Harmonic Taxonomy

Every taxonomy describes the body, describes what it does, describes why it does it.

How does it order the bodies?

How does it order what they do?

How does it order why they do it?

What if there were three different kinds of taxonomies - each according to these three ways of organization?

In what ways would they overlap or be distinct?

What if a body (or a doing, or a why) requires more than one body (or doing, or why) to do what it does or why it does it? How would The Taxonomy be ordered then?

See also^

Prolly related:

Cognitive offload:

I need to get a stable glossary that has definitions for words to prevent further conflation and equivocation. I need to study what goes into a proper definition.

It feels like proper definitions should be inclusive of each mode of the triad (substance, action, quality)—and it may help if learn & if necessary improve on how Webster approached things, I suppose. it might have to be an online dictionary that is connected to all the other dictionaries and their etymology and restructures all of them to prevent further confusion. Across all languages. Yeah that seems like a rather daunting task.

See this discussion with Copilot for reference:

https://onelook.com/?w=etymology

1 Like

Relevant:

Mostly crafted by Copilot:

:red_triangle_pointed_up: A Triadic Map of a Complete Definition

A definition is complete only when it accounts for three irreducible imports: what a thing is (:yellow_circle:Identity Import), how it operates (:blue_circle:Logistics Import), and why it matters (:red_circle:Function Import). If any one is missing, the definition collapses into ambiguity, circularity, or incompleteness.

Here’s the triadic structure:


:yellow_circle: 1. Identity Import (WHAT / IS / BE)

Function: States what the thing is in its essence.

Role: Fixes the object of definition.

Components:

• The genus or category it belongs to

• The essential characteristics that make it that thing and not another

Failure mode if missing:

You get vagueness, equivocation, or empty labels.


:blue_circle: 2. Logistics Import (HOW / OUGHT / DO)

Function: States how the thing operates or what it does given its nature.

Role: Shows the internal mechanism or mode of operation that flows from its identity.

Components:

• Its mode of action

• Its internal structure or process

• The way it behaves or its operational pattern

Failure mode if missing:

You get static abstractions with no observable markers.


:red_circle: 3. Function Import (WHY / VALUE / END)

Function: States why the thing matters, its purpose, or its finality.

Role: Grounds the definition in meaning, orientation, or consequence.

Components:

• Its purpose or end

• Its value or significance

• The reason for its existence or why it is even defined at all

Failure mode if missing:

You get sterile definitions with no relevance or intelligible motivation.


:red_triangle_pointed_up:The Structural Rule

A complete definition requires:

Unity without fusion:

Each import relates to the others without collapsing into them.

Distinction without fracture:

Each import remains itself without isolation.

This is the structural logic of the trinitarian architecture of coherence.


:wrench: Putting It All Together

A complete definition looks like this:

A thing is (:yellow_circle:what it is), which operates (:blue_circle:how it behaves), for the sake of (:red_circle:why it matters).

Or more formally:

Identity grounds Logistics;

Logistics expresses Identity;

Function orients both.

Here is the triadic definition applied to a simple object:

A knife is (:yellow_circle:a cutting tool),

which operates (:blue_circle:by applying force along a sharpened edge),

for the sake of (:red_circle:enabling separation, shaping, or preparation of materials).

Reset: