Can there be a techne of prediction? And if there isn't a techne of prediction, can there be one other strategy to produce the reality? at the foundation of this refusal of divine and divinatory veridiction, Jocasta says: "That the seers don't own the paintings of predicting, of that i'm going," Jocasta says to Oedipus, "to provide the facts. " fifty seven "I am going to offer you the evidence of this. " This scene of the facts, of the demonstration that the artwork of prediction is unfounded, this demonstration unfolds through the scene through an intervention by way of Jocasta, of a discussion with Oedipus, and at last of a monologue or account via Oedipus. There are 3 parts, then: Jocasta, the discussion among Jocasta and Oedipus, and Oedipus's monologue-account. The preliminary point (that of Jocasta) and the terminal one (Oedipus's monologue): those components correspond to 1 another-they are completely symmetrical. In her first intervention, Jocasta demonstrates that predictions don't inform the reality by way of explaining to Oedipus what she did to avoid her personal son from killing Laius inspite of them. on the finish of the scene, in continuity with the demonstration that the seers don't inform the reality, Oedipus explains how, even with the prediction that he was once to kill Polybius-in spite of the prediction that he was once going to homicide 70 moment Lecture his father-he succeeded in no longer killing the only whom he believed to be his father, particularly Polybius. we now have right here, with those parts, preliminary and ultimate, the deployment of human tactics during which, first, one escapes the seers' predictions, and moment, one may perhaps thereby exhibit that the predictions of the seers don't inform the reality. In among those parts is an extended discussion among Oedipus and Jocasta that unfolds, once more, within the type of questions and solutions, like in testimony. Oedipus interrogates Jocasta and asks her a couple of questions. He interrogates her like a witness. in accordance with what? in response to what she has discovered in regards to the dying of Laius: what she used to be informed, public rumors, her thoughts, Laius's actual bearing, the variety of those that followed him, and no matter if someone survived or now not. in brief, it truly is a complete inquiry in response to what Jocasta could have recognized or realized. and of course, in reality exposed and is essentially informed via this video game of questions and solutions. it really is virtually informed and but it isn't acceptedneither by way of Oedipus nor through Jocasta, who refuse to listen to actually what they say. they don't seem to be going to attract the ultimate conclusions that will let them establish and realize themselves within the episodes that they themselves have simply informed. in order that they get away. How do they get away? good, first they break out simply because a component is lacking during this tale they inform; or particularly there's an ambiguous aspect of their tale, that's the variety of those that killed Laius. The stated stories, the general public rumors, and all of the details that Jocasta may possibly assemble recommend that Laius was once killed through numerous folks. but Oedipus, himself, who fears and is sort of sure that the individual he killed was once Laius, understands complete good that he was once on my own whilst he killed him.