philosophers’ cornerStone in the shoe
Logos: beautiful/meaningful Fun (red why—the feels of universal demonstration)
Father: for every personhood Being (yellow what—the universal substance of concrete feels)
Spirit: acting (making it good) here and now (blue how—the concrete demonstration of universal feels)
wrap up: you cannot have one/unity without all three (the many) — you cannot have all three (the many) without one/unity
@iambiguous hope that clears things up for you
Well… not really…?
You have 1 shoe that is 3 shoes but each of the 3 shoes is just a quality of the original shoe.
What part of this is supposed to make sense?
Philosophy’s corner store shoes.
Jokes aside, I like it, Ichthus.
They are each/all the original community of shoes… one is a combat boot… one is a ruby red slipper… and one is a moon boot.
And the stone is in each shoe that is a knock off of the original… when the wearer thinks there can be knock offs without originals… and that they aren’t the knock offs.
Hope that clears things up like fast actin tenactin.
Not exactly cause i never really understood the idea of the trinity
There are just too much freedom you can take with the idea of separation and unification here.
Defined by quality, separated by boundary, the reverse… and even after all of that comes the question: For what purpose?
Why do you require 1 universal shoe to be broken down into 3 separate ones? And why only three?
The point/meaning is love despite circumstances, which requires meaning/meaner, personal choice/chooser, and circumstances/being—you can’t reduce any of them away without fragmenting the unity. The evidence of somethingness implies the original that never fragments.
Every object/substance, every action/process, every quality/purpose points back to original community (the point/why) of distinct persons (the who/what) actively co-creating (the how) with us.
Mutual entailment/production. Unity in distinction. Stuff like that.
be △ do △ end
THE Father △ a Holy Spirit △ my Son/Logos
(last one riffs off Biggy)
