Levi Stubbs' tears

With the money from her accident
She bought herself a mobile home
So at least she could get some enjoyment
Out of being alone
No one could say that she was left up on the shelf
It's you and me against the World kid she mumbled to herself

When the world falls apart some things stay in place
Levi Stubbs' tears run down his face

She ran away from home with her mother's best coat
She was married before she was even entitled to vote
And her husband was one of those blokes
The sort that only laughs at his own jokes
The sort that war takes away
And when there wasn't a war he left her anyway

Norman Whitfield and Barratt Strong
Are here to make everything right that's wrong
Holland and Holland and Lamont Dozier too
Are here to make it all okay with you
One dark night he came home from the sea
And put a hole in her body where no hole should be
It hurt her more to see him walking out the door
And though they stitched her back together
they left her heart in pieces on the floor

When the world falls apart some things stay in place
She takes off the Four Tops tape and puts it back in its case
When the world falls apart some things stay in place
Levi Stubbs' tears...

Bush's VOW

The Isometric Sephiroth

The Isometric Sephiroth:
The Forgotten Correspondences Being a study into, and graphical, isometrical, structural, physical and topological interpretation of the ancient Sefer Yetzirah (also called the Book of Formation or Creation) and the Sephirotic Tree of Life, with regard to the geometry of the circle, the equilateral triangle, the seed of life, the hexagon, isometric projection and the double cube.


http://www.fotthewuk.co.uk/newperspective/NewPerspective.html

Videos

Videos

Joanna Newsom Lyrics

Joanna Newsom Music Video Codes

Music Video Codes by VideoCure.com

Mall Monarchy

Mall Monarchy

His wife’s in
Her nightdress
As ethan
Grabs his chest

You were the brightest of them all
When you designed the shopping mall
That keeps us clothed and entertained
From baltimore to stephen’s green

Born hungry
Got wounded
Iwo sima
In fourty five

You were the brightest of them all
When you designed the shopping mall
That keeps us clothed and entertained
From baltimore to golders green

And so we called you here today
To send our monarchy on his way
Where history and bunk are blessed
And with the edsel laid to rest

In a black car
White roses
And the tombstones
They’re all the same

And so we called you here today
To send our monarchy on his way
Where history and bunk are blessed
And with the edsel laid to rest

EYE EYE EYE

Threadbare
by

Ahron Lopiansky
(article originally published on http://www.aish.com/)
Is there any substance behind the latest fad: kabbalistic red strings?
There are times when one is forced to address the deliciously ludicrous. When "kabbalistic" red strings, once wound around Rachel's Tomb and then worn to ward off the evil eye, become the latest Hollywood fad — selling for a staggering $26 a piece! — and dragging Judaism's ancient and holy mystical works onto New York Post's Page Six column, we have most certainly reached one of those times.
A group of Hollywood glitterati have turned contritely to look for the meaning of life in the great tradition of Kabbalah. An astute salesman turned "kabbalist" has taken note of their needs and filtered out the less marketable demands of Kabbalah, and presented a Kabbalah that demands little more than cash from its adherents. The reams of exhortation found in the Zohar and Arizal — the two most fundamental Kabbalah texts — against hedonism and lust have somehow been hidden from sight.
Is there anything of substance to this red thread business? Is there really such a thing as an "evil eye"?
Firstly, there is absolutely no genuine kabbalistic source for wearing a red thread around one's wrist to ward off the "evil eye." While there exists such a practice amongst some devout Jews, it is not mentioned in any kabbalistic work. (image placeholder)
Yes, there is a fleeting mention in the Talmud about the practice of tying a bundle of herbs or gems and wearing them in order to ward off the "evil eye." No special color, nor Rachel, nor even thread are mentioned. Also, the comment is an offhand remark concerning laws of Sabbath observance.
One of the late great scholars, the Debreczyner Rav, mentions it as a practice he saw in his father's home, but his extensive search could not find a written source for the practice.
The good news is that there is a clear and early source that mentions tying a red string to ward off an "evil eye" and that is in the Tosefta, an early Talmudic work (Shabbat, ch. 7-8). The bad news is that it clearly states that tying a red string around oneself is severely prohibited. It is characterized as "Darchei Emori," a worthless, superstitious practice, close to idol-worship.
Although later halachic literature implies that we may possibly not rule in accordance with this Tosefta, this still does not make this a commendable practice, but rather a tolerable one.
THE "EVIL EYE"
Let us try to delve a little into the issue of the "evil eye" and its implication. The "evil eye" is mentioned in the Talmud and has practical ramifications in Jewish law. For instance, one is not permitted to stand and stare at his friend's field that is in full bloom, so as not to plague it with an "evil eye" (Baba Basra 2b). The "evil eye" is best described as a situation where "one conspicuously stands out, and there arouses people's jealousy and discomfort."
How does an "evil eye" wreak damage on someone else's field? The answer is most clearly described by one of the last century's great thinkers, Rabbi Eliyahu E. Dessler: God has created the world as an integrated whole of many components. The components are meant to act in harmony with each other. But if one of the elements in the system starts becoming a threat and overstepping its bounds, the system corrects itself and that aggressive unit is checked and contained. (image placeholder)
We see examples of this in the ecosystem, where overactive components usually run up against some barriers and/or opponent and are reduced to their natural size. A species that grows beyond a certain point somehow finds a natural enemy that checks its progress. No one species is allowed to dominate and take over.
This is true not only of the purely physical world, but is also true of the human dimension. A person whose fortune stares everyone else in the face is antagonizing the world around him. He is expanding out of his natural boundaries and is, so to speak, infringing on other people's domain. The pain and anguish caused others when they view his success, provokes this "evil eye." It is the term used to describe their anguished look. The jealousy and bitterness that he has engendered will boomerang and take its toll from the one who caused this imbalance and disharmony. The Laws of Metaphysical Nature will right the imbalance, and reduce the person to his proper size and domain. The fall of the provocatively high and mighty is the classical manifestation of this.
A METAPHYSICAL TRUTH
Does this actually happen? This phenomenon belongs to the class of segula-type phenomena. Segula phenomena are a metaphysical effect not easily quantifiable, but present in a general way. To get a sense of this type of reality, let us compare physics to, say, psychology. The laws of physics are applicable to every single event, in precisely quantified parameters. Thus, every mass — without fail — attracts every other mass, in exactly the same way.
Psychology, on the other hand, while formulating great truths, cannot define them with the precision and inevitability that physics does. There are exceptions, and every case is slightly different than the others.
The same is true of an "evil eye." It is a metaphysical truth, not a physical one. It works as a general rule, but there are many subtle distinctions and some exceptions. If we look at a lot of examples over an extended period of time, we clearly see a pattern emerging that people who arrogantly flaunt success eventually suffer because of it. We cannot give ironclad rules to govern this phenomenon, and we can give different "natural" explanations for it, but the phenomenon seems to constantly prove itself. (image placeholder)
A perfect example of where one can notice the effect of this phenomenon is Hollywood. No society is more oriented at "showing off" — it is show business after all — and what society is more dysfunctional? It is a society that has substituted desire for love, wit for wisdom, and appearance for substance, destroying itself in the process. Families, friends and beliefs are ephemeral, begotten in the evening and vaporizing in the morning sun.
REMEDY FOR THE "EVIL EYE"
Is there a remedy for the "evil eye"? There is actually a time-tested remedy, and much cheaper than the quick fixes being pushed by dubious institutions. Devout Jews have always lived as modestly as possible; refraining from boasting and usually understating their accomplishments. Idle boasting and great fanfare are shunned. And it works like a charm.
The Talmud states that "only hidden events generate blessings." For example, the two different presentations of the Ten Commandments are cited as a lesson. The Talmud points out that since the first time Moses brought down the tablets was done with great fanfare, they had to be destroyed when the Jews worshipped the Golden Calf. The second set of tablets was given quietly and modestly, and they lasted eternally.
This modest behavior has as its source — the Bible, to which presumably all adherents of Kabbalah subscribe to. The prophet Micah says:
"For what does God, your Lord, demand of you? Only that you love kindness, perform justice, and walk humbly with God."
Even when performing charity, justice and "walking with the Lord," it must be done modestly!
My advice to those people sincerely desiring to ward off the "evil eye" would be to return to a modest, inconspicuous lifestyle, ban the press from your life, and stop focusing on yourselves. (image placeholder)
But somehow, I don't think that will happen. Pop fashion is a powerful money-making force, one that Hollywood stars are paid to fuel. And thus, we have the ultimate irony. The red thread has become a status symbol... drawing the "evil eye" to its wearers.

------------------------------

The Red String protects us from the influences of the Evil Eye. Evil Eye is a very powerful negative force. It refers to the unfriendly stare and unkind glances we sometimes get from people around us. According to Kabbalah, the critical need to confront the problem of negative influences cannot be underestimated. Kabbalah teaches us that we can remove intrusive negative influences by using tools such as the Red String! http://store.kabbalah.com/product_info.php?cPath=183&vcats=183&products_id=415&cid=quigo (only $26 !!!!!)

On Believing in Mind

Hsin Hsin Ming:On Believing in Mind (Shinjin-No-Mei)
By Seng-t'san, third Chinese patriarch of Zen

D.T. Suzuki Translation

1. The Perfect Way knows no difficulties
Except that it refuses to make preferences;Only when freed from /hate and love,It reveals itself fully and without disguise;
A tenth of an inch's difference,And heaven and earth are set apart;If you wish to see it before your own eyes,Have no fixed thoughts either for or against it.
2. To set up what you like against what you dislike--This is the disease of the mind:When the deep meaning [of the Way] is not understoodPeace of mind is disturbed to no purpose.
3. [The Way is] perfect like unto vast space,With nothing wanting, nothing superfluous:It is indeed due to making choiceThat its suchness is lost sight of.
4. Pursue not the outer entanglements,Dwell not in the inner void;Be serene in the oneness of things,And [dualism] vanishes by itself.
5. When you strive to gain quiescence by stopping motion,The quiescence thus gained is ever in motion;As long as you tarry in the dualism,How can you realize oneness?
6. And when oneness is not thoroughly understood,In two ways loss is sustained:The denying of reality is the asserting of it,And the asserting of emptiness is the denying of it.
7. Wordiness and intellection--The more with them the further astray we go;Away therefore with wordiness and intellection,And there is no place where we cannot pass freely.
8. When we return to the root, we gain the meaning;When we pursue external objects, we lose the reason.The moment we are enlightened within,We go beyond the voidness of a world confronting us.
9. Transformations going on in an empty world which confronts usAppear real all because of Ignorance:Try not to seek after the true,Only cease to cherish opinions.
10. Abide not with dualism,Carefully avoid pursuing it;As soon as you have right and wrong,Confusion ensues, and Mind [The Mind = the Way = the One = Emptiness] is lost.
11. The two exist because of the One,But hold not even to this One;When a mind is not disturbed,The ten thousand things offer no offence.
12. No offence offered, and no ten thousand things;No disturbance going, and no mind set up to work:The subject is quieted when the object ceases,The object ceases when the subject is quieted.
13. The object is an object for the subject,The subject is a subject for the object:Know that the relativity of the twoRests ultimately on one Emptiness.
14. In one Emptiness the two are not distinguished,And each contains in itself all the ten thousand things;When no discrimination is made between this and that.How can a one-sided and prejudiced view arise?
15. The Great Way is calm and large-hearted,For it nothing is easy, nothing is hard;Small views are irresolute,The more in haste the tardier they go.
16. Clinging is never kept within bounds,It is sure to go the wrong way;Quit it, and things follow their own courses,While the Essence neither departs nor abides.
17. Obey the nature of things, and you are in concord with the Way,Calm and easy and free from annoyance;But when your thoughts are tied, you turn away from the truth,They grow heavier and duller and are not at all sound.
18. When they are not sound, the spirit is troubled;What is the use of being partial and one-sided then?If you want to walk the course of the One Vehicle,Be not prejudiced against the six sense-objects.
19. When you are not prejudiced against the six sense-objects,You are then one with the Enlightenment;The wise are non-active,While the ignorant bind themselves up;While in the Dharma itself there is no individuation,They ignorantly attach themselves to particular objects.It is their own mind that creates illusions--Is this not the greatest of all self-contradictions?
20. The ignorant cherish the idea of rest and unrest,The enlightened have no likes and dislikes:All forms of dualismAre contrived by the ignorant themselves.They are like unto visions and flowers in the air;Why should we trouble ourselves to take hold of them?Gain and loss, right and wrong--Away with them once for all!
21. If an eye never falls asleep,All dreams will by themselves cease:If the Mind retains its absoluteness,The ten thousand things are of one Suchness.
22. When the deep mystery of one Suchness is fathomed,All of a sudden we forget the external entanglements;When the ten thousand things are viewed in their oneness,We return to the origin and remain where we ever have been.
23. Forget the wherefore of things,And we attain to a state beyond analogy;Movement stopped and there is no movement,Rest set in motion and there is no rest;When dualism does no more obtain,Oneness itself abides not.
24. The ultimate end of things where they cannot go any furtherIs not bound by rules and measures:In the Mind harmonious [with the Way] we have the principle of identity,In which we find all strivings quieted;Doubts and irresolutions are completely done away with,And the right faith is straightened;There is nothing left behind, There is nothing retained,All is void, lucid, and self-illuminating;There is no exertion, no waste of energy--This is where thinking never attains,This is where the imagination fails to measure.
25. In the higher realm of true SuchnessThere is neither "self" nor "other":When direct identification is sought,We can only say, "Not two" [I.e. Tat tvam asi].
26. In being "not two" all is the same,All that is is comprehended in it;The wise in the ten quarters,They all enter into this Absolute Reason.
27. This Absolute Reason is beyond quickening [time] and extending [space],For it one instant is ten thousand years;Whether we see it or not,It is manifest everywhere in all the ten quarters.
28. Infinitely small things are as large as large things can be,For here no external conditions obtain;Infinitely large things are as small as small things can be,For objective limits are here of no consideration.
29. What is is the same as what is not,What is not is the same as what is:Where this state of things fails to obtain,Indeed, no tarrying there.
30. One in All,All in One--If only this is realized,No more worry about your not being perfect!
31. Where Mind and each believing mind are not divided,And undivided are each believing mind and Mind,This is where words fail;For it is not of the past, present, and future.

Source: Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, Manual of Zen Buddhism [2nd ed.], Published for the Buddhist Society, London by Rider and Company, London, 1950, pp 76-82.
Except for minor differences, like capitalization and the omission of some notes, the same translation appears in Buddhist Scriptures, edited by Edward Conze, London, Penguin Books, 1959, pp. 171-175.

ELLEN WEST

That last one messed me up
Things look bad
Things look tragic
I keep looking in the mirror
Afraid that I won't be there
Courting Ellen West, dancing on her grave
Saving Ellen West
My house is full of demons
I swear to God
I need to go to bed
I need to go to sleep
I'm awake with a vengeance
Saving Ellen West 'cause she wanted it
This way
My mouth is full of demons
I swear to GodI need to go to bed
I need to go to sleep
I need that hope chest
I need to breathe
I need you here
I need to disappear

Impeach him

The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.
The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL", dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."
For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on.  Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable.  What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."
And if this ain't it, nothing is.
The memo uncovered this week by the TIMES, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the Planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.
A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.  Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons." We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity. Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished. You should parse the entire memo -- reprinted below -- and see if you can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch. Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.
It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)
But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British" elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."
My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there."
The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections. And the US media could print nothing else. Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it worth a second look.
My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do.
Greg Palast, former columnist for Britain's Guardian papers, is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy".  Subscribe to his columns at GregPalast.COM. Media requests to CONTACT(at)GregPalast.COM. Permission to reprint with attribution granted.
[Here it is - the secret smoking gun memo  - discovered by the Times of London. - GP]
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary,Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General,     Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C,     Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72     hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time     of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous     air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60     days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a       discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two       Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any     military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we     could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we     were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds     could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed     military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background     on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam. He     would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries     in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence     update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would     consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers. (I have written     separately to commissionthis follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT (Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

The Allegory of the Cave

Plato
Book VII of The Republic
The Allegory of the Cave
Here's a little story from Plato's most famous book, The Republic.  Socrates is talking to a young follower of his named Glaucon, and is telling him this fable to illustrate what it's like to be a philosopher -- a lover of wisdom.
[Socrates is speaking with Glaucon]
[Socrates:]  And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
[Glaucon:]  I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -- will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
Far truer.
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
True, he said.
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
Not all in a moment, he said.
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?
Certainly.
Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
Certainly.
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
Certainly, he would.
And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?
Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.
Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
To be sure, he said.
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
No question, he said.
This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.
(image placeholder)
From http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.