Updated.
Favey podcast alert!
yellow conceptual (intellectual faith)
“versus”
red perceptual/phenomenal/intuitional (relational faith)
“versus”
¡active love! — blue
Nerd alert
Subject is value, object is fact, and stupid is as stupid does.
Wasn’t it Monooq that liked/likes Forrest Gump? Vague memory.
Subject is valuing - object is value. (I (the subject) value this orange (value))
Subject is fact. Valuing is fact.
A high form of valuing is love. The exalted subject.
The highest god would be absolute valuing - absolute love.
@Jakob … is that value ontology? It’s very orange. Valuing is blue, valuable/valued is red, value-er is yellow. You got probs with that, maybe you should rap about it.
Anyway.
The necessary world is that which exists in every possible world, including the actual world, and contains to the highest possible degree every actual possibility, including personhood.
Yellow necessary, red possible, blue actual
To say you cannot infer a particular from a universal is like saying you cannot infer an actual possible from a necessary possible.
This feels right. It feels weird that I haven’t done this yet.
I should probably mention that it came on like a lightbulb when I was reading Leibniz.
What came first? The act of demonstration, the property the act was demonstrating, or the object/subject that was acting to demonstrate its property?
The Trinity – division into three, for understanding. The essence is correctness. Two determine the rights of the One. That’s why matter, space, and time. Any two forms determine the third (the one).
ideae, judicia, voluntates - Descartes
At least friggin Brentano understood.
false start? WRONG-O!