Para~graph Three!

Endo-terror~cism?

aka Academics ?

The point?  The esoterics of Strauss maybe the Socratics of Plato, or exoterics of Neitzsche.

Ctrl F (academic:~:academics)
:::  aka [a. FOOTNOTE JUNE 2013 PAGE TWO, b. The Daily Counter Balance , c.(J) In the begining... , (D)BoC, e. Belated Breaking News! , f. THE COUNCIL OF NICE , h. Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto") , i.(G).]
:::   ? [a. Looking Back , b. "if I were dictator" , c. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! , d. Bane(Or) Change , e. Conservative Foray (4A) ,  f. Blame to go around? , g. Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams., h. Academic Freedom , i. Framing Narratives , j. In the begining... , k. Technical Difficulties , l. The Thorn and the Lyin' , m. Running Joke , n. Let me finish? , o. We are at the table. , p.Forward (Ironically)  ]
(what the fudge?  f-j,p?)
:::   Endo-suffix?

The project  ?   The dance? 
"Esotericism is the practice, widely employed by a variety of thinkers prior to and up through the early Enlightenment, of disguising their real meaning through ellipsis, surface contradiction, dispersal of their real arguments, and the like (indeed—they were misleading casual readers about their true intentions!). The understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made use of esotericism was central to Strauss’s own project of returning to their thought as an antidote to what he called the “crisis of modernity”, since it pointed to deeper truths hidden behind the evident meaning extracted by superficial readers. It was probably also one of the sources of distrust of Strauss and his followers by other academics, since it implied that initiates into the art of esoteric interpretation had access to meanings unavailable to others." Francis Fukuyama.
Or Ecto~tonics of Aristotle?  Less than Ionic that paranormal came up in  English [?]
P.4,The Prince misquote? P.5 "undermine dogmatism" bingo~? P.6 Nietzsche Recurrance
"That latter struggle was ultimately won, and led to the triumph of the “harmonist” view, now almost universally accepted, that philosophical truth could be made compatible with and indeed supportive of modern politics. Transparency is today the name of that venerable game. Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had a different view; namely, that philosophical skepticism undermined the irrational beliefs necessary to the maintenance of a political community and therefore needed to be kept under wraps. As Melzer points out, there is a large body of contemporary scholarship that actively contends that virtually no one other than a few cranks ever wrote esoterically; he performs a great service by, first, showing that the claim is empirically wrong, and second, that it is itself an historically contingent interpretation." (ibid.)
 
2-25-15 2 ~ B Kantinued ;-) R I P ? [!]
(1) a. Who Let the Dogs Out?, b. The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government., c. ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, (d.) The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. Doxology.
(2)~
(3)  The Be All and End All?

Pen~ta-gone? i.e. P5
"This section of the book is wonderfully erudite and leaves no uncertainty that esotericism was indeed a major art that is now all but lost. Melzer points to four reasons for past uses of esotericism. First, it served as protection from prosecution; he notes its widespread use in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China. Second, it served to protect the political community from dangerous truths, such as philosophical skepticism about the city’s gods and traditions; third, it served a pedagogical purpose by forcing readers to engage on a deeper level; and fourth, it was used as a transitional strategy for modern writers seeking to undermine dogmatism." (ibid)
P6?  At this Platonic # I will note Aristotle's place in the Nietzschean struggle.  
Hence Fukuyama is a difficult read of Strauss and Plato who are difficult reads.

P7? "If Philosophy Between the Lines were simply a book..." (where P = par.) I might plow on[!]
@9   "Strauss’s central concern was what he called the 'crisis of modernity', where the project of using philosophical reason for practical purposes was in danger of collapse."
@12 "The recovery of the rationalist project was central to Strauss’s life work—"
Having now fully read it, I will let you decide.

Confession: No pun intended.

 In regards to the Tetrahedron of Everything, I may need to give credit to Ken Wilber.  While I was not aware of it at the time, and I had recovered it base on earlier work of mine(i.e. a reading of Plato’s Republic), I may need to give him credit for it.  Even to the point of unconsciously stealing it lock, stock and barrel.  Alternatively it is a case of synchronicity* but it turns out, he had a late night radio program from 1973 to 1982 about such “new age” matters.  This coincides with a period I worked mostly graveyard shifts and had access to a radio.  I recovered this not only through Plato other fields of study.  Only thanks to a  question to Meta AI did I discover that he had the same disciplines on the vertices of the tetrahedron.  They are Physics, Psychology, Philosophy and Politics.  HOWEVER: while this has not been run through AI even for cleanup, in a quick search I could not find the sources for what AI had given me on another device.    

A more comprehensive search (who came up with the Tetrahedron of Everything Physics, Psychology, Philosophy and Politics.) does not find what I have on my other device either.  But it does remind me to credit Buckminster Fuller who I saw speak at our high school in the early 70’s. Then there is Milo Wolfe who I can not place on the timeline of this process.  More credit to be processed.

https://youtu.be/bc5V_YXvGC8   This has not been viewed yet, but shows four people I have studied.  Three of them in one class.  “Marx, Nietzsche, Freud” and Einstein an early publication.  Sometime in the early 70’s I read the book, Man and his Symbols by Joseph Campbell, with a forward by Carl Jung.

* Update: I have found that Wilbur had not mentioned it until his book in 1995. Which I did not read or have.

5-9-26  However Arthur Youg mentioned a Tetrahedron of Will in 1976>

Mises...

in the corner ?

Caution: I have only read the last link, and this might seem a balancing* of fallacies**.
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they have nothing to offer, and of course your perspective might influence both.  Ths seems more a selection of unfinishted reads, although I did read Huntington, and gave a good shot at Sandel, and found Hasnas, and Fukuyama is a big bugaboo, as we come around to Nietzsche and Rand. 

*read juggling ?
** all thinking must be taken in the context of their times as well as the method of the format.
example:  Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine***, Aquinas and the web they weave sometimes in character or others.  Not to mention More's the Pity.

a. A Shot in the Arm?
(b.)^ The Bully...
c. GOP-GAP

^ new notation for (sc)
*** Punderous Ponderings
[Speaking of the corner, is it MAR (mutually assured rhetoric?)  The corollary, just because some have something to offer, does not mean they got it.]
(pocket ?)