An Account of the Whole
May 5, 2018
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
Apprentice Jonathan was accepted to “the school to the south” to formally study Political Science and he expressly stated that his parents assisted with his decision. We have long speculated that the cohort, which we have named “the HighSchoolers™" and oftentimes referred to as “the Cool Kids”, has active parental involvement, and we are not surprised by Apprentice Jonathan’s revelation. Although we readily concede the now disclosed positive influence of Apprentice Jonathan’s parents, we harbor the thought that there exists, perhaps, a hidden influence for his decision to pursue Political Science, rather than, for example, Philology, at a world class university.
Recently, Apprentice Colton expressed an interest in certain great authors of the past and we have discussed certain aspects of philosophy and politics. Since Yours Truly does not have a formal education in either Political Science or Philosophy, as sublime Occult secrets have nothing in common with either politics or pondering, we can only encourage Apprentice Colton to continue with his studies. As the Master says, “Seek and you will find.”
Recently, Apprentice Colton expressed an interest in certain great authors of the past and we have discussed certain aspects of philosophy and politics. Since Yours Truly does not have a formal education in either Political Science or Philosophy, as sublime Occult secrets have nothing in common with either politics or pondering, we can only encourage Apprentice Colton to continue with his studies. As the Master says, “Seek and you will find.”
We have long thought that a proper commentary on Leo Strauss’ “Persecution and the Art of Writing” would be beneficial to the Gentle Researcher, if not the Gentle Reader, yet, we have been reluctant, regardless of our initial enthusiasm for the project, as, ultimately, we believe the scope of such a work is beyond our capabilities. However, necessity is the mother of invention and, as Apprentice Colton and Apprentice Jonathan have similar interests, we are now certain that a select commentary on Strauss’ work would be timely and provide some insight into philosophical concepts, arguments, and deductions, that the Gentle Researcher will encounter.
The implicit historical, or pre-modern, goal of philosophy was “an account of the whole”. As Strauss does not define the “whole”, we cannot know what is meant by the “whole”. At the beginning of our inquiry, we are immediately confronted with an undefined and ambiguous word. For the purposes of our essay, we will assume that “the whole” is the entirety of creation; the cosmos; that is, what is under the earth, upon the earth, and above the earth.
At the onset, we are overwhelmed by the task that our assumption on the meaning of “the whole” entails, as any attempt at a serious explanation of everything seems highly unlikely to be discovered and this salient fact is perhaps the reason the historical goal of philosophy has been abandoned in the modern age. The seemingly impossible goal of philosophy is akin to the goal of the ancient alchemists, as they sought to change lead into gold. However, as our understanding of science increased, along with theoretical and practical physics, we are now in the position of adding an electron to the atomic shell of lead, thereby creating an atom of gold from an atom of lead. The elusive goal of alchemy is now a reality, although not profitable based exclusively on the cost of investment. We caution that any technical advances will not assist in the pursuit of an account of the whole, as such an account would depend on scientific progress and not remain on the premise that man, as man, can have an account of the whole.
As the goal of philosophy is an account of everything, we will begin with what is, if not universal, then most common in our world: matter. The ancient scientists taught that matter consisted in four forms: air, fire, earth and water. Along with the visible elements, there was an invisible element: spirit. Interestingly, modern science identifies four states of matter with corresponding increases in the amount of energy: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Modern science believes that matter can change forms, but it cannot be destroyed. From the empirical evidence, we conclude that matter, as a whole, is permanent. The ancients say that “spirit” animates the physical world, while modern scientist say that “energy” is the entity that changes solids to liquids, and liquids to gases. We do not recognize a conflict between the words “spirit” and “energy”, anymore than a disagreement exists among the names of Jean, Giovanni, John, or Johann, as the name of Jesus’ cousin.
Since matter cannot be annihilated, the reasonable conclusion is it will continue to exist, at least in some form. The inference from both the current existence of matter and the continued existence of matter, is that it has always existed. Therefore, the word that should be applied to something that exists, will exist, and has always existed is “eternal”.
We cannot know if matter was initially created from nothing; we only know that, from our observations, matter does not suddenly appear from nowhere, nor does matter suddenly disappear into nothingness. However, the Gentle Reader may recall that in the second chapter of Genesis, the woman was created from a rib; she was not created from nothing. Previously, the man was created from dust, or the earth; he was not created from nothing. From these two examples, there is no valid reason to suggest that the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis was ex nihilo, as proposed by certain modern commentators.
As previously stated, the philosophical idea that man, through reason alone, can reach an understanding of the entire cosmos has been abandoned in the modern age as an impossible goal. Yet, we are uncertain as the reason why such a goal would be suggested and promoted, if the possibility of success were non existent. We speculate that this goal was not promoted for the sole purpose of “busy work” for individuals who enjoy challenging problems, such as Soduko, or for individuals who are hubristic, such as squaring the circle. Therefore, we believe that an account of the whole must be within the realm of possibility, and if not possible for all men, then possible for men who are enjoy reasoning from the available evidence; evidence that is always available to men as men.
Any account of “the whole” must, by necessity, exclude extraneous information, that is, one cannot know, or discover everything, regarding everything. For example, the thoughts, feeling, hopes, and aspirations of a writer are immaterial when compared to the work, the final product, under examination. The exact version of the word processing program used by the writer is unimportant, as are any difficulties that the programmer experienced when creating the program. It is not relevant when the program was created, or the duration of time that the program existed before it was used before the creation of the work under consideration. A capable writer uses words that are intelligible to the thoughtful reader, although a reader may misinterpret the intended meaning of a specific sentence and a careless reader will misinterpret the entire work (incredibly, thoughtless readers may attribute the work to a different author). The reader will discover that the good writer adherence to the rules of grammar, punctuation, and assiduously avoids mistakes regarding language usage and spelling, such as extraneous lettters. Only after proper reflection should the reader offer interpretations or suggest explanations that are not explicitly found in the text. The reader has no right to impose his thoughts, aspirations, feelings, or hopes upon the text, nor offer unsupported and speculative exegeses.
In the final analysis, all we can know from the evidence is that there is author, a creator of the text. We cannot know the moral qualities, if any, of the author, or if the author loves the reader. Perhaps the only valid inference that the researcher can justify is that author has a concern for the reader, generally, and for the thoughtful reader, specifically. We reason that this inference is defensible, as we are contemplating the text- the text exists in reality, it exists due an act of creation, an act of the will; it did not remain hidden and undisclosed in the mind.
Strauss states that it the philosophers’ sense of “social responsibility” that prevents them from disclosing “terrible truths” to the general population. Strauss repeats this observation often enough that the thoughtful reader may conclude that Strauss is indulging in a “sham” statement. We propose that philosophers, as a group, have a genuine concern for humanity, generally, and for their friends, who do not have the natural gifts for philosophy, specifically. Therefore, the mature philosopher, not willing to be the source of anguish for his friends, contemporary readers, and future readers refrains from explicit statements concerning his realizations and the necessary inferences from these realizations. However, the practical philosopher, realizing the value of his work and not wanting it to be assigned to oblivion, produces writings incorporating esoteric writing techniques. This approach both increases the likelihood the work will survive and insures that the hidden “terrible truths” are available as vague hints that only like minded individuals will discover. The mature philosopher knows his intended audience well enough; they are what he was: a young man who likes to think.
Through long and painful experience, it is typical that, firstly, we do not readily disclose information to potential enemies, those who have poor reasoning skills; to our enemies, those who have poorly reasoned opinions of ourselves; and that, secondly, we wish to protect our friends, those select individuals who we value. One time honored method of protecting our friends is to limit their pain, their discomfort, and our way of attempting to accomplish this goal, to varying degrees of success, is both to distance ourselves and to withhold information, rendering them ignorant. We are uncertain regarding our attempts at protecting friends, for an unbiased observer will notice that we treat our enemies and our friends alike; although the reasons and intentions are opposed, the result is the same. We wonder how often actions are vilified when the motive is unknown.
The Gentle Researcher who recognizes these esoteric writing techniques will himself, ipso facto, become a conspirator with the author, conspiring to prevent these “terrible truths” from being revealed to the general population. Due to Nature’s gifts, the Gentle Researcher’s drive will initiate himself into the secrets and mysteries that are the shared heritage of humanity's greatest minds, from that antediluvian moment when man became man to that time when humanity exits the stage . In conclusion to this part, the “respect and admiration” that the Gentle Researcher will develop for authors of great books cannot be overemphasized.
We believe that an introduction to Strauss’ proposal of certain esoteric writing techniques found in great authors will be the most beneficial to Apprentice Jonathan and to Apprentice Colton. We are pleased to present these young men who like to think with this select commentary for their edification.
The modern style of writing is to clearly convey the message and, not surprisingly, in modern public speaking, the standard is to state the topic the speaker will explain, explain the previously mentioned topic, and finally, to state what was explained. We presume this tripartite repetition is to insure that even the most careless listener will understand the message.
However, in esoteric writing, the plan of the work is often obscure and the curious researcher will discover the reason for the outline of the work by rereading the text. We suggest that the plan will not be random, as chaos is thoughtless, but the plan will not be realized upon the first reading nor without some effort.
Ambiguous expressions or ambiguous words are perhaps the most easily overlooked by the reader, as the reader supposes he knows the meaning of the words. Should the reader make a distinction between “the resurrection of the dead”, occurring twenty times in the New Testament, and the fifty three occurrences of “the resurrection from the dead”? If these phrases are synonymous, then why are they distinct?
Contradictions are found in several varieties, the most common are explicit contradictions and implicit contradictions. An advanced contradiction technique is when obvious conclusions are not expressed, but these unstated conclusions are contradicted elsewhere in the text.
Factual errors may be obvious to the reader of general knowledge, or more likely, only realized by readers with specialized knowledge regarding the subject.
Principles that are frequently stated throughout the text, but are silently contradicted by upholding incompatible views will be escape the careless reader.
The placement of undue importance on obscure aspects or trivial points, usually accompanied by lengthy explanations. Frequently, this technique will segue to an involved philological discussion concerning the origin of a word and its usage in other languages.
Inexact repetitions are subtle and often missed, as this technique allows the writer to change the meaning of a sentence, especially when he quotes from other sources that are, generally speaking, not referenced, that is, the reader must be familiar with other works to recognize misquotes. “Jesus Christ” is typically found on in the New Testament, but “Christ Jesus” is not unknown, as it found on fifty eight occasions. Subsequent redactors and editors have not corrected this obvious “error”. Is “Jesus Christ” synonymous with “Christ Jesus”, and if not, why are these names not identical?
Pseudonyms are self explanatory, as both Apprentice Jonathan and Apprentice Osif can attest, but Apprentice Colton cannot, and are easily misunderstood. Of course, the concealment of information is an intentional act; it cannot be attributed to poor writing skills or an inattentive author. For example, from the Pauline epistles alone, even the most thoughtful reader would believe that “the Apostle” is named Paul, not Saul. [cf. Act 13:9]
Strange expressions are easily dismissed by the casual reader. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, Saint Paul rhetorically asks about those who are baptized for the dead, yet the “baptism of the dead” is not practiced in either the Greek Church or the Roman Church. Due to the lack of a tradition of “baptizing the dead” in either of these ancient churches, we infer that the Pauline epistles are not coeval with the historical church, that is, the text is more recent than either churches’ tradition.
Infelicities of style, or inappropriate expressions, are the most obvious of esoteric writing techniques, although the careless reader will attempt to dismiss these expressions. From the New Testament, it is evident that Saint Paul is frustrated with certain individuals and their insistence on the circumcision of converts to Christianity. While it one thing to be express these exasperations privately, it is questionable, if not in bad taste, to commit this frustration in writing for all time. From the Good News Translation: “I wish that the people who are upsetting you would go all the way; let them go on and castrate themselves!” [“Yes, Apprentice Colton, I searched through multiple translations so I could create irony by juxtaposing the “Good News” (Gospel) of Saint Paul with the wish that his opponents would castrate themselves.”]
Finally, frequent use of technical language that either tends to be obscure or is only found in the text under consideration. Oftentimes, technical jargon is unexplained, or if explained, it is poorly defined, resulting in ambiguity, and ambiguity, or uncertainty, brings us to the beginning of esoteric writing techniques.
In conclusion to this part, esoteric writing exists because potential readers are divided into two distinct groups. Firstly, those individuals who acknowledge that although people will mislead them in person, writers are not capable of deceit and, secondly, those individuals who know that people can willfully mislead the reader and the written word does neither insures honesty nor requires forthrightness.
As always, the Gentle Reader will reach his own conclusions concerning the viability of any attempt at an account of the whole and the Gentle Researcher will reach his own conclusions concerning esoteric writing techniques, including segueing to allegories without notice or indication.
The implicit historical, or pre-modern, goal of philosophy was “an account of the whole”. As Strauss does not define the “whole”, we cannot know what is meant by the “whole”. At the beginning of our inquiry, we are immediately confronted with an undefined and ambiguous word. For the purposes of our essay, we will assume that “the whole” is the entirety of creation; the cosmos; that is, what is under the earth, upon the earth, and above the earth.
At the onset, we are overwhelmed by the task that our assumption on the meaning of “the whole” entails, as any attempt at a serious explanation of everything seems highly unlikely to be discovered and this salient fact is perhaps the reason the historical goal of philosophy has been abandoned in the modern age. The seemingly impossible goal of philosophy is akin to the goal of the ancient alchemists, as they sought to change lead into gold. However, as our understanding of science increased, along with theoretical and practical physics, we are now in the position of adding an electron to the atomic shell of lead, thereby creating an atom of gold from an atom of lead. The elusive goal of alchemy is now a reality, although not profitable based exclusively on the cost of investment. We caution that any technical advances will not assist in the pursuit of an account of the whole, as such an account would depend on scientific progress and not remain on the premise that man, as man, can have an account of the whole.
As the goal of philosophy is an account of everything, we will begin with what is, if not universal, then most common in our world: matter. The ancient scientists taught that matter consisted in four forms: air, fire, earth and water. Along with the visible elements, there was an invisible element: spirit. Interestingly, modern science identifies four states of matter with corresponding increases in the amount of energy: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Modern science believes that matter can change forms, but it cannot be destroyed. From the empirical evidence, we conclude that matter, as a whole, is permanent. The ancients say that “spirit” animates the physical world, while modern scientist say that “energy” is the entity that changes solids to liquids, and liquids to gases. We do not recognize a conflict between the words “spirit” and “energy”, anymore than a disagreement exists among the names of Jean, Giovanni, John, or Johann, as the name of Jesus’ cousin.
Since matter cannot be annihilated, the reasonable conclusion is it will continue to exist, at least in some form. The inference from both the current existence of matter and the continued existence of matter, is that it has always existed. Therefore, the word that should be applied to something that exists, will exist, and has always existed is “eternal”.
We cannot know if matter was initially created from nothing; we only know that, from our observations, matter does not suddenly appear from nowhere, nor does matter suddenly disappear into nothingness. However, the Gentle Reader may recall that in the second chapter of Genesis, the woman was created from a rib; she was not created from nothing. Previously, the man was created from dust, or the earth; he was not created from nothing. From these two examples, there is no valid reason to suggest that the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis was ex nihilo, as proposed by certain modern commentators.
As previously stated, the philosophical idea that man, through reason alone, can reach an understanding of the entire cosmos has been abandoned in the modern age as an impossible goal. Yet, we are uncertain as the reason why such a goal would be suggested and promoted, if the possibility of success were non existent. We speculate that this goal was not promoted for the sole purpose of “busy work” for individuals who enjoy challenging problems, such as Soduko, or for individuals who are hubristic, such as squaring the circle. Therefore, we believe that an account of the whole must be within the realm of possibility, and if not possible for all men, then possible for men who are enjoy reasoning from the available evidence; evidence that is always available to men as men.
Any account of “the whole” must, by necessity, exclude extraneous information, that is, one cannot know, or discover everything, regarding everything. For example, the thoughts, feeling, hopes, and aspirations of a writer are immaterial when compared to the work, the final product, under examination. The exact version of the word processing program used by the writer is unimportant, as are any difficulties that the programmer experienced when creating the program. It is not relevant when the program was created, or the duration of time that the program existed before it was used before the creation of the work under consideration. A capable writer uses words that are intelligible to the thoughtful reader, although a reader may misinterpret the intended meaning of a specific sentence and a careless reader will misinterpret the entire work (incredibly, thoughtless readers may attribute the work to a different author). The reader will discover that the good writer adherence to the rules of grammar, punctuation, and assiduously avoids mistakes regarding language usage and spelling, such as extraneous lettters. Only after proper reflection should the reader offer interpretations or suggest explanations that are not explicitly found in the text. The reader has no right to impose his thoughts, aspirations, feelings, or hopes upon the text, nor offer unsupported and speculative exegeses.
In the final analysis, all we can know from the evidence is that there is author, a creator of the text. We cannot know the moral qualities, if any, of the author, or if the author loves the reader. Perhaps the only valid inference that the researcher can justify is that author has a concern for the reader, generally, and for the thoughtful reader, specifically. We reason that this inference is defensible, as we are contemplating the text- the text exists in reality, it exists due an act of creation, an act of the will; it did not remain hidden and undisclosed in the mind.
Strauss states that it the philosophers’ sense of “social responsibility” that prevents them from disclosing “terrible truths” to the general population. Strauss repeats this observation often enough that the thoughtful reader may conclude that Strauss is indulging in a “sham” statement. We propose that philosophers, as a group, have a genuine concern for humanity, generally, and for their friends, who do not have the natural gifts for philosophy, specifically. Therefore, the mature philosopher, not willing to be the source of anguish for his friends, contemporary readers, and future readers refrains from explicit statements concerning his realizations and the necessary inferences from these realizations. However, the practical philosopher, realizing the value of his work and not wanting it to be assigned to oblivion, produces writings incorporating esoteric writing techniques. This approach both increases the likelihood the work will survive and insures that the hidden “terrible truths” are available as vague hints that only like minded individuals will discover. The mature philosopher knows his intended audience well enough; they are what he was: a young man who likes to think.
Through long and painful experience, it is typical that, firstly, we do not readily disclose information to potential enemies, those who have poor reasoning skills; to our enemies, those who have poorly reasoned opinions of ourselves; and that, secondly, we wish to protect our friends, those select individuals who we value. One time honored method of protecting our friends is to limit their pain, their discomfort, and our way of attempting to accomplish this goal, to varying degrees of success, is both to distance ourselves and to withhold information, rendering them ignorant. We are uncertain regarding our attempts at protecting friends, for an unbiased observer will notice that we treat our enemies and our friends alike; although the reasons and intentions are opposed, the result is the same. We wonder how often actions are vilified when the motive is unknown.
The Gentle Researcher who recognizes these esoteric writing techniques will himself, ipso facto, become a conspirator with the author, conspiring to prevent these “terrible truths” from being revealed to the general population. Due to Nature’s gifts, the Gentle Researcher’s drive will initiate himself into the secrets and mysteries that are the shared heritage of humanity's greatest minds, from that antediluvian moment when man became man to that time when humanity exits the stage . In conclusion to this part, the “respect and admiration” that the Gentle Researcher will develop for authors of great books cannot be overemphasized.
We believe that an introduction to Strauss’ proposal of certain esoteric writing techniques found in great authors will be the most beneficial to Apprentice Jonathan and to Apprentice Colton. We are pleased to present these young men who like to think with this select commentary for their edification.
The modern style of writing is to clearly convey the message and, not surprisingly, in modern public speaking, the standard is to state the topic the speaker will explain, explain the previously mentioned topic, and finally, to state what was explained. We presume this tripartite repetition is to insure that even the most careless listener will understand the message.
However, in esoteric writing, the plan of the work is often obscure and the curious researcher will discover the reason for the outline of the work by rereading the text. We suggest that the plan will not be random, as chaos is thoughtless, but the plan will not be realized upon the first reading nor without some effort.
Ambiguous expressions or ambiguous words are perhaps the most easily overlooked by the reader, as the reader supposes he knows the meaning of the words. Should the reader make a distinction between “the resurrection of the dead”, occurring twenty times in the New Testament, and the fifty three occurrences of “the resurrection from the dead”? If these phrases are synonymous, then why are they distinct?
Contradictions are found in several varieties, the most common are explicit contradictions and implicit contradictions. An advanced contradiction technique is when obvious conclusions are not expressed, but these unstated conclusions are contradicted elsewhere in the text.
Factual errors may be obvious to the reader of general knowledge, or more likely, only realized by readers with specialized knowledge regarding the subject.
Principles that are frequently stated throughout the text, but are silently contradicted by upholding incompatible views will be escape the careless reader.
The placement of undue importance on obscure aspects or trivial points, usually accompanied by lengthy explanations. Frequently, this technique will segue to an involved philological discussion concerning the origin of a word and its usage in other languages.
Inexact repetitions are subtle and often missed, as this technique allows the writer to change the meaning of a sentence, especially when he quotes from other sources that are, generally speaking, not referenced, that is, the reader must be familiar with other works to recognize misquotes. “Jesus Christ” is typically found on in the New Testament, but “Christ Jesus” is not unknown, as it found on fifty eight occasions. Subsequent redactors and editors have not corrected this obvious “error”. Is “Jesus Christ” synonymous with “Christ Jesus”, and if not, why are these names not identical?
Pseudonyms are self explanatory, as both Apprentice Jonathan and Apprentice Osif can attest, but Apprentice Colton cannot, and are easily misunderstood. Of course, the concealment of information is an intentional act; it cannot be attributed to poor writing skills or an inattentive author. For example, from the Pauline epistles alone, even the most thoughtful reader would believe that “the Apostle” is named Paul, not Saul. [cf. Act 13:9]
Strange expressions are easily dismissed by the casual reader. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, Saint Paul rhetorically asks about those who are baptized for the dead, yet the “baptism of the dead” is not practiced in either the Greek Church or the Roman Church. Due to the lack of a tradition of “baptizing the dead” in either of these ancient churches, we infer that the Pauline epistles are not coeval with the historical church, that is, the text is more recent than either churches’ tradition.
Infelicities of style, or inappropriate expressions, are the most obvious of esoteric writing techniques, although the careless reader will attempt to dismiss these expressions. From the New Testament, it is evident that Saint Paul is frustrated with certain individuals and their insistence on the circumcision of converts to Christianity. While it one thing to be express these exasperations privately, it is questionable, if not in bad taste, to commit this frustration in writing for all time. From the Good News Translation: “I wish that the people who are upsetting you would go all the way; let them go on and castrate themselves!” [“Yes, Apprentice Colton, I searched through multiple translations so I could create irony by juxtaposing the “Good News” (Gospel) of Saint Paul with the wish that his opponents would castrate themselves.”]
Finally, frequent use of technical language that either tends to be obscure or is only found in the text under consideration. Oftentimes, technical jargon is unexplained, or if explained, it is poorly defined, resulting in ambiguity, and ambiguity, or uncertainty, brings us to the beginning of esoteric writing techniques.
In conclusion to this part, esoteric writing exists because potential readers are divided into two distinct groups. Firstly, those individuals who acknowledge that although people will mislead them in person, writers are not capable of deceit and, secondly, those individuals who know that people can willfully mislead the reader and the written word does neither insures honesty nor requires forthrightness.
As always, the Gentle Reader will reach his own conclusions concerning the viability of any attempt at an account of the whole and the Gentle Researcher will reach his own conclusions concerning esoteric writing techniques, including segueing to allegories without notice or indication.