lost. Socrates: So you then disagree with Thamoth, the king. Phaedrus: I disagree with Thamos. I disagree. Socrates: So you think that writing is more than just a potion or aid for remembering. Phaedrus: I believe that writing, as a reminder, may bring one to the door of memory. And we shouldn’t think of this as a useless activity. Socrates: But are there certain kinds of writing that are no more than a mere reminder, that get us no further towards the door of memory? Phaedrus: Yes. Socrates: Can we distinguish these different kinds of writing such that some only produce potions for reminding and are no sign of actual wisdom whereas other kinds of writing actually produce wisdom? Phaedrus: Writing that is purely technical is a mere reminder. Writing that is poetic, philosophical, mystical, mythological or other writing that is beyond this world, are not mere reminders. Socrates: What is an about the technical writing then that gives it its quality of only being only a reminder? What is this distinction between true memory and reminding? Phaedrus: The difference is being inspired and being able to convey a sense of inspiration through the writing. Socrates: Does everything that is written while in the state of inspiration then yield a state of inspiration for the reader? Phaedrus: If the reader comes to it with the right orientation then it can- a kind of openness that that text requires. Socrates: But the story eludes to a kind of understanding that occurs before someone receives a piece of writing, before something is written. Phaedrus: Yes. It's a story about someone who writes things down who seems to know them- but perhaps doesn’t. It is not even clear that they have learned the thing before writing it down. Socrates: Exactly! What is essential is for someone to actually learn the thing. Moreover, sometimes writing can get in the way of this. The writing down becomes a substitute for the learning. Phaedrus: It can become this substitute, but I think that is a pretty foolish way to approach writing. Socrates: Let’s return to the example of the technical writing. What exactly is technical writing? Phaedrus: Technical writing reflects a certain kind of understanding of how something works, but not necessarily a wisdom about it. Socrates: An example would be how to build a house or how to plant a tree? Phaedrus: Exactly. Which I guess could be understood as some kind of wisdom. Perhaps a very practical wisdom. This reminds me of the experience of reading an instruction manual. You look at an instruction manual and it's very helpful to have but it's always in some way incomplete. You have to fill in the spaces with other understandings of the shape of this thing or the materiality or how to dig a hole- there are always little gaps. That is why people find them frustrating. Socrates: Right. Because there is a certain kind of holistic knowledge of the thing which is lost when it is written down. Phaedrus: Yes. Socrates: So we have to believe that certain kinds of writing may be a mere aid for reminding and do very little to get us to the gates of true memory and wisdom. And the kind of writing that this usually acts this way is technical writing. All other kinds of writing have the potential to get us closer true wisdom as long as the writing itself was inspired in the process. Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [[We are in agreement.->S03]] Discuss Phaedrus: [[This cannot be right.->P02B(3)]]

Phaedrus Discuss keep discussing until you come to an agreement or you grow tired of discussing Socrates [[Shall we proceed?->S03]]

Socrates: And so when someone who knows what is just, noble and good, when this person wants to write, won’t it be the most sensible that, if he is serious, he will not write with his ideas in ink and pen, but rather he will write them into a soul using the art of dialectics? The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sows within it discourse accompanied by knowledge—discourse capable of helping itself as well as the man who planted it, which is not barren but produces a seed from which more discourse grows in the character of others. Such discourse makes the seed forever immortal and renders the man who has it happy as any human being can be. Clarification Phaedrus: [["What exactly are you saying Socrates?"->P05A]] Repetition Phaedrus: [["Can you repeat the passage?"->S05R]] Discuss Phaedrus: [["Socrates, once again, I disagree."->P05B]] A Strange Inconsistency Phaedrus: [["Socrates, there is something I still don't understanding."->P05C]]

Phaedrus: What exactly is an offspring of a painting? Socrates: The painter is the father. The painting is the offspring. The people attacking it or defending it are people in the world who look at the painting and agree or disagree with it. Phaedrus: Ah, OK, yea. I really like this image of the text standing there, saying nothing, and laughing and the image of the discourse rolling around indiscriminately. Socrates: Yes, but do these images resound in truth? Phaedrus: Well, I don’t really understand the part of needing its father support. Socrates: Well, imagine that we just listened to a speech or read a book. And during the speech we had various questions about it. If the person who gave the speech was here, she could answer these questions and an entire conversation could emerge. Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [["Ok. Now I understand and you are quite right about writing in all the respects you have mentioned"->S05]] Disagreement Phaedrus: [["I cannot agree with you Socrates"->P04B]]

Phaedrus: Texts can bring about many meanings and clearly are not dead. You can meet with a group of people and study and extract lots of meanings from the text without the author's help. Socrates: But where are these meanings coming from? They aren’t coming from the text are they? They are coming from some other source. What is this source? Phaedrus: The meanings would be coming from you, or your context, but they would still generate something. And in this way, Socrates, I really don’t believe that a text has only one meaning. We can see that so many different meanings proliferate out from a text. A text never continues to say the same thing again and again. It always says something different, every time we read it or look at it. Socrates: But in this context the text is merely a tiny part in a larger conversation. The text is like a little spark that ignites a back and forth, a question and answer. The word itself, on the page, remains mostly dead - saying the same thing. Yet, in repeating the same thing again and again we can be reminded of other things, we can take in other parts of the world and bring them into the words. Yet, this has nothing to do with what the author meant or believed. Phaedrus: But who is this needy author? The reader doesn’t need the original interpretation or intention. Maybe this author needs to let go of his own meaning. Why is his original meaning so important? Socrates: Well, what if the author REALLY knew. What if the author had THE answer. Think of wise persons or religious prophets throughout history. You would think their original idea was more right and true than other’s interpretations. And so once these people write down their wisdom it can become tainted and impure because it will begin moving away from the correct answer. Phaedrus: But all these examples are of people who are thinking of themselves as mediums for a message that is not theirs. They are filters, messengers of a higher truth. Socrates: Yes! So it is not about the individual at all. These people were just great messengers. But then what is this higher truth? And how do we get to it if we are not divine messengers? We have a dialogue. This is why any speech, or any text doesn’t ensure there is true knowledge. If you have knowledge of a subject then if someone were to attack you on parts of it you could defend it. The ability to defend something says whether you have true knowledge. Anyone can give a speech and feign knowledge. True knowledge comes from the ability to do this dialectic back and forth. Phaedrus: So you are imagining that all fathers of creative works should go out and defend their work? Socrates: Yes! This is philosophy. Is this not the case? Is it not the case that a back and forth conversation ensures true knowledge and understanding of a subject, whereas reciting or reading a text does not ensure this. Likewise, a piece of paper lying dormant on a shelf in a library neither ensures true knowledge. Is this not the case? Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [["You are right Socrates. Please go on."->S05]] Disagree- Dialectics can obstruct knowledge absorption Phaedrus: [["Socrates, you favor dialectics too highly..."->P04C1]] Clarification- What exactly is dialectics? Phaedrus: [["Socrates, I don't fully understand this dialectics of which you speak."->P04C2]] Provocation- Why is dialectics so important anyway? Phaedrus: [["Why is dialectics so important anyway?"->P04C3]]

INTRODUCTION CHARACTERS: Socrates: wise yet knows nothing, quasi-ironic, ever-questioning. You begin believing in the power of dialogue and are skeptical of writing and speeches. Phaedrus: young, beautiful, curious. You begin with doubt about what Socrates is saying, as you love speeches and text. AIM: To come as close as possible to truth. METHOD: -You are your character, yet, you are also yourself. -Do not let playing a character come in the way of the AIM. -As a dialogue, all words must be spoken. (the only words not spoken are words that are prompts for dialogue) -Phaedrus controls the pathways of discourse based on various cues. MAJOR CUES FOR PHAEDRUS: Disagree / Clarification - Takes you deeper into pre-written dialogue. Agree - Takes you to the next line of Platonic text. Discuss - Gives players the opportunity to discuss matters on your own terms. [[Ready?->S01]]

Socrates: Which part do you need me to repeat? Phaedrus: Answer Socrates: Repeats the part asked for... You know, writing shares a strange feature with painting. The offspring of painting stand there as if they are alive, but if anyone asks them anything, they remain most solemnly silent. The same is true of written words. You’d think they were speaking as if they had some understanding, but if you question anything that has been said because you want to learn more, it continues to signify just that very same thing forever. When it has once been written down, every discourse rolls about everywhere, reaching indiscriminately those with understanding no less than those who have no business with it, and it doesn’t know to whom it should speak and to whom it should not. And when it is faulted and attacked unfairly, it always needs its father’s support; alone, it can neither defend itself nor come to its own support. Do you think that all of this is true. Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [["You are quite right about that too"->S05]] Clarification of Terms Phaedrus: [["I have a few questions about the words you are using"->P04A]] Disagreement Phaedrus: [["I disagree! Texts don't always say the same thing!"->P04B]]

Phaedrus: A back-and-forth can be just as much about two people being completely armored and unwilling to hear each other's point as it can be about a honing and a precision of understanding. Someone could simply hear something and if they come into it with complete receptivity, they could understand it more thoroughly than he who came into something with thousands of frustrations and defenses previously erected. In such a case, knowledge would have to pass through each one of these defenses in order to be completely absorbed. Socrates: But knowledge isn’t about absorption. Phaedrus: Why not? Socrates: Because any given person saying something doesn’t make that thing true. Phaedrus: Sure… Socrates: Knowledge is about figuring out if what is said is true or not. Phaedrus: Knowledge is about coming into an awareness of a complete truth within the thing that is said. Socrates: And so how does one come into awareness of that truth? Clearly not just by receptivity to it. For then anything could yield truth. Phaedrus: Almost everything can yield truth. With a specific kind of orientation to a thing it can yield truth (not all things, but many things). Encounters in your daily life can yield truth if you are poised to interpret them as potential truth-giving instances. Socrates: Can you give an example? Phaedrus: I'm thinking about the Hindu prayer before eating in which you say something like- “the ladle is Brahman, the butter is Brahman, the food is Brahman, I am Brahman, all things are Brahman.” This sets up a mode in which every object that you're apprehending can be a vessel for accessing higher powers and accessing completeness and truth. The truth can be accessed through the material mundane objects of reality. And so to tha extent, every interaction - even a mundane act of eating- can be an access into a truth or knowledge. Socrates: And how does this relate to dialectics? Clarification- What exactly is dialectics? Phaedrus: [["Socrates, I don't fully understand this dialectics of which you speak "->P04C2]] Provocation- Why is dialectics so important anyway? Phaedrus: [["Why is dialectics so important anyway?"->P04C3]]

Socrates: What do you take dialectics to be? Phaedrus: Dialectics is one way of accessing truth or knowledge. But, I wonder if it is required? If the kind of truth you are after is precise knowledge through words, then yes, you need the dialectic. Because words rely on categories and distinctions and without categories and distinctions language doesn't really function. And knowledge, as understood through language, requires the dialectic. Socrates: And can this kind of knowledge be achieved via one person giving a speech and another receiving that speech? Phaedrus: Yes, it can. Socrates: But it is better suited to a back and forth, a dialogue? Phaedrus: I think it can be laid out through a speech, but if you are trying to achieve precise distinctions and categorisations then no matter how much you’ve learned from the speech, there are some moments in which, in order to achieve an understand of what exactly are the boundaries of these words, an experiential feeling-out, is required, which in the realm of words is only really done in dialectics. Socrates: Why is that? Phaedrus: Because it is in dialectic when you deal with the material itself. Socrates: What do you mean? Phaedrus: Dialectic is when you can test out the material of words. Socrates: What is that testing out? Phaedrus: It is having a conversation. It is throwing up definitions. It is using words in certain ways. Socrates: But couldn’t testing out someone else’s words just be a repetition of what was said? Would that be a testing out? Phaedrus: No, that would be a furthering absorption of the speech. Socrates: I think the testing out is a question. It is a logos-question. Phaedrus: What do you mean? Socrates: The question requires that a thing be parsed and defined. Typically in speeches, things aren't parsed and defined to our needs. I’m trying to think of any particular time that I've heard something that has been so perfectly parsed and defined that I’ve not needed to do any sort of dialectic. Does that happen? Phaedrus: Yes. I definitely think that happens. I also think sometimes things come and you're not ready for them because you haven't heard enough distinctions or words yet. I also think that sometimes you hear something and it rubs against something you've heard before (something that you’ve internalized). Then maybe what you're hearing isn't not a rubbing and refining of the categories but rather a sparking of an association that maybe has nothing to do with the word- but it is actually your own emotional associative reaction. Socrates: But this process, this non-dialectical emotional sparking process doesn't really get us closer to the truth, does it? Provocation- Why is dialectics so important anyway? Phaedrus: [["Why is dialectics so important anyway?"->P04C3]] Disagree- Dialectics can obstruct knowledge absorption Phaedrus: [["Socrates, you favor dialectic too highly..."->P04C1]]

Socrates: The fundamental question is- how do we know if words are truthful? We can start with speeches or writing, but in either case we are starting with worded statement. How do we understanding whether there is truth in a particular claim? For example- “it is good to walk everyday.” If I were to deliver a speech on “why it's good walk everyday” you can easily be mystified and think that it's good to walk everyday without actually considering whether it's good to walk everyday. Phaedrus: What would it mean to consider if it is good to walk every day? Socrates: It would be to look at what the word "good" means and what walking is. And I might elucidate this in a speech and I might give a temporary definition of good. However, there can never be an adequate enough definition unless you consent to every move I am making. There is something about the process of dialectics that requires an affirmation as I am making each claim so that you don't get mystified into just false belief. Phaedrus: The example you just gave - walking - this requires action. How can you evaluate the truth of that statement without having experienced walking? Or even without having walked every day? Socrates: You can understand what walking is and what is good for a human body. So we could refine our claim and say “it's good for human bodies to…”. And then we could refine our claim further by looking at various cases of people that have been injured or not injured… Phaedrus: I wouldn’t want to refine that claim to say it is good for human bodies. I’d prefer the first claim - "it is good to walk every day. Socrates: But we clearly see that walking might not be good for everyone. Socrates: Let’s say someone has their legs broken. Walking can’t be good for them. Phaedrus: Yes, but by saying “its good to walk everyday” you have framed it as a general statement and general statements always have exceptions. Socrates: But if we really want to state truth we have to be clear with our words or else we are not actually capturing truth. Phaedrus: I disagree. If you try to make this statement more specific like “it is good for a human body to walk everyday” then you might strip this sentence of its actualy positive meaning. Socrates: How would that happen? Phaedrus: It would limits the goodness of walking to the physiological. Socrates: But then we could refine our claim even further and say that “walking every day for a human body has many social, psychological, existential and physical benefits for those who are in a basic state of physical health to be able to do it. Phaedrus: But then the impact of the sentence is lost. And now it’s kicking around in the muck of jargony words. Socrates: It’s no longer poetic. Phaedrus: Which is important! Socrates: But the poetic only induces people to do something for not the right reasons. The poetic is merely a potion, a drug. Phaedrus: No. The poetic is an access to the divine. To that which is beyond oneself. It is the deepest and greatest motivator. Socrates: It is clearly a motivator. The question is whether it is a justified motivator. Phaedrus: It is. Socrates: Because poetry, prophecy, speeches, can motivate us to do things that are not necessarily good or true. Phaedrus: Um. That’s true. I guess you could say there is corrupt poetry. But I think someone who is a discriminating person will be able to tell the difference. Socrates: But wouldn’t that act of discrimination be exactly the kind of word/logos/dialectic we have been talking about? Discuss- Other Modes of Discrimination Phaedrus: [["I don’t know if it’s a dialectic process. Perhaps that's part of it. But I also think that discrimination comes from experience which is beyond, before and after and during words."->P04C3A]] Pause- ReThinking the Speech/Text Creator's Role Phaedrus: [["I want to consider something else, Socrates"->P04C4]] Pause- ReThinking the Multivocality of Text Phaedrus: [["I want to consider somethign else, Socrates."->P04C5]]

Phaedrus: I'm thinking about this issue of needing the creator to stand behind it. I’m of two minds about that. I often feel that when I see a piece of art and I don't understand it, then having an explanation is helpful. In that sense, anyone who has an understanding of the text becomes its father. Socrates: Hm. Interesting. Phaedrus: Because I’m thinking that so many of the writers I’ve read aren’t still alive, but I've had meaningful experience with them and meaningful experiences where someone else explicate them for me. And that's so helpful. And in that sense the person who helps explicate is standing in, not as creator, but rather as protector- protector or disseminator of the text. The text becomes their charge in some way and they have a responsibility, a duty, to that text. That's really important- for text to have people that have a duty to them. And I think that the way that happens is not indiscriminately. A text exists as an indiscriminate object but the way that it is encountered is discriminate. There are so many people certainly who will try to read the text and put it down and it will do nothing for them. And then there’s a certain type of reading that will yield very fruitful results. And then those people become protectors, and enchanted with that text in such a way that they will defend it or explain it. Socrates: But doesn’t that text become something else? Clarification- Signifiers Phaedrus: [[" I think there are aspects of texts that are constantly transforming and then there are core aspects about a text that do not change."->P04C5]] Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [[Yes, you are right Socrates. I am beginning to see what you are saying. Let's proceed.->S05]]

Pheadrus: I still dont understand. Socrates: Basically, what I am are saying is, is that if anyone is truly serious they would not choose writing as a medium. Because one could never know if this writing will have a good effect on someone. At best, this writing will help people who already know to remember what they already know. It makes much more sense for someone who knows what is noble, and just and good to practice dialects and bring people to the right answer that way, so then you know that you would be imparting something good in the soul, which will impart new good things in the souls of others. Discuss Phaedrus: [["Socrates, once again, I disagree."->P05B]] A Strange Inconsistency Phaedrus: [["Socrates, there is something I still don't understanding."->P05C]]

b>Socrates: Which part do you need me to repeat? Phaedrus: Answer Socrates: Repeats the part asked for... And so when someone who knows what is just, noble and good, when this person wants to write, won’t it be the most sensible that, if he is serious, he will not write with his ideas in ink and pen, but rather he will write them into a soul using the art of dialectics? The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sows within it discourse accompanied by knowledge—discourse capable of helping itself as well as the man who planted it, which is not barren but produces a seed from which more discourse grows in the character of others. Such discourse makes the seed forever immortal and renders the man who has it happy as any human being can be. Clarification Phaedrus: [["What exactly are you saying Socrates?"->P05A]] Discuss Phaedrus: [["Socrates, once again, I disagree."->P05B]] A Strange Inconsistency Phaedrus: [["Socrates, there is something I still don't understanding."->P05C]]

Phaedrus Discuss keep discussing until you come to an agreement or you grow tired of discussing Socrates [[Shall we proceed?->P05C]]

Phaedrus: How can you say all these things against writing Socrates, when both yourself and myself are reading these words aloud on the screen before us? Why are we relying on these words? Have you given up on seriousness? Have we not yet entered seriousness? Or perhaps both you and I already know, and we are merely using these words to remind us what we already know? But, you, Socrates, you know nothing, is that not true? Socrates: Ah Phaedrus, well, maybe I have spoken too harshly against the written word. Perhaps there is a certain kind of writing that can act as a potion for the act of dialectic, it can facilitate it, and thereby move us towards truth. Phaedrus: Alright Socrates but I have more questions. Can dialectics happen in our heads? When you read a novel, can you go about doing a sort of self-critique and self-dialectical process within your own mind? Can you have three other interlocutors within your own mind who you are in dialogue with? Isn't this what you do with your doubting demon? Isn't this what you do when you stop on the road and think for hours upon hours? Socrates: I'm at a loss for words Phaedrus. I believe we need to find the answers to these questions together, for here and now we are together, and we have the fortune of being in a right and good mood for discussion. In effort to do exactly this, I think now may be a good time to consider whether we will write about these matters. Should we, right now, write down in this device, the truths we have discovered? Or should we assume that these truths have penetrated down into our souls- should we assume that we have already written into our souls- and that they will propogate to others on their own? [[Write on computer->End1]] [[Write on soul->End2]]

Write down the truths you have arrived at: []<fname| <input type="text" name="fname" value=""> <button type="submit" onclick="customScripts.submitName('fname')">Inscribe your thoughts</button> (link: "Once have inscribed your thoughts...")[ Phaedrus: Shall we be off? Socrates: Shouldn't we offer a prayer to the gods here before we leave? Phaedrus: Of course! Socrates: O dear Pan and all the other gods of this place, grant that I may be beautiful inside. Let all my external possessions be in friendly harmony with what is within. May I consider the wise man rich. As for gold, let me have as much as a moderate man could bear and carry with him. Phaedrus: Make it a prayer for me as well. Friends have everything in common. Socrates: Let's be off then. THE END ]

Socrates: And so we shall, in the course of our day, our week, our year, our life, continue this discourse in our minds, in our souls, and with our words, to ourselves and to others. Phaedrus: Indeed we shall, Socrates. Shall we be off? Socrates: Shouldn't we offer a prayer to the gods here before we leave? Phaedrus: Of course! Socrates: O dear Pan and all the other gods of this place, grant that I may be beautiful inside. Let all my external possessions be in friendly harmony with what is within. May I consider the wise man rich. As for gold, let me have as much as a moderate man could bear and carry with him. Phaedrus: Make it a prayer for me as well. Friends have everything in common. Socrates: Let's be off. THE END

Phaedrus: I think there are aspects of texts that are constantly transforming and there are core things about that text that do not change. Socrates: The signifier stay the same as the signifieds move. Phaedrus: Can you say more what you mean by that? Socrates: The words themselves remain the same - the actual alphabetical markings on the tablet - hopefully have been the same since they have been created- but the meanings of each word are constantly shifting. Phaedrus: But they are shifting around a central core. Socrates: What if, a word uttered is only the same in the moment of it’s utterance and after that it is no longer. One helpful metaphor is a field of electrons. Electrons have valences where they are more likely lie. Likewise words have valences of meaning. For instance this leaf and the word murder. There is very little that the word murder has to do with this leaf. Clearly there is some connection, but the word murder doesn't have the same close valence as tree has for the word leaf. It is not completely arbitrary what something will mean. There are fields of meaning that are constantly shifting. And to write something is to create a temporary illusion of staticisation. Which is totally an illusion, because words move and shift. And the process of re-livening a text, the process of incribing more meanings, is actually a process of dialectic which can be done with a small group of people or in one’s own mind. Phaedrus: Yes. Well we are dealing with words. And dialectic is the way words are subjected to change and sharpening. Socrates: So then, it is better to engage in an activity where one can defend one's own words. Because if not, then someone could pick up your book and do exactly the opposite as you intended. Then everything you value could be completely turned on its head. There are lots of examples throughout history of people using books written with good intentions and using them for evil. Agree with Socrates Phaedrus: [[Yes, that does happen. I am beginning to see what you are saying. Let's proceed.->S05]] Discuss Phaedrus: [[I still don't agree with this entire line of thinking.->P04C3A]]

Phaedrus Discuss keep discussing until you come to an agreement or you grow tired of discussing Socrates [[Shall we proceed?->S05]]

<center> PLATO'S PHAEDRUS: A MEMORY PHARMACY PART 2 [[click here to begin->START]]

↶

↷

PLATO'S PHAEDRUS:

A MEMORY PHARMACY

PART 2

click here to begin