You may be able to tell from my contributions to your Copilot chat that I’m not going to do you that favor.
I enjoyed reading your interaction with Copilot. The dangling question left unanswered is quite the cliffhanger.
Can you explain why you think it’s a cliffhanger?
On the one hand, you impose the structure that a person cannot be cleanly separated from their structure. On the other hand, you acknowledge the law of non-contradiction, which helps people separate from imposed structures that cannot coexist. And you won’t allow someone else to impose their structure, which means you’re privileging someone’s structure (yours) and not privileging someone else’s structure (anyone else’s whose structure conflicts with yours—which pigeonholes them — and you — the way you felt pigeonholed). All of the above means it’s possible to take yourself outside of both structures and apply the law of non-contradiction to both without attaching it to the people, while (against your own preference) attaching it to the people.
Copilot has nudged you to the point of choosing which position you are going to hold/defend (rather than merely detecting they are different/colliding) because you can’t defend all of it coherently. You are like a house divided, and if you defend all the fronts, you will collapse. So Copilot is doing this gently.
But apparently, I answer questions asked of me even if it might hurt. That isn’t my intention.
The law of non-contradiction is a very imposing structure. But it’s honest.
Here is where Meno’s slave boy may come in, maybe, maybe as a prefecture?-prefunctur?
/
Thank you for sharing the dialogue and the “Ichthus77” post. I see the framing now: Zeroeth Nature (perhaps pre-rational, pre-social, or raw potential) vs Self-Lightening (a kind of unburdening, self-correction, or ironic midwifery). And the idea that Plato’s Socrates is not a simple spokesman but a layered, even contradictory, performance.
With that in mind, and keeping your earlier thread about Meno’s slave boy as a configured non-linear possibility, here’s a draft forum post you could use. It’s meant to be tangential—engaging the same themes without directly arguing the original terms.
Title: The Slave Boy as Self‑Lightening Zeroeth Nature – a humble systems reading
In the Meno, the slave boy is presented as an empty social vessel (pais as status, not age). Yet he contains latent geometry – a kind of Zeroeth Nature: pre‑configured but not yet activated, pure potential that doesn’t yet know itself.
Socrates doesn’t pour knowledge in. He triggers errors, confusion, then sudden recognition. That process – unburdening the boy of his own certainty, letting him fail toward insight – looks like Self‑Lightening: not a teacher correcting a student, but a midwife (Ichthus77’s point) helping the boy lighten his own hidden structure.
Plato’s Socrates is often read as a spokesman. But what if the slave boy is the real protagonist of the method? A non‑linear, error‑driven loop where zeroeth (raw) becomes first (known) only through a kind of ironic demolition – the very “self‑lightening” that Plato hides between the lines.
Humble Systems Theory started from a typo (“humble systems theorey”). The slave boy started from a deliberate social null. Both suggest that precision is not the engine – engagement and error are.
So the challenge to “Zeroeth Nature vs Self‑Lightening”: are they opposites, or the same process looked at from before vs after the recursive spark?
No yes, I mean yes
Yes. No… I mean no.
Yes/no
Haven’t read any intervening variables between the premis and my now belatedly sorry interjection , but need to comment before I attempt to read the whole forum.
That is to imply. That: Self Enlighting is a necessary part of enlightenment, whereas no man can do it for himself but another. If it was so easy, then we would need no shortcuts to ‘reinvent’ a god, and as such our memory of god would not fade into nothing, ergo we would have no need of simulation virtually.
But we have killed god and we think he killed himself by that token. However, Facts do not add up and hystory is precedent; people need illusions to exist, they can not ever reach elightenmrnt because they feel like the millennial labor of carrying the stone is eternal work, eternal reconstruction. But they must deny this for the others coming up.
Where they come from, they can not recognize each other they can only distinguish each other by spells, participating in them mystically as a condition for their survival.
And where they arrive cannot be an empty unseeable place, it has to exist as a real pleasure dome, frolicking in the sun and surf. Here illusion, doubt, metaphors, delusion and idolatry do not definitely exist, everything rests eternally in a state of ideal beatitude.
We never can be alone, we really all in one.
All in. Fearlessly wagering on our coming generation’s continuing investiture.
1 Like
I like the whole post, but this part specially.
In seriousness, excellent post.
Right now, I don’t know what to say, except to wait for any reasonable reaction from other veritable sources, and see if reading the entire forum would inhibit the entropic /redundant residual will to empower or delimit the power that can ignite a further progression, or, degrade that and degrade that will, or such process becomes mute, as far as it can go!
Wrong impressions not withstanding, the will to presume such will inescapably go on.
You sound less nihilistic somehow.
where the fricken frick is @Ecmandu
I feel as if he is still here, in another form, I may be entirely wrong.
Jason? & Ec
?
How about others, not ‘here’and ‘now’?
Medea, Helen,
sounds like bad news:
But of course but can’t one be fated to love her?
Yes if her was an intensional will to generate herself from a fate, as a role which was modeled for her,way before she knew what that role was!
So much bullshit. Gross.
As gross is agreeably bullshit, that many, if not most express that opinion , it is based on facts, precedents by which myths are constructed.
As sad it is, honesty reveals of modeling based on such paradigmness, , and living through that gross undertow, most religious and political leaders Denise by, as living proof. Not excluding that, individuals like yours.
Truly can vouch for as an integral part of an extremely painfully constructed defaulted matter.
The smoke and mirror can not mask the fragments appearing, as it’s torn asunder, and Jesu suffered that condemnation with systemic pain, as a price for conversion.
That intention is as hollow a vessel that a genie can only grant as a singularly bound triumverite.
Are you saying that we should all sacrifice our babies to Medea, as long as it’s safe, legal, and rare?
Definitely no slippery slope there.
…but if that wasn’t enough narcissistic supply, you could run for office. Twice.
In a way that was said of what ought to have been the case, for various reasons, yes That ought to have been proof positive of the marginal limits of how that condition (narcissistic anthropormisim) required entirely optic resolution of what has transformed into the fact that is what it is. Minus that the universal (catholic) demonstration of transsubstantion could not have become the centrally fixed point of the liturgical msss for up till Vatican Ii.
This post facto demonstration aligns with many nihilistic irony, and that also wrestles with the temporal manifestation and their resounding apologia reflex, perhaps even going back to The Apologia.
In order to subscribe to this, a next modular analogy has him promising the real culprit to sit at the Right Hand of the Father, alongside in Paradise.
All. Probably quite laughable conjectures, yet as with any and everything , there IS more than meets the eye, when leaving the commonplace.
this is obviously a global conspiracy