Analogy and Dreams

Friday, July 18, 2014
!
!
21,743 words pages 71
Analogy, Dreams, and the Logos
!
!
!
by Pierre Grimes
Joseph:
Good morning to you, Brian, hows your world? I am pleased I to see you
could make it here at the Arches coffee shop. What is the bundle of work that I
see you are carrying, could it be notes for a lecture?
From the looks of it you
could have been carrying it around for a while.
Brian:
Glad to see you, again. I heard you frequent this place and I see that the
place hasnt changed much from the last time I was here. I guess the one thing
you can count on is that they will always keep alive this sense of style and
tradition. The statues are still here; anyway the small head of Apollo is still on the
shelf with other stuff. Anyway, you are right about my carrying this stuff around.
They are notes I plan to use when I give my talk at the up coming Noetic Society
festival. They are doing a series of talks on the mind and Im offering a paper.
Joseph:
I am glad to hear it. What subject about the mind are you going to speak
on? Could it be on analogy? I say that because I have heard from friends that
you have been exploring that strange subject. I enjoyed hearing that because it
is one subject that most in your profession ignores. Who else will be giving
talks?
Brian:
Yes, of course it will be on analogy, how can I ignore it after reading, Is it
All Relative. It helped me see that when you explore the idea of mind among
the early Hellenics, or Greeks, that you have to recognize the role that analogy
played in their thought. However, the problem Im having is that they have asked
speakers at the festival to include the role of dreams in their talks.
I wasnt
prepared for that addition. I heard that someone on the committee, I believe it
was Amie, who stressed that that any paper on mind should include dream work.
!1
She argued that since dreams are meaningful messages from the mind they
should be understandable in terms of analogy. She anchored her thought by
citing Platos claim in his Republic that the way to gain self-knowledge of ones
past, present and future comes through dreams. It was a swift step to her
conclusion that since the source of dreams is, obviously, the mind so we should
include something about dreams in our paper.
You wouldnt know anything about that would you, Joseph? You two are
friends and I know you have said that the way to understand dreams was finding
their analogical reference to what you are experiencing and puzzling over.
Joseph:
Yes, I have said that and what you suspect was in some sense true.
However, I think what I did say was a little different from what you report. I recall
that I said that dreams are allegories sent to us to awaken our slumbering spirit.
In seeking to understand them it opens us up to the mysteries we ignore in our
life. In any case, it is likely to be interesting to see the members of the Noetic
Society compete at this festival.
Brian:
Well, in any case can you tell me what sources you have you found
useful for your study of analogy and dreams?
Joseph:
Well, you know the Grimes book, All is Relative. It has a large section on
analogy. As for dreams, that is something I havent read anything about that
would fit what you are asking about.
!
!
Brian:
I imagine that you will attend that festival on the mind, right?
Joseph:
With such a topic I wouldnt dream of not attending. I hope your talk goes
well. As for dreams I do recall you have said that you have gone through
Philosophical Midwife dream explorations yourself, so since there is little
published on dreams you can draw upon your own experience on the subject.
!
!
!2
Brian:
Sure thing, but it was some time ago that I was into dreams. I had a real
problem, thats what I had.
I was stuck trying to finish a major paper I was
writing, actually it was an early form of my thesis. Well, I think you know whom I
went to explore it with and sure enough we got into exploring a dream in private
and it was one that turned out to be meaningful. It gave a clue to an early conflict
I had at home. So, it was worth it. I cant say that I liked surfacing the conflict.
In any case it worked. Since I havent been stuck since that review I havent had
any interest in going further into that kind of stuff.
What I have to do now is certainly not that kind of problem. It is just
something I believe I would benefit by going over with you. I am not sure how to
talk about the paper so if it is ok Id like to explore it with you. I believe if I can
get into talking about it with you it will help me figure out what to add to my
paper.
Joseph:
Well, I do have the time and who knows where it may go. Lets go over
what you have found and then we can spend a bit of time reflecting on it together.
It might help you in the competition at the festival, but again it might not.
Brian:
The notes I made may be enough and hopefully it will be enough for the
talk. Preparing for this talk is a lot different than what I am used to at the
university. Normally, I would see whats more recent than what I have read, push
further what I have already seen, and wrap up a conclusion and give a talk.
Joseph:
Yes, giving a talk before the Noetic Society will be different and I do think
the audiences are likely to be different as well. At the university you have plenty
of time and leisure to explore your special subject and they give you a lot of
support, but not with this paper. It must create the condition for you to do some
good work, an enviable thing, at least in one respect.
Brian:
It is good of you to say so and in some areas of study it is true, however I
am not sure I can say that of this one because it is outside of the scope university
studies. There is little on analogy and less on dreams in the books I read.
Maybe thats why it takes time to get the energy to go into this study, but Ill do it
!3
since I committed myself to it. Actually, I find I am easily distracted and so I move
easily to other things. However, I should say that I get into a strange kind of
feeling like when you step over some inner rule but I dont know what rule, nor
why it comes crashing down upon you, yet I sure would like to know why it
comes when I get into this work. What say you, do I need some charm to ward
off distractions and protect me from my own folly?
Joseph:
You always have been frank to discuss your struggles and I do expect if
you want to achieve some perfection in this paper that you are going to have to
purge yourself of these kinds of things. As for a charm, I have none. However,
maybe another cup of coffee will add something to your quest.
Brian:
My game at the university just doesnt really help me except for the time it
affords me. In any case just how do you connect dreams and analogy together?
Beyond saying that dreams have an analogy with your waking life I am not sure
what else is needed. Now, that I reflect of it I believe it would be better if I say
that I believe you have a better grasp of the philosophy behind analogy than iI so
that if I can tap into your experience that might lift the subject up to where it really
add to my study.
Joseph:
You picked a good time for that. I just recently finished reading and
reflecting on a paper that went further into the subject of analogy than what was
in All is Relative.
!
!
Brian:
No, I didnt know of it? What was covered?
Joseph:
It was very thoughtful. The idea that analogy is a shadow of a fourth
dimensional movement that can be detected within a three dinensionsl world was
presented as being inherent in the symmetry of the transformations of analogy.
Interesting it was as the kick-off point for the talk. To gain a foothold on the
subject it started off with a study of the golden section in analogies. Then, the
hierarchical structure of analogy it presented was shown to presuppose the
nature of the Hellenic idea of art. Lastly, that the idea of art as bestowing a
!4
benefit upon subjects was discussed in terms of dreams and daydreams. I

should add that the idea of the dream master was also introduced as being
archetypal and it was linked to the idea of the Good as it functions in theology.
Brian:
Good heavens, what a load to fit into a paper. Please, if you have the
time, I would very much like it if you would share with me what you learned. The
ideas you just dumped on me fine things, but Id like to hear this idea of the
golden section analogy, thats new to me.
By the way, what was the source of all that you just said about the mean
analogy? Was the sourcedocumented so I can look them up?
Joseph:
Curious it is, but I cant recall att his time if there were any sources cited.
There should be some there, at least, I think it would be best if there were there.
Brian:
Do you happen to have a copy of it handy so i can see it?
Joseph:
Ill look for it later, but for now you think it a good idea to explore the
golden analogy. You know, of course, that the golden section must fit within a
mean analogy.
Brain:
Actually, why not take your time and go a bit slow because I would like to
review it all and it will give me a chance to be sure I see it all.
Joseph:
Fair is fair. Recalling it will give me a chance to relax through it as I recall
it. I can get you a copy of the report, but for now I would like to say that he did
cover the two term analogies that were called golden sections. As you know the
middle terms in a mean analogy are the same and the terms in each ratio are
incommensurable with each other as well as between the ratios themselves.
When expressed in symbols it looks like any mean analogy:
or,
A is to B as B is to C
a : b as b : a and b
!5
In the paper the example given for this golden section analogy was from
Platos divided line in the sixth book of the Republic. What is interesting is that
the terms in this analogy are not in a golden section ratio rather the distance
between the terms are in a golden section. Plato starts with a four term analogy
and turns it into a three term analogy with its relative distances set out as a
golden section. Consider:
!
!
as image thinking : belief :: understanding : knowledge
Since belief and understanding share an underlying sameness of belief

they can be said to be equal, while the proportions for the positions of the terms
in the analogy follow the divided line of the golden section.
Brian:
So, with that equality between belief and understanding it reduces the four
terms to three and, so, a mean analogy. Id say that is very thoughtful.
Joseph:
You are correct in that, Brian. Note, too, that the ratios have a double
effect as do the terms within the ratios. The golden section fixes the relations
between the terms in each ratio as incommensurable and that means, of course,
that there are no common or natural paths moving from one to the other.
Brian:
Im not at all clear as to what you are referring to when you say double
effect.
Joseph:
It is curious that my enthusiasm propelled me faster than my efforts to
make this point clear. The terms are are three not two, yet they conform to the
measuration of the terms not their content. So, let me try again and go over this
with the care it deserves. The sequence of the terms within the ratios are
incommensurable to one another and when they are set into the mean analogy
we can see that image-thinking and belief can be seen as a ratio and
understanding and knowing has a double effect since the ratios are to one
another as incommensurables. Again, notice that we have here this property of
incommensurablility functioning twice within one analogy Notice that it means
!6
that this incommensurablity is found between the ratios and within the ratios, not
in respect to their content, but only in their relations among themselves. .
Brian:
Are you saying that this paper went on to explore that idea that
understanding and knowing are incommensurable? I do believe that means that
there is no common factor between or among them, right? Really? Equal yet
incommensurable? Now I find that curious and strange, indeed. Did the paper
explore it with examples? Did the paper include the mathemactics behind that
arrangement of the terms?
Joseph:
Yes, the math was included and it was very thoughtfully constructed. As
for including examples the answer is no. However, he did stress that both belief
systems and those of understanding proceed from premises the truth of which
are unknown. The paper dealt with the power of analogies, focused on the three
kinds of mean analogy as well, and showing that the power of analogy actually
awakens and brings into play a higher mode of cognitive awareness. As you
doubtless know, the three mean analogies, the arithmetic, geometric and
harmonic have their particular virtues.
Brian:
Now, that they have particular virtues is not smething Ive heard about.
However, I am aware thst analogies have been put down as nothing but as if
constructions. I forget the guy who wrote it, but he called it, The Philosophy of As
If. He was very clear that even though all intelletual systems can be reduced to
fundamental analogies that all it really shows is that they are all fictions, or
something that is merely an As If construction. Im drawn to this idea whether
or not I like it. It does have its power, you know. Now, thats strange, isnt it.
Joseph:
Yes, it does seem strange, but there are those people around here who
disagree with Vaininger and say that in systems of understanding concepts are to
logic as knowing systems are to insight. This is why systems of knowing most
often reach for analogies to express what they are seeing. Why? Simply
because to grasp the meaning of an analogy it is necessary to see the key
relationships and differences in one sweep of the mind. However, the issue that
remains on the table is his claim that analogical systemsare nothing but fictions.
!7
!
Brian:
Well, you do know that it is not everywhere that analogies are receive d
with honor. The common experience kind of warns you that if you get into the
use of analogy you end up saying many things that may be true, but are very
difficult to find ways to understand and prove them. I do know that when you try
to share insights you have gained through analogy it is best not to repeat it in
terms of analogy. What do you think, would you say poets and theologians are in
the same class, but one is ponderous as the other is simple?
Joseph:
Perhaps, some of it is just as you say. However, when theologians are
most clear and communicate simply and with ease I would agree and say they
become similar to inspired poets.
Brian:
Id like to see how you put that together. Id like to see an example of
analogy used in theology or metaphysics that could compare with one of those
inspired poets. You know there are many people who treasure good poetry.
Joseph:
Sure thing and I would say that poetry and analogy in expressing complex
ideas do it so simply that they are treasured not only because they are able to
frame noble ideas in a way that one must use insight to grasp them, but because
by keeping them in mind and reflecting upon them seems to send echoing voices
that echo sends echoes that enter our mind that changes in very curious way the
very way we encounter our lives.
Brian:
Go ahead, Id like to see one of those metaphysical or theological
statements explored that has the power to affect your life and especially if it
comes out of that paper you meantioned. Im ready to offer praise if you can
show it. Isnt it fair that you giver it a try?
Joseph:
Well, that seems fair enough. But, it will take us a bit of time to treat this
idea fairly, still we do have the time and the place. So, let me start by choosing
!8
the mean analogy of three terms that expresses a truly profound idea in theology
that was in that paper.
the Good is to the Idea of the Good as the Idea of the Good is to the Sun
This analogy can also be expressed as:
The Good is to the most brilliant light of Being

is to
the most brilliant light of Being is to the Sun
These two mean analogies are considered identical in the Platonic tradition
because one of the principle ways of translating this notion of Idea is to recall that
it means to behold and to behold the Good is experienced as the most brilliant
light of Being, .
So, now we can express it symbolically as:
A : B :: B : C
As you know since it is said that the cause is superior to its effects so we
can say that in the first ratio:
the Good is to Being
Or,
The Good is to the most brilliant light of Being
Here here we have a very profound puzzle. For, the Good is said to
transcend its effects, but its effects happen to be us and all things. Indeed, it
must also include even the all the necessary ideas that must have been in place
for this cosmos to be. Yet, it must also include that for the sake of which it came
into being; for that as you know is called the Good itself, Indeed, the Good is
said to be so far beyond any names that it cannot be named even by calling it
nameless. The repeated contrast term in our ratio is, of course, Being. Caution
must be used when that idea is being used because its Greek equivalent is far
beyond our everyday use of the word being or essence. Recall the descriptions
of those who had experienced this Being call it the pure light of Being, for they
report it as an encounter with reality as mindful, joyous, as a source of goodness
itself. It is experienced as divining luminosity whose reach touches truth itself.
!9
Now, please consider this ratio because through it we can see we are
offered the opportunity to understand a fundamental that relation between. For
that the one gave birth to the other, that the kingship between them makes a
divinely sacred royalty. So, that we can now see that the second and last ratio
announces another birth, a birth of the sun from divine luminosity. Thus, we can
reflect that the ratio as the very condition for the existence of all solar systems
since the sun wherever it shines is that which provides existence, what sustains
life, and growth everywhere. As a result we can say our sun has nurtured all
and contains what can know it. Curious it is, isnt it, that the forces of the sun
have the ability to bring into existence something that can know itself?
Brian:
Yes, I very much like to consider that and I enjoy wondering about it with
you. Thanks for that since those who want to verify that idea for themselves are
called philosophers. However, in what way they can achieve it or fail I will leave
out for a while.
Joseph:
And, dont ignore that it expresses the dynamics of sunlight and its
progenitor, the sun, in a beautiful relationship. Ill leave that for now and go on to
discuss the nature of the ratio in the analogy.
So, let us turn to the first term in each of our ratios:
The Good is the first term in the first ratio as

the divine radiance is to the first term in the second ratio.
Yes, I know I substituted the idea of divine radiance for the Platonic notion
of the most brilliant light of being, but they are equivalent or the very same.
So, since this idea is explored in Platos allegory of the cave and the upper
world in his Republic we can construct the following analogy
!
!
The Good is to a King as the brilliant light of being is to the Queen
and since Plato leaves us with clues to finish the analogy we can complete the
last ratio as:
The most brilliant light of Being is to a king
!10
as the Sun is to a queen
Notice that since the idea of the king and queen function of two
levels if we were writing it out we would signify their difference by putting one in
capitals and the other in lower case letters.
For the relations described here in our analogy captures the dynamics of
the highest primary metaphysical ratio and asserts that it expresses its
mysterious and profound creativity in its metamorphosis into the natural world.
What do we have here but a seeing that the primary terms in the ratios brings to
birth what is most akin to its nature through that key relationship expressed in the
second ratio:
!
!
as the Good births divine luminosity so it gives birth to the sun.
Another way of viewing this is to look at the idea of the Logos. For those
that experience this brilliant light of Being speak of it in many ways and one of
them is that this encounter brought them to see that the very nature of ultimate
reality if not only a divine radiance but is the highest and most sublime encounter
with the very nature of Mind. It is for this reason that we can say that the source
of our Sun is the home of the logos. It is from this connection that we can say
that divine luminosity and the sun both spring from a divine source. It sprang
from the same source as the logos and it too provides for a higher mode of being
that sustains itself as it nourishes our participation in mind.
Notice that we can see how this analogy has a bonding effect between all
of its terms. It beauty brings its terms into a profound unity most perfectly and in
doing so it creates a splendid unity and it unites into one both itself and the
things which it binds together.
Brian:
I hear a quote in what you have said. What is the source for that
remarkable statement? I recall it from somewhere, but forgot where.
Joseph:
What I just said comes from Platos Timaeus. However, when I said that I
realized I hadnt quoted it exactly. I can give you what I recall if thats ok with
you, at least it is my best idea of it. He says something like this,
!11
the most beautiful of bonds is that which most perfectly brings into a
splendid union and unites into one both itself and the things which it binds
together; and to bring this into being in the most beautiful and profound
manner is the sacred property of analogy.
Brian:
When you recall things I just wonder if your philosophy just adds beauty to
the original or if you are saying something new. Anyway, I dont recall reading
that . I wonder why he says that it brings into being what it binds together. Now, I
see the beauty in some analogies, thats for sure, but you make statements
about analogy that I feel are just poetic and frivolous claims. Let me make it
simple. Analogy cant do anything. It is just a way of speaking and relating things
that you want to talk about. It has no existence and it cant do anything except
create a place to stick ideas in. It is not that I am ignoring what you found in that
paper, it is just that I have to tell you what I feel about it. To make it a bit clearer I
just dont think analogy brings unity, or anything else, into being.
Joseph:
Yes, I have heard that said by many professors and it is not good to go
against what they say unless you happen to think of something they ignore.
Brian:
And, what have they ignored? Go ahead Id like you to make that clear
because, frankly, it does not make much sense to think that analogy can do
anything, or be creative and bring something into existence.
Joseph:
Say, Raymond, would you say that if there is a candle burning that there
must have been a cause for it to burn brightly?
Brian:
Sure thing, so what?
Joseph:
Could it burn without the right oxygen or the right temperature being
present?
!12
Brian: No.
Joseph:
Would you say the condition necessary for the candle to burn is the
presence of both Oxygen and the right temperature?
Brian:
Sure.
Joseph:
Then the conditions must be prior to the lighting of the candle and without
them the candle would not be burning, would it?
Brian:
Agree
Joseph:
If one were to remove the conditions for any creation then there couldnt
be any creation, agree?
Brian:
True.
Joseph:
But, do you agree that the necessary condition for any creation of a copy
from a model must be the presence of the condition for likeness? For if likeness
were, for some strange reason, to be outlawed then there could not be any copy
or any creation.
Brian:
So, maybe I can agree that the necessary condition for analogy is likeness
and, I guess, I have to say that analogy must have some strange mode of
existence, thats for sure.
Joseph:
Yes, and the likeness presupposes similar relations between
corresponding terms.
!13
Brian:
I like that.
Joseph:
No doubt you have heard that the idea of likeness can be generated from
a four term archetypal analogy as well as generating similes and metaphors,
havent you?
Brian:
I like the way you put that question. Yes, I have heard something like
that, but, as for now, I dont think I can recall much about it other then you can
generate the idea of likeness from a comparison drawn from analogies.
Joseph:
Really? Is that all you can recall? What is this reluctance to saying what
you know? Surely, you dont want me to say what you already know, do you?
Brian:
Yes, you are right. I did pull back and played as if I couldnt recall. I do
that every once an a while and dont understand why I play forgetful-Sam-thefireman.
Joseph:
Well, that is a good start.
Brian:
Ill risk saying that you can generate four similes and four metaphors from
a four term analogy and the very idea of a simile is nothing other than the idea of
likeness. I recall that a metaphor expresses a likeness.
!
!
!
Joseph:
Shall I do you a favor and recall from All is Relative the examples?
Brain:
I guess I want you to play leader. Its a foolish game Im in.
Joseph:
Well to awaken your memory I recall one:
!14
a shepherd is to his sheep as a king is to his subjects
we can say that a king is like a shepherd, or a shepherd is like a king and its
reverse as
a shepherd is like a king and sheep are like subjects
Joseph:
So, we can say that the idea of likeness is the condition for all the
creations that follow from a model. Likeness is an idea that can be linked to
analogy and symmetry. As you know the expansion of a three and four term
analogy clearly show the presence of symmetry.
Brian:
I think it might be the same thing as the idea of symmetry in the sciences
because after assuming symmetry is a property of the natural world they can
!
!
!
!
!
then look for new features of a subatomic world that must follow if the property of
symmetry is inherent in nature. Actually, I hadnt realized that I could accept the
idea of symmetry in science, but not the existence of analogy. Curious I am,
curious it is.
Joseph:
Perhaps, behind your Platonic spirit there lies a defender of the sciences.
You know that moderns are reluctant to believe anything without the science
verifying this or that theory. For a fact is not a fact until it gets the stamp of
approval from one of sciences theories.
Brain:
I guess I have heard many times that science and mathematics stand
aloof from analogy and whatever likeness you find between them has to be
trivial, or I am missing something.
!15
Joseph:
Have you read or heard discussed Russells molecular proposition?
Brain:
No, not other than he called it the most fundamental of mathematical
expressions and that you could generate all the rest from it. Why do you ask?
Joseph
The molecular proposition is s symbolic representation of analogy that
includes within it the basic principles of logic and mathematics and it takes this
form:
!
!
note the sub numerals along r from 1 to .n
!
!
!
!
!
r B
C r D
diagram 1
You see that the relations can be specified and represented through the
use of the r desingnation,
Now the diagram only cites the posive features, but there are also
negative features and these should be represented going upward giving the
diagram a more complete form as:
!
!
!
!
Diagram 2
Notice we can set out our four terms analogy with symbolic terms
A, B, C, and D
or using numbers:
!16
2 is to 4 as 3 is to 6,
or using ideas:
a king is to his subjects as a shepherd is to his sheep
and represent it in symbolic terms:
A : B :: C ; D
And since the symbol : means is to and the symbol :: means as or similar
we can say that the relations between either the terms within a ratio or between
the ratios can be specified.
Notice the relations betweeen the ratios are greater and lesser, or
lesser and greater. The analogy we just used that controlled king and shepherd
indicate relations hold, not same relations. For if they were the same the
shepherd should command his sheep to pay taxes and to defend their country.
Surely, when numbers are used instead of idea the relationship between the
ratios can be said to be the same and not similar because they use homodoxical
terms, all the same, than heterodoxical term, that is different classes of terms.
!
!
Brain:
Well, what do you know? That is interesting, again and again. It is the
same as one of your standard four term analogies expressed in symbolic form. I
see, then there is no difference. So, I guess you are right that analogy can
subsume logic and in this respect also mathematics.
Joseph:
So, tell me then why do you think those early philosophers praised
likeness as the supreme originating principle of all creation and of the cosmos
itself?
Brian:
Of course, that might be true, but you dont believe you have to assume
creation follows a model. In any case, I imagine, you would say that for creation
the model for it must have been in the mind of the creator, right? Metaphysics is
!17
not my strong suit nor is it regarded with any favor at the university. The step
from metaphysics to making claims about mythology are not far behind. Anyway
I see how the idea of smeary is being developed. I guess you picked this up
from that paper, but it is also likely, Joseph, that it has sprung out of your own
work and reflections. So, let me say in addition that as for mythology, thats
rejected for the most obvious reasons.
Joseph:
Which are?
Brian:
No one believes in them any more, archaic and irrelevant is what they are.
Once they were thought to have power, but once the belief in them vanishes so
too does what is attributed to them. The images of gods that are no longer
believed in make nice decorations for your home and places like this.
!
!
Joseph:
Fashions dont last long. Why not just follow along with the analogy?
Brian:
I see where you are going. Are you going to assert again that the
assumption that dreams are personally significant to each dreamer that it must
assume a dream master of vast intelligence and wit. You are going to argue for
the idea that just as the creator is to his creation so the dreamer must be to its
maker. No, it should be the other way around; as the creator is to the maker of
dreams so the cosmos is to our dream life. Or, maybe I would also put it, as
the creator is to his creation so the creator of our dreams is to our dreams.
Joseph:
It looks like as you are exploring these analogies you see better ways of
expressing what you most like to grasp.
So, analogies make you make
connections that you might not like to make and that is good. It also appears that
you are quick to correct those analogies when you see their weakness.
Brian:
Sure thing, it carries you along, whether you like it or not. I am always a
little cautious about stringing analogies together, you know. Maybe it does come
!18
down to my bitter distrust for theology and metaphysics. I do believe it started

after reading Kants criticism of the use of analogy in metaphysics.
Joseph:
Lets leave Kant out of it for a while and return to the analogy. I say that
because his criticism is not universal since his idea of God assumes a Christian
theology. So, then let me ask you a couple of questions. When analogies are
arranged in a hierarchical system must not the higher always subsume the
lesser?
Brian:
Maybe, but first recall a few analogies for me that can show that feature.
Id like to see that. However, I wonder if you shouldnt first explain why you think
some are higher than others and, so, they can be arranged in a hierarchical
fashion. Now,on what basis you think one is higher than another?
Joseph:
Good question there, Raymond. To answer it properly will take us on a
journey into metaphysics.
!
!
Brian:
Go ahead Ill follow the leader.
Joseph:
Consider the contrasting ratios that relate to the idea of ruling and notice
how it gives birth to the Hellenic idea of art. Remember though, this idea of
ruling is Platonic and is not expressed in any of the fine arts. It is, rather,
like our ideal of professionalism. Now, notice that in these ratios the idea
of ruling is present:
A shepherd is to his sheep

A captain is to his crew
A ruler is to his subjects
A coach is to his athletes
A doctor is to his patients
Notice that in our above group that since the first term functions as a ruler
over the second term, the subjects. It holds the higher rank than the subject.
!19
!
!
Brian:
So, whats the reason you call the first higher? Is it because they are rulers?
Joseph:
No, we have to look somewhere else for a more complete idea of ranking.
As you consider the first term in each of the above activities, would you not say
that the particular ruler of any of these activities has the ability to judge the
condition of the subject, plan for the subjects benefit, and to restore them to a
better condition than when previously?
Does that not apply to all of those
rulers?
Brian:
That makes sense.
Joseph:
And, the only reason subjects will accept the commands of the higher is
when they believe the higher will apply their knowledge fairly so that they can
function more ideally?
Brian:
That too.
Joseph:
Further, when subjects accept the particular ruler then they become
subjects and willingly accept the command of the ruler.
Brian:
Agree.
Joseph:
Would you agree that those who possess this kind of knowledge and are
willing to allow their knowledge to be directed solely for the benefit of the subject
that can be said to possess an art, but those who do what they do with an eye
only for their own benefit and /or profit can be charged with malpractice and be
prosecuted. Surely, the captain who seeks his own benefit rather than a safe
voyage for his crew and passengers should be called a pirate and be subject to
law?
!20
Brian:
I agree.
Joseph:
If someone, say a tyrant,requires the benefit of all these arts, would you
not agree that there is something missing? is it not likely that a tyrant could be
the recipient of these arts without benefitting from the healing art of philosophical
midwifery? For, without that art he would lack the essential benefit that would
transform him from a tyrant into a just ruler and in doing so benefit himself and
his subjects.
Brian:
So, Adolf Hitler needed a philosophical midwife.
Joseph:
Good it is. If we take one ratio, the shepherd is to his sheep, and compare
it with another, ruler is to his subjects, and then we can see how the relations of
the one can be similar, not same, with the other. For the ways a shepherd relates
to his sheep would include his guiding, protecting, and caring to his sheep and
the way a doctor relates to his patients is also guiding, protecting, and caring, but
in a different way. Similar, but not in the same way, or else the doctor would
need a shepherds dog not a nurse to herd his patients. So, it is by contrasting
ratios we can see why they belong in the order and how the one term and ratio
may function in a similar way to any of the others ratios or in their contrasting
analogy.
!
!
!
Brian:
I agree entirely, for that is the way I see it, too.
Joseph:
As you consider that each of the rulers have their own special kind of
knoweldge and that we can rank them in terms of more and less knowledge?
Brian:
Sure thing>
Joseph:
!21
Could we not arrange these activities hierarchically such that the highest
term would have more knowledge and have a greater ability to bestow a greater
benefit than the other arts so that they in turn can be ranked in a descending
order?
!
!
Brian:
I am not as sure about this as I would like, please go on.
Joseph:
Then try this idea, would the degree that to the degree that subjects must
understand and participate in the art varies with the particular art? Would not the
higher be judged so because of the greater participation in that knowledge than
the lower?
So that sheep do not need to understand the principles of the art of
husbandry to benefit from the Shepherds art, but for subjects of philosophical
midwifery would not there knowing participation would be essential, is that not
so? Could we not rank them according to these principles?
Brian:
Now, I have to admit that this is cruical. So, I can say sujects who
participate in the art being administered to them have to have more knowledge
about the art. Then you can rank them in a hieracrchical order, good.
Joseph:
Now, we have a curious issue. If we develop all the ratios in the list of
ruling, then we can ask what is the highest term and what status does it have?
What do i mean? In ever hierarchical arrangement of terms there is always the
highest term. If so what would be the highest art? Shall we say that it is the
craftsman of our dreams or the art of philosophical midwife or something, yet
higher?
Brian:
You are asking who or what possesses the highest art? Interesting
question you have here, Joseph. From our reasoning it would have to have
bestow a unique benefit, it would have to meet a purely unmet and even an
unsuspected need, it would require an exquisite knowledge as profound as could
be, and offered with the mark of integrity,
!22
Joseph:
Wonderful, that is a good estimate, Brain, good point. I would add to it
something that I think is uniquely different from all the other arts since each
bestows a particular benefit to a particular class of subjects, could there be an art
with a vastly superior art that benefits all classes . It comes to us in such a way
that if we puzzle it out it will bring us to see what is obvious but hidden from our
sight. In coming to understand it we discover a new way of seeing that reaches
furthest to awaken insight into the divine.
Brian:
Now, Joseph, would you mind explaining what you are talking about?
Joseph:
What we just did was to define the Platonic idea of Providence. For, it is a
wisdom that comes to us in dreams that carries with it all that we said. We say
that creator is the Dream Master, but his art is the art providential art of
divination. Really, when one discovers the meaning of ones dreams it is that
meaning that is a particular manifestation of the logos. For, it opens the
presents mysteries, draws forth the past a learning that created the problem and
our misery, it creates through its purifying function a glimpse of our destiny.
Within its scope there are purely prophetic dreams that announce our tasks and
provide the gifts for its realization. Our philosophical midwifery is a mirror image
of this art of Providence.
Brian:
So, the highest term you are going to say will be the cause of all the
lesser terms and the way the highest term functions we can say all those
subordinate to it, including the dream work, daydream work, and problem solving
in philosophical midwifery are mirror images of the highest term. Now that has an
amazing scope to it.
Joseph:
Yes, and notice that it continuously causes us to spin around and reflect
on the mystery of our existence. The highest term does not admit of any relative
status so we can call it a primary idea. In this way can we not say that for every
primary idea there is its opposite? If so would you say that the natural ratio of
!23
primary ideas have an opposite and can be contrasted with their opposite? And,
can we add that they should be contrasted with their opposites if we are to
understand each of the primary ideas?
For, do we not learn much about justice by reflecting and contrasting it
with its opposite, injustice? Just so then the opposite of providence is the
transmission of ignorance that we call pathologos beliefs.
Brian:
Very nice study of the primary idea and well worked out. I must admit that
I found it a distinct and strange kind of delight in reviewing it with you.
Joseph:
Yes, the use of anlogies can bring insights into problems, creates the need
for new ideas, recasts ideas into a more signficent structure of ideas, and it
highlights the primary ideas of their class or set.
Brian:
Sure thing and it is strange to call them arts, but whats in a name?
Joseph:
Yes, it is only a name, but the name, art, does signify something important,
an ethic that brings with it an excellence and that ensures the integrity of the art.
Brian:
Whats that? I noticed you use the idea of set I hadnt paid attention to that
before, but are you linking all this to set theory? How can analogy be in the
same class as set theory?
Joseph:
Set theorys terms are homogenous, they are quantitive terms or since
they are symbols for things they can be represented as if they were alike and so
they can be represented by homogenous terms. When analogies function with
homogeneous terms like numbers or lines they are called proportions, but in
addition analogies can employ heterogeneous terms, or ideas. For ideas are not
alike one another like the homogeneous terms. So, analogy can subsume set
theory.
Brian:
!24
What is added that set theory lacks?
Joseph:
Can set theory explain why the highest term in a hierarchical set is the
source of the lesser terms?
Brian:
Say, I only had an intro into set theory so you are asking the wrong
person. However, I do know that when sets have matching terms they can be
said to be equal. You are making a different point, arent you?
Joseph:
Yes, when terms are in equal sets there is no requirement that they should
be arranged hierarchically, but in analogy it is necessary. Let me state the
consequences simply and say that when analogies are arranged hierarchically
they have the power to represent philosophical systems as rich as the Platonic.
They can express its principles and functions in terms of a system of simple
interlocking analogies. The consequence of such a system is that it could bring
enquiring minds
to see and understand that the cosmos is a rational
metaphysical coherent system, that it is understandable, and capable of being
verified in ones experience.
Brian:
It would be a purely rational deductive system and we sure need that dont
we.
Joseph:
Yes, it would seem to be a purely rational structure except that a few of its
principle propositions presuppose a knowledge into the very nature of reality so
that it is not a purely rational system. A purely rational system mirrors, as it were,
the logos. Those reflecting upon such a system are creating the conditions for
more profound experiences than they would if they studied and sought to master
a purely rational system.
!
!
Brian:
Are you saying that it has been done? Where?
Joseph:
!25
It already exists in Proclus Platonic Theology and in his Elements of

Theology. Why dont you add them to your paper and present it at the festival?
Brian:
Sure enough and you tell me why pigs dont whistle if meatballs dont
bounce then ill tell you why I cant do it.
Joseph:
Really, if you follow and enjoy this discussion you have the mind for it so
why not give it a try? You could bring your audience to see that in three term
mean analogies you can find a dynamic idea of likeness.
Brian:
I find that worth reflecting on. I thought the origin of likeness springs out of
key relations between alternate terms of a four term analogy not three term
analogies.
Joseph:
Let me recommend a most brilliant and profound proposition, from the
Proclus Elements, proposition 148. Through this proposition he show how all
divine orders, or triads, have their intelligibility reveals in this mean analogy. If
you go back into it you will see he adds a inner movement to the progression of
terms, especially through the mean terms, and how the last term, the third, in
creating a likeness that brings about a convergence in the entire series of terms
by its power to revert upon its initial principle and from itself exhibiting the power
that sprains from itself that completes the unification of the whole of the analogy.
Dont you think this kind of thinking might be included in your presentation?
Brian:
If it includes what you say I should look it over. The idea that it supplies
the justification for all the triads is very insightful. However, there is so much
going on in that statement of yours that to unpack it I would need a bit of time.
Still, it may mean that there is more intelligibility in all this than i believe I had
granted.
Joseph:
I am pleased that you think it worth reflecting over. To present not just this
idea, but even those we have been discussing will take a bit of commitment,
!26
wouldnt it. Is it likely you would have to step out of those academic robes and
don sandals?
Brian:
Actually, that is a good question. To be honest about it I think I wouldnt at
all like to appear as if I had mastered something that Im still puzzling over.
Joseph:
To appear confident before a crowd of thoughtful people might be a
challenge for you. What feature of our analogies do you think would receive the
most negative reaction from those attending the festival?
Brian:
I am not sure about this. I think it just might challenge me to explain
before the Noetic Society members how the logos emerges or is derived from
that most brilliant light of Being. For, as you know, in the beginning was the
logos,or word.
Joseph:
If we use what we have covered, would it then be like an exploration of
those opening lines from the Gospel of John?
Brian:
Im not at all sure how to even begin am exploration. Do you have another
guess? That last one was pretty good
Joseph:
Well, lets take a step into theology, or philosophy. Consider this question
that comes right out of the paper:
What about showing through an analogy and its converse that you can
grasp the both the creative descent from the Good itself to the terrestrial realm as
well as the return to the source of all, the Good itself?
Brian:
Good heavens, can that be shown? Would you please spell that out for
me. Truly, I would like to see it?
Joseph:
!27
Sure thing, consider the order of the terms in an

analogy can be
positioned and then described as flowing down or moving up. Consider this
analogy;
!
or
a doctor is to his patients as a captain is to his crew

A : B :: C : D
C : D :: B : A
Further, notice the two ratios within the analogy can be ranked as well as
the terms within each ratio In respect to the ratios in the analogy the first ratio is
being contrasted with the second. Now, if the first ratio is to the second as the
higher is to the lower then by reversing the order and placing the second first you
will have an upward path from the lower to the higher.
Within each of these ratios we can say that the first term in each ratio, A
and C, is the higher and its complement term, B and D are the lower?
Recall that it is by the substitution of like for is to you generate similes

and by the use of identity, or is we create metaphors.
Brian:
Yes, i have seen that point being made, but what significance does this
add to our quest?
Joseph:
Shall I assume that there is something else benind your reamrk? I ask that
because it would be best to hear what you believe to be true about our
exploration of analogy.
Brian:
Well for now, I need to ask you several questions and each one has been
shouting very loudly and persistently in my ears. First off, what advantage do
you see in structuring ideas in terms of an analogy? It is important to me that
you understand what I mean by my use of the term advantage. It has to really
matter and I dont care if I stress the idea of really mattering. I dont care if we are
talking about a two, three, or four term analogy. I say that because many of
those I engage are into what I call Bacons belief that science should be ruled by
!28
inductive logic, that it alone is the criteria of truth, and experiement is the model
for knowledge.
I want something real to oppose these ideas. They always
minimize the role of analogy. They want to limit the use of analogy in any serious
analysis in any of their studies.
Joseph:
Your are correct in that and that means they exclude the study of the mind
and ignore the significance philosophical and spiritual experience. You have an
interest in seeking an answer to the questions of the relationship between the
logos and the brilliant light of being, but to pursue that issue we need to time to
see the logos in the fullness of its being. However, we cant really address that
issue if you are hanging back in disbelief of the use of analogy. The logos is to
the analogos as its source is to its manifestation. Lets put that aside and try to
answer that point that is so important to you. In answering I am likely to appear
to be going on a tangent, but come along lets see. So, I would like to answer
you by reference to the formal properties of analogy and later link it to the logos.
If thats all right with you.
Brian::
Sure thing, take that direction. Why not set it out step by step so that I can
follow along with you?
!
!
,
Joseph:
Then let us take our mean analogy and express its four valid forms:
A : B :: B : C
B : A :: C : B
B : C :: A : B
C : B :: B : A
Notice the interior order of this transformation of the analogy, it has a binding
connection around itself, it has an internal connection with B, it excahnges the
extreme terms A and C with the interior positions, it includes a double line of
symmetry along the A and C axis, and brings it together with its binding terms.
!
Now consider the four term analogy
!
!29
I would like to use heterogeneous terms for the symbols in the following four
term analogy:
doctor : patients :: shepherd : sheep
Just note how your mind moves from the one ratio to the other searching
for more similarities.
!
!
Brian:
Yes, thats true and it has a kind of enjoyable aspect to it.
Joseph:
Another point, as you see the second above analogy, reads that
patients are to doctors as Sheep are to shepherds
Now, would you say that there something gained when we are given the
converse form of that analogy?
Brian:
It forces you to see the doctor as a kind care- giver who tends, guides,
guards, and is expected to bring his sheep into the most healthy conditions.
I enjoy the last ratio, patients are to sheep, because it almost makes me laugh. I
think it forces me to say to those seeking medical help that they should not be
passive like sheep but to be active and inquiring when they seek medical help.
Joseph:
I do like that and you are right about it. Do you also see that this analogy
also focuses on the different kinds of knowledge each must possess and the one
couldnt do the other with their own particular art?
Equally, the way each must find a way to be compensated for their art? Or,
would you want your sheep to be shepherded by a shepherd who loved lamb
chops?
Brian::
OK I see that and it is fun to see. What about the third form?
!30
!
Joseph:
Yes, indeed, that comes next. It raises a very curious point. Let me put it
simply, can you tell the difference it makes when the position of the ratios is
reversed?
!
For look at what we have:
!
Shepherd : sheep: doctor : patients
!
The primary object of study takes the first position and it is being
contrasted with the second ratio. Tell me what you see here:
Brian:
Yes, thanks for that, because it is fun to see it this way. It forces you to
consider the Shepherd in a more important light. It forces you to consider his
role must include a caring and keeping his sheep healthy is one of the marks of
his work.of his sheep with the professional concern of a doctor.
Joseph:
Another point you scored, good. Now, for the last set, but notice you can
carry what you learned from the third into the fourth analogy in our list.
Brian::
Now that is very interesting, very much so. It forces you to consider that
the meaning here must include the idea of returning in some way to the first
analogical expression. Hold it. Actually, it is the complement of the first because
as the first is a procession so this last is to return. You have to see the gap
between them and what it might take to move from the lower to the higher. Now,
I think you can say that here is a creative procession and a return that is
captured, again, in these analogies. Interesting, indeed it is.
Joseph:
Undoubtedly, you gained insights along the way without using inductive
logic rather you yourself had to see the relationship between the terms in each
ratio. You were not told or taught but came to it yourself. The name for that is
kind of seeing is insight and its colleague that can develop from it is
!31
understanding. They can come together to bring you to a higher level of seeing.
It is like functioning on a different dimension.
Brian::
If you are choosing your words with care I suspect you have a way of
showing that the mind does function in a different dimension in playing with
analogies. However, I cant say that I can agree or disagree since I dont know
why you said that.
Joseph:
It will take a few steps and it we will need to accept the significance of a
couple of strange assumptions. The first goes back to Peter D. Ouspenskis
Tertium Organon and a model he used from C. H. Hintons work on the fourth
dimension.
First off you will need to accept the idea that cognitive functions like
sensation, perception, and concepts can be ranked as spatial dimensions from a
point, to a line and surface, to a cube. Next, that by the transfiguration of a cube
it is possible to represent the fourth dimension.
Let me talk about these cognitive functions by way of example. The living
beings that only possess and function through sensation may in their
development reach a limit, or saturation point, and it is then possible for a few of
them to develop the ability to bring into a unity these sensations and function
through them. If so we can say they have developed perception. In a similar way
those living beings that possess perception may also reach a saturation point
and if a few have reached the development stage that can bring these
perceptions into a unity and can function through them they will have brought into
existence concepts. Again, take concepts and consider the living beings that can
engage in in these concepts and if some few reach a saturation point and then
can bring them into a unity so that they may bring into a unity a higher mode of
cognition we call this breakthrough insight or intuition.
Thus, as each of these cognitive functions, or ways of experiencing both
itself and other things, reaches a saturation point then the organization of such
elements can become unified producing a new mode of being entirely different
from the elements that had composed it. By contrast the lower functioning is
blocked from advancing into the higher unless it follows what amounts to hints of
the higher in the lower. For the lower always experiences these higher aspect of
cognitive functioning as mysterious and possessing a strange unsuspected mode
!32
of being and motion. Thus, each successive form of cognition is entirely

mysterious to those prior to itself, for the antecedent of any of the former states
of cognition cannot comprehend within its own terms the higher or successive
mode of cognition.
Brian::
Well, you did it, didnt you. I even followed right along with you. Your idea
of the role of reaching a saturation point before a higher development can take
place reminds me of the way Chardin understands evolution of new and higher
living forms. He says something like Thought emerges without any preparation
or antecedents, they suddenly burst upon the scene of things and begin
manifesting themselves.. I find him a very deep thinker
Joseph:
You are quite correct there, he is a profound philosopher. I often enjoy his
contribution to our nobler game. His law of complexity is very insightful, he
argues that in every step of complexity there is a parallel increase of our inner
spiritual growth. What he calls complexity we call reaching a saturation point.
His vision of complexity is rooted in biology and in his notion of cosmology and
culminates in mankind reaching his spiritual roots, which is, of course, mind.
Brian:
Now that is a good way of explaining the idea of the saturation point. I
recall other features of his work that swing along with that idea. Ill enjoy
rereading his work with that in mind. So, now what about the dimension issue?
Joseph:
Now then we will return to out question: how to represent the fourth
dimension object within a three dimensional square on a two dimensional sheet
of paper. It is because the idea that the next dimension touches on the
mysterious and springs from some unknown movement. The unknow diemsion,
to us, is the fourth dimension. To explore it we will choose what we here consider
is most akin to it which is the idea of essence or as the philosophical Greeks call
it ousia.
Brian:
Ive heard that word passed around, how do you understand it?
!33
Joseph:
The timing of our birth and death, why we get sick, depressed, and even
the movements of joy come to us as mysteries. For, it is true that the problems
we have we should have even though we are ignorant of their causes. Perhaps,
a deeper mystery is why some gain a vision of reality and not others.
Brian:
Well, I hear what you are saying, but I have to wonder why the answer to
these issues may not simply be that there are simply no higher set of reasonings
governing our destiny. However, even as I say that I would still like to hear your
explation of this idea of ousia.
Joseph:
Yes, the alternative is that we live in a closed world and it is without any
higher dimenions that can afford answers to our delimenas.
As for the term ousia we can say that several words cluster around this
one Greek word, ousia. You know, of course, that we have no equivalent word in
English to express ousia. For, ousia includes within itself a dynamic that turns
upon itself to encounter itself experiencing itself. When it is used in Plato and
Proclus it is also includes its presence in the brilliant light of being. Why the
fullness of it is not widely experienced is deeply puzzling. This dynamic principle
of ousia is often translated in English as essence or Being. Needless to say this
translation of ousia into being or essence misses the idea that it is that which
continuously unfolds turning about itself to encounter itself. For it is said that this
reverting upon itself as it passes through itself is mirrored or is imitated in the
intellect turning upon itself and intellecting the intelligible. The experience itself
has been also said to take on the name Mind, since it comes as an ultimate
insight that is vibrant, alive, and shining in pure goodness while revealing itself as
the same amidst startling differences of the same.
The majesty of that
experience has been described throughout the ages in similar terms.
Brian:
Well that was well said. I see you made up a new word for us, intellecting.
I like it. I am going to recall that later and mull over. So what kind of unknown
forces or movements of a higher dimension are mysterious to us? So, we go
back to the idea of the fourth dimension. I guess we will see the logos emerge
out of the fourth dimension. Say, I assume you have reference to earlier thinkers
who expressed this idea, right?
!34
!
Joseph:
Yes, my readings into Peter D. Ouspenski started it off, he picked up
where Hinton left off, he used a three dimensional figure, a cube, to show signs
of this fourth dimensional movement. He has each side of the cube move in a
direction not contained in itself. Yes, that sounds weird, but actually what it
amounts to is a figure that turns inside out and that, clearly, is a unknown motion
for anything to take. The result is like a glove that is reversed so that the outside
is reversed as the inside. Now, if that takes place in the movement of a cube we
have this figure:
!
!
!
!
!
!
Cube 1 with transformation
Joseph:
Now, consider if we but a face on out figure what do we have but a
cube 2 with a face
What does this mean? It means that the property of symmetry is a fourth
dimensional movement in a three dimensional space. Again, an example is
needed. What tells the cells to match their parallel movement such that it is
always balanced and in harmony with itself. The result is for everything that has
a symmetry its existence depends upon this finely harmony of its parts that have
a very rational balanced movement which results in the beauty of nature. Thus,
the balance and rational design we admire throughout all nature is a fourth
dimensional movement within nature.
Brian:
Do you mean that our problems are simple and clear if we reach another
plane of thinking and feeeling?
Joseph:
!35
Yes, the problems we have we should have since their solution opens a
new vista, a gateway into a way of Being far superior to our former way of being.
Among the mysteries is why some and not others break through to gain a vision
of reality. Again, the timing of our birth and death, sickness, depressions, and
moments of joy may be as mysterious as its causes are unknown.
Brian:
Now, that is more than curious. For you it is all part of an intelligible way
of Being. I wondered how you were going to do express the mystery of it all.
Joseph:
We still have another task. We need to show that for the properties of a
mean analogy can be matched to our fourth dimensional model.
Joseph:
So, let me go back to task. Recall that the rule for the transformation of
four place analogies, like ours, are two and we call them converse ratios and
alternate ratios. Thus, the rules for their transformation are two. For when you
switch the positions of ratios, which we call taking the terms conversely we have
B : A :: C : B
.
Next if you take the ratios alternately such that we generate,

B : C :: A : B
which is generating it from the alternate to the converse of the alternate.

Consider, if we take the four transformation of the mean analogy and
consider it as a square in a two dimensional plane that contains the finite ordered
sequence of the mean analogys valid transformation. So, we will have this
figure:
A : B :: B : C
B : A :: C : B
B : C :: A : B
C : B :: B : A
!36
!
Now, using the principle of passing that square through itself in the four
possible directions, up and down as well as left and right, we have:
!
!
!
!
C : B :: B : A
B : C :: A : B
B : A :: C : B
A : B :: B : C
C : B :: B : A
B : C :: A : B
B : A :: C : B
A : B :: B : C
!
!
A; B :: B : C
B : A :: C : B
B : C :: A : B
C : B :: B : A
C : B :: B : A
B : C :: A : B
B : A :: C : B
A : B :: B : C
C : B :: B : A
B : C :: A : B
B : A :: C : B
A : B :: B : C
Only two possible sets, the source and its fourth dimensional
transformation into its converse. The return from the progression is a fourth
dimensional movement. It means that the return must proceed through all the
steps that were present in the progression, in the reverse order so that no steps
are skipped in its return.
Notice that the same arrangement of terms appears in all the four
transformations, but these four alternate forms are actually portraying an
opposite direction than the original figure. For, if you consider that the primary
!37
ratio is ordered such that it is in the first position that compares itself with the
secondary ratio in the later position then the transformation switches that order.
The first set analogy, A:B::B:C, expresses a progressive or creative movement as
a generative sequence from higher to lower ratio. Thus, the transformation we
see goes in the opposite direct and that is the upward or returning direction.
Notice the lines of symmetry that can be drawn within this mean analogy and
then see that it is bound by the repetition of itself as a boundary condition.
Notice that signs of symmetry are evidence of a fourth dimensional movement in

a three dimensional world. The recognition of symmetry brings with it a love for
insight and intitution. In that recognition you are being brought o see the logos
emerging.
Brian:
I have to admit I enjoy going on the ride. Can we tie in ouir question about
the logos and the brilliant light of being?
Joseph:
I think we have further work to do, The logos is a lofty term and we need
to contrast it with that light. So, now if we can go back to our metaphysical
analogy:
!
!
the Good is to the most brilliant light of Being

is to
the most brilliant light of Being is to the Sun
It would be following the model to gain an encounter to the One or the

Good by first going through the moist brilliant light of being.
Brian:
So, you are saying if we follow the logos of these analogies we are urged
not to go for first hypothesis, or sunyata, or emptiness, but throguht he brilliant
light of being, right? So, we have returned to the logos and the brilliant light of
Being, havent we?
Joseph:
!38
You are following right along, good. Now the next step. Lets turn to the
four term analogy. As you compare the valid transformations of a four term
analogy we see it generates eight possible forms. When we separate out those
that show take on the alternate, or taking the terms alternately, such as the first
to the third and the second to the fourth, we see we can also show its lines of
symmetry and can compare that with the other sequence generated from the
repeated use of the converse form, or pattern.
!
(Verse)
A : B :: C ; D
(Converse) B : A :: D : C
(alternate of the verse)
(converse of that alternate)
(alternate of the converse)
(converse of the alternate of the converse)
(reversing the ratios)
C : D :: A : B
(converse of the reversed ratio)
D : C :: B : A
A : C :: B : D
C : A :: D: B
B : D :: A : C
D : B :: C : A
!
Signs of symmetry within the transformation of a four term analogy:
!
Taking the alternate set first:
!
Taking the non-alternate sets
!
!
!
A : C ::
C : A ::
B : D ::
D : B ::
B:D
D: B
A:C
C:A
A : B :: C ; D
B : A :: D : C
C : D :: A : B
D : C :: B : A
Joseph:
Good. Then analogy functions to express complex idea and it achieve that
goal by comparing both the ratios and the terms so that we can see how they
function within an analogy. For it is by contrasting similar ordered pairs, or terms,
!39
other than itself, yet similar to itself in some fundamental way that we find their
inner connection. The terms within each ratio belong to the same idea, or are
members of the same class, and they can be arranged either high to low or low
to high depending entirely on the ordering of the ratios.
Brian:
All true, but apart from the beauty, what significance do you find in these
patterns of symmetry?
Joseph:
Well, beyond what we have already covered, I would say that symmetry is
the name given to the property of analogy. When we say there is evidence of
symmetry in physics what we are really saying is that nature can be understood
as a highly ordered structure of analogical relations. When Emment Noether
found that the principle of symmetry plays an organizing role in nature many
discoveries followed her insight. It means that behind what was once thought of
as random arrangement of things and forces there is in reality a simple intelligent
struture of analogies, Even on the subatomic level of things there is evidence of
rational structures that can even be said to possess supersymmetry. The
problem that presents itself is the origin or source of that kind of intelligence. For
surely the more sophisticated the kind of knowledge the more the mystery of its
origin. Naturally, we can assume the existence of intilligence or mind throughout
existence, but most cannot make that assumption. If this kind of superior knowing
exists throughout nature then we our culture lacks it, ignores it, and argues
against it. The reason we ignore it is that its presence will bring us to act in
accordance with that intelligence. We allow the irrational in our society to go
unchallenged and that benefits many. It must allow these different kinds of
knowledge to benefit their particular kind of subjects. Most tolerate the irrational
because we believe there is no basis for justice nor for truth. Yet, these ideas
must stand behind a supersymmetry of the cosmos and in the life of man.
Brian:
Those notiions, as I call them, are not part of our education and are
considered merely subjective. You follow the role of knowledge in individuals
dont you? You explore human problems and, as I believe, you have found their
roots from the transmission of an early learning. However, might it not be argued
that you introduce those ideas into the minds of those people you work with?
Sure, I know you are good at it and I dont take that away from you, but for all
!40
that there are those who say you persuade the peopel you work with to go along
with your own ethic. If you dont mind my bringing it up I would say that symmetry
and its inherent intelligence is only a way of ordering ideas and these ideas do
not possesss any power or kinship with truth and justice, or, as i prefer to call it,
fairneess.
Joseph:
Perhaps, but if we look at each of the arts that we mentioned I wonder if
you agree that the success of each depends to a large measure on whether the
subject is willing to go along with the diagnosis and the suggested treatment?
Must not the subject have to decide if they are better off taking or rejecting the
advice being offered? Is not that willingness a sign that they recognise that the
ideas being expressed about theier condition is likely to be true?
Brian:
Sure thing, I agree entirely. However, i dont see that it answers the
question or the issue.
Joseph:
The question you raise is an important one and it has interesting
consequences. The issue is whether or not a series of questions have the power
to open up a problem or if the question functions much like a catalist that prepare
the mind to see what is there to be seen. When someone is exploring the roots
of their power through a carefully structured set of questions we find again and
again that the questions bring one to the point of achieving an insight into what
formerlay bblocked them, A block is a kind of lid over problems that has imposed
upon them the sacrifice of what they they experiences as a freeedom or
openness. This openness is what was seen as irreconcible with ones the clans
values. The particlurlar thing they was taken issue with did not have the force to
chanllage the stability of the class belief. Ratherm it was this untold violation that
necessessity the heavy handed imposotion of the a rule. From this imposotion
the thing object to is foreighted, but the real tragedy is that the state of mind that
accoumpaied it was probited. The questions that can bring a person to face that
early event, to see it as a probition is one thing but to see that behind it was
another prised free and open state is quite another thing. The questions that can
bring someone to review with the utmost care these early scenes has the power
to revive and recover what was previosuly put away. It can not be available for
nurture and growth. It is a return to what was confiscated.
!41
!
Brian:
I havent gotten that far in my work. I suspect there is more for me to see.
I drop out of looking, Yes, these question have power. They can and do open up
those who go through it. I have seen some people go through it and it is quite an
amazing thing.
Joseph:
But, there is more to` see, there is more. There is always a counter-attack
against that insight. There is always the urging to bring back into the fold those
who gfain and insight into this drama. It has the power to compromise on the
insight, to diminish it, and in that reveral the state of freedom and openness is
reduced, is belittle, and render less than it was. Here is the second task. Here is
the new goal. One must face this counter-attack and trace it to those learning
that trapped the soul from its mature flight into unlimited possibilities. So, now
we return to the question, did the questions unmask the problem? Did the power
of tese question produce the spark that ignoted that freeing insight? Are such
questions like the surgeons knife in an operation? Is it like a flashight problbing
in the darkness to reveal what needs to be seen? All of these have a power and
when joined with a subject who own desire is to be free it is this joinging of the
two that breaks through. For, the power that can open the mind to its own folloy
and awaken it to its inhibiting structures is the very condition for the excerise of
the fullness of the mind.
Brian:
Yes, it does have power. It can open the mind to a new kind of future.
What would you mean by calling it the mind?
Joseph:
Perhaps, we need to raise the issue so that we can see it better. Would
you agree that what is really at work here is a rational prophecy? Must the
subject weigh the consequences of either taking or not taking the advice? Is that
not a way of trying to anticipate ones future?
!
!
Brian:
Well, I guess it is a rational prophecy, never thought of it in those terms.
Joseph:
!42
And, would you add that each of the subjects recognize they lack the
knowledge and if they wish to participate in the benefit they must allow and be
willing to participate in the process? Surely, knowing the possible advantages of
the knowledge being administered on them they realize they must be willing to
accept the commands of the practitioners to gain the benefit. The benefit they
may receive is perceived as a kind of goodness that is essential to themselves
and without which they would live an inferior life to that which is possible.
Brian:
Yes, that is true. Each does receive a benefit that to them brings about a
better way of being or a particular kind of good, or some kind of goodness. I
guess the idea of shepherding runs through them all. You know this business of
benefit and getting things better looks very much like a necessity. I think thats
right because thats the way things ought to be.
Joseph:
Yes, it really is to our advantage to work together to experience these
states of mind.
Brian:
Reflecting like this kind of brings these things together into a nice
package, Surely, it brings to the forefront what always has an advantage for us.
This dwelling on these states of mind has a suggestion of concord to them, at
least, thats the kind of impression it makes on me. I see how you are bringing
these other notions to fill in the idea of the Logos.
Joseph:
Well, there is a justice to it all, isnt there. And, that very cultivation of
these states of mind need to have names on them. I wonder what name we
could assign to them as a unity. If they can come together as a unity it would not
be surprising if we were able to name it.
!
Brain:
You know that I sense that when I see friends of our getting into dream
work that these states of mind have to be there. They see the necessity to have
their dreams reviewed, they sure believe they will benefit by having the review, it
benefits them entirely and by that I mean they rush up to give you copies of their
!43
dreams to be reviewed so there is no doubt they see it to their advantage. No

doubt about their gaining insight into their problems, and there are always
surprises and a few are astonished to discover that they have gained.
Joseph:
I recall having seen you at some of the Noetic Society functions and I did
notice you took a particular interest when we were reviewing dreams. Did you
end up volunteering a dream for review at the Society. I ask that because it is
obvious that you were very attentive and interested in these reviews. Can you
tell me what you saw?
Brian:
I dont think I could spill my guts in public the way some of those at the
Society do. A private talk is one thing, but in public, no. I dont understand how
your group can just go and put up on the board before every body the way their
families screwed them. On top of that I have seen you and other members of
your group take dreams and demonstrate, by a strange way of understanding,
just how the dreams mirror the past. It lets you see how the screwed up family
teachings and apply to misery and problems they experience in their present
circumstances. It sounds like cognitive psychology only they would never make
such claims and you guys under whats-his-name have been doing just that for
years. You know what? I have seen it work again and again but I still not sure
that it is necessary to understand it in the terms that you use.
Joseph:
Thats very interesting because you do see whats going on. I would risk
saying that you were seeing a bit of justice taking place, were you not?
Brian:
Perhaps, I dont often find an occasion to use that idea. I pull back when I
hear discussions on the dream master. The worst of it all is the idea that the
master craftsman of our dreams is some kind of a deity. Sure, your group names
it the Dream Master, really thats a step into the twilight zone of mythology.
Joseph:
You know, Raymond, when I hear that name, Dream Master, I have
wondered about the same thing, too. However, if it can be supported by
!44
sufficient evidence, it is really significant even if I, too, may be reluctant to admit

to you or anyone that the Dream Master truly exists.
Brian:
Well, Joseph, I have always admired your caution in these things and I like
the way you proceed cautiously in these kinds of inquires about justice and truth.
Joseph:
Thanks, kind words are always good to hear, but what if we assume what
you have said is true, and then what can we say about dream work and how it
relates to the crises one faces in ones life.
Brian:
All right, then I guess I would have to say that what you and your group
are doing benefits those who are willing to risk looking at their present and past.
Joseph:
And, how is it similar or different from those kinds of knowledge we
discussed earlier?
Brian:
Oh, my gosh, it fits. It is a kind of knowledge that when applied benefits
the subject. Yes, I see where you are going because it does benefit in a more
vital and personal way than all the other arts. Say, this Dream Master that you
want to say designs dreams out of the material of ones past and present
conflicts opens a door into metaphysics and that is strictly taboo.
Joseph:
The academic world has trouble getting out of the 19th Century view of
Science as the paradigm of knowledge and on top of that you inherited a Stoic
psychology. All because it supports common sense and since that makes it
neutral or silent about to a whole bunch of things to wonder about. It ends up
being boring.
Brian:
End the boredom, strike up the band, and lets all sing in praise of the
Dream Master. Is that what you want?
Joseph:
!45
Have you thought that this worry about introducing the idea of the Dream
Master may be the worry that you might be accused on believing in new spiritual
things instead of the God the state believes in?
Brian:
I get your point. It is just that the idea would just shake up the crazies and
we have enough of the tea party already. The idea you are importing here is
clever indeed. You are again filling in the power of the mind as something that
has power, knowledge, and maybe an art, right? In any case that is a far cry
from what is being dished out in the schools.
Joseph:
Yes, our so-called education is silent before problems of existence and
feeds people a bland dish of mush some defend as being neutral and thats
called common sense. They ignore puzzles and things to wonder about. We
dont dare to even discuss why or how we might have gained an existence, or
what happens after death. Without learning to speculate we become silent and
stupid about the great questions and so we live our lives boxed into the present.
We have been taught we come into the world with a blank slate and all
differences can be traced to genes without asking why some are born to inherit
what they have been born with. You guys pound into the heads of the young that
whatever we experience are only impressions of the world experienced within a
shell where the self lives and suffers and occasionally experiences joy. What we
teach people is that we are locked into a box with no windows and can never
know if the impressions we experience within us resemble anything in the so
called external world. So, no one can truly risk saying they say know he self is
knowable. The psychology based upon rat behavior makes us all strangers to
one another. To hide from this nonsense we create the need for intense
experiences so we build a world of fierce entertainment and fight periodic
religious wars to dominate the earth so the few gain riches and the rest left in
poverty. Progress you teach is a fiction because it is the cause of poverty.
Brian:
We inherited a system and we live within it. The kind of changes you want
go in a direction no one has any faith in. Its best to leave these kinds of
reflections up to the individual and not impose them upon people.
Joseph:
!46
Without students learning that there is meaning and truth to be discovered

they come to a conclusion and we know what it is. They conclude it is best to live
for oneself, they become passive before issues that threaten their lives, and so
they cannot make or achieve anything of worth. Their sense of self is diminished
into nihilism. They spend their lives busy with meaningless chores in the hopes of
material reward while knowing the forces they ignore lot to steal from them
whatever they do accumulate. I do think you have been part of our culture and
shared in this emptiness.
Brian:
I have heard this before. We give people the tools they need and leave
them to work out a philosophy. It is safer that way and you keep the crazies
away from your doorsteps. You cant introduce meaning and have various
religions continuously drum into young peoples ears that it is by faith and belief
that they are saved.
Joseph:
So, what do we get from these halls of learning? They cant participate in
mindful ways of being, havent learned to talk with one another, they dont know
that they can know thyself so they end up with degrees of learning and march off
like the three bears that cant see, speak, hear, or speak to one another. So,
what happens to them? They want everything for themselves and are spiritual
zombies leaving nothing of value behind them. They may have power, but they
are powerless to find meaning. Together what are they? They can only plot
destruction of the earth, they cant bring others to work to save the earth because
they have been taught all is random and life has no meaning. With this as their
inheritance from ivy league schools the are impotent and unable to bow to
anything except their bible of Nietzsches rantings.
Brian:
Sounds like you have little hope for man. Our schools and culture are
dead to your kind of meaning. They dont even know enough of it to argue
against it. They couldnt come together to change anything because they dont
trust what you believe in and that is Man. You want to bring changes and there is
no standard around to use to measure our faults. In terms of what you want it is
simple. There is no return to values because we are truly ignorant of how to
return to something we dont truly know. Ill tell you the truth about schools and
!47
culture and that is that there is no belief that there is any goodness to make
things better.
Joseph:
Well, it is true then that you see it all and have the sense that nothing can
be done. I think that you think that the task is too big for our age. Am I right
about that?
Brian:
Sure I have heard much of this before and it is true. So, if you are asking
what I do in the face of all this? Well, for one thing your view is so ancient that it
would be rejected out of hand. There is no turning back. Further, behind your
kind of philosophy is metaphysical, thats what. I tell you something in turn.
When I want to relax I get into sports, I can get into the excitement of it, and I can
see how people and kids can put their hearts into baseball and soccer. We can
get carried along with the game and it opens our hearts and spirit to whats really
going on. The outside world, all the corruption and phoniness is set aside, it
doesnt exist, as you follow the game to its final act there is nothing else. The
heart goes where you find freedom, thats all. Its enough.
Joseph:
You are right about that and it can get you into that state of mind. But,
what I was pointing to is to get that out-pouring of your spirit into the mind. I
didnt mean to put down your love of sports; it is a fine thing, but what about life
and death, tears and suffering, and the mystery of it all
I would risk the opinion that if you say nothing they'll conclude there is
nothing worth saying or doing.
Brian:
As for lifes mysteries, Im no stranger to that sort of thing. I have shed a
good number of tears and laughed as much as anyone. I guess I doubt that
there is as much to it as you have found. I know you and others can get into an
all sorts of things, but for me, right now there is so much to life that is in front of
me that I leave a lot of stuff for others. Maybe Ill look into it later. You play in a
game that draws only a few players, I like the crowd, and you dont. Look what
you get into and you know as well as I that even the low end of what you get into
isnt noticed. Maybe I am waiting for the crowd to roar, but you know dont you
that your interest in analogy is given little credibility.
!48
!
Joseph:
As usual, what you say makes sense. If you dont express what needs to
be said you leave unsaid what is important to have said. We do live in a world
where there are many games to play. However, its your role at that citadel of
learning that I was concerned about. As the custodians of common sense I
imagine you find it best to ignore the challenge of the mind. Lets end the
charges and ask one simple question, If you accept the role of symmetry in
science and nature, how can you ignore the role analogy plays because
symmetry is the manifestation of analogical transformations, isnt it?
Brian:
I guess you can say that but I still have reservations about the whole thing.
To discuss the importance of symmetry may already crosses the line. All kinds of
things follow if you go on speculating about the implications of the existence of
symmetry. Double if you push the idea of symmetry and explore its role in Nature
and psychology and philosophy. If you want schools to push a new paradigm like
symmetry you are naive about the nature of education and how our schools
function. We teach what is accepted and if there are changes they come
gradually and they must fit with the other ideas otherwise you have division and
divisiveness among the faculty.
In schools you can't support something that needs your total involvement
as a central figure because that is the guru game. It simply would not be
tolerated unless, of course, it attracts not a following but money.The academic
game is publish or perish. Your there to increase knowledge and that means
add another paper to the pile. Get someone to quote you. The whole game is to
teach so that you can publish stuff. Forget about whether it is meaningful or not.
If someone quotes you you have done your job and can keep your job. Look at
me because I am stepping out of that circle. Sure I am cautious and taking baby
steps, but I know the risk of going down this road you are on.
Joseph:
You may be right about our educational system being unable to share in
some new fundamental paradigm shift. Where can it take off. We know we are
looking to the web and this new mode of media presentation it offers. A new kind
of understanding is likely to be spread through the arts, through drama, comedy
and interpersonal confrontations we can watch on our computer screens. What
!49
must come is a new kind of understanding that has the power to open the minds
of the young and turn them away from nihilism to the world of meaning.
Now, what is needed is a different kind of literature. When it comes it
sure would be more challenging than what's out there. Most likely it would
include the use of analogies, allegories, parables, symbols, similes, and
metaphors because in getting into it change would like follow.
!
!
Brian:
Sure thing, only why not say what you think would put push this forward.
Joseph:
Could a class include what is going on around here? Why not go for
broke? Why not put it all on the table for one roll of the dice? Why not present
the problems students face in their struggles explored through the way of
philosophical midwifery? Why not turn the system around by examining its
failures. Why not show videos of actual real people exploring real problems,
why not explore artists struggling to create? There is a drama going on in front of
us and it is intelligible. They can be resolved. Why not make that the center
piece of the education.
Brian:
If your stuff were put on display as the core teaching, what would you
single out to be the highlight so all the rest could fit around it?
Joseph:
I would present what I have seen because I know it would be as
meaningful to students as it is and was to me.
!
Joseph:
You may have forgotten a few things, important things.
Brian:
Is that all?
Joseph:
I have seen those who were blocked by an acceptance of ones false
beliefs break free to enlightenment experiences. The breakthrough happened
when they challenged the power of their false beliefs about themselves. I have
witnessed dream reviews where the dreamer and was led to recall very vital
!50
things in a new way that freed them from their self imposed blindness. It is quite
possible for some who had experienced Buddhist satori experiences, to have
ignored their true import, and, much later, through analysis of their dreams got
them to recall from recent dream of theirs a forgotten enlightenment experience
until it was recalled and experienced during the dream analysis. This is what my
friends at the Noetic Society have witnesses and it has brought hem to discuss
the issue of the double meaning.
Brian:
Well, I cant say I have not heard of it, thats true. It is hard to believe thats
whats truly going on. So, whats this double meaning?
Joseph:
The dream experience can be recalled, relived in the present, with the
new kind of understanding and it also sheds light upon both itself and all that it
relates to and it does this in one splendid experience of meaning.
Brian:
I like that stuff about enlightenment. So, maybe Id put your philosophy
on top of our list of what you call arts.
Joseph:
Say, Brian, I have a curious question for you. From what you have seen
about the Noetic Societys study of dreams could you say that whatever it is that
creates the dreams it appears that the craftsman must be seeing something
similar between ones present problems and their origin in ones past?
Brian:
Yes, thats likely.
Joseph:
I asked that because each of the objects one experiences in a dream
represent objects that have personal meaning to the subject. I mean that
houses, cars, grass and trees, and all of such things are there because they
represent something personally important to the subject. Thus, the objects of
dreams are metaphors.
Brian:
!51
Well, thats what a metaphor means, taking something for something else.
Joseph:
The words, or thoughts, that accompany the actions in the dream are
ways we function. The way we feel, or the states of mind that accompany each
scene are similar to what we have experienced in the present and past. Thus,
the inner states of mind experienced by the dreamer are similes.
!
!
Brian:
Right again, if a simile means saying something is like something else.
Joseph:
Good, now, the drama of the dream is a representation of something of
significance for us to see and understand. Then after noting this again and again
we can say that the drama of a dreams captures the conflict we face in the
present and links them to the origin of these conflicts in ones youth or other
major learning scenes later in life.
!
!
Brian:
True, the dream I had that we explored had that very feature.
Joseph:
If this is so then this Dream Master must know each of us with
astonishing accuracy and a scope that includes our most meaningful quest. Is
this not a most sacred property of dreams? For, it brings into a profound unity
the things that it relates together for our personal benefit? Bringing all that to us
in a multimedia show that captures our attention completely. Would you agree
that you have seen how the logos must be assumed to be the source of the
Dream Masters art?
Brian:
Yes, it is quite an art form and it source must be capable of being its
offspring. Sure enough we are the stars of the show and identify with it. Id give
it 5 stars and an Oscar Award.
Joseph:
If dreams have these features in it then they take on the classical form of
the allegory.
!52
!
Brian:
Correct me on this, but I believe an allegory is a story that presents a
drama of spiritual significance, or universal meaning that is presented in one set
of terms and the viewer must find all the parallels in their own personal life. Plato
I recall uses them often, right?
Joseph:
Yes, those who have successfully explored his allegory of the cave and
the upper world know what the kind of challenge and effort it takes to unravel
allegorical constructions.
!
!
!
!
!
Brian:
And, you are saying it takes the same skill with dreams, right?
Joseph:
Yes, and as one gains skill in the one so they gain skill in the other.
Brian:
It must be like learning a new language, or way of reasoning.
Joseph:
True, say, Raymond, what holds all the features of a dream together?
Brian:
!
!
Meaning, just meaning.

Joseph:
And, what of the author or maker?
Brian:
Yes, I am not without appreciation of it. You made your point. The Dream
Master must have majored in the study of drama. He, or maybe she, must have
a firm grasp on how to present personal dramas fit it into a drama of meaning.
Crafty little guy, the dream Master is.
Joseph:
!53
One other thing, do you agree from what you have seen that many of us
cannot say which of the problems we face in our everyday life are the most
important for us to solve? Let me put it in other terms. Could the pope have a
dream that indicated that his position and path was empty of meaning and that
he ought to quit and persude another more loft goal?
Brian:
You know that it might have happened since our recent Pope did quit.
Your point is interesting to me. You are suggesting, no you are advancing the
idea that everyone who has chosen their own particular spiritual path may be
mistaken and should follow a different route than the one they have taken if there
dreams show that very point, right? Yes, I know it may be disguised and the
dreamer will have to figure that conclusion out for themselves. .
Joseph:
Then we can add to the value of dream analysis this rather important
point. For, if dreams even pass in review and can critize our own noblest of
choices then we need to add that excellence to the status of the dream master.
Brian:
Yes, he may just become their guru of choice, their personal teacher of
wisdom, and to top it off, its free. For me I still cant go from the logical necessity
of some idea to its existence. Sure some dreams have a high degree of
meaning, but we both know, that one flower doesnt make a spring. You would
have to show that every dream has such depth and meaning and that is
impossible, at least thats what I believe. So, attributing a spiritual meaning to all
dreams is too much of a leap. I had believed that the bulk of dreams were
empty of meaning and there was no way they could fit into some philosophy.
Now, I wonder about that.
Joseph:
So, now as you consider it, what would say in this idea of the dream
master that is so unbelieveable?
Brian:
First off, all the people on the earth capable of dreaming would have to be
served on a very high level of spiritual and philosophical meaning, Dreams occur
several times each night, every life form anywhere in this vast cosmos would
!54
have to be served in a like degree and kind. Not just once, but every single
time. For how long must this master of dreams be working? Throughout all time,
in every possible universe, for all time. The scope is immense as its precision
would have to be startling accurate. To have the power to do that would be
incredible, the sense of justice would have to be perfect as too its sense of
whats right for each living thing that dreams.
Joseph:
Do you recall that fine list of what we called the arts? It went from mastery
of sailing ships to mastery over sheep.
!
!
Brian:
Yes, I do. Why do you ask?
Joseph:
Just as we did before, can you tell me what must be the conditions for
those arts to function as they do? Surely, whatever they share in common must
exist independent of each, do you agree?
Brian:
Maybe.
Joseph:
Would you want to say that each of the other arts brings together all the
knowledge necessary for each to function ideally and then learn how to
particularize that knowledge for their art to meet the needs of each? Is it not true
that it is because each art has the ability to make an analysis, or diagnosis, and
can design a corrective procedure, or treatment, to bring its subjects to a more
ideal state?
Brian:
Yes, I agree these things would be or should be common to them all.
They must all drink from the same fountain.
Joseph:
Then in that fountain there must be the highest member of the class.
Would it not have all those things we called its primary ideas, like knowledge,
caring, and protecting? I ask that because if in a hierarchical order the highest
!55
terms must have the qualities in a superior or superlative form, than the other
arts. Is that not so?
Brian:
Yes, that seems to follow, but logic can be perilous sometimes and often
boring.
Joseph:
Perhaps, but you do know that if one were guided by the idea of goodness
it wouldnt be boring. I do think that you would agree that there is a greater peril
is turning away from the mind.
Brian:
Sure, except that I always feel cautious before making these kinds of
conclusions.
Joseph:
Then let us reflect on the hierarchical order of these arts together, would
you not say that each art seeks to benefit? Consider each of them.
Brian:
Sure thing.
Joseph:
Say, is not benefit another word for goodness?
Brian:
Sure.
Joseph:
Is it not true that these arts are able to offer a benefit because each
possesses the kind of knowledge that when applied to a willing subject can aid
them to achieve a more ideal state than previously, or overcome a deficiency?
Brian:
Sure.
Joseph:
!56
And, would it be possible to achieve that goal if the ideal for that art were
not clearly appreciated and known by the person who possesses the art?
Brian:
No, it would be needed.
Joseph,
Must not those who practice an art always strive for a clearer idea of
excellence?
Brian:
Yes.
Joseph:
Is not the difference between the ideal and the condition of the subject the
measure of the need for that art? And the goal of the art would diminish or
eliminate that difference?
Brian:
!
!
!
True enough.
Joseph:
To reach that goal they are guided by their knowledge?
Brian:
No they would do their best to master their art.
Joseph:
So, they do their best to keep their mind focused on that ideal as they do
what they do and say what they must? And, this guides the application of their
art, does it not? So, too, the treatment, or application, varies as it does with the
conditions of the subject?
Brian:
Sure thing.
Joseph:
!57
Can we not rank these arts so that the higher in rank the more the
knowledge can bestow a benefit, or goodness?
Brian:
Sure.
Joseph:
Does not each of these arts function to pass on its good such that the object
receives the benefit?
Brian:
Pass on? I guess so.
Joseph:
What about this, then if it uses, functions, or passes on its kind of
knowledge is that not that passing on a form of communication? And, what is
communicated is a good, or a benefit?
Brian:
I think so.
Joseph:
Does it select or give goodness to whatever is capable of receiving it? Is
it only limited by the failure of the subject to accept or receive the goodness that
is being bestowed?
Brian:
Yeah.
Joseph:
Would you consider the idea of benefit with me? It is an interesting idea.
Those who possess the art of shepherding apply their knowledge to benefit the
condition of the sheep and so too does the physicians art benefit his patients,
but which art would you say confers a greater benefit?
Brian:
!58
The doctors knowledge would excel that of the shepherds art. The
doctors art would introduce a different level of excellence than that of the other
arts, too.
Joseph:
However, would not a tyrant, a truly vivacious man, be benefited by each
of these arts without having become any better himself?
Brian:
I can imagine a dialogue like that. It would be something to see and hear.
What if it were possible? It would become a classic to study, like a philosopher
midwifing Hitler.
Joseph:
Sure thing, the proper study of man is to explore and understand the
forces and powers at work in the formation of the tyrant, the saint, and the fool
because it would open up the study of the mind by studying the mind.
Brian:
I see your point; you want to say that the only true art is your art of
midwifery, right? I see that you are going along to a conclusion.
Joseph:
Well, if benefit means to share in some goodness then the tyrant needs
our art to be truly benefited.
Brian:
So, your point it that only a philosophy that includes your art can be called
an art and maybe you are saying that and that alone is actually philosophy. I
think that you are also saying something I find interesting and that is that your
philosophical midwifery is the companion of the dream master, right?
Joseph:
Thanks for concluding for me. Later, it would be important for you to bring
each of our points into a conclusion other wise you jsut might agree with the last
point without seeing how the many points come into a unity to bring the
conclusiion into existence.
!59
Brian:
Ill do that, but for now I would like to confirm that the arts must have a
clear idea of their ideal, because you are saying that they alone must be the ones
who truly know that ideal, right?
Joseph:
Before I answer that answer one more question. What is it the arts do?
Do they seek to put into their subject an excellence or do they seek to remove
the blocks and deficiencies that inhibit that excellence from emerging?
Brian:
Now, that is curious.
Joseph:
Then those who truly possess an art believe that excellence is natural to
their subject and only wish to restore that excellence to its fuller expression.
!
!
Brian:
Curious point you are making, Joseph.
Joseph:
Then each art has a knoweldge not of excellence itself, but in its particular
expression within a certain arena. What then makes it their task to study and
seek not a partuclar excellence, but excellence itself?
Brian:
I believe you are going to say that is the philosophers task to understand
excellence. Interesting. However, Joseph, I would like to see just how you
compare these arts together with philosophical midwifery.
Joseph:
Yes, that may be needed here. So, lets review a few things. First, all the
arts offer some benefit, but our art is the only one that brings the realization that
dreams are always accessible, to us, that they occur every night, and that they
continuously flow and challenge our lives. We ignore dreams while dreams
interrupt our slumbering sleep as our daydreams interrupt our waking world.
All the other arts have to wait for the subject to recognize their distress or
need before they apply their external procedures and they have to monitor the
!60
progress of their procedures before they can judge if what they have done has
benefited their subjects.
The dream master is continuously outpouring for our benefit and certainly
does not wait for us to recognize our problems, rather shows us where to look for
the most urgent and meaningful problem to explore, which is the one that we
never suspect we have. So, our task with dreams is to comprehend them. Not
so with the other arts. Each of them functions properly only when the willing
subject is acted upon. For, the subject is passive. Most importantly, no patient is
required to understand medicine before they can be helped. It is the same for
the relationship between the captain and his crew because no member of the
crew is required to master seamanship in order to gain from his Captains
knowledge of seamanship. All the other arts must find some way to be
compensated and, so, to survive they must learn the skill of managing contracts,
or of the merchant, unless they possess independent means for their survival.
Who can compensate the dream master for those masterful insightful
productions that are sent to us? Notice, then, with our philosophical art how
different it is from other arts. First, with our art we cannot be passive, but must
learn the very art ourselves in order to see what must be seen. We are given a
gift and to comprehend it we have to learn the language of the dream master. To
understand the dream we have to ask questions about every part of it and to
learn to see how we function within dreams or we will fail to gain an insight into
our present, past, and our future.
The gift the Dream Master is through communicating goodness, a
goodness that we are in desperate need to understand. The philosophical
midwife does not create some interpretation, some construction, and no the
philosophical midwife only asks questions as it draws the meaning from those
who participate in her art.
Brian:
Now, that was very good. Simple and complete. The logos stands behind
the arts as excellence and goodness makes our uniques development. I think
that is complete, or have I left soemthing out?
Joseph:
Well,, we havent discussed the role of daydreams nor contemplation in
our art.
Brian:
Whats this about daydreams? You mentioned it before, but I let it pass.
!61
!
Joseph:
The shadow of everyones problem is supported by their daydreams.
There are different kinds of daydreams, actually there are five kinds, but for now
just consider those that occur whenever you are focused on some goal. Then
daydreams spontaneously occur and offer an image of yourself playing out some
drama. If you study them youll see they are all failures or end in some tragedy.
They act out the fundamental false beliefs, or pathologos, that are akin to either
the false images we accept about ourselves or function as a counter attack to our
goals,
Brian:
I never suspected daydreams had anything in them that would be
worthwhile to study. You know, Joseph that is something I will watch for while I
am doing this paper. I think maybe I have seen something about it already.
Joseph:
There is nothing that the mind communicates to us that is empty of
meaning. Even so called random thoughts are not random. So, from random
thoughts to elements of theology, each plays a vital role in our philosophy.
Brian:
I can follow what you say and I enjoy it, but I stll believe we dont really
need what you call the principles of theology.
Joseph:
I can understand your reluctance. However, are you acquainted with the
idea that the elements of theology are a complete system of propositions that
show the rational necessity for assuming an intelligible cosmos? It is a guide
worth your while to follow.
Brian:
!
!
Is it Plato?
Joseph:
It is most clearly in Proclus.
Brian:
!62
Well, how does it reach this so called intelligible?
Joseph:
It is by reflecting upon the principles of the mind that you can learn about
the rational structure of the cosmos and its source.
Brian:
Maybe it is a foolish question to ask, but how do you know all this
rationality really exists?
Joseph:
If what you find proceeds rationally it must be. To go beyond seeing the
necessity of its existence you can always seek to experience it directly.
Brian:
Ill put that aside that idea of experiencing directly whatever that would be.
Id like to see how your art can benefit through the study of theology.
Joseph:
Good. You are asking if one benefits by knowing the origin of ones
existence, or source. Now, let us start from what we have already agreed to. If
we consider our philosophical art and that of the Dream Master we can ask if
they are derived from some other cause superior and more perfect than they are.
If there is some thing more profound and essential to them it might stand to them
as a copy stands to a model. If so then both of these most noble arts are
shadows of something beyond them.
!
!
!
Brian:
I see I have to assume a lot to make this step. So, whats the model?
Joseph:
First, what if what proceeds from a model must lose a level of reality?
Brian:
Sure enough I can see that because there is always an essential
difference between you and seeing an image of yourself in a mirror.
Joseph:
!63
Isnt that difference seen as we move from the art of philosophy and that
of the dream master?
Brian:
Sure enough.
Joseph:
And, a similar difference must exist if the dream masters art is a copy of
something higher and is its model, right?
Brian:
I guess so.
Joseph:
Then if we have found that we can posit goodness that functions through
the highest of the arts, that of philosophical midwifery, which of course, is a level
of above the other arts, then the next stage of goodness must be that of the
dream master.
Brian:
I see how you say that.
Joseph:
Again, if the goodness that proceeds from the dream master is a special
case of goodness then its parent, its origin, must be a goodness that does not
need knowledge but acts without the need of relationships and is a ceaseless
outpouring of goodness. If the model must be a step beyond the copy.
!
!
Brian:
Hold it, if it has no knowledge it is not an art, right?
Joseph:
Correct.
Brian:
So, it is not ant art, but it is the source of the arts and the source of the
Dream Masters art. So, whats the model?
!64
Joseph:
Well, if it communicates anything, and if what it communicates is good,
then it exercises providence toward all beings
Brian:
What, providence?
Joseph:
Yes, that is what is behind that term. What can be said that communicates
goodness to all beings is providence and it is prior to the intelligence since it
does not particularize or select, but flows freely to all.
!
!
!
Brian:
Logically, it might follow, but I find little use of the term.
Joseph:
Were you going to say why?
Brian:
Well, I have little interest in that idea because I long ago rejected there
could be any providence that could be linked to God. How can a God who is at
war with evil and would destroy all life just to save a few of his believers be called
Good? And, a God without being Good just doesnt soul like God to me. So,
simply, you can believe in God, but not in his providence.
Joseph:
Sure thing, but you are not rejecting the idea of providence, merely its
application in a monotheistic religion.
Brian:
Are you saying polytheism can co-exist with providence? Hardly, Id say.
Dont the Gods have wars in the heavens?
Joseph:
The Gods of ancient Greece are powers that take on a personification, a
human image, and function to represent certain of their interrelations presented
as Gods and their relationship with man.
!65
Brian:
I imagine thats your Plato and Proclus speaking. Id like to hear what that
Apollo up there on the shelf would say about all this.
Joseph:
He just might look around to see if Aphrodite and Hermes were ready to
join him as a triad.
Brian:
Sure, imagine what you would like, but what is providence like? Id like to
see an explanation or picture of what it really is.
Pierre:
We can easily see its likeness if we recall that each of the arts is directed
towards its object and functions to bestow a particular good to each so that it is
related to each by that bestowal. However, providence shines forth to all without
narrowing its focus to achieve any particular good for anything. It is like a
fountain of light that irradiates unceasingly on all and, so, has no particular
relation to any subject. For if it were in a relationship with anything it would have
a limited function and be inferior to that which gives forth freely through an
eternity of goodness.
Brian:
I dont appreciate theology, as you do. Yet, you seem to be quite at ease
finding connections with divinity and providence. I find it difficult to believe in
God.
Joseph:
It is a wasted of time, Raymond, to believe in God, rather try to
understand why the idea of Theos, or God as you say, is like a highest term
necessary to understanding the intelligible. If you say there is something good
and think there just might be a source of the goodness you enter theology, the
study of Theos.
!
!
Brian:
Takes a lot of work, doesnt it.
Joseph:
!66
None, whats so ever, only the highest kind of play.
Brian:
Tell me why you think the idea of providence needs a divine source, or a
Theos.
Joseph:
It is like listening to the music that stirs your soul to wonder. You need to
approach it with silent reverence, as if entering into the interior of a sanctuary
where you rest with an openness and respect for greatness. The source of the
most brilliant light of being, the divine radiance, is the Good because it is the
highest goal of ones desire and it is far beyond any predicate so august is it. Its
presence is that transfiguring luminosity that is the source of the luminosity of our
solar system. You can say the Good is to this divine luminosity as that luminosity
is to the sun. And, curiously, the mean term between that luminosity and the sun
is Apollo.
Brian:
So, the terms are in a mean analogy, arent they? You just stuck in Apollo
as the mean between the last two terms of your analogy, curious.
Joseph:
Perhaps, it is curious, but if between each levels you can find a likeness
then does that not mean that the terms have an analogical relationship? For if
three terms exhibit this feature would we not say that they form a mean analogy?
Then the metaphysical order conforms to the structure of a mean analogy.
Brian:
I guess so. Actually, I recall it said that that metaphysics is all based upon
analogy.
Joseph:
Yes, and among the possible analogies it is likely that you will include the
analogy that best represents creation.
Brian:
In what way?
!67
Joseph:
Of the two kinds of creation we often hear of the one but not of the other.
The creation of the cosmos, or what brought it into existence, is one and that of
dreams is another. The one brings the all into existence; the other brings it to
perfection. The ideal of perfection is bringing all the excellences into a divine
play. It presupposes that in the process of perfection that there is a protection or
guardian force that preserves what has been achieved, a purging of what is alien
to it, a turning away from illusion and folly, and a vitality that can maintain itself
through the process of perfection. These are the excellences that culminate in
perfection.
!
!
Brian:
That is some list of what you are calling excellences.
Joseph:
If you decide to enter into the elements of theology we can talk about how
those very excellences are the primary categories for all the Ancient Greek Gods.
Brian:
You mean that someone has already done that sort of thing? That would
be a fun lecture to give. You know, Joseph, it would give an interesting context to
study these Greek Gods.
!
!
Joseph:
Can I assume that you dont have time for that sort of thing now?
Brian:
Actually, I do have to do other things today. How does this connect with
providence?
Joseph:
The divine radiance that extends its luminosity over all that is radiates its
presence to all living things. This is goodness, a divine goodness, and since all
goodness is the quintessence of the highest excellence we can call it
Providence. As the flowing out of that goodness it extends itself as an allembracing magnificently beautiful mindful presence that captivates the soul into a
delight wondrous to behold and it brings to the soul the realization that it is no
stranger to the divine. As goodness it is twofold in its nature since being in itself
!68
is a divine luminosity and while transcends its objects its radiance radiates
through all bestowing goodness impartially on all. This, unceasing divine
irradiation throughout all he dimensions has the name of providence.
Brian:
Well, what do you know? You have the Providence as being prior to the
most brilliant light of Being. Look at the levels you just described.
Joseph:
Yes, since between each level you can find a likeness then would it not
mean that the terms have an analogical relationship? For if three terms exhibit
this feature would we not say that they form a mean analogy? Then the
metaphysical order conforms to the structure of a mean analogy. Among the
possible analogies it is likely that you will include the analogy that best
represents the creator and the created and also relates to the maker of dreams
and daydreams since these are both creations? Does this analogy include within
itself the power of the logos?
Brian:
Well, I see how you got there. It is indeed very interesting to follow along.
You have your idea of God, Providence, the most brilliant light of being, and
through it all you have the logos benefiting all living things. Well, maybe not all
things but those capable of participating in the logos.
Joseph:
I would add that providence being prior to the most brilliant light of being
uses as it were what is prior to intilligence and it is that you can call Mind and its
expression takes on the name, the logos.
Brian:
I must admit that I am impressed. You know that you are known not only
as a metaphysician, but as a poet too. Do you have to become an ancient
Hellenic to believe this kind of reasoning?
Joseph:
No, but if you like the reasoning you become part of that group called the
Noetics.
!69
!
!
Brian:
As great as they were, what do you wish that they had that we have now?
Joseph:
Yes, I have often wondered what Socrates and Plato would have thought
had they experienced a concert of Beethovens Tempest, the piano sonata
number 17, the D minor and, of course, his Emperor Concerto.
!
!
Brian:
Not our science or our military might? Why?
Joseph:
With Beethoven there is unparalleled greatness in music. There the
harmony and symmetry in sound reaches a high profoundly beautiful level that
sings to those who adore the majesty of the sacred. It is an entrance of the soul
to wonder and it brings one to the contemplation of the source of beauty.
!
!
Brian:
Tell the truth, Joseph, do you attribute that to some Greek divinity?
Joseph:
When you listen to those works you tell me what that kind of experience of
perfection the soul has reached and Ill mention the name that is seldom said in
this strange age we live in.
Brian:
Yeah, it wont be difficult to guess. Well, I did enjoy the talk and gained
much thanks. You know, Petes is a fine place for a talk. It is good to settle in
and talk here. How long have you known Brian:?
Joseph:
You could say that Ive known him for a long time. Did you know that he
is writing a book on beauty, as the least understood power in society? However,
before you go I have to point out that we failed to discuss as fully as we should
have the nature of Providence and how it matches the dream masters art. I say
that because you might want to explore my clumsy omission in some future talk.
!70
Brian:
You mean it is not complete? In what way?
Joseph:
Well, we ignored what providence is in itself, in what way it directly
influences others, the effect its presence has among these others, and how they
would relate to this providence. Equally, we failed to say in what way this realm
of providence would function if providence no longer functioned providentially.
However, we would need further insight into how this realm of providence is akin
to dreams, daydreams, and the dream maker. Now, I am sure you will benefit if
you continue this discussion with those people at the Noetic Society since I have
heard they like to speculate of these very issues.
!
!
!
!
!
Brian:
Ill do that and I will look forward to hearing more of that subject of beauty.
!71

Analogy and Dreams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analogy and Dreams

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analogy and Dreams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Friday, July 18, 2014

21,743 words pages 71

Analogy, Dreams, and the Logos

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

benefit upon subjects was discussed in terms of dreams and daydreams. I

Friday, July 18, 2014

as image thinking : belief :: understanding : knowledge

Since belief and understanding share an underlying sameness of belief

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

This analogy can also be expressed as:

The Good is to the most brilliant light of Being

The Good is to the most brilliant light of Being

Friday, July 18, 2014

The Good is the first term in the first ratio as

The Good is to a King as the brilliant light of being is to the Queen

The most brilliant light of Being is to a king

Friday, July 18, 2014

as the Sun is to a queen

as the Good births divine luminosity so it gives birth to the sun.

Friday, July 18, 2014

Sure thing, so what?

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

Well, that is a good start.

Friday, July 18, 2014

a shepherd is to his sheep as a king is to his subjects

Friday, July 18, 2014

note the sub numerals along r from 1 to .n

Friday, July 18, 2014

a king is to his subjects as a shepherd is to his sheep

and represent it in symbolic terms:

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

down to my bitter distrust for theology and metaphysics. I do believe it started

A shepherd is to his sheep

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

What is added that set theory lacks?

Friday, July 18, 2014

It already exists in Proclus Platonic Theology and in his Elements of

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

Sure thing, consider the order of the terms in an

a doctor is to his patients as a captain is to his crew

Recall that it is by the substitution of like for is to you generate similes

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014

doctor : patients :: shepherd : sheep

patients are to doctors as Sheep are to shepherds

Friday, July 18, 2014

Friday, July 18, 2014