Str. And the threads, in turn, which are more loosely twisted and have in respect to the force used in the carding a softness adapted to the interweaving with the warp we will call the woof, and the art devoted to these we will call the art of preparing the woof. Footnote 1i.e. the pull (ὁλκή)of the carder’s comb was less strong in the preparation of the threads of the woof than in that of the threads of the warp.
Y. Soc. Quite right.
Str. So now the part of the art of weaving which we chose for our discussion is clear to pretty much every understanding; for when that part of the art of composition which is included in the art of weaving forms a web by the right intertwining of woof and warp, we call the entire web a woollen garment, and the art which directs this process we call weaving.
Y. Soc. Quite right.
Str. Very good. Then why in the world did we not say at once that weaving is the intertwining of woof and warp? Why did we beat about the bush and make a host of futile distinctions?
Y. Soc. For my part, I thought nothing that was said was futile, Stranger.
Str. And no wonder; but perhaps you might change your mind. Now to avoid any such malady, in case it should, as is not unlikely, attack you frequently hereafter, I will propose a principle of procedure which is applicable to all cases of this sort.
Y. Soc. Do so.
Str. First, then, let us scrutinize the general nature of excess and deficiency, for the sake of obtaining a rational basis for any praise or blame we may bestow upon excessive length or brevity in discussions of this kind.
Y. Soc. Yes, that is a good thing to do.
Str. Then the proper subjects for our consideration would, I fancy, be these.
Y. Soc. What?
Str. Length and shortness and excess and deficiency in general; for all of them may be regarded as the subjects of the art of measurement.
Y. Soc. Yes.
Str. Let us, then, divide that art into two parts; that is essential for our present purpose.
Y. Soc. Please tell how to make the division.
Str. In this way: one part is concerned with relative greatness or smallness, the other with the something without which production would not be possible.
Y. Soc. What do you mean?
Str. Do you not think that, by the nature of the case, we must say that the greater is greater than the less and than nothing else, and that the less is less than the greater and than nothing else?
Y. Soc. Yes.
Str. But must we not also assert the real existence of excess beyond the standard of the mean, and of inferiority to the mean, whether in words or deeds, and is not the chief difference between good men and bad found in such excess or deficiency?
Y. Soc. That is clear.
Str. Then we must assume that there are these two kinds of great and small, and these two ways of distinguishing between them; we must not, as we did a little while ago, say that they are relative to one another only, but rather, as we have just said, that one kind is relative in that way, and the other is relative to the standard of the mean. Should we care to learn the reason for this?
Y. Soc. Of course.