Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

Greek Antiquities

Delphic Oracle, The (1988)(Commodore Magazine)

1 volume 8vo

"Notes on the Delphic Oracle and Greek Colonization" is an article from Classical Philology, Volume 12 . View more articles from Classical Philology . View this article on JSTOR . View this article's JSTOR metadata . You may also retrieve all of this items metadata in JSON at the following URL: https://archive.org/metadata/jstor-262478

"Notes on the Delphic Oracle and Greek Colonization" is an article from Classical Philology, Volume 12 . View more articles from Classical Philology . View this article on JSTOR . View this article's JSTOR metadata . You may also retrieve all of this items metadata in JSON at the following URL: https://archive.org/metadata/jstor-262478

"Notes on the Delphic Oracle and Greek Colonization" is an article from Classical Philology, Volume 12 . View more articles from Classical Philology . View this article on JSTOR . View this article's JSTOR metadata . You may also retrieve all of this items metadata in JSON at the following URL: https://archive.org/metadata/jstor-262478

"Notes on the Delphic Oracle and Greek Colonization" is an article from Classical Philology, Volume 12 . View more articles from Classical Philology . View this article on JSTOR . View this article's JSTOR metadata . You may also retrieve all of this items metadata in JSON at the following URL: https://archive.org/metadata/jstor-262478

"Notes on the Delphic Oracle and Greek Colonization" is an article from Classical Philology, Volume 12 . View more articles from Classical Philology . View this article on JSTOR . View this article's JSTOR metadata . You may also retrieve all of this items metadata in JSON at the following URL: https://archive.org/metadata/jstor-262478

2 p. l., 3-28 p., 1 l. 19 cm

Dialogue(s): alcibiades Sections: 103a 103b 104a 104b 104c 104d 104e 105a 105b 105c 105d 105e 106a 106b 106c 106d 106e 107a 107b 107c 107e 108a 108b 108c 108d 108e 109a 109b 109c 109d 109e 110a 110b 110c 110d 110e 111a 111b 111c 111d 111e 112a 112b 112c 112d 112e 113a 113b 113c 113d 113e 114a 114b 114c 114d 114e 115a 115b 115c 115d 115e 116a 116b 116c 116d (This session did not have an explicit screen time/date-stamp on the videotape. But it was probably either Feb 8 or Feb 15.) Note on the Bill Duncan tapes: This is the first in the Bill Duncan (tag: nsbduncan) series of video recordings of Pierre and the NS group. The tapes Bill gave me run from February 1985 to December, 1986.  Each tape had between 3 and 5 'segments' (distinct meeting dates) on it.  This first tape had 3, but most tapes had 4. Lighting was too low on this first segment, but improves quickly in subsequent segments.  The audio is surprisingly good for its time, but still not high enough volume to make it easy for me to hear without headphones.  And of course, because of the videotape medium, there is much hiss.  I tried to improve / re-master the audio in audacity, but nothing I did made me happy (amplify, normalize, dynamically compress, etc.) so I have just left the audio in the original, for future generations to fiddle with, if they like.  Grab your headphones (hopefully the over-ear kind), and turn the volume up. The content is worth it: (Thank you Bill!!!) Not all segments had time-stamps, but almost all tapes had at least one segment that had a timestamp.  So I did my best to infer time stamps on the segments, based on the fairly reasonable assumption of a weekly meeting for each dialogue studied; on other segments on the same tape that did have time-stamps on them; and on other meetings from other tapes not conflicting (and picking up where other tapes left off.) I am putting all the Bill Duncan tapes into the 'NSFRI' series, because this is when they most often - though not always - met, and also because Friday nights have over the years been the most frequent night of the week for dialogues / talks / NS group study. Besides the 'NSFRI' tag, I am also giving them the 'nsbduncan' tag, so that you can easily narrow down to only these videotapes if you want. Below follow my notes on this first segment. They are just scribblings. If you improve on them, by all means please forward to me and I will get them in here, and appreciate it. -JAS Notes: 'Alcibiades I' tape, segment 1 of 3.  (If anyone knows or remembers the text they are reading from, please let me know. I checked and it is definitely not the Loeb or Taylor.) 103a - 116e: started out just reading through the text. 43:16 A unit of interchange: question/answer We should check that the units are linked up internally, and between them. That is, that Alcibiades picks up and understands what is being said/asked by Soc (internal), and also that the next unit follows from the previous (between). The units fit together into larger units (the larger arguments -- boxes to the left, on board). Also, we are interested in seeing how the larger arguments fit together and link up as well. Questions regarding 'distance'.   1- the distance within units   2- the distance between units   3- the distance between arguments Parmenides: very tight (little distance) Republic: great distance: we have to search to find the connections, requiring skill Do you have the sense that this (Alcibiades) is just like those other dialogues? Has a cohesive quality? Keeps it all together?  What would be your judgement about it? If these (units) were threads, would you say that they are tight-knit? Or not? Ask how tight/closely-knit the text is at each of the above 3 levels. The work is very tight. Fits together link by link -- like a bracelet. Is there some gem along the way? Is there any undercurrent or theme that ties it all together?  A delicate thread difficult to spot, but keeps all of the arguments together?  What is the thread that ties/connects/underlies the arguments? It may only be visible at certain places. Does A know he knows (or does not know)?  (Which would tie in with gnothi seauton -- know thyself) picking up again around 112b to e How did he go from the discussion on Homer to the 1 and 2 stuff? The change is at 112d, where A says, 'By what you say, it is not likely.' Are there side points? ('loop' drawing) What is the connection between the two main points? Is there a distance between the 2 points? 1:02 What does it do to you to hit the break-off spot? ('from what YOU say..') Is Alcibiades surprised by Socrates' rejoinder to this? What does that do to him? (Pulls him in, gets/keeps him into it) Next, we want to know the connection between the break-off points and the major units. (up to 113d) Was the next unit completed? Did he come to a conclusion? What does Alcibiades do? Who is setting the stage for the next section? (Alcibiades)  Who did it in the previous section? (Alcibiades) What is the relationship between 112d and 113c/d (the two breaking points)? Now Alcibiades introduces the issue between justice and interest (expediency). What is the relationship between the paragraphs at ____ (?) and 113d ('I do not think Socrates that the Athenians..') How can we characterize Alcibiades' move at 113d?  Since it doesn't related to the unit they just covered, then does it relate to the preceeding conclusion? What is the force of this new subject? (He discounts the point Socrates made about him.) What does that do to the whole discussion prior about whether he had a teacher or not? (It wipes it out) How does it relate then to the conclusion at 112d ('Then how is it likely that you should know what is just and unjust, when you are so bewildered (vague) about these matters and are shown to have neither learnt them from anyone nor discovered them for yourself?')? Alcibiades is saying, I don't have to. So now we can ask the same thing about the next section, too. So if we wanted to get an insight into Alcibiades, what might be the way to go? (Study each of his responses / diversions / rhetorical dodges, to avoid the conclusion just reached prior to each one.) Therefore the connection between these (the units) is necessarily going to be what? (A great distance, since at each point S. has to deal with the diversion, rather than keeping the logos moving forward tightly.) Is Socrates willing to take the trip (into where each rhetorical dodge takes them)? Yes. (a 'philosophical cowboy') [Rodeo?] If we are going to characterize these loops (the discussions that the rhetorical dodges take them into), how is that going to be related to the Delphic oracle ('know thyself')?  Is A trying to avoid knowing himself? Pierre picks up reading p56 (end of 116d): 'So if anyone stands up to advise either the Athenians or the Peparethians,1 imagining that he understands what is just and unjust, and says that just things are sometimes evil, could you do other than laugh him to scorn, since you actually say yourself that just and expedient are the same?'.. A is 'stung' at 116e (though could this be another 'dodge'?) and again at 127d (How do you translate this word, 'seem'? makes it vague, eh?) (although 'seem' is not in the Loeb) More info: http://noeticsociety.org

Dialogue(s): alcibiades Sections: 103a 103b 104a 104b 104c 104d 104e 105a 105b 105c 105d 105e 106a 106b 106c 106d 106e 107a 107b 107c 107e 108a 108b 108c 108d 108e 109a 109b 109c 109d 109e 110a 110b 110c 110d 110e 111a 111b 111c 111d 111e 112a 112b 112c 112d 112e 113a 113b 113c 113d 113e 114a 114b 114c 114d 114e 115a 115b 115c 115d 115e 116a 116b 116c 116d (This session did not have an explicit screen time/date-stamp on the videotape. But it was probably either Feb 8 or Feb 15.) Note on the Bill Duncan tapes: This is the first in the Bill Duncan (tag: nsbduncan) series of video recordings of Pierre and the NS group. The tapes Bill gave me run from February 1985 to December, 1986.  Each tape had between 3 and 5 'segments' (distinct meeting dates) on it.  This first tape had 3, but most tapes had 4. Lighting was too low on this first segment, but improves quickly in subsequent segments.  The audio is surprisingly good for its time, but still not high enough volume to make it easy for me to hear without headphones.  And of course, because of the videotape medium, there is much hiss.  I tried to improve / re-master the audio in audacity, but nothing I did made me happy (amplify, normalize, dynamically compress, etc.) so I have just left the audio in the original, for future generations to fiddle with, if they like.  Grab your headphones (hopefully the over-ear kind), and turn the volume up. The content is worth it: (Thank you Bill!!!) Not all segments had time-stamps, but almost all tapes had at least one segment that had a timestamp.  So I did my best to infer time stamps on the segments, based on the fairly reasonable assumption of a weekly meeting for each dialogue studied; on other segments on the same tape that did have time-stamps on them; and on other meetings from other tapes not conflicting (and picking up where other tapes left off.) I am putting all the Bill Duncan tapes into the 'NSFRI' series, because this is when they most often - though not always - met, and also because Friday nights have over the years been the most frequent night of the week for dialogues / talks / NS group study. Besides the 'NSFRI' tag, I am also giving them the 'nsbduncan' tag, so that you can easily narrow down to only these videotapes if you want. Below follow my notes on this first segment. They are just scribblings. If you improve on them, by all means please forward to me and I will get them in here, and appreciate it. -JAS Notes: 'Alcibiades I' tape, segment 1 of 3.  (If anyone knows or remembers the text they are reading from, please let me know. I checked and it is definitely not the Loeb or Taylor.) 103a - 116e: started out just reading through the text. 43:16 A unit of interchange: question/answer We should check that the units are linked up internally, and between them. That is, that Alcibiades picks up and understands what is being said/asked by Soc (internal), and also that the next unit follows from the previous (between). The units fit together into larger units (the larger arguments -- boxes to the left, on board). Also, we are interested in seeing how the larger arguments fit together and link up as well. Questions regarding 'distance'.   1- the distance within units   2- the distance between units   3- the distance between arguments Parmenides: very tight (little distance) Republic: great distance: we have to search to find the connections, requiring skill Do you have the sense that this (Alcibiades) is just like those other dialogues? Has a cohesive quality? Keeps it all together?  What would be your judgement about it? If these (units) were threads, would you say that they are tight-knit? Or not? Ask how tight/closely-knit the text is at each of the above 3 levels. The work is very tight. Fits together link by link -- like a bracelet. Is there some gem along the way? Is there any undercurrent or theme that ties it all together?  A delicate thread difficult to spot, but keeps all of the arguments together?  What is the thread that ties/connects/underlies the arguments? It may only be visible at certain places. Does A know he knows (or does not know)?  (Which would tie in with gnothi seauton -- know thyself) picking up again around 112b to e How did he go from the discussion on Homer to the 1 and 2 stuff? The change is at 112d, where A says, 'By what you say, it is not likely.' Are there side points? ('loop' drawing) What is the connection between the two main points? Is there a distance between the 2 points? 1:02 What does it do to you to hit the break-off spot? ('from what YOU say..') Is Alcibiades surprised by Socrates' rejoinder to this? What does that do to him? (Pulls him in, gets/keeps him into it) Next, we want to know the connection between the break-off points and the major units. (up to 113d) Was the next unit completed? Did he come to a conclusion? What does Alcibiades do? Who is setting the stage for the next section? (Alcibiades)  Who did it in the previous section? (Alcibiades) What is the relationship between 112d and 113c/d (the two breaking points)? Now Alcibiades introduces the issue between justice and interest (expediency). What is the relationship between the paragraphs at ____ (?) and 113d ('I do not think Socrates that the Athenians..') How can we characterize Alcibiades' move at 113d?  Since it doesn't related to the unit they just covered, then does it relate to the preceeding conclusion? What is the force of this new subject? (He discounts the point Socrates made about him.) What does that do to the whole discussion prior about whether he had a teacher or not? (It wipes it out) How does it relate then to the conclusion at 112d ('Then how is it likely that you should know what is just and unjust, when you are so bewildered (vague) about these matters and are shown to have neither learnt them from anyone nor discovered them for yourself?')? Alcibiades is saying, I don't have to. So now we can ask the same thing about the next section, too. So if we wanted to get an insight into Alcibiades, what might be the way to go? (Study each of his responses / diversions / rhetorical dodges, to avoid the conclusion just reached prior to each one.) Therefore the connection between these (the units) is necessarily going to be what? (A great distance, since at each point S. has to deal with the diversion, rather than keeping the logos moving forward tightly.) Is Socrates willing to take the trip (into where each rhetorical dodge takes them)? Yes. (a 'philosophical cowboy') [Rodeo?] If we are going to characterize these loops (the discussions that the rhetorical dodges take them into), how is that going to be related to the Delphic oracle ('know thyself')?  Is A trying to avoid knowing himself? Pierre picks up reading p56 (end of 116d): 'So if anyone stands up to advise either the Athenians or the Peparethians,1 imagining that he understands what is just and unjust, and says that just things are sometimes evil, could you do other than laugh him to scorn, since you actually say yourself that just and expedient are the same?'.. A is 'stung' at 116e (though could this be another 'dodge'?) and again at 127d (How do you translate this word, 'seem'? makes it vague, eh?) (although 'seem' is not in the Loeb) More info: http://noeticsociety.org

Dialogue(s): alcibiades Sections: 103a 103b 104a 104b 104c 104d 104e 105a 105b 105c 105d 105e 106a 106b 106c 106d 106e 107a 107b 107c 107e 108a 108b 108c 108d 108e 109a 109b 109c 109d 109e 110a 110b 110c 110d 110e 111a 111b 111c 111d 111e 112a 112b 112c 112d 112e 113a 113b 113c 113d 113e 114a 114b 114c 114d 114e 115a 115b 115c 115d 115e 116a 116b 116c 116d (This session did not have an explicit screen time/date-stamp on the videotape. But it was probably either Feb 8 or Feb 15.) Note on the Bill Duncan tapes: This is the first in the Bill Duncan (tag: nsbduncan) series of video recordings of Pierre and the NS group. The tapes Bill gave me run from February 1985 to December, 1986.  Each tape had between 3 and 5 'segments' (distinct meeting dates) on it.  This first tape had 3, but most tapes had 4. Lighting was too low on this first segment, but improves quickly in subsequent segments.  The audio is surprisingly good for its time, but still not high enough volume to make it easy for me to hear without headphones.  And of course, because of the videotape medium, there is much hiss.  I tried to improve / re-master the audio in audacity, but nothing I did made me happy (amplify, normalize, dynamically compress, etc.) so I have just left the audio in the original, for future generations to fiddle with, if they like.  Grab your headphones (hopefully the over-ear kind), and turn the volume up. The content is worth it: (Thank you Bill!!!) Not all segments had time-stamps, but almost all tapes had at least one segment that had a timestamp.  So I did my best to infer time stamps on the segments, based on the fairly reasonable assumption of a weekly meeting for each dialogue studied; on other segments on the same tape that did have time-stamps on them; and on other meetings from other tapes not conflicting (and picking up where other tapes left off.) I am putting all the Bill Duncan tapes into the 'NSFRI' series, because this is when they most often - though not always - met, and also because Friday nights have over the years been the most frequent night of the week for dialogues / talks / NS group study. Besides the 'NSFRI' tag, I am also giving them the 'nsbduncan' tag, so that you can easily narrow down to only these videotapes if you want. Below follow my notes on this first segment. They are just scribblings. If you improve on them, by all means please forward to me and I will get them in here, and appreciate it. -JAS Notes: 'Alcibiades I' tape, segment 1 of 3.  (If anyone knows or remembers the text they are reading from, please let me know. I checked and it is definitely not the Loeb or Taylor.) 103a - 116e: started out just reading through the text. 43:16 A unit of interchange: question/answer We should check that the units are linked up internally, and between them. That is, that Alcibiades picks up and understands what is being said/asked by Soc (internal), and also that the next unit follows from the previous (between). The units fit together into larger units (the larger arguments -- boxes to the left, on board). Also, we are interested in seeing how the larger arguments fit together and link up as well. Questions regarding 'distance'.   1- the distance within units   2- the distance between units   3- the distance between arguments Parmenides: very tight (little distance) Republic: great distance: we have to search to find the connections, requiring skill Do you have the sense that this (Alcibiades) is just like those other dialogues? Has a cohesive quality? Keeps it all together?  What would be your judgement about it? If these (units) were threads, would you say that they are tight-knit? Or not? Ask how tight/closely-knit the text is at each of the above 3 levels. The work is very tight. Fits together link by link -- like a bracelet. Is there some gem along the way? Is there any undercurrent or theme that ties it all together?  A delicate thread difficult to spot, but keeps all of the arguments together?  What is the thread that ties/connects/underlies the arguments? It may only be visible at certain places. Does A know he knows (or does not know)?  (Which would tie in with gnothi seauton -- know thyself) picking up again around 112b to e How did he go from the discussion on Homer to the 1 and 2 stuff? The change is at 112d, where A says, 'By what you say, it is not likely.' Are there side points? ('loop' drawing) What is the connection between the two main points? Is there a distance between the 2 points? 1:02 What does it do to you to hit the break-off spot? ('from what YOU say..') Is Alcibiades surprised by Socrates' rejoinder to this? What does that do to him? (Pulls him in, gets/keeps him into it) Next, we want to know the connection between the break-off points and the major units. (up to 113d) Was the next unit completed? Did he come to a conclusion? What does Alcibiades do? Who is setting the stage for the next section? (Alcibiades)  Who did it in the previous section? (Alcibiades) What is the relationship between 112d and 113c/d (the two breaking points)? Now Alcibiades introduces the issue between justice and interest (expediency). What is the relationship between the paragraphs at ____ (?) and 113d ('I do not think Socrates that the Athenians..') How can we characterize Alcibiades' move at 113d?  Since it doesn't related to the unit they just covered, then does it relate to the preceeding conclusion? What is the force of this new subject? (He discounts the point Socrates made about him.) What does that do to the whole discussion prior about whether he had a teacher or not? (It wipes it out) How does it relate then to the conclusion at 112d ('Then how is it likely that you should know what is just and unjust, when you are so bewildered (vague) about these matters and are shown to have neither learnt them from anyone nor discovered them for yourself?')? Alcibiades is saying, I don't have to. So now we can ask the same thing about the next section, too. So if we wanted to get an insight into Alcibiades, what might be the way to go? (Study each of his responses / diversions / rhetorical dodges, to avoid the conclusion just reached prior to each one.) Therefore the connection between these (the units) is necessarily going to be what? (A great distance, since at each point S. has to deal with the diversion, rather than keeping the logos moving forward tightly.) Is Socrates willing to take the trip (into where each rhetorical dodge takes them)? Yes. (a 'philosophical cowboy') [Rodeo?] If we are going to characterize these loops (the discussions that the rhetorical dodges take them into), how is that going to be related to the Delphic oracle ('know thyself')?  Is A trying to avoid knowing himself? Pierre picks up reading p56 (end of 116d): 'So if anyone stands up to advise either the Athenians or the Peparethians,1 imagining that he understands what is just and unjust, and says that just things are sometimes evil, could you do other than laugh him to scorn, since you actually say yourself that just and expedient are the same?'.. A is 'stung' at 116e (though could this be another 'dodge'?) and again at 127d (How do you translate this word, 'seem'? makes it vague, eh?) (although 'seem' is not in the Loeb) More info: http://noeticsociety.org

Dialogue(s): alcibiades Sections: 103a 103b 104a 104b 104c 104d 104e 105a 105b 105c 105d 105e 106a 106b 106c 106d 106e 107a 107b 107c 107e 108a 108b 108c 108d 108e 109a 109b 109c 109d 109e 110a 110b 110c 110d 110e 111a 111b 111c 111d 111e 112a 112b 112c 112d 112e 113a 113b 113c 113d 113e 114a 114b 114c 114d 114e 115a 115b 115c 115d 115e 116a 116b 116c 116d (This session did not have an explicit screen time/date-stamp on the videotape. But it was probably either Feb 8 or Feb 15.) Note on the Bill Duncan tapes: This is the first in the Bill Duncan (tag: nsbduncan) series of video recordings of Pierre and the NS group. The tapes Bill gave me run from February 1985 to December, 1986.  Each tape had between 3 and 5 'segments' (distinct meeting dates) on it.  This first tape had 3, but most tapes had 4. Lighting was too low on this first segment, but improves quickly in subsequent segments.  The audio is surprisingly good for its time, but still not high enough volume to make it easy for me to hear without headphones.  And of course, because of the videotape medium, there is much hiss.  I tried to improve / re-master the audio in audacity, but nothing I did made me happy (amplify, normalize, dynamically compress, etc.) so I have just left the audio in the original, for future generations to fiddle with, if they like.  Grab your headphones (hopefully the over-ear kind), and turn the volume up. The content is worth it: (Thank you Bill!!!) Not all segments had time-stamps, but almost all tapes had at least one segment that had a timestamp.  So I did my best to infer time stamps on the segments, based on the fairly reasonable assumption of a weekly meeting for each dialogue studied; on other segments on the same tape that did have time-stamps on them; and on other meetings from other tapes not conflicting (and picking up where other tapes left off.) I am putting all the Bill Duncan tapes into the 'NSFRI' series, because this is when they most often - though not always - met, and also because Friday nights have over the years been the most frequent night of the week for dialogues / talks / NS group study. Besides the 'NSFRI' tag, I am also giving them the 'nsbduncan' tag, so that you can easily narrow down to only these videotapes if you want. Below follow my notes on this first segment. They are just scribblings. If you improve on them, by all means please forward to me and I will get them in here, and appreciate it. -JAS Notes: 'Alcibiades I' tape, segment 1 of 3.  (If anyone knows or remembers the text they are reading from, please let me know. I checked and it is definitely not the Loeb or Taylor.) 103a - 116e: started out just reading through the text. 43:16 A unit of interchange: question/answer We should check that the units are linked up internally, and between them. That is, that Alcibiades picks up and understands what is being said/asked by Soc (internal), and also that the next unit follows from the previous (between). The units fit together into larger units (the larger arguments -- boxes to the left, on board). Also, we are interested in seeing how the larger arguments fit together and link up as well. Questions regarding 'distance'.   1- the distance within units   2- the distance between units   3- the distance between arguments Parmenides: very tight (little distance) Republic: great distance: we have to search to find the connections, requiring skill Do you have the sense that this (Alcibiades) is just like those other dialogues? Has a cohesive quality? Keeps it all together?  What would be your judgement about it? If these (units) were threads, would you say that they are tight-knit? Or not? Ask how tight/closely-knit the text is at each of the above 3 levels. The work is very tight. Fits together link by link -- like a bracelet. Is there some gem along the way? Is there any undercurrent or theme that ties it all together?  A delicate thread difficult to spot, but keeps all of the arguments together?  What is the thread that ties/connects/underlies the arguments? It may only be visible at certain places. Does A know he knows (or does not know)?  (Which would tie in with gnothi seauton -- know thyself) picking up again around 112b to e How did he go from the discussion on Homer to the 1 and 2 stuff? The change is at 112d, where A says, 'By what you say, it is not likely.' Are there side points? ('loop' drawing) What is the connection between the two main points? Is there a distance between the 2 points? 1:02 What does it do to you to hit the break-off spot? ('from what YOU say..') Is Alcibiades surprised by Socrates' rejoinder to this? What does that do to him? (Pulls him in, gets/keeps him into it) Next, we want to know the connection between the break-off points and the major units. (up to 113d) Was the next unit completed? Did he come to a conclusion? What does Alcibiades do? Who is setting the stage for the next section? (Alcibiades)  Who did it in the previous section? (Alcibiades) What is the relationship between 112d and 113c/d (the two breaking points)? Now Alcibiades introduces the issue between justice and interest (expediency). What is the relationship between the paragraphs at ____ (?) and 113d ('I do not think Socrates that the Athenians..') How can we characterize Alcibiades' move at 113d?  Since it doesn't related to the unit they just covered, then does it relate to the preceeding conclusion? What is the force of this new subject? (He discounts the point Socrates made about him.) What does that do to the whole discussion prior about whether he had a teacher or not? (It wipes it out) How does it relate then to the conclusion at 112d ('Then how is it likely that you should know what is just and unjust, when you are so bewildered (vague) about these matters and are shown to have neither learnt them from anyone nor discovered them for yourself?')? Alcibiades is saying, I don't have to. So now we can ask the same thing about the next section, too. So if we wanted to get an insight into Alcibiades, what might be the way to go? (Study each of his responses / diversions / rhetorical dodges, to avoid the conclusion just reached prior to each one.) Therefore the connection between these (the units) is necessarily going to be what? (A great distance, since at each point S. has to deal with the diversion, rather than keeping the logos moving forward tightly.) Is Socrates willing to take the trip (into where each rhetorical dodge takes them)? Yes. (a 'philosophical cowboy') [Rodeo?] If we are going to characterize these loops (the discussions that the rhetorical dodges take them into), how is that going to be related to the Delphic oracle ('know thyself')?  Is A trying to avoid knowing himself? Pierre picks up reading p56 (end of 116d): 'So if anyone stands up to advise either the Athenians or the Peparethians,1 imagining that he understands what is just and unjust, and says that just things are sometimes evil, could you do other than laugh him to scorn, since you actually say yourself that just and expedient are the same?'.. A is 'stung' at 116e (though could this be another 'dodge'?) and again at 127d (How do you translate this word, 'seem'? makes it vague, eh?) (although 'seem' is not in the Loeb) More info: http://noeticsociety.org

Dialogue(s): alcibiades Sections: 103a 103b 104a 104b 104c 104d 104e 105a 105b 105c 105d 105e 106a 106b 106c 106d 106e 107a 107b 107c 107e 108a 108b 108c 108d 108e 109a 109b 109c 109d 109e 110a 110b 110c 110d 110e 111a 111b 111c 111d 111e 112a 112b 112c 112d 112e 113a 113b 113c 113d 113e 114a 114b 114c 114d 114e 115a 115b 115c 115d 115e 116a 116b 116c 116d (This session did not have an explicit screen time/date-stamp on the videotape. But it was probably either Feb 8 or Feb 15.) Note on the Bill Duncan tapes: This is the first in the Bill Duncan (tag: nsbduncan) series of video recordings of Pierre and the NS group. The tapes Bill gave me run from February 1985 to December, 1986.  Each tape had between 3 and 5 'segments' (distinct meeting dates) on it.  This first tape had 3, but most tapes had 4. Lighting was too low on this first segment, but improves quickly in subsequent segments.  The audio is surprisingly good for its time, but still not high enough volume to make it easy for me to hear without headphones.  And of course, because of the videotape medium, there is much hiss.  I tried to improve / re-master the audio in audacity, but nothing I did made me happy (amplify, normalize, dynamically compress, etc.) so I have just left the audio in the original, for future generations to fiddle with, if they like.  Grab your headphones (hopefully the over-ear kind), and turn the volume up. The content is worth it: (Thank you Bill!!!) Not all segments had time-stamps, but almost all tapes had at least one segment that had a timestamp.  So I did my best to infer time stamps on the segments, based on the fairly reasonable assumption of a weekly meeting for each dialogue studied; on other segments on the same tape that did have time-stamps on them; and on other meetings from other tapes not conflicting (and picking up where other tapes left off.) I am putting all the Bill Duncan tapes into the 'NSFRI' series, because this is when they most often - though not always - met, and also because Friday nights have over the years been the most frequent night of the week for dialogues / talks / NS group study. Besides the 'NSFRI' tag, I am also giving them the 'nsbduncan' tag, so that you can easily narrow down to only these videotapes if you want. Below follow my notes on this first segment. They are just scribblings. If you improve on them, by all means please forward to me and I will get them in here, and appreciate it. -JAS Notes: 'Alcibiades I' tape, segment 1 of 3.  (If anyone knows or remembers the text they are reading from, please let me know. I checked and it is definitely not the Loeb or Taylor.) 103a - 116e: started out just reading through the text. 43:16 A unit of interchange: question/answer We should check that the units are linked up internally, and between them. That is, that Alcibiades picks up and understands what is being said/asked by Soc (internal), and also that the next unit follows from the previous (between). The units fit together into larger units (the larger arguments -- boxes to the left, on board). Also, we are interested in seeing how the larger arguments fit together and link up as well. Questions regarding 'distance'.   1- the distance within units   2- the distance between units   3- the distance between arguments Parmenides: very tight (little distance) Republic: great distance: we have to search to find the connections, requiring skill Do you have the sense that this (Alcibiades) is just like those other dialogues? Has a cohesive quality? Keeps it all together?  What would be your judgement about it? If these (units) were threads, would you say that they are tight-knit? Or not? Ask how tight/closely-knit the text is at each of the above 3 levels. The work is very tight. Fits together link by link -- like a bracelet. Is there some gem along the way? Is there any undercurrent or theme that ties it all together?  A delicate thread difficult to spot, but keeps all of the arguments together?  What is the thread that ties/connects/underlies the arguments? It may only be visible at certain places. Does A know he knows (or does not know)?  (Which would tie in with gnothi seauton -- know thyself) picking up again around 112b to e How did he go from the discussion on Homer to the 1 and 2 stuff? The change is at 112d, where A says, 'By what you say, it is not likely.' Are there side points? ('loop' drawing) What is the connection between the two main points? Is there a distance between the 2 points? 1:02 What does it do to you to hit the break-off spot? ('from what YOU say..') Is Alcibiades surprised by Socrates' rejoinder to this? What does that do to him? (Pulls him in, gets/keeps him into it) Next, we want to know the connection between the break-off points and the major units. (up to 113d) Was the next unit completed? Did he come to a conclusion? What does Alcibiades do? Who is setting the stage for the next section? (Alcibiades)  Who did it in the previous section? (Alcibiades) What is the relationship between 112d and 113c/d (the two breaking points)? Now Alcibiades introduces the issue between justice and interest (expediency). What is the relationship between the paragraphs at ____ (?) and 113d ('I do not think Socrates that the Athenians..') How can we characterize Alcibiades' move at 113d?  Since it doesn't related to the unit they just covered, then does it relate to the preceeding conclusion? What is the force of this new subject? (He discounts the point Socrates made about him.) What does that do to the whole discussion prior about whether he had a teacher or not? (It wipes it out) How does it relate then to the conclusion at 112d ('Then how is it likely that you should know what is just and unjust, when you are so bewildered (vague) about these matters and are shown to have neither learnt them from anyone nor discovered them for yourself?')? Alcibiades is saying, I don't have to. So now we can ask the same thing about the next section, too. So if we wanted to get an insight into Alcibiades, what might be the way to go? (Study each of his responses / diversions / rhetorical dodges, to avoid the conclusion just reached prior to each one.) Therefore the connection between these (the units) is necessarily going to be what? (A great distance, since at each point S. has to deal with the diversion, rather than keeping the logos moving forward tightly.) Is Socrates willing to take the trip (into where each rhetorical dodge takes them)? Yes. (a 'philosophical cowboy') [Rodeo?] If we are going to characterize these loops (the discussions that the rhetorical dodges take them into), how is that going to be related to the Delphic oracle ('know thyself')?  Is A trying to avoid knowing himself? Pierre picks up reading p56 (end of 116d): 'So if anyone stands up to advise either the Athenians or the Peparethians,1 imagining that he understands what is just and unjust, and says that just things are sometimes evil, could you do other than laugh him to scorn, since you actually say yourself that just and expedient are the same?'.. A is 'stung' at 116e (though could this be another 'dodge'?) and again at 127d (How do you translate this word, 'seem'? makes it vague, eh?) (although 'seem' is not in the Loeb) More info: http://noeticsociety.org