From Plato’s 7th Letter:
But thus much I can certainly declare concerning all these writers, or prospective writers, who claim to know the subjects which I seriously study, whether as hearers of mine or of other teachers, or from their own discoveries; it is impossible, in my judgement at least, that these men should understand anything about this subject. There does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith. For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself. (341c-d)
Note the first sentence - he is talking about you Nick.
The second sentence should be sufficient to tell you that all that is found in Plato’s writings should not be taken as representative of his true thoughts on the matter. If the realm of the intelligible you imagine you know something about were his thesis it would not be right there for all to see. The same goes for the Forms, the Good, and whatever else one finds.
As to the spark in the third sentence, I checked three different translations and none of them supported the statement that the spark moves from one person to another. Instead Plato makes use of the common metaphor of something coming to light. There is no spark of knowledge transmitted from one person to another. As I said in a previous post, philosophy is a matter of what one sees not what one is told or transmitted by another.
Simone Weil provides a good description …
I asked you about Plato, you talk about Weil.
It is the vertical psychological movement from fragmentation in the direction of wholeness reconciling fragmentation.
Once again, if you are advocating a Platonic education it should at least be based on Plato.
The goal of Platonic education should be to unite truth and meaning.
Where does Plato say anything about uniting truth and meaning?
Again he doesn’t say it, he invites you to realize it.
And how does he invite you to realize it if he says nothing about it?
For example in the chariot analogy can we truly be human if the lower parts of our collective souls are like the corrupted dark horse? There is no connection between the white horse and the dark horse.
The chariot analogy is not about becoming human, it is about being human. No where does Plato talk about becoming human. Of course there is a connection, they represent different aspects of the soul. The are connected via the charioteer who controls them.
He provides a useful chart so a person can understand this intellectual process.
Are you referring to the diagram of the divided line? Interestingly, his version in horizontal, many others that are available are vertical. It is not about a process. Did you even read the sections from the Republic on this that I posted?
Do you deny the relationship between dianoia and noesis as described:
Noesis: Higher Reason; direct apprehension or intuition of moral, logical, relational, or religious first principles
Dianoia: discursive thought; ratiocination; lower reason
This is a misrepresentation. Are you not reading what I write or do you just not understand it? Noesis is not higher reason. Reason, from the Latin ratio, relates one thing to another. Direct apprehension or intuition is not a reasoning process. This is why you cannot think (dianoia) your way to noesis. This is why he uses the analogy of a springboard and freedom from hypothesis. This is why Plato uses the analogy of turning around and seeing.
You seem to believe there is nothing higher than dianoia. Is that true?
I know that I do not have the kind of knowledge Plato talks about, that you do not have that knowledge, and that Socrates says he does not either. You want to have it both ways, claiming that you are ignorant but also making claims about things you cannot know because you are ignorant. Hence ignorance of your ignorance.
To ascend in the direction of meaning cannot be limited to the dialectic.
You can believe what you want and find meaning in whatever you find to be meaningful, but if you are talking about Platonic education, they you must pay attention to what Plato says. As I quoted above:
… only the dialectical way of inquiry proceeds in this direction.
This direction is toward knowledge. Whatever meaning you ascribe to ascend in the direction of meaning, you are no longer talking about Plato. There is nothing wrong with that except that you attempt to lend authority to your own claims by trying to attribute them to Plato.
In his dialogues Plato presents three methods of ascent to the Good (see Plotinus, Enneads 1.3). In the Republic there is the ascent of dialectic. In the Symposium, there is the famous ascent by Love of Beauty. The Phaedrus, especially in the Chariot Allegory, describes the ascent by Moral Virtue (harmonia).
Once again, if you would like to discuss any of the dialogues I am willing to do so, but it must be based on reading the whole of the dialogue. That is something you have not done. I suspect that you have not read any of the dialogues, just second and third hand accounts and passages taken out of context. Taking things out of context is a fundamental mistake in reading Plato. In fact the Phaedrus discusses this in detail.
Those interested in this question of the divided line and how it relates to education are entering uncharted territory.
This is not uncharted territory, there is an extensive literature on this. You evidently do not understand you so you attempt to mystify it.
Teaching the practice of conscious attention in order to have the experience of reality is considered indoctrination in the progressive world.
The education of the children in the Republic was limited to the select few and consisted of music and gymnastics. There is no discussion in the Republic or in any of the dialogues of the "practice of conscious attention".
What you call a Platonic education is not something that is found in Plato. You simply attach Plato's name to it. When asked for supporting evidence for you claims from the dialogues you move away from them.