Natural Hearing (Aristotle's Physics)
Lecture 21: Anaxagoras's Mind: Self-Rule, Separation, and the Ruling Principle

Transcript
================================================================================

Or the ear of what an ear is. It's only the mind that asks, like we're asking here, what am I? What is the mind? So, if mind alone is self-knowing, mind alone is self-ruing. And therefore, if you're not fit to rule another, you can't rule yourself, then only the mind, or reason, is fit to rule the other parts of man. And that's the beginning of what part of philosophy? Oh, political. Yeah, yeah. Because in ethics, we're concerned with the mind or the reason ruling the emotions and ruling the will and general ruling desire and our actions that proceed from this. So, we can say, mind alone is fit to rule others. And the reason we give for that is that one is not fit to rule others if one cannot oneself. So, that gives rise then to ethics and later on domestic and political philosophy. So, you can arrange the whole philosophy around this one statement of the great Anaxagoras, that mind is what, self-ruly. If you look before, you see the mind must be self-knowing. If you see it's a lone self-knowing, it's a lone self-ruly. Look after, then the mind alone is fit to rule the other parts of us. And that's the basic thing of non-synethic. It should be ruled by your emotions or be ruled by your reason. Well, anger can't rule itself. Angry doesn't know what anger is. Angry doesn't know whether it's too much or too little, right? You bump me in the hall. Well, does it get angry about it? Well, then it's pure accident, right? Maybe you're being careless. Maybe you're on purpose bumping me when you go down the hall like some kid's doing high school or something, you see? Well, reason has to take into account these things before you can know whether some anger is called for or not, huh? So, anger can't even rule itself. So, how does it fit to rule a man? And the same for the other emotions. Right, Andy? She's in agreement there. Now, perhaps we know in the Phaedo, Socrates read Ang Saebus as a young man. And in the Phaedo, where we learn that, it's in the Phaedo that Socrates says we need an art about, what? Arguments. We need a tecte peri lobus. And Socrates given his first three arguments of the immortality of the soul. And then Simeas and Sebas comes in and gives some objections. And they're not so sure now whether Socrates' arguments are good or not. And Socrates says, don't blame arguments. Blame yourself who can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad argument. And among good arguments, between one that's necessary and one that's just probable. And then Socrates says, well, you've got to, we need an art, huh? A tecte, which is a Greek word for art, peri about lobus, an art about arguments. An art that would help us to tell the difference between a good and a bad argument. And among good arguments, between necessary and a probable. And that's, in a way, what Aristotle does in the father of logic, so-called, right? Because the prior and posterior analytics are about an argument that is good and necessary, the topics about arguments that are, what? Probable, but good, but not necessary. And then the system of reputations about arguments that you can't trust at all. And Socrates compares it to, you know, men you can trust completely, there are a few. Men you can trust up to a point, men you cannot trust at all. So, in a sense, he's connected with what Annexagius is saying there. The mind is self-ruling. Well, that's going to lead one into logic eventually, thinking about that. And then if you see that you have to rule yourself through others, it's going to lead you into ethics, which Socrates is very much concerned with developing in the dialogues as we see. Now, I might point out, though, that if you're thinking of the divine mind, is the divine mind self-ruling? To say self-ruling would have parts. Well, even before that, to rule something is to direct it to its, what, end or goal. So if God was self-ruling, he'd have to, what? He'd have to be moving towards his end or goal. And that's not true, right? So, if you say self-ruling of God's mind, you'd have to understand it as we sometimes do in a negative sense, right? He's not ruled by, what? Another, right? Okay. He's altogether perfected his mind. Now, the third thing he says about the mind. Unlimited, it's self-ruling. Now, the third thing is that the mind is, what? Not mixed. Within anything. Not mixed with matter, we can say even more precisely, that he's talked about before. Now, in the fragment here, we have his reason for saying so. And we've already touched upon the fact that Anaxagoras has guessed that there's a greater mind ruling natural things, because he's seen the, what, order in the parts of animals and plants. And he sees a similar order in the parts of artificial things. And he knows the cause of the order in artificial things is the human mind. And since like effects of like causes, there must be another mind responsible for the order of the parts of animals and plants. And he calls that the greater mind. But now he's going to reason from that to it's not being mixed with things. And notice his very words, huh? For if it were not by itself, the mind, but were mixed with something other, it would have a share of all things if it were mixed with any. Because that's what he thought about the matter. For there is a part of everything and everything as has been said by me and what goes before. And now the reason. And the things mixed with it would hinder it, so that it would rule over nothing like it does being alone by itself. So he's giving us a reason why the mind is not mixed with matter, not mixed with other things, is that it rules over these other things, as we see from the order in them. But the ruler could not rule well over things if he was mixed up with them. He has to be, what, separated from them. That's a very interesting reason, isn't it? And I kind of show it in a number of ways. Take a judge, huh, who's going to decide in a dispute between two men, maybe two businessmen or whatever it might be. What's the first thing we demand of a judge before he judges, before he tries to rule over these people who are disputing? We demand he be impartial. Isn't that the first thing we demand? So if I have interest in your company and you and he have come into dispute, right, I should be disqualified myself, huh? But what does impartial mean? Not a part of. I am is the negative prefix, huh? So we think the judge should not be a part of the case or of the disputants. He's decided between his brother and some stranger. He can't be impartial. Do you see that? So that's one place we recognize that in order to command, to rule, in this dispute between people, the judge must not be mixed up in them. He must be separated from the judge. Okay? Okay? Take a second example, the military, right? A very good example of one man commanding others. Is it necessary to make a distinction between those who command and those who obey? And in our army, maybe I have to, what, salute first if I'm the one who obeys, and then the commander sluts back. And of course, there's a difference, you know, on insignia and that sort of stuff, but there's a separation. And you even have a base, let's say, or a post, you might have a commissioned officer's club, and then the non-commissioned guys can't go in there. They're chasing the same girls, they're mixing together in a social basis that tends to, what, break down the chain of command, you know, you mix up the commander with those who are to obey, and he can't command as well, huh? My oldest son is a graduate of West Point, he's a captain of the army, and so on. What's kind of funny, his wife says, you know, you happen to run into another couple, let's say, and he's maybe above my son or something like that, huh? You know? The two ladies are talking right away because they're familiars. And the officers are standing apart, you know, because they can't really engage in familiar conversation because of that, what, separation, huh? They say that after the Bolshevik Revolution, for a while, everybody was calling everybody comrade, and they found the army didn't, what, couldn't work that way. They have to have that distinction between those who command and those who obey. A friend of mine worked for Minnesota Mining, which is a large company with plants all over the country. And when a man got promoted, say, to a higher echelon in the chain of command, he was expected to associate with those on that level rather than be buddy-buddy with the people down below. And my friend was describing, you know, somebody tried to go and sit in the company cafeteria with people he had been familiar with before, before his promotion. No, no. You don't do that. Of course, the joke was, in the lower echelon, they play tennis and poker. In the upper echelon, they play golf and bridge and so on. See, even these outward games are different, huh? But they discovered that that's important for what? Command, huh? And I was at a wedding there a few years after this, and I ran into a guy, I happened to get talking to him there, and he's from Minnesota Mining, and I started joking about this separation. He says, well, you can tell exactly where a guy is by the degree of separation. You know, if there are many desks, let's say, in a room, you know, a secretary of poor is, they're all kind of an equal level, right? But if you've got one of those little petitions around your desk, then that's what? It's a step up. The next step up is not just to have a petition around your desk, but to have your desk in a separate room, you see, that they have to come in to, you see. The next step up, he says, is that not only is your desk in a separate room, but there's an outer office to the secretary there to screen people in front of you to get him to you, huh? So that's interesting, huh? But it illustrates what he's saying, huh? The degree of what? Separation there, huh? Increases as you go up the, what? Ladder, the chain of, what? Command. So they discovered that by practice. I've heard that said even, you know, in a priest, say, like a diocesan priest, when he's, you know, elevated to the rank of a bishop, he has to kind of, what? Become impartial now and not be buddy-buddy with the priest that he happened to be particularly friendly with before he was, what? Promoted, huh? So the idea that separation is quite necessary, huh? What's the thing about James and John there, you know, got a little trouble there trying to, or their mother trying to get them? They perhaps were closer to Christ, you know, by cousins or something of that sort, right? But that wasn't, that's not going to work with Christ, right? He's going to choose the man who's best for the Pope, huh? You notice that, too. If I wanted to even control this chair I'm sitting on, I can't control it so well sitting on it, can I? I can get up and, what, easily steer it around, you know, and not be a part of it. But if I get inside the chair, right, sit on it, I can't really, what, control it and direct it the way I can when I'm outside of it. Now, at this point, stop and pause and, what, is there an apparent contradiction in the things that Annex Aguas has said up to this point? I've had one student in all my 20, 30 years of teaching this who saw it on his own, huh? But most people, when I even call their attention to it, they can't see what seems to be like a contradiction. What I have to look at is the three things he said about the mind and the reason he gave for one of the three, right? Are there any two of those four things that don't seem to fit together? Can you tell me? No. The mind is unlimited and the mind is not mixed. So, somehow... Well, if you're unlimited in the quantity, essentially, you have a hard time keeping it away. But it's not unlimited in that way, you see. But something much more direct. Oh, the self-ruing. Yeah. Because what we were just talking about with the commandment, you're separated. Yeah. But here with yourself. Yeah, that's a good... Yeah, yeah. So, it's given as the reason why the mind is not mixed with things is a very good reason that the ruler must be separated from the ruled. And we've shown the truth of that with the impartial judge and the commanding officer and so on. On the other hand, it seems to be true that the mind is self-ruling because the very existence of logic is a sign of the truth of that. So, here you have one of those contradictions that the great Heraclitus says, you know, you've got to stop and think about these, right? See? And here there's a reason to think both of the things. So, how do you... How do you untie that apparent contradiction? I'm sorry, please. I can't really deny it. The mind is self-ruling because I know logic and I've taught logic and I know that the mind can do this. And at the same time, I see truth in the saying that the ruler must be separated from the ruled. How do you reconcile this to them? See? Sorry, where's the contradiction again? Well, he says the mind is self-ruling and then he goes on, later on, to say that the ruler must be separated from the ruled in order to rule. So, the mind is not separated from itself. So, how can the mind rule itself? Yeah, okay. It seems that it can see itself objectively. Yeah, yeah. But still, it's not separated from itself, huh? Yeah, but it's not physical. The other thing that physical is that separation. Mm-hmm. But the mind not being a matter, that's a, by equivocation, if you're not going to add there. But you need the idea of ruling yourself, you know, if you say that something moves itself, then it's the mover and the moved. It's before itself because it's the mover and after itself because it's the moved. Can something be before and after itself? No. No. Now, I think Socrates' life is the clue to how this is resolved, right? But it's very important because it's necessary to solve this to see how, in fact, the mind rules itself. And as I always say to the students, you see all this lip service, you know, to, oh, the teachers taught us to think for ourselves as if their minds, you know, at the end of four years of college are self-ruling. But they're not really. And they really haven't got to that stage because they don't know what's required for that stage. Now, the way I approach this is, again, imitating Socrates in the Republic. In the Republic, you know, at the end of the first book, he's shown, you know, that the just man is better off than the unjust man, and so on. But in the beginning of the second book, someone says to Socrates, now, do you want to seem to have convinced us, he says, or to really have convinced us? And Socrates says, I'd like to really have convinced you that this is so. And then they say, well, you know, we couldn't really answer your argument, but, you know, still it's not that clear to us. Well, Socrates says, we're going to blow up the soul so you can see it. And that's when he makes the famous comparison between the parts of the soul and the parts of the city. And then you see the disorder of certain cities, right? Not a horrible thing it is, a kind of civil war, and then you realize what it is for the soul to be in an inelegate situation. Okay, so let's go back, first of all, to the idea of a city or a nation. Now, when a country is a colony, it's not, it's ruled by the mother country. But if that country gains independence, it begins to enjoy what we might call self-rule. Okay, now what does that mean? That the ruler and the ruled are the same? No. What it means is that one part of the country, namely the government, is ruling the other parts of the country. So self-rule there doesn't mean that the ruler and the ruled are identical. There's a distinction of parts there. Okay, same for an institution like that. Now, let's take something a little more difficult to see. When we talk about someone having self-control, that's a kind of self-rule. But what does that mean? Again, that the ruler and the ruled are identical? No. It means that my anger, or my sexual desires, or hunger, or thirst, whatever it might be, is under the control of my, what, reason. So when my reason is ruling my emotions, then I'm in self-control. Well, because reason more than anything else is man. But when the emotions are in control of me, then I'm not in control of myself, am I? That's a little hard to see, because that's inside the man, because reason is emotions. But if your reason gets mixed up with your emotions, it can't rule the emotions. And sometimes when people are very upset emotionally, their reason gets mixed up with their emotions. And they're speaking out of emotion rather than by reason. And they need somebody else who's not involved emotionally to tell them what to do, really. Because they can't rule themselves. They're crazy, you know, like these people are sometimes. Okay? And now we're going to go to the mind itself, right? But you can't solve what it means to the mind to rule itself by saying, well, there's two parts of the mind, one part of which rules the other, because as you go on to say, the mind is the thinnest of all things. It doesn't have any parts, huh? Okay? So what does it mean to say that the mind rules itself? It doesn't mean that one part of the mind rules the other part. But now the key to what that really means is given to us by Socrates. What is Socrates' whole life a witness to when he went around examining people as he talks about this in the Apology? What did he find out so often in the minds of those he examined? What did they mix up? The universals. No. Why are you getting into trouble? They didn't know that they didn't know. Yeah. They thought they knew things they didn't know, right? They had mixed up what they didn't know with what they did know. Socrates' whole life is a witness to the fact that that confusion is very, very common. So what is Socrates trying to get them to do? To separate what they really know from what they don't know. And it's only after you separate what you really know from what you don't know, right, that you can use what you do know to come to know what you don't know by discourse. So the mind is ruled in what it does not know by what it does know. I've got a very simple example of that. This table is a rectangle, I guess. Now, if I knew the length of this table and I knew the width of this table, but I had never multiplied them, I would not yet know the area. So the area of the table would be unknown, but the length of the table and the width of the table would be known. And I would be ruled in what I say about the area by my knowledge of the length and my knowledge of the width and my knowledge of how to multiply the two. So I'm ruled in what I eventually say about what's unknown, to me at first, by what I do know. So that's the separation that enables the mind to rule itself. It has to separate what it does know, really, from what it doesn't know. Now, later on, Aristotle would talk about a further distinction, like we saw in the beginning of the readings. You can separate what is more known to you from what is less known to you. And ultimately, you might separate out what is most known from even the other things that are more known. So you ruled in what is less known to you and less certain, therefore, by what is more known and what? More certain, huh? But first of all, you ruled in what you don't know by what you do know. So when we syllogize or reason, we, what? Are led to something unknown to see it through statements that we know already. When we calculate, we come to know a number we didn't know. The two numbers we do know. So Socrates' life is the clue to the solution of this apparent contradiction. It's true that the mind is self-ruling, at least our mind, or it can be self-ruling, right? And it's true that there must be some separation between the ruler and the rule. But it's hard to see because it's not the separation between two different men, like the man who commands and the man who obeys, right? It's not even the separation of two parts of us, like my reason and my emotions, but the separation in the mind between what it does know and what it does not know, and between what is more known to it and what is less known to it. But if you're ruled by the unknown because you think you know it, that is misrule. If you're ruled by the less known because you don't realize it's less known, I think it's more known, that's misrule, huh? Charles de Connick said about modern philosophy, you can do the whole modern philosophy as a denial of the more known from the less known. That's chaos, huh? So, you know, I hear, you know, this student who gives the valedictarian talk or something, always hearing this phrase, you have to hear, you go to graduation, you know, but we're taught to think for ourselves, huh? I say, what does that mean? I say to the students when you go through this, and I say, well, that means your mind can direct itself. But you don't realize that what's required, before you can do that, you have to really separate what you know of what you don't know. And Socrates' whole life is a witness to the fact that most men have not done that. Therefore, they're not capable of self-ruling. They're ruled by the unknown, they're ruled by custom, they're ruled by passion, all the other things. But their mind's not really ruling itself. The greatest compliment Monsignor Dion could pay me is saying, I'm able to rule myself. Well, I thought everyone could do that. This is a beautiful example now of the role of contradiction. We're going to come back to that again later on, of course. But the role of contradiction that perhaps Sarah Clives was the first to get some inkling of. That the great discoveries are what? The result of untying contradictions. Like quantum theory, as Heisenberg said, began with the strange apparent contradictions between experiments. The experiments in science were contradicting each other, apparently. And the untying of the contradiction was the discovery of, you know, the quantum theory, really. And Einstein says, you know, the theory of relativity began from contradictions, right? And then the untying. Here's a brief example. a parent contradiction between two things that seem both quite reasonable. That the ruler must be separated from the rule, and that the mind rules itself. There's evidence for both. How do you reconcile those? And then tying to that is to recognize that there is a distinction in the mind, not of parts, but between what it does know and what it doesn't know. And it's ruled in what it doesn't know by what it does know. And later on it's ruled by the what? The less known by the more known. And it's ruled most of all by the most known. As Aristotle is separated out, part of the help of Parmenides, people like that, that what's most known is that something cannot both be and not be. It must either be or not be. So the statements known to themselves are used to judge the statements not known to themselves. The statements known to themselves by all men enter into the statements known to themselves by the wise. It's kind of obvious that no odd number is even, right? But you say, why can't an odd number be even? Because you can't both be and not be divisible into two. Equal part. And that goes back to you can't both be and not be. So that's the natural beginning, Aristotle says in the fourth book of wisdom, of all the axioms. You can't both be and not be. You must either be or not be. Or Shakespeare says, to be or not to be. It's a question because you can't both be and not be. You must either be or not be. Now we come to the what? We had three things said of the mind and a reason given for the third thing, right? Now the fourth thing he says about the mind is that the mind is the thinnest of all things. This is interesting, huh? But here he's talking about a cause in the sense of the mover, a new material cause, as we'll see. In fact, we've kind of seen it in the third thing already. And we say unlimited is obviously about matter, but it doesn't mean exactly the same thing, right? But there's some vague likeness here. And here again he says the thinnest of all things, right? Now what is there about the mind that would lead one to say that it's the thinnest of all things, huh? And notice how we speak of a good mind as being what? Sharp, huh? We speak of a good mind as penetrating. We speak of a good mind as having insight into people, insight into things. And of course, sharpness and penetration and getting inside come from being what? Thin, huh? Now, is there anything that divides and separates as much as the mind? In fact, we saw that in mathematics we separate cube from ice and from wood and from plastic and any other kind of material cube, huh? We separate things that can't be what? Even separating reality. I can distinguish between, with my mind, between your body and the health of your body. I can't, you know, put your health here and your body over there. But my mind gets in between them and says, they're not the same thing, your health. Right? Because sometimes you're healthy, sometimes you're sick, because your body is not the same thing as your health, is it? Right? So the mind can get in and separate things that are very, what, close together. So nothing separates, huh? The mind is always distinguishing, dividing, defining, and so on, huh? The mind is a great separator. So it must be the, what, thinnest of all things, huh? We even distinguish between the concave and the convex, so they're one thing, huh? So that's the fourth thing he says about the mind. And the fifth thing he says about the mind is that the mind is the purest of all things. Now, at first, when I thought about this, I used to think, you know, well, this is the same thing as up here. The mind is not mixed, right? Oh, yeah. You know? The pure is just a affirmative grammatically word that means not mixed, right? But on second thought, huh? It struck me that up here he's saying the mind is not mixed with other things, huh? Or maybe down here he means to say that the mind is not itself a mixture of things. You see that? Yeah. And that would follow with the order of the things he has here, because you could syllogize from its being the thinnest of all things to its, what, not being a mixture of things. Because if it were a mixture of things, those things would be thinner than it. So it follows the night of the day, even more so, and that it's purest, huh? Whilst being not mixed up above was seen from the fact that it's, what, self-ruling, and therefore fit through others. The rule must be separated in things, therefore it's not mixed with things. But after he sees that the mind is the thinnest of all things, then he realizes that it itself could not be a mixture of things. It's interesting, sometimes the word pure, too, they apply it to God and they try to explain the word holy, huh? Kind of interesting, huh? Purity of God. Interesting, huh? Purity here is seen as an attribute of the mind, huh? And the divine mind is the purest thing there is. God is altogether simple and he's not mixed with anything else, obviously. Okay? Now the next statement he says, of course, fits more of the greater mind, huh? That it has all knowledge, huh? More than armor. In a way that would also follow from it being the thinnest of all things, because then it can get inside of everything and therefore know everything, right? So that follows, right? It has all knowledge. And then now the seventh thing he says, well, I say to the students, you moderns ought to understand this here. The connection between knowledge and power, because that's the, the start of modern thinking there with Bacon, huh? The knowledge and power are what? Inseparable, Bacon says, huh? The knowledge that gives you power is not knowledge. So, um, that is all power. So, so you talk about that connection, you say, man dominates the other animals, huh? Because by nature he's swifter and stronger, huh? See, my fingernails aren't as good as a cat's nails even, right? Mm-hmm. And, uh, I'm not as strong as the gorilla or something, and he told me a naked man with a gorilla or a tiger or something, I'd bet on the tiger or the gorilla, wouldn't you? Mm-hmm. See? So how does man dominate the other animals? Yeah. And it's also the way some men dominate other men, you know, like in the colonial period, right, where the Europeans had a, you know, this priority of knowledge, huh? Where you take the Hundred Years War, you know, where the English were defeating the French, huh? But the longbow, huh? The secret of the longbow? Yeah. That's really kind of a marvelous thing to read about. Mm-hmm. Apparently if you really shoot the longbow properly, you had to be trained from the time of your youth, huh? And apparently you would put your whole weight into it in a certain way. Right into the armor of the French. Mm-hmm. That's why the greatly outnumbered English would win those battles, like Eisenport and Crecy and so on. You don't realize in Shakespeare's play why they won. Mm-hmm. But you read, you even read Churchill's History of the New Speaking Pupils, and he'll have a whole chapter, right? The long, long poem. Wow. That's superior knowledge in his head with that one weapon. Mm-hmm. And as I say, you know, if the Nazis had gotten the atomic bomb before us, and they'd drop, you know, a bomb in New York City, and New York City was gone, and the bomb in Chicago, okay, we surrender. We'd all be Nazis today, huh? Mm-hmm. You see? You realize how much power the atomic bomb had now to get you people. Mm-hmm. So, uh, we didn't know what Heisenberg was doing during the Second World War, so. Yeah. They had a plot at one time, you know, to assassinate him just in case he was helping Hitler. Another plot to kidnap him and so on. Wow. Actually, at the end of the war, we kidnapped Heisenberg and took him to- England, so the Russians wouldn't get them, because they were stealing left and right the German scientists to go to Russia to construct the A-bomb. But now it's just power, right? Now the next thing he says is that the mind rules all things which have life, both the greater and the lesser. Now, I think what's significant about this, why does he single out living things? I don't think he means it's limited to that, right? But that stands out. Those are all things that have life. What is there about animals and plants, more so than stones and the air and water and so on, that make you think that there's a mind that is ruling over animals and plants? Would it be the sense that animals and plants would have a certain bit of self-governance in themselves? That would be a share in the mind, yeah. Yeah, that may be something. But the fact that you have a diversity of parts that are well, what? Ordered. Yeah, see, why stone doesn't seem to have that diversity of parts well-ordered. Or water obviously doesn't have a diversity of parts at all, apparently. The senses anyway, yeah. But also the fact that in animals and plants, you start to see in their purpose. It's interesting how we call a living body sometimes an organic body. We forget the meaning of the word. Organ is simply the Greek word for tool. Organon, the Greek word for tool. So when they called this inorganic body, a living body, an organic body, they meant a body composed of what tools? What is more obviously for the sake of something than a tool? The eye is a tool for seeing, and the teeth in front are tools for biting, and the teeth in back are tools for chewing, and the heart is a tool for pumping blood, etc. So in their purpose stands out in living things in a way it doesn't in water. You know, we see in their purpose clearly in the non-living world, except perhaps in comparison to the living world, that water is what? Necessary for life and things of that sort. So this is what suggests mind as a cause, especially of living things. You see order there of parts, and you see in their purpose. So it seems to be a result of the mind. So the mind does what it does with something in mind, some end or goal. And the mind, as we know from the definition of reason there, orders in the definition of reason, before and after. So it's interesting that he singles out living things there. Then he starts to talk about this circular motion which resulted in the separation of things. And I think I just say in general, number nine here, that the mind separates things. I mentioned before how our own mind, we know, uses circular motion to separate things. So if I want to break something down, I'll start, you know, it's a circular motion, right? All right. See, you can use a cyclotron and so on, and we spin around the rock at the end of the screen. Okay? So, by circular motion, the mind is separating things. But we saw that before, huh? The mind is defined by order, but order presupposes what? Yeah. From the axiom of before and after, right? Nothing is before or after itself. There's always a distinction that the mind sees before it sees in order. So, in nine, he talks about the greater mind separating things by circular motion. And then he comes to the thing that most characterizes the mind, and the mind sets in order all things, right? That we're to be in all things, and we're but now are not, and so on. So, that's the tenth thing, that the mind orders things. And that, perhaps, is what the first gave rise to the thinking, huh? That there was a greater mind. So, he talks a little bit about separation of things in the world, huh? But for him, nothing is ever completely cut off from anything else, except mind. But notice the statement at the end there, every mind is similar, both the greater and the lesser. So, that likeness of our mind to the greater mind is what enables us, in some way, to know the greater mind, huh? We taught these mutanimous, huh? Now, the last statement, the top of page nine, is the famous Anaxagorean statement about other things. The very thing is a mixture of everything else. Why do you call it this or that? Well, we call it for what it has most of. Well, I call that the next Korean way of naming things. And very often, things are mixed, and we name them from what they have more of, either absolutely speaking, or in comparison to other things. So, for years, they would call our economy a market economy. And they'd call the Russian economy a planned economy, but really misplanned economy. Then they started calling it a command economy, right? But the point is, was there no market at all in Russia? Yeah, there was a black market and other markets down the bottom. But we don't call it a market economy, but because of the dominant role of God's plan in Moscow, right? There's a thousand engineers and a thousand, what, economists in God's plan misplaning the whole country, right? It doesn't work very well. But in America, is the market to determine everything? No, government has something to do with the economy, too. It sometimes helps, sometimes hinders it, but it's not, you know, purely just the market. Did I ever describe the income economy? The income economy was very regulated now in South America. And what would happen is, at a certain level of time, everybody would get a new pair of shoes and a new pair of pants, right? Maybe I sit too much, and I wear out my pants, and you walk a lot, so you wear out your shoes. So at the bottom, we trade. And I don't really need another pair of shoes. You say, oh, I didn't go out. If I didn't have a pair of pants, I'd sit there all the time, loss of Isaacs, and you give me a, you know? So there's a little trading, a little mark at the bottom that consisted of a completely, what? Yeah, see? But you say, you wouldn't call that a market economy, would you? No. So we name something by what it has most of. But I noticed that when we name the books of the Bible, you know, we say that the book of Psalms is a book of, what? Prayers. You might distinguish it from the prophetic books, but there's some prophecy in the Psalms, and there are some prayers in the, what, prophetic books. But we name something by what it has, what? Most of. Except for when you come to a fat-free salad dressing. Yeah. Or food is named by what it doesn't have on there. No salt, no fat. Even these wines, say, you know, these non-alcoholic wines, they have a little bit of alcohol, you see? But they're called non-alcoholic in comparison to the wine that has a full amount. Okay. Now, let's stop here for a second and look over at the reading we haven't looked at yet. The unity, fewness, and simplicity, the reading that I attached to that. It's on the bottom of page five. It starts, the moderns on the mover. Remember that? Now, in the Greek philosophers up to this point, we have maybe four opinions about the mover. And two we found in Heraclitus, one in Empedocles, and one in Anaxagoras. Heraclitus said, war is the father of all things, and some he has made slaves, and some freedmen, and so on. So that's one thought about the mover. War, right? You have opposites there, and the struggle of these opposites, so it gives rise to things. Secondly, in choosing fire as the, what, first cause, you may have been thinking of, what, the need for a mover, because fire in some ways is not a good guess as a first matter, but it makes a lot of sense as a mover. So if you had to choose between Mother Earth, water, air, and fire, which is the mover, well, fire would seem to be the way. The move.