End of the First Quarter
G.D.O'Bradovich III
April 7, 2017
Not being content with the title of “Some People Call Me the Greatest Occultist of the Twenty First Century”, Yours Truly will vie for the the appellation of “Greatest Astronomer of All Time”. In the spirit of modern science, we accept our Noble Prize now.
The following are our proposed values for the diameter of the sun, the diameter of the moon, and the distance of one light year.
The following are our proposed values for the diameter of the sun, the diameter of the moon, and the distance of one light year.
The number of seconds in ten days is equal to the diameter of the sun in miles.
One twelfth of the cycle of the precession of the equinoxes is equal to the diameter of the moon, in miles.
An inch is to a mile as an astronomical unit is to a light year.
One twelfth of the cycle of the precession of the equinoxes is equal to the diameter of the moon, in miles.
An inch is to a mile as an astronomical unit is to a light year.
In the spirit of skepticism, we offer our evidence:
60 seconds × 60 minutes × 24 hours × 10 days= 864,000 seconds
Diameter of the sun= 864,575.9
Variance .066%
-
Precession is 25,771.57534 years
One twelfth of precession is 2,147.631 years
Diameter Moon is 2,159 miles
Variance .529%
-
5,280 feet × 12 inches / mile = 63,360 inches
One Light Year is 63,241 Astronomical Units
Variance 1.88%
Diameter of the sun= 864,575.9
Variance .066%
-
Precession is 25,771.57534 years
One twelfth of precession is 2,147.631 years
Diameter Moon is 2,159 miles
Variance .529%
-
5,280 feet × 12 inches / mile = 63,360 inches
One Light Year is 63,241 Astronomical Units
Variance 1.88%
Of our three values, .066%, .529%, and 1.88%, one of these three is not like the others, one of these just doesn't belong. It is inevitable that astronomers will recalculate the value for the light year, and when they do, we expect their new value will approach our proposed value. [Hint: the value for the astronomical unit should be reduced from 92.956 million miles and approach the value of 92.787 million miles.]
We hope that the visualisation of the distance from the sun to the earth as an inch will be helpful imagining the distances to Sirius, 8.6 light years, and Polaris, 433 light years, as 8.6 miles and 433 miles, respectably.
We wish to impress upon the Gentle Reader the explicit accuracy of the precessional numbers of 50.28796195 arc seconds is:
We hope that the visualisation of the distance from the sun to the earth as an inch will be helpful imagining the distances to Sirius, 8.6 light years, and Polaris, 433 light years, as 8.6 miles and 433 miles, respectably.
We wish to impress upon the Gentle Reader the explicit accuracy of the precessional numbers of 50.28796195 arc seconds is:
One inch in 4,067,483.48 miles
or
1 part in 257,715,753,382
or
1 part in 257,715,753,382
We declare that such accuracy of measurement such as one part in 257 billion, is not found in the physical world, due entirely to instruments; we are not discussing the wobbling and tilting of the earth at it rotates on its axis, revolves around the sun, and travels around our sector of the galaxy.
After one year, we cannot know if the earth returns to the exact location. A difference of as little a thousand miles changes value of precession. Once again, astronomers presume the earth returns to exact position, while they know that it cannot return to that position, as the earth careens through our sector. These “accuracies” of measurements are only found through calculations on paper. We recall Piazzi Smyth who was not satisfied with the inch as he found it and proposed an inch valued at 1.001 of a British inch. Who could foresee that his astronomical successors would declare the equivalent accuracy of 1.00000000001?
We are not dogmatic skeptics of modernity, we do not deny the ability of the mind to both know and to reason. We have no reason to doubt scientific advances in nanotechnology and beyond,where single atoms, not silicon chips, would be used to increase computer calculations immensely.
However, astronomical claims are another matter entirely. Since the observed universe does not conform to certain theoretical models, “dark matter” and “dark energy” have been proposed to explain these supposed deficiencies in nature. As the Greatest Astronomer of All Time, Yours Truly’s proposal of “rainbow fairies” and “leprechauns” has not been met with universal acclaim. We inquire “Why not?”, for our explanation has as much merit, if not more merit than current claims: as no further explanations are needed- the answer will always be rainbow fairies.
Therefore, the entire field of this “research” into dark matter and energy never inquires if previous assumptions are warranted; more to the point: the origin of all modern astronomical assumptions is that the earth is “a moving celestial body that we observe from the earth”. Clearly, the discipline for accuracy that is the hallmark of philology is not shared neither by astronomers nor by astrophysicists.
After one year, we cannot know if the earth returns to the exact location. A difference of as little a thousand miles changes value of precession. Once again, astronomers presume the earth returns to exact position, while they know that it cannot return to that position, as the earth careens through our sector. These “accuracies” of measurements are only found through calculations on paper. We recall Piazzi Smyth who was not satisfied with the inch as he found it and proposed an inch valued at 1.001 of a British inch. Who could foresee that his astronomical successors would declare the equivalent accuracy of 1.00000000001?
We are not dogmatic skeptics of modernity, we do not deny the ability of the mind to both know and to reason. We have no reason to doubt scientific advances in nanotechnology and beyond,where single atoms, not silicon chips, would be used to increase computer calculations immensely.
However, astronomical claims are another matter entirely. Since the observed universe does not conform to certain theoretical models, “dark matter” and “dark energy” have been proposed to explain these supposed deficiencies in nature. As the Greatest Astronomer of All Time, Yours Truly’s proposal of “rainbow fairies” and “leprechauns” has not been met with universal acclaim. We inquire “Why not?”, for our explanation has as much merit, if not more merit than current claims: as no further explanations are needed- the answer will always be rainbow fairies.
Therefore, the entire field of this “research” into dark matter and energy never inquires if previous assumptions are warranted; more to the point: the origin of all modern astronomical assumptions is that the earth is “a moving celestial body that we observe from the earth”. Clearly, the discipline for accuracy that is the hallmark of philology is not shared neither by astronomers nor by astrophysicists.
One of the first lessons taught in Communications 101 is knowing one’s audience. We are uncertain the reason this needs to be explicitly stated, as everyone changes their communication or speaking style when talking with children, youths, or adults. Although the same information is being related, the style must represent the ability of the listener to understand.
Incipit Excursion
Readability of a text is not synonymous with a fuller understanding of the text.
The following text is readable and presents no obvious problems.
John 19:25-26
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
However, should the careful reader reflect, he, as everyone, knows Jesus’ mother is named Mary. However, the fourth gospel never provides a name the two occasions she is mentioned. The text states that Jesus’ mother’s sister is named Mary. Although it not impossible for siblings to have the same name, it is odd.
This oddity may propel the thoughtful reader to recall that another pair of female siblings is named in the Gospel; Mary and Martha of Bethany. The reader may conclude from the evidence of this gospel that Martha is Jesus’ mother and Mary is his aunt. The reader may discover that the Greek word, γυνή, is translated as "woman" and "wife". Regardless of the reason that Jesus consistently addresses his mother as "γυνή", it it strange to address one's mother as either "woman" or "wife", although at least one, if not both, of these terms apply to mothers.
From our example, we hope the Gentle Reader understands the chasm between the meagre ability of reading given words and the challenge of a fuller or complete understanding a given text.
The following text is readable and presents no obvious problems.
John 19:25-26
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
However, should the careful reader reflect, he, as everyone, knows Jesus’ mother is named Mary. However, the fourth gospel never provides a name the two occasions she is mentioned. The text states that Jesus’ mother’s sister is named Mary. Although it not impossible for siblings to have the same name, it is odd.
This oddity may propel the thoughtful reader to recall that another pair of female siblings is named in the Gospel; Mary and Martha of Bethany. The reader may conclude from the evidence of this gospel that Martha is Jesus’ mother and Mary is his aunt. The reader may discover that the Greek word, γυνή, is translated as "woman" and "wife". Regardless of the reason that Jesus consistently addresses his mother as "γυνή", it it strange to address one's mother as either "woman" or "wife", although at least one, if not both, of these terms apply to mothers.
From our example, we hope the Gentle Reader understands the chasm between the meagre ability of reading given words and the challenge of a fuller or complete understanding a given text.
Excipit Excursion
Depending on the source, the King James Bible has a reading level of between third and sixth grade, that is, what is currently known as elementary education. However, we will attempt to determine the target audience of the King James Bible by comparing the readability of various texts.
We caution the Gentle Reader that our endeavor is not to arrive at a high degree of accuracy relating to reading levels of 17th century Englishmen; we seek only a general understanding. We acknowledge that the number of our samples are limited and arbitrarily selected.
The Flesch Kincaid number is the school grade attainment, not the age of the reader. Various years have been included for the Gentle Reader's benefit. For comparison, select works of Yours Truly are included and are in blue.
We caution the Gentle Reader that our endeavor is not to arrive at a high degree of accuracy relating to reading levels of 17th century Englishmen; we seek only a general understanding. We acknowledge that the number of our samples are limited and arbitrarily selected.
The Flesch Kincaid number is the school grade attainment, not the age of the reader. Various years have been included for the Gentle Reader's benefit. For comparison, select works of Yours Truly are included and are in blue.
Theo-political Treatise, Spinoza pt 2 1670 14.7
Preface King James Bible 1611 14.3 Magna Charta 1215 13.4 Leviticus 13.5 Antichrist, Nietzsche 1895 11.8 Declaration of Independence 1776 10.6 Retirement 10.5 Exodus 10.4 Gospel of John 1611 10.1 Confessions Concerning Corrupting the Youth 10.1 Isaiah 9.7 An Attempt To Date a Cancer Gemini 9.5 Capital ch 23, Marx 1885 9.4 Cool Kids Examined 9.0 Genesis 9.0 Romans 8.3 Koran 7.8 Revelation of Jesus Christ 7.0 Denver: A Dialogue 6.6 Proverbs 6.6 Psalms 5.9 Cinderella 4.8 Hansel and Gretel 4.6 Little Snow White 4.1 |
The three fairy tales have reading levels below fifth grade.
"An Attempt to Date a Cancer Gemini" and "Retirement" were created with a certain individual as the audience and the average value of these works is the reading level of a sophomore.
"Denver: A Dialogue" was written with intent of impressing upon Denver the worthless nature of opinions. The fact that it is written at the sixth grade reading level is evidence that authors can adjust their writing style. We are pleased that Proverbs and "Denver" have the same reading level, as the intention of both works is to teach.
Spinoza is the highest grade level (14.7), followed by preface to the King James Bible (14.3), and Leviticus (13.5). We are not surprised that Spinoza writes at the level of a master's degree, nor are we incredulous that the intended audience of Leviticus is a collegiate sophomore.
"An Attempt to Date a Cancer Gemini" and "Retirement" were created with a certain individual as the audience and the average value of these works is the reading level of a sophomore.
"Denver: A Dialogue" was written with intent of impressing upon Denver the worthless nature of opinions. The fact that it is written at the sixth grade reading level is evidence that authors can adjust their writing style. We are pleased that Proverbs and "Denver" have the same reading level, as the intention of both works is to teach.
Spinoza is the highest grade level (14.7), followed by preface to the King James Bible (14.3), and Leviticus (13.5). We are not surprised that Spinoza writes at the level of a master's degree, nor are we incredulous that the intended audience of Leviticus is a collegiate sophomore.
A local high school was in lockdown today. Whether local or not, such events typically have no effect on Yours Truly. However, the lockdown was at the institution of “my” high schoolers. We may say that the concern and anxiety was not proportionate to the degree of how well I know them, that is, my familiarity; hence, with few exceptions, they are described in the technical and ambiguous wording of “high schoolers”. Our second rate physiologist would suggest that the wording is an attempt to distance myself from them, and we would agree. Yet, we acknowledge that we are confronted by seemingly contradictory conclusions when discussing this cohort. We reiterate that the responsibility of being a parent is terrible. Therefore, the best practical role for Yours Truly is a career counselor or academic advisor, and even those amateur vocations are of dubious value, since the conclusions are invariably based on astrological considerations.
We have discussed that the number of people who can join me, without asking and without repercussions [vide], is limited. A certain gentleman asked how I was doing and I gave the well rehearsed and vague response of “OK”. Exchanges of this type are not unknown, yet, upon reflection, Yours Truly did not experience trepidation or anxiety at the personal inquiry. From the lack of nausea, we correctly conclude that this gentleman belongs to an exclusive group whose members may join me at my table at will. We remain uncertain as to the reason, or reasons, this gentleman acts in a familiar manner vis a vis Yours Truly [vide].
The best practical government is one where gentlemen serve the interests of the city. We believe this is true, as the majority would never willingly, by popular vote, elect the “wise” into a position of absolute and permanent power. The majority of people will never do this as they have strong opinions about themselves and their undemonstrated abilities to govern, or rule, others. Strong opinions are not synonymous with either reasoned opinions or valid opinions. If pressed for an answer, these individuals will provide opinions on such topics as Abyssinian poetry and the condition of women's restrooms in the textile industry. We recall the wisdom of Mark Twain: “I was happy to answer quickly and I did. I said I didn't know.”
It seems that most people refuse to admit ignorance, however, we do not believe that hubris is the cause, rather excessive pride or self-confidence may be the reason. By declaring knowledge that they lack through the expression of opinions, they can cover both personal deficiencies and demonstrate their “knowledge” on a given subject, typically to fawning listeners who are easily led astray by opinions.
We recall that Plato's city has its origin in a lie, and is maintained by various falsehoods as promoted by the wise rulers and accepted by the citizens. If certain individuals can see though the deceit, then they have the potential to become wise rulers themselves. We recall Tamino and his trials. Various mechanisms exist in Plato’s city to identify and recruit those capable of ruling.
While the deception of the masses is accepted by Plato’s readers, a through explanation is lacking in the text. This deficiency is typical of Plato's writing; the thoughtful reader must supply gaps in reasoning and reach conclusions that Plato does not divulge.
We must inquire:
“Why would wise people willingly deceive and purposely mislead their fellow man?”
We suggest that Plato's definition of justice, giving everyone his due, is the basis of the city. Of course, the irony that this definition was rejected in the opening of the Republic, yet is the basis of the city, is not lost on the Gentle Reader.
"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner."
We do not recall Plato stating or implying that the majority of people are incapable of reasoning and a viable conclusion is that they chose not to reason. If an objection is raised to the effect that the masses can be taught to reason, then our non rhetorical response must be “Who taught the reason to the rulers?” and the answer is “No one”. We must conclude that certain people are curious, cautious, skeptical, and reasoning by nature, while most people are indifferent, impulsive, believing, and unreasonable by nature.
The modern emphasis on equality cannot have its origins in the wise, for through long and painfull experience, they know this is not possible.
Plato's definition of justice does not provide an absolute standard and, as a consequence, is difficult for most people to correctly apply. While people understand vengeance, it would be impossible to convince them that forcing rulers to rule is justice, not tyrannical behavior. “Thou shalt not kill” is an absolute, although cities and individuals may justly ignore this civil law in cases of foreign invaders and personal self defense. It seems that most people have a rigid type of thinking, best exemplified by individuals who are always opposed to killing without exception. Such people are not a danger to themselves, but are a potential danger to the integrity of the city.
Rigid thinking or understanding may be understood as an “either/or” worldview. This mentality involves little thinking and no reasoning. Perhaps the best example of the “either/or” mentality is the modern view of certain Christians where the immediate destination at death is either Hell or Heaven. Historically, only Saints went directly to Heaven, everyone else needed to wait until the Final Judgment. Modern Christians, we gather, are not patient, skip any judgment and go straight to Heaven. The modern presumption is that the default status is Hell and “believers” behave accordingly. Based on a historical understanding of Christianity, the presumption of Hell as the default destination is without merit.
Since people cannot understand that they are incapable of ruling for a variety of reasons, it is prudent not to attempt to inform them of this fact, that is, they will adamantly refuse to accept the fact that they are incapble of governing. Our belief is well founded, as the incessant chorus of governments “should” do this and people “ought” to do that quickly overwhelm the oftentimes solitary voice of reason. It seems that individuals are always practicing for the time when he can rule, that is, dictate to others, as kings of old.
If the “shoulds” and “oughts” are considered as examples of complaining, then we may have discovered what the mediocre do well.
The city cannot be ruled by reason alone, as the subjects are not reasonable. If the subjects were reasonable, then they would not so eagerly embrace opinions and falsehoods while vilifying facts, thereby providing an ample demonstration that they are unfit to either rule or partake of government, such as the election of officials. Therefore,opinions are needed to rule the best practical city and gentlemen are suited for this task, as the wise know that opinions are worthless and would be failures at ruling under these constraints. Wisdom is needed to govern in Plato's city. Interestingly, reason has no place in the government of either the best practical city or of the ideal city. The Gentle Researcher will reach his own conclusions regarding why reason, the hallmark of humanity, is denigrated by most people.
It seems that most people refuse to admit ignorance, however, we do not believe that hubris is the cause, rather excessive pride or self-confidence may be the reason. By declaring knowledge that they lack through the expression of opinions, they can cover both personal deficiencies and demonstrate their “knowledge” on a given subject, typically to fawning listeners who are easily led astray by opinions.
We recall that Plato's city has its origin in a lie, and is maintained by various falsehoods as promoted by the wise rulers and accepted by the citizens. If certain individuals can see though the deceit, then they have the potential to become wise rulers themselves. We recall Tamino and his trials. Various mechanisms exist in Plato’s city to identify and recruit those capable of ruling.
While the deception of the masses is accepted by Plato’s readers, a through explanation is lacking in the text. This deficiency is typical of Plato's writing; the thoughtful reader must supply gaps in reasoning and reach conclusions that Plato does not divulge.
We must inquire:
“Why would wise people willingly deceive and purposely mislead their fellow man?”
We suggest that Plato's definition of justice, giving everyone his due, is the basis of the city. Of course, the irony that this definition was rejected in the opening of the Republic, yet is the basis of the city, is not lost on the Gentle Reader.
"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner."
We do not recall Plato stating or implying that the majority of people are incapable of reasoning and a viable conclusion is that they chose not to reason. If an objection is raised to the effect that the masses can be taught to reason, then our non rhetorical response must be “Who taught the reason to the rulers?” and the answer is “No one”. We must conclude that certain people are curious, cautious, skeptical, and reasoning by nature, while most people are indifferent, impulsive, believing, and unreasonable by nature.
The modern emphasis on equality cannot have its origins in the wise, for through long and painfull experience, they know this is not possible.
Plato's definition of justice does not provide an absolute standard and, as a consequence, is difficult for most people to correctly apply. While people understand vengeance, it would be impossible to convince them that forcing rulers to rule is justice, not tyrannical behavior. “Thou shalt not kill” is an absolute, although cities and individuals may justly ignore this civil law in cases of foreign invaders and personal self defense. It seems that most people have a rigid type of thinking, best exemplified by individuals who are always opposed to killing without exception. Such people are not a danger to themselves, but are a potential danger to the integrity of the city.
Rigid thinking or understanding may be understood as an “either/or” worldview. This mentality involves little thinking and no reasoning. Perhaps the best example of the “either/or” mentality is the modern view of certain Christians where the immediate destination at death is either Hell or Heaven. Historically, only Saints went directly to Heaven, everyone else needed to wait until the Final Judgment. Modern Christians, we gather, are not patient, skip any judgment and go straight to Heaven. The modern presumption is that the default status is Hell and “believers” behave accordingly. Based on a historical understanding of Christianity, the presumption of Hell as the default destination is without merit.
Since people cannot understand that they are incapable of ruling for a variety of reasons, it is prudent not to attempt to inform them of this fact, that is, they will adamantly refuse to accept the fact that they are incapble of governing. Our belief is well founded, as the incessant chorus of governments “should” do this and people “ought” to do that quickly overwhelm the oftentimes solitary voice of reason. It seems that individuals are always practicing for the time when he can rule, that is, dictate to others, as kings of old.
If the “shoulds” and “oughts” are considered as examples of complaining, then we may have discovered what the mediocre do well.
The city cannot be ruled by reason alone, as the subjects are not reasonable. If the subjects were reasonable, then they would not so eagerly embrace opinions and falsehoods while vilifying facts, thereby providing an ample demonstration that they are unfit to either rule or partake of government, such as the election of officials. Therefore,opinions are needed to rule the best practical city and gentlemen are suited for this task, as the wise know that opinions are worthless and would be failures at ruling under these constraints. Wisdom is needed to govern in Plato's city. Interestingly, reason has no place in the government of either the best practical city or of the ideal city. The Gentle Researcher will reach his own conclusions regarding why reason, the hallmark of humanity, is denigrated by most people.
Anytime Apprentice Denver and Yours Truly agree, a seal is duly broken, hastening the Apocalypse.
We agree that “sometimes, it is better to ask for forgiveness, than permission.”
Yours Truly likes the saying because circumstances are not always ideal, and things important and things urgent are always fluctuating. However, we fear that Apprentice Denver may understand this maxim as justifying almost any behavior, as though a Gemini would need external validation for his actions.
We sincerely hope we are wrong.
We agree that “sometimes, it is better to ask for forgiveness, than permission.”
Yours Truly likes the saying because circumstances are not always ideal, and things important and things urgent are always fluctuating. However, we fear that Apprentice Denver may understand this maxim as justifying almost any behavior, as though a Gemini would need external validation for his actions.
We sincerely hope we are wrong.
Dies Illa Dies Iræ Calamitátis et Misériæ Dies Magna et Amára Valde.
The curious researcher may recall from the Old Testament the formula of “[Personal Name], son of [A tribe of Israel]”. The fourth gospel relates: "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph ... ?" and adds "...whose father and mother we know?" (John 6:42). The implication is that Jesus is if the tribe of Joseph, and not of Judah, Of course, Jesus’ parents are known to the author, but remain unnamed.
A sham argument found in the Republic is that the Socrates’ listeners are not as experienced as Socrates in the art of asking and answering questions. However, the truth is closer to the fact that the listeners have no facts to offer, only opinions. Therefore, by simply asking questions, Socrates demonstrates their inadequate position regarding various topics, including the nature of justice.
The gentlemen in Plato’s city are well compensated, although not in gold or silver, as they are forbidden to possess precious metals. Through the wise application of justice, the rulers insure that the best citizens will always have intimate relations, and more frequently, than the remainder of the citizens. Plato specifically states that the best philosophers, his appointed rulers, are “worthless”, though not “bad”, therefore, the deduction is that they will be offered the fewest opportunities to reproduce. This is not surprising, for those who prefer contemplation, a solitary activity, over intimate relations, such restrictions will not be understood as a hardship, but a relief. Therefore, the gentlemen, as a group, will be the fathers of the vast majority of the citizens, through both their fecundity, or natural expressions of manliness, and the “wisdom” of the rulers who will ensure, through the wise and liberal application of “loaded dice”, that the gentlemen are appropriately gratified.
It is not difficult for the Gentle Reader to imagine the existence of justice in the city, where justice is understood as giving everyone his due. The rulers can think and talk (both are types of mental pleasure), the gentlemen, in exchange for defending the city from internal and external threats, are justly, and inordinately, compensated through physical pleasure, while the remainder of the citizens can pursue their solitary vocation, thereby experiencing their own happiness while contributing to the well-being, or stability, of the city.
Preferring solitary activities, the rulers naturally avoid sexual relations, yet they are aware, but do not fully understand the reason, most citizens relentlessly seek such encounters.
While the gentlemen, as a whole, will not understand and fully appreciate the wisdom of the rulers, there is little doubt that the gentlemen are motivated by their nature, that is, their altruism, to defend the ordering of the city. We may say that gentlemen are conservative, not liberal rabble rousers. The wise, by actively channeling the gentlemen's’ natural motivations to benefit both themselves and the city, allow the few rulers to engage in activities that are natural to them; firstly, contemplation and, secondly, talking with certain youths, the potential rulers of the city.
Plato explicitly states that citizens are placed into one of the three available positions based on the ordering of Nature, not the heritage of the individual. Plato either believes that good breeding does not currently exist as a possibility for humanity, an explicit contradiction; or that an unknown cause, such as astrology, influences people. Astrology is a valid possibility, as Socrates questions, almost to the point of denigration, the value of studying the ever-changing heavens.
Recorded history demonstrates that genius does not beget genius and we understand this fact as a confirmation of Plato's insight regarding the necessity of allowing the exchange of vocations and positions for citizens. At one time, science proposed that human tendencies were based entirely on genetics, now modern science claims an uncertain relationship between genetics and environment, or between “nature” and “nurture”. As science has made no definitive claims, or conclusions, to the exact influences of human tendencies, it would be both premature and unwise for us to offer any opinions on this topic. We note that the results of scientific attempts to describe specific human tendencies by genetics and environment and an analysis of a natal chart by a qualified astrologer are indistinguishable. In conclusion to this part, similar to Plato, we remain ignorant of the reason or reasons people are different, however, we know differences exist as they are evident or observable.
In conclusion, people are not interchangeable; as the protectors are not confounded with the rulers, neither are certain high schoolers, who are affectionately and justly addressed as “Gentlemen”, confused with Yours Truly.
It is not difficult for the Gentle Reader to imagine the existence of justice in the city, where justice is understood as giving everyone his due. The rulers can think and talk (both are types of mental pleasure), the gentlemen, in exchange for defending the city from internal and external threats, are justly, and inordinately, compensated through physical pleasure, while the remainder of the citizens can pursue their solitary vocation, thereby experiencing their own happiness while contributing to the well-being, or stability, of the city.
Preferring solitary activities, the rulers naturally avoid sexual relations, yet they are aware, but do not fully understand the reason, most citizens relentlessly seek such encounters.
While the gentlemen, as a whole, will not understand and fully appreciate the wisdom of the rulers, there is little doubt that the gentlemen are motivated by their nature, that is, their altruism, to defend the ordering of the city. We may say that gentlemen are conservative, not liberal rabble rousers. The wise, by actively channeling the gentlemen's’ natural motivations to benefit both themselves and the city, allow the few rulers to engage in activities that are natural to them; firstly, contemplation and, secondly, talking with certain youths, the potential rulers of the city.
Plato explicitly states that citizens are placed into one of the three available positions based on the ordering of Nature, not the heritage of the individual. Plato either believes that good breeding does not currently exist as a possibility for humanity, an explicit contradiction; or that an unknown cause, such as astrology, influences people. Astrology is a valid possibility, as Socrates questions, almost to the point of denigration, the value of studying the ever-changing heavens.
Recorded history demonstrates that genius does not beget genius and we understand this fact as a confirmation of Plato's insight regarding the necessity of allowing the exchange of vocations and positions for citizens. At one time, science proposed that human tendencies were based entirely on genetics, now modern science claims an uncertain relationship between genetics and environment, or between “nature” and “nurture”. As science has made no definitive claims, or conclusions, to the exact influences of human tendencies, it would be both premature and unwise for us to offer any opinions on this topic. We note that the results of scientific attempts to describe specific human tendencies by genetics and environment and an analysis of a natal chart by a qualified astrologer are indistinguishable. In conclusion to this part, similar to Plato, we remain ignorant of the reason or reasons people are different, however, we know differences exist as they are evident or observable.
In conclusion, people are not interchangeable; as the protectors are not confounded with the rulers, neither are certain high schoolers, who are affectionately and justly addressed as “Gentlemen”, confused with Yours Truly.
While countries and cities are difficult to image governing, a fast food restaurant is easier to relate to for many people, as they have experience with such establishments. The wise manager must insure that customers and staff are happy, and the business is profitable. Yet, few people are capable of this task. The Gentle Reader may foresee the multiplication of difficulties and challenges when governing a country compared to a restaurant.
The express purpose of repeatedly writing, or "working out" my thoughts, regarding the high schoolers is to reach one certain conclusion. I fear that my failure is due entirely to my inability to ask the correct question. Until that time, my understanding of the group will remain ambiguous.
It is possible that the high schoolers represent a terrible truth that should be avoided. Therefore, as one can never be too cautious, we will hold James Taggert as our model of avoidance.
It is possible that the high schoolers represent a terrible truth that should be avoided. Therefore, as one can never be too cautious, we will hold James Taggert as our model of avoidance.