the whole book...in many posts.

Preface
I began writing this text as a result of various religious experienced I have undergone since my youth. As with everyone who is born our interaction is the divine is endemic to our being and existence. I have been brought up a firm believer in the mysterious and divine. The more I believed and the more I scrutinized everything I underwent groiunding everything in sience and sopund logic\, the more I experienced. By high school the events became more intense though few and far between. The following text is an analysis of thje various religions of the world and the mechanism of God’s presence and divine interaction through the belief systems that have evolved from the believers of a religion founded by someone whose ideas impressed the divine and through the subsequent divine interaction a characteristic of the same God or divine took form in this world. Thus , each religion explains a characteristic or meaning of God in a fashion that compliments the other religions and their understanding of God. Eacch system taps into the same ultimate being beyond being. Each explains the ultimate in the same fashion yet each helps to explain the mechanisms of each religion and each contains its divine prophets or believers who represent methods of accessing that divine being and. Or be accessed by that divine itself. In its entirety God has interacted with various people who helps God become actual in the ideas of people and thus empowers their actualized concepts of God like a framework, on which God becomes accessed through a created system governed by laws and systems that mimic the nature of the laws of physics. This actualizes the infitite potential of God beyond being with the cr4eated fold of the matrix of creation. Once thought the quantum energy signature takes form basded on that idea and has become actualisded. This form has become , it has been given for,\m. As humanity becomes capable of actuialising the desired system form that causes prerequisites for a higher evolution of divinely e,mpowered beings to become our specious norm, humanity changed. Knowledge and uinderstand have helped lead humanity to this goal. We are on the cusp of a change, as madias and esp the internet have exposed all peoples to the various ideas of the world at large. The idea opf the wequality of religions is no longer the mainstay of enl;ightened people but the social norm that is being fiostered in everrybuddy esp the young growing up in the much smaller global polity. As fiction and everyday life encorporates these ideas into the common ideology of all peoples the possibility of becoming universally accepting of the onne divine truth all people are exposed to, no matter their place or background, is possible. One is capable of utilizing sufficient knowledge from all characteristyics of God to understand the complimentary nature of each and thus learn to understand their own religion and all others. In this way one learns more about the complete splender of the divine as it took shape in collective soul of humanity and ultimastely creation, which includes all organic and organic natures. We have evolved to the point of being capable of seeing the world as one collectivbe understanding, this leads to the greater understanding of Gods plan and its necessary program actuation to cause a shift in being, a spiritual evolution to the next evolutionary level. Thje programs outr put is intended for a self actualized evolution which causes the creation of divine beings capable of everything the origination source of everything is. Thus the mechanism of the universe leads to the hypostasistion of being and the birth of divine beings with the divine nature of the originator. It is creating an individual that mimics God like a child yet varies as an offspring does from the parents. Each upgrade ulters the frameworks program as it is actualized and causes every new being born in the system to be closer to that trtasnscendace of divinty, one day soon the birth of only divine natures becomes possible. This shift is usually caused by a cliving of those who living in this time as the way to the divine nasture is purified thus not allowing for the same levels of curuptions the old system of being carriers like baggage . this nnagage is a product iof the nuture of the physical existande of the universe that causes those born into it to individuate themse;ves from the source of their being as they are imprinted by the universes actualized program at birth and begin to develop thjier own program. Necessitiers and the dtives associate with these and the methods of acrueing through the physical matrix \what is needed to satiet these desires can cause deviation from the divine characteristics that cause divinification. Yet as the program actualized based on those who transcend and creation in its entirety the program edges closer to creating but common images of morality and the specifications of the imprints necessary to cause an incuruptible nature with a proper environment of growth. As the growth is achived the greater nature of returning to the high end of the program which is the divine, the acquisitions of the means to achieve the necessary satiation of thesxe desires become transcendable and one becomes cable of accessing meanms beyond the physical matrix.. in this evolution humanity reaches the ability to wield greater powers which can only be accessed by those of the divine nature. As the universes asctualised program upgrade the powers become more endemic in society. It is the peace that must be sought as the desire to be as the unity of all religious understands to become universal beings of any belief system utilizing all beliefs with sound judgements to enrich our own beliefs no matter our religious background. This understanding leads to universal peace as difference fades into the merit that causes each of us to realize the unlimited potenmtial we can access and together foster as the norm of all humanity and being.
This text promotes the peaceful unityu of asll religions by every religion causing the creation of universal beings and the enlightenment necessary to complete the trabsition to the next evolution before the system pu\ges itself of the clichés or ingoranmt to balligeraqntly fight the progress of our being into doivine beings. Those who cannot upgrade their personal nature and program of their understandinfg die and have their programs purged or corrected by punishment. The evolutionary change is upon us and the actualizing program is being upgrades as it ticks down to the unfixed final judgement of those who will be part of the emergence of the next age of being and those perged of the system to allow the divine humasnity,
Homo sapiet days , comes to bear on the universe and beyond \with the peaceful divine nature of a highly evolved whose birth rioght of divinity flowers as the basic nature of all things that come into being/
By the end of this text you will feel secure with your belief systems and you will understand why the moral judgementsd based on the common sense of truth must be made ones nature by practicing and acting in that manner, in the best manner we know how to, peaceful and univbersally tolerant and respectful of all peoples, thus opening ourselves up to universal love and acceptance of all ideas as meriting contemplation. Together we take a step forward to fuilly become what the divine intended the system to create, divine individuals that equally share a ones with the divine yet are all individualsd.
This text will enlighten and inspire and was written as part of an attempt to create p[eace while writing to the religions and political leaders of the world. It is a collecxtive psychic endevour that represents the various actualized dreams synthesized into one understyanding while being guilded by the religious revolations the divine has bestowed on me.







I am writing a text concerning theological precepts. It is unedited. I have found a way to unify all world religions . I seek world peace. I will edit the text after I receive all the responses to it.
May the earth mother make us strong and give us eternal love and life. May we bless here so she will bless us twice over. May we bless the father God and may he make you a lover. May the dark ones make you fertile and the light ones give you sight.
You may do as you please but what ever you do will come back to you in Karmic proportion. So do only good things and thus you will be blessed twice over with god things.
May the many Hands of Brama and his wife bless you and may Crisna become our avatar.May Allah and Mohamed protect and bless us all.May the Messiah and ends of days happen soon. Blessed be Hashem Blessed be He.

comments@whitehouse.gov wrote
Thu, 11 May 2006 01:50:26 -0400 (EDT

On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.
We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.


"Christina Tarnopolsky, Prof." wrote


Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:35:52 –0500continue to work on what sounds like a very fascinating project.best,Christina TarnopolskyMc Gill university

May your devotion to God and outpouring of that devotion make you one with God and transfoirm your love for God into a enlightenment for you and those around you.
May your way to God be included as one of the many ways to God's glory, for God's glories are many and distinct. Prais Baha’i
World peace includes nato, for a good deterance brings peace and military tech is necessary for space exploration. the military is part of the true vision of the future and heaven itself. for many saints were military people who sought ppeace and good will amongst all people.


May Don Haun protect you and may the collective dream unify your intention with your integrity. For a shared reality builds worlds and a group of people at the same wave length share a collective of ideas, thus making it easier to understand and transmit new ideas to each other. It is a wizards trick in which meditation or a drug links you to alkl those who use it past present and future.
val

May vodoun guild us through the sky the oceans and the truth of magic.
May loa protect you, may olorun make you mysterious and into the obatula.
For obutula was not sent from olorun whi is all , rather he returned home after his walk with God pruior to returning to the world he created after his descent to ear. There was no battle but a debate to stay in the paradise of the Gods. The world created when olorun and obutula were one.



Shintoism


may the divine winds shelter us and bless us, as the sun gives us honour not to kill anyone and may the God(s) smite those who are not peaceful, thus having them commit hari chari, which the first tsintoism knew, means being so unhourable to be unjustly evil and have the God's smite you down. For no one takes a life their own or an others. there is no honour in that.




Kings and queens always draw their blood from first fathers and mothers, that is why they concider themselves parents of their nations. Your family is the God parents of your state. Help make a better more peaceful way for everyone.
may the i ching protect us all and may the celestial emporer grace us all with a universe and protection. Diod you know the I ching lists ideas concerning a heaven in the sky9air above) and a place of the dead in the ground. the first fetus is God incarnating in each birth. For the yin and the yang are the balance of light and dark, mater and antimater divine and mortal, God and Godess.
May the fifth Guru elighten your way and open the way to all books as the final guru to all enlightenment and the light that shines within. For a blade stays in its sheith. when you grip it pray God vleeses the other and dispastches your enemy without ever drawing its sacrad blade. For this is God's will.

Please forward this to any other hari krsna ceters.
HARE KRISHNA HARE KRISHNA KRISHNA KRISHNA HARE HARE HARE RAMA HARE RAMA RAMA RAMA HARE HARE
May we all become avatars of krisna and the entire hingu pantheon and all the Gods of the world including the unifying GOD head of everything.
you will find a reading of the bhagavatan and other material concerning hinduism including my enlightenmed a few weeks a go, as i lived the entire poem and spiritual life of the vedas and became brahma..
peace
val
thank you
keep up the good work together we can bring world wide peace.

May we become one with the doa become immortal and make the three one through enlightenment and bring peace.live long and prosaper. May Poo bless us all.
May the many arms of Christ protect us all,
may we become all avatars avatars.

May the great seal be open and may destiny manefest in peace and prosperity. For life, liberty, world peace
and prosperity.
May Hercules make you more powerful than many people put together. May zues and hera bless you.

Realisation of the Content of Plato's Myth of Er Chrysovalantis Petridis



Introduction

In this essay I will prove the myth of Er is an important part of the Republic. It is not a useless exegesis that ruins the dialogue; rather it is an integral component to the understanding of Plato’s project in the Republic. Julia Annas criticizes Plato’s use of this myth as an ending to this dialogue. In An Introduction to Plato’s Republic Annas praises Plato’s project outlined in the earlier part of this dialogue, while suggesting that the myth of Er detracts from the overall presentation of this work. She claims that it ruins the dialogue rather than furthering Plato’s intentions. “The bulk of the Republic is Plato’s most successful attempt . . . Ideas that have powerful expression in the main coherent body of the book are presented at the end in a much cruder form, which Plato none the less believes can add to our understanding. And so the Republic, a powerful and otherwise impressively unified book, acquired its lame and messy ending.” . However, what Annas’ calls a messy ending might turn out to be a neat and orderly necessity for bringing the message of the Republic to fruition. John Bremer in On Plato’s Polity in the "Universe of Er" claims the myth of Er is a significant and necessary end to the Republic. In On Myth Life and War in Plato’s Republic Claudia Baracchi argues that this myth is an important part of this dialogue. This myth is an integral part to its intended message. Baracchi claims the Plato's use of myth is an important literary tool for conveying Plato’s ideas. Plato’s myths, like the myth of Er, are a product of the synthesis of his ideas and the ideas that existed in his time. Many of the images in Plato's myths are common to other ancient, and for that matter modern, myths. The ancient myths used as models to fashion the myth of Er were well known by many of the people comprising Plato's intended audience. Sometimes, Plato used a form of a myth that was almost identical to a pre-existing myth. For example, in the Protagoras Plato's presents a rendition of the myth of Prometheus that resembles its common counterpart in ancient Greece. It is introduced as the common prevalent version of this myth. Other times, as with the myth of Er , a new myth was fashioned from familiar ideas and images found in other myths. An audience familiar with these other myths would recognize the images used as inspiration for the new myths. This recognition allows people to more easily understand and relate to the ideas in the new myth. This also makes them more conducive to its lessons. I will prove the lesson imparted by the myth of Er is an integral component of the message of the Republic. I will show that the poetic rendition of this myth is fashioned with the intention of transmitting Plato’s ideas in a relatable form to everyone based on the common experience of life. I will show that the myth of Er is important to Plato's project because it establishes a new system of justice and defines a new way to determine the good. This myth establishes a paradigm shifta in the way one judges what is good, just and virtuous. Without this myth the model of philosophic virtue and heroism does not become established in the Republic. The new idea of philosophic heroism, justice and virtue is born out of this myth. Furthermore, without the myth of Er, the ideas of the Republic could not be proven to be consistent with a logos of logos. Furthermore, this myth is essential for understanding the logos of the Republic. The realization that Er is the hero in this myth and a reflection of Socrates in the entirety of the dialogue is necessary to understand the craftsmanship of Plato's work. I will prove the Republic establishes Plato as the great teacher, artist and divine craftsman of the message of the human soul. It is an embodiment of an idea of justice meant to be used as a model to formulate other ideas of justice both personal and civic. Plato’s message is the seed meant to spread the ideas that comprise the change that caused the founding of the new epoch ushered in by the Socratic way.

Critics and Poetry

Annas criticises Plato's use of the Myth of Er to end the Republic. She suggested that it detracts from the overall presentation of this work. “The myth of Er is a painful shock”. Annas believes book ten abruptly introduces the ideas found in the rest of the dialogue in a cruder less refined way. She argues that this dialogue appears complete and orderly up to and until the end of book nine. She claims that book ten disrupts this order by presenting the ideas found in the rest of the dialogue in a cruder and less refined manner. Annas seems to believe the Republic should have ended with book nine. In contrast, Baracchi has argued that the myth of Er is an integral part of the presentation of the ideas found in the Republic. Bremer argues that this myth plays an important role as an end to this dialogue. It is essential to the overall presentation of its message. In “The Katabasis of Er, Plato’s use of myths, exemplified by the myth of Er,” Lars Albinus claims many scholars have begun analyzing the poetry and myth in Plato’s dialogues as a means of understanding Plato’s works better. Myth is an intrinsic part of the overall meaning of Plato’s dialogues. In this section I will show reasons as to why Plato may have chosen the medium of myth to transmit the concluding ideas in the Republic. In his interpretive essay on the Republic Allan Bloom claims Plato's criticism of the poets in both book two and book ten is evidence of Plato's disapproval of poetry. Bloom suggests Plato was a long time advocate of the conflict between poetry and philosophy. In An Introduction to the Republic of Plato William Boyd argues, "there is a longstanding quarrel between poetry and philosophy". Bloom believes Plato thought poetry and philosophy were incompatible. Contrary to what such critic’s claim concerning Plato’s stance on poetry, I will prove that Plato thought poetry and philosophy were compatible. Plato can be shown to actually be promoting the use of poetry with philosophy as a means to impart ideas in the way only poetry could. He intended poetry be a synthesis with philosophy as a way to convey ideas in images that everyone could relate to based on the common experience of life. The myth of Er animates the ideas of the Republic into a story that allows its audience to equate it with the discourse of everyday life. It rearticulates the ideas found in this dialogue based on the ideas of common life. Plato uses poetry to convey these ideas in images as a means of making these ideas more accessible to people and understood for what they are. In this dialogue, Socrates claims that the ideas that Homer imparts in his myths could only be conveyed in poetic verse. This is why the myth of Er is fashioned in the style of Homer's works. The myth of Er in a manner similar to Homer’s myths conveys ideas in poetic images. These ideas can only be imparted in images common to life. They are understood based on everyone's common experience of living. Baracchi claims “myth gives itself as the discourse, most appropriately addressing the articulating themes of life . . . myth belongs to life, through life myth articulates itself and speaks” Baracchi seems to be suggesting that myth is a reflection of life expressing the common experience of living in a manner more in tune with the common person’s understanding of existence. Albinus also makes similar claims concerning the role myth plays when conveying ideas to the common person. Baracchi also claims: “The poetic mythical dimension of the dialogue on the [Republic] thus, turns out to accompany the present discussion in oblique ways. Less as the object of explicit analysis then as that, the attunement to which uniquely unveils and exposes otherwise inaccessible facets of the problem of becoming.” “There appears to be a profound, if mysterious, intimacy between the cryptic emerging of life and the speaking of mythos. As if mythos [the poetry myth is] were a figure of life.” The images used in myth are based on the ideas of life and the interaction of the mysteries of the divine with the living. In The New Science of Giambattista Vico, Giambattista Vico claims that myth is the theology of life. Within myth the ideas of everyday life are played out in mystical images. One's justification of the experience of life is based on the concepts one fashions into the idea of life. Myth is an attempt to explain life based on one’s idea of life in metaphors fashioned into animated images common to everyone's life. The term myth means speech or words. The word logos means justification or proof. Mythology means the logos of speech or words. A myth is a logos in speech and words. Logos can also mean 'word(s)’, or logia, as in the phrase ' the word (logia) of the Republic' . Thus, mythology is the logos of logia. Myth is a justification of life in images common to everyone's life. It is the justification of the logos of life in speech or words based on the common experience of being. Myth justifies life and life myth. The Republic concerns itself with the examination of justice and the just life. What is translated from the Greek as the just life can also mean the justified life . Since logos means justification, the justified life is the logos of life. Hence, the Republic can be seen as a logos of the just or justified life. That is, the just life Socrates speaks of in this dialogue is the life justified by a reason or proof based on the common ideas of life. Thus, the just life explicated in the Republic is a logos of the just life, or a logos of the justified just life. Furthermore, the myth of Er is the logos that proves the Republic is consistent with a logos of logos. This myth is part of the proof necessary to prove the logos of the dialogue is a sound and valid argument. This myth is a justification of the ideas presented in the Republic. Plato may have chosen myth as a medium to convey his ideas because myth was popular in his time. Myth helps Plato’s audience relate to his ideas and allows them to more easily understand and accept the ideas found within his message. It makes ideas accessible that would not be understood otherwise. The myth of Er is both a myth and a poetic gesture presented in the form that most people of Plato’s time would be capable of understanding and relating to. Myth and poetry were a popular way to convey messages and dogma to people. Myth was considered enjoyable and educational. "[Plato] Treats poetry as a great means of tickling the palate of the Athenian demos”. Expressing ideas as myth and poetry makes these ideas easier to understand because myth and poetry animate ideas into images that convey a picture to its audience. These pictures are worth a million words when conveying ideas to people. For example, the images and names used by Socrates in the Myth of Er animate strange and interesting images in the minds of its audience. In ancient Greek, Er means spring and Hadesb is the name for the place people go after they die . The myth of Er depicts the katabasisc of Er through Hades. This myth portrays the picture of the season of spring journeying through the place of the dead. Spring is a symbol of life . This symbol of life dies and is reborn after its trip through death. Many of the ideas of the myth of Er resemble other myths concerning heroes that experience similar plights through Hades. Albinus has observed that the myth of Er resembles other tales of katabasis to Hades. Er’s tale is similar to that of Odysseus, Orpheus, Hercules, Alcinous and Christ. Er's journey to the underworld brings these similar myths to mind. The resemblance of these other stories with the myth of Er cause an audience to make associations between them. For example, Socrates introduces the myth of Er as the story of Er son of Armenius and stipulates that it is not a tale concerning Alcinous . This reference to Alcinous just prior to the presentation of the myth brings Alcinous' tale of katabasis to mind as one becomes exposed to Er's plight. Since one is informed prior to the presentation of the myth that it is not a tale of Alcinous, one is reminded of Alcinous’ plight and has this tale in mind when exposed to Er’s story. This causes one familiar with Alcinous to connect the ideas in these two stories of katabasis while taking it into to account that they are not the same. Since they are not the same, one takes special note of what makes them different. The myth of Er would be framed within the context of the tale of Alcinous and his katabasis. Plato’s use of myth in his works contains elements from many ancient myths, religions and cults. “[Plato] gave lip service to some mystic cults”. Myth was commonly used in religion. It was a medium for saving and disseminating religious teachings. In fact, Socrates ends the Republic by claiming that the myth of Er is a tale saved and not lost, which could save Socrates and Glaucon by teaching them how to have a good crossing of the river Lethed. As well, Socrates claims that his teachings taught one how to be just and become a friend of the gods. This saving can be seen to be an equivalent to the claims made by many religions concerning that religions belief in its ability to benefit and save people’s souls from the punishments of injustice. Such lessons meant to save people in the fashion usually attributed to religion suggest that the Republic and the myth of Er were intentionally fashioned in the form of religious dogma. The reading and reciting of myth was often used in, or seen as part of, the religious practices of Plato's day. This is exemplified by the fact that Homer has often been referred to as the Greek bible. Plato may have purposely fashions his ideas in a religious form to elicit a greater appeal from the members of the various religions and cults of his time. These ideas allow such members to relate to Plato’s ideas better. For instance, the Orphic and Pythagorean cult in ancient Athens would have easily relate to the many elements found within the myth of Er that resembled their religious ideas, especially the katabasis and Er‘s ability to remember this event, as well as, the ideas of reincarnation and the immortality of the soul. Since the ancients associated myth with religion, Plato's presentation of the myth of Er can be seen as being equivalent to a religious teaching. The medium of myth imparts the ideas of the myth of Er in the fashion of religious dogma. The religious form of this myth increases its interest and appeal to the members of such religions. It allows members of various religions to more easily relate to the ideas and images fashioned in it. Consequently, more people are able to accept and learn the ideas presented within the myth and the Republic as a whole. Socrates begins his discussion in the Republic concerning the city in speech as a mythology that the other characters and Socrates can create at their leisure . Albinus claims that the word speech, or logos, used to introduce this city can be equated with mythologizing. Since myth is the logos of speeches and words and the city in speech is introduced as a logos that will be fashioned in speech, this the city in speech is presented as a mythology. If the city in speech is a myth and constitutes most of the Republic then this dialogue in its entirety could also be seen as a myth. Since a dialogue is comprised of speeches between people and myth is the logos of speeches, a dialogue could be seen as a mythologizing between interlocutors. In Greek, the title of this dialogue is the 'Polity' or 'City'. Since the Republic is Plato’s “City” presented in the form of speeches, the idea of the mythologizing of the city in speech can be extended to the entire dialogue. The Republic as a whole is a myth or a logos of speeches. Albinus states that this entire dialogue is a mythology. As mentioned previously, the term myth means story or a logos in speeches and the word, logos means justification, proof, reason or study thereof. Hence, the word mythology means the study of stories, the justification, proof or reason for something in story . It is a justification of a logos in speech or words. A myth is an attempt to explain and justify ideas and usually takes the form of poetic verse . For all intent and purposes in this essay I will assume that poetry and myth are the same. The ancient Greeks often considered poetry and myth to be synonymous. Nettleship claims Homer, the great mythologist, was a great poet A myth is a proof of an idea in a story or a story that gives reasons for the way something is/ For example, an origin myth is a poetic animation in story form that presents the ideas a polity believes are the reasons for the origin of something or everything that exists. According to Socrates the myth of Er is a story that explains the evolution of the human psyche. It gives reasons or justifies the idea of human evolution in poetic story form. In the myth the human psyche evolves and changes in cycles. In Greek, the word psyche can be used to refer to both the term’s soul and psyche. The myth of Er ends the myth of the Republic. It is a myth within a myth that ends a myth. According to Bremer Er’s message and the myth that produces it pertains to the entire Republic Since the myth of Er is a myth that pertains to the entirety of this dialogue and myths are a logos pertaining to their subject, the myth of Er is a logos that pertains to the logos of the myth of the Republic. Thus, the myth of Er can be seen as a logos within a logos pertaining to the logos it is found in. This logos within a logos allows one to justify the entirety of the logos of the Republic by presenting the logos of this dialogue as a myth or logos of life at the end of this work and proves the arguments in the entire dialogue sound and valid by proving them consistent with a logos of logos. The above-mentioned ideas may be taken as some of the reasons Plato may have chosen the medium of poetry and myth to convey his ideas. In every case the myth lends itself to a better understanding of the Republic and adds rather than detracts from its overall presentation.

Logos of the Republic

I will now prove that the Republic is consistent with a logos of logos due to its inclusion of the myth of Er. In the Theaetetus, Socrates claims that there are three types of logi. The first logos concerns itself with knowing how to deconstruct something into its constituent parts, whereas the second logos consists in knowing how to build something from its constituent parts. The third is the knowledge necessary to distinguishing the particularity of something from everything else. According to W. G. Runciman in Plato’s Later Epistemology when one synthesises these three logi into one logos, one arrives at the logos of logos. Runciman claims that the logos of logos is the proof of proofs. If someone were trying to prove an argument concerning justice the proof of proofs proves the validity of that arguments proofs. The proof of proofs is a way to prove an argument sound and valid. The idea of a logos for the logos of logos to an argument’s logos is not as it might first appear ad infinitum. Each addition of a proof to an argument's proof adds a new level of proof to that argument. For example, this essay is a logos that uses the logos of logos to prove the logos of the Republic is consistent with the logos of logos. The logos of logos of a logos of the justified just life can be translated as the proof of proofs for the proof of the justification that proves one’s idea of the just life sound and valid. For example one might say that the justification of the just life is its rewards in heaven. The proof of this justification is the proof of these rewards. The proof of proof of the proof of these rewards is the basis of proving such an argument sound and valid. I will now prove the logos of Plato's Republic is consistent with a proof of a logos of logos. The Republic presents various arguments made for justice, which are later integrated into the myth of Er. As mentioned earlier, the Republic concerns itself with an explication of justice. Plato deconstructs the idea of justice into the various arguments for justice presented by Socrates’ interlocutors in book one and two. These ideas of justice are normative ideas. I will refer to these normative ideas as the old ideas that were prevalent in Athens in the time of Socrates and Plato. Bremer calls these normative ideas the Homeric ideal. He claims Plato rewrote this ideal. This ideal dies in the dialogue and is resurrected anew by Plato's rewriting of it. Normative ideas become engrained in the human psyche. They are often considered natural traits innate to all humans. These traits are believed to be what makes one truly human. They are the standards used to judge one's humanity. Normative ideas influence the way people think and behave. Nietzsche calls these norms of behaviour the guidelines for the herd mentality. These norms are the basis for the judgement of appropriate behaviour and belief. They are valued as the natural characteristics belonging to civilised humanity. Behaviour outside these parameters devalues the actor’s humanity. One is evil, sick, or less human when one acts outside the accepted norms of one's society . In identity/difference, Connolly claims these norms are entrenched ideas engrained in the psyche of a society. These ideas are the basis of a polity’s judgment of justice. They are the grounds by which the ideas of good and evil are determined. Each society has such established ideas. When the content of these ideas change society changes. The deconstruction of the idea of justice found in book one and two fulfils the first part of the logos of logos. In the myth these ideas are reconstructed into a single idea of justice. This reconstruction is the second part of the logos of logos. The ideas of justice presented in book one and two are used as elements to formulate the idea of justice in the myth. The myth presents a new idea of justice that encompasses all the ideas of justice presented by Socrates and his interlocutors in the Republic. This new form of justice is different in comparison to any other ideas of justice presented in this dialogue. This difference is what delineates this form of justice from all other ideas of justice and fulfils the third part of the logos of logos. Thus, Plato's Republic contains what is necessary to be considered consistent with a logos of logos. I will now examine the normative ideas of justice presented by Socrates and his interlocutors. These ideas prove Plato knew how to deconstruct the idea of justice into parts. I will show how these ideas of justice are reintegrated in the myth as a all-encompassing idea of justice. This proves Plato knew how to reconstruct the idea of justice from its part. Finally I will show how the myths idea of justice is distinct in comparison to the other ideas of justice presented in the rest of the Republic. This proves Plato knew how to distinguish his idea from others. I will examine the normative ideas presented by each of Socrates’ interlocutors in book one and two in the order of (1) Cephalous, (2) Polemarchus, (3) Thrasymachus, (4) Glaucon and (5) Adeimantus. I will then look at an example of (6) Socrates’ own ideas of justice that are used as elements to fashion the same myth. To begin with, (1) Cephalous presents an idea of justice based on the idea of the avoidance of divine punishment. He claims that as a consequence of the realization of the imminent nearing of one’s death and the stories that are told by poets concerning the punishments unjust people suffer in the afterlife, one might begin to fear these punishments and wonder if one will be punished when they reach the hereafter. One begins to wonder whether one's actions in life were just or unjust. Many people at this point in their lives start looking for ways to atone for any injustices they think they might have committed. Such people often seek methods to appease the gods and avoid their wrath and punishments. Cephalous argues that such people try to pay back what they owe people and the gods. Thus, the fear of punishment caused by the realization of the immanence of one’s death motivates such people to seek out justice. Cephalous' idea of divine punishment in the afterlife is included in the description of the rewards and punishments outlined by Socrates in the myth. Socrates' idea of justice is distinct to that of Cephalous' idea because, unlike Cephalous, Socrates' includes the idea of rewards for living a just and virtues life. As well, Socrates does not believe that paying people what one owes them here on earth is sufficient to be considered just in the hereafter. In the myth, the punishments of injustice are not simply meted out as a repercussion of a debt to other people in this world. Socrates also describes the punishments in the afterlife as fleeting, except for the punishments suffered by the unrepented, while Cephalous does not mention the duration of these punishments. (2) Polemarchus first definition of justice follows from Cephalous‘ idea: Justice is paying people what is owed them. This idea is incorporated in the myth as the rewards and punishments that the gods owe each human for their just and unjust acts respectfully. The gods pay people what is owed them based on how they interact with each other and towards the gods themselves. The myth's idea of the divine payment made by gods to mortals for their just and unjust acts respectfully is distinct from the idea presented by Polemarchus. What other people owe one in life may not be the basis of what the gods think one is owed in the afterlife. If I were owed money the gods might not think the person in debt to me was unjust. Polemarchus' second definition of justice is doing good to friends and evil to enemies. If one considers the just person as being the friend of the gods then the rewards of the afterlife are equivalent to the good done to friends and the punishments the evil done to enemies. This is how Polemarchus’ idea of justice is reintegrated into the myth. According to Socrates the just person is a friend of the gods and receives rewards and it would follow that the unjust person is an enemy of the gods and receives punishments. This idea of divine justice is distinct to Polemarchus' idea because what one might consider an enemy in life might not be what a god considers an unjust person. (3) Thrasymachus claims justice is the advantage of the stronger. This idea appears in the myth as the strength the gods have to enforce their ideas concerning what will be punished and what will be rewarded. The idea of strength-governed justice, which is the basis of Thrasymachus’ argument, is included as an element of the myth in the form of the idea of the divine strength of the gods that dictates what is rewarded and what is punished in the afterlife. No one is described in the myth as being stronger than the gods. Since the gods are stronger in comparison to mortals their will dictates what the gods consider justice for mortals. This is distinct from Thrasymachus' idea of justice based on physical might because a human's physical strength does not determine whether that person is just or unjust. The myth makes no distinction between the strength possessed by those rewarded or punished in the afterlife. In the hereafter strong and weak people alike are punished or rewarded for their unjust and just acts respectfully. (4) Glaucon asks Socrates to describe how justice is good in and for itself. He asks if acting just is beneficial without the necessity of earthly gain. The basis of this idea of justice is that justice is something that exists for its own sake and that there must be a benefit to justice that is not connected to an idea of gain or advantage on earth. The myth’s idea of justice is a message concerning justice that is just in and for itself. It is a Bremer argues a pleasure and reward to simply speak of justice. Glaucon's idea of justice is incorporated in the myth as both the just acts that are rewarded simply because they are just and the justice that makes teaching justice a pleasure and reward unto itself (5) It can be interpreted from what Adeimantus claims in book two that he proposes justice is the advantage of any action that benefits the individual. Adeimantus is the first interlocutor after Cephalous to mention the divine punishments reported by poets. He postulates that clerics and priests promote a fear of the punishments unjust people should expect in the afterlife, as well as, the rituals and rites of atonement to escape these punishments as a means to accumulate earthly benefits. One of the benefits accrued by clerics is the profit of tidings. This suggest that Adeimantus did not believe in the punishments of the afterlife and felt that the stories describing them were lies created to produce profit here on earth. Furthermore, he claims that people act just to accrue the social benefits that one is privy to when one has a reputation of being just. He argues that the practice of injustice can often be beneficial if it does not tarnish this reputation and cause one to lose the benefits connected to the appearance of being just. Furthermore, he argues that just and unjust people can both experience fortune and misfortune in life. They both can be treated fairly or unfairly. Just and unjust people can both experience just or unjust lives. The idea that life can be fortunate to some and not to others is incorporated in the myth as the idea that no matter how fortunate one's life is, or how justly one was treated therein, one can still choose to be virtuous and will be punished or rewarded in the afterlife based on one’s actions no matter how fortunate one's life was or was not. The other element of Adeimantus argument concerns the fact that mortals can not always monitor other mortals' actions and this allow for a benefit to arise from injustices while allowing one to still benefit from the appearance of being just. This is incorporated in the myth as the idea that one is rewarded or punished in the hereafter based on their just or unjust actions in life no matter whether one’s actions went unnoticed by other mortals. The myth suggests that the gods reward or punish one based on all the just or unjust acts one committed no matter if these acts are perpetrated in private or public. The gods know what one does even when other humans do not. The gods know every act a mortal commits and reward or punish them based on how just or unjust these acts were, no matter the fortunate or justice one experiences in life. Thus, Adeimantus’ idea that life is sometimes unjust to just people is included in the idea of justice presented in the myth. The myth’s idea of divine justice is distinct to the idea of justice presented by Adeimantus because it advocates a belief that there is a type of justice to life. The rewards and punishments of the hereafter balance out justice and injustice in life. In the hereafter unjust and just acts will be judged and punished or rewarded accordingly no matter how just or fortunate one's life was. Whatever injustices one causes one must pay back those who suffered these injustices. Just people are rewarded for being just no matter their circumstances. The payments of injustices turn into great rewards for those who were just in the face of them. The fortunes of life acquired by means of injustice are punished and paid back ten fold. Thus, the injustices of life are paid back and the justices rewarded. In the end, injustice is not profitable while justice, even when practiced in the face of injustice, is quite profitable. Hence, divine justice is the justice that in the end makes everything just in life. Everything is set right after one dies. Thus, contrary to Adeimantus' arguments there is justice to life and a need to avoid injustices. (6) Socrates claims that he taught the idea of justice based on the idea of the prudence necessary to choose one's actions appropriately and justly This appears in the myth as the ideas of prudence necessary to make the appropriate choices that allows one to choose their next life properly and avoid unjust acts. This prudence allows one to act just and in special cases return from Hades resurrected in one's old body. Socrates' idea of the knowledge necessary to act just and good is included in the myth as the knowledge of one's past needed to be able to make the appropriate choices to be good and just. Thus, Socrates’ idea of justice is based on the knowledge of what should be practiced because it is good and what should be avoided because it is evil This knowledge is what allows one to benefit from justice in this life and the next. Socrates claims that there are rewards for justice here on earth. This idea is distinct in comparison to the myth's idea of justice because the myth implies that there are greater rewards for justice in the afterlife than what is accrued here on earth. One is rewarded in the afterlife even when treated unjustly in this life. One can be treated unjustly in life even when one acts prudently. It is one’s existence in the afterlife that is always just. As well, the prudence mentioned in the myth that allows one to act just is based on the knowledge that also allows one to make good and beneficial choices in every aspect of one's life and not only in circumstances of justice. The repercussion of such choices may be greater than any mortal can ever be aware of. The repercussions of one’s choices that lead to one’s new life are not always known until after they become manifest and seen as a necessary part of one’s life. The myth seems to imply that every act and choice in life is part of a greater idea of justice. This idea of justice may be greater in comparison to anything mortals can know. In book one, Socrates introduces the idea that paying people back what is owed them is not sufficient to make one just. This idea is incorporated in the myth’s idea of justice as the rewards and punishments that the gods owe mortals for just and unjust acts respectfully. The rewards of justice are not meted out as a repercussion of the type of atonement Cephalous’ idea of justice implies. This idea of justice presented by Socrates in book one is distinct in comparison to the myth’s idea of justice because the myth’s idea implies one is punished for unatoned injustices in life including injustices incurred because of debt to other people. What the gods owe people for just and unjust acts is partly reflective of a debt of injustice procured in life. Inasmuch as paying what one owes others may not make one just, it can make one unjust in the minds of the gods and have one punished for this. Thus, atonement is necessary to achieve a just result when judged in the afterlife. The deconstruction of the idea of justice presented as normative ideas in book one and two is the first part of the logos of logos. The reintegration of these ideas in the myth as an all-encompassing idea of justice is the second part of the logos of logos. The idea of justice realised in the myth as distinct from the arguments made by Socrates and his interlocutors is the third part of the logos of logos. The myth of Er establishes the second and third logi of the three logi necessary to prove the Republic is consistent with a logos of logos. Without the myth of Er the ideas of justice introduced in the earlier part of Republic are not reintegrated into a single distinct idea of justice. Without this reintegration one cannot prove the Republic is consistent with a logos of logos. To prove this dialogue is a sound and valid argument using the logos of logos one needs to use the ideas found in the myth of Er. Thus, this myth is necessary for proving the logos of the Republic is consistent with a logos of logos and a sound and valid argument

Hero I will now examine the connotations that arise when one interprets Er as the hero and model of virtue in the myth of Er. I will begin by analysing Bloom’s ideas concerning who should be considered the model of virtue in this myth. Bloom posits that Odysseus is this myth's model of philosophic virtue. He suggests Odysseus is this model because Odysseus’ choice for a new life reflects the wisdom of his previous life. Odysseus is cured of the desire for the pursuit of honour and chooses to live the obscure life of a private person in a fashion similar to Socrates. Bloom suggests this places Odysseus at a higher standing to that of other characters in the myth. Bloom’s claim that Socrates lived the obscure and private life is not indicative of the behaviour Socrates was known to engage in. One could argue that Socrates led a life that was neither private nor obscure. Bloom’s claim that Socrates lived a private and obscure life may refer to the fact that Socrates never sought out public office. Socrates’ prolific public life led to his eventual execution. It was his public speeches and lessons that were used as the grounds to try and execute him. I will show how Odysseus could neither be the model of virtue nor based on his new life be indicative of a higher standing to that of the other characters in the myth. In the afterlife, Odysseus was given the last lot and had no real choice as to whether or not he would lead the private life. Since the private life was the only life left to chose, it became Odysseus’ by default. Odysseus’ claim that he would have chosen this life even if he had the first lot seems more a condolence to his pride for having no other choice than the basis of a wise decision. Since Odysseus does not make a choice as to what kind of life he will live, can one really claim that his choice proves he was cured of the desire for honour? If Odysseus had made this choice as a first lot, choosing this life in comparison to other lives, then such a case might be made. If he had chosen to live the private life in comparison to other lives then such a choice would have shown that he desired the private life and that the wisdom gained in his previous life caused him to choose it. However, since Odysseus’ new life was not his own choosing, if circumstances changed he might return to the pursuit of honour as quickly as he had accepted the private life. His choice that was a result of default does not prove he had the wisdom and desire to choose the private life on its own accord. Even if Odysseus had made choices that led to his private life, he lived them out of necessity and not for the virtue of living the private life for its own sake. According to Socrates, having the knowledge to choose to be good, and not necessity, is the basis of Socratic virtue and just living. Since Odysseus lives his life out of necessity, he could not be the model of philosophic virtue. Every character in the myth except for Er is bound to their new lives by necessity. The choices Odysseus made that led to the necessity of having to live the private life were not committed with the desire to achieve the private life. His private life was that of the necessity of the repercussions of his previous life and not his own desire to be cure of the pursuit of honour. Unless he chose this life as compared to others one could not say such a choice was proof of a cure for the desire for honour. There is no great virtue to having been forced to live a certain way. According to Socrates, one must choose their life for its own sake to have this choice considered virtuous. The private life is not necessarily the just life. As Adeimantus claims, injustices committed in private, away from the public view, may be advantages as long as one never gets caught and consequently tarnishes one’s image of being just. Living the private life is in no way indicative of the virtuous life. Thus, there is no reason to consider Odysseus’ lot any more virtuous than any other character in the myth. His circumstances do not merit the claim that he is the model of virtue in this myth. His choice to live the private life does not prove he merits a higher standing than the other characters in the myth. Heroes by definition are esteemed for possessing virtues that make them stand out and above the rest of society. If, as Bloom posits, Odysseus is the model of virtue in the myth due to his higher standing in comparison to the other characters then it could be suggested that he is the hero of this tale. However, I have shown that there is nothing in the myth that might suggest he achieves a higher standing or is its model of virtue. Heroes usually act in a manner that sets them apart and places them at a higher standing to that of the other characters in a story. Odysseus’ choice for a new life does not place him at such a standing. In some stories the hero is also the protagonist. Socrates introduced the myth of Er as a tale concerning Er the Armenian, and not Odysseus the Theban. No one, except for Er, appears in every scene of the myth. Odysseus only appears at the end of the myth. Hence, Er, not Odysseus, is the protagonist of this myth. Er's lot, which is that of the messenger, is born from a katabasis to Hades and more aptly resembles the heroic exploits of traditional heroes. In contrast, Odysseus’s actions in the myth do not seem any more heroic than any other character. Inasmuch as Odysseus once had a katabasis, it is Er that now experiences this heroic plight. Er’s katabasis can be instantly identified as the plight many other heroes are said to have experienced. This katabasis makes him stand out and above the other characters. This plight is a good reason to identify Er as the hero of the myth of Er. Albinus claims that the hero undergoing a katabasis is the initiate that goes though a ritual that changes and enlightens him or her. In a katabasis, Hades is the forum of the ritual initiation that transforms the hero prior to his return to the world of the living. The katabasis is a trial for such heroes. In book two, Adeimantus mentions that the dead experience rituals in the afterlife. These rituals of the dead are the ritual initiations the hero of the katabasis undergoes in the afterlife. The only character in the myth that one can with certainty know is resurrected in his old body, ready to live a new life, is Er. Only Er’s plight in the myth resembles a katabasis. Er returns to life in his old body transformed by the plight he now recalls as a message of the afterlife. This message is the lot of his new life. The hero is the initiate that undergoes the entire ritual of the katabasis. Er is the only character that is present in every scene of the katabasis described in the myth. Only Er's plight in the myth could be seen as an initiation by way of katabasis into the rites of Hades. Since Er represents an initiate of a katabasis, he can be seen as the hero of the myth. This initiation transforms Er and represents the metamorphosis he undergoes when transformed from an old life to a new one. The katabasis represents the death of his old life and the birth of his new life. It is this metamorphosis that grants Er a new might when he is resurrected. This might is the strength he will derive from the speeches he will make concerning his message. This strength is the basis of the new heroism Er embodies. Er’s katabasis, resurrection and heroism set him apart from the other characters in the myth. Thus Er, not Odysseus, is at a higher standing than the other characters. Thus, Er is the hero that stands out and above the other characters in the myth. Bremer equates Socrates with Er. Er's heroic journey through Hades is mirrored in Socrates' plight throughout the Republic Albinus claims that one could regard “book 1 to book 10, as a katabasis.” Socrates experiences a similar type of ritual initiation in the Republic to that of Er in the afterlife. Baracchi claims that the Republic begins as a katabasis. She posits a katabasis is a journey down and through the decaying ideas of one's time represented symbolically by a city or polity. The decaying city represents an epoch’s dead and dying ideas of humanity. Piraeus, Er goes down to Hades. The ritual festivals of the afterlife can be equated to the religious festivals that brought Socrates to Piraeus to begin with. Down in Piraeus, Socrates has the chance to see religious rituals. In the same way, down in Hades, Er sees the religious rituals of the afterlife. Since, Er is the hero of the myth of Er, and Socrates mirrors Er's journey in Hades as his plight in the Republic, Socrates is the hero of the Republic. Er goes down to Hades as an initiate of a ritual that transforms his idea of virtue and strength. In the same manner, Socrates goes to Piraeus to see rituals and during a dialogue that includes mythologizing, which is part of religious ritual, transforms his interlocutors’ idea of strength and justice. Socrates proves his strength to his interlocutors based on speeches and not brawn and thus transforms his image to that of a person strong by grace of speeches. Since Er reflects Socrates, it might be argued that Socrates message begins at the end of the myth as a reverse cycle that leads to his appearance in Piraeus. Er’s message is the reflection of Socrates’ message in the entire Republic. According to Bremer, Er's message represents Socrates' speeches in Piraeus. Er’s message is a logos of the Republic and reflects the ideas found in the rest of the dialogue. Socrates’ message begins after he views the festival and its rituals in Piraeus and starts to leave for Athens. This is a reflection of Er’s message that begins after Er returns to life. Since Socrates begins his message at the beginning of the dialogue and this is a reflection of Er’s message; Socrates' message is Er's message reflected throughout the entire dialogue. What begins for Er at the end of the myth begins for Socrates at the reverse end of the Republic. However, for Socrates his katabasis begins after viewing the festival and Er’s ends at the close of the myth. Immediately following the myth Glaucon and Socrates end the dialogue and the ritual katabasis it represents. Socrates, Glaucon and Er are now ready to return to the life they had prior to their katabasis. Socrates and Glaucon would eventually return to their lives in Athens as Er returned to life in the world of the living. All three are now capable of choosing a new way to live based on their realizations during their katabasis. If the Republic is a katabasis form beginning to end then Socrates and Glaucon both have a story equal in conceptual weight to that of Er. Er is now a messenger and Socrates a strong man by grace of his speeches and message contained therein. Socrates' claims in his closing statements of the dialogue that his and the myths lessons contain what is just and necessary to avoid defiling one’s soul while reaping the rewards of being just and a friend of the gods. Since Er’s message contains the rules by which virtue and justice are judged well by the gods and what actions in turn are punished, by remembering his message Er would recall the knowledge necessary to live the just life and avoid acting unjustly. The initiate of a katabasis is able to practice a new way of living based on the recollection of his or her experience. Er is an embodiment of the Socratic idea of virtue. Due to his katabasis Er knows how to be virtues and just. He knows how to make good choices in life that are characterised in the myth as philosophising. Thus, contrary to what Bloom argues it is Er, not Odysseus, that is the model of philosophic virtue in the myth of Er. Since Glaucon and Socrates bare witness to this myth they become privy to its lessons. Er, Glaucon, and Socrates are able to return to their lives with the knowledge necessary to practice virtue and justice. They are paradigms of spokesmen of these ideas. Er and Socrates are paradigms of a new type of hero and new models of virtue worthy of being judged as standing above others.

Beginning to end

I now turn to an examination of the beginning of the Republic. I will investigate the challenge that brought Socrates into a dialogue in which he had to prove himself stronger based on the power of speech. These speeches will prove themselves stronger as a means of persuading even the physically stronger to accept one‘s will as the basis of what is good and just. I will then examine the end of the Republic and show how it reflects the beginning. The Republic begins with Socrates and Glaucon attempting to return to Athens after seeing a religious festival in Piraeus. In this festival, a new goddess and an old goddess are unified into one religious celebration. According to Bloom this is the "Festival of Bandes”. “Bandes was a foreign goddess; she was related to the moon by the Thracian who worshipped her." The new goddess was an old goddess imported into the port of Piraeus. On his way home Socrates is requested to stop by Polemarchus’ slave. This was a spoken request and was sufficient to have Socrates halt and wait for Polemarchus’ approach. Polemarchus and his companions ask Socrates why he is returning to Athens. They tell him that he may only return home if he can prove himself stronger in comparison to them. Socrates asks if he can persuade them to let him go. Polemarchus says, "How can we be thus persuaded if we choose not to listen." Polemarchus’ reply to Socrates, like any reply that is based on what the other says, implies the one who is replying was actually listening to the person he or she is replying to. Socrates’ question to see if he would be allowed to use persuasion to convince Polemarchus and his companions to let him go home can be seen as an answer to Polemarchus’ challenge of physical strength. Socrates seems to suggest that the persuasive power of speech should be allowed to prove him stronger. It should be noted that Polemarchus and his companions also resort to speeches to convince Socrates to stay in Piraeus. One of Polemarchus' companions suggests Socrates should stay to view the festival's nigh time torch procession. Socrates never struggles to escape nor is there any evidence that Socrates took Polemarchus’ physical challenges as serious threats. Ipso facto, Socrates must have stayed in Piraeus because he was either convinced by the words of his interlocutors or because he did not want to prove his strength based on physic grounds. He may have also stayed as a way to avail himself of the opportunity to prove persuasion is more powerful than that of physical strength. Since Socrates most likely did not take the physical challenges as serious threats, one could suggest that it was the speeches and not the physical challenge that convinced him to stay. Furthermore, Glaucon agrees with Polemarchus’ companion and suggests to Socrates that they should stay. Socrates concurs with Glaucon spoken request and agrees to remain. It seems the speeches of Polemarchus’ slave, his companion and Glaucon prove stronger for convincing Socrates to stay in Piraeus than does Polemarchus’ physical challenge. Though I guess one could still argue that Socrates feared a physical confrontation with Polemarchus and this may have aided him in making his decision. Moreover, since the Republic is a dialogue and a dialogue is constituted of speeches the strength of its message and arguments are presented as speeches and persuasion. After all, the Republic is the mythology and myth is the logos of speech. Since Plato’s work is based on the strength of speeches, he has a vested interest in proving speeches are stronger than brawn. Polemarchus’ challenge of physical strength can be translated into an idea of justice. Polemarchus’ challenge portrays the idea of justice based on physical strength. By being stronger Polemarchus attempts to force his will on Socrates. This mirrors Thrasymachus’ claims that the rules of justice are created by the stronger. The stronger, by threat of force, governs the weaker. The weaker is forced to obey the stronger’s rules of justice. This can be simply formulated as 'might makes right'. Often the ideas of the stronger become instilled in a population and after a while, especially in later generations, become normative ideas The arguments presented in book one can be seen as being analogous to the head or beginning of the body of the Republic. Book ten can be seen as being analogous to the tail or legs to this body. Glaucon is the only interlocutor to speak with Socrates.in book ten. Thus, Glaucon comprises one of the legs of the Republic and Socrates the other. The final product of the Republic is a synthesis of Glaucon’s arguments for an idea of justice practiced for its own sake and Socrates idea of persuading someone using speech. Furthermore, in the myth the idea of a reward in the afterlife for just action in this life is unified with Cephalous’ idea of divine punishment. Compared to Cephalous' idea introduced in book one Socrates' new idea of divine justice is found at the opposite end of the dialogue or body of the Republic. The new idea that defines the way the divine interacts with humanity is combined with the old idea to create a new composite idea. These ideas are animated in the myth of Er bringing to life Socrates new conception of life after death. The normative ideas of justice presented by Socrates’ interlocutors are synthesized with Socrates’ new idea of justice to give birth to a new definition of the content of the idea of justice. The new idea shaped by this redefinition of the idea of justice is a new way of thinking about justice. A new content for the idea of justice changes the way people perceive justice and the way they behave because of it. It is a new paradigm offered as a new norm of behaviour. This idea effects the way people formulate their ideas of what is good, evil, just and virtues. It should be noted that the ideas of divine justice are only part of the new picture of the way the afterlife works. What is considered divine justice may be seen as the dictums of justice taught in myth. This lesson is disseminated in the form of religious doctrine, yet it pertains to all forms of justice. In this sense, divine justice can be equated to the rules of earthly justice animated to appear as a divine religious lesson. According to Socrates divine and earthly justice are considered good both in this life and the next. I have already outlined some of the reasons why Plato may have chosen to use the form of a religious myth as a means to eliciting a greater appeal for his lessons. By outlining his ideas concerning how the afterlife works and the divine justice that governs these mechanics, Socrates fashioned new guidelines for behaviour that now include the idea of rewards for acting just especially when one does so over and above necessity and earthly benefit. I will now show that Socrates is proposing that there are benefits to acting just in and for itself. Socrates' idea of divine justice gives people reasons to act just for its own sake . I will now illustrate the idea of divine justice, the debt accrued by injustice and the benefits for acting just, especially in and for itself, using an analogy of a credit system. When one pays back a loan one only receives credit towards what one owes. To be owed credit one must bank credit over and above such debt. Justice accrues credit and injustice debt. In fact, Socrates claims injustice is paid back ten fold and justice is rewarded ten fold. Greater crimes such as those committed against gods and parents accrue a higher debt in the afterlife. Murder is one of these greater crimes. The punishments unjust people receive in the afterlife are meted out as a repercussion of a debt of injustice. The credit for just acts, if it out weighs what is owned as the debt caused by unjust acts, brings about rewards in the afterlife. These rewards are the divine payment the positive credit of just living accrues, To be just and deserve a reward one must not only atone for past injustices, one must also act just simply to accumulate the credit necessary for such rewards. Socrates claims that the virtuous and just ” gather in the prizes[ of these rewards]’ . Thus, a just person rewarded in the afterlife is someone whose just acts out weigh that person’s unjust acts. However just acts need not be motivated by rewards, they can be simply perpetrated for their own sake. Atoning for injustices is not the same as acting just without the need for restitution or any other ulterior motive. Atonement does not accumulate credit in the afterlife. It only erases the debt of injustices that may be used to punish one after one dies. This erasure of one’s debt of injustice does not qualify as a reason for a reward in the hereafter. One does not receive a reward when one pays back a debt other than the reward of eliminating that debt. When one acts just to accrue earthly benefits that just act can be seen to be worth less because it is motivated by such benefits. These earthly benefits diminish the rewards in the hereafter according to their value. The value of the earthly benefit is subtracted from the value a similar just act would have if it were committed for no other reason than for the sake of justice itself. Since just acts committed for the sake of justice itself are not perpetrated for an earthly reward, even if there was such reward, this act is still valued more in comparison to just acts engaged in for the purpose of benefit. A similar case can be made for just acts committed out of necessity. Acting just due to necessity diminishes the value of a just act. Just acts committed for their own sake have a greater value and accrue a larger credit in the afterlife than those perpetrated out of necessity or the desire for earthly gain. Finally, if one acts just for the rewards that are promised in the afterlife, this desire for benefit diminishes the value of the just act. Since, such just acts are not committed to accrue benefit on earth, being motivated to be just based on rewards in the afterlife does not diminish the value of such acts as much as when one commits similar acts with the desire and intention to accrue earthly benefit. This idea of the credit system suggests that one is owed a reward when one acts just without having to do so. In fact, if extremely unjust and heinous acts are punished more than less unjust acts, extremely just acts such as acting just for its own sake might be rewarded in a greater way as well. Since, Er is the embodiment and model of Socratic virtue and justice, and these are practiced in and for themselves, the ultimate reward for such action might be a resurrection similar to one experienced by Er. Thus, the ultimate reward for practicing philosophic virtue and justice is a resurrection, which is more than being paid the usual reward for just acts. Bremer claims that the rewards in the afterlife are purposely left vague in the myth. These rewards were intentionally left vague. The reason for this might have been that Plato wanted to teach people in the form of a secret teaching the ultimate reward for living the life of Socratic virtues and justice. This reward of course is portrayed by Socrates' reflection Er. Since Er is the embodiment of Socratic virtue and justice, the reward for living in a fashion similar to Er is a resurrection. When one lives the Socratic life and acts just for no other reason than for justice in and for itself one receives the greatest credit towards the rewards for being just. The myth of Er synthesizes the two ideas of divine justice, that of punishment and that of reward, into an animated story. In this myth the new idea of divine justice is placed into a context that explains how these new ideas work. Er's message is an outline of these divine mechanics. What Cephalous and Adeimantus outline as the state of affairs in the afterlife is redefine in the myth. As mentioned earlier, Bremer claims that Plato rewrote the Homeric ideals concerning the afterlife. It can be inferred from Cephalous’ and Adeimantus’ statements concerning the afterlife in book one and two suggest that when one dies one permanently relocates to the place of the dead. One does not go to any other place including returning to the world of the living. This was a prevalent idea in ancient Greece . In contrast, Socrates outlines a system in which the people that normally go to Hades are rewarded in one place and punished in another Every cycle of the human soul the people being rewarded and the people being punished return to the same place to partake in rituals that lead to a new life. Only the unredeemable or unrepented remain in the place of punishment. Thus, the place of the dead and even the places of reward and punishment are fleeting. No one except the unredeemable person remains in the Hades or the place of punishment for the rest of his or her existence. This is a new way to describe the idea of divine justice, the mechanics of the afterlife and how the divine interacts with humanity. This is a new picture of divine justice. Er's message contains the basis of the ideas of justice presented in book one and two . I have already outlined how these ideas of justice were incorporated into the logos of the myth in the above section titled Logos of the Republic. Socrates encompasses all his interlocutors’ definitions of justice in the myth as a greater definition of justice, People seldom deny, or outright go against, something that contains their own ideas. At the beginning of book two Socrates thinks that he had convinced his interlocutors sufficiently to end the dialogue when Glaucon accuses him “ do you want to seem to have persuaded us, or truly to persuade us, that it is in every way better to be just than unjust?” It seems that Socrates would have to persuade his interlocutors of his ideas before ending the discussion and being given a chance to go home. It is not until after the presentation of the myth that the dialogue ends. Since Polemarchus’ challenge entailed proving one self stronger as a stipulation of being allowed to go home, or at least be given a chance to, Socrates must have persuaded his interlocutors to agree with his idea concerning how to settle the challenge because their dialogue ends and one can assume Socrates is given a chance at that point to leave for home if he so desired. Whether or not he does leave is not mentioned in the Republic. Since Socrates' interlocutors make him continue to speak until he persuades them of his ideas and there is no evidence that he had a chance to leave until after the myth, the cessation of dialogue after this myth proves Socrates finally persuaded his interlocutors of his ideas. This ends the dialogue and gives Socrates a chance to depart. This cessation of dialogue must have achieved an answer to Polemarchus' challenge. Socrates must have proven himself stronger based on the strength of his arguments in speech and not based on the physical strength originally implied in the challenge. Since it was persuasion that answered the challenge, not brawn, and Socrates' was pressed into continuing to use persuasion until he convinced his interlocutors of his ideas, it seems that Polemarchus and his companions had listened to Socrates and had accepted his method of determining the challenge of strength. After the presentation of the myth no one makes any gesture to have the dialogue continue. Socrates’ victory in the challenge of strength is based on the strength of Socrates’ speeches that contain the strength of his interlocutors’ arguments as elements to his own argument. After the myth Socrates mentions to Glaucon that if he is persuaded by the myth he will know how to avoid defiling his soul and if he is be persuaded by Socrates’ ideas of the soul he will know how to practice virtue and become a friend of the gods reaping the prices of living a just life. If one synthesises these two ideas keeping in mind that the myth was fashioned by Socrates as a lesson then one realises that Socrates was hoping to persuade his interlocutors that knowing how to practice justice makes one avoid defiling one’s soul and allows one to reaps rewards both in life and after death. Since Socrates is able to redefine the idea of justice in a way that his interlocutors agree with, it can be argued that he also proves that the strength of speech can be more powerful for establishing one’s ideas than the co-erosion of physical force. Since Socrates’ speeches are justified based on the idea of justice found within his arguments, it can be said that Socrates’ lesson is a practice of justice for its own sake. A speech or message that concerns justice or that contains the idea of justice is just based on the sake of the justice it contains, especially if one has no other motive in making it than to impart its idea of justice. Such justified speech is Socrates’ new idea of the might that makes right. Glaucon's claim in book two that justice should be practiced for its own sake and Socrates idea of using speeches to convince others of what is just is synthesized at the end of the Republic into the idea of the strength of justified speeches practiced for the sake of justice itself. These speeches prove themselves stronger than physical strength for imparting one’s ideas and will to others. Thus, Socrates uses speeches to prove himself mightier than his interlocutors that make him stay in Piraeus and continue to speak until he persuades them of his ideas. This strength is what ends the dialogue and, in a manner similar to Er being resurrected at the end of the myth, gives Socrates his first opportunity to leave Piraeus and return to his life. Socrates can re-begin his life with the message of his plight down in Piraeus. At the beginning of the myth, Er is described as a strong man. In contrast the Republic begins with a challenge to Socrates to prove himself a strong man and thus be able to return to Athens. The grounds for this strength-based challenge is reflected in Er prior to his death. This strength is both of a physical and social nature. Er’s social strength is an extension of his physical prowess and the ability this affords him to fulfil the ideas of virtue in his day. Being physically strong would have enabled Er to fulfill the ideas of justice and virtue outlined by Socrates’ interlocutors in book one and two. Er’s strength would have allowed him, if he had thus chosen, to do good to friends, evil to enemies, force his will on others, do injustices in youth that he might regretted in old age, appear just in society while not necessarily being just in private and practice the virtues of justice for their own sake. Thus, Er prior to his death is a strong man based on his ability to fulfill the requirements of the definition of strength and virtue of his time. The ancient Greeks valued virtues such as strength, valour and honour in battle. Er's demise in battle would have been seen as honourable, valiant and virtues. In fact, his death would have been considered a heroic end to his life. After his journey through the underworld Er gains a new strength based on the message of his plight. Er no longer had to prove his virtue based on the old ideas of strength. He could now impress people based on the virtue of his message. This is a new way to have others judge his honour, valour and strength. Er’s new strength and heroism becomes that of the speeches he would make justified on the ideas contained within his plight. Since myth is a logos in speech and Er justifies his speech based on his experience of his katabasis, his message is a myth based on his plight in the underworld. The virtues embodied in the reborn Er are proven with words and not physical brawn. Er’s message teaches that physical might does not make right. Since the myth stipulates that the rewards and punishments of the afterlife are meted out simply based on the just and unjust actions one perpetrates, both strong and weak people alike are punished for acting unjust in life. Since just and good behaviour is rewarded in the afterlife, acting as such is the strength considered the virtue that accrues these rewards. It is a way to becoming a friend of the gods and avoid defiling one’s soul. In this way one reaps the prizes of justice here and in the afterlife, even if one practices justice without a desire for such rewards. Thus, Er’s message justifies itself in the strength of its knowledge, which teaches people what is considered the strength that merits reward in this life and the next. This is a just lesson that is a practice of one’s knowledge of justice. This lesson is committed for the sake of the justice it teaches. It is a practice of justice for its own sake. Er’s justified speeches impart a new way to determine what is good, just, virtues and deserving of reward. This is a new way to practice virtue and justice. Socrates uses speech to establish his idea of divine and earthly justice. The presentation of the myth is the final product of the genesis of these ideas. Since myth is justified speech or a logos in speech and words, the myth of Er is a justified speech made by Socrates. The might of Socrates speeches instilled in his interlocutors a new idea of right and wrong. According to Socrates’ it is his own ideas that teach one how to practice justice and become a friend of the gods. The instilling of these ideas was not established with physical coercion. To convince someone in speech as compared to physical strength one must eliciting agreement from the person being spoken to as the basis of this acceptance. Of course this only works if the other person listens to the message being imparted. As I have already mentioned the reply made by Polemarchus to Socrates’ answer concerning the challenge of strength suggests that he was actually listening to Socrates and thus was susceptible to Socrates’ lesson. People consenting with something as opposed to being forced to agree with it are more prone to follow such ideas on their own, even when in private. When one is coerced into obeying a rule one often breaks that commandment whenever there might be a possibility that one might not get caught or punished for it. If one’s ideas are instilled in an other’s mind based on premises that the other already agrees with then one’s ideas become part of the other’s reasoning concerning such matters. Such ideas become norms of behaviour and premises for formulating the way one thinks and acts. Thus, the strength of speeches can be said to be a greater might that physical strength for establishing in others a new idea and way of thinking.

Heads to tail

I will now examine the image of a body reflected in the bulk of the Republic. This has interesting connotations and seems prudent in light of the names and images Plato uses throughout the dialogue. If the Republic is a myth then these images are part of the picture it depicts. The image of this dialogue as a body comes to life when one thinks of Cephalous. The word Cephalous in Greek means head. Cephalous’ argument concerning justice in book one can be seen as the head of the argument of the Republic. In light of this, Glaucon and Socrates in book ten can be equated to the legs of this argument. The myth of Er is analogous to the womb to this body. Er is the child born of this womb. He is the conception of the model of virtue everyone can follow as a way to live their everyday life. Er is the paradigm of his message born out of the womb of the Republic. The womb and offspring of the Republic is located between the legs represented by Glaucon and Socrates. The product of the Republic is a synthesis of Glaucon's idea of justice practiced for its own sake and Socrates’ idea that speeches should be able to persuade others of one’s will. Er can be seen as the conception of the idea of justice based on the might of speeches practiced for their own sake that establish one's ideas as what should be considered the right or correct way to think and behave. The Myth of Er allows its audience to share in the mauetic conception of Er and the new form of justice he represents. Cephalous symbolises the head of the argument of justice. Polemarchus and his companions that stopped Socrates from returning to Athens at the beginning of the dialogue can be seen as the hair on top of the head of this argument. The two goddesses of the festival Socrates came to see in Piraeus are analogous to this argument’s past. These goddesses are eyes or portals into the ideas represented by them. The goddesses represent ideas that already exist in Socrates’ time. These ideas are based on what Bremer calls the Homeric ideal. These goddesses represent the old ideas of divine justice. I would like to suggest these goddesses could also be seen as the horns on top of the head of the Republic‘s argument. I suggest the use of the image of horns as they can be equated with Dionysus. They offer a conceptual connection between him and the goddesses. Dionysus is an old god of the Greek pantheon and a symbol of the religions that existed in ancient Greece. The goddesses can be seen as representative of the ideas used in many religions and myths in that time. These goddesses represent the old ideas of justice based on the old ideas of divine justice derived from the ancient Greek pantheon. They represent the old religions that Cephalous cites in his definition of justice. I would like to argue that by reducing the ideas represented by these goddesses into the elements symbolic of ancient Greek religion and then integrating these elements as part of the religious aspect of the new ideas of divine justice presented in the myth, Socrates can be said to sacrifice, or kill, the old ideas of divine justice in the effort to create a new version of these ideas. It is the death of the old Homeric ideal and the birth of Plato's rewriting of this ideal. This new idea of divine justice is the model for producing a new idea of justice on earth. In this sense, the two goddesses are the horns on top of the part of the Republic that Plato hopes to sacrificially take apart and reintegrate in the myth. Book one and two can be seen as the content comprising the old idea of justice used to create the new idea of justice. The Republic is the body comprised of the hegemonic normative ideas of its time sacrificed to allow new ideas to take root in the minds of those exposed to it. The normative ideas of the body of the Republic die with Er at the beginning of the myth and are resurrected at the end of the myth transformed into a new synthesis of the old and new ideas presented in the dialogue. The Republic is a body of theory that goes through a paradigm shift. Thus, this dialogue is analogous to a ritual lamb or Dionysian image sacrificed to allow for the birth of a new idea of justice. This new idea is a hybrid of the dying old ideas of Plato's Athens and Socrates' new ideas concerning justice born in the Republic. This sacrifice made to allow for the establishing of new ideas is analogous to a mother putting one foot into the grave to give birth to a child. Childbirth is a sometimes painful, yet productive and often loving endeavour. What is conceived of this synthesis of old and new is the seed of a new way of thinking and acting. This new way is based on the new ideas of virtue and justice embodied in Er at the end of the myth. My Dionysian image of the body of the Republic resembles a female as it is depicted having a womb between its legs. However, if one reverses the image of the Republic this body becomes male. When one interprets the images in the dialogue from book ten to book one the body of the Republic becomes male. In this male image one can equate the two goddesses with the legs of this body and Cephalous with its crotch. The myth of Er is its head. Socrates and Glaucon at the end of the dialogue could be seen as the horns or in this case the new senses of the body. They are the eyes and ears of the new message produced at the end of book ten. This reversal is an image of Er’s body after his plight in the underworld. This is analogous to the return of the message produced at the end of the myth to the divinities that brought about the circumstance that led to the dialogue to begin with. Comparing the message of the myth with the old ideas represented by the goddesses can be seen as the natural cyclical of the message of this myth and the dialogue as a whole. It should be noted that one could also interpret the body of the Republic from start to finish as a male. In this case, the myth is equivalent to the male crotch of this body. Er symbolises the seed of the ideas found in the Republic. This seed impregnate the minds of its audience and allows them to give birth to their own conceptions of justice. The ideas found in the myth are ejaculated into this world. This is analogous to the characters' in the myth shooting out into the world as new paradigms for old archetypes. When one reverses this image from book ten to book one this male body becomes female and Cephalous’ head symbolizes the womb that is impregnated by the seed of Socrates’ message. The union of the goddesses into one religious festival would be the product of Cephalous impregnation. That is, Cephalous would give birth to a synthesis of ideas based on the old normative ones and the new ones offered by Socrates. In both cases, be it a male or female body, the idea of an impregnation of new concepts that causes a subsequent birth of new ideas based on one's exposure to the ideas found in the Republic is one of Plato's underlying premise for this dialogue.

Images born of the Myth of Er

I will now analyse the images found within the myth of Er. I will use etymological evidence as well as other mythological ideas to illustrate the types of ideas that grow out of this myth and show how an audience might interpreted them. I will show how the medium of myth allows people to give birth to their own conception of Er and the new ideas of justice and virtue he represents. As well, I will show how the images in the myth represent the cycle humanity goes through as it evolves. This myth establishes the idea of this cycle using images commonly associated with the changing of the seasons from year to year. Using these images Er will be shown to be the embodiment of this change in humanity. That which is conceived as the product of the myth of Er is personified by the idea of its hero going through the initiations of the afterlife, and being born anew at the end of this plight, in the fashion of a new season of spring opening up to the birth of a new nature. Er is a personification of Socrates conceived in the womb of the Republic and given birth at the end of the dialogue. The name Er is etymologically derived from the same source as Hera, or Era. Hera has an Indo-European origin and is connected to the earth. Hera means seasons, as in the seasons of the year (hura). Her name can also mean age, or epoch, as in an erae in human history. She was the goddess of marriage and birth. The images of conception and birth are instantly conquered up when one thinks of Hera. Inasmuch as her name is connected with the earth she is believed to be a sky goddess. The ideas connected to her seem to imply that she is an earth goddess that lives in the sky. Since Hera is connected to the earth and is the mother goddess of the Greek pantheon, Hera can be seen to represents an earth mother goddess and the earth itself. Demeter is usually considered the goddess of the earth. However, she is actually the goddess of nature and farming. Both Hera and Demeter can be connected to the idea of the earth. In ancient Greek, Er means the season of spring or opening of nature. Er is the opening of the earth or ground to the growth of nature (physics). In Modern Greek spring is called 'opening' (aneksy). Spring represents the springing to life or growth of the plants of nature after winter. Spring is the season occurring before summer in which nature is reborn from the dead of winter. To the ancients, even to some modern people, the opening of nature was often seen as the birth or beginning of a new cycle of the seasons. The beginning of this new cycle is analogous to a new child or nature being born from the womb of the earth. In Greek, epoch, like Hera, means season, age or era. The term Er in this context represents a changing of the seasons, the spring or opening of a new age, era or epoch . The same idea that led to Hera representing the goddess of birth is evident in the idea Er represents as a season associated with rebirth. Since Hera means season and Er the season of spring, the two are connected because they both refer to the seasons of the year. Hence, the idea of Er and Hera is connected to the earth, the seasons and the idea of birth. All people called Ers are connected to Hera and represent a spring to her seasons. That is every Er is a new season or era of Hera’s ages. All Ers represent the spring of new epochs in humanity. The myth of Er produces an odd image as it can be interpreted as meaning spring or the opening of nature dies then traveling through Hades as it is initiated into the rituals of the katabasis. The upcoming new nature enters Hades and is prepared and transformed for its new life that begins with its rebirth at the end of the myth. In this sense, Hades is analogous to a winter. In winter, seeds, in a manner akin to the dead, fall on, enter and reside in the earth. During winter nature seem to die and fall dormant. For the ancients Greeks, nature died as Persephone returned to Hades and her mother Demeter began to miss her. Nature begins anew in spring when Persephone returns from Hades to her mother. Persephone goes to Hades in fall and remains there until spring. She is the goddess of death and in Hades she rules over the dead as their queen. During this time she symbolises death. This death represents both humans and plant and animal nature. In spring she returns to mount Olympus and remains there till fall. During this period she symbolises life and represents spring and summer. Thus, Persephone is the embodiment of the death of nature and its rebirth. Er’s resurrection at the end of the myth can be seen as a spring to the winter of Hades. Thus, spring, or Er, renews itself at the end of the myth as a spring finding itself a spring, or the potential of an opening of nature occurring at the time of an opening of nature. This is similar to the idea of the Republic spring to life as a myth at the end of the myth representing the whole dialogue. The opening of nature that the end of the myth represents gives birth to a new season of spring embodied in Er. This is similar to a new child being born from its mother’s womb at the end of a pregnancy. In fall, the pods of seed or fruit that grew during the summer fall and eventually decay on the ground. These fallen fruit decay preparing their seeds to sprout a new plant in a next cycle of life that begins with the new opening of nature. This decay strips away at the outside casing of the seedpod or fruit preparing the seed for its new growth. The earth, decaying flesh of the fruit and the snow of winter act like a womb for the seed that will be born as the growth of a new plant next spring. Thus, fall and winter is a time of change in which seed is prepared for a new life. In the same way as fruit fall from a tree and die, Er falls in battle and dies at the beginning of the myth of Er. Thus this battle and the beginning of the myth are analogues to the season of fall. As fruit grow and prosper in summer, Er lives fruitfully in the summer of the old normative ideas of virtues and justice embodied in Socrates‘ interlocutors at the beginning of the Republic. The seeds of this virtue are the Homeric ideals of valour, courage and physical strength. During the fruitful summer of Er’s life these traits were judged as desirable, good and beneficial. Er’s death in battle with his many comrades exemplifies his adherence and success in practicing such virtue. The ancient Greeks considered it a virtue to be courageous, valiant and honourable to one’s comrades in battle. Er is the fruit of a pamphylianf. This pamphylian product encompasses an idea reflective of everyone from every tribe. Er is a paradigm of the everyman (or women). Thus, Er symbolise the entirety of humanity: he is everyone. Er is a reflection of the human psyche in one person. As well, Er’s message includes everyone and everything he encountered in the afterlife. This message is that of the dead humanity that now lies in Hades seen through the eyes of the paradigm of the pamphylian human. Er, the reflection of everyone in humanity encounters the old humanity and is changed by this experience. One does not die, go through Hades and become resurrected without some change occurring to the way one sees things. Er would alter his behaviour based on the changes to his thinking caused by his katabasis. This change alters the way Er sees the world and subsequently the way he interacts with it. In this sense, Er’s katabasis causes him to change his nature. This is a new spring to the seasons of his nature. The old nature of his early life changes to the nature that now governs his new life. It is a new season in Er’s life. The ideas Er held based on the concepts of virtue established by the old ideal of humanity, seen as the normative ideas he held prior to his death, are adjusted in light of the ideas he derived from his experience in the hereafter. Since Er represents everyone, this change is for everyone and is analogous to a new human nature or humanity growing out of the old. Er is the paradigm of this change. Er’s message is an embodiment of the new ideas that cause him to change and consequently this message is the seed that can causes a similar change in others. Er’s is the embodiment of a message concerning the evolutionary journey of the human soul. This message represents a new content for the idea of the evolution of thought and humanity. It is a model of a new type of virtue, as well as, a way to explain and teach the entirety of this change to others. Based on the ideas of justice and virtue that it imparts, it acts in the manner of seed of change in the minds of everyone that is exposed to it. It can cause a change in its audience similar to that which occurred in Er. Since it is a pamphylian message it is meant for all of humanity. In this sense, Er’s message is a seed of change meant for everyone. Its ability to change the way people think and behave is the reason it can be seen as the seed of a new nature. A new nature changes the way both individuals and societies govern themselves. It ushers in a new way to practice virtue and justice both personal and civic. This new way is the seed for a new epoch in human thinking. “Hence it is at once the inspiration and reward of the just man to know that by living upright he is doing a good work not only for himself and for his fellows, but for the future of Humanity” As already mentioned the battle Er is engaged in prior to his death is analogous to the season of fall. Er falls in battle with many other comrades, though only his seed in comparison to theirs seems special and strong enough to survive the harshness of the winter of Hades. Only Er is resurrected into the same body he died in. Er’s journey through the underworld is analogous to a winter in which, similar to a seed, Er dies and spiritually enters the ground. In this way he is prepared for a new life. Hades is traditionally thought to be under the ground, Er is an opening of nature being prepared in the winter of Hades to come to life in the spring represented by the end of the myth. This spring is the beginning of new cycle of humanity. Er’s new life is based on the philosophy found within his message. This philosophy begins to bloom as his new life starts at the end of the myth. Er’s new lot in life is that of the messenger or spokesperson of his message. Socrates claims that Odysseus was given the last lot in the ceremony of lots. However, it is only after his birth from Hades that Er is given his lot of the messenger. Thus, Er, not Odysseus had received the last lot. Er’s new lot in life or way of living is based on his message. The nature of this message and its lessons shape Er’s new nature in life. Er’s message is the seed of his new way of living. It is a new way springing up in the fertile garden of humanity. Er's message is the seed that is planted in everyone that hears it. This seed can grow in the minds of its audience. Hades acts like an earthly womb for the seed of the new way and nature that is fostered by the decaying old ideas of humanity. These old ideas become reborn as part of the new plant or ideas of humanity embodied in Er. This is similar to the earth supplying nutrients to the growing plant and thus becoming part of the plant's constitution. Er is the seed that impregnates the womb of the world, changes (gestates) and is subsequently birthed at the end of the myth. The image of Er and his katabasis is the embodied of his message. This message impregnates the minds of its audience and allows them to give birth to their own conceptions of its subjects based on their experience of its ideas in everyday life. In book two Adeimantus illustrates this impregnation and subsequent birth by criticizing Socrates for making his interlocutors come up with their own answers according to the questions he posses. This is an illustration of the Socratic method or what is called Socratic mauetics. Adeimantus’ description aptly reflects how the myth brings to question the ideas an audience already holds concerning justice, virtue, and the afterlife as well as, showing how the myth leads its audience to give birth to their own conception of its subjects. The myth’s images are the embodiment of the lesson the myth brings to life as animated images in the minds of its audience. The conceptions seeded by the myth and given birth in the minds of its audience is their own version of Er and his message. Each person paints their own picture of these lessons based on their own experiences of life. The myth imparts ideas in these images that can only be expressed as poetry. That is, these images cause one to give birth to their own content for them. The myth is the embodiment of the logos of the lessons Plato hoped to impart in the Republic as a whole. This myth is an animated lesson of these ideas meant to impart the seeds of a new way of thinking about virtue and justice that can be understood by each person based on his or her personal knowledge of the common experience of life. It is a way to express the inaccessible ideas of becoming in a way people might grasp them. Er is born anew from the earthly womb of Hades in a similar manner to a newborn baby from its mother's womb. Er is born out of the womb of Hades into the womb of the Republic. The womb of the Republic is the myth of Er. Since Er’s rebirth takes place as part of the myth it is included as a constituent part of this womb. From the Republic’s womb, the ideas embodied in Er and his message can be given birth into the world of the Republic and subsequently into our world. These ideas are the seeds of a new humanity born of the dialogue. They are brought into the world by anyone that hears the myths’ teachings, no matter their place or time in history. This birth is the seed for a new way of thinking that may eventually take root in the minds of its audience and become the basis of their new normative ideas. The myth seeds the death of the old nature in the audience and causes a decay of the authority of the normative ideas they hold. It subsequently causes a birth of new ideas that effect the way people think and act. These new ideas are new normative guidelines for behaviour and thought. It is an education in death, or a katabasis, to a new way of seeing things. This new way is the recollection of the old way in light of Er and his message. It is a new reflection of the ideas of the evolution of human thought and soul that causes a similar evolution in its audience. Each person comprising this audience would have a new nature born out of the death and decay of their old nature. Baracchi claims that Athens was in a state of death and decay during the time of Socrates and Plato. The old ideas of politics, religion and humanity were waning in popularity. For instance, the belief in the authority of the Olympian gods and the political systems of the day no longer held a strong sway with the majority of Athenians. Plato's message is born out of the death of the authority of the old ideas of his time. It is a seed of change growing out of the death of these ideas. Plato's new idea of justice is born out of the death of the authority held by the old ideas of justice. This change in the ideas of justice was fostered by the state of Athens at that time By using the name Er for the protagonist of the myth of Er Socrates connects the ideas of this myth with the idea of a cycle of rebirth equivalent to the changing of the seasons. Socrates chooses the name Er to represent a type of change that is equivalent to the rebirth of nature in spring. By choosing Er as the name for the protagonists of this myth Socrates connects the ideas this character represents to the cycle of the seasons. The entire myth represents a spring like change in humanity. This is the cycle that occurs as human nature evolves and changes. Since Er means spring and the myth pertains to the process the human soul takes as it changes from epoch to epoch, the character of Er can be seen to represents a spring or beginning to an epoch in the cycle of human evolution. He symbolises the change that occurs in humanity when it evolves. Hence, the myth is a new content for the idea of human evolution. From the myth of Er one can interpret the idea that the evolution of human nature goes through a cyclical change consists of a transition period equal to that represented by Er’s katabasis. In this period the old nature and ideas of humanity die and decay giving way to the birth of the new nature. I will now try to show that a katabasis of a great teacher often marks the transition from the old way to a new way. Such great teachers are Ers to their season of human evolution. Hades is the place where the individual that is going through the katabasis experiences the dead and dying humanity. Many heroes have descended into Hades, including Odysseus, Orpheus, and Herculesg. This also resembles Christ descent into Hades after his death prior to his resurrection. In fact, Christ plight in Hades is called a katabasis. Socrates may have chosen to use the name Er in his myth because it is the first part of Eraclis name. Eraclish in English is often translated as Hercules or Heracles. I will now try to show why the first Er or model for the myth of Er might have been Eraclis. In Reason in History W.G. F Hegel suggests that the name Eraclis is derived from Era, or Hera. In fact, Hercules means in the service of Hera or more directly, as Hegel observes, a son of Hera. Literally his name means the son of the seasons. Vico claims that Heracles was connected to the changing of the seasons. Since spring is a product of the seasons, Hercules' name implies he is a product of these seasons. He is a product of the ages represented by Hera. Hercules is a season, like spring, to an age in human history. He is an Er to one of Hera’s epochs or a spring, or beginning, to a human era. Heracles is the only hero whose name includes the name Hera. The term hero is etymologically derivation from Hera. All heroes are connected to Hera by way of the etymology of the word hero. This may be why Hegel suggests, contrary to common ideas found in Ancient Greek mythology that Hera was the mother of all heroes, including Hercules. This could not be the case according to the standard mythical description given concerning Hercules’ conception. Traditionally, Hercules’ birth mother, Alceme the queen of Thebes, was a mortal immaculately impregnated by Zeus. Hera did not give birth to Hercules. Many heroes in Greek mythology were demigods, or half human and half god, as was the case with Hercules. Since Hercules, in a fashion similar to Er, was given birth in the earthly womb of Hades and Hera can be connected to the earth, one could claim that Hera, the earth mother goddess, gave him birth herself. In this way such heroes can justifiably be seen as the children of Hera. It should be mentioned, Socrates was probably aware of the connection between hero, Hera, Er and Hercules. Socrates might have chosen the name Er to connect this myth to Hercules, heroes, the mother goddess Hera, as well as to the earthi and the cycles of nature. If Hercules was the model for Er, he can be thought of as the first Er. The Er of the myth of Er is an Er after the first Er or a 2nd Er. Some Christians consider Christ an Er and since he lived much after Socrates and Plato, Christ is an Er after the second Er or simply a third Erj. During the Greek orthodox Christian Good Friday evening liturgyk reference is made to Christ as “ Oh my sweet spring-time (Er [Eap])” Many Christians believe Christ is the dawn or spring of a new age. He is said to be the beginning of a new human nature. First Corinthians refer to Christ as the last Adam as opposed to the first one mentioned in Genesis. The last Adam after the first one is victories over death. Since Christ is a new Adam after the first Adam one could infer from this that Christ is a second Adam. Adam means earth or man. Adam can also mean humanity. Since Christ is a new Adam after the first Adam and Adam means humanity, Christ can be said to represent a new humanity. Orthodox Christians actually call Christ a second Adam. “ [T]he second Adam who dwelleth in the highest, hath descended on to the first Adam in the up most chambers of Hades.” In a fashion similar to Er during his katabasis, Christ representing a new humanity encounters the old humanity, or Adam, in Hades. The idea of a new humanity can be seen as equivalent to the birth of a new human nature born out off the encounter with the old humanity. The new Adam changes humanity because of his katabasis. This birth of a new humanity is equivalent to the one described in the myth of Er. Christ marks the beginning of a new epoch in human history. For most Christians Christ is the dawn of a new age. This dawn is the spring of a new humanity. " Thy Resurrection, O Christ ... enlightened the whole world." My connection between Er and Christ seems pertinent as Christ, like Er, experiences a katabasis. Christ is more than simply a new Adam. To illustrate, Adam descended from paradise to the world and did not, according to the Bible, have a katabasis through Hades. Christ's plight after death resembles Er‘s katabasis and not Adam‘s descent from heaven. In fact, Adam does not die before he descends from paradise while Christ, like Er, dies before going though Hades. This katabasis is the basis of judging Christ a hero in the same way I proved Er was the hero of the myth of Er. Both Er and Christ are resurrected after their katabasis. Adam dies at the end of his life much after his descent from heaven and is not resurrected back on earth. Adam is only redeemed and resurrected into heaven as a result of Christ’s katabasis. It is not until Christ goes through Hades that Adam, eve and their descendents are released from the palace of the dead. The reference to Christ as a new Adam depicts Christ as a new redeemedm version of Adam. This redemption of the old Adam caused a reversal of Adams curse. This curse was the repercussion of Adam’s actions in heaven that led to Adam’s descent from heaven As a consequence of Christ‘s redemption of Adam, Christ ascends to heaven after his resurrection. Thus, Christ, can be seen as both the third Er and the 2nd Adam. He is the Er or spring to a new epoch in human history. The date of the western calendar begins with the death of Christ. Christians believe this date represents the years since Christ ushered in the beginning of a new epoch. Christianity offered a new way to think and live that changed the way westerners and, for that matter, people around the world lived. The word Christ means a good one or virtues one. Christ is a title claimed to be equivalent to the Jewish title Messiah (Anointed). This suggest that Christ represents an embodiment of the idea of virtue and can be seen as a model for virtue Christ can be considered an Er or beginning to a new epoch in humanity based on the ideas of virtue and justice he represents. For Christians Christ is the seed of what can be interpreted as a new humanity. He is a great teacher that changed the way many people around the world think and determine their ideas of justice and virtue. According to Vico, Hercules represented an epoch in Greek history. This epoch was part of the age of heroes. Many heroes of this age took the name of the first Hero of their epoch. In this sense, Hercules was as much a title as a name. Traditionally, the first Greek Hercules unified the Greek peoples into a collective consciousness by virtue of the commonality of each of their dialects. Prior to Hercules the different Greek states did not see themselves as part of the same ethnicity. Furthermore, Hercules introduced the first Olympic games. During these ancient games the Greeks city-states stopped fighting each other and competed peaceful for nothing more than a wreath made from the olive tree claimed to have been originally plant by Hercules in the fields of Olymbiada. This promoted friendlier relations amongst the Greeks. Hercules ushered in a new era of more peaceful interaction between all the Greeks. The saying “offering the olive branch,” which is a metaphor for a peace offering, is derived from this ancient Greek practice of rewarding peaceful competition with a wreath of olives. Heracles taught the Greeks how to interact peacefully with each other. He was a great teacher of new ideas that changed the nature of Greek society. According to Vico Hercules is the first political hero. This heroism was different in comparison to that of previous military heroes, It is said that Zeus wanted Hercules to rule all the Greeks. Heracles represents the idea of a Pan Greece. This idea is embodied in the politics of Hercules’ new heroism. Hercules was the first hero exalted by all the Greeks in common. He was renowned by all Greeks for his virtues, such as his valour, courage and physical strength. He was a model of a new type of virtue, which was politically connected to being Greek. Inasmuch as he was renowned for virtues that seem akin to the old military ones, Hercules appears to have had a more peaceful nature than any Greek up to his time. He represents a model for the friendlier relations he ushered in amongst the Greeks. In a fashion similar to Er, Hercules embodies a new type of heroism. This heroism is based on a new type of virtue and idea of justice. These new ideas of heroism, justice and virtue were based on politics and were not derived from the old ideas of military might, virtue or justice. Since Hercules changed the politics, thoughts, behaviour and nature of Greek society and can be seen as ushering in a new age in Greece, he justifiably seems to fulfil the description of a spring or opening of a new nature. He is the spring to a new season of the ages of Greek history. Hercules is the birth of a new epoch in ancient Greece. Vico claims that because of Hercules the Greeks began dating the passing of time based on harvests. Like Christ this dating represents the beginning of the epoch ushered in by Hercules. Inasmuch as Hercules is connected to the harvest, which is usually in fall, he can still be seen as an Er or spring to the beginning of a new epoch in ancient Greece. Since Socrates can be equated to Er, Socrates can be seen as the second Er. This suggests that Socrates might have experienced a katabasis similar to Er. Does Plato include this myth in the Republic to suggest that Socrates died and came back to life in a fashion similar to Er? If so, was this after his execution? After all, the Republic was written after Socrates’ death. If this is the case Plato may be suggesting Socrates came back to life . Like Hercules, Socrates ushered in a new epoch in ancient Greece. Socrates changed the archetype of philosophy and established a new way of thinking. He taught people new ideas concerning virtue and justice that changed the nature of Greek, and for that matter, world society. Socrates was a great teacher. The new era ushered in by Socrates might be called the age of Socratic philosophy and is represented by the introduction of the first university: Plato’s academy. The ideas of the new age of Socratic philosophy were not intended to be restricted only to the Greeks. As already mentioned Plato’s Er is the pamphylian. Unlike Hercules, Er is not a model just for Greeks. Since Er is the everyman, he is a model for everyone and a universal paradigm of a new human nature. Since Socrates is a reflection of Er, Socrates is also a model for everyone and a universal paradigm of a new human nature. Er and Socrates are universal models for a new content of the archetype of the hero. As mentioned above, Er’s message acts like a seed in the minds of people that hear it. Hence, Socrates’ message is also such a seed. These messages seed people with ideas of a new heroism, virtue and justice. They are intended to change everyone’s human nature. Er and Socrates are the new content of the archetype of the hero based on philosophic virtue and justice. Er is the protagonist of the philosophic way of living in the myth in the same way Socrates is its protagonist in the dialogue as a whole. Er is the pamphylian paradigm that all humans can use as a model to live their lives by. Since, Socrates can be equated to Er, he can also be seen as a pamphylian model of life. Since Socrates message is meant for all humans, it seems fashioned with the intention to teach everyone and change everyone in the process. Since philosophy proliferated around the world and effected people everywhere Socrates’ message concerning the philosophic life ushers in a new epoch for the entirety of humanity. Each Er’s katabasis or impregnation of the womb of the world can be seen as an initiation into the rights of divinity. The initiate becomes divine by grace of his plight in the underworld. “As philosophers they (the initiates of the katabasis) can look forward to...their apotheosis, [as] god like and daemonic beings.” The knowledge they bring back from the afterlife is of divine justice metaphorically seen to representing life in general. The initiate of the katabasis is a hero in the service of Hera and a child of this mother goddess. He or she becomes divine in the same fashion as the demigod Hercules after his return to mount Olympus. The idea of divinity evolves into a new form every spring of a new epoch. Since it contains the ideas of justice propertied to be imparted as part of the experience of the divine in the next life, it can be considered a representation of divine justice on earth. It also represents the divine lessons concerning justice propertied to have been imparted directly by a deity or the divine itself. The divine justice represented by the divine hero is reflected in all forms of justice fashioned from it. It should be mentioned that the great teacher that proffers a new idea of justice and represents divine justice on earth does not have to go through a katabasis. According to Socrates Homer was a great teacher. Homer‘s myths offer an idea of divine justice in a similar fashion to that of the bible. Socrates claims these ideas were used by cities to establish their justice systems and laws. Insofar as Homer is said to be a great teacher he did not experience a katabasis. Moses can also be seen as a great teacher that represents divine law. He also has been used to form justice systems on earth based on the laws he represents. The mosaic laws have been utilised by Jews, Muslims and Christians to found legal systems. These laws have been incorporated in many regimes’ ideas of justice and legality. Moses, like Homer, did not experience a Katabasis. Baracchi claims Plato’s works have influenced western thought. They have been used as models to derive many ideas held by Arabs, Jews and Christians. Plato, like Homer and Moses, has influenced many people’s concepts of virtue and justice. It is not known whether Plato experienced a katabasis. Though if he were truly a philosopher having lived the Socratic ideal and this ideal is reflected in Er, Plato, in a similar fashion to Er, may have also been rewarded with a resurrection. The content of the archetype of divine justice evolves as the human soul does. Consequently, the ideas of justice derived from such ideas of divinity change. These ideas change every time an Er goes through a katabasis, or one learns the message of this event. As I have already motioned a great teacher does not need to have experienced a katabasis to be considered an embodiment of divine justice on earth. Such teachers also can cause humanity to evolve. The ideas of justice can also change by ways other than the appearance of a great teacher. Great events can also teach humanity lessons that can cause it and evolve. A great war, like WWII, is an event that can change human nature and the way people think. Such events change humanity. They alter the way people formulate their ideas of justice and virtue. These other methods that change humanity are outside the scope of this paper, but I will mention that WWII can be interpreted as a katabasis experienced by the entirety of humanity, It is a lesson in death that caused people to change the way they behave and think about virtue and justice. I will now illustrate how each new Er is a greater idea of divinity than its predecessors are while at the same time encompassing the ideas of its predecessors. The first Er, Hercules, traditionally died and went through Hades on his way to heaven or what the ancient Greeks called the Elysian Fields. Hercules is one of the earliest people to go to heaven rather than the place of the dead. In some renditions of this tale, Hercules travels thought Hades on his way to heaven. In others, he is resurrected at the end of his katabasis. When Heracles is depicted as either being resurrected or going straight to the Elysian Fields, he is also usually depicted as returning to mount Olympus and becoming a god. The second Er returns to life in his own body and begins his new life as the messenger of his plight in Hades. In the Phaedo Socrates claims that the meaning of life is to learn as much about existence as possible to be able to, in the manner of a hero, be allowed to go stand in the place of the heroes and gods. Could Plato be suggesting that, Er’s reflection, Socrates went to the Elysian Fields after a resurrection and subsequent spreading of his message? Did Socrates become divine based on his initiation during his katabasis? Since the second Er is resurrected and as far as we know his body remained on earth and he did not have to go to mount Olympus to become divine, the second Er’s divinity is greater in comparison to Hercules who did not become divine until after leaving this mortal coil. Finally, the third Er returns to life in a reconfigured body and teaches his message before going to heaven. This reconfigured body represents a greater divinity than that of the second Er. Every new idea of divinity seems to encompass its predecessors as part of its formulation. In each case the idea of divinity embodied in each new Er and their plight is a greater formulation of this idea. In theory, a fourth Er may not even completely die before experiencing a katabasis and an apotheosis. The ideas of justice and virtue derived from these ideas of divinity change with every introduction of a new form of the embodiment of the divine on earth. For example, Hercules ushers in an age of more peaceful relations amongst the Greeks that caused a periodic peace in ancient Greece. It became virtuous and just to abandon hostilities to compete peacefully in the Olympics. In contrast, it was considered vice and unjust to continue fighting when the Olympic games were in progress. I have already shown that Socrates represents a lesson that teaches people that being peaceful and proving one self in speeches is more just when imparting one‘s will on others than that of physical coercion. This lesson teaches people the virtue and justice of preferring peaceful relations and settling ideas of justice with debate not arms. It is a more peaceful paradigm of justice and virtue than that introduced by Heracles. Finally, Christ teaches people to be so peaceful as to turn the other cheek when struck. Since Christ’s idea of justice and virtue promotes no violence what so ever, it is even more peaceful than Socrates' idea of justice. The images depicted by the myth of Er portray the evolutionary cycle humanity goes through when a significant change occurs to its nature. These images animate the idea of this cycle of humanity based on ideas of common life, as is the case with the use of the image of spring for the protagonist of this myth. Everyone has an idea of the changing of the seasons as well as ideas about the afterlife. This myth shows how the transformation of a katabasis causes a change in the protagonist who is the model of virtue for everyone. Since this model begins the myth resembling the old normative ideas of virtue and justice, the transformation undergone during the myth must reflect a change in virtue and justice based on ideas introduced as a result of the katabasis. This change to one's idea of virtue and justice also entails a change to one’s character, nature, demeanour, disposition and thought. The message of this change is the seed meant to cause an evolutionary change in humanity. It is a new model of virtue and justice. It is a paradigm for people to use when formulating their ideas of the goodness and justice. The new ideas embodied in this paradigm are the new contents for the archetypes they represent. As well, the myth depicts the process by which new epochs come into being. In this section I have investigated some of the images in the myth of Er and how they might be interpreted. I have tried to connect these images to other myths. I have shown how the myth and its images can be seen to represent the cycle humanity takes as it evolves. I have also investigated how the ideas embodied in Er and his plight illustrate the secret teachings Plato tries to impart concerning the resurrection of his teacher Socrates. As well, I have placed Socrates and Er into the context of human history, I have proven that one needs to examine the ideas represented by the images in the myth of Er to properly understand its lesson and the reason it is used as an ending to the Republic.

The archetype of Er

I will now examine the idea of the superstructure of archetypes that can be interpreted from the ideas found in book ten of the Republic. These ideas are animated in the myth of Er. The archetypes presented in book ten are perfect forms. These forms remain eternally the same while their earthly form and content can altered. Er is the archetypal hero that embodies the new ideas that constitute the content of the new paradigm of heroism. He is the new idea born out of the old normative ideas and the truth these ideas reflect. This birth as I have shown represents the beginning of a new epoch in the evolution of the human soul. Book ten establishes the idea of a superstructure of archetypes that comprise the human psyche. This psyche changes with every spring of a new epoch or cycle of humanity. Er is a new form of the archetypal idea he embodies. The perfect form of an archetype always contains every form that will ever be defined as the content of that archetype. A hero is a hero no matter how he or she is defined; yet every new definition of a hero is a new paradigm categorized using the old name that represents the archetype of the hero. The idea of a hero will always exist while what defines a hero will change. If the new content of the archetype contains its predecessors as elements to its formulation it will have a better chance to be accepted by others. This occurs when one uses their opponents’ arguments as elements to create a new content for an archetype. Such ideas often become the basis of new normative ideas. The myth of Er ends with Socrates claiming, “This is the 1000 year journey of the human soul (psyche)”. It can be argued that this journey represents the cyclical process the evolution of the ideas and archetypes of the human soul takes. To describe this metaphorically, one could say in this cycle the content of an archetype dies and is transformed into a new content for that archetype. The new content is born in the same body constituting the old content. It is a new body of theory and ideas for that archetype. That is, the new content takes its place in the framework of ideas that constitute the archetype it corresponds to. The new synthesis of the old and new ideas becomes part of the overall idea for that archetype. This new content is categorised using the names and terms associated with the old content. A new definition of a hero becomes one with the idea or content associated with the archetype of the hero. I will illustrate this using this idea’s appearance in the myth as the new lives that each character chooses in the ceremony of lots. The new ideas signified by these new lives are joined with the ideas the characters making these choices already symbolise to produce a new idea concerning what these characters represent. This product represents a paradigm shift in the content of the archetype these characters correspond to. This content influences the way people will behave based on the ideas it represents. These new ideas will influence people for the duration of the next cycle of the soul. Every spring of a new epoch these paradigms shift and this shift causes one to changed because of it. The cyclical journey of the soul mention in the myth has been equated to reincarnation. In this myth Socrates refers to people that journey to Hades and return to earth. The people that return to earth are characterised as philosophising. This can be seen to suggest that not everyone that dies and goes to Hades returns to earth. Since the person that returns from Hades to this world is characterised as philosophising, this reference seems to only pertain to philosophers. Since few people entering Hades are philosophers and even fewer return to earth, there is no reason to believe that this reference to people returning from Hades is about everyone. This return may represent the resurrection Er experiences at the end of the myth. Since only philosophers return to the world of the living and Er returns to life on earth, Er must be a philosopher. If Socrates is a philosopher and Er reflects Socrates, Er is a philosopher. Of course equating Er’s resurrection to the reward of philosophy implies Er’s reflection Socrates might have also returned to life. There is also no reason to believe that the new lives the characters in the myth experience, except for Er‘s, are on the same world that these characters die on. The myth does not describe what happens to these characters after they chose a new life other than they like a star travel to their next existence. This existence could be on another world other than the one they died on. Er is the only character one can know for certain is resurrected into the same world he died in. Socrates may have included what may at first appear as reincarnation to entice members of religions that believed in such ideas. Two such religions were the Orphic and Pythagorean cult. According to Albinus reincarnation was a new idea that cut through Greek society. It was popular and prevalent in ancient Greece at the time of Socrates and Plato. The choice to use ideas that can be related to the beliefs of reincarnation may have been an attempt to use popular ideas to impart other ideas without turning off an audience. As well using such popular ideas makes a message more popular and elicits greater support from an audience. It is only after one examines the ideas of the myth closely that one realises that what appears at first to be reincarnation actually was a disguise for ideas that are not akin to this religious belief. What appears as a idea of reincarnation can be seen as the idea of the cyclical reoccurrence of the archetypes of the human soul. This cycle represents the paradigm shift of the content of these archetypes that occurs each spring of a new epoch. This is a restructuring of the metaphysical superstructure of humanity that occurs at the beginning of each cycle of the human soul. This restructuring is the conceptual shift of the paradigmatic ideas associated with the particular archetypes that comprise the soul. As mentioned earlier, the content of a society’s idea for an archetype can change while the archetype by virtue of the same name and categorisationl remains the same. For example, the idea of a dictator has shifted from meaning a teacher to meaning a tyrant. The ideas used to define a dictator have changed while the term itself persists as an idea and archetype in humanity. The new definition of a dictator includes the ideas of its predecessors as elements to its new formulation. For instance, every use of the term dictator contains the original normative idea derived from the authority a teacher has over his students. The archetype of the hero changes with the redefinition of heroism. Er embodies a new definition of heroism and thus can be seen to represent a new content for the archetype of the hero. The old definition and new definition of a hero become part of the entirety of the content of the archetype of the hero. The potential for each new definition to be categorised by the name of an archetype is part of the nature of how names and categorisations work. The universal character of names and categories allow one to use them to refer to any idea that has a family resemblance to the ideas connected to that archetype. Er's heroism contains elements of the old ideas associated with a hero and the new ideas concerning heroism presented in the Republic. The new content of this heroism becomes one with the content of the archetype of the hero. The new content represented by Er is the heroism of the strength of justified speeches. The old content represented by Er is based on his resemblance to other heroes, especially those that have experienced a katabasis. This new content includes the old idea of strength-based heroism as an element of its formulation. As well, the type of heroism Er exemplified prior to his katabasis is reflective of the old idea of strength-based justice. The image Er represents is a new form of the content of the archetype of the hero. In book X, prior to the myth, Socrates describes part of his idea of the human soul. Socrates claims that the human soul is always constituted of the same number of individuals. It can be argued that these individuals are not people but archetypes. The number of individuals that comprise the human soul that remains the same in number refers to neither the same people nor to people itself. To prove this I turn to the character of Orpheus in the myth. Socrates states that the psyche that once belonged to Orpheus was reincarnated as a swan. If this soul once belonged to Orpheus does it still belong to Orpheus? One could interpret Orpheus’ choice to become a swan as representing a conceptual connection between the metaphoric ideas represented by the swan and the ideas associated with Orpheus’ old life. By synthesising these ideas, one derives a new idea for the paradigm associated with archetype represented by Orpheus. This is a paradigm shift in the content of this archetype. The ancient Greeks connected the idea of a swan to women and to ideas of effeminality. Orpheus’ choice to become a swan can be seen as a metaphor for choosing to act like an effeminate bird towards women. The swan may be a metaphor for homosexuality. The idea of the swan is merged with the idea of Orpheus’ past life to produce a new idea concerning the type of person Orpheus represents: a male (or female) that becomes effeminate because of his (or her) hatred of women caused by his (or her) past experiences of them. In this sense, one might suggest that the individuals that comprise the human psyche are archetypes represented by each character in the myth. No matter how large the human population grows these archetypes always remain the same in number An archetype always contains the potential to be defined by any content that can be associated with it. For instance, all definitions of the hero have the potentially to be categorised by the term hero. The individuals comprising the archetypes of the soul represent different types of people and do not represent people themselves. This can be illustrated by Vico’s claim that the mythical descriptions that are associated with such characters are not representative of the people these myths derive their characters’ names from. These descriptions are not reflective of the person they supposedly represent, At most the actual person the names once represented have become a small part of that character’s description. This small part is an element to that description’s formulation, yet it is not reflective of that character in its totality. Such embellished descriptions do not lend themselves well to the idea of reincarnation, Legendary descriptions are not usually what people consider to be representative of the soul that is reincarnated. Since Socrates used the mythological ideas associated with characters to fashion the myth of Er, the characters in the myth do not reflect real people. These characters are not fashioned to represent actual people; rather they are used to represent the mythical ideas associated with them. The names of these characters may be the same as the actual people that originally possessed them, yet the content for these names have changed. The ideas associated with such characters have been altered in part by their use in myth and poetry. Plato claims that poetry can distort the truth. This distortion changes the meaning of the content of these characters. Thus, mythical characters do not reflect the truth of the people they represent. This distortion may be one of the reasons poetry conveys archetypal truths rather than actual people. Actual people are only a form of this truth and do not comprise the entire content of an archetype. The images and ideas associated with these names have become larger that life. They are embellished in comparison to the original content that name once represented. The new content for such names is more legend than reality and does not reflect actual people. The equating of Orpheus with a swan suggests Socrates was aware that Orpheus’ mythical description was not representative of the real Orpheus. The connection to the swan may have been Socrates’ attempt to offer his idea of what Orpheus was really like. More to the point, the connection with the swan is Socrates attempt to change the ideas traditionally associated with Orpheus by connecting them to the ideas symbolised by the swan. The new image this produces is, as I have already mentioned, a synthesis of the old idea Orpheus represents and the ideas represented by the swan. The myth’s reference to animals can be equated to metaphors that represent types of individuals that constitute the human psyche. In the myth Socrates claims that animals can become humans and vice-versa. Hence, that which constitutes the human individual must be the same as that which constitutes the animal individual. If what constitutes a human soul is not the same as what constitutes an animal soul then such souls would not be compatible or inter-changeable. Since the soul of an animal is the same as the soul of a human, the animal and human must be equally constituents of the same common soul. Since the myth is a story of the journey of the human soul and includes animals, both the animals and humans must be part of that soul. Why does Socrates call the human soul human if it included animals, if it is not the case that these animals represent metaphors for humans? Moreover, the reasons characters choose to be animals in the myth are human rather than animal. For example, Orpheus chooses to be a swan to avoid being born of woman again. Orpheus’ reasons for this are based on his previous human life experience with women. This experience led to his hatred of them. Thus. Orpheus' reasons for choosing to become a swan are quite human. To cite another example, Ajax chooses to become a lion as a repercussion of the judgement of arms. He was considered the second bravest person at the siege of Troy after Achilles. The ancients saw lions as representing ferocious, strong and fearful animals. People are said to become a lion when angry. The lion can be seen as a metaphor for the bitterness and anger caused by the judgement of arms. Ajax represents a bitter, yet brave person, that acts in a similar fashion to an angry lion towards everyone. Hence, the animals mentioned in the myth are metaphors for the content of the human archetypes they represent. The ideas associated with the human roles characters chose as their new lives are metaphors for different types of humans. Each new life embodies the content of the archetype they represent. For example, Atalanta's choice for a new life represents the archetype of a professional athlete. She embodies the ideas associated with such athletes like the desire for honours. Her past life was that of a huntress. The idea of the professional athlete is connected to the ideas associated with the huntress to produce the idea of the huntress that hunts game for fame and honour. Epius’ choice for a new life represents the archetype of the female or feminine artisan. Epius was a boxer and the builder of the Trojan horse. Building this wooden horse would have been seen as a male military enterprise and connecting it to a female artisan produces the idea of a builder that is an effeminate artist. This effeminate artist also boxes. As mentioned earlier Odysseus chooses to live the private life. Odysseus’ choice for a new life represents the type of person that chooses the seclusion of the private life as a necessary repercussion of the misfortune he found when seeking public honour. The choice to live the private life is his attempt to escape the punishments and misfortunes that he suffered because of his pursuit of honour. Odysseus was one of the Greek generals in Troy. His pursuit of the honour of being the one that caused the Greeks to win in Troy led to the burning of its temples. The gods then punished him for causing the circumstances that led to this sacrileges event. He wandered the seas for decades before returning to Thebes. His character in the myth is cured of the pursuit of honour because of his punishment by the gods. He chooses to live the life of the private person because of this punishment. His new life represents the seclusion that one divinely punished might engage in to avoid further punishment. He choice to live the private life is a reaction to his punishment and not a choice he desired to make. Since the divine is a metaphor for life, Odysseus’ divine punishments can be seen simply as the misfortunes he suffered as a result of his pursuits in public life. The image of Odysseus at the end of the myth is the divinely punished or misfortunate in life that choose to be antisocial and reclusive to avoid further punishment. Odysseus’ choice to live the private life is not heroic. In fact, it can be argued that he represents someone that tried to be a hero and had his life fall apart because of it. Thus, he chooses to avoid further misfortune by giving up his pursuit of public honour and becoming a recluse. Furthermore, the unnamed characters in the myth also represent archetypes. For example, the unnamed man that received the first lot and chose to become a tyrant is an archetype for a certain type of person. Such people desire political power and become tyrannical when they acquired it. The ideas associated with this archetype represent the type of person that becomes corrupted by political power. Such people end up abusing their position of power. The life of the man with the first lot represents the corruption that occurs when one become the sole ruler of a regime and lacks the prudence to avoid the gluttony and evils associated with such rule. This corruption leads such tyrants to lament their choices in life. They become miserable as a repercussion of these choices. The evils that are a repercussion of this type of life are caused by a lack of philosophic virtue. This virtue is the basis of the prudence necessary to make good choices in life. The tyrant’s gluttony and vice causes the evils and misery in his lives. The new content illustrated by the man with the first lot is a synthesis of the normative idea of humanities desire for power and the idea of the misery that the political power of tyranny can have when one is not imbued with the prudence necessary to be just and good in the manner of the philosopher. I will now examine how each new life represents an archetype for the various choices people make in life that consequently forms their later lives. These new lives are formed according to the ideas associated with the content of the archetype people choose to model their lives after. This is how one makes the choices that lead to the life one is bound to by necessity. Choosing to become a professional athlete or artisan changes one’s life and forms this life according to the ideas associated with that archetype. For example, a professional athlete acts according to the ideas associated with the desire for public honour. The myth's description of the passing of one life to the next is not akin to a cycle of reincarnation; rather it is a metaphor for how people live and change from early life to later life. The myth’s description is the content for the archetype of this change. Albinus claims the choices one makes in life binds one to them by necessity in the next life. That is, these choices bind one by necessity to a type of life. They are the habits one gains in one’s early life that shapes one's later life. People become so habituate by their choices in early life that they often think these habits are a necessary part of their nature in later life. Bremer argues that each choice one makes in life necessarily changes that life. In the myth people forget part or all of their early life and the choices they made therein that led to their current life. Everyone drinking prudently of the waters of carelessness remember something of about their past life. One’s memory of the past is what allows one to choose a new life wisely. It is the basis of knowing how “to choose the life between ...extremes, flee excesses ... in this life.. and all the next life.”. This memory allows people to recall what is just and good and act accordingly Those that did not act prudent with the water forgot everything in their past life. Albinus claims the forgetfulness caused by these waters is equivalent to these people forgetting the lessons they learned concerning what was good. The memory of a past life never disappears completely even when totally forgotten. As I have already mentioned the nearing of death and the warnings concerning what happens to unjust people in the after life is an excellent reminder of what one forgot about one‘s early life and the idea of justice. Thus, even what is forgotten can be recalled. This recollection is based on something or someone reminding one of what they forgot. The new life a character takes is a cumulative amalgamation of the ideas represented by the choices they made in their old life, even if forgotten, and their new life, which is bond by necessity to the choices made in their old life. Bremer claims that each new choice in life changes one's life and binds one to the necessary repercussions of those choices. Orpheus' past is part and parcel of his new life. His new life is bond to the necessity of the repercussions of his old life. The idea represented by the synthesis of Orpheus' old and new life is the new content for the archetype Orpheus represents at the end of the myth. This is the case for all the characters described in the myth. The myth of Er begins with the dead Er being placed on a pyre just before his scheduled burial. The tale ends with a return to the same scene of the pyre as Er comes back to life. This cyclical character of the myth of Er can be seen as an equivalent to the cycle of passing from early life to later life. It is analogous to “the cycle of the mortal race”. When one bows in front of the thrown of necessity the choices made in early life become seen as necessary elements of one’s later life. This can be interpreted as suggesting the choices made in early life that lead to the type of person one will be later in life are justified based on the idea of necessity rather than choice. Every character that observed the ritual of the lots, other than Er, acted in this manner and bowed to the justification of necessity. The water’s of carelessness that every character, except for Er, drank from represents the choices people make in early life that out of carelessness are forgotten and attributed to the idea of necessity. For instance, the choices made by Ajax that led to the judgement of arms were seen as the necessity that caused him to become a lion and roar at everyone in his next life. The choices that led to Ajax’s life up to and including the judgement of arms were forgotten and his new life is seen as the product of the necessary repercussion of the judgement of arms and not as a product of choice. It should be mentioned that even Er bows to the necessity of having to spread his message, though this bowing to necessity occurs after his reassertion. However, it could be argued that Er had a choice as to whether he would be a messenger or choose to live any of the other lives he encountered in the afterlife, including returning to practicing his old way of living. Bremer claims that Er is the paradigm of his message and possesses the knowledge necessary to be able to choose to act just and good. Since this type of knowledge is necessary to make the prudent choices needed to act good and just and philosophising is the bases of this prudence, Er’s message allows him to become a philosopher. If Er is an embodiment or paradigm of this message then he would already be a philosopher. Since Er is changed by his katabasis and this change is the basis of his message, he would probably chooses to live in a manner reflective of the ideas embodied in his message. He would act in a manner that would allow him to be rewarded in the afterlife and avoid the punishments. During the ritual of the lots, Er is not permitted to pick up a lot. He is the only person to observe this ritual and not partake in it. Socrates may be suggesting that it was Er's lot not to pick a lot. Furthermore, Er is resurrected with a message about the afterlife, which makes his lot that of the messenger of this message. Er’s message is of the pattern of life and the types of lives that constitute it. This pattern is the human experience of life comprised of the various types of lives or archetypes that constitute humanity. According to Bremer everyone sees this pattern. It is the common experience of life. Furthermore, Er would be able to both take apart and rebuild the message of his katabasis. For instance, he knows the various things that constitute the afterlife and how it works. As well, Er remembers the reasons that cause each character to pick a new life. He knows each type of life and the type of person each character was prior to their new lives. These are the constituents that comprise the content of each archetype the characters in the myth represent. Er is also able to delineate his experience as compared to every other experience he or anyone else has ever had. He knows how the journey of the human soul is different in comparison to everything else he had ever experienced. He can recall the differences that comprise and distinguish the content of each archetype represented by the characters in the myth. He also knows how to distinguish the idea of divine justice presented in the afterlife from other ideas of justice such as the normative ideas that are presented in the rest of the Republic. Thus, Er's message contains the elements of a logos of logos. The logos of Er’s message is a logos that consists of his experience in the katabasis synthesises with his pamphylian life prior to his death. His message contains the archetypes and understanding of the pattern of life. It contains the various archetypes that comprise the human soul. This knowledge is equivalent to what Socrates delineates as Homer’s knowledge of humanity. Socrates claims Homer wrote about different governments and regimes as well as their various inhabitants. Homer's works are models for all regimes while no regime was ever founded by him. His writings are considered an expression of the different arts and behaviours that the inhabitants of such regimes engage in. These are the archetypal constitutes of the human soul. The inhabitants of these regimes can be seen as the inhabitants of the 'regime', or pattern, of life. They are the constituents of the human soul. Though one could argue that this description of the human soul is incomplete as it restricts itself to only the Greeks. Thus, Homer's myths can be said to show his knowledge of the different constituent that comprises the human psyche and pattern of life. According to Socrates this knowledge and wisdom is why Homer can be called a great teacher. Socrates suggests Homer is considered wise because Homer would have to know every one of the human experiences he writes about. Socrates claims that Homer may be the wisest in virtue and knowledge, and for this Homer has been ascribed the title of the educator of all Greeks. Homer is a great teacher because he knows what comprises the human psyche and is able to act on this knowledge by teaching this information to others in the form of myth. His ideas became a model for regimes even if no regime ever was founded based on the Homeric ideal. By knowing about the pattern of life and the various types of lives people choose to lead, Er has the knowledge of the constituents of the human soul. Er can exemplifies his knowledge of the various constituents of the human soul by reiterating his message. This knowledge must be put into practice and find a wide spread acceptance with people to have one called a great teacher In a fashion similar to Homer, Er can practice his knowledge of the constituents of the pattern of life by teaching this pattern as part of his message. For instance, Er knows the reasons people choose to do the various things that lead to their adherence to an archetype and the ideas associated with that archetype. He knows the reasons that constitute people’s chooses for new lives, like Orpheus’ reason for becoming a swan, Atalanta’s reason for becoming a athlete and Ajax’s reason for becoming a lion. Er knows something about the new and old lives of each of the characters he encountered in the afterlife. By analysing the reasons people chose a new life, he is able to derive some idea of what these people’s old lives were like. For instance, Orpheus’ choice and reasons to be a swan depicts his hellish past experience with women. Furthermore, Er knows the reasons why people in the afterlife are punished or rewarded for unjust and just acts respectfully. He is able to teach people what the gods thought was good, just and virtues, as well as, what the gods thought was evil, unjust and vice. He can impart the ideas of divine justice as guidelines for the way people should act so as to be good, just and virtues. In a fashion akin to Homer, Er has the knowledge necessary to be a great teacher. In this sense, Er appears to fulfil Socrates’ definition pertaining to what makes Homer a great teacher. Er is a new content for the archetype of the great teacher and a paradigm shift of the form its content. Since Socrates is a reflection of Er, Socrates also shares the archetype of the great teacher and embodies the paradigm shift represented by Er. All people called great teachers are like a single individual sharing the same archetype. This sharing of an archetype allows any number of people to be categorised under the same archetype. No matter how many people share this archetype it remains an individual archetype. This is why there is always the same number of archetypes in the human soul. Since the characters in the myth of Er represent the individual archetypes of the human soul, there could only be one archetypal hero mentioned in this tale. As I have shown this hero is Er. Anyone that shares the title of the hero is part of this archetype. All heroes are part of the same individual archetype of the hero. Moreover, since Er is also a philosopher he also shares this archetype. One can be part of more than one archetype at the same time. This does not change the number of archetypes. The number of individual archetypes in the human soul always remain the same no matter how many people are categorised under any particular one. The perfect form of an archetype encompasses all people sharing that archetype.They are all as one within that archetype. They can be seen as one body categorised under the name of that archetype. All heroes are categorised under that one category. The human psyche evolves when the content of its archetypes shift and change. This change within the archetypes causes the evolution of the human soul described in the myth. Er and his plight exemplify this change. He is the archetype of virtue and justice redefined to include a synthesis of the old and the new ideas of virtue and justice. Plato calls the archetypes perfect forms or the truth of an idea. Every idea of justice is part of the perfect form of justice. Nettleship claims that there are many forms of justice to the perfect form of justice. The particular form justice takes in a particular city is a reflection of the truth of the perfect form of justice. A polity's form of justice always reflects the truth of that perfect form. The polity's particular farm of justice changes as the psyche of that polity evolves. This change occurs when new ideas are added and accepted as the content that constitutes that polity’s idea of justice. Inasmuch as new ideas can change the forms within a polity, the original content of that form never disappears completely. New ideas of justice always contain the old ideas of justice as elements to their formulation. For instance, Socrates’ idea of justice in book ten contains the other forms of justice introduced by Socrates’ interlocutors in book one and two. Furthermore, the perfect form of an idea always encompasses every form that idea could ever take. No matter the form an idea takes it will still be categorised by the name for that perfect form. All ideas of justice can and are categorised as justice. No matter what the idea of justice is used to mean that meaning always exists as a potential content of the idea of justice. That which allows humans to conceive of justice to begin with and categorise these ideas as such is the potential by which any meaning of justice could be derived and called justice. Thus, both old forms and new forms of justice will always be contained in the perfect form of justice. In book ten, Socrates explicates the idea of the various forms that reflect the same truth, or perfect form of an idea, by delineating the different types of forms reflected by the artist, the craftsman and the divine. I will show that Socrates may have intended the audience synthesis these three into one idea. The truth of a perfect form is reflected in all worldly forms derived from it, yet the perfect form is never fully encompassed in any worldly form. Socrates claims that it is the practitioner of an art or craft that truly knows that art and craft. The imitator that imitates these things may know the objects in the world, however, he or she does not have the knowledge of those objects the same way the craftsman that practices his craft by fashioning actual versions of these objects. According to Socrates it is the practicing of one's craft that portrays one’s knowledge of it. Socrates claims god is considered the great craftsman that created everything in the world. Thus, the god can be seen as practicing his craft in the creation of the world. This proves his knowledge of the objects in that world. Socrates suggests to Glaucon that he too could also become a divine creator, or a god. All Glaucon would have to do is pick up a mirror and reflect all the objects in the world. Socrates claims the god reflects the world once removed from truth. Anyone reflecting the objects of the world in a mirror, or the likes, creates reflections once removed from the truth similar to the reflections created by a god. If one reflects the truth of the human soul or the world in a poem or myth, which mirrors that truth as closely as possible then one makes a reflection in a manner similar to a god. Albinus claims that the divine element in Plato's works is his way of proving his ideas come as close to reflecting the truth as possible. In the Phaedo, Socrates claims that the pursuit of wisdom that attempts to come as close to the truth as possible is divine. The philosopher who practices this type of wisdom becomes divine and ends up joining his equals and the gods in the afterlife. The philosopher tries to fashion his ideas by reflecting the world of appearance with as little distortion as possible. In the Phaedo Socrates claims this distortion is a product of the senses. This distortion is also caused by the biases of the ideas one has derived from knowledge and not directly from the perceivable world. These biases are the normative ideas people use to formulate their ideas. Thus, the according to Socrates philosopher reflects the truth as closely as possible. Since the god’s reflections are once removed from the truth and the god created the world, the god’s divine ideas truly create world. The god’s reflection is he truth of the world. Thus, divine ideas function in the same way as the truths they reflect. To truly create something is as close to the truth as anyone can get. This is why the philosopher’s ideas that reflect the truth as closely as possible are similar to the ideas reflected by gods. Socrates’ suggestion to Glaucon to pick up a mirror and reflect the world in the manner of a god seems to imply that humans can become similar to a god when reflecting the truths of the world as closely as possible. Since the god creates the world and this can be seen as his world, anyone reflecting that world in a similar fashion to a god creates his or her own knowable world. In fact, Socrates claims humans can liken themselves to a god when they practice virtue. Thus according to Socrates the practice of virtue is a reflection once removed from the truth and is realised by each individual based on their own reflection of what they know of the world. This knowledge is based on the wisdom that makes a philosopher divine. The knowable world is a reflection at least once removed from the truth of the perceivable world. Glaucon agrees with Socrates that the knowable, sayable world is “not in the truth”, rather it is an untruth imitating perceivable truths. “... [T]he actual world is appearance and all knowledge respecting it opinion...”. Everyone has their own opinion of the world and thus their own reflection of it. I will now try to equate the way a god reflects the world and how an imitator like the craftsman, and the artist (the poet and the painter) reflect the same world. The craftsman, the artist and the god imitate what they perceive. The craft of reflecting the soul is the creation of its story in speech or in written form. By definition this is a myth. The artist or craftsman creating a myth fashions a story of the human soul. If this story is based on the wisdom that makes a philosopher divine then it reflects the truths of the human soul in the fashion similar to a mirror, or as close to the truth as possible. Since the archetypes that comprise the human soul are perfect forms and perfect forms encompasses everyone that can be associated with them, any story or myth that is crafted to reflect them as close their truth as possible is a practice and proof of the wisdom that makes a philosopher divine. Such a story, or myth, is divine because it contains the idea of the perfect forms as divine ideas that can in a fashion similar to the truth, or character, of the perfect forms encompass anyone who can be associated with them. The divine ideas in such a myth reflect their truths and the character of the perfect forms. This reflection of the character of the perfect forms is the basis of the divine ideas. These ideas are divine because they imitate and function in the same way the perfect forms, or divine truths do. The divine ideas act in the same manner as the truths they are designed from. For example, the truth that represents justice encompasses every idea of justice. The ideas in the myth of Er, like the truths that they represent, are fashioned to be able to encompass other ideas of justice. Since the ideas of justice found in this myth encompass all the definitions of justice proffered by the other characters in the dialogue and the ideas in the myth act in the same fashion as the truth they represent, these ideas are divine. The god, that creates the objects in the perceivable and knowable world, divinely reflects the objects in the world once removed from the truth. The imitators that use these creations to create their versions of the objects in the world as close as possible to the truth, reflect the objects in the world in a similar fashion. When they reflect an archetype in the human soul as close to the truth a possible, the god, the artist and the craftsman share in the divine idea of the truth of that archetype. The artist, craftsman and god each create a form of it once removed from the truth. The wisdom that makes the philosopher divine is his knowledge of the existence of the perfect forms and how these forms operate. This wisdom allows the philosopher to fashion ideas that function in the same manner as the perfect forms. When the artist and craftsman reflect the truth of human soul as closely as possible to the truth they create a reflection of that soul based on their knowledge of it and the truths they are reflecting. The artist and craftsman, even the god, can make such a reflection in the form of poetry and myth. This is each of them practicing their knowledge and wisdom of that soul. When one fashions a reflection of the soul as close to the truth as possible using one's knowledge of the soul based on wisdom that makes a philosopher divine, one creates this reflection in the manner of a god. Such artists and craftsmen and gods share in the archetype of a creator and the crafting of divine ideas. Thus, I have shown that the artist, craftsman and god share the same archetype of a divine creator when reflecting the world as closely to the truth as possible and creating forms that mimic the character of the perfect forms or truth they reflect. This is especially the case when one reflects the truth of the human soul and creates a story that contains archetypes that can be used to categorise people in general. Socrates’ claims the god’s idea is the divine idea once removed from the truth, This implies the god fashions ideas directly from his experience of the perceivable world based on his idea of the truth of that world. Hence, a god reflects his idea of the world as a form once removed from the perfect form of that idea based on the same wisdom that makes a philosopher divine. It is the closest any form can be to the truth. Furthermore, Socrates suggests the craftsman is twice removed and the artist is thrice removed from the truth. The god, artist and craftsman each fashions a different form of the perfect form they reflect. When artists, craftsmen and gods reflect the same truth to create their own versions of its form, all three share in the creation of the manifestation of the earthly forms. All three create the earthly forms that end up constituting the earthly content of that perfect form. Each fashions a different form of the same perfect form. These different forms are ultimately part of the perfect form they reflect. When each reflects the truth of the human experience and human psyche, it is reflected differently by each depending on how far removed they are from its truth. Since each fashions their version of this form based on their knowledge of it and they each fashion a similar reflection when closely mirroring its truths while fashioning ideas that act in the same manner as the perfect forms, they can each be said to create an equal, yet different form, of the perfect form of the human soul. Furthermore, the craftsman that puts ideas into practice uses the perfect forms as measures to actualise his understanding of that world. This is the knowledge of the perfect forms makes the philosopher divine. This, actualisation is based on a synthesis of what one already knew about the content of an archetype and the new ideas one has concerning that archetype. The craftsman of a myth reflects the human psyche using the individual archetypes existing in that psyche as measures of the idea of life he is reflecting. If these archetypes act in the fashion of the truth they reflect then these ideas are divine. These archetypes represent the parameters to this crafting and if this crafting is successful then these archetypes will function in the same manner as the perfect forms and thus would be models that can be used to categorise people with. For instance, when one fashions an image of a hero, one uses the ideas associated with a hero as guidelines for this image. Even when one is unfamiliar with the ideas associated with the hero, one uses truths and ideas that others might interpret as belonging to the archetype of the hero to craft the image of someone that these other people might identify as a hero. These ideas are the basis of the images the craftsman uses to fashion his hero. Such a hero is a model to categorise other people as similar heroes. When the craftsman fashions a myth concerning the human experience he uses the ideas associated with myth and the human experience as guidelines for the ideas he embeds in this myth. These guidelines are understood based on the craftsman’s own knowledge of these ideas and wisdom of their truth. Since the god, craftsman and artist are capable of creating an equal, yet different myth, or story, concerning the human soul all three use these archetypes as measures for their creation. Even the god reflects the truth to create divine ideas. One fashions one’s own version of the human soul based on one’s particular understanding of it, which reflects how far removed one’s idea is from its truth. Since one’s fashioning of a reflection of the human soul is comprised of the pre-existing content of that soul and the truth that content reflects and everyone has a common experience of that soul and its truths, everyone’s reflection of that soul based on the wisdom of its truth creates an equal, yet different, form of the same common experience of life. The god, artist and craftsman become equals when they successfully reflect the human soul as close to the truth as possible and thus fashion divine ideas that function in the same manner as the perfect forms. Since the god, artist and craftsman can reflect the perceivable world as the knowable world, and the knowable world is the mirror image of the perceivable world all three have a reflection of the world once removed from the truth. One’s experience of the truth of the pattern of life and the pre-existing content for the archetypes that constitute the human soul, which is comprised of this pattern, is the basis of one's knowledge of it. Thus, one's story of humanity, which contains the pattern of life, is based on one‘s experience of its common truths and the pre-existing ideas concerning it. Anyone able to convey a version of this story that is consistent with a logos of logos can be said to have proven their knowledge of the human psyche sound and valid. Since the craftsman that chooses to put in practice what he knows can be said to have true knowledge of that subject, a craftsman fashioning a myth about the human soul as close as possible to its truth and the way that truth functions that is consistent with a logos of logos can be said to have true sound and valid knowledge of that soul. This craftsman is a philosopher utilising the divine truths of the perfect forms to craft his myth. An artist crafting a artistic message of the soul , like a myth, as close as possible to its truth and the way this truth functions that is consistent with a logos of logos uses a similar knowledge to the craftsman to create that art. This art is equivalent to the craftsman’s creation. Such an artist in this way proves his knowledge of what he crafted sound and valid. This artist is a philosopher utilising the divine truths of the perfect forms to artistically craft his myth. Finally, Socrates suggests that a god creates what he reflects. The god’s divine reflection is the practice of the god’s craft and art. A god reflecting the human psyche creates one. The god capable of reflecting the human psyche, and even creating one, can be said to truly know that soul. Such a god has sound and valid knowledge of the soul. Socrates’ explication of the archetypes of the human psyche in the myth of Er is an example of his knowledge of the pattern of life that constitutes humanity. The crafting of the myth is his practice of this knowledge that proves he truly knows the human soul. Since I have shown that it is consistent with a logos of logos, both in the Republic as a whole and as Er's message, it is a sound and valid argument. Since the myth is also crafted in the style of Homer’s works and it is presented in poetic verse the myth of Er is also an artistic creation. The myth is an artistic crafting which creates a new representation of the human soul. Since this representation encompasses everyone that constitutes the perfect form of the soul, it acts in the same manner as the perfect form it reflects. It is a divine idea. Since Socrates creates a new reflection of the perfect forms used by the god to create what he reflects and similar to a god Socrates fashions this reflection based on his knowledge of the knowable world, which is his personal world and Socrates’ creation reflects the truth as closely as possible and the way this truth functions, Socrates' artistic crafting of this myth is a divine creation. Since Socrates is a philosopher his artistic crafting of a myth utilises his wisdom of the perfect forms and this makes his work divine. As I have already mentioned Albinus claims that the divine element in Plato's works is his way of proving his ideas came as close to reflecting the truth as possible. Since Plato fashions his work based on Socratic philosophy and this philosophy is based on a wisdom that makes it divine Plato's work is a divine work. Plato’s work fulfils the same criteria I just outlined that make Socrates’ fashioning of the myth divine. As I have mentioned earlier in regards to the teacher who is said to embody divine justice on earth, this myth is also divine because it embodies a new idea of justice and virtue which is a greater definition of the forms of this idea that already existed. It is a divine idea that functions in the manner of a perfect form. It is a model of virtue and justice that can be used by a regime to create its laws. By incorporating the artistic, craftsman and divine perspective in his work, Plato includes every type of form that could ever be derived from the truth concerning the ideas he uses. Thus, Plato's explication of the human soul contains all three different types of forms that can be derived from its truth. The synthesis of these different types of forms into one form is Plato’s attempt to encompasses every form the reflection of truth can take as knowledge. It contains the wisdom of the imitators, creators and the divine. Socrates' creation of the myth of Er reflects his understanding of the truth of the human experience. The human experience is the pattern of life and the evolution this pattern takes in the cycle of the evolution of the human soul. This truth is the common experience of life reflected within the content of the myth's images and message as a whole. It is based on his wisdom of the truth of the perfect forms of these ideas and images common to everyday life. According to Socrates everyone shares the one soul. All humans are part of the content of the archetype of the soul. Since all humans share the one soul and that soul is understood by each of them according to their personal knowledge of it, which is a reflection of their experience of life, it can be said that the truth of the human experience and soul is equally everyone's. Everyone has a common experience of life based on the basic premise of living. By definition, living is a common experience everyone alive has. Socrates’ conception of the human experience can be said to be egalitarian, since all people have a common experience of it and everyone equally has the knowledge to understand it. The soul equally belongs to everyone. To illustrate this point I will examine Socrates’ claim that the myth of Er does not belong to him. As he introduces the myth Socrates claims it is not his ownn. Just prior to the presentation of the myth Socrates states he is only imitating, in speech, a myth he had once heard. Bremer claims that the myth of Er does not exist prior to Socrates‘ presentation of it. Socrates probably fabricated it himself. By claiming the myth was not his own Socrates may be hinting that the truths reflected in this myth are the story of the common experience of life and this experience belongs to everyone, not only to Socrates. Since the myth is about the soul and the soul belongs to everyone, Socrates justifiably could not take sole credit for it. Moreover, the truths within this myth belong to everyone that has ever been part of the human soul. It belongs to humanity past, present and future. Every human no matter their time or place in history are forms of the perfect form of this soul. Furthermore, all forms reflecting the truth of the soul are part of its perfect form. All earthly forms of the soul are encompassed by the truth of the perfect form of that soul . This truth is the potential for deriving any form of the soul at any time. All humans are forms of the perfect form of being human and are all encompassed by the potential to exist as a part of that perfect form. The archetypes of the human soul have the potential to contain every human that could ever exist. Since the human soul is comprised of everyone that could ever exist, it necessarily exists because everyone exists. Its existence is owed to everyone and thus belongs to everyone in common. The myth of Er is Socrates’ logos of life or his description of the pattern of life. It is his explication of his knowledge of the archetypes that reflect the types of people constituting that life and the wisdom of the perfect forms these constituents reflect. Utilising the truths Socrates had learned from his experience of life, similar to being a god, artist and practitioner at the same time, he fashions a reflection of his knowledge of that soul. His new form of this truth is the basis for a new content for the archetype of the soul. This new form is a shift in the content of the archetypes that comprise it. Since a shift in the content of these archetypes effects the entire archetype of the soul, this shift in that content causes a shift in the entire content of the soul. The resulting product of this shift is a new form of the content of the archetype of the human soul. It is a new body of ideas for the idea of the soul. This new content or body is comprised of both the old ideas and the new ones. For example, as I mentioned earlier, Orpheus chose to be a swan in his next life. Traditionally this is not what mythology claims happened to Orpheus. The ideas traditionally connected to the archetype Orpheus represents become merged with the ideas signified by the metaphor The ideas traditionally connected to the archetype Orpheus represents become merged with the ideas signified by the metaphor of the swan like behaviour towards the opposite sex. This new idea is a shift in the content of the archetype Orpheus represents. By causing a similar paradigm shift in the other archetypes that comprise the human soul represented by the other characters in the myth Socrates can be seen as presenting ideas meant to cause a shift to the entire archetypal content of the soul. Realising how Socrates uses Er and the other characters in the myth to cause a shift in the idea they embody and consequently how this causes a similar shift in the entire content of the human soul, one learns how to use this method to change these archetypes and cause a shift in the content of humanity. That is one learns what one needs to do to cause a change to the content of the pattern of life and consequently cause a change in the way people live because of it. Since everyone shares the experience of this pattern and this pattern is the basis of how everyone chooses to live their lives, a change in the ideas that constitute this pattern causes a change to the way people live. However, unless one includes the previous ideas constituting the content of the archetype of the soul and its constituents as part of one’s logos concerning it one’s logos for this content would not prove itself stronger.

If one does not include the old ideas for the content that logos concerns, one’s logos for one's new ideas for this content would not encompass every constituent of that content. This logos does not prove itself superior to its predecessors based on the strengths of their arguments. If a new form of an archetype does not prove itself superior it will not displace the authority of its predecessors and gain wide spread acceptance as a new form of this content. An idea that does not prove itself superior does not cause an evolution in human thought. Ideas that are not seen as superior to their predecessors or opponents do not become accepted as the new model for the content of the archetypes they represent. People would most likely remain faithful to the old ideas. If people do not have to change their ideas they will usually choose to keep their old ideas rather than accept new ones. The necessity to have people agree with one’s ideas is paramount to having the new ideas take root in their minds. That is why incorporating the previous ideas concerning a subject into one’s new conception of that subject is so important for gaining a wide spread acceptance of these ideas as the new authority for the subject they describe. This acceptance is necessary to cause the human soul to evolve. Plato’s writings are manifest forms that reflect what is perceived as the eternal truths that all forms are fashioned from. It is based on his wisdom that makes philosophers divine. The Republic is the embodiment of new ideas of justice and virtue. Plato’s writings encompass his and the ideas that previously existed concerning the subjects he examines. Plato's idea of justice gains its strength with its audience by including the normative ideas of justice that existed in his day and the truth all ideas concerning justice are derived from. As I mentioned previously, Socrates seems to imply that Homer reflected the various truths of the human experience. Plato’s writings also reflect these truths. For example, Socrates claims Homer outlined the various types of regimes that exist in the world. In a similar fashion, throughout the Republic Plato outlines and categorises the different regimes that humans create. In fact, in book VIII, Socrates’ outlines three basic types of regime tyranny, or the rule of one person, oligarchy and democracy. These regime types represent archetypes for the content of the archetype of the regime. All three types of regimes are regimes, yet each can have their own content. The city in speech can be considered an idea for a new content of the archetype of the regime. All three types of regimes and the city in speech are forms of the perfect form of the regime. The city in speech and the Republic as a whole are a portrayal of Socrates and Plato’s knowledge of human regimes. The city in speech and the Republic are the practice of their knowledge concerning human regimes. Since these regimes are models that can be used to categorise actual regimes, they represent divine ideas that mimic the perfect forms. Upon becoming aware of these various regimes one realises the Republic reflects common truths. One such truth is that there is more than one way to govern people. The different types of regimes mentioned in the dialogue illustrate this truth. The idea of justice presented in the Republic can be said to contain all three types of forms that can be reflected from the perfect form of justice. Furthermore, the content of the myth of Er is a reflection of the human soul and contains all three types of forms that can be reflected from the truth of that soul. The myth is once, twice and three times removed from the truth it reflects. Plato crafts the Republic like an artist as close to the truth it reflects as possible. It contains his wisdom of the perfect forms he reflects. It is comprised of divine ideas that function in the manner of the perfect forms they reflect. This is the crafting of ideas that mirror the perfect form they reflect and is the creation of something as an object in the world. This is equivalent to the craftsman’s practice of true knowledge and the god’s creation of divine ideas. This wisdom makes Plato a philosopher. Since it attempts to reflect the truth as closely as possible it is divine. Hence, Plato includes a divine, artistic and craftsman perspective to his reflection of the truth of the human soul and the other subjects found within the myth and the Republic as a whole. All three perspectives are Plato’s reflection of the truth formulated as a new content for the content of the archetype of the human soul and the subjects in the dialogue. Plato is the craftsman that practices his knowledge by both reiterating existing ideas and adding new one’s to the form of the content that reflects the perfect form of these ideas. Similar to what I outlined about Socrates’ divine artistic crafting of the myth, Plato’s artistic crafting of the Republic, especially because it includes the myth and as a whole attempts to reflect the truth as closely as possible and mirror the way this truth functions based on his wisdom of the perfect forms, is divine. This myth embodies a more pervasive version of justice and virtue and offers new ideas for the content of these archetypes. It is a model for regimes to formulate earthly forms of these archetypes. Furthermore, by examining the method used by Socrates to fashion the myth of Er one learns how to reformulate one’s own idea of justice and virtue based on one’s own experience of life and the truths thereof. One learns to synthesise one’s ideas with the ideas that already exist for the archetype of justice and virtue, including those found in the Republic, to produce a new content for these archetypes. This synthesis stands a good chance to find wide spread acceptance and consequently cause an evolutionary change in humanity. Similar to Plato, one following such a method is a synthesizer of the old and new. Furthermore, Plato’s ideas are based on the common experience of life, which allows everyone to relate to them and thus allows everyone to give birth to their own ideas of their subjects. These ideas are already encompassed by the potential of the truths Plato explicates. No matter what idea one derives from Plato’s work that idea already existed as a potential content for the archetype, perfect form and truth it reflects. Great teachers

I will now look at how book ten proves Er and his reflection Socrates are great teachers. I will also show how in turn Plato can be seen as a greater teacher than Homer and Socrates combined. I have already shown that Socrates thought Homer was a great teacher because Homer was able to describe his experience of the pattern of life. Socrates delineates his experience of this pattern in the myth of Er. I have already shown how this myth is consistent with a logos of logos and proves Socrates had sound and valid knowledge of the human soul. One can extrapolate from Socrates description of Homer that anyone that can reiterate a message concerning the human soul, as Homer did, would also be considered a great teacher If one fulfils the same criteria that allows Socrates to call Homer a Great teacher would one not also be considered a great teacher? The myth of Er fulfils what Socrates’ praises Homer for. It contains the knowledge and wisdom of the human soul. It also includes ideas of justice and virtue. These are embodied in the myth and character of Er. As mentioned previously due to the myth’s message Socrates and Er both have the knowledge necessary to act virtuously. Since acting virtues allows one to be divine, Er and Socrates have the knowledge necessary to achieve apotheosis. It is there wisdom of virtue that makes them divine. The idea of justice produced at the end of the Republic is the wisest in virtue in comparison to any of the other ideas concerning justice presented by Socrates’ interlocutors. Since the ideas of these interlocutors are the normative ideas that reflect the Homeric ideal, the ideas of justice produced by the end of Republic are wiser than those of Homer. As mentioned previously, Socrates also delineates the distinctness of his idea of the human soul and the constituents that comprise it. He is able to use the ideas he deconstructs from the truth of the human soul and the content of its archetypes to reconstruct them into one all encompassing idea of the soul. In fact, the entire dialogue that reflects Er’s message is an all-encompassing idea of the soul. Socrates is also able to encompass Homers’ ideas as well as his own in the synthesis of the content of the archetype of the myth. The myth is fashioned in the spirit and style of Homers work. Socrates, the fashioner of this myth, can be said to know the message that Er brings back from the afterlife. Since the Republic contains this myth, the Republic also fulfils the definitions that would make it a great educator. Since Plato wrote this dialogue Plato is a great teacher. Socrates claims that the tale of Er was saved and not lost and thus could be used to teach others. The works of Homer and Plato have also been saved and have been used to teach others. Since Plato wrote the entirety of the Republic and this dialogue is consistent with a logos of logos he proves his knowledge of the human soul sound and valid by including his understanding of the pattern of life, This fulfils what is necessary to have Socrates called a great teacher. Plato’s work caused an evolution in human thinking as it ushered in a new epoch in ancient Greece and eventually the world as a whole. As I have already mentioned Plato refers to Er as the pamphylian. This suggests that Plato did not want to restrict his work only to the Greeks as Homer did. Since Er is a model of the ideas of virtue and justice found in the dialogue and Socrates is a reflection of Er, both of which are universal models of change, Plato seems to be offering his work to everyone of the pamphylian as a way to change their humanity. Socrates calls Homer a great poet because he could express the human condition in poetic verse. In fact, he could only express these truths in this form. That is why the myth of Er had to be presented as poetry. It is Homer's poetic verse and not Homer himself that seems to be referred to by Socrates as the educator of all Greeks. It is Homer’s writings, rather than Homer, which had the following and portrayed the wisdom necessary to be called a great educator. It is Homers writings that were saved and not Homer himself. When one refers to his great teaching one actually refers to his works. Homer never wrote down his own works. According to Vico, Solon commissioned the recording of Homer’s tales and thus saved this oral tradition in written form. In contrast, Plato wrote down his own works and thus seems to have accomplished on his own that which made Homer great. This makes Plato greater than Homer because Plato accomplished on his own what it took Homer and Solon together to achieve. Socrates, like Homer, never wrote down his own ideas. It is Plato’s writings that saved the philosophy of Socrates. Thus, Plato is greater than Socrates who did not write down his own ideas. Plato's works contain both his and Socrates' lessons. It also establishes Socrates as a great teacher and educator of a new way of living. This new way includes new definitions of virtue and justice. The myth of Er is the model of the evolution of the human soul that establishes an idea of a superstructure of humanity comprised of perfect forms that are archetypes and categories for each type of individual that could ever exist. The soul evolves in epochs as the ideas of humanity change. This change is akin to the seasons changing each year. The myth presents a new way to use the ideas of these archetypes. It is a lesson about what is just, which makes its message just for its own sake. Er’s message is echoed in Socrates’ speeches throughout the Republic and ultimately in Plato’s fashioning of this work. This establishes Plato as the great teacher, artist, and divine craftsman of the message of the human soul. This myth establishes a new system of justice and defines a new way to determine the good. It offers a new way to judge what is just and virtues. It is a model of justice that can be used by any regime to fashion its laws and judicial ideas. Without the myth of Er, the model of philosophic virtue, justice and heroism is not established in the Republic. The myth of Er is essential as a proof of the logos of logos found in this dialogue. It is what allows one to prove the argument in the Republic is sound and valid. The realization that Er is the hero of this myth and a reflection of Socrates in the entirety of the dialogue is necessary to understand Plato’s intended project when crafting this work. Without the myth one could not realise that Socrates, the reflection Er, is the model of the virtues life that leads to the rewards apotheosis and resurrection The model produced by the myth teaches one how to make good choices based on philosophic prudence, wisdom and a memory of one’s past lessons of the good and the evil. Finally, the content of the archetypes of virtue, justice and good/evil are understood by an audience due to the myths animation of these ideas into images common to everyone’s experience of life. These images are understood based on one’s knowledge of the subjects they concern. Thus, what one realises about justice from the Republic is based on one's own knowledge of that subject. This knowledge is influenced by the normative ideas of one's day. Hence, one’s knowledge and the ideas one realises because of it reflect the collective consciousness and state of evolution of the human soul in one’s time. This realization conceived from the womb of the Republic is one's own conception of its subjects born when one is exposed to its teachings. This conception is made possible by the myth of Er’s animation of Socrates' ideas into a logos of life. This myth completes Plato’s project in the Republic and allows one to learn its ideas in animated images that everyone can relate to. It conveys the ideas of this dialogue in a manner only poetry and myth could. These ideas, like Homer’s ideas, could only be conveyed properly as a myth. They could only be given their proper justice in the form of a poetic verse. The myth of Er is an integral component for understanding the Republic as a whole and the ideas Plato hopes to impart in it as a means of changing humanity and the world.

Bibliography1. Claudia Baracchi, On Myth Life, and War in Plato’s Republic, Indiana, University Press Bloomington, USA. 2002.2. James K. Feibleman, Religious Platonism, Ruskin House, London, England, 1967.3. William Boyd. An Introduction to the Republic of Plato, Ruskin House, London, England. 1962.4. Julia Annas, An Introduction to Plato’s Republic, Clarendon Press Oxford, London, 1962.5. Richard Lewis Nettleship. An Introduction to the Republic of Plato St. Martin’s Press, New York. 1967.6. Allan Bloom, The Republic of Plato, Basic Books, USA,. 1991.7. Essays on Plato’s Republic edited by Erik Nis Ostenfield, Lars Albinus,“The Katabasis of Er, Plato’s use of myths, exemplified by the myth of Er,” Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, Denmark 1998)8. John Bremer, On Plato’s Polity, Institution of philosophy, Houston, Texas, USA. 19849. Plato, Collected Dialogues, edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Princeton University press, New Jerseys, USA 1961 10. Plato, Republic 1-5, Tran. Paul Shorley, Harvard university press Massachusetts, USA. 199411. Plato, Republic 6-10, Tran. Paul Shorley, Harvard university press Massachusetts, USA. 199412. G.F.W Hegel, Reason in History, Trans. Robert S. Hartman, Prentice-Hall, USA. 1953.13. Giambattista Vico. The new science, trans. T.G. Bergin and H.H. Fisch Cornel University Press, Ithaca N.Y. 1984. Paragraphs 173, 873-904 14. T. Mosxopoulos and E. Xopafas,. LEXICO APXAIS ELLHNIKHS, Gutenberg University Books, Gutenberg, Germany. 1995. 15. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophic Investigation, Prentice-Hall inc,. New Jersey, USA.1958.16. William E. Connolly,Identity/Difference. University Of Minnesota, Press Minneapolis, U.S.A .1991. 17. Nietzsche, Friedrich On the Genealogy of Morals. “’Good and evil’ ’Good and Bad’”, Translated Walter Hoffman and R.J. Hollingdale. Vintage House, New York, U.S.A. 1967.18. The New English Bible with apocrypha Cambridge university press New York USA 1970.19. Father George l Papadeas, Greek orthodox holy week & Easter Services, Patmos press, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA 1993.20.Enceclopedia Ancient Deities, McFarland & company Inc, Jefferson, North Carolina, USA. 2002. Der neue Pauly Buchundlung and Carl Ernes Poeshel, Varlag Giubit, Stattgut, Germany 1998. Volume 3, 5 9 and 10.22. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologae Classique Artimus, Verlug, Switzerland. 1990.23.Dictionaire des artique- Greeque ET Romane D’ Apres les Textes Et les Monuments. Librerie Hachette etc. Paris, France. 1899.24. Robert E. Bell, Women of Classical Mythology A bibliographic Dictionary, Oxford university press. New York. 1991.25. Francis MacDounald Cornfield, commentary and translator. Plato’s Theory of Knowledge the Theaetetus and Sophist of Plato. London Rutledge & Paul. London, England. 1957. 26.W. G. Runciman, in Plato’s Later Epistemology, Cambridge, University Press. Cambridge, USA. 196226. Platov Plolitae, Kakos, Athens, Greece, 1993 27. New bible dictionary, 3rd edition, Inter-Varsity press. Larchester, England. 196128. Divrys Greek-English, English-Greek Dictionary, D.C. Divry, New York, USA.1964.29. John Durant, Highlights of the Olympics from ancient times to the Present Hasting House, New York. 1973. 30.The ancient Olympics: athlete games, video Institute of Mediterranean Studies. Cincinnati, Ohio,USA. 199631.Ted Honderich ,The Oxford Companion of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, New York USA. 199532 Estlin Carpenter, Comparative Religions, Henry Holt and Company, New York, USA, 1913.33. Karl Adam, The Son of God, Seed & Ward, New York, 1957 34.Brother J. Frederick, Fsc and Brother H. Albert FSC, To Live is Christ, Henry Regenery Company, Chicago, USA, 196635.Fotios K. Litsas, A Compendium to the Greek orthodox Church Department of Communication Greek Orthodox, Archdiocese Of North and South America, New York, USA. 198436. Jackson J. Speilvogel. Western Civilisation since 1300 2nd edition, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Main, USA. 1994 37. Jean Chevalier and Alain Gheerbrant, A Dictionary of Symbols Trans. John Buchan Brown, Basil Blackwell inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 199438. Je Cirlot, A Dictionary of Symbols 2nd edition, Trans. Jack Sage, Routledge & Kagen Paul, London, England. 1973.39. Man myth and Magic, Michael Cavendish, Limited. New York 1983. Volume 6 & 10. 40. Author Cotterell, The Pimlico Dictionary of Classical Mythology Pimlico, London, Great Britain. 2000. 41. Yves Bonnefoy, Dictionary Des Mythology Et des Religion Des Societes Traditional ET Du Monde Antique, English Edition, Chicago, University press, Chicago, Illinois, 1981.42, Pentateuch (in Hebrew), Library of Mayer Sulzeenier, New York, USA, 1992 43.The Barhart Dictionary of Etymology, The H.W. Wilson Company, USA, 1988.44. A Greek- English Lexicon, Compiled by George Lyddell & Robert Scott. Calrendon Press, New York 199645Cassel Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Cassel, London, England, 1998.47. Cleland Boyd McAlfee, The mosaic Laws in Modern life, Fleming H. Revell Company, New York, USA. 1949.48 Peter Caloucoress, Who's who in the bible, Viking Press, London, England. 1987 49. John Comey, Who's who in old Testament with the Apocrypha, Rinehart and Winston of Canada Limited, Canada, 197150. The meaning of the Holy Qur'an, tran A. Yusuf Ali, Al-Antique Publishers Inc. Toronto, Canada, 2002.51. Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics Trans. J.A.K.Thomson. Penguin Classics, New York, USA, 1976.52.Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, 199653. J.A. Simpson & E.S.C Weine, Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, Oxford University press, New York, USA. 1989 volume 154. David Meade Harduf & Eleanor Harduf, Harduf’s Transliterary English-Hebrew Dictionary, Harduf Books, Willowdale, Canada, 1994. Volume E-g 55. De Vries Dictionary of Symbols and Imagery, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Holland, 1976. Internet References1. Demetra, the earth and the death of nature www. pantheoen.org/articles/ pipersophone.htm2.Hercules www.andythennamebender.com/name-meaning/Hercules.htm3. Hera, hero, era, earth www. occultopedia.com/h/hera.htm4. Hera hero, era, earth www. husft2.AI.us/schools/middle/wtms/student/evika/mythologies.htm

Footnotesa I borrowed the term paradigm shift from Thomas Kuhn. He uses it to refer to a change in the ideas that constitute the body of a theory. When paradigms shift the new paradigm becomes the dominant body of thought for the theory it pertains to. (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, 1996. pp. 19, 24-28, 39, 64, 94-95, 144-146, 148, 152, 166) b Hades is usually translated in English as Hell. Hades is the Greek place of the dead and Hell its German counterpart (funk and Wagnalls pp. 601-602, 621-622) c Katabasis means to go down or descend, to be taken down. Literally it means the downing or descent. This term refers to a journey that begins with a ritual or real death. Subsequent to the death there is a journey through the underworld before the person undergoing this experience returns to life. (Albinus pp. 94-95, 98, Mosxopoulos p.180)d Lethe is the river in the realm of Hades. One drink of its waters produces oblivion. (Chassell p. 234)e Era can be connected to the idea of historical ages or seasons. In the same way, the biblical Eve represents the dawn of a new age in human history. She is the mother of all living humans. The name Adam, which can mean human, represents the new humanity of Eve’s epoch. Eve is the mother of all those that live in that era. As well, she is the mother of all the descendents of Adam. She is a daughter of god and the mother of the epoch ushered in by Adam. Since everyone would adopt Eve as the mother of this epoch, she can be seen to represent everyone that lived in that era. (Funk & Wagnalls p. 459, Genesis 2: 21- 2:25, Peter Caloucoress, Who's who in the bible, Viking Press, London England. 1987 pp. 71-72 John Comey, Who's who in old Testiment with the Apocrypha, Rinehart and Winston of Canada Limited, Canada, 1971 p 126, New bible dictionary, 3rd edition ,Inter-Varsity press. Larchester, England, 1961 pp. 13-15, New English bible, “concise readers guild“ p. 4, Peter Caloucoress, Who's who in the bible, Viking Press, London, England. 1987 pp. 11-12 John Comey, Who's who in old Testiment with the Apocrypha, Rinehart and Winston of Canada Limited, Canada, 1971 pp. 37-38, J.A. Simpson & E.S.C Weine, Oxford English Dictionary 2nd edition, Oxford University press, New York, USA. 1989 volume 1 p. 137, David Meade Harduf & Eleanor Harduf, Harduf’s Transliterary English-Hebrew Dictionary, Harduf Books, Willowdale, Canada, 1994. Volume E-g p. 172)f Er is of the tribe of the pamphilion “ Perhaps we might say “ the tribe of the everyman” (Plato Republic 6-10, Tran. Paul Shorley Harvard university press, Massachusetts, USA 1994.p. 491 footnote ‘e’)g Hercules is described as both having a katabasis in life and after death. The former is when he goes to Hades to capture Kerberus, the three-headed dog that guards the entrance to Hades and the latter his experience at the end of his life that resembles Er’s katabasis. (Der Neues volume 5 pp.387-394) Artique- Greeque p.78-128, Ancient Deities p 213 Mythologae Classique p. 5, Cotterell pp. 110-116, Albinus p. 94)h Often Hercules is spelled with a Hita (H), however the name has also been spelled with an epsilon (E)(.Ancient Deities p 213Der Neues volume 5 pp.387-394, Cotterell pp. 110-116, www.andythennamebender.com/name-meaning/Hercules.htm)i The word earth contains the Greek word Er (Eap), as does the French word terra. The word hierarchy, holy or altar (earo), and priests (earis and eararchy) also contains the word Er. All these words are derived from similar origins. (Barhart. pp. 311, 431, 478-479, 480, 1127, A Greek-English Lexicon pp. 764-766,).j Luke 3:26 traces Christ ‘s decadency from Adam through Er to Joseph. The name of Er does not appear in the list of Adams descendents in Genesis (Genesis 4, 5). The Er mentioned by Luke may have been the first Er. However, since Luke’s Er appears in history after Socrates and Christ, he probably was not the model of Er in the Republic. Moreover, the Er mentioned in Luke might have been Hercules. Whether or not Socrates was aware of the same Er mentioned in Luke prior to the fashioning of the myth of Er is not known for certain. Bremer claims Er was a new unknown character that was probably fabricated by Socrates. (Bremer p. 110) Luke being familiar with ancient Greek and probably Plato’s writings would have known Er meant spring (The new English Bible with apocrypha, Cambridge university press, New York, USA 1970. Introduction: To the New Testament pp. V-IX). The inspiration for Luke’s Er may have been Plato’s Er. Luke may have traced Christ’s lineage through Er to purposely connect Christ to Greek ancestry, the Greek culture and to Plato‘s work as well as philosophy in general. k The Orthodox Christian believe the stories contained in their Easter liturgy are the lessons taught to the apostles by Christ after his resurrection (Fotios pp.40-46).m In the Old Testament it is said that Noah might have been Adams redeemer and the one to lift his curse. However, the bible does not tell us whether Noah succeeded in redeeming Adam or lifting this curse. (Genesis 5:28-32, 6:9-9:29)l Aristotle uses the word category to explain the perfect forms. These are the names that universally refer to every form that can be categorised under them. Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, Trans. J.A.K.Thomson, Penguin Classics, New York, USA, 1976. pp 69-72. In Philosophic Investigation Ludwig Wittgenstein uses the term family resemblance to refer to the ideas categorised using the same name even though these ideas may only have a tenuous connection to each other. This connection can be nothing more than the name these ideas share. (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophic Investigation, Prentice-Hall Inc. New Jersey, USA.1958. pp.67,77,108,164,179). n The myth of Er could also be a myth created by Plato and told to Socrates. However, there is no allusion to this idea in the dialogue it self. endnotes Allan Bloom, The Republic of Plato, Basic Books, USA,.1991., 614b-621d

Julia Annas, An Introduction to Plato’s Republic, Clarendon Press Oxford, London. 1962. p. 353

John Bremer, On Plato’s Polity, Institution of philosophy, Houston, Texas, USA. 1984. p. 119

Claudia Baracchi, On Myth Life, and War in Plato’s Republic, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA. 2002. pp 5-7

Yves Bonnefoy, Dictionary Des Mythology Et des Religion Des Societes Traditional et Du Monde Antique , English Edition Chicago University press, Chicago, Illinois USA. 1981.pp. 352-359

Bremer, p. 119

Annas, p. 349.

ibid, pp. 335, 349-351

Baracchi, pp. 5-7

Bremer, p. 119

Essays on Plato’s Republic edited by Erik Nis Ostenfield, Lars Albinus,“The Katabasis of Er, Plato’s use of myths, exemplified by the myth of Er,” Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, Denmark, 1998 p. 91

Allan Bloom, The Republic of Plato, Basic Books, USA,.1991. pp. 427-434

William Boyd, An Introduction to the Republic of Plato, Ruskin House, London, England, 1962. p. 108

Bloom, pp.427-434

Republic, 6e-607a, Bonnefoy. pp. 352-359

Republic, 606e-607a

Baracchi p.8

Albinus, pp. 92, 96-97



Baracchi pp. 8-9

Baracchi p. 8

Vico, para. 893-904

Divrys Greek-English, English-Greek Dictionary D.C. Divry New York USA. 1964. pp 223, 372

Divrys, p 372

Baracchi p. 9

Divrys p. 308, T. Mosxopoulos and E. Xopafas. LEXICO APXAIS ELLHNIKHS, Gutenberg University Books, Gutenberg, Germany 1995. pp. 111 112

Bremer p. 119

Albinus p. 92, Bonnefoy. pp. 352-359

William J. Prior, Virtue and Knowledge: An introduction To Ancient Greek Ethics, Routlege, New York, USA. 1991. pp. 5-7, Bonnefoy. pp. 352-359

Richard Lewis Nettleship. An Introduction to the Republic of Plato St. Martin’s Press, New York. 1967.p. 342

Mosxopoulos, p. 119, Funk and Wagnalls, Standard College Dictionary Pleasantville, New York USA, 1975, pp.601-602, Cotterell, pp. 99-100, A Greek- English Lexicon Compiled by George Lyddell & Robert Scott. Calrendon Press, New York 1996 p. 465

De Vries Dictionary of Symbols and Imagery, North-Holland, Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Holland, 1976. p. 437

Albinus p. 94, Bloom fn 13 p. 471, John Durant, Highlights of the Olympics from ancient times to the Present, Hasting House, New York. 1973. pp. 7-15, The ancient Olympics: athlete games, video Institute of Mediterranean Studies. Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 1996, Vico para 3-4, 93 Cassel Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Cassel London, England, 1998 pp. 276-283, George l. Papadeas, Greek orthodox holy week & Easter services, Patmos press, Daytona beach, Florida, USA, 1993. pp. 384,385 8th ode and p. 387 sec katabasis

Republic, 614b

Bloom fn 13 p. 471,

James K. Feibleman. Religious Platonism, Ruskin House, London, England, 1967. p. 60, Albinus pp. 92-93,Bonnefoy. pp. 352-359

Albinus pp. 92-93

Bonnefoy .pp. 352-359

Republic, 621b-d

Papadeas pp.488-489, J Estlin Carpenter, Comparative Religions Henry Holt and Company, New York, USA, 1913. pp. 16-18, 133-134

Albinus pp. 92-93, Bremer pp. 116-117,

Bonnefoy. pp. 352-359

Nettleship p.341

Feibleman pp. 61-63, Albinus p. 97

Nettleship p341, Bonnefoy. pp. 352-359

Albinus pp. 98-100, Bonnefoy. pp. 352-359

Republic, 376d, 502e

Albinus p. 92

Republic, 376d, 502e

Platov Plolitae, Kakos, Athens Greece, 1993. front cover and title page

Albinus p. 92, 94

Divrys p 372, Funk & Wagnalls pp. 896

Albinus 91-92, Bonnefoy. pp. 352-359 Prior, pp. 5-7

Bonnefoy. pp. 352-359, Prior, pp. 5-7

Nettleship p.341

Divrys p. 385

Republic, 615a, 617d

Divrys p. 485

Albinus p. 93

Bremer p. 124

Theaetetus, collective works, 204 b-c, 208a-208c

W. G. Runciman in Plato’s Later Epistemology Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA 1962 p. 67

Bremer. pp. 123-124

Nietzsche, Friedrich On the Genealogy of Morals. “’Good and evil’ ’Good and Bad’”, Translated Walter Hoffman and R.J. Hollingdale. Vintage House, New York, U.S.A. 1967. pp. 27-28,35-36,42-43 45-47

William E. Connolly Identity/Difference. University Of Minnesota, Press Minneapolis, U.S.A .1991. pp. 187-190, 199--120-187-190

Republic, 328e-331c

Bremer pp. 116-117

Albinus pp. 96-98, 614 c-616a, Bremer p. 115

Republic, 331c-d, 614d-615c

Republic, 614a-618a

Republic, 331d-332a

Bremer pp. 117-118

Republic, 332d-e

Republic, 621a-d

Republic, 347d-e

Republic, 357a- 359b

Bremer pp. 115-117, 124-125

Republic, 362d-363d

Republic, 363d-367e

Republic, 364 a-d

Republic, 618c

Republic, 615a

Republic, 618b-619b, 621 c-d

Republic, 619a-c

Republic, 621c-d

Albinus pp. 96-100, Bremer p. 124

Republic, 621 c-d

Republic, 617 a-d, Albinus p. 99, Bremer pp.116 -117

Republic, 331c-d

Bloom p 436

Collected works p.27 Crito 22a -d30c-31b, 31d-33b)

Republic, 620c-d

Albinus p. 99, Bremer p. 116

Albinus pp. 96-97, Bremer p. 124, Republic, 612b

Bremer pp. 116-117 , Albinus p 99, 617e

Cassel Dictionary of Classical Mythology pp. 276-282, , Der Neues, volume 8, pp. 1110-1115

Republic, 618b-619b

Funk and Wagnalls, Standard College Dictionary, Pleasantville, New York USA, 1975 p. 628, The Barhart Dictionary of Etymology The H.W. Wilson Company, USA, 1988. p. 480

Republic, 614b

Bremer pp. 121, 124

Albinus pp. 95-96

Albinus p 98

Albinus p.94

Albinus pp.95- 98

Republic, 621b

Albinus pp. 96-97

Bremer pp.121, 124

Albinus pp. 95-96

Bremer pp.121-125

Bremer pp.117-120 128

Albinus pp. 91, 100

Baracchi pp 40-41

Albinus p. 100, Bremer pp 115, 124

Republic, 327a

Bremer p. 124

Bremer pp. 118-119

Bremer p. 124

Bremer pp. 119, 124

Albinus pp. 98-100, Bremer p. 124

Bremer pp. 119, 124

Republic, 621b-c

Albinus pp. 96-97, Bremer p. 124

Bremer p. 124

Bremer pp. 120-124

Republic, 327b-328a

Republic, 327a

Bloom Republic, cf. 354a

Bloom, FN 5, PG 441.

Republic, 327e

Republic, 327c-328a

Republic, 328a-b

Bremer p. 124

ibid.

Bremer p. 115

Bremer pp. 115-117, 124

Republic, 621 c

Bremer p. 124

Bremer pp. 115-116

Bremer pp. 116-117

Republic, 615a

Republic, 614c

Republic, 621 d

Bremer p. 117

Republic, 357a-358a, 621c-d, 614c-615c

Bremer p. 124

Bremer pp. 115-117

Bremer p. 124

Bremer pp. 123-124

Cotterell pp. 99-100

Republic, 615c-616a

Republic, 617a-620d, 621d

Republic, 615e-616b

Republic, 357 a-b

Republic, 621c-d

Republic, 614b

Republic, \327c

Republic, 349d , 349d-349e 351a, 390a, Vico para 3-4, Funk and Wagnalls p. 628, Prior pp. 3-4, Burkhart p. 480



Bremer, pp. 120-124

Republic, 621c-d

Divrys p.94

Bremer p.124

ibid.

Ancient Deities pp 152-153, Der Neue volume 3 pp. 651-663

Bremer pp. 123-124

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, 1996. pp. 19, 24-28, 39, 64, 94-95, 144-146, 148, 152, 166

Baracchi pp. 40-42, 45

Bremer, pp. 120-124

Bremer p. 116-119

Bremer p.120

Bremer p. 121-124

Cotterell pp.108-110, www. occultopedia.com/h/hera.htm, www. husft2.AI.us/schools/middle/wtms/student/evika/mythologies.htm

Der neue volume 5 p. 358-362, Ancient Deities pp’ 212-213, Robert E. Bell, Women of Classical Mythology A bibliographic Dictionary, Oxford university press. New York USA. 1991.pp.232-235 Mosxopoulos p. 119, Cotterell pp. pp.108-110

Bell pp 157-160 232-235, Der Neues volume 3 pp. 651-663

Mosxopoulos p. 119, Divry p. 204, A Greek- English Lexicon, Compiled by George Lyddell & Robert Scott. Calrendon Press, New York 1996 p. 465

Funk and Wagnalls p. 601-602

Ancient Deities p. 379 Bell pp, 157-160, 357-359, Der neue volume 3 pp. 420-421 and volume 9 p.60, De Vries p. 473

Divry p. 230

De vries p.437

De Vries pp. 504-505

Ancient Deities p. 379, Bell pp, 157-160, 357-359, Der neue volume 3 420-421and volume 9 p.60, De Vries pp. 30, 437, 504-505, www.. pantheoen.org/articles/ pipersophone.htm

Republic, 621b

Republic, 614b

Bremer pp. 123-124, Prior pp. 3-4

Bremer pp. 120, 124 Prior pp. 3-4

Republic, 349d, 349d-349e 351a Vico para 3-4, Prior pp. 3-4

Republic, 614b

Plato Republic 6-10 Tran. Paul Shorley, Harvard university press, Massachusetts, USA 1994 p. 491

Bremer p 120

Bremer p. 124

Albinus pp. 95-95

Bremer pp. 120-124

Bremer, p. 124

ibid.

ibid.

Bremer pp. 120-124

Boyd. p.. 113

Republic, 614b

Republic, 614b, 621b, Bremer p.120

Mosxopoulos p. 119, Funk and Wagnalls pp.601-602, Cotterell pp. 99-100

Albinus pp. 96-97, 99, Bremer pp. 120-124

Bremer pp. 120-124

Republic, 620c

Bremer pp.120-124

Bremer p. 124

Republic, 362d-363a

Bremer pp. 120-124

Baracchi pp. 8-9

Baracchi pp.40-42, 45

Republic, 617d

Mosxopoulos p. 119, Funk and Wagnalls pp.601-602, Cotterell pp. 99-100

Albinus p. 94

Father Papadeas p. 384,385 8th ode and p. 387 sec katabasis, Matthew 27-28, Mark 15-16, Luke 23-24, john 19-20,

Cotterell pp. 110-116, www.andythennamebender.com/name-meaning/Hercules.htm

Der Neues volume 5 pp.387-394 Dictionaire des artique- Greeque et Romane D’ Apres les Textes Et les Monuments., Librerie Hachette etc. Paris, France, 1899. p.78-128, Ancient Deities p 213, Cotterell pp. 110-116, www.andythennamebender.com/name-meaning/Hercules.htm

Vico para 87

G.F.W Hegel, Reason in History, Trans. Robert S. Hartman, Prentice-Hall, USA. 1953.pp. 87-95 Ancient Deities p 213, Der Neues volume 5 pp.387-394, Cotterell pp. 110-116, Funk and Wagnalls p. 628, Barkhart p.480

Der Neues volume 5 pp.387-394 Dictionaire des artique- Greeque et Romane D’ Apres les Textes Et les Monuments. Librerie Hachette etc. Paris, France. 1899. p.78-128, Ancient Deities p 213, Cotterell pp. 110-116

Papadeas p. 393 Lamentations Third part, third tome verse 12

Carpenter pp. 187, 250

1 Corinthians 45-58

New bible dictionary, 3rd edition Inter-Varsity press. Larchester, England, 196, p. 13-15, New English bible “concise readers guild“ p. Peter Caloucoress, Who's who in the bible, Viking Press, London England. 1987. pp. 11-12 John Comey, Who's who in old Testiment with the Apocrypha, Rinehart and Winston of Canada Limited, Canada, 1971. 37-38, J.A. Simpson & E.S.C Weine, Oxford English Dictionary 2nd edition, Oxford University press New York, USA. 1989 volume 1 p. 137, David Meade Harduf & Eleanor Harduf, Harduf’s Transliterary English-Hebrew Dictionary, Harduf Books, Willowdale, Canada, 1994. Volume E-g p. 172



Papadeas p. 385 8th ode

Papadeas apostchia p. 489, 1 Corinthians 45-58

ibid.

Papadeas p. 385 8th ode and p. 387 sec katabasis

Genesis 3-5

Genesis 5:3-5:5

Papadeas 9 th ode p.387

Papadeas 9 th ode p.387

Genesis 3

Mark 16, Karl Adam The Son of God Seed & ward , New York, 1957 pp.3-4

Carpenter pp. 187, 250

Funk and Wagnall pp.15, 192

Fotios K. Litsas, A Compendium to the Greek orthodox Church Department of Communication Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of North and South America. New York, USA. 1984 pp.78-83

Adams 12-21, Brother J. Frederick, Fsc and Brother H. Albert FSC, To Live is Christ, Henry Regenery Company, Chicago, 1966. pp M2-M4

T. Mosxopoulos p. 412

John 1:41, john 1, Carpenter pp. 250

Vico para 53

Vico para 3- 4, 47, 449

Durant pp. 7-15, The ancient Olympics: athlete games, Vico para 3-4, 93, www.andythennamebender.com/name-meaning/Hercules.htm Cotterell pp. 110-116

Vico para 3

Der Neues volume 5 pp.387-394) Artique- Greeque p..78-128, Ancient Deities p 213 Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologae Classique ,Artimus Verlug Switzerland 1990. p. 5, para 3-4 14, Cotterell pp. 110-116

Der Neues volume 5 pp.387-394) Artique- Greeque p..78-128, Ancient Deities p 213 Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologae Classique p. 5, para 3-4 14, Cotterell pp. 110-116

Vico, para 87

Ted Honderich, The Oxford Companion of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, New York, USA. 1995 pp.683-689, 119-120

Bremer pp. 118-120

Honderich pp. 836-838

Honderich pp.685-686, 836-838, Bremer p. 119

606b

Bremer pp.120-124

Honderich pp. 836-838

Albinus p. 100

Albinus pp. 98-99

Republic, 606b

Republic, 599c-601a, 606c, Nettleship p.341, Bremer pp. 123-124

Exodus 19-23

Cleland Boyd McAlfee The mosaic Laws in Modern life, Fleming H. Revell Company, New York, USA 1949.pp. 712, 13-20,32-45, 80-81The meaning of the Holy Qur'an, tran A. Yusuf AliAl-Antique Publishers Inc. Toronto, Canada 2002.verse 5:20-5:26, 37:114-122

Exodus 1-40, Leviticus 1-27, numbers 1-36

Honderich pp. .686-689, Baracchi p.7

Jackson J. Speilvogel Western Civilisation West Publishing Company St. Paul, Main USA . 1994 pp. 973, 999-1003, 1007-1009, 1030-1035

Cassel Dictionary of Classical Mythology pp. 145-146

Der Neues volume 5 pp.387-394) Artique- Greeque p.78-128, Ancient Deities p 213 Mythologae Classique p. 5, Cotterell pp. 110-116

Republic, 621b

Phaedo, Collected Dialogues 62 a-b, 63b 64a 67a 67e-68

Albinus p. 100

Mathew 28, Luke 24, Mark 16 John 20-21 Acts 1, Papadeas p. 481-482 Sermon of St John Crysostom Archbishop of Constantinople

Durant pp. 7-15, The ancient Olympics: athlete games, video, , Cotterell pp. 110-116

Mathew 5, 5:31-5:40

Bremer pp. 120-124

Kuhn pp. 19, 24-28, 39, 64, 94-95, 144-146, 148, 152, 166

Republic, 615a

Kuhn pp. 19, 24-28, 39, 64, 94-95, 144-146, 148, 152, 166

Aristotle pp. 69-70

Republic, 617a-621b

Albinus pp. 96-96

Republic, 619c

Albinus pp. 96-97

Aristotle pp. 69-72

Funk & Wagnalls pp. 370, 1449

Aristotle PP. 69-70

Republic, 608c-614b

Republic, 620a

Jean Chevalier and Alain Gheerbrant, A Dictionary of Symbols Trans. John Buchan Brown Basil Blackwell inc. Cambridge Massachusetts, USA, 1994 pp 953-955, Je Cirlot A Dictionary of Symbols 2nd edition, Trans. Jack Sage, Routledge & Kagen Paul London, England. 1973 pp. 322-323, Man myth and Magic volume 10 Micheal Cavendish Limited New York 1983 pp. 2736-2738 Cotterell. pp. 171-173

Chevalier pp 953-955, Cirlot pp. 322-323, Man myth and Magic volume 10 pp. 2736-2738

Chevalier pp 953-955, Cirlot pp. 322-323, Man myth and Magic volume 10 pp. 2736-2738 Cotterell pp. 171-173

Vico para. 81-82 816

Boyd p. 108

Republic, 606a-b, 607c-608c.

Vico para 816

Chevalier pp 953-955, Cirlot pp. 322-323, Man myth and Magic volume 10 pp. 2736-2738 Cotterell pp. 171-173

Republic, 620a-d

Cotterell pp. 10-12

Chevalier pp 611-613, Cirlot pp. 189-190, Man, myth and Magic volume 6 pp. 1634

Republic, 621 b-c

Bell p. 82

Republic, 620a-d

Ancient Deities p. 169

Albinus pp. 98-99

Cassel Dictionary of Classical Mythology pp. 276-282, Der neues volume 8 pp. 1110-1115

Republic, 618c-619b, 621 c-d



Albinus p. 99

Bremer p. 116

Republic, 621a, Bremer p. 116

Republic, 618c-e

Republic, 619a

Bremer p. 124

Bremer p. 116

Albinus p 97

Bremer p. 116

Bremer p. 116

Republic, 614b

Republic, 621b

Bremer p. 116

Republic, 617d

Republic, 621a, Bremer p, 116, Albinus p. 99

Republic, 621 b-c

Bremer pp. 121-124

Bremer pp. 121, 124

Bremer pp.120-124

Republic, 617e

Bremer pp. 121-124

617e-618b

Bremer p. 116

Bremer pp.121-124

Bremer pp. 116, 124

Republic, 599c-601a, 606c

Republic, 598d-599e, 606e-607a

Republic, 606b

Republic, 598d-599e, 606e-607a

Republic, 606b

Bremer pp. 120-124

Bremer pp, 120-124

Cotterell pp. 171-173

Bremer p. 124

Albinus pp. 99-100

Bremer pp. 117-121,122-124, 128

Bremer pp. 121-124

Nettleship p. 346

Republic, 596c-e

Republic, 601e

Republic, 586c

Republic, 596e

Republic, 597c-d

Albinus p.93, Phaedo Collected Dialogues 65e-66b

Phaedo, collected dialogues, 63b, 64a, 66e-69a.

Republic, 597c-d

Republic, 613a

Phaedo, collected dialogues, 63b, 64a, 66e-69a.

Republic, 596e

Feibleman p. 65



Republic, 598a-c, 601a-b

Republic, 602c

Republic, 597c-d

Albinus p. 93

Republic, 597d-e, 599d

Republic, 597b

Republic, 602c-603a, 605b-c, 611b-d

Republic, 586c,596e, 597c-d

Albinus p.93

Albinus pp. 99-100

Bremer p. 116

Bremer p. 124

Republic, 608c-614b

Republic, 608c-614b

Bremer p. 120

Republic, 614b

Republic, 614b

Bremer p. 119

Kuhn pp. 19, 24-28, 39, 64, 94-95, 144-146, 148, 152, 166

Chevalier pp 953-955, Cirlot pp. 322-323, Man myth and Magic volume 10 pp. 2736-2738, Cotterell pp. 171-173

Chevalier pp 953-955, Cirlot pp. 322-323, Man myth and Magic volume 10 pp. 2736-2738, Cotterell pp. 171-173

Bremer p.116, 124

Kuhn pp. 19, 24-28, 39, 64, 94-95, 144-146, 148, 152, 166

ibid

Bremer p. 124

Republic, 599c-601a,606c

Republic, 647 c-d, 558e, 564a

Bremer p.124

Republic, 611e, 613a

Republic, 606e-607a

Bremer pp. 117-120, 124 128

Republic, 621 b-c

Honderich pp. 836-838 Bonnefoy pp. 352-359

Republic, 606e-607a

Republic, 606e-607a

Vico para 414-415





Please recall two biblical sections worth mentioning. Genesis 6:6 which makes mention of many sons of God and the daughters of man. Of course all the sons of God share the same incarnated son of God. Begotten not created and incarnated in Jesus Christ. There is only one begotten son of God, yet many manifestations. Adam is called a son of God.As well, in the psalms there is mention of many gods who are ruled my the one God. All these gods share in the same incarnate force of God.

Elohim can mean God or god. It can mean son of God or better yet child of God( in the masculine). Finally Elohim can mean judge. If one synthesis these meanings, one derives what Christians call the son of God. This part of the trinity is God, is the child or son of God and as Revelations states a judge. Elohim is all these things at once. In the creed Elohim is incarnated in Jesus Christ. Elohim is begotten not created before all ages and time. Elohim is the part of God that incarnates in bodies or people. Each child of God is an avatar of that part of God. Furthermore Elohim can also mean angel. Each avatar is a messenger of the logos of God contained in them Christ , Adam , Enoch, Noah and the many gods, mentioned in psalms, share in the incarnate force of the one God and thus are angels. Christ speaks the words of God, Enoch brings a message from God to humanity and certain other avatars. Thus, the elitism of Elohim is that of the divinity they have reached or posses. This is not a political stratification based on class, but rather, difference based on divine state and grace. Evidently the Christians use Elohim to represent all its meanings at once. Christ's title of son of God comes from Genesis. Enoch is said to have metamorphosed into Metatron in the 3rd book of Enoch. Metatron is an angel, God, judge and a child of God, esp if Metatron is Enoch. We are all children of God though only a few are Elohim. Enoch spiritually grew up to become a Elohim.The Talmud comments that God chastised the angels for cheering when the Egyptians drowned in the red sea. "Are these not my(God's) children as well?".Elohim may mean the mature children of God whereas we are all children of God waiting to grow up into adults(Elohim).
Elohims can also be aliens.

Answers to Questions

1. Proud fathers always want their children to be better then them.Trying to equal Christ and be his better is an outstanding goal. To be more virtuous and intelligent means trying to best the best. Even if you are like me on skates and dream of being better than Wayne Gretzky that dream promotes good behavior and a strong will to be the best you can be. This also suggests that you will have to be more virtuous and good than Christ. Not easy, but an amazing goal. Christ’s work would be fruitful if everyone had such goals. 2. Could Er be the first Greek and of the bloodline of Adam? No because this supposition is not backed up by science. The Greeks predate Adam of the Garden of Eden, thus, how does the name Er appear in Luke's genealogy? Furthermore, every male that descended from Adam must have had a wife who was a female descended of Adam. Now one of the powers Adam may have had was longevity. His descendants lived about a thousand years, each descendent living for different numbers of years. All other normal humans from other bloodlines that predating Adam lived a normal life span (at most about 120 years). God and the weakening of the genes caused Adams bloodline to equalize with those around him. Interbreeding caused a diminishing of Adam's descendant’s gene pool. I will only be in your air: the breaths you take, for 120 years. Since Buddha refers to a flood on the astral plain in the Dominate and the water Noah saw was a few cubits high and covered mountains many cubits high the water reported to have covered the land could not have made those mountains physically disappear. This water that was on the astral plain extinguished peoples spiritual fires and as Christ relight everyone after the three timeless days following his death, Christ’s relighting of peoples spiritual; fire is reenacted by Orthodox Christians every Easter when at twelve o'clock Saturday night, Easter Sunday mourning they turn the lights off and blow out the candles. The priest lights a candle and from that one candle everyone lights a candle and holds it in their hand till the end of the liturgy. People do light candles from the people in front of them till the flame spreads to everyone holding a candle at the ceremony. Noah the avatar relights everyone in the same way Christ did. Noah relight everyone after the flood, the animals that accompanied him relight every other animal. Thus the bloodline of Adam concern is not pertinent in this regard, no one died because of the flood. The Cabala calls Noah’s experience a destruction of a world and a creation of a new one. If Kane married a daughter three or more generations removed from Adam after producing children with a human daughter predating Adam then he could marry without any genealogical discrepancies or marriage problems. However, The daughters born onto each character in the genealogy of Adam in genesis and Luke are not mentioned in the bible. The sons of God marry daughters of Adam. Unless one assumes Adam of the garden is the first person, AND THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATES MEN AND WOMEN PREDATE ADAM OF THE GARDEN, one would interpreter the passage in Genesis referring to the daughters of Adam as the daughters of Adam and eve of the garden. Since the number of daughters Adam had was not mentioned and all world religion allows fourth cosines to marry, Kane marries a third or fourth cosine. Living over 900 allows one lots of time to accomplish this task of waiting and marrying a distant cosine and thus maintaining hereditary diversity and cultural rules of incest. Thus each male born of this bloodline maintain the descendants rule in Judaism that ever Jew's linage is drawn through the mother.

Since Er is not the first Greek due to the time he appears in the history dated by Luke’s genealogy. Er must not be the Er mentioned in the myth of Er, though he could be. Luke’s Er might be a grand son of a Greek whose daughter married Er's father who is mentioned in Luke. The grandson would be named after the grandfather and the Greek name thus would appears in Luke’s genealogy. No problems. The daughters of man were the descendants of Adam as humans already existed prior to Adam of the garden and these earlier humans as you recall populated the whole face of the earth.Enoch’s message is for Avatars who broke rules concerning marriage and fornication. Other avatars married daughters of God without any problems.Read the text carefully. So marrying a daughter of Adam is not a taboo, however something the avatars in Enoch did was taboo. (Incest)All fits

The Er of the myth of Er is Greek and Luke mentioning Er means CHRIST IS OF GREEK BLOOD AND A DESCENDED OF Character in THE MYTH OF ER's bloodline.Christ is of Greek descent and of Er’s bloodlineLastly there are many more avatars other than the ones mentioned in Enoch. The genesis section refers to when the avatars began taking female descended of Adam as wives, before that other humans were taken as wives (or husbands).Now a good avatar turns that mate into a mature offspring 0 of God.Remember man is Adam or synthetically man of the earthEarthling? The Earthman and women populate the face of the earth then God created an earthling or earthman in the Garden. Thus the name.ValLast answerIf God is perfect then he pulled DNA (a sperm?) from Joseph perfected it, picked a perfect egg from marry perfected it and added his own DNA and allowed marry to immaculately conceive Christ. Thus Christ is josephs son genetically. Thus Christ had three DNA strands. Some people today have three strands of DNA, yet this does not mean they are avatars.The three strand DNA appears in the gene pool about the time of Christ. HmmUsually people with three strands of DNA are gifted people, but not always. There were two strand DNA avatars as well, like Enoch.

Seth also holds to these genealogies but by Seth’s time, many distant female cosines exist, no problems.MARY IS A DISTANT COSINE OF JOSEPH. So we know she draws the same linage at about four generations back as Joseph does, ah a clue to the daughter of Adam marrying Kane question mentioned earlier. If it is permissible for Christ parents to be distant cosines then Kane’s marriage as outlined above is permissible.Reflections with in reflections. (A baby goes through the evolution humanity did in the womb, every skip is when God changed the creatures on earth in what is called a quickening, these are the missing links of evolution, EMBRYOS HAVE GILLS AT ONE POINT, LOOK LIKE FISH THEN THE GILLS FALL OFF AND SO ON.) The universe from the big bang evolved in this reflective way. The potential for what is was seeded in the bang that created what is in the womb of space, the nothing that is something.Enoch the walker with God is the grand son of Enoch the city builder, thus the wife of the father of the Enoch the walker with God is descendent from Kane, and thus this Enoch redeems the whole Kane line. Noah redeems the curse of Adam. Christ makes the idea of an avatar good. (Christ is much more than this of course). Christ redeems everyone and his second appearance or emanation might be the redemption of Christ? Christ redeeming himself?PeaceEr is a pamphilios, of every tribe. thus he is not just Greek though he has a Greek name, thus Christ would not be just Greek if he had this blood line but of every tribe. A universal man containing all blood lines and still Jewish by descent. Er in Lukes liniage is the Er in the myth of Er.

If there is only one God he would make sure everyone believed in the same God even if people argued over the terms of that worship. If there is only one God the idea of what is good and virtuous would be the same in these religions, as it is. God wanted people to see the equality of his presence with everyone, see all humans as equals and work with all their ideas concerning him and his exaltation to realize the truth of the meaning of Life and God’s plan.( see rider with the many crowns in revolations.PeacePlease see this site concerning theosis or becoming divine in the Greek orthodox faith. One must be virtuous, good and a paradigm of justice to achieve this state. I have been experiencing theosis since 1990,theoria in 1998, This includes seeing uncreated light. I have had every test possible done on my eyes to ensure the phenomenon was real. My eyes are perfectly normal. The theosis has been confirmed by the religious leaders of my church. Theosis is becoming utterly human. http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/theosis_contents.html THEOSIS* - DEIFICATION AS THE PURPOSE OF MAN'S LIFE
elbarham@gmail.com ( a U of T student wrote)
Hi Val, Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:37:59 +0200Thanks for your email. I didn't reply sooner because I was on the road, and also because I don't check my hotmail account as often.I was not able to access the theosis site you recommended on this computer,for some reason. However, what you did write in the email was veryinteresting, and I have not heard of it before. That is not to say that Ido not strongly disagree with such a doctrine, however, if you do not mind my saying so. I do believe in what some might call deification in the sense that we can become sons of God, but only on the basis of grace through faith(e.g. Ephesians 2:8-9). I'll happily discuss this back in Canada if you'dbe interested.

Ted theosis is reaching divinity within the context of a Christian belief system. It leads to a universal understand of God through out the world. Try http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/theosis_contents.html
val




Your holinessThe entire argument monotheists believe God embodies himself then returns back to God fully, yet they pray to Christ thus somehow Christ knows how to individuate himself from the totality of God.Yet God is also the only begotten, begotten before all ages, thus he is somehow different than God.HM sounds like our earlier hypothesis.to answer monotheists believe God embodies himself then returns back to God fully, like the changeling in deep space nine( the tv show) he can become one with all the Essenes and yet be separate. He is sent by God like the holy spirit and angels ( as the bible says, the devil). When he becomes one with the essence he maintains a oneness which is still is separate from it. His return and becoming one with the father( AND MOTHER ) he imprints himself with his permanent presence. God the separation of the offspring of God begotten before all ages is the same incarnate force of God. Christ himself and all avatars are imprinted with that essence and remain one with it even when separated. The only begotten is a permanent separate imprint of all the avatars as once, the father( and mother) are also imprinted with the essence of the avatar. Thus God can send any avatar including Christ plus the only begotten in person, thus any manifestation can be sent including the totality of it. when God touches one one is touched by all three parts of the Essenes. Every avatar can at any time become one, meld into one face with God as can the three eternal parts of the trinity, Father( and mother) ,offspring and holy spirit. Lastly every avatar and angel also has a Free will which is ultimately a divine will of God and is one with it yet not the entirety of the Essenes, but one with it. Thus they can also will their own deeds and be separate from God. This is a divine will yet individuated from the whole. Yet this will is still as Christ said to the devil the bidding of God. notice the son became a trinity as well, the existance of an avatar of an avatar makes the original avatar or son of God a father, well lets say father( and mother ) are the parent. All avatars act like the father or sorry parent.see why a paradigm was used here too?valsee the same machanics work for bothholy spirit, holy breath from greek, pnevma is any energy or breating in and out that God does. It takes many forms.remember the imprints make the timeless trinity temporal as well.

When Christ ascended before returning to teach his disciples he become one with the essence of God. Each avatar remains one with the essence of the offspring and God in total, even when the individuated manifestation(avatar) is separate.If one remembers that all three parts of the trinity predate creation them one can see each as being perfect forms of everyone who is was and will be.this is why the only begotten was begotten before all ages.valGod can send the only begotten as any face of an avatar.VAl how i saw at it dirst. to finish off the ideas concerning the trinity. The part of God that is incarnated returns to the father. It becomes one with God yet it also simultaneously remain es separate yet one with it. The only begotten in carnates in others as God and its self. when it incarnates in others one is one with God and the only begotten. Finally each avatar is one with god yet remains the themselves. in the same fashion each avatar incarnates in people as themselves and as the only begotten which is the incarnating force of God and God that they are one with always. Even when they leave the body, part of them remains as does they only begotten and God himself. Thus when one dies each part of God returns to its source and merges fully with it, while. God, the only begotten(that which remains simultaneously one with God and separate) becomes one with the released incarnative force also remaining separate from its source yet one with it. This occurs for God the only begotten and the avatars themselves respectfully. Each avatar remains one with the source of that avatar-ship. in other words a part of God incarnates in people either through his touch directly, which is having placed the only begotten directly in you, or through an avatar incarnating in you. part of it is always the source of that avatar-ship and returns to the source. Once individuated part of it remains separate both as the incarnative force and the avatar, yet they are all one with God. The new avatar always is one with its sources.Christ Immanuel is one with the only begotten and the father(and mother) always and all those who wore him, became his avatar. peaceall these definitions are correct. These are all properties of the same God and trinity. Hitler called himself a Christ yet condemned murder and war. Christ means virtuous or good one. Hitler’s actions were the opposite of good and virtue. He was not a Christ but the opposite. He as an anti=Christthe first person to call himself Christ and do such evil was Hitler.The ideas of what the Messiah might have to do to be the Messiah come from Genesis. One idea was the immaculate birth based on Elohim finding just and fair women to impregnate. The second is the Messiah can not die? Hm mm. I know who does not die in the bible, old or even new? Enoch no less. How does Enoch not die, well he disappears. What event other than the disappearance marked Enoch life? Enoch:walks with God. Hm mm. God is divinity and beyond. he is the source of all things divine. To walk with Him is to be embraced in his arms, but not physical ones. If someone fulfils a prophesy of the Messiah and not all Jews accept him that idea is scratched of the list until only one prophesy remains. We are at the last prophesy. Not born of Elohim but of man and women you say? Divine no less, hm mm, touched by God and made immortal , like Enoch. I thank God because I suspect He is about to appear. Blessed be Hashem blessed be he. Maybe that walk with God thing might help us recognize him.Valyes I will read the section you mentioned tomorrow before dusk. A true Christians sabbath starts sundown Friday to sundown Sunday. its called a weekend. My church doctrineSo the walk with God entails being touched in a way that is not intense enough as the Rabbis say to make one be no more.

Anglican wisdom from a wise Angalcan friend, minister and father. "Church Of Nigeria Communications Office" View Contact Details Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:56:16 +0100

Dear Val,

Wrong quotes. Genesis 6: 6 says something different from yours. Also Christ was not greatest son of God. He is the ONLY begotten SON of God. All others were created and so cannot be compared with the creator. I'd advise you get a Bible and read the Gospel according to Mark and also that according to John. Your entire write-up will have to change.

The Lord bless you as you write about the Truth that sets free. Amen. Rev. Canon AkinTunde PopoolaChurch Of Nigeria Communications DepartmentEpiscopal House, 24, Douala Street, Wuse zone5'Abuja, Nigeria
To read this comment within the context of our song, yes the only begotten is Christ, begotten not created and incarnated in all the mature offspring of God. Even the nazarene is created as procreated in time, all offspring are, including subscriprt gs..
I stand corrected Christ is one of the greatest, if not the greatest.
peace God bless A difference,the Jews say timeless God beyond form (formless form). manifestations of god or aspects of God in time. We say father who is timeless but can manifest himself timelessly and holy spirit that is in time yet can act timelessly. Offspring who is incarnated yet in time and timeless. each is unknowable in their entirety and knowable as they manifest. see the same God spoken of differently.see why God loves all the ways people talk about him. Wouldn't you.God walks with plants too the Buddhist say one day God walked or the universe developed the rice.hmm plant spirits, well all things have quantum shift thus all things have a spirit. Respect it.remember the Jews believed the moon and the sun debated over who should shine moreiching is the confusion book of incantations. there were originally 6 books the book of music disappeared.some Buddhist in China use itching spells, it is forbidden to Buddhists but not daoist and Confucianism, its origin. Confucianism comes from the name of a great scholar in china. it is a scholars movement that predates Confucianism, thus celestial emperor(God) stems from this movement.. daoism is about longevity and Harmony with the world. divine grace meant living longmany Chinese monks eat and fast to prolong lifea Jane once said to me, you cannot ride more than one horse at a time, I replied with a chariots you can ride many horses or like in a circus you came ride on the backs of twothe silks humble themselves before God by sitting on the floor, this also reflects their peasant beginnings: King you sit high up where only God should, for I kneel and bow only to Godpraise them allPraise Adonais( aspect of mercy and Roman God of beauty, both were connected to jealousy)Taoism says live well die well sex well and be good, good thinking. love you valthe divine song can be played on the famous wood wind instruments of aboriginals to unlock secretsmeso American gods include dinosaurs. dragons baby. to finish off the ideas concerning the trinity. The part of God that is incarnated returns to the father. It becomes one with God yet it also simultaneously remain es separate yet one with it. The only begotten in carnates in others as God and its self. when it incarnates in others one is one with God and the only begotten. Finally each avatar is one with god yet remains the themselves. in the same fashion each avatar incarnates in people as themselves and as the only begotten which is the incarnating force of God and God that they are one with always. Even when they leave the body, part of them remains as does they only begotten and God himself. Thus when one dies each part of God returns to its source and merges fully with it, while. God, the only begotten(that which remains simultaneously one with God and separate) becomes one with the released incarnative force also remaining separate from its source yet one with it. This occurs for God the only begotten and the avatars themselves respectfully. Each avatar remains one with the source of that avatar-ship. in other words a part of God incarnates in people either through his touch directly, which is having placed the only begotten directly in you, or through an avatar incarnating in you. part of it is always the source of that avatar-ship and returns to the source. Once individuated part of it remains separate both as the incarnative force and the avatar, yet they are all one with God. The new avatar always is one with its sources.Christ Immanuel is one with the only begotten and the father(and mother) always and all those who wore him, became his avatar. for another day.when Zoroaster looked into the sky he saw chaos and order,. he also saw the eventual end of chaos into order, not two Gods but two aspects of God who were gods.the Parsee's are Zoroaster'sOdin enlightened himself ( do not try this at home) through pain.he poked an eye out and hung himself upside down.in the end there is a great battle on Ragnarok the shacking rock or moving rock Earth baby.then two people of their line remain to reprocreated their line.there is an arch flood story in Greek myth, two people exit from the arch. hmm, man and a women. Since the idea of dinosaurs has caught your attention let me elucidate. I once heard that dinosaur bones were mistaken as dragons and myths were woven about them. People even worshipped them. Well there is a little more to the story than that. The first arch angelSamael ( he who poisons to strength God, he who proves lip service to god is not good enough , see Jobe) is a dragon. The first arch angel is a dinosaur, one of seven intelligent races, see Revelations. Well there is the one head we thought went extinct, another is the avians and so on. The grey aliens are actually dinosaurs; Intelligent dinosaurs still alive yet, living as a kabalist might say, on a parallel dimension of earth. See the movie Roswell(docudrama not TV show) in which the son of one of the captains who found the flying saucer is told by US secret service men that the grey aliens come from earth and now live on a parallel dimension of earth that is a reflection of here. Rabbis say at least one heaven is a reflection of here. Basic string theory. Greys are real and there is a lot of biblical proof for these creatures. Satan is: he who acts like God, not he who is God (Micheal) or he who poisons God like a test of faith( snake handlers?) Satan is also a dragon and is not the devil. Satan is The one who sits around the foot of the tree of life placed there by Zeus to tend the golden apple( sometimes the fruit of knowledge is called an apple because of this myth, it is a fig like the Botti( Buddha sat under before enlightenment and a fig that grows in Israel. Christ once cursed such a tree in the new testament) In Greek myth, Zeus( God not Dion) in a garden placed a dragon around the tree of golden apples( not real apples but like earth peoples that are potatoes a golden apple is a fruit unto itself). If eaten these fruits make you immortal and heal people. This is where Lilith the avatar of the snake God is mistaken as the devil dragon by Greeks interpreting Jewish and christian theology through the eyes of Greek myth. Serpent(Lilith) is Adams first girlfriend, back then sex meant marriages as proven by the Greek term Gamos which means sex and marriage). To get to the fruit you must pass the dragons test.For the tree of knowledge the serpent simply says you might not die Adam so eat, God says you might die so do not eat. Well he did not die but neither did God lie because to Adam God said you might die not that you will would, God allowed for the slight chance that Adam might be strong enough to live eating the fruit to be allowed to breed and be remembers as a great ( an Elohim). Elohim meets Elohim in the garden. Hmm MM However, Adam hid from God and thus did not pass the nest test to eat the fruit of life, though even a chance there existed that the fruit might still be eaten by him at a later date, but alas it was not.Giants like Goliath are from earlier blood lines that the of Adam. Babylonians refer to earlier humans around them as giants. PS: Ever notice in Mark it says the Messiah is here and it is INTERPRETED as CHRIST. Theseus Greek moses and Savior from the Egyptian divine Pharaoh myth, bye bye Sphinx. Answer to riddle dis-empowers the confusion of the Minoan Semitic people once colony of Egypt. Bye bye bull riders and bull strength of Egypt. I just realized why biblical scholars interpret Elohim just as sons of God. From the Greek myth that Zeus made a garden with the golden apple, in king James Elohim the god, the voice of god who enters the garden to kick Adam out, who meats Elohim(Adam who is the son of god) is the voice of God or one of his avatars. Well God warns Adam, Elohim kick him out of the garden. thus El was God and Elohim was always son of God(avatar).thus the virgin marry thing is even broken by the early christians, they read Elohim as not being God the father and made Elohim completely Greek myth, for Zeus(Dion and Elohim) impregnated marry as he did Theseus' mother. thus the sons of god took wives. However in the garden God walked in as the voice of God and God himself, avatar\rs work here.hmm mmm hmmm valboth interpretations are real. Remembering that the sons of God can be read as taking one wife, son of God took one wifeHere is the churches save:When God, Elohim meaning simply God saw that the all the daughters of Adam were fair, meaning just, simply God took a wife.food for thought. remember the Jews read it singular the king James interpreters read it plural, I read it as both. Valsee somehow all this is one program no matter what variable you put into a word.see my first interpretation is the best. Synthesis. best way to make sense of it is look at all the examples that fit this.Time efficient (perfected like an engineer.) As an engineer would do it There is a time range(R) that marks the plains existence (P) and one for each dimension (D).There is your point (F) or any point in time/space (f2) and there is the co-efficient of time produced by the two fixed times(c).Therefore Total time (TT) = R X (C/ F)R= P/Dc=F/ F2 if P=4D=2F=8F2=2 R=4/2 Therefore R=2 c= 8 /2 Therefore c=4 tt= 2 x 2(4/8) therefore tt= 2x 2 x 1/2 therefore tt=1 the two point co-efficient spoken about before takes into account relativity.an object travelling at light speed has less time relative to the gravity well of its origin.however two objects travelling from each other at the same speed remain at the same time signature.see the limit for time according to Einstein, well plain time, is light speed thus travelling at this speed causes one to have less timethus clock time is equal to gravity times the tt divided by its fixed time, which is based on the gravity affecting it divided by the inverse of the speed it is going effected, by how close it is to the speed of light.love youValbut Einstein said the laws of physics do not hold after the speed of light special theory of relativity.Tesla calls Einstein childish because space and time are not the same However both are brilliant people.Tesla was Yugoslavian. he worked on the Philadelphia experiment,a shit using Tesla tech was teleported to Norfolk harbour was properly sighted by the British navy then teleported back to Philadelphiaeach object has its own time outside of the time barrier everything got unstuck, well the time dimension Tesla crossedto make sure everything does not meld together one needs something to make each thing stick to its own time when entering that dimension. our body and brains are also different thus we need one stabilizer to maintain our coherency and sanityeveryone on the boat at Philadelphia went insane and people melded into the ship Space is temporally indexed but a rock in the middle of a mountain has more time than one at the top, yet the proportion is not equal to its space, consider a rock with a gravity whole beside, on in normal gravity different time and space but the proportion is not direct as one would assume.Space is the x-y-z axis. In fact two objects can share the same space but be in different times. ValGod be with us all

the val save..Read plurals as plurals and singulars as singulars. For example, El is singular: God. Elohim is plural God(s) the different religions are not only compatible, but complimentary. we are one, the same yet have unique difference meant to enrich our unified human culture. To read Elohim as simply the singular is wrong, Orwin was not wrong, it simply means God as a plural. Wives is plural as well, not singular. The Christians are wrong to have read this as one.issue closed.peacePraise God

Todays thoughtssomething about monotheistism we will all agree with.Your holinessyou see the father and mother are variables, when you put any (G)god in the parent part(father) of the trinity, the offspring are the children of that divine parentage.the holy spirit is the powers and energy the parents through God can afford their avatars, thrones or seats or offspring(son of); What is bestowed on them by God through the parent, even if that parent is God or a grandchild avatar: the avatar of an avatar to make the son(offspring avatar) a father(parent) is to give the offspring a similar idea and mechanism to God the parent. Thus, if God is the variable used for the father then the sons ( and daughters) are the offspring of God(sons and daughters of God). and the holy spirit is as we know it. Of course, each is much more than this and what we know of them. To make the parents Christ or any avatar is to make the offspring their avatars, IE the son of Christ, the son of Adam , the son of crisna and/or so on. Each bestows a particular grace and power based on its link and particular oneness with God and any avatars that act like a parent(or grand parent) for it.For instance Christ is the son of God and the son of Adam, thus he received grace from God directly and could send(bring down) and use the powers of the holy spirit as God, though the spirit was sourced in God and can be used only as God allows. This rule also holds true for the avatars of avatars(grand offspring): God dictates how the parent avatars work and how their energies are transmitted to their offspring(avatar or throne). Thus, Immanuel also had powers and energies through Adam. God made sure each of his children and grand children were special and had a special link with the parent avatar they are one with making each unique and special: one with God yet separate and different. See why believing in the many gods and, first and foremost, in God makes one very powerful.This is something we can all agree on;We can all agree with this supposition:Christ dies ascends unto the father, becomes one with the entirety of the essence and then becomes individuated and returns to teach. Following this he goes to heaven. The dead he resurrected go to heaven or another plain. No normal mortal saw the people Christ resurrected after his Resurrection. Where did these people go? They were resurrected into heaven, as Chrysostom says in the Easter liturgy of the orthodox, Adam and eve and all their descendants are redeemed by Christ and resurrected into heaven( see Greek christian orthodox Easter liturgy). every time Christ returns unto the father he is seated to his right, one with the father as an equal part of the trinity, yet separate, this is as I described before.The A-W is the son of God and its avatars( the ones who are one with its essence and incarnated in them). it also has a body of its own, see the beginning of Revelations, this body is the only begotten that all avatars of God are one with For the logos was with God, it was God, yet it was separate from God and God sent it into the darkness yet the darkness did not recognize it Thus God sends the logos and only begotten.All avatars share . share in and can manifest on its own.see Revelations.Theosis is sharing in the divinity of Christ. Being Christ's avatar, or the offspring of Christ and grand child of God is sharing the divinity of the Nazarene and through him the only begotten(this is why Christ the Nazarene who is a particular manifestation and the only begotten have the same name.). To be Christ's avatar , Christ must judge you as being worthy of his avatar-ship, God does the same, yet when Christ does it you end up in new Jerusalem where there is no death. Well one has to pass everyone's test mentioned in Revelations, wear all the crowns of all the religions9 the rider marked as the logos of logos in Revelations), respect all these crowns equally and pass Christ's judgement to get to become immortal, Christ(the Nazarene and through him the only begotten) avatar and pass final judgement. All religions have their own Christ, only begotten avatar and have their equivalent to the Nazarene and by respecting Jesus Christ are judged and brought to their religion's holy city(new new deli?). This is why we must respect them to pass our judgement, do not worship part of Christ or God but the entirety of its Essenes , grace and manifestations. One can pass many such judgements and judge's test to become many avatars, including God's avatar directly, and become one and present in many, if not all holy (spiritual) cities..peace.valtheosis receives its energies from Both God and from Christ who intercedes for us, or is the hypothesis between us and God.

Praise GodPlease recall two biblical sections worth mentioning. Genesis 6:6 which makes mention of many sons of God and the daughters of man. Of course all the sons of God share the same incarnated son of God. Begotten not created and incarnated in Jesus Christ. There is only one begotten son of God, yet many manifestations. Adam is called a son of God.As well, in the psalms there is mention of many gods who are ruled my the one God. All these gods share in the same incarnate force of God.

Elohim can mean God or god. It can mean son of God or better yet child of God( in the masculine). Finally Elohim can mean judge. If one synthesis these meanings, one derives what Christians call the son of God. This part of the trinity is God, is the child or son of God and as Revelations states a judge. Elohim is all these things at once. In the creed Elohim is incarnated in Jesus Christ. Elohim is begotten not created before all ages and time. Elohim is the part of God that incarnates in bodies or people. Each child of God is an avatar of that part of God. Furthermore Elohim can also mean angel. Each avatar is a messenger of the logos of God contained in them Christ , Adam , Enoch, Noah and the many gods, mentioned in psalms, share in the incarnate force of the one God and thus are angels. Christ speaks the words of God, Enoch brings a message from God to humanity and certain other avatars. Thus, the elitism of Elohim is that of the divinity they have reached or posses. This is not a political stratification based on class, but rather, difference based on divine state and grace. Evidently the Christians use Elohim to represent all its meanings at once. Christ's title of son of God comes from Genesis. Enoch is said to have metamorphosed into Metatron in the 3rd book of Enoch. Metatron is an angel, God, judge and a child of God, esp if Metatron is Enoch. We are all children of God though only a few are Elohim. Enoch spiritually grew up to become a Elohim.The Talmud comments that God chastised the angels for cheering when the Egyptians drowned in the red sea. "Are these not my(God's) children as well?".Elohim may mean the mature children of God whereas we are all children of God waiting to grow up into adults(Elohim).

Answers to Questions

1. Proud fathers always want their children to be better then them.Trying to equal Christ and be his better is an outstanding goal. To be more virtuous and intelligent means trying to best the best. Even if you are like me on skates and dream of being better than Wayne Gretzky that dream promotes good behavior and a strong will to be the best you can be. This also suggests that you will have to be more virtuous and good than Christ. Not easy, but an amazing goal. Christ’s work would be fruitful if everyone had such goals. 2. Could Er be the first Greek and of the bloodline of Adam? No because this supposition is not backed up by science. The Greeks predate Adam of the Garden of Eden, thus, how does the name Er appear in Luke's genealogy? Furthermore, every male that descended from Adam must have had a wife who was a female descended of Adam. Now one of the powers Adam may have had was longevity. His descendants lived about a thousand years, each descendent living for different numbers of years. All other normal humans from other bloodlines that predating Adam lived a normal life span (at most about 120 years). God and the weakening of the genes caused Adams bloodline to equalize with those around him. Interbreeding caused a diminishing of Adam's descendant’s gene pool. I will only be in your air: the breaths you take, for 120 years. Since Buddha refers to a flood on the astral plain in the Dominate and the water Noah saw was a few cubits high and covered mountains many cubits high the water reported to have covered the land could not have made those mountains physically disappear. This water that was on the astral plain extinguished peoples spiritual fires and as Christ relight everyone after the three timeless days following his death, Christ’s relighting of peoples spiritual; fire is reenacted by Orthodox Christians every Easter when at twelve o'clock Saturday night, Easter Sunday mourning they turn the lights off and blow out the candles. The priest lights a candle and from that one candle everyone lights a candle and holds it in their hand till the end of the liturgy. People do light candles from the people in front of them till the flame spreads to everyone holding a candle at the ceremony. Noah the avatar relights everyone in the same way Christ did. Noah relight everyone after the flood, the animals that accompanied him relight every other animal. Thus the bloodline of Adam concern is not pertinent in this regard, no one died because of the flood. The Cabala calls Noah’s experience a destruction of a world and a creation of a new one. If Kane married a daughter three or more generations removed from Adam after producing children with a human daughter predating Adam then he could marry without any genealogical discrepancies or marriage problems. However, The daughters born onto each character in the genealogy of Adam in genesis and Luke are not mentioned in the bible. The sons of God marry daughters of Adam. Unless one assumes Adam of the garden is the first person, AND THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATES MEN AND WOMEN PREDATE ADAM OF THE GARDEN, one would interpreter the passage in Genesis referring to the daughters of Adam as the daughters of Adam and eve of the garden. Since the number of daughters Adam had was not mentioned and all world religion allows fourth cosines to marry, Kane marries a third or fourth cosine. Living over 900 allows one lots of time to accomplish this task of waiting and marrying a distant cosine and thus maintaining hereditary diversity and cultural rules of incest. Thus each male born of this bloodline maintain the descendants rule in Judaism that ever Jew's linage is drawn through the mother.

Since Er is not the first Greek due to the time he appears in the history dated by Luke’s genealogy. Er must not be the Er mentioned in the myth of Er, though he could be. Luke’s Er might be a grand son of a Greek whose daughter married Er's father who is mentioned in Luke. The grandson would be named after the grandfather and the Greek name thus would appears in Luke’s genealogy. No problems. The daughters of man were the descendants of Adam as humans already existed prior to Adam of the garden and these earlier humans as you recall populated the whole face of the earth.Enoch’s message is for Avatars who broke rules concerning marriage and fornication. Other avatars married daughters of God without any problems.Read the text carefully. So marrying a daughter of Adam is not a taboo, however something the avatars in Enoch did was taboo. (Incest)All fits

The Er of the myth of Er is Greek and Luke mentioning Er means CHRIST IS OF GREEK BLOOD AND A DESCENDED OF Character in THE MYTH OF ER's bloodline.Christ is of Greek descent and of Er’s bloodlineLastly there are many more avatars other than the ones mentioned in Enoch. The genesis section refers to when the avatars began taking female descended of Adam as wives, before that other humans were taken as wives (or husbands).Now a good avatar turns that mate into a mature offspring 0 of God.Remember man is Adam or synthetically man of the earthEarthling? The Earthman and women populate the face of the earth then God created an earthling or earthman in the Garden. Thus the name.ValLast answerIf God is perfect then he pulled DNA (a sperm?) from Joseph perfected it, picked a perfect egg from marry perfected it and added his own DNA and allowed marry to immaculately conceive Christ. Thus Christ is josephs son genetically. Thus Christ had three DNA strands. Some people today have three strands of DNA, yet this does not mean they are avatars.The three strand DNA appears in the gene pool about the time of Christ. HmmUsually people with three strands of DNA are gifted people, but not always. There were two strand DNA avatars as well, like Enoch.

Seth also holds to these genealogies but by Seth’s time, many distant female cosines exist, no problems.MARY IS A DISTANT COSINE OF JOSEPH. So we know she draws the same linage at about four generations back as Joseph does, ah a clue to the daughter of Adam marrying Kane question mentioned earlier. If it is permissible for Christ parents to be distant cosines then Kane’s marriage as outlined above is permissible.Reflections with in reflections. (A baby goes through the evolution humanity did in the womb, every skip is when God changed the creatures on earth in what is called a quickening, these are the missing links of evolution, EMBRYOS HAVE GILLS AT ONE POINT, LOOK LIKE FISH THEN THE GILLS FALL OFF AND SO ON.) The universe from the big bang evolved in this reflective way. The potential for what is was seeded in the bang that created what is in the womb of space, the nothing that is something.Enoch the walker with God is the grand son of Enoch the city builder, thus the wife of the father of the Enoch the walker with God is descendent from Kane, and thus this Enoch redeems the whole Kane line. Noah redeems the curse of Adam. Christ makes the idea of an avatar good. (Christ is much more than this of course). Christ redeems everyone and his second appearance or emanation might be the redemption of Christ? Christ redeeming himself?PeaceEr is a pamphilios, of every tribe. thus he is not just Greek though he has a Greek name, thus Christ would not be just Greek if he had this blood line but of every tribe. A universal man containing all blood lines and still Jewish by descent. Er in Lukes liniage is the Er in the myth of Er.

If there is only one God he would make sure everyone believed in the same God even if people argued over the terms of that worship. If there is only one God the idea of what is good and virtuous would be the same in these religions, as it is. God wanted people to see the equality of his presence with everyone, see all humans as equals and work with all their ideas concerning him and his exaltation to realize the truth of the meaning of Life and God’s plan.( see rider with the many crowns in revolations.PeacePlease see this site concerning theosis or becoming divine in the Greek orthodox faith. One must be virtuous, good and a paradigm of justice to achieve this state. I have been experiencing theosis since 1990 and was touched directly by the holy spirit while reading Revelations, This includes seeing uncreated light, I reached Theoria in 98. I have had every test possible done on my eyes to ensure the phenomenon was real. My eyes are perfectly normal. The theosis has been confirmed by the religious leaders of my church. Theosis is becoming utterly human. http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/theosis_contents.html THEOSIS* - DEIFICATION AS THE PURPOSE OF MAN'S LIFE Dear Mr. Petridis, I'm afraid that I can't answer your question about the mark of Cain. Your understanding of Elohim goes far beyond the Jewish one. For Jews Elohim (grammatically a plural) means simply God; it is true that according to the rabbis Elohim is characterized by justice while the alternative designation Adonai or Hashem privileges mercy. Yours, C.O. I sent this at first: Mr Orwin The inclusion of Er in Luke's genealogy has some significant implications. The Er Luke mentions is the same one mentioned in the myth of Er. Er is a pamphilios: He belongs to all tribes and thus is of all blood lines. Er is a Greek name , yet Er is not just Greek. Most likely he had a Greek grandfather and father. His mother was obviously of the blood line of Adam and Jewish. The inclusion of Er in Christ's genealogy means Christ was of all blood lines, though he was by all regards Jewish. If one assumes that Christ had three DNA strands ( the triple helix does exist in humanity) and one suggests that one strand was immaculately taken from Joseph, one was divine and the third of his mother, Luke's genealogy is pertinent, correct and in accordance with Talmudic teachings. In fact, a DNA test of the blood found on the shroud of Turin proved that the person on the shroud had three DNA strands. The corrected carbon dating places the shroud at about 0 ACE and a seed from a thorn found on the shroud places it exclusively in Israel, in particular, in the area of Jerusalem - the plants name is called crysalidis( this thorn historically is said to have been used to make Christ's crown during the crucifixion; please refer to the web sites for the companies that did the DNA testing and carbon dating for further details concerning this matter).Note: According to the Talmud the Hebrew Messiah will not die, not even for three days. Messiah means anointed one( of God), the term is used to refer to Prophets and Hebrew kings in the old testament. Lastly, according to the Talmud, Elohim can also mean angel, son or child of god and so on.Thank you once more If God can anoint one Messiah he can anoint another Hebrew as well. So I then sent him this: If one interprets Elohim as God exclusively would the genesis section not then imply that God took wives of the daughters of man (man here can also mean the daughters of Adam [as in Adam and Eve]). Does this not suggest that the daughters of Adam were impregnated by God (immaculately?) and their children were mighty men of renown( like Christ?)?Very interesting idea. Thank you for this idea.It actually means both, as Elohim is also God acting in the world. See the children of God and God both are Elohim. According to original scripture the messiah was suppose to die for three days and become resurrected. That biblical section was decannonised by the Jews soon after Christ.Peace ValNothing prof. Orwin said contradicts my idea of Elohim. All Elohim are simply God or part of the perfect form of God (a better translation is the complete form or entire of God, see Plato concerning the complete forms or entire forms.) The idea of Justice is entailed in all Elohim children of God and God the almighty. Finally if God conceives with women that child the mighty person of renown can also be Elohim. The material was quite helpful.ValPeaceOne last way to look at itIf God took human form, but not in a vessel and had intercourse with the women then one avoids Immaculate Conception. Did God do this? Let’s say he did, he can do anything including Immaculate Conception. The mighty people of renown are both male and female.Thus God is Elohim, offspring are Elohim and God can take any form he wants when he wants to conceive, even avatars of both sexes born of man and women.In Hebrew there are no capitals thus all the forms of elohim are part of complete form of GOD.Demi gods born of God and women directly are half Elohim, well God incarnate.Thus, demi God's are elohim or what we call the trinity’s sons of God. Small ‘e’ elohim ( gods) vs large ‘E’ Elohim ( God). Dear Val: I'd have to agree with what Professor Orwin says. Your understanding of Elohim goes much beyond the Jewish one. What I'd add is that, although Elohim is grammatically plural, when it is used as a name of God (from Genesis 1 on), it is consistently used as a singular, so the noun form as an apparent plural is deceptive. And although the name "Elohim" refers, for ancient rabbinic thought ( = Talmuds and Midrashim), to God's attribute of justice, while the name "Adonai" refers to God's attribute of mercy, neither "Elohim" nor "Adonai" is, strictly speaking, the one true name of God, which no one really knows absolutely (although the four-letter Hebrew name YHVH--which "Adonai" represents--comes closest, even if we don't any longer know its vowels, and hence cannot pronounce it properly). The question of divine names, and of THE divine name, is a complex and subtle one, in biblical, in rabbinic, and in medieval thought. (You heard a little about its complexity in medieval mystical thought last semester.) Thus, one cannot (in almost any Jewish understanding) interpret "Elohim" as what you call "God exclusively." For "the children of God" and "God" both to be "Elohim," as you put it, is to abstract from all of the other names of God, not to mention the other contexts in which "Elohim" occurs and the other uses to which it is put. As for Maimonides, with whom you are by now somewhat familiar, he explains these textual peculiarities by the new and rigorous interpretive method of (almost scientific) "equivocality": the key-words, just like the key-names, actually have different but specific meanings, and one must know the complete text, as well as their contexts, in order to adequately interpret the meaning of any such key-term or key-name. In I, 2, he specifically deals with "Elohim," and he lets us know unambiguously that: "every Hebrew [i.e., educated Jew] knew that the term 'Elohim' [notice: he calls it a "term," and not only a "name"] is equivocal, designating the deity, the angels, and the rulers governing cities." Elohim is a form of God or part of the perfect form of God.

Complete forms are unsayable, Elohim is in one sense sayable. If the unsayable God manifests forms of himself would it not be safe to use forms to describe a form beyond form that manifests all forms, yet is in itself beyond form?

Kenneth Green <kenneth.green@rogers.com> wrote:--The big problem with this formulation is that it sounds more Greek (i.e., in the Platonic-philosophic sense) than Jewish (i.e., in the Hebrew-biblical sense).--Is it possible to speak of the Jewish God as possessed of forms or parts?

On 5-Mar-06, at 4:59 PM, val petridis wrote:

> Elohim is a form of God or part of the perfect form of God.

Kenneth Hart GreenDepartment for the Study of ReligionUniversity of Toronto

If God had a form beyond form only he would know it. Might one say that the source of forms is not a form? As the source of form forms the form. However, one might also say that part of God's form is beyond form. As Maimonides might say in his negative theology a form that is not form or formless form.Example when one makes water out of hydrogen and oxygen, neither gas is the form of water yet the moment it if bonded it forms the form of water. Is the form of water in the form of its constituents? Is their not something unsayably more to the forming of the form of water?

Kenneth Green <kenneth.green@rogers.com> wrote:Great and still unresolved questions arise: Is it proper to characterize God as in any sense a form? Or as you also put it, is it "safe" to so represent Him? And even if it's in some sense necessary (whether or not it's "safe"), how is it possible to use forms to describe what might (in only a certain sense) be characterized as "the Form" beyond form, so as not to lead people to commit the error of thinking of the form beyond form as a form?

On 5-Mar-06, at 11:45 PM, val petridis wrote:

> would it not be safe to use forms to describe a form beyond form > that manifests all forms, yet is in itself beyond form?

Kenneth Hart GreenDepartment for the Study of ReligionUniversity of Toronto

Your holinessThe entire argument monophysites believe God embodies himself then returns back to God fully, yet they pray to Christ thus somehow Christ knows how to individuate himself from the totality of God.Yet God is also the only begotten, begotten before all ages, thus he is somehow different than God.HM sounds like our earlier hypothesis.to answer monophysites believe God embodies himself then returns back to God fully, like the changeling in deep space nine( the tv show) he can become one with all the Essenes and yet be separate. He is sent by God like the holy spirit and angels ( as the bible says, the devil). When he becomes one with the essence he maintains a oneness which is still is separate from it. His return and becoming one with the father( AND MOTHER ) he imprints himself with his permanent presence. God the separation of the offspring of God begotten before all ages is the same incarnate force of God. Christ himself and all avatars are imprinted with that essence and remain one with it even when separated. The only begotten is a permanent separate imprint of all the avatars as once, the father( and mother) are also imprinted with the essence of the avatar. Thus God can send any avatar including Christ plus the only begotten in person, thus any manifestation can be sent including the totality of it. when God touches one one is touched by all three parts of the Essenes. Every avatar can at any time become one, meld into one face with God as can the three eternal parts of the trinity, Father( and mother) ,offspring and holy spirit. Lastly every avatar and angel also has a Free will which is ultimately a divine will of God and is one with it yet not the entirety of the Essenes, but one with it. Thus they can also will their own deeds and be separate from God. This is a divine will yet individuated from the whole. Yet this will is still as Christ said to the devil the bidding of God. notice the son became a trinity as well, the existance of an avatar of an avatar makes the original avatar or son of God a father, well lets say father( and mother ) are the parent. All avatars act like the father or sorry parent.see why a paradigm was used here too?valsee the same machanics work for bothholy spirit, holy breath from greek, pnevma is any energy or breating in and out that God does. It takes many forms.remember the imprints make the timeless trinity temporal as well.

When Christ ascended before returning to teach his disciples he become one with the essence of God. Each avatar remains one with the essence of the offspring and God in total, even when the individuated manifestation(avatar) is separate.If one remembers that all three parts of the trinity predate creation them one can see each as being perfect forms of everyone who is was and will be.this is why the only begotten was begotten before all ages.valGod can send the only begotten as any face of an avatar.VAl how i saw at it dirst. to finish off the ideas concerning the trinity. The part of God that is incarnated returns to the father. It becomes one with God yet it also simultaneously remain es separate yet one with it. The only begotten in carnates in others as God and its self. when it incarnates in others one is one with God and the only begotten. Finally each avatar is one with god yet remains the themselves. in the same fashion each avatar incarnates in people as themselves and as the only begotten which is the incarnating force of God and God that they are one with always. Even when they leave the body, part of them remains as does they only begotten and God himself. Thus when one dies each part of God returns to its source and merges fully with it, while. God, the only begotten(that which remains simultaneously one with God and separate) becomes one with the released incarnative force also remaining separate from its source yet one with it. This occurs for God the only begotten and the avatars themselves respectfully. Each avatar remains one with the source of that avatar-ship. in other words a part of God incarnates in people either through his touch directly, which is having placed the only begotten directly in you, or through an avatar incarnating in you. part of it is always the source of that avatar-ship and returns to the source. Once individuated part of it remains separate both as the incarnative force and the avatar, yet they are all one with God. The new avatar always is one with its sources.Christ Immanuel is one with the only begotten and the father(and mother) always and all those who wore him, became his avatar. peaceall these definitions are correct. These are all properties of the same God and trinity. Hitler called himself a Christ yet condemned murder and war. Christ means virtuous or good one. Hitler’s actions were the opposite of good and virtue. He was not a Christ but the opposite. He as an anti=Christthe first person to call himself Christ and do such evil was Hitler.The ideas of what the Messiah might have to do to be the Messiah come from Genesis. One idea was the immaculate birth based on Elohim finding just and fair women to impregnate. The second is the Messiah can not die? Hm mm. I know who does not die in the bible, old or even new? Enoch no less. How does Enoch not die, well he disappears. What event other than the disappearance marked Enoch life? Enoch:walks with God. Hm mm. God is divinity and beyond. he is the source of all things divine. To walk with Him is to be embraced in his arms, but not physical ones. If someone fulfils a prophesy of the Messiah and not all Jews accept him that idea is scratched of the list until only one prophesy remains. We are at the last prophesy. Not born of Elohim but of man and women you say? Divine no less, hm mm, touched by God and made immortal , like Enoch. I thank God because I suspect He is about to appear. Blessed be Hashem blessed be he. Maybe that walk with God thing might help us recognize him.Valyes I will read the section you mentioned tomorrow before dusk. A true Christians sabbath starts sundown Friday to sundown Sunday. its called a weekend. My church doctrineSo the walk with God entails being touched in a way that is not intense enough as the Rabbis say to make one be no more.