"The Republic: Plato's Timeless Exploration of Justice, Politics, and the Philosopher's Quest"

"The Republic," translated by Benjamin Jowett, stands as a timeless cornerstone in the philosophical canon, an intellectual odyssey that navigates the intricate landscapes of justice, politics, and the philosopher's pursuit of truth. Penned by Plato in the 4th century BCE, this Socratic dialogue remains a foundational work in political philosophy, ethics, and metaphysics. Jowett's translation, undertaken in the 19th century, preserves the essence of Plato's probing inquiries and dialectical brilliance, allowing readers to engage with the profound ideas that continue to shape the foundations of Western thought.

Plato's magnum opus unfolds as a series of dialogues, primarily led by Socrates, engaging with various interlocutors. The central exploration revolves around the question of justice, which becomes a metaphorical vessel for the examination of the ideal state, the role of individuals within society, and the nature of knowledge itself. The allegory of the cave, the tripartite division of the soul, and the philosopher-king are just a few facets of this multifaceted work that have reverberated through the corridors of academia for centuries.

The dialogue begins with an inquiry into the nature of justice as Socrates engages with characters like Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. The discourse takes a dramatic turn as Plato introduces the allegory of the cave, an enduring metaphor for the journey from ignorance to enlightenment. This vivid imagery captures the transformative power of education and the philosopher's duty to ascend from the shadows of ignorance into the illuminating realm of true knowledge.

"The Republic" also ventures into the construction of an ideal state, led by philosopher-kings who possess both intellectual acumen and a commitment to the common good. Plato's vision challenges conventional notions of governance and explores the intricacies of a society governed by wisdom rather than mere political expediency. The dialogue delves into the organization of classes, the role of education, and the philosopher's ability to perceive the ultimate Form of the Good.

Benjamin Jowett's translation captures the nuances of Plato's intricate prose while maintaining accessibility for modern readers. His careful rendering of Socratic dialogues preserves the conversational tone and intellectual rigor that characterize the original work. Jowett's translation, though dated, remains widely used and respected, emphasizing the enduring appeal and significance of "The Republic" across generations.

"The Republic" is not merely an exploration of political theory; it is a profound meditation on the human condition. Plato's insights into the nature of knowledge, the complexities of justice, and the philosopher's role in society transcend the historical and cultural contexts in which they were conceived. The work prompts readers to question the foundations of their beliefs, to examine the societal structures they inhabit, and to consider the eternal pursuit of wisdom as a guiding principle.

In conclusion, "The Republic" by Plato, in Benjamin Jowett's translation, is a philosophical masterpiece that continues to shape the intellectual landscape. Its profound inquiries into justice, governance, and the nature of reality invite readers to embark on a philosophical journey that transcends time. The enduring relevance of Plato's ideas, coupled with Jowett's insightful translation, ensures that "The Republic" remains an indispensable text for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the complexities of human existence and the perennial quest for a just society.

Plato's "The Republic" is available in Amazon in paperback 16.99$ and hardcover 24.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 471

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

"The Republic: Plato's Timeless Exploration of Justice, Politics, and the Philosopher's Quest"

"The Republic," translated by Benjamin Jowett, stands as a timeless cornerstone in the philosophical canon, an intellectual odyssey that navigates the intricate landscapes of justice, politics, and the philosopher's pursuit of truth. Penned by Plato in the 4th century BCE, this Socratic dialogue remains a foundational work in political philosophy, ethics, and metaphysics. Jowett's translation, undertaken in the 19th century, preserves the essence of Plato's probing inquiries and dialectical brilliance, allowing readers to engage with the profound ideas that continue to shape the foundations of Western thought.

Plato's magnum opus unfolds as a series of dialogues, primarily led by Socrates, engaging with various interlocutors. The central exploration revolves around the question of justice, which becomes a metaphorical vessel for the examination of the ideal state, the role of individuals within society, and the nature of knowledge itself. The allegory of the cave, the tripartite division of the soul, and the philosopher-king are just a few facets of this multifaceted work that have reverberated through the corridors of academia for centuries.

The dialogue begins with an inquiry into the nature of justice as Socrates engages with characters like Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. The discourse takes a dramatic turn as Plato introduces the allegory of the cave, an enduring metaphor for the journey from ignorance to enlightenment. This vivid imagery captures the transformative power of education and the philosopher's duty to ascend from the shadows of ignorance into the illuminating realm of true knowledge.

"The Republic" also ventures into the construction of an ideal state, led by philosopher-kings who possess both intellectual acumen and a commitment to the common good. Plato's vision challenges conventional notions of governance and explores the intricacies of a society governed by wisdom rather than mere political expediency. The dialogue delves into the organization of classes, the role of education, and the philosopher's ability to perceive the ultimate Form of the Good.

Benjamin Jowett's translation captures the nuances of Plato's intricate prose while maintaining accessibility for modern readers. His careful rendering of Socratic dialogues preserves the conversational tone and intellectual rigor that characterize the original work. Jowett's translation, though dated, remains widely used and respected, emphasizing the enduring appeal and significance of "The Republic" across generations.

"The Republic" is not merely an exploration of political theory; it is a profound meditation on the human condition. Plato's insights into the nature of knowledge, the complexities of justice, and the philosopher's role in society transcend the historical and cultural contexts in which they were conceived. The work prompts readers to question the foundations of their beliefs, to examine the societal structures they inhabit, and to consider the eternal pursuit of wisdom as a guiding principle.

In conclusion, "The Republic" by Plato, in Benjamin Jowett's translation, is a philosophical masterpiece that continues to shape the intellectual landscape. Its profound inquiries into justice, governance, and the nature of reality invite readers to embark on a philosophical journey that transcends time. The enduring relevance of Plato's ideas, coupled with Jowett's insightful translation, ensures that "The Republic" remains an indispensable text for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the complexities of human existence and the perennial quest for a just society.

Plato's "The Republic" is available in Amazon in paperback 16.99$ and hardcover 24.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 471

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

Iamblichus’s De Anima & Philosophical Hermetic Influence?

Chapter 1. "Nature of The Soul”

I will be taking sentences and sections from chapter 1 and compare/expand on them to that of the Stobean, Corpus Hermetica, & the Definitions to Asclepius from Hermēs. (David Litwa’s ‘Hermetica 2’ & Brian Copenhaver’s ‘Hermetica.’ Jean-Pierre Mahé Definitions to Asclepius… [SH-CH-DH]).

Chapter 1–paragraph 1:

"I see in these categories much that is ambiguous and confused (for motions in the category of change are not be considered as identical with motions in the category of life, nor kinds of knowledge that involve imagination with those that transcend it, nor the sort of purity of essence proper to air with that of things essentially incorporeal), and much that is incomplete and inadequate (for it not possible to take in all the varieties of opinion under these three categories.)

Here we see Iamblichus refuting Aristotles ‘Physics’— namely, his idea of the tripartite soul:

Motion

Knowledge

Subtly of Essence (Incorporeal Substance)

To divide the soul into strictly three parts is too simple—given the nature of the soul, according to Iamblichus.

(Should be noted Iamblichus is known for over-generalizing his predecessors for the sake of argument, and he admits this a few times in his writings.)

I’m inclined to agree with Iamblichus, given The numerous references in philosophical Hermetica I have found to support this. Interestingly enough, SH 3 gives a Platonic tripartite function.

SH 3:4 tells that the "soul is ever moving and is always moves itself and energizes the motion in other beings." In verse 5 it gives three kinds of souls:

Divine

Human

Non-Rational

Though the last verse. SH 3:9, encourages us to look at the “4th type of soul” this is the Soul that is “to be the moving agent of inanimate beings. To me this seems like it could fall under Aristotles “Subtly of Essence” category, but until I investigate Aristotle myself, and inclined to agree with Iamblichus in the mean time.

Looking at CH XII [21]… “Soul” is indeed one of God’s limbs: "like wise the <limbs of God> are life, immortality, {fate}, necessity, Providence, Nature, SOUL & mind…"

So to me, again, I agree with Iamblichus on the ambiguity of the tripartite of the soul. (Until, I of course, study Aristotles and Plato’s tripartite soul more in depth, I see nothing wrong with agreeing with Iamblichus, until I find more time to study the nuances of all this.)

Paragraph 2

"Some trace back the essence of the soul to the first principles of the four elements. For the primal atomic bodies are more elemental even than the four elements; being unmixed and completely filled with pure primal essence, they do not receive in themselves any trace of division. These primal bodies possess an infinite number of forms, one among which is the spherical, and it is out of spherical atoms that, they say, the soul is constituted."

Here, Iamblichus is refuting the Atomist of his day, Democritus & Leucippus. I believe Iamblichus is saying here that souls have infinite possibilities of taking whatever form Nature has constructed.

Turning back to SH 3:4– the soul moves itself, and energizes all beings. Namely, the 4 elements alone, cannot energize all things. That is what Soul does. So, in Soul’s infinite number of forms, receives not division because it is indeed constituted, or causes by the All ( God).

Now looking CH II [12]

"God is not mind, but the cause of mind’s being; He is not Spirit, but the cause of spirit’s being…"

So God is the cause of Soul’s being, but He isn’t Soul. (that is another discussion!) in CH X, God’s activity is to Will All things into being. Thus, this makes me agree with Iamblichus. As far as the spherical atoms that make up the Soul—I looked to CH XII [1] to understand that and to me it makes sense. If gods are immortal humans and humans, mortal gods; so The spherical nature of “what constitutes the souls”, as Iamblichus purposes, is at least to me, Hermetically sound.

Now looking at DH 1:3

"Just as soul keeps up the figure (while being) within the body, which cannot possibly be constituted without a soul, likewise all of that is visible cannot possibly be constituted with out the invisible.”

This kind of rings back to SH 3:9 — that “4th kind of soul that moves inanimate objects. While I believe in DH 1:3 “the invisible” here could be referring to God, but I think, “the invisible” could mean Soul, when looking at the verse under a different context, in purpose of supporting Iamblichus’s Hermetic influence (could be a stretch but I included this anyways).

Paragraph 3

"Closely allied to this opinion there is a view, not handed down by tradition but plausibly derived from it, which makes the soul combination of all the qualities and the simple summation of them, whether arising as a result of them or existing prior to them."

Not it’s a little unclear to me if Iamblichus is viewing Soul’s as associated with bodies, or if he views them as an incorporeal quality. Referring to the Stobaean Hermetica chapters 16 and 20 seem to support Iamblichus—IF he’s concluding that Soul’ are bodiless(incorporeal). Which he does in the next paragraph.

SH 16 states:

"Verse 1: the soul is a bodiless reality. Though it is in a body, it does not loose it’s essential principle."

SH 20 reiterates this.

Paragraph 5

"…while many of the Platonists and Pythagoreans adjudge it to be the attunement which is interwoven with the cosmos and inseparable from the heaven."

Now this paragraph is speaking on the “Attunement of the Soul.” This attunement is not inherent in bodies. Iamblichus calls it a “mathematical attunement.”

This corresponds very well with SH 19 in my opinion.

"Now the Soul is an eternal intelligent reality, employing intelligence as its own rational faculty. Contemplating its own thought, it becomes cognizant of harmony.

In verse 3: "now there are two kinds of life and motion in the soul: one is in accordance with intellectual reality, the other being in accordance with the natural body."

These two verse from the Stoabean Hermetica perfectly support the Soul’s “mathematical attunement” along with this attunement being interwoven with the Cosmos(natural body SH19:3) & inseparable from the heavens (intellectual reality SH 19:3)

Paragraph 7

"…separates the Soul off, inasmuch as it has come about as following upon Intellect, representing a distinct level of being, and that aspect of it which is endowed with intellect is explained as being connected with the intellect certainly, but also subsisting independently on its own, …"

Here I cited SH 19:3 again. Along with SH 3:6-7–

SH 3:6-7 — "When the soul of mortal animals separates form it’s non rational parts, it does off and into the divine body, which is ever moving and moved in itself. The human soul has a portion of the divine. Yet non-rational elements, namely drive and desire, are attached to it."

Paragraph 8.

"Orpheus himself considered that the soul was separate and one and that out of it there springs many divisions, and that many intermediary “breaths” descended to the individual souls from the universal soul."

This immediately led me to think of Corpus Hermeticum X [7] & from the Stobaean Hermetica 23:14. Here we see that God(the universal Soul) indeed does dispense all the souls in the universe. In SH 23:14–we see that God fashions the souls from “a good amount of his breath, and by an act of intellect mixed it with fire.”

CH X [7]— "In the General Discourses did you not hear that all souls whirled about in all the cosmos—portioned out, as it were — come from the One Soul of All?"

SH 23:14

Chapter 2. The Power of souls.

Paragraph 10.

"According to those who think that the soul lives a double life, in itself and one in conjunction with the body, they are present in the soul in one way but in the common anime in another, as Plato and Pythagoras think."

Now Iamblichus isn’t always clear on who he sides with when presenting these theories from other philosophers. But this sentence/theory rings the most “Hermetic” to me. Let’s see if there’s any Hermetic literature that can support this “double life” of the soul:

We will be looking at a few chapters in the Stobaean Hermetica(SH) specifically 2B, 3 & 19.

SH 2B:6-7

So early on we are presented with a two fold nature of the Soul within this “battle” that must take place within the Soul.

More specific examples here:

SH 3:1-4

Here we are presented with in verse 4 that the soul is ever-moving and energized the motion in other beings. In verse one it makes it explicitly clear of the souls two fold nature:

Immortality

always moving.

SH 19 should help solidify our beliefs that the souls “double life” is a sound hermetic theory that I myself would be comfortable following. We could go into more Hermetica to explain *why* the Soul is immortal—another day perhaps?

SH 19: 1-4

Here, we clearly are told of the two kinds of life and motion within the soul: one in accordance with intellectual reality and one in accordance with the natural body. That “double life” of the soul that is “in itself” and “one in conjunction with the body” as described by Iamblichus should very clear now.

See verse 1 for how the Soul is also “in itself” —this rings back to the “Battle within the Soul” verses in SH 2B. The Soul employs or assigns intelligence. When we shed our physical body (desires and passions). To me, this is how the soul is also “in itself” while also being in “conjunction with the body.”

May come back to expand on that if I can…

Paragraph 11.

(To be continued…)

this is deeply embarrassing and you're probably gonna tell me to kill myself or something, but you get a lot of asks and also i love you.

what do you think a human soul is? what is it made up of? does it feel pain or can it die? i almost died at birth and 100% would have if it weren't for certain ultra modern medical innovations, i was literally brought back to life. and i love life and beauty itself but i've recently had this realization that i've never actually grasped it or been able to partake in it in any meaningful way, even as a little kid.

i feel a pull away from life and desire and action. like i can only observe it. i was just chilling watching fireworks with my brother a bit ago and i was just struck by this neurosis of being unable to actually enjoy it. i couldn't feel anything. i just kept thinking on how unreal and empty i felt. it feels like i was never really meant to exist but i don't understand how that could be the case or why i'm so different from my family and everyone else

you exist so you were always meant to. you didn't cheat the fates or anything like that. the fates ordained that you were born when you were born, that the technology existed, and that your life was to be saved. if anything, this is evidence you were meant to exist. consider that maybe you have some greater purpose to fulfil even if you aren't currently aware of what it could be. not sure how old you are but if you're on tumblr you're probably pretty young so it's safe to assume you have a lot of life ahead of you to figure shit out and to find your meaning.

as for the soul, i have opinions. it's hard to say what it's made of since, by nature, it's immaterial. but i believe in a tripartite soul. the precise division is debatable, but roughly speaking i believe in basically what plato describes (from "lowest" to "highest"); the body/appetite, the thumos/spirit, and the mind/intellect/reason. perhaps the lowest part (the appetite) could be said to "feel" pain since it governs the most basic, primal emotions; hunger, pain, lust, fear, comfort, etc. i think the appetite dies when the body dies, the spirit lives indefinitely (as long as it's kept alive), and then finally reason lives eternally and cannot die.

Be Angry, but Do Not Sin - St. Hesychios on Spiritual Warfare and the Incensive Power of the Soul:

Along with the humility, perfect attentiveness, and prayer, Hesychios discusses the importance of the “power of rebuttal” in spiritual warfare. In a previous post, I began to touch upon the importance of hatred of sin or one’s sinful thoughts for progress in spiritual life and as an essential aspect of a true and abiding love of God. Love of God and for that which is holy will lead us to hate sin or sinful thoughts and seek to set them aside as soon as they become evident to us.

This view, it may be helpful to know, arises out of a specific anthropology; an understanding of the powers of the human soul (the appetitive, intelligent, and incensive powers) based upon the tripartite division formulated by Plato in Book IV of his “Republic” and accepted by the Greek Christian Fathers. According to the glossary of the English translation of the Philokalia, the Appetitive aspect (epithymikon) is the soul’s desiring power, the Intelligent aspect or power (logistikon) is the ruling aspect of the intellect or its operative faculty and the Incensive power (thymikon), which often manifests itself as wrath or anger, but which can be more generally defined as the force provoking vehement feelings. The three aspects can be used positively, that is, in accordance with nature and as created by God, or negatively, that is, in a way contrary to nature and leading to sin. For instance, the Incensive Power can be used positively to repel demonic attacks or to intensify desire for God; but it can also, when not controlled, lead to self-indulgent, disruptive thought and action..." (Vol I, p. 358).

It is the incensive power of the soul that experiences extreme emotions. Thus, it can be positive or negative. The positive use of the incensive power is to repel evil thoughts or rebuke demonic attacks; that is, the power of rebuttal. To put it another way, we use the incensive power correctly when – and only when – we are angry at the things that anger God. However, having said this, the writers of the Philokalia are clear and consistent in stating that the incensive power was given to us as a defense against sin.

Here are two very good examples: Using the example of temptations to unchastity, Evagrios writes, “Our incensive power is also a good defence against this demon. When it is directed against evil thoughts of this kind, such power fills the demon with fear and destroys his designs. And this is the meaning of the statement: ‘Be angry, and do not sin’ (Ps. 4:4)” (On Discrimination, section 15, p. 47). To “be angry and not sin” is to be angry at sin, beginning within oneself. This is why St. Isaiah the Solitary could write, “Without anger a man cannot attain purity: he has to feel angry with all that is sown in him by the enemy.” (On Guarding the Intellect, section 1, p. 22)

The Fathers understand St. Paul well who wrote: "We wrestle not with flesh and blood..." The enemies whom we are to hate are not our fellow men, but the demonic and unnatural thoughts which attack our day-to-day lives. To these, the Fathers often applied the words of psalm 137: “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” The "children of Babylon" are the actions born of hatred, of cowardice, of greed and lust, and all the ugly and unnatural thoughts one might have. We are to guard (nepsis) the heart and mind and with the sword of the incensive power drive our unnatural thoughts and temptations away.

Often we enter into the battle unarmed and Hesychios tells us that without prayer “we have no weapon to fight with. By this prayer I mean the prayer which is ever active in the inner shrine of the soul, and which by invoking Christ scourges and sears our secret enemy.” We must not be timid or passive in our response. Again, Hesychios writes: “The glance of your intellect should be quick and keen, able to perceive the invading demons. When you perceive one, you should at once rebut it, crushing it like the head of a serpent. At the same time, call imploringly to Christ, and you will experience God’s unseen help” (Philokalia, Vol. 1, p 165).

Trusting in Christ, humble, prayerful, and having silenced our hearts, we must ever be on the watch for the enemy. Hesychios provides the following image: “If you wish to engage in spiritual warfare, let that little animal, the spider, always be your example of stillness of heart; otherwise you will not be as still inn your intellect as you should be. The spider hunts small flies; but you will continually slay ‘the children of Babylon’ if during your struggle you are as still in your soul as is the spider; and in the course of this slaughter you will be blessed by the Holy Spirit” (166).

However, as noted above, while the writers of the Philokalia and Hesychios urge us on in the battle and encourage us to be zealous, they present us with one very important caveat. Although the incensive aspect of our soul is God-given in order to repel demonic attacks and to intensify our desire for God and His will, if not controlled and transformed by grace and ascetic practices, it can easily lead to self-indulgent and destructive thoughts and actions. And so, Hesychios tells us: “The incensive power by nature is prone to be destructive. If it is turned against demonic thoughts it destroys them; but if it is roused against people it then destroys good thoughts that are in us. In other words, the incensive power, although given as a weapon or a bow against evil thoughts, can be turned the other way and used to destroy good thoughts as well, for it destroys whatever it is directed against” (167).

We are to be “incensed” - enraged and infuriated toward all within us that is contrary to love and goodness and fearlessly and swiftly wield the sword against all unholy thoughts. But in the process we must avoid the temptation to raise this sword against another - the fruit of which is only malice and violence. Hesychios describes the danger with utmost clarity: “I have seen a spirited dog destroying equally both wolves and sheep” (167).

Ficcino Maranki Diyetine Markiz Tesbihatı

It is precisely this subjective element which distinguishes the Renaissance magus from the medieval theorist; for static hierarchical schemes and correspondences between planets and music are transformed into dynamic energies at work throughout creation, energies which can be harnessed and transfused for the harmonising of individual souls. Following Plotinus, Ficino emphasises the necessity of focussing the emotion in an act which depends on both intuition and expertise in order to expand consciousness: 'Whoever prays to a star in an opportune and skilled way projects his spirit into the manifest and occult rays of the star, everywhere diffused and life-giving; from these he may claim for himself vital stellar gifts.' In the Platonic/Pythagorean tradition, music and the stars are inextricably linked as audible and visible images of an invisible dimension of existence, whose intellectual perception is made possible through the senses of hearing and sight. The foundations of the musical cosmos are established by Plato in the creation myth of his Timaeus, which maintains a vital connection to Egyptian, Chaldaean and other ancient traditions. In this dialogue, Plato sets up a model for a three-fold musical cosmos where the movements of the spheres, the passions of the human soul and the audible sounds of music are all expressions of a divine intelligence manifesting through the various dimensions of creation. Such a tripartite division was to be differentiated by the fifth century A.D. theorist Boethius as musica mundana, musica humana and musica instrumentalis, and it was commonplace for music theorists to work out elaborate systems of corrrespondences between astronomical distances and musical intervals, between the nature of musical patterns and emotional states, between planetary characteristics and audible sound. The key, in this tradition, to the ordering of the cosmos, whether astronomically or musically, is of course number - a discovery which was transmitted to Western thinkers by Pythagoras. Indeed for the Platonists number determines all things in nature and their concrete manifestation, together with all rhythms and cycles of life. Number revealed by the heavenly bodies unfolds as Time, and as the human soul was seen to be mirrored in the order of the heavens, divination, or aligning oneself to the gods, required the appropriate ritual at a precise time. Iamblichus tells us that the numbers gov erning nature are the outflowing energies of the gods, and if we wish to assimilate ourselves to them, we must use their language - that is, align ourselv es with the harmonies underlying the cosmos. Merely humanly contrived numerical systems, discursive conceptions of number, numerological theories, cannot reproduce an experience of unity which will give rise to true knowledge of first principles. In the Timaeus, we learn that the Demiurge created a substance called the world-soul and inserted it into the centre of the world-body. He then divided up this soul-stuff according to the ratios of the three consonant musical intervals, that is the octave which resonates in the proportion of 2:1, the perfect fifth, 3:2 and the perfect fourth, 4:3, continuing, by further division, to create the intervallic steps of the Pythagorean scale. The soul was cut into two parts which were bent around each other, forming the circles of the Same and the Different: the Same containing the unmoving sphere of the fixed stars, the Different containing the moving instruments of Time, or the planets. The Different was then divided into narrower strips which were arranged according to the geometrical progressions of 2 and 3; 1 2 4 Page 38 and 1 3 9 27. Permeating the whole cosmos, the soul connected the physical world with the eternal, being 'interfused everywhere from the centre to the circumference of heaven' and partaking of 'reason and harmony'.  The human soul, also partaking directly of the anima mundi, must therefore be regulated according to the same proportions. But due to the passions of the body, the soul on entering it became distorted and stirred up - only the correct kind of education could restore harmonious equilibrium. This education would induce a recognition of the soul's congruence with the cosmos through the audible harmonic framework of the musical scale, for as we have seen, the proportions in the world-soul could be reproduced in musical sound. The numbers one to four, or the tetraktys, thus not only form the framework for all musical scales, but also embody this dynamic process of embodiment in the fourfold m o v e ment of geometry from point to line to plane to solid; from the unity comes the duality of opposition, the triad of perfect equilibrium and the quaternity of material existence. Each stage both limits and contains the one following, and the initiate is warned in the Chaldaean oracles 'do not deepen the plane' - that is, extend towards the material world from a the perfect condition of the triad, but do not lose your limiting power by letting go of it and becoming lost in the quaternity, or chaos of matter. This can be understood musically as the imperative of maintaining the perfect intervals as defining structures. In listening to geometry in sound, the perfect intervals set a framework or limit on unlimited sound, and since the specific arrangement of sizes of tones and semitones within this framework mirror the exact astronomical relationships of the planets, the very fabric of creation is brought to the ear and, in Platonic terms, evokes a memory of the harmonies once heard with the ears of the mind. F r o m  this essential premise, the schemes attributing planets to actual pitches and astronomical distances to musical intervals abounded. In the Myth of Er at the end of his Republic, Plato suggests that sirens positioned on the rims of the planetary orbits each sound a pitch, making up a musical scale, much like a Greek lyre projected into the heavens. In another interpretation, found in Cicero's Dream of Scipio, the planets produce different tones according to their various speeds of revolution. We are told that 'the high and low tones blended together produce different harmonies' and that 'gifted men, imitating this harmony on stringed instruments and in singing, have gained for themselves a return to this region, as have those of exceptional abilities who have studied divine matters even in earthly life'.  Exactly how to imitate the music of the spheres thus became the question raised by music theorists, and the science of harmonics, or the study of mathematical properties of musical ratios, was considered to be the first step. It is very difficult to know how much this highly speculative procedure - considered by Plato to be the highest form of knowledge - influenced the practical music-making of classical times. We are certainly better informed about the connection between musica humana and musica instrumentalis, for central to ancient Greek musical writings is the concept of ethos, or subtle ethical effects produced in the human psyche by the use of different modes or 'set' combinations of tone-patterns. For example, the Phrygian mode moved men to anger, the Lydian soothed them, the Dorian induced gravity and temperance - each quality being reflected in the character of particular regions. By medieval times the ancient Greek modes had been replaced by the eight Church modes, but this did not interrupt the association of subtle ethical effects by theorists. One twelfth century writer notes that 'the modes have individual qualities of sound, differing from each other, so that they prompt spontaneous recognition by an attentive musician or even by a practised singer'. It is to our loss that the music we hear today is limited to only two types of mode - the major and minor.  But what of the connection between ethics and cosmology? Ethical powers were attributed to syst e m s of pitch, while planets were generally associated with single pitches - so in the writings of most classical theorists, it is difficult to see how an effective form of musica instrumentalis could influence the human soul through direct imitation of cosmic harmony - despite the model transmitted by Plato. Generally speaking, celestial phenomena were made to fit a preconceived notion of musical order, rather than the phenomena themselves being asked to reveal their order as principles of intelligence. Although the Middle Ages produced some great original thinkers in this field, such as John Scotus Eriugena in the ninth century, and indeed the influential Islamic school of musical and astrological therapy, it was only in the fifteenth century that the West began to explore the practical means by which the harmonic relationships in the cosmos could be expressed through music, not by literally reproducing astronomical measurement in sound, but by symbolically evoking a unifying principle at work in the manifest and unmanifest worlds. With the music theorists Georgio Anselmi and Bartolom¾ Ramos de Pareja, we see the seeds being sown for a revisioning of cosmic music. (PDF) The Music of the Spheres: Marsilio Ficino and Renaissance harmonia. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290164617_The_Music_of_the_Spheres_Marsilio_Ficino_and_Renaissance_harmonia [accessed Apr 23 2021].

Bellamy/Murphy: Superimposed right side up triangles: triangles in general in pagan represent fire, outside pagan it can mean silver, the holy trinity (father, son, Holy Spirit), it is associated with divine buildings because the A shape (churches etc). Triangles that face up also represent masculinity (duh 😉), parenting, the sun, and a sub cosmic world.

Clarke / Echo: can be two different things that essentially are related across different cultures ie Viking VS Celtic so buckle up.

Triple Horn of Odin — essentially represents wisdom, quick wittedness, poetry but has a long story associated with it. Essentially if I understand it someone was killed and their blood was mixed with honey (?) and distributed across three drinking horns. It was thought whoever drank from them would gain knowledge (?) This honestly would corroborate a lot of spoilers saying Lincoln’s Horn means something bigger. (Viking answer)

It also looks like the inner most spot in a triquetra, a triquetra that just isn’t the complete shape. This shape is associated with the holy trinity again, represents the unity of spirit, soul, and body / division of land, sea, sky / “triple goddess” a deity / in DARK it represents three different time periods. The Triquetra has root origins that are very closely linked to Triskele: a tripartite symbol consisting of 3 interlocked spirals. This ancient Celtic symbol is associated with the earthly life, afterlife, and reincarnation. The Triple Spiral is also related to the Sun and a spiral represents the movement of the Sun in three months. Therefore, the Triple Spiral denotes nine months and is considered a symbol of pregnancy. (Celtic answer)

Octavia: Can be referencing the “holy grenade” which is a Christian form of authority. It represents Christ’s dominion over the orb of the world, literally held in the hand of an earthly ruler. In science can symbolize Earth and is also a symbol of a church on a map. Can also be symbol for antimony which represents man’s free spirit and animal nature and sometimes associated with the wolf. the element can be toxic, is described as silvery (ironic because Bellamy’s symbol means silver) and is used for bullets, batteries, flame retardants etc.

Raven and Hope: universally and in pagan represents time, infinity, simplicity, balance, love, cycle of life and death, infinity is seen in our dna, it also has origins of meaning passing through seven heavens with eight being regeneration, happiness, paradise, resurrection

Jordan/Gabriel: Dagaz in pagan meaning day/dawn, light, intuition, awakening, awareness, happiness/Hope, growth, certainty, the balance point, where opposites meet

Russel/Sheiheda: Generally means no or prohibited, in hobo language it symbolizes a good road to follow, in pagan it means magic circle

Chime in your theories, ideas, interpretations, and corrections below!

Essay of Aristotle and Plato´s philosophy about the soul.

By Alejandra Correa De la Torre. Plato believes that the soul had 3 "parts" although the soul cannot be divided it´s just a way to refer to the things that make a soul, to this division is called the doctrine of the tripartite natures of the soul. The first one is the rational "part" this "part" distinguishes man from brutes, also it is immortal and akin to divine and it is located in the head.  The second "part" is the appetitive one, it expresses bodily desires and the passion for the truth, it is supposed to be located below the midriff. The third "part" is the courageous part, it´s nobler and akin to moral courage, it can also be described as the spiritual "part" and this one is located in the chest. To explain this "parts" Plato used a metaphor; They are two horses, one is easily driven and the other one is not. The first one is guided by charioteer (that is a constellation) and the other horse it is driven by the sensual passions, obviously, the first horse is the rational part and the other one is the appetitive and courageous part. Of all this "parts" Plato thought that the rational "part" is the strongest of all, this fraction survives when the body dies, and it retains the memories,  the body just is the place where the soul dwelt, therefore the soul and the body interact whit each other, always knowing that the soul is superior to the body. Now we should see Aristotle´s point of view. Aristotle thought that the belonging of a soul depends on the space you take in a pyramidal system. In this system, plants were at the bottom because of 1. To have sensations is not necessary to them, and therefore they have a sensitive soul. On top of the plants where the animals that had a more complex soul because they have sense-perceptions,  desires, and a local motion. And on the top of both of them, there is the human that has a passive and active intellect. Aristotle thought that the body is the matter of the soul and the soul is form or act to the body, it is important to say that all souls have entelechy and that is what makes this system works.

Fraternity vs. Equality

In addition to the interaction of these currents in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch there is also at work that which lies in the depths of the subconscious, the desire to find the right social structure for all mankind from now until the fourth millennium. From a deeper point of view it is not in the least surprising that socialism stirs up all sorts of ideas which could be highly dangerous when one recalls that they derive their impulses from the depths of the subconscious, that everything is in a state of ferment and that the time is still far distant before it will come into its own. But there are rumblings beneath the surface — not, it is true, in the souls of men at present, i.e. in the astral body — but in the etheric body, in the temperaments of men. And people invent theories to explain these stirrings in the temperaments of men particularly. If these theories do not explain, as does spiritual science, what lies behind maya, then these theories, whether they are the theories of Bakunin, [ Note 7 ] Marx, Lassalle and the like, are simply masks, disguises, veils that conceal reality. One only becomes aware of the realities when one probes deeply into human evolution as we have attempted to do in this survey. All that is now taking place (i.e. in 1918) in the external world are simply tempestuous preparations for what after all is now smouldering, one may say, not in the souls of men, but in their temperaments. You are all socialists and you are often unaware how deeply impregnated you are with socialism because it is latent in your temperament, in the subconscious. But it is only when we are aware of this fact that we overcome that nebulous and ridiculous search for self-knowledge which looks inward and finds only a spiritual void, an abstraction. Man is a complex being and in order to understand him we must understand the whole world. It is important to bear this in mind. ... The socialists of today have no idea what, of necessity, socialism entails and must entail — the true socialism that will be achieved to some extent only in the fourth millennium if it develops in the right way. It is especially important that this socialism be developed in conjunction with a true feeling for the being of the whole man, for man as a tripartite being of body, soul and spirit. The religious impulses of the particular ethnic groups will contribute in their different ways to an understanding of this tripartite division of man. The East and the Russian people to the understanding of the spirit; the West to an understanding of the body; Central Europe to an understanding of the soul. But all these impulses are interwoven of course. They must not be systematized or classified, but within this tripartite division the real principle, the true impulse of socialism must first be developed.  … The real impulse of socialism consists in the realization of fraternity in the widest sense of the term in the external structure of society. True fraternity of course has nothing to do with equality. Take the case of fraternity within the same family: where one child is seven years old and his brother is newly born there can be no question of equality. One must first understand what is meant by fraternity. On the physical plane the present state-systems must be replaced throughout the whole world by institutions or organizations which are imbued with fraternity. On the other hand, everything that is connected with the Church and religion must be independent of external organization, state organization and organizations akin to the state; it must become the province of the soul and be developed in a completely free community. The evolution of socialism must be accompanied by complete freedom of thought in matters of religion. 

—Rudolf Steiner, From Symptom to Reality in Modern History

A tripod is a portable three-legged frame or stand, used as a platform for supporting the weight and maintaining the stability of some other object. A tripod provides stability against downward forces and horizontal forces and movements about horizontal axes. The positioning of the three legs away from the vertical centre allows the tripod better leverage for resisting lateral forces.

Plato's division of the psyche into its three main elements isn’t the same as Freud's division of the psyche into the ego (das Ich), id (das Es), and superego (das Über-Ich), nor is it the same as the conscious-subconscious-supraconscious division. Plato's identification of these three distinct          elements of a person's inner life can be validated by directly turning inward to one's own experience of the self.  Plato asserted that the psyche is composed of the logical mind “nous”, the spirited, hot-blooded heart -not  spiritual-, “thymos” and the appetitive -in correspondence to the lower part of the body. The appetites include all our desires for various pleasures, comforts, physical satisfactions, and bodily ease.  The spirited -hot-blooded- part, is the part that gets angry when it perceives an injustice, the part that loves victory, facing challenges, winning and honour.

In Christian theology, the tripartite view -trichotomy- holds that humankind is a composite of three distinct components: body, spirit, and soul. It is in contrast to the dichotomy, where soul and spirit are taken as different terms for the same entity, ‘the spiritual soul’.

The Baltimore Cops Studying Plato and James Baldwin

New Post has been published on https://usnewsaggregator.com/the-baltimore-cops-studying-plato-and-james-baldwin/

The Baltimore Cops Studying Plato and James Baldwin

BALTIMORE—Sitting in a classroom one day in September, a police officer studied a passage from James Baldwin’s 1966 essay on policing in Harlem, “A Report from Occupied Territory,” and read a few lines out loud: “Some school children overturned a fruit stand in Harlem. This would have been a mere childish prank if the children had been white … but these children were black, and the police chased them and beat them.”

An instructor, standing in the back of the room, pressed the cop for his reaction: “Tell me, does that give you any basis for our understanding of any modern circumstance?”

Beyond the age of mass incarceration Read more

It was humanities hour at the city police department’s in-service training facility, and Detective Ed Gillespie was presiding, a gun on his hip and literature on his lips. Officer training is front and center in the national conversation about police reform, with advocates and progressive police departments alike promoting lessons on de-escalation, implicit bias, and the like. Gillespie thinks cops need something else, too: the humanities. In his classes, he teaches them Plato, Steinbeck, Dostoevsky, and Baldwin.

About 10 minutes after their initial exchange, the same officer spoke up. “It’s 1966, so policing a white neighborhood [versus] a black neighborhood was completely different. Black neighborhood was looked down upon, and [to] this day and age, some people are still carrying that fear,” said the officer, a white man who’s a veteran of the force. “They’ve heard stories from their grandparents and stuff like that. And look, it hasn’t been that long ago …”

Gillespie agreed that the events of the ’60s were recent enough. “No,” the officer persisted. “I’m talking about even in my career—that has happened, you know? That [if] you ran, you got your punishment when you got caught.”

This connection between literature and everyday life is exactly what Gillespie hopes to facilitate. Police officers, he told me, “deal with the human condition constantly.” Books offer people “a safe way to look at circumstances and ask yourself, ‘What does this tell us about us? … What does this tell me about myself? What does this tell me about the human condition?’”

And, more to the point: “What does this tell you, officer, about policing?”

***

Since Freddie Gray suffered a fatal injury in the back of a Baltimore police van in 2015, setting off days of protest and rioting, the city has been pushing through a wrenching overhaul of its police department even as violent crime has surged to unprecedented levels.

Gillespie works in the division that teaches retraining courses. Once a year, every cop is pulled off the street and thrown into the classroom to take refreshers and learn new policing techniques. This in-service training used to last for one week. This year, the commissioner doubled it, requiring far more hours than many other departments.

Drawing on his master of liberal arts degree from Johns Hopkins University, the 48-year-old Gillespie teaches a curriculum that includes bite-sized chunks of literature, philosophy, and history. “You can get so into the outcomes, into the methods, [that] you don’t look at the ethic with which you’re operating in many cases,” Gillespie said. “And we’re trying to get officers to delve into it.”

In a course on Plato, he introduces officers to the philosopher’s idea of the tripartite soul, which can be governed by the intellect, by the “spirit,” or by the appetites. Gillespie has his students discuss real stories of police misconduct in Platonic terms. “The ultimate point is that you have to … take a moment, and stop and use your intellect, and ask, ‘What’s driving me right now?’” he explained to me.

Gillespie is trained to teach nuts-and-bolts courses on terrorism response, extremism, and gangs. But since the unrest of 2015, humanities have occupied the bulk of his time. The strategy is unusual in police training. “I’ve been doing this a long time and I’ve never heard of an instructor using this type of approach,” said William Terrill, a criminal-justice professor at Arizona State University who studies police culture.

But he nevertheless understands the general theory behind it. He’s authored studies showing that officers with higher education are less likely to use force than colleagues who have not been to college. The reasons why are unclear, Terrill said, but it’s possible that exposure to unfamiliar ideas and diverse people have an effect on officer behavior. Gillespie’s classes seem to offer a complement to the typical instruction. Most of it “is mechanical in nature,” Terrill said. “It’s kind of this step-by-step, instructional booklet.”

Officers learn how to properly approach a car, say, but they are rarely given tools to imagine the circumstances of the person in the driver’s seat.

***

When he enrolled as a cadet in 2005, Gillespie’s police-academy instructors assumed he was there to write a book. When he brought reading to an assignment that involved a lot of waiting around, his supervisor told him to stop. Another cop once said to him, “You say some good shit, but I just hate the way you fucking talk.”

Gillespie related these stories to me with enthusiasm as a window into police culture and the discomfort some officers have around issues of education. “I feel comfortable here,” he explained, “but definitely, I’m kind of an odd man out.”

He was raised in the Philadelphia suburbs; educated at a private, Quaker school; and attended George Washington University and Hopkins. As an undergraduate at George Washington, he enrolled in ROTC, intending to become a Marine Corps officer. But an injury forced him to drop out of the program. Gillespie became a teacher instead, working at elementary, middle, and high schools in Maryland and Ohio. His master’s-level classes at Johns Hopkins were scheduled to begin on September 11, 2001. After the attack, Gillespie decided that once his studies were done, he would try again to find a career in public safety.

Gillespie, who is black, started as a patrol officer in Sandtown-Winchester, a low-income neighborhood in West Baltimore where police would later arrest Gray. “I never had any experience with anything resembling Sandtown-Winchester. When I went to work there as a law-enforcement officer, the culture shock was just unbelievable,” Gillespie told me. “And it had nothing to do with race. It was about economics, it was about … personal history.”

In class, Gillespie frequently refers back to his patrol experience. He raised his discomfort with Sandtown when I visited, addressing one student, a former colleague, directly: “You sir, you, working the central [district], pulled me aside more than once and said, ‘You know what, the way you talked to that person wasn’t really professional.’ … You really helped me recognize I had biases about dealing with people in Sandtown.”

Gillespie’s personal stories remind officers that he is one of them, not an ivory-tower critic. At the same time, he argues that front-line police need to understand the roots of their work. “Tradition is a big thing for officers, and we are in the tradition of the western world,” Gillespie said. “We’re kind of government on the ground. I mean, we have to represent democratic values. We have to represent those Enlightenment values in a very immediate way.”

Cops also need to embrace the complexity of their jobs, he suggested. “We’ve reached a stage at which policing has to be taken seriously as a profession”—not just, as cops often call it, “the job.”

“I heard a lot of officers talk in terms of how simplistic it is,” he told me. But “it’s actually very complex. And it takes a sophisticated thinker.”

***

On the day Gillespie was teaching Baldwin, he asked the 25 assembled officers to do some brainstorming on the meaning of various terms essential to policing, like “neutrality” or “respect.” The conversation about “respect” turned to the way officers interact with people from different communities. One officer assailed the notion that cops should employ a uniform style. He raised the scenario of a kid loitering on a corner in the Gilmor Homes, a public-housing complex in Sandtown.

“I’m like, ‘Shorty, come here. You can’t be here. Come on. Go on. You know better than this.’ … He gets that. That’s not disrespectful to him,” the officer said. “I can’t [say], ‘Young man, you have to leave this corner’ —’cause then he doesn’t get that.”

The same language would not work in tony Roland Park, the officer said: “It’s not a disrespect to either one,” he explained. “It’s communicating at a level that they understand.”

The fact that a Roland Park resident lingering on a corner is much less likely to be shooed away did not come up. But the officers were nevertheless grappling with what they see on the beat. As others chimed in, they were emphatic that their goal was to show respect.

Gillespie told me they aren’t always so easy to engage. That day, he handed one group a sheet of paper with the word “cynicism.” “I’m cynical about all of this,” groused a rotund detective. Later, the same group was contemplating the meaning of “procedural justice”—the notion that justice hinges not just on fair decisions, but also on fair processes for making those decisions. The detective declared that it means officers must “treat everyone with kid gloves.” A colleague replied: “Policing’s changed.”

There’s no way to assess whether Gillespie’s teaching has actually made a difference on the street. Two policing experts I spoke with said that a few hours a year is unlikely to have much impact. Maria Haberfeld co-directs a program that offers free courses on ethics, leadership, and diversity to New York City Police Department officers. The NYPD Police Studies program, at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, is a four-course sequence that cops take in addition to their day jobs, often as a first step to pursuing a full degree.

“In-service training is just a Band-Aid,” said Haberfeld, a professor at John Jay. If the goal is to change how people talk or think, she added, “You cannot do it in two hours or two days.”

Gillespie agrees that his classes are just a small nudge, but he remains optimistic about what they might achieve. “We’re building a culture, so it has to be something that’s progressive,” he said.

My efforts to speak with Baltimore police brass about why they support Gillespie’s work were unsuccessful. But the fact that they’ve made his curriculum part of routine training is significant. Police culture is unlikely to change simply in response to pressure from outsiders. It can take insiders to make new ideas seem legitimate, like something real cops talk about.

That’s what Gillespie does. And he understands that not every conversation will take off. “In many cases, officers feel like they’re somewhat under siege. ‘Why are you criticizing me again? Why are you trying to tell me things I already know? Why are you implying I’m racist, implying I’m biased?’” he said. “And then they kind of shut down.”

Or the opposite can happen. The class I observed saw a heated round of venting about how social problems—from family arguments to mental illness—fall into the laps of police. Gillespie had to remind the officers to calm down.

Later, he told me it’s all part of the process. “You have to let them go and bring it back around to the point that you’re trying to make,” he said. “By letting them talk, they’re more open to hear.”

Original Article:

Click here

Be Angry, but Do Not Sin - Hesychios on Spiritual Warfare and the Incensive Power of the Soul:

Along with the humility, perfect attentiveness, and prayer, Hesychios discusses the importance of the “power of rebuttal” in spiritual warfare. In a previous post, I began to touch upon the importance of hatred of sin or one’s sinful thoughts for progress in spiritual life and as an essential aspect of a true and abiding love of God. Love of God and for that which is holy will lead us to hate sin or sinful thoughts and seek to set them aside as soon as they become evident to us.

This view, it may be helpful to know, arises out of a specific anthropology; an understanding of the powers of the human soul (the appetitive, intelligent, and incensive powers) based upon the tripartite division formulated by Plato in Book IV of his “Republic” and accepted by the Greek Christian Fathers. According to the glossary of the English translation of the Philokalia, the Appetitive aspect (epithymikon) is the soul’s desiring power, the Intelligent aspect or power (logistikon) is the ruling aspect of the intellect or its operative faculty and the Incensive power (thymikon), which often manifests itself as wrath or anger, but which can be more generally defined as the force provoking vehement feelings. The three aspects can be used positively, that is, in accordance with nature and as created by God, or negatively, that is, in a way contrary to nature and leading to sin. For instance, the Incensive Power can be used positively to repel demonic attacks or to intensify desire for God; but it can also, when not controlled, lead to self-indulgent, disruptive thought and action..." (Vol I, p. 358).

It is the incensive power of the soul that experiences extreme emotions. Thus, it can be positive or negative. The positive use of the incensive power is to repel evil thoughts or rebuke demonic attacks; that is, the power of rebuttal. To put it another way, we use the incensive power correctly when – and only when – we are angry at the things that anger God. However, having said this, the writers of the Philokalia are clear and consistent in stating that the incensive power was given to us as a defense against sin.

Here are two very good examples: Using the example of temptations to unchastity, Evagrios writes, “Our incensive power is also a good defence against this demon. When it is directed against evil thoughts of this kind, such power fills the demon with fear and destroys his designs. And this is the meaning of the statement: ‘Be angry, and do not sin’ (Ps. 4:4)” (On Discrimination, section 15, p. 47). To “be angry and not sin” is to be angry at sin, beginning within oneself. This is why St. Isaiah the Solitary could write, “Without anger a man cannot attain purity: he has to feel angry with all that is sown in him by the enemy.” (On Guarding the Intellect, section 1, p. 22)

The Fathers understand St. Paul well who wrote: "We wrestle not with flesh and blood..." The enemies whom we are to hate are not our fellow men, but the demonic and unnatural thoughts which attack our day-to-day lives. To these, the Fathers often applied the words of psalm 137: “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” The "children of Babylon" are the actions born of hatred, of cowardice, of greed and lust, and all the ugly and unnatural thoughts one might have. We are to guard (nepsis) the heart and mind and with the sword of the incensive power drive our unnatural thoughts and temptations away.

Often we enter into the battle unarmed and Hesychios tells us that without prayer “we have no weapon to fight with. By this prayer I mean the prayer which is ever active in the inner shrine of the soul, and which by invoking Christ scourges and sears our secret enemy.” We must not be timid or passive in our response. Again, Hesychios writes: “The glance of your intellect should be quick and keen, able to perceive the invading demons. When you perceive one, you should at once rebut it, crushing it like the head of a serpent. At the same time, call imploringly to Christ, and you will experience God’s unseen help” (Philokalia, Vol. 1, p 165).

Trusting in Christ, humble, prayerful, and having silenced our hearts, we must ever be on the watch for the enemy. Hesychios provides the following image: “If you wish to engage in spiritual warfare, let that little animal, the spider, always be your example of stillness of heart; otherwise you will not be as still inn your intellect as you should be. The spider hunts small flies; but you will continually slay ‘the children of Babylon’ if during your struggle you are as still in your soul as is the spider; and in the course of this slaughter you will be blessed by the Holy Spirit” (166).

However, as noted above, while the writers of the Philokalia and Hesychios urge us on in the battle and encourage us to be zealous, they present us with one very important caveat. Although the incensive aspect of our soul is God-given in order to repel demonic attacks and to intensify our desire for God and His will, if not controlled and transformed by grace and ascetic practices, it can easily lead to self-indulgent and destructive thoughts and actions. And so, Hesychios tells us: “The incensive power by nature is prone to be destructive. If it is turned against demonic thoughts it destroys them; but if it is roused against people it then destroys good thoughts that are in us. In other words, the incensive power, although given as a weapon or a bow against evil thoughts, can be turned the other way and used to destroy good thoughts as well, for it destroys whatever it is directed against” (167).

We are to be “incensed” - enraged and infuriated toward all within us that is contrary to love and goodness and fearlessly and swiftly wield the sword against all unholy thoughts. But in the process we must avoid the temptation to raise this sword against another - the fruit of which is only malice and violence. Hesychios describes the danger with utmost clarity: “I have seen a spirited dog destroying equally both wolves and sheep” (167).