PRESOCRATIC DIALECTICS

PRESOCRATIC DIALECTICS
ANAXIMANDER, HERACLEITOS, PARMENIDES AND ZENO

INTRODUCTION:
The majority of the presocratic texts have been delivered to us from other authors in a fragmentary state, possibly simplified, misinterpreted and rather modified, the way these inferior thinkers understood them or the way they needed them for use in their writings.  So we are obliged by our turn, to restore their altitude, either revealing their real meaning or supplementing the gaps of their fragmental delivery and naive interpretation.  This practice though, causes a “dynamical creative violation” of these texts, which have been already violated and misinterpreted by the effort of inferior thinkers to "rationalize" their presocratic ambiguity (double-meaning). Modern interpreters should take this responsibility respectfully and if their effort is truly virtuous, the y will deserve a share of truth.
      This practice is neither new nor paradoxical, because all ambiguous texts include a dynamic characteristic that provokes the intepreter to participate more in this creative process. Yet this is exactly the element that still keeps them alive. These texts provoke the reader "to get from the spectators hall on the theater scene and participate to the action of the drama itself".

In the present work the difference between "contraposition (opposition)" and "contradiction", the "collapsing-compositive evolution process" as opposite to the "rational differentiality" and some other key meanings for the distinction between rational formality and dialectics, is often repeated.  Though, this is not dialogically elegant, it's necessary because the reader enters in the Contradictive Dialectics, dialogic process to which is mostly untrained.  Therefore, for better comprehension of the "Contradictive Thinking", these aspects should be repeated in key positions of the intelectual development of this dialogic process until they will be completely understood.

Since the days of Aristotle, rationalism and formal logic have taken in our conscience the position of Logic itself.  Rationalism and formal logic are so much innate in the contemporary human personality, so even if a person wants to follow a contradictive dialogic discipline, unconsciously, during his dialogic process, rolls down to rational formality.  Besides we have seen this behaviour to great thinkers as Hegel and many distinguished marxists.  Indeed a great part of european marxists have consciously roll down to a contradictive-contrapositive eclecticism, because they can not or they do not want to dinstinguish their dialectics from the rational formality. Even more the scientific evolution, having the electronic computer as a basic instrument of research (which principally is a formal logic tool), and the anti-dialectic use of “Dialectics” by the former “socialist” coutries and their scientists, had the result dialectics to be considered as a dialogic “curse”. So all this argument about dialectics would have been vanished, if the Relativity Theory and the "quantic aspect for the world", would not "diabolically" matched so much with the presocratic dialectics.
      Nature have showed that is much more "democratic" than we believe; there is enough space for both determinism and dialectics; determinism for aristotelian and newtonian objectivity and dialectics for relativity and quanto-mechanics.

The present work having lack of a proper transilation, is neither proud of its literature qualities nor of its dialogic formality, also it would not have been written if the aristotelian gravestone was not still upon the dialectics of the presocratic thinkers.   Nevertheless this work has the ambition to uncover that gravestone and erect the body of the presocratic dialectics,  after two and a half thousand years.
      Rationalism, formal logic and objectivity, pushed science and social developments from Aristotle forward to Newton, but the genesis of Relativity and Quantic Theory revealed that our world is much more significative than we believe and indisputably has more space than one aspect for the same matter.  That is why our world can be rationally opposing and deterministic objective, but simultaneously could be logicaly organized as contradictive and antiterministic.  So our world obeys simultaneously to both objective rationalism and presocratic dialectics.  This dialectics is far from platonic-hegelian idealism and christian-judaism metaphysics, being consciously hylozoic-materialistic.

INDICATION:
For the unimpeded development and to avoid misunderstandings I remind my opinion about the existence of two dialectic methods:
A. The Antithetic (opposing) one, which accepts that deeply inside the world, things and the logico-lingual syntactic system that describes them, consist of a series of ultimate, unchangeable elementary units (knowable or not); these elements interact each-other without violating the limits between them.
Therefore, these elements which compose that ontological and lingual operation system (being its absolute terms), presuppose since the integration of its functional cycle to repeat a specific, finite, and predetermined series of lingual and functional games and their limits, which could be named compositive prototypes of the end for ever. Thus since the absolute terms of this system have been set, the existence of these "compositive prototypes of the end" is presupposed to be there from the beginning, waiting to be realised from the operation of the system.  This is a finite, closed, teleological world of rational objectivity, which has as a result of its operation predetermined limits. These limits could be named "world of Ideas".   That prospect presupposes the contracting objective deterministic system of dynamic rationalism, which departed from Aristotle and integrated to Newton.
B. The contradictive one, which accepts that the world and the logico-lingual syntactic system that prescribes it, is a whole in continuous evolution process.  This system to exist should not be composed from unchangeable ultimate elementary unites. The elements which compose this system should be self-overpassing (contradictive) and to interact extending inside each-other, without leaving any inviolate limits between them.  This ontological aspect, presuppose that the world is open whole, one logico-lingual conradictive system in a continuous evolving process, where every elementary unite is not repeated having the attribute of singularity, being the cause and the result of itself, the cause and the result of universe.
     The contracting dialectics accept evolution as the phenomenal game of the unchangeable, ultimate elementary unites opposing reaction, while the contradictive dialectics accept evolution process to be, real because every element of this process, being contradictive has the attribute of singularity.
                                                                                                                                                                  A REMARK ABOUT HEGELIAN DIALECTIICS                                                                                              
The Hegelian -Science of Logic- is a masterpiece of sophistry, where Hegel tries to convince us, using daedalic definitions and designations, that the universal evolution process to which we come in touch, is a phenomenal reflection of a hidden unchangeable reality or that we are not able to receive the reality as it is but we receive only its phenomenal reflection of which the grater part is not real.   He claimed that the elevation of that phenomenal appearance to Logic Itself will lead us to the absolute truth which is god and only the god.
    Hegel § 1 page 53: Philosophy has the same objects of research with religion. Both have as an object the truth, in the higher meaning, that is god and only him is the truth. In addition both of them deal the teritory of the finished: the Nature and the Human Spirit, relation between the and eachone of them with god.
    Hegel § 88 page 216:...we must be surprised listening nowadays opinios like ”from nothing cannot become nothing and only from something could come something” and not to be conscious that these opinions are the base of Pantheism and Atheism.
     Hegel's "Science of Logic"  begins the phenomenal evolution process using an incoherent “Medenology” (Nihilology, -research about the meanjng of zero-), from the absolute zero and terminates to the Being as absolutely determined, in a way to appear the ex nihilo creation of universe by god. So the deepest meaning of that work is theological.  Thus in this case he proposed the Old Testimony against Logic.   
     Moreover during the process of his dialogic coherence, he transformed the contradiction to opposition, giving a slipping under, but clear reference to determinism.  That is why the majority of his prepositions, following two logico-ligual syntaxes, are so much confused, that do not obey neither to dialectics nor to rational determinism.  This confusion is intensified by his practice to equalise or to assimilate these which he considers to be absolutely opposite. This assimilation though could exist in very special situations, but in the abstract and superficial way Hegel practiced it, demolishes logic, because this way everithing could happen and be said for every case.  When we pursue a Dialectic Logic but do not want to roll down to sophistry, that equation must be accepted only for the ultimate level of the world (the ultimate contradictive elementary unit) as Zeno has described it: For something to exist, should have a size and some distance from another. The same is valid for the margin in between. That also must have a size and always must something to exist in between. I will say that once and for ever: it is neither possible to exist an ultimate part of some element nor of the margin in between of elements. (it is not possible to exist ultimate atoms). It is not possible also something to exist by itself. So if there are many things these should be simultaneously big and small. So big to be of infinite size, so small to be of zero size.
     The work of Hegel due to his acceptance for the un-coherense of Logic and Things does not permit this to be neither Science nor Logic and because of its idealism does not permit to be dialectics also. Although it is one of the most brilliant philosophical concepts, harmed more than anything dialectic thinking. And although Hegel wanted to rise it as a scientific tool, never succeed it.
     For the understanding of the hegelian dialectics and justify my accusations against this logic, the reeder should have in mind his fallowing verses:
--A. § 8 page 68: There is nothing in sensation, not to be contained in intellect.  By means that mind and with its deepest term spirit, is the cause of the world.
--B. § 40 page 122: The critic philosophy considers experience as Unique base of knowledge; but also considers it not to be true, but only knowledge of phenomena.
--C. § 84 page 201:...The Thing (the essence of the world) should not cary the fault of contradiction, this must blame logic capacity (the essence of spirit).
--A. If ”thinking and spirit the cause of the world” or at least exists before the experimental reality and because Thinking and Being coincide, thinking could not begin from nothing (from zero), as he claimed, but he could not also base the intellectual process of his work on that. So his claim about the unity of the pure Being-Itself and the pure Zero-Itself in the Evolution Process collapses.
--B. From that verse we conclude that Being consist of Ideal Things Themselves and the contradictive experimental-phenomenal evolving process. According to him we only could know the experimental process but we refuse that it is true. (That is a cession to agnosticism).
--C. According to Hegel, because experimentally we only come in touch with the contradictive phenomenality and not with the Things Themselves, Logic following the contradiction does not coincide and correlate with the reallity of thngs.

--D. § 6 page 61: It is significant to point out that philosophy has as a content that which is produced in itself and produces itself in the territory of the spiritual life, so the external and the internal world of conscience has as a content this reality... Indeed that agreement with reality at least could be accepted as an external criterion of the philosophical truth. Thus we must consider that higher and final purpose of this science is the reconciliation of the self-conscious logic- with the existing logic capacity, that is the reality.
--E. § 24 page 102:...thoughts could be named objective and between them the forms could be concluded, which forms at the beginning are searched in the common Logic (the formal one) and usually are conceived as forms of the conscious thinking.  So Logic coincides with Meraphysics because it conceives the things in thoughts, which are the essence of things.
--D and E.  Higher and final purpose of his tractatus is the reconciliation of the formal rationalism with his dialectics of the phenomenal contradiction. It is so that he although intends to propose his dialectic logic, will never abandon the basic terms of the rational formality. That is why he continuously reforms the dialectic contradiction to rational contrariety, giving a reference to the formal rationality.

--F. § 19 page 92: Logic is the science of the Pure Idea, that is the Idea the abstract element of thinking.
--G. § page 209: The pure Being is the pure abstraction so it is the absolutely negative; which being conceived as immediate, is Zero.
--F and G. Hegel accepts the preposition of Kant about the “Logic purity” which is related to the “a priory human knowledge capacity” which coincides to Metaphysics. So the mind with its higher meaning could be the cause of the world and the world of conscience to be the content of the reality. That is why he wants his logic to depart from the preconscious pure Being-Itself which as undetermined coincides with the pure zero itself.   Since Logic (according to him) is developed in the abstract element of thinking, it should be the abstraction of the absolute negative (zero-nothing).But (according to me) because we cannot have any abstraction of Nothing, this way the characters of “pure” and “itself” loose their significance and meaning. The materialistic dialectics (of Nature) demands Logic and experience to co-exist. These inter-extent deeply to each-other, not leaving any unviolated limits in between them, being inseparable.  Experience cannot be fertilized without the related logic capacity and logic capacity cannot be developed without experience. These inter-develop in the universal evolution process creating human as an existing reality.

Conclusion:  The hegelian “Sciense of Logic” being idealistic owes to refuse contradiction and to be oppositive. As oppositive though cannot be by all means dialectic, because refusing the contradiction of the reality, owes to accept the phenomenal evolution process and refuse the real contradictive evolution. Because of all these, it should owe to accept non-coherence between logic and things so it could be neither sciense nor logic also. Finally this in work, logic gives place to faith, since he claimed that god is the only truth.
     That’s why his work didn’t offer to science the service he promised, that is a dialectic formality as the one of Aristotle for rationalism. And that is why his dialectic formal principals could not be tools for research but final conclusions, which rationalism do not refuse in many cases also.
     The faithful and the mystic climb the lather of determinism and when they reach their higher grade of arrogance, drop and forget the lather creating a world of their own.  And since this work is rather a theological preposition we should not forget to talk a little about theology:  Theology is the most arrogant activity of the human being. Because the theologist puts the “voice” of god in his mouth replacing him, as unable to commune with his creations. Even more theologists overpass the prepositions of Christ, the son of god, concerning that he needs help from the genius theologist. The verses of Christ are very simple and cannot offer dialogic pleasure; these are made to be understood from the poor in the mind and so from every-body.   The dialogic complexity of Hegel, did not succeed to offer nothing to faith also.
     --Yet faith and mystisism emit a dialogic stench because they nurish where dialectics goes to stool.

 On the contrary to the hegelian logic, the presocratic dialectics of nature and especially the Anaximander's aspect about the collapsing-compositive nature of beings and universe, matches with the contemporary science.  According to the great scientist and humanist Bohm: Every motion in the quantomechanic “Fields Theory”, is described as a collapsing-composition of the moving elemetary units. . . . The motion of a free particle is described as destruction of that in one position and creation of another in other position.
    That aspect matches also with Heracleitos verse: —We neither enter in the same river nor we touch the same material twice, because everything changes violently and rapidly, travels away returning, collapses-composing, exists-not existing, simultaneously.— 

ANAXIMANDER (610-546) AND HERACLEITOS (535-475)

Anaximander and Heracleitos have been described as opposite characters.  Anaximander was a colonial leader, that is to say, a military leader and scientist (house and boat builder, geometer and mechanic) of Militos.  He was a multi-talented political personality.
    These dark ages, when the cities were overcrowded, a talented leader departed from the city with a teem of courageous soldiers and scilled workmen, to create a settlement for a new colony. These leaders should be friendly and diplomatic to the inhabitants of the new geographic territory, convincing them that they come as friends to establish peacefully their settlement near by them; but they should be brave enough to draw the sword, if something went wrong.  So, Anaximander was a philosopher-warrior.  
    Heracleitos, oppositely to him, appears as an antisocial personality being always aggressive against his fellow citizens, whose he considered as being corrupted.  Maybe Anaximander lived in the flourishing Militos and Heracleitos in the collapsing Efesos.  Anyway both Anaximander and Heracleitos had a great ideological relationship. It is possible that Anaximander was in a broad meaning teacher of Heracleitos or they have coincide in the same ideological aspects from different ways.  Although Heracleitos did not refer to Anaximander, we know that he admired Thales the Milician, who was teacher and friend of Anaximander.
    Their ideological relation appears in their common aspect about the “collapsing-composition” of things, beings and universe, wherefrom, according to them, their contradictive nature derives.
    This which makes Heracleitos different from Anaximander and his previous dialectic thinkers is the meaning of Logos, which is the logico-ligual contradictive syntax of the nature and beings existence.  Logos is a contradictive Speech, Logic and Essence.  This speech (logos) is the first contradictive dialectic formality, (the dialectics).  The roots though of the World's and Beings collapsing-composition aspect, which the Dialectics of Heracleitos is based on, derives from Anaximander's prepositions about Evolution (Γίγνεσθαι) and Infinite (Άπειρον). According to Anaximander Infinite is a result, of the Genesis and Collapse alternation of Beings in a continuous evolving process.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ANAXIMANDER

Simplicius  physics  24, 13
   εν και κινούμενον και άπειρον   …………
   αρχή τε και στοιχείον των όντων το άπειρον…
   την εις άλληλα μεταβολήν των τεττάρων στοιχείων ούτος ουκ ηξίωσεν εν τι
   τούτων υποκείμενον ποιήσαι, αλλά τι άλλο παρά ταύτα.
   ούτος δε ουκ αλλοιωμένου του στοιχείου των γένεσιν ποιεί,
   άλλ'υποκρινομένων των εναντίων δια της αϊδίου κινήσεως.
universe is one, moving and infinite. . .small and great, first and last element of universe, is infinite...
during the transformation of the four elements of nature (earth, water, fire and air)
Anaximander do not accept any of them as generative, but something else. He cannot accept that Genesis occurs from the modification of these elements but from the dialogue of the opposites and the eternal motion.

Aristotle physics A4 187a 20
   οι δ'εκ του ενός τας εναντιότητας εκκρίνεσθαι
   ώσπερ αναξίμανδρός φησι και όσοι γ'εν και πολλά φασίν είναι.
Anaximander and all them who believe that One and Many act reversely, declared that the oppositions are innate in Beings and emanate from them.

Hippolyte Air. Eleg. 16 1-7
   ούτος άρχή των όντων έφη φύσιν τινά του απείρου,
   εξ'ης γίγνεσθαι τούς ουρανούς και τον εν αυτοίς κόσμον.
   ταύτην αΐδιον είναι και αγήρω και πάντας τους κόσμους
   περιέχειν.  λέγει δε χρόνον ως ωρισμένης της γενέσεως
   και της ούσίας και της φθοράς. . . . . . . . . . . . .
   ούτος μεν αρχήν και στοιχείον είρηκε των όντων το άπειρον,
   πρώτος τούνομα καλέσας της αρχής.
   προς δε τούτω κίνησιν αΐδιον είναι,
   εν η συμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι τους ουρανούς.
Anaximander declares that beings are under the authority of some kind of infinite, wherefrom skies and worlds are born.  This is eternal and ageless and comprises all the worlds.  For that reason Time gets a meaning from the birth and death of every related events and materials. . .
    He also claimed that both authority and element of things is infinite and he is the first to use this word for that meaning.  He also declared that infinite is the eternal motion, in which occurs the universal evolution.

According to Anaximander universe does not consist of two worlds, that is, the material one and the ideal one, but everything compose a unity in infinite evolution process. He also rejects the existence of unchangeable ultimate elements, which composing universe do not violate the limits inbetween them. He proposed the “unity and interaction of the opposits” (one basic principal of dialectico), which gives birth to the eternal motion.   It is so that universe coincides with the infinite and infinite coincides with the eternal evolution process.  According to him Time is related to the alternation of the genesis and death of Beings, therefore Time coincides with the Evolution process.  This way Being, Time, Space, Motion and Infinite coincide to the Universal Evolution Process. Yet, according to him, for this to be actionalized, a dialogue is presupposed where the opposites interact without leaving any inviolate limits in between them, composing contradictive unities. For that reason, the dialogue of the opposits in every contradictive unity, can “travel” far away, violating the limits of the specific contradictive unity and so to expand to the universe. Therefore, every contradictive event departing from the dialogue with itself,  passes to the dialogue with the near existing contradictive unities, after that to the farther and finally to the universe itself, which is the faraway Other Self, the ultimate cause of the contradictive event variation. Through this dialogue, the contradictive event is continuously changed, changing simultaneously the other contradictive events participating in this dialogue. That’s why every contradictive elementary unite has a “collapse-composing-evolutionary” nature, containing potentially an integrated face of the Whole.  This way infinite is not only the authority as a quantitative whole, but simultaneously the small ultimate contradictive generative element as a qualitative one.

Hermeias  Phil. 10
   αρχήν είναι την αΐδιον κίνησιν και ταύτη τα μέν γεννάσθαι τα δε φθείρεσθαι.
Eternal motion is the Universal authority, where Beings simultaneously born and die.
(Universe consists of the continuous collapsing-composition of beings and this is the Motion as Evolution and as living Essence).

Aetius p. t. ares.
   αναξιμανδρός φησι των όντων αρχήν είναι το άπειρον.
   εκ γαρ τούτου πάντα γίγνεσθαι και εις τούτο πάντα φθείρεσθαι…
   αμαρτάνει δε ούτος μη λέγων τί έστι το άπειρον,
   πότερον αήρ έστι  ή ύδωρ  ή γη  ή τι άλλον.
   αμαρτάνει ουν την μεν ύλην αποφαινόμενος, το δε ποιούν αίτιον αναιρών.
   το γαρ άπειρον ουδέν άλλο ή ύλη εστίν.
   oυ δύναται δε η ύλη είναι ενέργεια, εάν μη το ποιούν υποκέηται.
Anaximander claimed that infinite dominates all beings, since all of them are born from that and die returning again to that. . .  Yet he mistakes, not saying of what material infinite is composed from (air, water or anything else). He speaks about infinite but do not refer to the cause of its existence, because infinite cannot be anything else than material. Material cannot exist if it has not infinite inside it to give it energy and life.

Aristotle physics γ. 7 207b 35
   ως ύλη το άπειρον εστίν αίτιον και ότι το μεν είναι αυτώ στέρησις,
   το δε  καθ'αυτό  υποκείμενον το συνεχές  και αισθητόν.
   φαίνονται δε και οι άλλοι πάντες ως ύλη χρώμενοι τω απείρω
   δια και άτοπον το περιέχειν ποιείν αυτό αλλά μη περιεχόμενον.
Infinite, as material, is the cause and though it seems to be something different than material, it is exactly the same to that;  and all them who claim that it is necessary material to coincide with infinite, accept that it is absurd infinite to give birth to material, to contain it but not to be contained by material.

According to the presocratics, infinite is not a quantitative characterisation of material, but coinciding with its evolution process, on one hand is the authority as Mega, on the other hand though, is contained to material as the collapsing-compositive genetic elementary essence : “the contradictive elementary unite”.

In the previous fragment where Hippolyte (air.eleg. 16 1-7) referes to Time, Anaximander claimed: τον δε χρόνον ως ορισμένης της γενέσεως και της ουσίας και της φθοράς. . (Time is related and gets meaning from the genesis and death of the Beings the Time refers to).  Anaximander connects the relativity of time to the alternation of genesis and death of Beings, that is with the eternal evolution and this way with infinite.

Aetius  V 19. 4
   αναξίμανδρος έφασκεν εν υγρώ γεννηθήναι τα πρώτα ζώα
   φλοιοίς περιεχόμενα ακανθώδεσι, προβαινούσης δε της ηλικίας
   αποβαίνειν επί το ξηρότερον και του φλοιού περιρρηγνυμένου,
   επ'ολίγον χρόνον μεταβιώνται.
Anaximander claimed that first animals were born in between fishes in wet environment, having thorny scales and when the environment became dryer, they threw away the scales and adapted themselves to a new environment.

Ploutarch Symp.  VIII 8,4
   αναξίμανδρος αποφαίνεται εν ιχθύσι εγγενέσθαι πρώτον τους ανθρώπους
   και τραφέντες ώσπερ οι γαλαίοι και γενομένους ικανούς εαυτοίς βοηθείν,
   εκβήναι τίνικαύτα και γης λαβέσθαι.
Anaximander claimed that human beings were born in between fishes and they were fed like them, but when they were capable came out to earth.

Anaximander claimed that the contradiction of Beings and the infinite, has as a result the evolution of species.  That we also conclude by the fragments about infinite we will see next.
    The Darwin's “Evolution Theory” is an elegant and blameless work of art as a result of observations and infallible conclusions;  the Anaximander's preposition in front of that “pales”, if we do not consider that his aspect was proposed 2500 years ago. The Anaximander's aspect though reached to us in fragmentary state and the way other writhers understood it and proposed rather modified and simplified. Yet his aspect departing from the evolution of beings and universe, describes their contradictive nature, proposing a dialectic logic that matches better with the evolution theory, which about, i believe, Darwin did not care.

Simplicius physics 1121, 5
   οι μεν γαρ απείρους τω πλήθει τους κόσμους υποθέμενοι ως οι περί
   αναξίμανδρον και λεύκιππον και δημόκριτον και ύστερον οι περί επίκουρον
   γινομένους αυτούς και φθειρομένους υπέθετον επ'άπειρον, άλλων μεν αεί
   γινομένων άλλων δε φθειρομένων και την κίνησιν αΐδιον έλεγον. 
   άνευ γαρ γενέσεως και φθοράς ουκ έστι κίνησις.
Τhe people around Anaximander, Leykippos and, Democritos and the later around Epicuros, who believe that worlds are infinite, accept that worlds born and die infinitly and this is they consider to be motion, because without allternation of birth and death there is not real motion.

From the information we have about the aspect of Anaximander, material is innate with motion, infinite, evolution, space and time.  Motion according to him is the continuous change; that is the alternation of birth and death of Beings, which compose the eternal evolution and infinite. Material could not be alive (being in a continuous evolution), if infinite do not exist potentially in every elementary unit to energise it.  Though typically infinite is a meaning that contains material, Anaximander who was the first who spoke about infinite, believed that material and every elementary unit contains infinite potentially; because infinite to be the authority and generative great (Mega) should simultaneously be infinite as an elementary unit also;  That is, any elementary unite should be potentially infinite, containing a face of the Whole.
    Because “infinite and evolution”, “vacuum and fulness”, “time and space”, and “Beings” are innate each other, composing a unity in motion as “the Essencia Itself”, all events and things are specifications of Motion as Essencia; therefore Anaximander do not consider Things to be the Essence and Motion to be an attribute of Things but the opposite.

Objectivity, rationalism and determinism cannot accept Material, Infinite, Evolution and Being (Είναι) to be an Essence Itself, all these are consider to be categories of thinking.  According to determinism and objectivity, Material always is accepted as a finite specific event;  Infinite is accepted as a quantitative accumulation of elementary units, which do not exist as a Whole-Essence, and Evolution is accepted as phenomenal attribute of material. Even more Time exists as a duration of the finished, specific, objective things or the finished specific objective systen of things. Determinism therefore, neither can accept or determine the “Being Itself” as a specific Essence, nor as a “meaning itself” (something which has been an object of much argument, but no one achieved to accomplish it satisfactorily).  Therefore the opinion of Anaximander about infinite: that “every body and elementary unit is infinite because worlds end their limits are infinite”, makes Aristotle to wonder rather ironically.   Heracleitos and Zeno though agreed with Anaximander.
  Heracleitos believed that everything is in a state of collapsing-composition because other “under-elements”, passing inside of things, make them to exist. These “under-elementary” units also collapse-composing simultaneously by the passage of other deeper level “under-elements” of the world and so on infinitely. Therefore nothing really has absolutely specific limits, expanding this way to universe, being potentially the infinite itself.
     Zeno claimed that: nothing can contain an ultimate, elementary, specific part (atom). According to him an ultimate part of a material, tending to zero, simultaneously tends to infinite, (being infinite and zero).  This is the “Contradictive Elementary Unite”, the “Being as the Potential Level of Universe”, having all faces and none simultaneously, the “Contradiction itself” and finally the “Material itself”.   --Without an aspect of that kind elementary unit, no one can be dialectic.  Only this way Being, Infinite, Evolution, Motion, Space and Time would compose a unity (One Essence), which can be described and spoken by Dialectics.
     Because Aristotle looks the world from an other and different point of view, do not inform us correctly the way Anaximander accepts the meaning of infinite.  All the ways he proposed do not match with the Anaximandrian way, exept the one that makes him to wonder ironically.

Aristotle physics γ 4 203b 6
   άπαντα γαρ ή αρχή ή εξ'αρχής, του δε απείρου ουκ έστιν αρχή.
   είη γαρ αν αυτού πέρας. έτι δ’αγένητον και άφθαρτον ως αρχή ούσα.
   τότε γαρ γενόμενο ανάγκη τέλος λαβείν και τελευτή πάσης εστί φθοράς.
   διό καθάπερ λέγομεν, ου ταύτης αρχή, αλλ'αυτή των άλλων είναι δοκεί
   και περιέχειν πάντα και πάντα κυβερνάν ώς φασιν όσοι μη ποιούσι
   παρά το άπειρον άλλας αιτίας, οίον νουν ή φιλίαν.  και τούτ'είναι το θείον.   
   αθάνατον γαρ και ανώλεθρον, ώς φησιν αναξίμανδρος και οι πλείστοι των
   φυσιολόγων. του δε είναι τι άπειρον η πίστις εκ πέντε μάλιστ'αν συμβαίνοι
   σκοπούσιν…
Everything has as a beginning something else or it is a beginning of something else; infinite have neither a beginning nor end, being immortal and non-birthal. Because everything that borns is necessary to have an end as a result of decay. Nothing can be an authority for infinite, but infinite contains everything being the authority of all. This is claimed by all them who do not accept any other cause of the world, as Eros or Nous (universal mind) but Infinite. So as Anaximander and the other physical philosophers claimed, infinite being immortal and not-destroyed is divine. Therefore they believed that infinite could be conceivable by five ways:
    (I must notice that this basic way of infinite comprehension do not agree with the opinion of Anaximander, who assimilates infinite to the evolution process. Anaximander do not claimed that, infinite and evolution is immortal and unborn, but oppositely that it is in the condition of continuous death and birth alternation, in a collapsing-composition process).

Aristotle physics Γ 4 203 b 6
   ως φησιν αναξίμανδρος και πλείστοι των φυσιολόγων,
   του δε είναι τι άπειρον, η πίστις εν πέντε μάλιστ'αν συμβαίνει σκοπούσιν:
   εκ του τε χρόνου (ούτος γαρ άπειρος) και εκ τοις μεγέθεσι διαιρέσεως
   χρώνται γαρ οι μαθηματικοί το άπειρον, έτι τω ούτως αν μόνως μη υπολείπειν
   γένενεσιν και φθοράν,  ει άπειρον είη όθεν αφαιρείται το γινόμενον.
   έτι τω το πεπερασμένον αεί πρός τι περαίνειν ανάγκην έτερον προς έτερον.
   μάλιστα δε και κυριώτατον ο την κοινήν ποιεί απορίαν πάσιν,
   δια γαρ το εν τη νοήσει μη απολείπειν και αριθμός δοκεί άπειρος είναι
   και τα μαθηματικά μεγέθη και τι έξω του ουρανού,
   απείρου δ'όντος του έξω και σώμα άπειρον είναι δοκεί και οι κόσμοι.
It is said that Anaximander and the most of the physiologists believe that infinite is conceivable by the following five ways:   A. By the time which is infinite.   B. By the divisibility of mathematic sizes.  C. Because only that way the continuous alternation of birth and death of things can exist.
 D.  Because every finished thing touches another finished one and that endlessly.  E. But most important, which causes confusion to anyone who dispose common sense and would be able to understand the infinite of mathematical sizes, or the infinite expanse of the sky space toward outside, is that since universe is infinite, everything is infinite and the worlds are infinite.

comment:
Α. The relation of time and infinite for Anaximander do not exist in the continuous and eternal expanse of time but in the contradictive nature of time.
     Presocratics believed that yesterday do not exist, tomorrow do not exist, only now exists. “Now” is the zero edge of the fading present between past and future.  So time continuously and eternally exists-not existing, being contradictive and that’s why it is infinite.
B.  The infinite as a result of the continuous division of mathematic sizes, is a typical and poor way to describe infinite.  Presocratics believed that dividing something, this by one hand is getting smaller but on the other hand is getting biger.  The rational and objective mathematic way leads to the conclusion that the more something is divided the smaller becomes and this to infinite.  The presocratic aspect about it, is that the more a specific size is divited, the parts of the divition become smaller but the specific object which is divided is getting bigger because of the empty spaces which are created by the division.  So tending the division to zero size, simultaneously tends to infinite.
    The mathematic division of Aristotle is typically objective, while the presocratic is contradictive.
C. The continuous alternation of birth and death of the events and things is the cause of infinite and not the infinite cause of the continuous alternation of their life and death.
D.  This is the most typical and poor way of understanding the infinite, something which has nothing to do with the presocratics.
      My opinion is that presocratics rather agree to the fifth comment about infinine, for which Aristotle wonders ironically:   E. since universe is infinite, everything is infinite and the worlds are infinite.
       Aristotle often undervalues presocratics as primordial simplifying their aspects. His four prepositions about infinite has nothing to do to the way Anaximander really accepts infinite.    Anaximander departing from his aspect about the “collapsing-composition” of things, nature and evolution, and his opinion that time is related and gets a meaning from the alternation of genesis and death of the specific things and situations of evolving systems, extends the contradictive nature of infinite to the ultimate units, which compose the universe.  Therefore infinite, according to him, is not simply an accumulation of things, but a generative evolving process that composes-collapsing by elementary unites which by their turn collapse-composing continuously and this way contain infinite dynamically and potentially. Infinite is simultaneously authority and element of things; so, it comprises everything as a whole and it is comprised by everything as an element. Therefore all elements and things are potentially infinite (because of their evolving nature).
    According to Anaximander, Heracleitos and Zeno, every specific material, thing or event, opens a dialogue which begins with itself, continuous to the dialogue with near by environment things after with the faraway things and finally with the universe itself, which is the Other, the opposite self that obliges the thing to change. The limits of a thing depart deeply inside from itself, without leaving any element or space inviolate, and travelling far away out of self to universe, once will return back to itself, changing it continuously and changing its limits.  Therefore every element, event or thing, having not absolute and specific limits, is in a continuous dialogue with universe and for that reason a dialogue with infinite, being infinite itself.
     For the presocratics the meanings of infinitesimal big and small coincide with the meaning of the Ether. That Ether has nothing to do with the neutral ether of the european scientists of the 19th century which had been rejected by the Michelson-Morley experiment; the Milisian Dynamic Ether was the Contradiction Itself, that is, the world's level of potentiallity. The contemporary physicists with the possible instantaneous interactions of underquantic elements, bring back the meaning of the Militian Dynamic Ether as a generative cause of elementary unites. (Infinite as “authority and element of the world”, as the “Contradiction itself” and simultaneously the “instantaneous and immobile, zero and infinite, all faces and none specific”).  The existence of that universal level of potentiallity, is somehow accepted by Heisenberg as the world's under quantic level.  Overmore the anaximanderian infinite is much more sophisticated from the aristotelian and the medival monasteries infinite but also from the current european philosophers and scientists.  The infinite of Anximander is not the "inpassable and without end", but the eternally and continuously simultaneous alternation of a beginning and finishing state.
    The ancient ancestors of our scientists, used to see the world from an opposite vew. According to them motion was not an attribute of things, but things were attributes of motion. That aspect was vanished by the intervantion of Aristotle who claimed that motion is an attribute of things and there is nothing, as motion and infinite to be a specific material. So after the acceptance of the aristotelian formal logic and objectivity in the medieval monasteries, the aspects of the presocratics were forgotten and put away as Pagan.

According to the dionisian worship, everything is mask over a mask, and the last one is that of Dionysos-Bacchos.  Behind that exists Mystis the nurser of Dionysos, the empty face, the presence into the absence, the dithyramb, the simultaneous passing by two opposite doors, “the door of genesis and the door of death”. That is the “Contradiction Nude”, the world's level of the potentiality.

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEITOS

Sextos for mathematicians VII 132.
1.  του δε λόγου του δ' εόντος, αεί αξύνετοι γίνονται άνθρωποι,
    και πρόσθεν ή ακούσαι και ακούσαντες το πρώτον
    γινομένων γαρ πάντων κατά τον λόγον τόνδε,
    απείροισιν εοίκασι πειρώμενοι και έπέων καί έργων τοιούτων,
    οκοίων εγώ διηγεύμαι κατά φύσιν διαιρέων έκαστον και φράζων όκως έχει.
    τους δ'ανθρώπους λανθάνει  οκόσα  εγερθέντες  ποιούσιν,
    όκωσπερ οκόσα είδοντες επιλανθάνονται.
Although Logos (contradictive speech, -dialectics-) exists always, people do not feel it, even if they have been informed about it; and though everything is done according to Logos, they seem to participate-not participating the way things exist and be spoken, which i analyse and name them as they exactly are. So people seem to sleep when they are awaken and to alert when they are sleeping.

Comment: Heracletos, guides us to the first steps of his logical path. Logos is Logic, Language and Essence, therefore it is innate to Being. (Essence can be perceived and be said only by Logos, which is the Dialectical Logic). However though Logos exists everywhere and human beings are conscious of its existence, they can not feel it;  like the fishes do not feel water and young people do not feel youth.      
     I am conscious of the changing process inside me, but i do not feel it, being present-absent.

Klemes  for stromateis V 116
34.   αξύνετοι ακούσαντες κωφοίσιν εοίκασι,
        φάτις αυτοίσιν μαρτυρεί παρεόντας απείναι.
People who listen to something but they do not feel it, look like deaf, being present-absent.

Comment: Though am absolutely convinsed that inside me exist cellules and atoms, i never feel them.

Marcus Antoninus,  IV 46
72.  ω μάλιστα διηνεκώς ομιλούσι, λόγω τούτω διαφέρονται, 
       και οις καθ' ημέραν εγκυρούσι, ταύτα αυτοίς ξένα φαίνεται.
Human beings commune immediately and continuously to Logos and because of that evolve changing; and though everyday confirm that, they do not feel it.

Comment:  All beings commune to Logos and since Logos as contradictive is the cause of their movement and modification; thus everything agreeing to Logos, differs from itself; (it confirms-refusing its identity, being contradictive).  Because all beings have Logos in common, being contradictive, they agree to that: they differ each-other, therefore they have their own particularity.

Plotin  Enneades IV 8,  1.
84.   μεταβάλλον αναπαύεται.
        κάματός εστι τοις αυτοίς μοχθείν και άρχεσθαι.
Movement and variation is the real state of things inactivity (their state of rest). So the effort to achieve immobility is the Action to dominate motion.

Comment:  Change is the simultaneous negation and affirmation of a situation.  The moving one either “Is-BeingNot” momentary in the same position or changing position, is different from itself. (Different but a similar one).  So the eternal motion of the world is its normal state of rest, since stability needs action and labor to be accomplished.
   “Change”, being innate to the nature of the world, needs “no change” to be accomplished, but the achievement of stability demands a “change”.

Hippolyte  IX 9
51. ου ξυνιάσιν όκως διαφερόμενον εαυτώ ομολογέει
      παλίντροπος αρμονίη, όκωσπερ τόξου και λύρης. 
People do not understand, that something differing agrees to itself;
this is an amphi-dromic (contradictive) harmony like in the "bow and lyre" functioning.

Comment: The Changing One agrees-disagreeing to itself, verifies-falshifying itself. This is the contradictive harmony, as the string organ and the bow does. The strings of the music organ give a separated sound and different notes, but the bow produces a harmonic confluence of all these. Therefore the contradictive harmony of particularity and unity is created.  Yet, we need a language to express this evolving situation of the world. This language is Logos, a logico-lingual contradictive syntax (dialectics).  Heracleitos speaks consciously this language, setting its terms and the first term is: . . “διαφερόμενον εαυτώ ομολογέει”. . . ."the differing one agrees to it self", (it verifies-falshifying itself). This is the dialectical logic principal of the "contradictive identity".

Stovaios  anthology  Ι   179.
114. ξύν νόω λέγοντας ισχυρίζεσθαι χρή τω ξυνώ πάντων,
       όκωσπερ νόμω πόλις  και πολύ ισχυροτέρως.
       τρέφονται γαρ πάντες οι ανθρώπειοι νόμοι υπό ενός του θείου.  
       κρατεί γαρ τοσούτον οκόσον εθέλει και εξαρκεί πάσι και πε­ριγίγνεται.
The logical people need Logos, which is common to everything, much more than the city needs the lows, because all lows are based on one which is divine. That has its own will;  it dominates and leads, being inside everything but simultaneously encloses containing them.

Comment:  We see Heracletos for Dialectics and as we will see Parmenides for Rationalism, first of all to present the legality of their logical terms, something we evade taking it as granted nowadays.   So many intellectuals choose one or the other logical process unconsciously, since “they cary it in the luggages” of their intellectual belongings. Whoever this could create antinomies surprising the unconscious user.
    Scientists, nowadays, believe that the world is in a continuous change, as well that the evolving process of nature is not phenomenal but real. Whoever because they cary in their small suitcase their formal logic, oppose to Logos, the common low of the divine nature.  Maybe they invested everything in formal logic, maybe they are more aristotelian than Aristotle or they maybe are so poor and that’s all they possess.  All these great scientists working inside their very precious laboratories and their accelerators, “have reached the turtle and as Achilles did, they cannot leave it behind” because they afraid that will make a “logical mistake”.  On the contrary to them their presocratic grand fathers, only with their logic, had reached to conclusions which still stimulate and fertlise our mind.  They have ready for us the Logic to approach the world and we only have to take it.

Sextos  VII  133.
2.    διό δει έπεσθαι τω, του λόγου δ'εόντος ξυνού,
       ζώουσιν οι πολλοί ως ιδίαν έχοντες φρόνησιν.
Because Logos is common and everything follows it, that is why everything has its own particularity.

Comment: The particularity of the individuals is logically legal, because it derives from Logos which is the common contradictive element of everything. Variation derives from contradiction, which is common attribute of everything.

Klemes stromateis V 116.
32.     εν το σοφόν μούνον λέγεσθαι, ουκ εθέλει και εθέλει ζηνός όνομα.
This One, which is the wisdom, wants and not wants to be named "god".

Comment:
a. This one, Logos, which is wisdom, can only be spoken this way and do not care if it is named god or not.
b. Logos, which is wisdom, is spoken contradictively and do not have the conscience of its divinity.
c. Logos, God and Nature is a unity, that coincides in the contradictive speech, the dialectical logic. 

If there is a god, only this way could exist and although everything is born from this one, being contained from, it also contains that.  This One (Logos) has no conscience of its divinity, just like human being who though participates to Logos, never has a feeling of that.
         Human being knows but do not feel, Nature feels but do not know.

 Klemes stromateis V 60.
30. κόσμον τόνδε τον αυτόν απάντων ούτε τις θεών ούτε ανθρώπων εποίησεν,
      αλλά ην και έστιν και έσται πυρ αείζωον, απτόμενον μέτρα και
      αποσβεννύμενον μέτρα.
This world which is the same for everyone, was not created by god or human;
it was, it is, and it will be, eternal fire burnιng up and down in balance.

Comment: World is a result of itself and because everything communes with that, it is the same for everyone;  therefore everything participates to Logos and human beings commune with Logic.
    The problem of objectivity and common logical approach to the world, is not new but the older one.     Always philosophical theories needed to legitimate the value of their logic principals.    The base upon Heracleitos established his theory is Logos, while Parmenides upon to Eon (the existing one). Eon and Logos look similar because both creators accepted that Existence (Είναι-Essence), Logic and Language coincide to that; they differ though to the meaning of their Logic and consequently to their lingual syntax.  Heracleitos accepts Nature to be contradictive, thus he accepts a contradictive Logico-lingual syntax in language;  on the contrary Parmenides do not to accept Nature to be contadictive but oppositive, so he proposes an ortho-rational Logico-lingual syntax in language.
     Plato, instead of Logos or Eon accepts the world of Ideas;  he proposes that human being to have valuable correlations for reliable comparative logical proceedures, should participate to the “world of ideas”.
     The world of Heracleitos was the eternal fire, lighting up and down in “Μέτρον” (meter, balance).   The word “Meter” is a loaded meaning, as much as Logos is.  The contradiction always presupposes a Meter for the contradictive elements the world or an event consists. The Meter is the specific character of a contradictive relation which composes occasionally a fading Identity; while communing to the eternal world evolution, this Identity is overpassed. This Metron (Meter) is the dynamic balance composing an Identity in a continuous variation; the identity Exists-NotExisting, being dithyrambic (passing through two opposite doors simultaneously ).

  Ploutarch,  about the Delphian "ΕΙ"  388 Ε 
90.  πυρός τε ανταμοιβή τα πάντα και πυρ απάντων,
       όκωσπερ χρυσού χρήματα  και χρημάτων χρυσός.
Everything transforms to fire and fire to everything, as gold to merchandises and merchandises to gold.

Comment: Logos, Metron, Contradiction, are essentialised to Fire.  Fire in its primordial form is the Energy of modern physics (this has been pointed also by Heizenberg).  Nowadays it’s commonly accepted that everything transforms to Energy and Energy to everything.   According to Einstein the Metron of  that transformation is ε=mc².   Dialectico accepts that the great quantitative accumulation gives a new quality;  we also know that all material objects emit-receiving energy in order to exist.  Energy and mass, do not have absolute separation limits. Nothing can exist by itself, everything correlates to something else. If something overpasses the relating Metron existing by Itself, disappears as Itself and reappears in another relation as Other-Different, expressed by another Metron.

Heracleitos allegories 24.
49a.  ποταμοίς τοις αυτοίς εμβαίνομέν τε και ουκ εμβαίνομεν, ειμέν τε και ουκ είμεν.
In the same river we enter and not enter, as we are and we are not.

Ploutarch  about the Delphian "ΕΙ" 392β.
91.  ποταμώ γαρ ουκ έστιν εμβήναι δις τω αυτώ,
       ουδέ της αυτής  ουσίας άψασθαι κατ'έξιν,
       αλλ'οξύτητι και τάχει μεταβολής,  σκίδνησι και πάλιν συνάγει
       και πρόσεισι και άπεισι (μάλλον δε ουδέ πάλιν ουδ'ύστερον, αλλ'άμα
       συνίσταται και απολείπει).
We neither enter in the same river twice, nor we touch the same material again, since everything changes rapidly and violently, collapses-composing, spreads-gathering (not again or after, but at the same time).

Comment: A perfect description of the contradictive identity; this also could give as an idea about the wave-particle existence or the energy emit-receiving of the objects or the field-object relation. The example of the river easily could be understood: the water passing by, makes the river continuously other;  for the solid materials though there is a question.
    Popper tries to explain: “the pots get rusted, the woods get rotten, the stones break to pieces, everything changes during the time passing; but Hercletos says “collapses-composing” and Plutarch points out: “at the same time”. Popper and Aristotle, simplify the prepositions of presocratics. Presocratics were much more sophisticated and complicated than they believed.   
    According to presocratic dialectics: All objects exist because other elements passing from a position compose them; these passing fundamental elements (the so called "pyridia" -elements of fire) could be accepted today as quanta of energy, since presocratics believed that “everything transforms to fire and fire to everything”, (considering as fire the energy and pyridia as quanda).

Hyppolyte IV 10.
59. γναφείω οδός ευθεία και σκολιή μία εστί και η αυτή. 
    (η του οργάνου του καλουμένου κοχλίου έν τω γναφείω περιστροφή
    ευθεία και σκολιή, άνω γαρ ομού και κύκλω περιέχεται).
In the turning lathe (spiral, way) rectilinear course, is a result of rotation (helicioid way).

Comment: If we combine this fragment with fragments 12, 91 and 103, will find out the way Heracleitos accepts motion: Objects or events consist by the passage of energy elementary units (fire elements, or “pyridia” as presocratics use to call them) in a specific position. These elements departing from the object position make a multi-dimensional journey to space returning back to the departure position. The course of the elements is considered multi-dimensional, because they depart-returning continuously after the verification contact with every other object they meet in their journey in universe. The composition of an object by this multi-dimensional process, consists of an unconstrained number of circular depart-returnings, from the position of departur to the position of the arrival (which is the opposite vew of the position of departure). Since the universe of Heracleitos is not closed but open and infinite, the course of the departure-returning elements do not accomplish a perfect cycle but a thick helicoid course; so every time the departing elements return, do not verify the object exactly in its former position but a little farther, composing this way the rectilinear course of the moving object. The motion of an object and the object are contradictive, because they are a collapsing-compositive result of the depart-returning elements and the contradictive way these elements verify-falsifying both object and position, during their composition. Motion this way coincides with the evolving process of beings.

Hegel claims that motion is contradictive because the moving one is not only here now and later somewhere else, but because the moving one is at the same time here and not here.  Heracleitos would answer to him that motion is not really a removal of an identical object from place to place, but an evolving process where the identity of the moving one collapses-composing, therefore it is different from position to position; so he would insist that the moving object being different in every different position, really neither deserves to move nor to have speed.

Aristotle, about the world  396b 7
10.  συνάψιες όλα και ουχ όλα ξυμφερόμενον διαφερόμενον
       συνάδον διάδον και εκ πάντων εν και εξ'ενός πάντα.:
"Everything Is-notBeing complex”, “composes-decomposing”, “agrees to itself disagreeing” simultaneously; plethora derives from the one and one from plethora.

Arios Didymos to Eusevius Ε. XV 20.
12.  ποταμοίσι τοίσιν αυτοίσιν εμβαίνουσιν έτερα και έτερα ύδατα επιρρεί
       και ψυχαί υπό των υγρών αναθυμιώνται.   
In the same river other waters enter and other come out; these are evaporated also.

Comment: An event is not only modified by the passing through of elements, but the elements are modified by the event also. (The inter-action principle of dialectical logic)

Porphyrios  X. 200
103. ξυνόν γαρ αρχή και πέρας (επί κύκλου περιφερίας).
[The beginning and the end is a common place (in the cycle periphery)].
Beginning and end is a common spot (in the cycle periphery).

Comment: This fragment reminds Parmenides: ξυνόν δε μοί έστιν οππόθεν άρξομαι τόθι γαρ πάλιν ήξομαι αύθις  (i believe that we return to the point we departed once).  Parmenides believes that world's evolution is finished and phenomenal, thus world is a closed system;  on the contrary to him Heracleitos accepts world as an open and infinite system. So the part of the fragment “in the cycle periphery”,  seems to be an explicative adaptation of Porphyrios. To my opinion this adaptation doesn’t match to the Heracleitian spirit. This should rather be: “every end is at the same time a beginning”; because everything being contradictive is dithyrambic, passing simultaneously two opposite doors (the door of death and the door of birth).

Hippolyte ΙΧ 9.
53.   πόλεμος πατήρ πάντων έστι.
Origenes against Kelsos  VI 42.
80.  ειδέναι δε χρή τον πόλεμον είναι ξυνόν και δίκην έριν
       και γινόμενα πάντα κατ'έριν και χρεώμενα.
War is the father of everything.   We must know that war is common everywere and Dike is Eris,
because everything is a result of quarell and necessity.

Comment: war exists every were, being the struggle of the opposites inside beings and overflows out of them in life when it is necessary.

Klemes  to stromateis  IV 16.
24.   αρηιφάτους θεοί τιμώσι και άνθρωποι.
Them who obey to the orders of Ares, honour gods and humans

Comment: Ares (Mars), in very old times, was a dying god going down to "katagogia" (to the bowels of earth) fighting to bring again the Spring to "epiphaneia" (to the surface of earth). Ares "orders" consider by Heracleitos to be the fight for evolution.

Ploutarch  symposioum problems Γ644F.
96.    νέκυες γαρ κοπρίων εκβλητότεροι.
[Dead are of less worth than excrements].
Klemes stromateis  50.
132.   τιμαί θεοίς και ανθρώπους καταδουλούνται.
[Honours enslave peoples and gods]
Gnomologion Vatican 743
25.    μόροι γαρ μέζονες, μέζονας μοίρας λαγχάνουσι.

[The more dead they are, the greater honours they enjoy].

Comment: The tradition to honour everyone whose only characteristic is to be dead, has no meaning; on the contrary the dead heroes must be honoured by following their example.
    Formal and Typical process though, is suitable to them who “the more dead they are, the more honourable should be”.

Hippolyte  ΙΧ 10.
62.    αθάνατοι θνητοί, θνητοί αθάνατοι, ζώντες τον εκείνων θάνατον
         τον δ'εκείνων βίον τεθνεώτες.
We are mortal-immortals, we live our death and we die our life.

Comment: We are in a state of collapsing-composition. We live-dying in every of our moment.  That is the contradiction of the existence (the Dithyramb).

Ploutarch about superstitions 166C.
89.  τοις εγρηγορόσιν, ένα και κοινόν κόσμον είναι,
       των δε κοιμωμένων έκαστος εις ίδιον αποστρέφεσθαι.
The awaken participate to the common world of all people, the sleeping one turns to his own world.

Comment: Literally that is so; but deeper, awaken people are the clever ones, who participate in the social and political proceedings. More clever though, are the people who perceive the world by means of Logos.

 Hippolyte  elegchos ΙΧ 9.
50.   ουκ εμού αλλά του λόγου ακούσαντας ομολογείν σοφόν εστιν εν πάντα είναι.
According to Logos, we must agree that everything coincides to a unity.

Comment: Unity is not an accoumulation of objects but the interacting and evolving Whole as Essence.

Diogenes Laertian,  ΙΧ 1.
41.     εν το σοφόν, επίστασθαι γνώμην, οτέη εκυβέρνησεν πάντα δια πάντων
Wisdom is to understand Logos. The one which rules everything through all the others.

Comment: The One is accomplished by plethora and plethora by one. One and plethora being in a continuous dialogue and inter-change, compose a Unity (whole). This One is Logos, the eternally evolving motion, (the contradictive mechanism of existence).   It rules everything through the others.

[The Eόν (the Existing One) of Parmenides, oppositely to his claims, cannot exist as a whole. This is the composition of the immortal elements, light and darkness, whose limits being inviolable, are complementary to each-other. There is an antinomy there: although Parmenides vanishes “Not-Being” from rational and correct thinking, the darkness which is the not existence of light (No-Light), continues to exist as Something inviolable.    According to the Heracleitian Logos, darkness and light compose a contradictive unity, in which opposites extend each-other, not leaving any inviolable limits in-between them. On the contrary Parmenides believed that the dialogue of the opposites does not violate their ultimate limits; this way the evolving process as it was conceived by him, was oppositive and therefore phenomenal. That means, since the terms of the evolutional game have been set, all its combinations representing its final limits, are there since the beginning, waiting to be played. For that reason the phenomenal process must always be finished and no one to be able to say, if its terms or its limits are before or after. So the limits could be named “prototypes of the end”. This way another antinomy of rationalism rises in the mater of “time consequence”. The prototypes compose a closed system, being a sum of many ideal ultimate elements, returning by a way to the Ideas of Plato.  The Ideas being eternal, never begin or end, being simultaneously a departure and destination and because they have this nature, exist altogether, without time and space consequence.
    Ideas as elements of logic, being the Things-Theirselfs of the rational logical process, are not objective the way determinism needs badly, but they act antinomic. That was revealed in Plato's dialogue “Parmenides”. It seems that except of Parmenides himself in his poem “About Nature”, no one else of the ancient philosophers, accepted rationalism as infallible logical instrument but it was accepted as a conventional one]. 

Diogenes Laertian IX 1
40.  πολυμαθίη νόον έχειν ου διδάσκει.
       ισίοδον γαρ αν εδίδαξε και πυθαγόρην αυτίς τε και ξενοφάνεά τε και εκαταίον.
Polymathia, (erudition-scholastic learning), can teach no one. Because it would have taught Isiodos, Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Ecataeos.

Diogenes Laertian  VIII 6
129.  πυθαγόρης μνησιάρχου ιστορίην ήσκησεν ανθρώπων μάλιστα πάντων
         και  εκλεξάμενος ταύτας τας συγγραφάς εποιήσατο εαυτού σοφίην
         πολυμαθίην κακοτεχνίην.
[Pythagoras studing hard, gathered and learned almost everything other people wrote, succeeding “polymathia” and “kakotechnia”].

Comment: "Polymathia" is rejected by Heracletos, because it is the knowledge ethos of accepting the world to consisted of many eternal positive ideal or material elements. This presupposes a closed, finished and phenomenal world, which cannot give birth to the New and this is the reason of “kakotechnia” (gives bad birth-dead birth).  It leads properly around the past but concerning the new it is a bad adviser.
     As we noticed before any system that consists of absolute and unchangeable elements, is closed;  that’s why its function produces a specific number of predetermined games which will be repeated for ever, being “kako-technia” (bad-birth).

Ploutarch to Kolotis 1118C.
101.     εδιζησάμην εμεωυτόν.
I look into myself, i analyse myself.

Comment: The word “εδιζησάμην” (i searched) derives from the word “Δίζως”.  Δίζως was the god Παν (Pan), who was man and animal having double and contradictive nature.  So the most inside we ender to ourselves, the farther we travel outside to universe.
    The Identity for Heracleitos consists of contradictive elementary units fighting theirselves and each-other. According to the contradictive logic, an elementary unit tending to zero, simultaneously tends to infinite; that is why the deeper we enter inside our-selves the most away travel to universe.

Diogenes Laertian  IX 7
41.    ψυχής πείρατα ιών ουκ αν εξεύροιο πάσαν επιπορευόμενος οδόν ούτω βαθύν λογον έχει
The limits of human soul are so deeply inside, that we cannot find them.
(It is impossible to reach the depth of something which expands to infinite).

Comment: Human soul, for Heracleitos, is the Logos of “the great to the small”, of “zero to infinite”, of “immediate to immobile”. The great dives into the small and the small expands to the great. Human elements tending to zero simultaneously tend to infinite. The element dialectically is dithyrambic, passing two opposite doors at the same time.
    Psyche (human soul) for the presocratic thinkers, is the ultimate contradictive structure of every specific being; that includes a face of the whole from the point of view of a specific being. Soul tending to the ultimate small, simultaneously tends to infinite.  So nowadays, the human soul dialectically could be the DNA.

Ploutarch, Koriolanus 22
85.   θυμώ μάχεσθαι χαλεπόν, ο γάρ αν θέλη ψυχής ονείται.
It is very hard to fight against your desires, because they exchange everything with your soul.

Comment: It is hard to improve ourselves, because we must change our character, our soul, and “ψυχής πείρατα ιών ούκ αν εξεύροιο”, -we cannot find the limits of our soul.  To improve ourselves we must fight our hereditary mechanism, our DNA which is bottomless, but at the same time this is our main ally.

Stovaios, anthology I  178
115.   ψυχής έστι λόγος εαυτόν αύξων.
Our soul is the dynamic meter of self evolution.

Comment: Our soul can be improved only by itself and this can be accomplished by the dynamic balance of the inner and small to the faraway and big. This balance is the ultimate contradictive elementary mechanism of beings, which nowadays we call "DNA".  To my opinion only DNA could be named “soul”.

Lately there has been an announcement from the scientific community that DNA has been fully decoded. To my opinion this claim is very hurried, because the results of their research have been obtained by the oppositive and typical logic process, though DNA has a contradictive nature.  The oppositive process obeys to the "one-dimension chain of ratio", that is "from us to the other";  in real nature though the chain of ratio being contradictive is at least amphydromic and multy-dimensional, therefore it has no "bottom" for the accomplishment of a full and permanent decodification.  

Origenes against Kelsos VI 12
78.     Ήθος γαρ ανθρώπειον μεν ουκ έχει γνώμας, θείον δε έχει.
Human behaviour is unexpected, while divine is expected.

Comment: Man who created his gods, can expect their behaviour, but the human behaviour which is the result of the bottomless world's evolution, is unpredictable.

Hippolyte  IX 9 52.
52.     αιών παις έστι παίζων πεττεύων,  παιδός η βασιληίη.
Time is a child playing the “pessoi” game; That is the kingdom of the child.

Comment: “Pessoi” was a both luck and skill game. Men played it using strategy and logic, being outside and observing the game. The child plays with passion being inside the game.  Child stops to be itself but travels into the other (the game). The worth of game is that child overpasses itself being in another reality.
   The kingdom of the child is where time existes only Now. Time being only Now overpasses itself being contradictive: Past does not exist, Future also, only Present exists being the edge of the fading Now.  A nihil edge between past and future, being eternal in its nihility. This is the nude contradiction. Therefore world as a whole is always only Now and continuously Different. If everything differs a little, the whole world is in a continuous explosion of difference.

The Heracleitian contradictive approach for all events of nature, do not leave any doubt that he accepted a world in which the opposites are not in-depended each-other, but in a continuous interaction, as Time and Space does.  This is not an archaeolatric exaggeration. Anaximander claimed the time is related to the birth and death of beings and Zeno with his pardoxes, revealed the relativity of Space, Time, Motion and Beings.  He also proposed the relativity of small and great, immediate and immobile.  Relativity was not a revolutionary concept these days, but a concervative one.
    [Greeks of the prehistoric and archaic period, believed that world was born by the unity of Rea and Cronos.  Rea could mean the universal flow of the primordial life and Cronos could mean Chronos (Χρόνος, time, Ωρό-νος , sky, Ουρα-νός);  Therefore Cronos gives birth to the limits, the periods (the seasons), the Hours (Ώραι).  Cronos rotating gives Rea the meaning of space and their relation is the universal dance, which is the space-time existence, the contradictive relation of flow and rotation (rythm); these, as opposites, fighting eatch-other, give simultaneously birth (identity) to eatch-other. This unity-relation is Life itself (Zeus), who transformed the Space as Flow and the Time as Rythm, to Time as Duration and Space as Extension.

Diogenes the Laertian   ΙΧ 2
42.    τον τε όμηρον άξιον εκ των αγώνων έκβάλλεσθαι και ραπίζεσθαι και αρχίλοχον ομοίως.
Homer and Archilochos should be rejected from the triumphant of festivals.

Comment: Heracleitos loved poetry, because his aphorisms are at least poetic. His opposition to Homer and to Archilichos, was not esthetic but ideological: Heracleitos being Ionian and for this reson Pelasgian, was inspired by the tragic spirit.
     After the eruption of the Thera's volcano, the volcanic wave drown all the Pelasgic cities located by the sea. Then Achaeans, the mountaineer shepherds, came as conquerors of the devastation, imposed their semi-barbarity.  The homeric poems narrated their live.   Heracleitos believed that homeric stories, divinised violence, infamy and nonsense, so being the bible for the Greeks, was negative example to follow.
     Archilochos according to Heracleitos was arrogant, hubristic and immoral; he was a hired soldier. The shield for him was not sacred; the battle to him was not a sacrifice; it was not a sacred theatre; he was a butcher, a slaughterer.  The reason for the hired soldier to fight was money or loot.
     What impression would the verses of Archilochos have made to Heracleitos, about “the shield he threw away during a battle and he would find another better”. The battle for Heracleitos was a horrible but sacred action, like the sacrifice of the bull. The victim is sacred, the dead victim has been purified and deserve a decent burial. The winner is bloody, profane and to be purified he must fertilise the blood to civilisation. Moreover the verses of Archilochos where “he can lead dithyramb, the sweet song of Dionysos, fulminated to his head by wine”, were hubristic to the Bacchic spirit;
  ―A drunk butcher, leading priest of tragedy―.  For Heracleitos the drunkard was not ecstatic.

Ploutarch,  Coriolanos 38 86.
86.     απιστίη διαφυγγάνει μη γιγνώσκεσθαι.
Infidelity dissuade from ignorance.

doubt leads to knowledge

Klemes,  Stromateis III 24  
18.   εάν μη έλπηται ανέλπιστον ουκ εξευρήσει, ανεξερεύνητον εόν και άπορον.
Without hope, hopeless cannot be discovered

Hippolyte IX 38
55.   όσων όψις ακοή μάθησις, ταύτα εγώ προτιμέω.
I prefer as elements of knowledge these i listen and i see

I believe to the worth of experience.

Aristotle,  About senses 443a 23
7.  ει πάντα τα όντα καπνός γένοιτο, ρίνες αν διαγνοίεν.
If everything was made of smoke, we would investigate them by our nose.

Experience is not enough.

Polyvios  XII 27
101α. οφθαλμοί γαρ των ώτων ακριβέστεροι μάρτυρες.
Eyes are more accurate witnesses than ears.

I prefer these i see than these others tell me.

Sextos VII 126
107.  κακοί μάρτυρες ανθρώποισιν οφθαλμοί και ώτα βαρβάρους ψυχάς εχόντων.
The eyes and ears of them who have barbarus soul are not reliable (not good evidence).

Comment: Barbarity is not to know how to see and how to listen. Civilisation is the ability to approach and elaborate experience rationally. 
   Heracleitos believed, that experience must be evaluated by Logos.  Barbarians know very well to accept things as identical to themselves, but they do not know to approach the world by its differential and contradictive way. This kind of approach and analysis is far from barbarity.

Klemes to Stromateis V 60.
29.  αίρευνται γαρ εν αντί απάντων οι άριστοι, κλέος αέναον θνητόν,
       οι δε πολλοί κεκόρηνται όκωσπερ κτήνεα.
The best thinkers instead of searching for Many things, look for the One (Logos), which is the glamour of dying (fading) knowledge; but the majority of the people are satisfied as animals (to these they come to immediate contact).

Comment: Logos is eternally dying because its content changes continuously. It exists being Always Other.  Moreover, something being One, because of its continuous changing, seems at the same time to be Many.

Theofrastos,  Metaphysics 7a.
124.     ώσπερ σάρμα εική κεχυμένων ο κάλλιστος κόσμος.
The beautiful world looks like rubbish thrown here and there.

Comment: Hazard and necessity: Hazardous deeply inside has a hidden multi-dimensional reason very diffically traced;  so “the hidden harmony is better than the obvious one”,  but if someone has eyes of a barbarian, it is obvious that he cannot trace it.

Diogenes the Laertian  IX 73
47.    μη εική περί των μεγίστων συμβαλλώμεθα.
We must not deal thoughtlessly with the very great and important things

Let’s deal with the small and everyday things, because these contain dynamically and potentially the great.

Marcus Antoninus IV 46.
74.     ου δει ως παίδας τοκεώνων.
We must not follow blintly the steps of our familly ancestors.
(We must violate tradition accomplishing the New, regardless how dangerous it is).

Comment: Heracleitos is presented as a conservative oligarchic aristocrat.   In reality though, he was a revolutionary mind and true democrat.   He was in a critical position against “democrats” who demolish democracy in order to “save” it.  Oppositely to them, his friend Hermodoros who was sent to exile by these “democrats” as oligarchic, contacted laws for the democratic Rome.  Moreover, Heracleitos convinced the tyrant Melagonas to resign.  He also did not accept an invitation to visit Great King Dario.

Diogenes the Laertian IX 2
44.    μάχεσθαι χρή τον δήμον υπέρ του νόμου όκωσπερ τείχεος.
Citizens must fight for their lows us much us they fight for the city fortress (for social justice and for liberty).

Comment: Lows are abolished by the tyrants and oligarchy (aristocrats), the walls of the city by the Persians, who usually were allies with oligarchy.

Clemes to Stromateis V 116
33.    νόμος και βουλή πείθεσθαι ενός.
We must obey the law of the one (Logos)
(Logos is the contradictive Meter of every specific event)

Diogenes the Laertian  IX 1
43.    ύβριν χρή σβεννύναι μάλλον ή πυρκαϊήν.
It is more urgent to fight against hubris than conflagration of the city.

Comment: the arrogance of pseudo-democrats is more dangerous than conflagration. The result of fire can be overpassed by hard work, the result of political arrogance can be overpassed with blood, violence and unforgotten hate.

Clemes,  Stromateis III 14
20.     γενόμενοι, ζώειν εθέλουσι μόρους τ'έχειν μάλλον, δ'αναπαύεσθαι
          και παίδας καταλείπουσι μόρους γενέσθαι.
They are born and intend to live, but doing nothing receive death; and they give birth to children leading them in the same death process.

Stovaios, Anthology  IV 40
119.     ήθος ανθρώπω δαίμων.
God for every man is his own ethos (his character).

Comment: According to Heracleitos, god is neither the kind creator nor the zealot punisher;  he is the contradictive elements of nature, by which Metron composes the human character (human Logos).  This is the contradictive multidimensional recording of the evolving universe in human biological hereditary mechanism;   this mechanism, being contradictive, gives to any person the ability to have free will.  The choice to create his own character, being the god of every man.

Origenes against Celsos VI 12. 
12.     ανήρ νήπιος ήκουσε προς δαίμονος όκωσπερ παις προς ανδρός.
The immature man obeys to his daemon like the child obeys to man.

Comment: Heracletian Daemon, is the force of living nature inside the human being.  Man, in his birth, has that element uninfluenced by the social process, being his vital impulsion and cultivating this natural internal force integrates it to maturity and to ethos.

Hippolyte  IX 10
60.    οδός άνω κάτω μία και ωυτή.
Uphill road and downhill road is one and the same.
(the unity of the opposites).

Aristotle, meteorology  335 a 13
6.    ήλιος ου μόνον νέος εφ'ημέρη εστίν, 
       αλλ'αεί νέος συνεχώς, καθάπερ ηράκλειτός φησι.
The sun is not only everyday new but as Heracletos claimed, always new.

Comment: Xenophanes claimed that sun is every day new: “τον δε ήλιον, εκ μικρών πυριδίων αθροιζομένων γίνεσθαι, καθ'εκάστην ημέραν”.  [the sun is composed by small fire elements (pyridia, photons), gathering every morning].  On the contrary Heracleitos claimed that “the sun is always new”. This difference reveals a deeper opposition between them:  Xenophanes accepts evolution, but as phenomenal; according to him, deeply inside, the world do not change. It is composed by unchangeable, incognitable and unvocable (άρρητα) elements. These are the terms of a closed predetermined, finished, phenomenal objective and deterministic system. This way the Sun rising from chaos, is composed every day from these (πυρίδια) photons, being new but absolutely similar to the one before (because according to him world is absolutely repeated being a closed system).  On the contrary, Heracleitos belives that evolution is real and the sun always composes-collapsing, being a little different and this way in a different position always.

Themistios, Logoi  5 69
123.    φύσης κρύπτεσθαι φιλεί.
Nature likes to be hidden.
Hippolyte IX 9
54.     αρμονίη αφανής φανεράς κρείττων.
Hidden harmony is higher than the obvious one.

Comment:  World being multi-dimensional, has many levels of reality covered by the obvious surface;  yet, at the hidden bottomless part of the world, exists the contradictive harmony.
    Experimental criticism observes the world “by its barbarian eyes”, “as rubbish scattered hazardously hear and there”; the “beautiful world” of Heracleitos though "can be revealed only by Logos".

Ploutarch about Pythia PLUTARCH  397 . . . 404 D
92.     σίβυλλα δε μαινομένω στόματι αγέλαστα και ακαλλώπιστα και αμύριστα
          φθεγγομένη χιλίων ετών εξικνείται τη φωνή δια τον θεόν.
93.     ο άναξ, ου το μαντειόν εστι το εν δελφοίς, ούτε λέγει ούτε κρύπτει αλλά σημαίνει. 
Sibylla inelegant, carless in furious and frenzy mouth, vocalises the spells of the Delfian God in a sacred madness;  this speech being launched to the future for a thousand years, neither hides, nor reveals, but it means.

Comment: God is the Logos of nature, the Dionysian dithyramb; This is contradictive, therefore it steps simultaneously on both sides of thinking: negation and affirmation. Logos (the contradictive speech) travels 2500 years; its destination is quantomechanics.

Ploutarch 787C.
97.    κύνες γαρ καταβαΰζουσιν ων αν μη γινώσκωσι.
Dogs bark those, they do not know.
(Lao-Tsu:  Scholastics and sceptics listening a great truth shall laugh; if not, may be not a great truth.

Clemes Strommateis II 29
17.     ου γαρ φρονέουσι τοιαύτα πολλοί οκόσοι εγκυρεύσιν
          ουδέ μαθόντες γινώσκουσιν εαυτοίσι δε δοκέουσι.
People who search and think about philosophy should not learn but to use their own mind.

Comment: This work of mine has the ambition to fill a gap on logic, which tractati about Heracleitos have left behind. The majority of them do not differ eatch-other. As Heracleitos said in fragment 17: “there are not many researchers to think the way i propose; no one really knows something learning from others. Someone to know must use his own mind”.   “The students of the students reproduce the already known”.

Clemes,  Stromateis  II 24
19.    ακούσαι ουκ  επιστάμενοι ουδ'ειπείν.
Scholars (learners), really know nothing and have nothing to say.
(because the world changes rapidly and violently).

Knowledge and research is a dynamic process, a journey into the unknown. The unknown cannot be taught but must be discovered.

Clemes,  Protrepticos 34
15.   ει μη γαρ διονύσω πομπήν εποιούντο και ύμνεον άσμα, αιδοίοισιν 
        αναιδέστατ’είργαστ'αν. ωυτός δ' αΐδης και διόνυσος, ότεω μαίνονται και ληναΐζουσιν.
If this fallic ceremony was not for the sake of Dionysos, would be an inpudent behaviour;  Ades is Dionysos himself, for whom they are frenzy and proceed in their furious orgies.

Comment: Heracleitos points out the decay of the dionysian spirit at his days: the participants use to forget that “dithyramb” is the simultaneous passing through two opposite doors, the door of life and the door of death.  The worship of Dionysos-Bacchos, who is the spirit of life and fertilisation, is simultaneously the worship of Ades (death).
     Tragedy is the joyful-sorrow and the participants of Bacchic ceremonies foolishly transformed it to a joyful- happiness.  On the contrary to them, Dithyramb must point out the contradiction of the tragic event and to find the Metron of happiness and sorrow (the Logos).

                           Could Heracletos be "alive" nowadays?   

When Niels Bohr was named knight by the king of Denmark, to be honoured for his achievements in science, the symbol he chose for his escutcheon was the parmenidian and oriental one of the unity of the opposites.

                                                                                   
                          contraria complementa sunt (opposits are complementary)

According to the scientists who accept that quantomechanics give a sufficient description of the quantic situation, "the quantic objects do not have dynamic attributes before measurement, being in a state of potentiality"; the dynamic attrbutes of quantic objects are actualised during their measurement. Moreover these scientists claim that during the action of measurement, the instrument of measurement, the object to be measured and the observer, compose a quantic unity. They also claim, that all this process take place in an under-quantic world of potentiality relating to a superluminal speed and an indetermination behaviour during the experimental process.  Moreover, some scientists suspect the existence of some instantaneous interactions. For this reason, determinists consider quantomechanics, for the time being, to be inadequate for the description of quantic objects, believing that some hidden parameters are missing.
     Though Bohr was awared of the Einstein's indication that “quantic theory accepts silently the existence of instantaneous interactions”, proposed complementarity as a kind of evasion to the previous indication. 
     If there is some instantaneous process in quantic world, this world should be of a contradictive nature and not oppositive as complementarity indicates. Complementary and oppositive approach to the research, presuppose that deeply inside the existence, opposites should be really in-depended and the identity of the observed object to be absolute and not conventional; in this case interactions could be superluminal but not instantaneous. On the contrary the contradictive approach at this level of potentiality, accepts the existence of some instantaneous interactions and therefore "the opposites to inter-expend eachother, without leaving any margin of independence between them or the existence of absolute identity".
    We also see that in this field of scientific antagonism, the so called anti-determinists make a good effort,  to leave an open door for determinism to pass in the future. On the other hand, determinists overpass Einstein's objections, accepting underquantic superluminal interactions along with the hidden parameters, which are invisible because only quantic proceedings we are able to see. There are also some scientists extremely anti determinists moving violently to mysticism;  they believe that the limits of human logic are terminated there, and science must accept its weakness to explain completely the quantic events and consequently the world.
    As for the traditional determinism let us see what Einstein, who places himself by the side of determinism, has declared in the interview given to John S. Birek at 1930:  “our course is predetermined by components we do not control.  Especially by mysterious glands where nature does distill its authentic essence of life,  our inner secretions. . . .I am determinist and i do not believe the real existence of free willing...”
     The great scientist and humanist was parmenidian, aristotelian and cartesian; therefore according to him, the world should be closed, accomplished and predetermined.  N. Bohr does not accept determinism; his choice though of the complementarity symbol, as the ultimate shelter of truth, indicates an unconscious parmenidian conception; it is obvious that Bohr do not accept the contradictive nature of the world and therefore dialectics.
      Modern scientists have invest everything to the typical rationalism and formal logic being more aristotelian than Aristotle; they are not so revolutionary to reject their formal logic research system and accept dialectics.  That’s why Heracleitos has something new to say: "the world is of a contradictive nature", "motion is the essence and things are its attributes"; "Logos is the way world is and could be said"; "the principle of Identity is contradictive and self-overpassing"; "the principle of causality is amphi-coursial and the chain of ration infinitely dimensional". "Time, space and motion", "complete and vacant", "great and small" and "evolution", get other faces which need another logical approach: the Heracleitic Dialectics.

                PARMENIDES (515-440)  AND ZENO (490-430)

The limits of thinking are between parmenidian Rationalism and heracleitian Dialectics.  It is said that Zeno was friend, student and follower of Parmenides, that is why doxographs interpret his aspects under the terms the parmenidian logic and this way Zeno seems as a strange paradoxologist; since we see him though as a dialectical thinker, his paradoxal syndrome vanishes. Aristotle refers to him as the father of dialectics, but it is possible this would be a negative characterisation, of assimilation to sophistry.  In the present tractatus Zeno is considered as one of the great workers of dialectics, together with Anaximander and Heracleitos.  It is sure that all archaic physical philosophers were dialectic, but i distinguish those three, because they don’t make any session to formal rationality against dialectics.

Plato, in his dialogue “Parmenides”, presents him to be very different than the Permenides we discover in his ontological poem “About Nature”.  That is an enigma we will never be able to solve.  It is possible that Parmenides wrote this poem when he was young (that’s why the Muse called him “κούρον”-young man) and maybe later he changed his aspects. It is obvious that “Parmenides” Plato presents, has rather the aspects of Zeno, although doxographs present Zeno as follower of Parmenides. Maybe Plato did not present the characters of the persons he used in his dialogues absolutely as they were, but violated their personalities for his needs;  never the less the result of his work was rather magnificent.  Even Socrates is presented by Plato very differently from his other student and follower Xenophon.  It is also strange the fact that neither Plato nor Apristotle mentioned the Parmenidian offer to rationalism, formal logic and determinsm.
     I also believe that Zeno has been misunderstood by the doxographs, who consider him to be a follower of Parmenides.  To my opinion, Zeno’s prepositions were firstly against parmenidian aspects about “not existence of real motion”.  The doxographs being writers of very lower worth, they did not undestand the tractati of the genius thinkers and they simplified them (of love, hate or ignorance) for the use in their own writigs.

THE FRAGMENTS OF PARMENIDES

Fragment 1, στ. 24-32
   ω κούρ'αθανάτοισι συνάορος ηνιόχοισιν,
   ίπποις ταί σε φέρουσιν ικάνων ημέτερον δω,
   χαίρε, επεί ούτι σε μοίρα κακή προύπεμπε νέεσθαι
   τήνδ'οδόν (η γαρ από ανθρώπων εκτός πάτου εστίν),
   αλλά θέμις τε δίκη τε. χρεί δε σε πάντα πυθέσθαι
   ημέν αληθείης ευκυκλέος ατρεμές ήτορ
   ηδέ βροτών δόξας, ταις ούκ ένι πίστις άληθής.
   αλλ'έμπης και ταύτα μαθήσεαι, ώς δοκούντα
   χρην δοκίμως είναι δια παντός πάντα περώντα
Young man, brought by immortal charioteers  to my dome, be pleased, because it was not an ill fate to bring you here;  far from the footsteps of common people, along with the path of Themis and Dike (Legality and Justice, logic and ratio). It is necessary for you to know both ways of thinking; not only the way of the solid spirit of truth, but also the beliefs of the mortals, up on which no one can depend. You must also know about them, because you should be experienced of all the ways of thinking.

Fragment 2
   ει δ'άγ'εγώ ερέω, κομίσαι δε συ μύθον ακούσας,
   αίπερ οδοί μούναι διζήσιός* εισι νοήσαι,
   η μεν, όπως έστιν τε και ουκ έστι, μη είναι,
   πειθούς** έστι κέλευθος (αληθείη γαρ οπηδεί),***
   η δ'ως ουκ έστιν, τε και ως χρεών εστι, μη είναι,
   την δή τοι φράζω παναπευθέα έμμεν αταρπόν.
   ούτε γαρ αν γνοίης τε γε μη όν (ου γαρ ανυστόν)
   ούτε φράσαις.
Now pay attention to what a have to tell you: There are two contradictory ways of thinking and open to doubt.  The first one is that nothing can Be-NotBeing; this is the way of persuasion, out of where truth leaks away (it follows closely but is not the truth itself). The other way is the one of “Not-Being”; that way is obliged not to exist.  I strongly dissuade you from this path, because “Not-Being”, cannot be sensed, cannot be known and cannot be spoken.

LIDDELL AND SCOTT  dictionary
δίζω: i am in a state of doubt,  δίζημαι: i search, i look for
δίζησις: research, δίζως: the one having double nature
διζήσιος (my conclusion): the doubtful in research, the contradictive one
Πείθω: persuade, convince with deceptive wards, with supplication, corrupt with money
οπηδεί, οπή-δέω: οπή: hole, δέω: i am obliged (my conclusion): i am obliged to act according the existence of a hole,  to leak away through a hole,   to follow splitting away by a hole.

Comment: Up to the times of Parmenides, the “identity” of things was believed to be rather contradictive; everything was accepted in a dynamic way, at least by the Physiologists (the so called by Aristotle philosophers whose work was associated with nature).  They felt that objects and generally reality, would be events of a Universal Essence which was accepted as Motion Itself or Evolution of Nature.  They believed that everything exists in a continuous change and modification, being self-refuting and contradictive.
     Parmenides do not agree, thus by one hand eradicates Not-Being from thinking; so with one stroke of pen, he proposes the two principles of the rational critique thinking and of the formal logic.
A.  Nothing can Be-NotBeing (The logical principle of not-contradiction).
B.  Everything can only Be. (This preposition in relation to the first one gives the logical principle of identity). Everything, not associating with “Not-Being”, can only “Be” itself.

Fragment 3
   το γαρ αυτό νοείν εστίν τε και είναι.
Intellect (Logic) and Being coincide.

Comment: Since Thinking and Being coicides, nothing can escape from logic, so we are able to have infallible logical conclusions. (That reminds “cogito ergo sum” of Descart and “logical is the real and real is logical” of Hegel).

Fragment 4
   λεύσσε δ'ομώς απεόντα νόω παρεόντα βεβαίως.
   ου γαρ αποτμήξει το εόν του εόντος έχεσθαι
   ούτε σκιδνάμενον πάντη πάντως κατά κόσμον
   ούτε συνιστάμενον.
(Since Intellect and Being coincide)
we are able to enlighten by logic, from the present cituation, as well as an absent one;  because the Existing- One cannot be separated from any kind of existence (Intellect from Being), whether regarding world as a whole or as an accumulation of separate specific objects.

Comment:  He claimes that the logical principles he proposes for the deductive process (going from the known situation by logic to the unknown one), apply both to the whole and to the specific objects as well. Therefore according to Parmenides Rationalism is a reliable instrument for correct thinking.

Fragment 5
   ξυνόν δέ μοί εστι, οππόθεν άρξομαι τόθι γαρ πάλιν ίξομαι αύθις.
I believe that if we depart from a point, once we will return again there.
(According to Einstein:"if an object travels normally and strately in space, once will return in the position it has departed).

Comment: The world being accomplished and finished, is a closed system, therefore nothing can escape from thinking. (Intellect and Being coincide).

Fragment 6 verses 1-2
   χρη το λέγειν τε νοείν τ'εόν έμμαινε, έστι γαρ είναι, μηδέν ουκ έστιν,
   τα σ'εγώ φράζεσθαι άνωγα.
It’s necessary Speech, Thought and Being to coincide, because only Being exists, Not-Being does not exist;  This is how i advice you to think.

Fragment 6 verses 3-9
   πρώτης γαρ σ'αφ'οδού ταύτης διζήσιος <είργω>
   αυτάρ έπειτ'από της, ην δη βροτοί ειδότες ουδέν
   πλάττονται δίκρανοι, αμηχανίη γαρ εν αυτών στήθεσιν
   ιθύνει πλαγκτόν νόον. οι δε φορούνται
   κωφοί ομώς τυφλοί τε, τεθηπότες άκριτα φύλα
   οις το πέλειν*τε και ουκ είναι ταυτόν κ΄ου ταυτόν νενόμισται 
   πάντων δε παλίντροπος έστι κέλευθος
I disincline you from the first path of contradictive thinking, because mortals learned nothing from this one;  (he refers to the first of the two contradictive paths of thinking in fragment 2 verse 3)
they become indecisive, double minded, because perplexity in their chest deranges their mind. They behave as deaf, blind and lost with no judgement, because according to them, the comparative verification certainty "Has-NotHaving" any value, since they believe that everything has simultaneously an opposite way to exist.

Comment: Parmenides after the principles of identity and non-contradiction, proposes also the certainty of the comparative verification process.  According to him, only this way we could go reliably from a present and actual cituation to an absent and hypothetic, having valuable analytic deduction and synthetic induction.

Comparative process:
If A is similar to B and B similar to C, then A is Similar to C.    (Synthesis).
If A is similar to B and B is different to C, then  A is different to C.   (Analysis).

Fragment 7
   ου γαρ μήποτε τούτο δαμή, είναι μη εόντα,
   αλλά συ τησδ'αφ'οδού διζήσιος είργε νόημα,
   μηδέ σ'ήθος πολύπειρον οδόν κατά τήνδε βιάσθω
   νωμάν άσκοπον όμμα και ηχήεσαν ακουήν και γλώσσαν
   κρίναι δε λόγω πολύδηριν έλεγχον εξ  εμέθεν ρηθέντα.
(The word τούτο i translate as identity)
Because nothing can force “Identity” to “Be-NotBeing”; so you must be far from the contradictive path of thinking and not be lured by the habit and usual practice, but judge everything by the way i have taught you (the well tested logical way).

Fragment 8 verses 1-18
                                       μόνος δ'έτι μύθος οδοίο
     λείπεται ως έστιν.  ταύτη δ'επί σήματα έασι
     πολλά μάλα, ως αγένητον και ανώλεθρόν εστιν,
     ούλον, μουνογενές τε και ατρεμές ουδ'ατέλεστον,
5   ουδέ ποτ'ην ουδ'εσταί, επεί νύν εστιν ομού πάν εν συνεχές. 
     τίνα γαρ γένναν διζήσεαι αυτού;
     πη πόθεν αυξηθέν;  ούτ'εκ του μη εόντος άσσω
     φάσθαι σ'ουδέν νοείν. ου γαρ φατόν ουδέ νοητόν
     εστιν όπως ουκ έστι.  τί δ'αν μιν και χρέος ώρσεν 
10 ύστερον ή πρόσθεν του μηδενός αρξάμενον φυν;
     ούτως ή πάνπαν πελέναι χρεών εστιν ή ουχί
     ούτε ποτ'εκ μη εόντος εφήσει πίστιος ισχύς
     γίγνεσθαί τι πάρ'αυτό.  τού είνεκεν ούτε γίγνεσθαι
     ούτε όλλυσθαι ανήκε δίκη χαλάσασα πέδησιν            
15 άλλ'έχει. η δε κρίσις περί τούτων εν τωδ'έστιν.
     έστιν ή ουκ έστιν.  κέκριται δ'ουν ώσπερ ανάγκη
     των μεν εάν ανόητον ανώνυμον, ου γαρ αληθής
     έστιν οδός.  των δ'ώστε πέλειν και ετήτυμον* είναι.
The only way of thinking, we can speak about, remains the one of Being. There are many signs to talk about “Being”: “Being” can not be born or die, therefore it is immortal, unique, finished, motionless, never was or will be, because it is always Now, One continuous. What kind of birth could we seek in it?  from where to where could it move or expand?  Moreover no one indeed could understand or speak about Not Being, because it does not exist and does not be sensed. Nothing can force to exist something before or after Zero.  So either everything must coincide with the “Existing Whole” or with “Nothing”. Therefore from “Not-Being” we cannot expect nothing to be born;  so 'real evolution' or 'absolute wast away' (destruction), cannot exist, because logic demands it.  For this reason every judgement must lie within these limits: "Not-Being" or "Being". The first one is fault, anonymous, meaningless, not a path of thinking, and the other, is the correct one, the path of comparative certainty, because every similar belongs to a family group.

LIDDEL & SCOTT
*ετήτυμον είναι: To belong in the same family tomb
*πέλειν και ετήτυμον είναι: the similar belong in the same family group

Fragment 8 verses 35-4035
     ου γαρ άνευ του εόντος, εν ω πεφατισμένον εστίν,
     ευρήσεις το νοείν.  ουδέν γαρ ην, έστιν ή έσται
     άλλο παρέξ του εόντος, επεί το γε μοίρ'επέδησεν
     ούλον, κίνητον τ'έμεναι.  τω πάντ'όνομα έσται
     όσσα βροτοί κατέθεντο πεποιθότες είναι αληθή,
40 γίγνεσθαι τε και όλλυσθαι, είναι τε και ουχί,
     και τόπον αλλάσσειν δια τε χρόα φανόν αμείβειν.
     αυτάρ επεί πείρας πύματον, τετελεσμένον εστί
     πάντοθεν ευκύκλου σφαίρης εναλίγκιον όγκω
     μεσσόθεν ισοπαλές πάντη…..
You cannot find intellect elsewhere but in Being, because it is recorded there. Nothing else but “Being” existed, exists or will exist, because being is an immobile whole.  Everything else are names the mortals give to it, believing that evolving birth or destructive death process, “Being―NotBeing” and any kind of motion or modification really exists, since the 'Existing Reality' is finished, limited, absolutely spheric and fully balanced…

Fragment 8 verses 50-61
50  εν τω σοι παύω πιστόν λόγον ηδέ νόημα
      αμφίς αληθείης δόξας από τούδε βροτείας
      μάνθανε κόσμον, εμών επέων, απατηλόν, ακούων
      μορφάς γαρ κατέθετο δύο γνώμας ονομάζειν,
      την μίαν ου χρεών εστιν, εν ω πεπλανημένοι εισίν.
55  τ'άντια εκρίνατο δέμας και σήματ'έθεντο
      χωρίς επ'αλλήλων.  το μεν φλογός αιθέριον πυρ,
      ήπιον ον, μέγ'ελαφρόν,  εαυτώ πάντοσε τωυτόν,
      τω δ'ετέρω μη τωυτόν, ατάρ κακείνο κατ'αυτό
      ταντία, νύκτ'αδαή, πυκινόν δέμας εμβριθές τε.
60  τον σοι εγώ διάκοσμον εοικότα πάντα φατίζω,
      ως ου μη ποτέ τίς σε βροτών γνώμη παρελάση.
Now i will stop speaking you about the real meaning of truth, but i will speak about the mortal world of the ambiguous and doubtful truth: They believe that everything has two ways to exist, one is not enough for them; that exactly is where they are wrong.  They claim that opposites are united, while simultaneously, they set limits in-between them.  They believe that the ethereal flame of fire is always the same to itself and simultaneously different from itself. They consider everything to be against itself, thus they are in deep confusion and darkness.  I speak about the phenomenal world, the surface of cosmos, the decorative one, so you will never be deceived by the mortal thinking. . .

Comment: Parmenides objects consciously and clearly against the Heracleian dialectic-contradictive logic, setting other terms which reject the existence of “Not-Being”.  This way every contradictive concept which, “Is―Not Being”, containing “Not-Being”, is erroneous.

Fragment 9
    αυτάρ επεί πάντα φαός και νυξ, ονόμασται
    και τα κατά σφετέρας δυνάμεις επί τοισί τε και τοις,
    παν πλέον εστίν ομου φάεος και νυκτός αφάντου
    ίσων αμφοτέρων επεί ουδετέρω μετά μηδέν.
Since all things became of light and darkness and by their own force took different forms, everything remaining beyond these, is equally balanced of light and darkness ultimate elements, because vacant cannot exist.

Comment: According to Parmenides universe is closed and composed of light and darkness. Because of that and because “Not-Being” can not exist, vacant also cannot exist; there should be an absolute balance of equal light to equal darkness remaining.  If something of these could be more than the other, vacant space should exist and this way the door of zero (the vacant as nothing) opens to the existence and all his balanced system should collapse.

Fragment 1 verses 9-14
    ηλιάδες κούραι προλιπούσαι δώματα νυκτός
    εις φαός ωσάμεναι κράτων απο χερσί καλύπτρας.
    ένθα πύλαι νυκτός και ήματός εισι κελεύθων
    και σφας υπέρθυρον αμφίς έχει λάινος ουδός.
    αυταί δ'αθέριαι πλήνται μεγάλοισι θυρέτροις
    των δε δίκη πολύποινος έχει κληίδας αμοιβούς.
…I was brought there by the daughters of the Sun . . . . . . .
…in-front of a double door, where Dike (Ratio) holds a mutually suitable key; wherefrom the road of light and darkness departs and the synthesis of the world begins.

Comment: Parmenides claimed that he followed a new logical road: the rational one. As a beginning he accepted the self-evident, that “only the Being exists”. So any acceptance of Not-Being as existing, is the contradiction itself.  He proposed a way of thinking, that rejects Not-Being (not existing) in all its steps, considering contradiction, which is innate to evolution and everyday life, as phenomenal (not real).  According to him, the world should be accepted as a closed system, thus rationalism can be an infallible organ of intellect and this way nothing can escape from intellect and logic; therefore “Being”, “Intellect” and “Speech” should coincide. This way logic (avoiding the error of Not-Being) can give the reliable and accurate method of the comparative proceess. 
      We see, on one hand, rationalism and determinism to rise up, as a conscious practice and on the other hand, we see a conscious opposition to the heracleitian dialectics.

It was when the Greek world was coming out of tragic practice as a way of life, which by the Pythagorians considered to be barbarity.  It is known that Pythagoras and his followers, never consumed flesh; so they considered tragedy profane, since basic process of tragedy, was the slaughter of the bull, the flesh-eating, and in some cases the raw flesh eating.
     I believe that in this spot, rises the first opposition of Heracleitos to the Pythagorian spirit.  Heracleitos was conservative, fallowing the tradition of the tragic, the Bacchic Dionisian spirit. These times the Dionisian spirit, started to decline becoming a gathering of typolatric proceedings and superstitions (like these the Comparative Anthropology discerns in primitive societies nowadays).
    Heracleitos makes an effort for a tragic spirit redefinition; on the one hand fights against the Pythagorian novelty and on the other hand, against the inner decay of the tragic thinking.  He wants to give a scientific face to the tragic spirit, as a counter-weight answer to the rationalism of Pythagoras and Xenophanes.  It seems that his answer has an effect, so Parmenides takes the responsibility to counter-reply.
    To the possible opinion of Pythagoras about the existence of many ultimate elements (πολυμάθεια), Heracleitos proposes Logos; that is a contradictive elementary unite, which always changes Being-Other-Similar to Itself (this is approximately the same in surface, but it has an inner continuous variation, which overpassing a modification grade, changes even the surface). This One is big and small, one and many, zero and infinite, self-overpassing.  Parmenides cannot accept that. The One of Parmenides (the Eόν, the Existing one), is finished, motionless, unchangeable, indestructible, immortal, with no Past or Future, because it is always Now Present.  On one hand, there is the immortal world, where vacancy and Not-Being do not exists, thus it is motionless and eternal, obeying to the demands of rationalism.  On the other hand, there is the mortal world, the perishable, the phenomenal one. For this phenomenal world there is the oppositive dialectic logic, composed by the dynamic analytic and synthetic process of Rationalism.  This dialectics reject contradiction as untrue and the dialogue of its elements to reach till the limits of the opposites, but never violate them; this dialectic accepts the whole as complementary in regard to the opposites it contains. As we have noticed, the dialogue of the opposites, in heracleitian contradictive dialectics, violates their limits, interacting without living any space inviolable (the opposites expand inside each-other, without leaving any margin of independence between them, and traveling away to the universe, return back verifying, their dynamic contrariety).
    The Parmenidian conclusion about a closed universe has some relation with Einstein's opinion for “a moving straightly and normally object”, that “once it will return to the spot it departed”: οππόθεν άρξωμαι τόθι γαρ πάλιν ίξομαι αύθις. (To the place i depart, i will return once).

Logic and speech is recorded in Being; that’s why human being is the place where “Being”, “Intellect” and “Speech” coincide and since the human being has the Whole recorded inside its structure, it is able to understand and to know everything (human substance is a recorded knowledge). This way Parmenides opinion is related to Plato's Ideas; According to Plato we know because we commune to the Whole by the Ideas. According to the idealists, the World of the Ideas are the real existing world, which is the “Eόν” the “Being” of Parmenides. Parmenides is also related to Aristotle in rationalism and logic formality. We can also see his relationship to determinism and the Descart's emblematic extract : “cogito ergo sum”, (I think so I exist). “Intellect and Being coincide”. We could talk about the influence of Parmenides to Hegel. They are connected with the meaning of “Being-Itself” and the “phenomenal dialectic process of the Ideas” and at last we could also point out the relation of Parmenidian “a priori recording of logic and speech, in human being” with the Kantian “a priori knowledge potentiality” .
    So Plato with his Ideas follows the path of the “πεφατισμένον”, (the a priori inscripted, ―the recorded in the "Eόν", the “Existing-one”, the “Being”), the solid truth reflected to the mind. The Ideas of Plato are the terms and the ultimate limits of the accomplished games of the closed world, which Aristotle wants to revert. “The Ideas”, he said “do not exist before the world, but after, reflecting its process”; he also said “ everything has inside its “Εντελέχεια”, (the terms of its final perfection, being recorded in relation to its Tέλοs-final perfection)”.
    To my opinion, Εντελέχεια brings again back from the end (the result) to the begining of the game (the cause), the Ideas of Plato. It is known that in a closed and finished system, its terms which have been put at the begining of the process, presuppose the limits of the end of this game.  That is to say, since the terms of the closed system have been set, this system process will reproduce a specific series of its prerecorded games and a related number of these final games, which could be named “ultimate prototypes of the end”. In closed systems, the terms and the limits are a couple where the one presupposes the other. Yet there is nothing to forbit us, this “ultimate prototypes of the end” to name Ideas. If we accept the existence of Ideas we must also accept, that Ideas do not evolve, being eternal, therefore they do not really obey to any time coherance so they can be simultaneously at the beginning and at the end.
       There is an intellectual line departing from Pythagoras, goes to Xenophanes, to Parmenides, to Plato, to Aristotle, to Kant, to Hengel, to Heideger.... whose theories are complementary to eachother.

The logical man of 21century should see again the prepositions of Parmenides. There are many opinions we have accepted mechanically, not knowing their origin and their real meaning.  For example, Rationality as  an instrument of verification and production of infallible meditations, presupposes closed systems and finite universe.  Determinism should once and for all, reject infinite. As a mathematician notices: “Infinite is the ultimate shelter of insanity”.  We see many times thinkers to splash dabbling in between roads of thinking, which do not compromise eachother; this has as a result antinomies and impassable logical situations.

    THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO

Simplicius,  physics 140, 34
    εί μη έχοι μέγεθος το ον, ούδ'αν είη, ει δ'έστιν ανάγκη έκαστον μέγεθός τι
    έχειν και πάχος και απέχειν αυτού το έτερον από του ετέρου. και περί του
    προύχοντος ο αυτός λόγος.  και γαρ εκείνι έξει μέγεθος και προέξει αυτού τι
    όμοιον δη τούτον. απαξ τε ειπείν και αεί λέγειν. ουδέν γαρ αυτού τοιούτον 
    έσχατον έσται. ούτε έτερον προς έτερον ουκ  έσται. ούτως ει πολλά εστιν,
    ανάγκη αυτά μικρά τε είναι και μεγάλα. μικρά μεν ώστε μη έχειν μέγεθος,
    μεγάλα δε ώστε άπειρα είναι.
To exist something must have a size and a distance from an other; The same we could say about the space in between. I will say this once and for ever: it is impossible to exist an ultimate part of something or an ultimate part of space between two things; moreover nothing can exist by itself and regardless to any other. So if there are many things, it is necessary these to be simultaneously small and big; so small, to have no size, so big to have infinite size.

Comment: Zeno, in this fragment, with the relativity and contradictive unity of big and small, reveals a new unite which do not match with the Eon (existing-one) of Parmenides. As we referred to this mater before, the Eon of Parmenides has an oppositive nature, accepting the inviolable ultimate elements, of Light and Darkness. That could be separate in these ultimate parts, which cannot violate the limits in between them: "αυτάρ επειδή πάντα φαός και νυξ ονόμασται και κατά τας σφετέρας δυνάμεις επί τοίσι τε και τοις, παν πλέον εστίν ομού φάεος και νυκτός αφάντου ίσων αμφοτέρων, επεί ουδετέρω μετά μηδέν". (Everything was composed from light and darkness and by their own forces and hard struggle took their face; whatever finally remains of them , is equal light and darkness, because after them zero cannot exist).
     To my opinion, the meaning of this fragment is that darkness and light to intermix, should be in separated elements of an ultimate size (atoms of light and darkness). Xenophanes, the teacher of Parmenides, named these ultimate sizes quantities of light “pyridia”, which today we call them photons; Parmenides overmore proposed the existence of ultimate elements of darkness, which nowadays we call antiphotons. Along with them Empedocles, an other follower of Xenophanes, according to Aristotle, also accepted that light travels from the Sun to Earth as elementary luminal particls, but we don’t notice them because of their high speed: "Εμπεδοκλής φησιν αφικνείσθαι πρότερον το από του ηλίου φως εις το μεταξύ πριν προς την όψιν ή επί την γην"..…"Εμπεδοκλής έλεγεν απορρέον το φως σώμα ον εκ του φωτίζοντος σώματος γίνεσθαι πρώτον εν τω μεταξύ τόπω της γης και του ουρανού, είτα αφικνείσθαι προς εμάς, λανθάνει δε την τοιαύτην αυτού κίνησιν δια την ταχυτήτα".
    On the contrary, Zeno in his preposition, cleared out that he did not accept any ultimate part for any material or ultimate space between things, (being this way against the atomic aspect of Leukippos and Democritos). The unit of Zeno matches with the contradictive elementary unite, which is at the same time zero and infinite, instantaneous and motionless. That rather represents the ultimate material level of our world as potentiality and contradiction itself, (all forms and no one simultaneously).

Diogenes,  IV 72
    το κινούμενον ούτ'εν ω έστι τόπω κινείται ού τ' εν ω μη έστι.
The moving one, neither moves at the position it is, nor at the position it is not.

Comment:  Hegel declared that “the moving one, does not move because one moment is in one position and next moment in another position, but because this [Is-BeingNot] at the same time in the same position”, and he pointed out that “ motion is contradictive”.
      It seems that the contradiction of motion occupied the mind of many thinkers since antiquity;  that’s why Zeno spoke about "a moving one which does not move"!  It seems that some “Hegel” of his days, approaching the meaning of motion as contradictive, accepted motion as a contradiction of the removal.  Zeno puts the mater up on another base: motion for Zeno and for Heracleitos, coincides with the evolving process and inner variation, which is the genetic cause of beings. According to them (accepting the collapsing-composition of Beings), Motion is the Evolving Essence of which all things or events are attributes. So the moving object, from position A to position B, is an Other object similar to the former one. Therefore motion according to them is not the Removal of an unchanged Identity from position to position, but the evolution process of a changing substance.  An object, according to Zeno and Heracleitos, being in a collapsing-composition process and destructing-construction, is similar to itself but always an other, so it does not deserve to move up to space, but to move inside itself (for that reason "the moving one" do not really deserve to have speed also).

 Simplicius,  physics 562, 3.
    ει έστιν τόπος, έν τινι έσται, παν γαρ ον έν τινι. το δ'έν τινι και εν τόπω έσται
    άρα και ο τόπος εν τόπω και τούτο επ'άπειρον.
If space exists, it exists somewhere, because everything exists somewhere; this “somewhere” exists in a place, therefore it is a place into a place and all this infinitely.

Comment A: The infinite sequence of the place into a place gives the idea of an abstract wave-space meaning, which to be specific needs a description and termination of limits. These limits to be determined we should give their responding repetition frequency, which is its related time.
     This is not an archaiolatric exageration, but according to Heracleitos and Zeno, is a consequence of the collapsing-composition contradictive mechanism of nature and beings (which we have described speaking about Heracleitos).  In the presocratic collapsing-composition process of Beings and objects existence, Time, and Space are inseparable coinciding with Being. [The Space, the Time and the specific Being (object or thing), compose a unity]. Nowadays having in mine the collapsing-composition contradictive state of an Essence, we could realise that Time is the repetition frequence of the heracleitian fire elements and Space is their wave length of these elements dispersion.

Comment B: In the previous chapters we presumed, that Zeno accepted the heracleitian opinion that “time as duration cannot exist, because everything is in a collapsing-composition state, being continuously Other”.  We also see that Zeno doubts our certainty for the space as expanse and as a supporting base, up on which the moving process of objects occurs.  According to them, an object really moves only in the related space contained inside the evolving limits of itself, being contradictive because continuously changes.
      In the fragment about space (Simplicius about physics 562,3) Zeno claimed that an absolute space only as infinite could exist. Yet, as he proposed at the fragment (Simplicius physics 140, 34) about the existence of an ultimate part of every object or being, this should be simultaneously zero and infinite.   Therefore the infinite as Space is simultaneously of zero size being contradictive.

Comment C: Interpreting the fragments of Simplicius (physics 140, 34) and Diogenes ( IV 72) referring to Zeno, we realise that by dividing a specific size of an object, of time or space, we have as a result a relativity of “One and Many”, “Small and Great”, “Continuity and Separation”, “Zero and Infinite”.  This relativity coincides with the contradictive ultimate level of the world, (the level of potentiality), proposed by Zeno. 
     In the fragment (physics 562, 3) where Simplicius refers to Zeno’s aspect about Space, Zeno instead of dividing something, follows the opposite process of adding: he expands the specific and finite space to an infinite one, by adding more and more spaces to a place. This way, a specific and finite space situation, reveals its relativity to the infinite and simultaneously zero contradictive space, because tending to infinite simultaneously tends to zero.  

Comment D: The heracleitian and zenonian collapsing-composition aspect leads to the Time and Space relativity from a different point of view, as space and time being only "Now".  Yesterday doesn’t exist,  Tomorrow doesn’t exist,  only Now exists Always but Always being Other. “Now” is the zero edge of the fading present. In this situation, the smaller time duration responds to a greater space expanse and oppositly. "Now" is always (infinitly) a fading to zero edge.  There Time tending to zero, responds to the whole as a Space. If time gets a specific face, being the time of a specific material process, then its related space taking specific face also is represented by the specific and finite limmits.  Time and space in the previous situation are related and inseparable each-other in their Essence unity.
    Overmore, addition and deduction, multiplication and division, in the dialectical process of these philosophers cannot be separated eachother, being always related: everything getting smaller, gets bigger by another way at the same time. Everything, by the division tending to zero, tends simultaneously to infinite (dividing something in smaller parts this is getting biger because of the more spaces in between).
    If we summerize all these we have talk about, having in mind the way these thinkers had conceived the evolution of the world process, we should come to that conclusion: world exists by two opposite ways, which do not refute, but integrate each-other:
    a. World always exists as a specific object, being unique; everyone of these specific objects is inter-determined with all the other specific objects of the world, which are its limits. This inter-determination is accomplished in a “quantitative interaction relating scale” beginning from the “interaction” of the specific object with itself, passing to the interaction with the near by objects, gradually to interactions with objects of the farther environment and at the end to the universe itself, which is the eternally other-self*, that forces the specific one to be always other.  So the specific object is itself an infinite event, since we cannot absolutely determine, were its limits begin and were they end, being the result of the world evolving process.  This way presocratics believed that any specific object, being in a collapsing-composition state, is potentially infinite.
    The specific one, characterized as small, has a continuous dialogue to its surrounding objects of environment, so by receiving something from all the others and giving something to them, participates also this way to the great, the infinite.
    *The specific and small by the collapsing-compositive process, emits-receiving messages to and from universe. Every specific object as a solid form structure, responds to its specific not solid and wavy structure, which is the universe from "the point of view" of the specific object or being. 
     b. The world exists as the universality of all these inter-determinations, being simultaneously unique and different always.  If we accept that everything changes continuously, the whole is always a continuous explosion of changing.  This infinite universality, exists always as Other, being the contradiction itself.
         The world is determined by two infinite ways:  The first one is the great (mega), having all characters and no character at the same time (being the potentiality and contradiction itself).   The second one is the small (micro), as Zeno has determined that: this is the contradictive elementary unite, which is the simultaneously “instantaneous and immobile”, “zero and infinite”. ( Determined by Anaximander as “the ruler and element of beings”).  This way mega and micro compose a contradictive elementary unite in which mega dives into micro, being the cause of its existence, and micro expands far away to mega (universe), being its cause also;  so this unity composes-collapsing, expands-contracting.
   This universallity is an instant-infinite continuity of all separate specific interterminations, being at the same time their integration to a new and higher specification of Motion as Essence (the Evolution as Essence).   These thinkers consider Μotion to be the Εssence and objects to be its specific characteristics or attributes. Objects are a result of the motional contexture, that involves in the object and forcing this to be always different (another). So the event, as an identity, can not move because it composes-collapsing, being this way always and continuously other.
      Aristotle with one stroke of the pen reversed this presocratic concept about motion:  Physics  200b31- 201α3.  Tο γαρ κινητικόν,  κινητικόν του κινητού και το κινητόν,  κινητόν υπό του κινητικού.  ουκ έστι δε κίνησις παρά τα πράγματα, μεταβάλλει γαρ αεί το μεταβάλλον ή κατ’ουσίαν ή κατά ποσόν ή κατά ποιόν ή κατά τόπον, κοινόν δ’επί ουδέν έστι λαβείν ως φαμέν,…….. ώστ’ουδέ μεταβολή ουθενός έσται παρά τα ειρημένα, μηδενός γε παρά τα ειρημένα.
[The mobil one is moved by the motul and the motul moves the mobil, there is not any other kind of motion related to the objects. The modifier, modifies always the modified in essanse, in forme, in quantity, or in position; so no motion or modification can exist out of these we have spoken about].

Now let’s see again motion the way Heracleιtos did: All objects of the world are events like the river, but instead to be accomplished by the water flowing, they are accomplished by “fire” elementary units (pyridia) passing inside the events;  these elementary units, departing from an event, travel to universe and returning from universe make the event to be in a “compose-collapsing”, “spread-gathering”, “depart-arriving”, “Being-NotBeing” state, simultaneously.  That can be logicaly realised by the following way: According to the Heracleitian fragment 59 (Hyppolyte IV 10) “the strait course is a result of rotation, like it is done in the turning lathe instrument”. “Pyridia”, as they named the photons or the quanta of energy, passing by the position of an event, depart to universe, returning simultaneously from that; this way they accomplish the event in the specific position.   Since the universe of Zeno, Anaximander and Heracleitos “Is-BeingNot” infinite, the departure-returning of the traveling elements is neither a vanishing corse to infinite, nor a perfect closed circular course, but an thick helicoid one. Therefore they verify-faulsifying their former position composing the event a little farther to onother position.  Yet every elementary unit (pyridion), is in a collapsing-compositive state by other under-elementry units, verifying-faulsifying their position moving this way rectilinerly and normally, and so on infinitly. So the removal of a “pyridion” (photon-quantum of energy), is a result of an internal motional under-elementary unit contexture, coinciding with its evolving process.
    The (quandic) particls of Heracleitos, are followed by a wave of infinite complexity of flowing-antiflowing under-events, which also compose-decomposing-depart-arriving, by their own way of complexity, giving to us the idea of the dynamic field.  The micro-particles, according to the opinion of Heracleitos, look like dynes (vortexes) of emition-receiving quanta of energy (Aείζωον πύρ); these exist-moving or move-existing.
    Suppose that a pyridion, in the state of rest, moves straightly and normally in the speed of light, (300.000 kilometers a second). The under-events, that compose-collapsing that pyridion (photon), cover at the same time, uncoceivable greater distances to coincide with the course of the pyridion; consequently, the related continuation, of the under-events (under-level elements), which responds to the consequence of their collapsing-composition, expands to infinite.
   The quantum of energy “according to the opinion” of these thinkers, reacts with universe by unconstrained ways, so that it is not only the universe that gives birth to quantum, but at the same time, quantum returs its depth playing a generative role, giving birth to the universe. Universe dives into the quantum, while quantum simultaneously expandes to universe.
     The event sends messages verifying universe and universe also sends messages verifying the event in respond. These messages compose scales of departure-returning, beginning from the message of the event to itself, continuously there are messages responding to the environment near by, after to the farther one and finally to the universe, which is the opposite self.  The message responding to itself never departs because it is the one that responds at the same time to universe (to infinite) which never returns, (the “infinite and nihil” the “instantaneous and immobile”, the potential ultimate level of the world, proposed by Zeno). --For more information about this “contradictive unit and the evolving process” which could follow this preposition, the reader could be informed in my work “Logic Action and Language” published by Dodoni at 1994 or to thodoroskavasis.blogspot.com

                                                THE PARADOXES
Zeno proposed four paradoxes of motion:
   A. An arrow to reach the target, must firstly reach the half distance from the bow to the target, but before it must reach the half of the distance it has already covered (the half of the half) and fallowing this process infinitely, the arrow should be stopped.
   B. An arrow to reach the target, must firstly reach the half distance from the bow to the target, after that, must reach the half of the rest distance (the half of the half), and this process infinitely. So the arrow never reaches the target.
   C. The arrow launches to hit a moving target. Whenever the arrow reachs the spot the target was, this target has always moved a little farther and this process infinitely. So the arrow never reaches the moving target.

These three paradoxes reveal the antinomies of the objective rationalism and the formal logic concept, about motion, space and time. I believe, these have been proposed by Zeno as an argument against the aspects of his friend Parmenides.  Moreover, he intended to point out “time and space relativity”, the “identity principle ancertainty” and the way motion should be accepted. To my opinion, his paradoxal prepositions can only be explained by a heracleitian logic approach:  If Beings exist in a collapsing-composition evolving process state, the meaning of time and space, cannot be conceived by the objective rationality and common sense, as it has been formed by the Parmenidian,  the Aristotelian and nowadays by the Newtonian objectivity.
     Zeno indicates that the meanings of time and space and therefore motion and speed, in the "field of a contradictive world", should be reconsidered.  Time should neither be anymore the abstruct meaning of Duration Itself (as Ideal) nor the duration of an object in space; and space should neither be the meaning of the Expanse Itself (as Idial) nor as the expanse of an object in space. The Zenonian and the Heracleitian preposition matches more to relativity and quantic view of existence.  According to them, during the "collapse-compositive" process of the elementary unites, which compose a physical system, Time is the repetition frequency of the under-events elementary units, which passing from the event, accomplish it;  and Space is the length of the under-events wave consist of. 
      From this point of view, Zeno's imaginary arrow being in a state of collapsing-composition, is a quantic event consisting of the flow-antiflow of its under elementary units passing by process in a position, which always changes.  Since this “flow-antiflow” relation of the "collapsing-composition" state of the arrow, represents the Time as “frequency” and the Space as its "wave length" relation; this relation could be accepted as a time-space event. Yet the moving arrow being in the collapsing-compositive state, do not deserve to move as itself and to have a speed of its own, because it is always Other (it is continuously a different identity).

Now let’s see differently how this paradoxal arrow would imaginary accomplish its meeting with the target:
      a. According to the second paradox the arrow launches from the bow to a target in space. Due to the continuous division of the remaining course of the moving arrow infinitely in the middle, this accelerates-retarding. The arrow retards overpassing continuously smaller parts of distance, so to maintan its speed should accelerate. At the moment the distance of arrow from target tendes to zero, the length of the arrow tendes to infinite and the distance from the bow to the target tends to zero (because the bow, the arrow and the target compose a unity). This exact moment the unity of space-time relation, becomes immobil and instantaneous; and the unity of the bow, the arrow and the target compose a cituation where could occur the following relations: For the bow to touch the target with the arrow,  either the arrow becomes of infinite size and the distance between arrow and target becomes of zero size, or the parts of the arrow become of infinite number and the length of every part of the arrow of zero size. In this case we either have infinite wave length and zero frequency or we have zero wave length and infinite frequency (that is a view of the contradictive element of Zeno).  During the arrow course, its collapsing-composition relation, forms as “more wave length and less frequency” or opositely, “more frequency and less wave length”.
     b.  Suppose again that the arrow is launched tending to a target in space.
The “intention” of the arrow is to be in a straight and normal course to the target; the divitions of its course in the midle though, imaginary deviates the arrow from its course to the target due to space rotation. The arrow to catch up the deviations must accelerate, but though its course straightens up, always looses something, not being able to accomplish the absolute straightness.  In order the arrow to hit the target, its speed should be instantaneous and at this very moment is simultaneously immobile.  (At the instantaneus motion, the moving one exists simultaneously at the position of the departure and the potition of the arrival. Overmore the moving one has been expanded to infinite being simultaneously to zero).
      c. Now let’s see this matter differently: the arrow tendes to the target, but due to the rotation of space, deviates from its course;  this as a result of the curvedness of its course, will be forced to accomblish many cycles of departure-arrival and after a along time, it will return at the position it departed.  That will have the fallowing results:
     1. If universe is a closed system, the arrow integrating its “cycle ”verifyies it self from its opposite side.  From this point of view, the target is its opposite self. 
     2. If universe is an open system, the arrow returnes once at the position it departed but never exactly there, it verifyies-falsifying the target which is the opposite self of the arrow.  This way the arrow to verify exactly the target (its opposite self), should make unconstrained departing-arrivals and in every arrival it touches the target differently, so the verification of the self-target, departing from the minimum one, passes by all the grades of verification-falsification, ending to the greatest one, which is the greatest verification and the smallest falsification.  The arrow at the point of smallest verification has not departed yet, being just itself, while at the greatest verification the arrow verifies the target absolutely, but in an other position, (so it falsifyies it absolutely).  Both absolute verification and absolute falsfication compose a unity tending to the infinite and zero relation.

Finally, the arrow departs-returning, making an thick  helicoid course of unconstrained “junctions” of verifying-falsifications and once it will meat the target; then the bow, the arrow and the target, will be a contradictive unity.  The speed of the arrow will be instantaneous and immobile and the size of the arrow will be infinite and zero at the same time (one infinite or infinite zero sizes).
    This is the motion of an specific object in a fully diveloped collapsing-compositive evolution process, the way Anaximander, Heracletos and  Zeno could immaginary inspire us;  According to these thinkers, the changing position of objects is a result of the wave and frequency relation of their collapsing-composition function.  Their compactness is fluind, being in a continuous division of small parts which in the moment of the crash, are of zero and infinite size at the same time. This way, we come back to Zenos principal, about the ultimate unit which tending to zero parts, becomes simultaneous of zero and infinite size.
    Only this way an object keeping its identity could really accomplish motion from an A to B point, otherelse the object moving from point A arriving to point B being of an other identity, it never accomplishes this course.

    D. It is said that the forth paradox of Zeno has been brought to us in confusion.
 I will use the Aristotle’s evidence in Phys. Z 9 239 b 33: περί των σταδίω κινουμένων εξ εναντίας  ίσων όγκων παρ'ίσους, των μεν από του τέλους του σταδίου των δε από του μέσου ίσω τάχει εν ω συμβαίνειν, οίεται ίσον είναι χρόνον τω διπλασίω των ήμισυν.
“When objects of the same size move oppositely in a stadium, some departing from the end and directing to the starting point of the stadium and others departing from the middle of the stadium directing to the end, though they move with the same speed, (Zeno claimed) these moving oppositly objects cover double distance than the others at the same time”.

Comment A. The object directing from the finish to the starting point of the stadium, has to cover double distance than the object directing from the midle to the finish.  If these two objects move the way it was indicated at the second paradox of motion, (the “infinited in the midle division of their course”), they will reach to the end of their course, almost at the same time, having always a very small difference (tending to zero), which will be fading as the bodies tend to reach in their destination. (This difference continuously fading, but always exists, is an early walking on the infinitasimal calculus).

Comment B. Now let’s change a little this mental experiment, and put the one object to be directed from the start of the stadium to the finish and the other from the midle of the stadium to the finish, in the same line and having the same speed and same direction.  Following again the cutting in the middle of the course process, (as in the second paradox), the objects reach to their destination almost together (with a small fading diference tensing to zero, as the objects approach to their destination); though they have the same speed, the second object has covered all the distance inbetween them pushing the first one to the finish.

Comment C. Let’s see now the motion of the one object, measuring its course from the beginning A of  its size and simultaneously measuring its course from its end B:    Following the same ”cutting in the middle” process of motion and measuring the distance of the object from point A to the finish, and at the same time from point B to the finish, the more the body reaches its destination, the smaller the object becomes. The –A to B– distance of the size of the object, gets smaller because the points A and B tend to reach to the finish together (for the reason we have pointed previously).
    This paradoxe has been proposed by the contemporary science differently:  Lorenze prouved mathematically that the moving object modifies its length toward its direction; something which was an element relativity theory has stepped on to be constructed.

Comment D. Let’s compose all these procedings together: The arrow according to the first paradox “intends” to depart for the target but it cannot do so, returnung back at the same time; so instead of going infrond it rotats around it self.  According to the second paradox, the arrow departs moving straightly and normally, but due to the space rotation, its course deviates being curve. Therefore its straight course has been curve.  And according to the last paradox, its length gets smaller to the direction and during its motion. It is so that composing these three procedings we have a moving straightly and normally object, whose course is curve, having a spin and its length sortains toward its motion direction; this also accelerates-retarding and at the very moment of crashing to its target, it is zero and infinite, immobile and instantaneous. 

[The “fiction” i made to the forth paradox, is not arbitrary; due to the different evidences of the this paradox, in which we see, sizes of bodies, spaces and directions, to be pointed out with sometimes no evident purpose;  I get a rational opportunity to play with the size, the time, the space and the speed using the spirit of Zeno]

              THE  TRAIN OF EINSTEIN AND THE ARROW OF ZENO

The train of Einstein is an imaginary train that moves up on a rail-way of many million miles; its speed is very near to the speed of light. The clocks of the stations and the watches of the pasanger and his friend, waiting for him at the station, have been adjusted at the same time. When the train arrives, the wacth of the passenger will be behind from the watch of his friend. The length of the moving train according to the people in the station, will be shorter than the length of the train according to the passengers;  the doors of the train arriving to the station, according to the passagers, open simultaneously but according to the people in the station, open with a retarding consequence each-other.
      Einstein’s train of and Zeno’s arrow, have some things in common. This train cannot overpass the speed of light, because approaching it, on the one hand slows down on the other accelerates, and just the moment it accomplishes this speed, it stops because its mass is infinite. This reminds the cutting of the Zeno’s arrow course infinitely in the middle. This arrow thought it moves straightly and normally, because of the cutting of its course in the middle, should accelarate to straighten the deviation cuts of its course; so approaching the target it retards because of the cut in the middle infinitely and tending to reache the target, it will stop (as we have pointed out before, it will be of istantaneous speed and immobility).
    Einstein would claim that these paradoxes happen because the speed of light is not over-passable, while Zeno would claim that all paradoxes happen because motion really is not the way we understand.  According to Zeno, motion occurs inside the evolving object which being in collapsing-composition process is always of another identity similar to itself (so it does not really deserve to move or to have speed, the way we accept).
      Zeno would say that the paradoxa of relativity, appearing in the train of Einstein, would never exist if we realised that neither this we call speed really does exist, nor this we call time.  At the mental experiment of the Einstein’s train, Zeno’s concept would be this way: Objects, events and beings taking place in this train, are collapsing-compositions of different evolving process, which we crowed them together illegally in the same mental place, though they belong elsewhere.  We place quantic collapsing-compositve events in the objectivity and the formal rationality game, though they belongs in a contradictive-dialectic logical discipline. Thus we place the quantic events in the space and time of newtonian objectivity, although they belong to an other level. These collapsing-compositive events, being continuously different (other), do not possess an identity to have Time-duration or to occur in the Space of objevtivity; the duration and expanse of these events could operate in the phenomenal frame of determinism, but when the situation is boundary, as in the speed of light, paradoxal situations appear. According to the collapsing-compositive state of the contradictive nature of world and things, a photon cannot have speed, because, although it is similar to itself, cannot keep its identity, being continuously another event. 
    The system of light could be rationalised differently: Everything that takes place in the train mental experiment of Einstein, is not an object anymore, but a luminal-motion-contexture-event (a quantic one).  This exists in an other level of nature, being under the world of the objectivity. There the Essence is a wave function, time is the frequency and space is wave length.  Everything in this world, are relations of quantic wave functions.  Einstein put in the newtonian reality the meaning of time as a duration together with the meaning of frequency, in the same mental and lingual game thought they belong to another one. (If the reader considers the way Heracletos and Zeno perceive motion, will agree that my previous aspect is not excessive).

Proclos,  Plato “Parmenides” 127d,   694,  23
ει πολλά τα όντα το αυτό ον όμοιόν εστι και ανόμοιον,
If there is plethora of beings any being is similar and not similar to itself.

The mental content of this claim could be seen in the dialogue of Plato “Parmenides”:  Plato presents there young Socrates to argue with Zeno for the content of this claim. Zeno challenges Parmenides to develop the concept and the mental dimensions this claim could take.
    Plato, in this dialogue, presents Parmenides to reveals the antinomies of formal rationalism, arguing against his own aspects about Ideas.  Plato in this work as a Greek, presents the legality of the opposite, as an antipode to his opinions for an integrated approach to the "art of thinging".  This Platonic fictional dialogue turns even against the opinions of Parmenides himself, expressed in his poem “About Nature”.  So the prepositions of this work would rather be objections of Zeno, against the parmenidian rationalism proposed in his poem “About Nature” and friendly to heracleitian dialectics.
    The parmenidian “unoscillated soul of the solid truth” of formal rationallity, which we refered in the chapters about the opposition of Parmenides to the heracleitian contradictive logic, was not at all the same with the zenonian contradictive elementery unite.  Plato in this homonymus dialogue presents Parmenides to revoke his own prepositions about thinking and to pass to the opposite side.  It also is possible, this platonic dialogue to be the starting point of the hegelian logic. It is possible the relation of the hegelian logic to the heracleitian dialectics, rather to be accidental.

All this argument came to us fragmentally and it would be buried, if the europian scholars would not rise it up again from its grave.  Maybe, the arguments of modern philosophers, seem to be different than these of antiquenty but only the phraseology changes; finally they returne to the same inquires.  Modern rational thinking, has been based on the “previous” parmenidian rationalism and the aristotelian formal logic, looking for positive supports to go forward, without “if and mayby”, “Being and Not-Being”.  This was not bad at all;  we were accustomed to specific and concrete results from the scientific activity, while determinsm was considered to be the science itself.  At the area of micro and macro though, rationalism and determinism undergo and suffer; these cannot describe adequately the quantic reality.  Formal logic, the so necessary one, for measurements and the comparative process in this area where identity of the objects to themselfs suffers or abolish, cannot operate because everything “Is itself, Being simultaneously Other”, “they are similar and not similar to themselves at the same time”.

Heracletos, as Sibylla, “χιλίων ετών εξικνείται τη φωνή”, he launches his voice for thousand years to the future. There have passed 2500 years but his voice has not reach to its destination. Nowadays “we neither know to listen nor to speak” and “everyone has turned to his own world”, despising the Logos of Heracletos;  the heracletian Dialectic Logic.

                                                     LOGOS

Thought we have refered adequately to the meaning of Logos, we should see this matter again because it is very loaded:  Essence, according to Parmenides, being innate to thinking and logic is recorded in any being.  Thus Parmenides and Heracleitos agree that universal unity coicides to Logos and therefore Logos is Essence, Meaning and Speech at the same time; though they typically agree to that, they differ in the way of accepting these three meanings. 
    According to Parmenides, logic and speach being inscribed to the human being, gives him the ability by thinking and logic to know, to have intuition, imagination and make valid meditations and to have a common field of valid mental communication. Because everything is inscripted in human being, everything could be perceived by mention and logic and be described by speech.  This also is the reson that human being could commune with the whole, the Eόν (the really and eternally existing one) which is finite and not evolving. So according to Parmenides, though we see the world changing, deeply inside it is stable. To him the evolving and contradictive world we see, is phenomenal; therefore to think correctly, that is to be able by thinking to reach the truth, we must reject from logic “NotBeing” and any contradictive element, because contradiction as “Being-NotBeing” contains the error of NotBeing also. So it is nessecary to use in our thinking only the “Being” and every contradictive meaning that apears in logic, should be rejected. This way parmenidian rationalism is oppositive permitting a dialogue of elements which do not violate their limits, accepting objectivity and existance of ultimate immortal and unchangeable elements. On the contrary Heracleitos accepts that evolution is the essence itself, that logic should be the contradictive Dialectics and speech should coincide with Logos.   Logos for Heracleitos firstly is the contradictive speech coinciding to the contradictive logic and to the contradictive evolving Nature. Thus Logos is itself simultaneously Evolving Essence, Speech and Logic.
     Xenophanes said that everything in its very depth is incomprehensible; that is to say, world consists of a plethora of inconceivable elements, which are Άρρητα (ineffable); these are the “things themselves”, the ultimate identities and finally the Ideas.  Xenophanes and Parmenides, accept that world is spherical and perfectly causative (out of hasard). On the contrary Heracleitos do not accept the existance of the άρρητα; according to him, whatever exists is “Essance-Logos-dialectics” expressed as a contradictive speech.  Everything real, should find a way to be and be said contradictively (as Logos is).
     The acceptance of Many unchangable and ultimate elements or Ideas, raises continuously unanswered inquires and antinomies. The language of the eternal principles can not say the world as it is. That’s why Hercleitos point out “that he sais everything as they really are”. The problem of what language is the most suitable to say the world as it is, has occupied intensely the philosophical and scientific cycles from antiquenty till today as ideological and philosophical movements, from Kant to Xegel and to Marx, from Hume to Russel to Wittgenstein and to Carnap etc. This discussion began  from Heracletos and Parmenides and it seems that it will continue, as long as determinism will be abolished by quantomechanics, which looks out for a new logico-lingual syntax to speak the world from the quantic point of vew.
      My opinion is that mathematics have not been discovered for practical but for ontologico-philosophical reasons. Human beings felt the necessity to find divine languages and to pronounce the divine speech; languages which would be the world itself.  Inquiries as “what is the language of truth”, “the value of logic and experience”, which modern philosophy presents as a new, are the most primordial.
      The conscious logico-mathematic rational language, was organiged up on the presupposition of many principles existance (πολυμάθεια) and the conscious rational logic of Xenophanes and Parmenides.   This language to be spoken should include a series of inviolable terms (the principles), which have not enought underground of logical covering.  The effort of posetivists to create a language, which would rejects metaphysics from meditation, being based on determinism cannot avoid but to walk arownd the steps of Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Parmenides, but cannot really reject the ontological metphysics of the basic principles of that logic. These will always have a small lack of reliability, when the shadow of very small, very bic and infinite falls up on them. Their basic presupposition is to occur in closed systems, thus in a finished universe, something all rationalists after centuries of rational use have forgot about.  They accept evolution but abolish it unconsciusly, accepting determinism.
   Logos of Heracletos do not need to answer to that kind of inquires, but only to say how this language possibly exists.  Dialectics is the dithyrambic language and appears as the contradictive concernment of science.
      Pythagorian world, according to Heracleitos, is the one of “many eternal ultimate elements”, while his own is the world of the one evolving process, as really nature exists;  Parmenides is placed in between;  he wants the world of unity, accepting the logic of pletitude; he confuses us.  The Parmenidian Eόν, is the really existing, the “Absolutely Being” and in consequence to that, the “Not-Being” by definition cannot exist.  According to Parmenides, logic to be able to lead to truth, has the duty to step only upon the “Being”.   According to him, the contradictive logic of “Being-Not Being”, deals with the mortal world, the phenomenal one.   Zeno probably raised his objections to the opinions of his teacher Parmenides, since Zeno’s “existing-one” was not at all Aτρεμές (unscillated) and finite, but contradictive. The reference of Plato to the opinions of Parmenides in his homonymous dialogue, rather matches to the opinions of Zeno; Plato would be awared of that, but maybe Zeno, “the student”, had convinced his teacher Parmenides for the opposite.     When Parmenides wrote his poem “About Nature”, he was young, since Muse “called” him in that poem “κούρος” (young man).

We will never certainly know, what happened in the magic journey of the presocratic thinking, because whatever remained to us is dust and fragments from burned libraries.
         Christians “saved” the world from the “Grecian blasphemy” of infidelity:
“απιστίη διαφυγγάνει μη γιγνώσκεσθαι”  (Unbelief and doubt dissuades from ingnorance).                                                                                                          
Faith generates fanatism;  Determinism generates the unflexible thinking;  Mysticism steps on faith and rational formallity; the mysticist climbs skilfully the lather of rationalism, accepting a series of principles, as any formal rational system does;  when he reaches at the hight of his arrogance, throws the lather away and forgets about it, not needing this any more.

The triptych of rationalism, fanatism, that is to say “the absolute truth” and mysticism, open the road to absolute-despotism, which is barbarity. Doubt generates research, dialectic logic and democracy of the equal participation of civilians.
      Dialectics, doubt and democracy is the civilization and all together is the spirit of tragedy; that is the simultaneous passing from two opposite doors, the door of birth and the door of death.