Remembering

[Alexander]

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato is usually seen as the founder of Western philosophy. He is famous for his "dialogues," in which (the historical philosopher) Socrates would have philosophic discussions with various people.

One of these dialogues, "Meno," I learned about recently and thought was very interesting from a contemplative perspective. In the dialogue, Socrates is asked how it is possible to acquire knowledge about anything. He replies, we have all lived hundreds of thousands of lifetimes previous to this one; thus we have a very great store of experience and knowledge already within us. Technically, we know everything already. But, we forget everything we have learned, because of the violence which comes between lifetimes.

When we learn anything, what it is then is really "remembering," because we have known everything in some form or another at some point in the past. But we have never collected all that into one whole.

In Meno, Plato's character (and old teacher) Socrates is challenged by Meno with what has become known as the sophistic paradox, or the paradox of knowledge:

    Meno: And how are you going to search for [the nature of virtue] when you don't know at all what it is, Socrates? Which of all the things you don't know will you set up as target for your search? And even if you actually come across it, how will you know that it is that thing which you don't know?[1]

In other words, if you don't know any of the attributes, properties, and/or other descriptive markers of any kind that help signify what something is (physical or otherwise), you won't recognize it, even if you actually come across it. And, as consequence, if the converse is true, and you do know the attributes, properties and/or other descriptive markers of this thing, then you shouldn't need to seek it out at all. The result of this line of thinking is that, in either instance, there is no point trying to gain that "something"; in the case of Plato's aforementioned work, there is no point in seeking knowledge.

Socrates' response is to develop his theory of anamnesis. He suggests that the soul is immortal, and repeatedly incarnated; knowledge is actually in the soul from eternity (86b), but each time the soul is incarnated its knowledge is forgotten in the shock of a crime. What one perceives to be learning, then, is actually the recovery of what one has forgotten.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_%28philosophy%29

Interesting is how various (non-contemplatives) read this, and how I took it just now. There is an argument over whether or not Socrates is being literal, or is being figurative when he argues for "remembering" based on previous lifetimes.

[Jhanananda]

Interesting is how various (non-contemplatives) read this, and how I took it just now. There is an argument over whether or not Socrates is being literal, or is being figurative when he argues for "remembering" based on previous lifetimes.

Well, I think there is a bigger problem here than all memory coming from previous lifetimes, and that is, there must have been a time when new information was acquired, therefore, all memory could not just come from previous lifetimes; however, in my experience we have had 100s of thousands of lifetimes; and I have no problem with some, or perhaps even most knowledge coming from recollection of information that was known in a previous lifetime, but not all.

I have the complete dialogs still with me.  I read most, if not all, of the volume.  I found the Symposium of great interest, because it shows Socrates goes into a trance, before the drinking party.  Then the subject of the drinking party is love.  Everyone there, except Socrates, speaks about pedophelia as the ideal of love. 

Socrates speaks last and speaks about his teacher, who was a woman, and she taught him about love, and for him love was an abstract principle, like a law of physics.  And, there was no sexual component to his description of love. It was most inspiring.

Anyway, from reading the quotes you provided, aglorincz, it occurred to me that virtue to the ancients, was not being virtuous, as we think of the term.  Virtue at the time of Socrates was an abstract spiritual energy, like kundalini. So, Meno's question becomes relevant to the conversations that we have been engaged in here.  Which is how does one know when one is experiencing a religious experience, and/or a charism?

Since the religious experience and its charisms are abstract, then no one can point to them and say, "See this is a charism."

Nonetheless, we discuss them here.  People who have a religious experience describe it, and it will include a description of charisms.  One cannot understand a religious experience and its charisms until one has them.  Nonetheless, the religious experience and its charisms are unmistakable once one has the religious experience.

In Meno, Plato's character (and old teacher) Socrates is challenged by Meno with what has become known as the sophistic paradox, or the paradox of knowledge:

    Meno: And how are you going to search for [the nature of virtue] when you don't know at all what it is, Socrates? Which of all the things you don't know will you set up as target for your search? And even if you actually come across it, how will you know that it is that thing which you don't know?[1]

In other words, if you don't know any of the attributes, properties, and/or other descriptive markers of any kind that help signify what something is (physical or otherwise), you won't recognize it, even if you actually come across it. And, as consequence, if the converse is true, and you do know the attributes, properties and/or other descriptive markers of this thing, then you shouldn't need to seek it out at all. The result of this line of thinking is that, in either instance, there is no point trying to gain that "something"; in the case of Plato's aforementioned work, there is no point in seeking knowledge.

Socrates' response is to develop his theory of anamnesis. He suggests that the soul is immortal, and repeatedly incarnated; knowledge is actually in the soul from eternity (86b), but each time the soul is incarnated its knowledge is forgotten in the shock of a crime. What one perceives to be learning, then, is actually the recovery of what one has forgotten.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_%28philosophy%29
In response to the "sophistic paradox" of Meno.

Science is all about inquiring into what we do not know, or expanding our knowledge base.  We do not need to know something exists to go looking for it anyway.  It is the same reason why the prospector prospects for precious metals and rocks.  It is also the same reason why the explorer, explores, and the mystic meditates. Thus, we do not need to know any of the attributes, properties, and/or other descriptive markers of any kind to help up seek the unknown.  Some of us just seek it anyway, and we will know what we are looking for when we get there.