Next up:
Can we do all of the above with the laws of thought/being (logic), using this as template…before moving on to other projects (C Theory, resolving existential import/fallacy, etc.) (I have the completed version:
New labels for the imports/axioms/litmus (forthcoming)… qualitative, active, substantial
Pretty sure Kant is way ahead of us, because the 3 dialectics come up (I found out recently) in CPR. He calls them syllogisms. I realized not many years back you can convert/transform between syllogisms and dialectics. So the above template (last post) is how we’ll get the structure of that. I’m sure he’d approve, considering his 3 syntheses, yada yada yada.
I have the sentences for 5 U and Y… I can’t find if I have the symbols. A tutor I would compensate would be able to put these symbolically, using the same symbols in the attached graphic…and teach me what they know so I can do it myself:
5U: A must F, or A can’t F.
5Y: A may F, and A need’t F.
I can’t remember where I got that. Sorry.
All/each three are needed for the “one”, or you don’t have any of them (even the “one”). That is why Oneness Pentecostalism (and monism, …and dualism, and tritheism, and polytheism, for that matter) is false.
Jakob’s Venn holds the key:
The essence is love despite correctness or incorrectness, or right or wrong. Being demonstrates essence (overcoming) by willfully becoming less and making others greater.
We will all be preserved in that fire.
Two define the One — not three, but two.
Can you define what love is? No?
Then just admit that the essence remains unknown to you.
Now here’s the definition — and you might realize you were mistaken:
Love is the mind’s fabrication — a mental construct — concerning rights of ownership.
Sometimes it’s rooted in reproductive instincts or care for offspring.
But more often, it’s simply the desire to possess.
Will is the manifestation of spirit.
And do you even know what spirit is? I doubt it.
Spirit is the force that defines essence — it grants the right to exist.
According to the Trinity (if we loosely divide a human), then:
Love is treating the other as self… recognizing their personhood in your thoughts (character), actions, and values. …even if they don’t recognize yours.
Love for hoarding 
, love for animals 
, love for the Motherland 
— is that really “treating the other as yourself… recognizing their personhood in your thoughts (character), actions, and values… even if they don’t recognize yours”?
Seriously?
Why try to contradict it?
Love is merely the mind’s insinuation about ownership 
.
Go ahead — try to disprove it with an example. 
If each person only takes/accepts (consensually) what each needs for their own sustenance, and shares/accepts (consensually) what is left over, and doesn’t take/hoard what the other needs for their sustenance, then each person’s personhood (consent) is getting recognized in each person’s thoughts (character), values, and behaviors.
Obviously, there is always room for improvement in ours. Each person’s. Opportunities to overcome and thereby increase joy.
You really ought to understand how simple the thinking process is — I mean, how the “matter of the psyche” actually works.
Here’s a joke.
Valentine’s Day. A guy’s browsing cards in a shop and points:
“Give me that ass.”
“Excuse me, sir, that’s a heart.”
“Look, I’ve been a pathologist for twenty years — I know what a heart looks like. Just give me that ass.” 
Why do I laugh? Because every thought is just an electrical link between neurons in the brain. 
Now here’s the part you should be laughing at:
When a neural chain fires repeatedly, the central nervous system releases endorphins. Those endorphins trigger pleasure, which literally reinforces the “discovery.”
Boom — you’ve got animal-grade belief. 
Any psychic reaction to reality gets funneled through the same well-worn groove.
Simple, right?
Ridiculous too.
And that’s all feelings.
Yes, love included. 
I’m sorry …did you just invalidate my belief in apple pie because the mere thought of it releases endorphins? What was your point here?
A developed mind doesn’t rely on faith — it easily replaces it with assumptions. 
You’ve never tried the borscht my wife makes. If you had, you’d probably forget all about the wonders of pie. 
(Just kidding.)
But seriously — there’s no accounting for taste. The reason? Just reread how unappealing the inner workings of love and thought become when dissected with the Demon’s scalpel. 
What are you talking about? No matter how you slice/dissect a pie …it still tastes great.
A teleos, praxis, and onticity t) has no onticity without praxis, and no praxis without onticity, p) has no teleos without onticity, and no onticity without teleos, and o) has no teleos without praxis, and no praxis without teleos, respectively.
blue: moving
yellow: mover
red: motivation
Am I blue in the face yet?
Cannibalism isn’t exactly common practice. (Just kidding.)
But seriously — a person’s insides aren’t nearly as appetizing as a sliced pie.
If faith is dissected by reason, it dissolves — no longer needed.
After all, isn’t every lie sustained solely by belief?
A belief cannot be sustained (without methods for drowning out cognitive dissonance) when the believer (thinks s/he) knows it is a lie. We have some sort of justification to believe our belief is about reality… until we are shown we were either (usually) partially or (rarely) wholly wrong.
If someone pushes past cognitive dissonance and still holds a belief despite knowing it is a lie (or at least wrong) it serves a purpose that they prioritize higher than truth. They drown the cognitive dissonance with focus on the purpose/function served by not questioning the lie. That makes them more susceptible to believing other lies … every time they don’t prioritize the truth.
Somebody who is sneaky enough can feed little tiny lies a little bit at a time until the person is believing bigger and bigger ones right out of their hands. That is one of the mechanisms behind the creeping crisis. Con men know it—especially the elected ones.
God has shown himself to be someone who invites us to wrestle with and examine the evidence, as innocent as doves but wise as serpents. He doesn’t want us to swallow a lie, but to test everything and hold fast to the excellent. Faith is never blind, and is just trust.
A belief that is based on bad reasons can be deconstructed (as in cult deprogramming).
But, you can believe God exists very strongly (with deductive certainty) and completely lack faith (trust). You can be a theist intellectually, and yet also be an atheist… because you believe God exists, but you reject everything he is about. The things that you think are excellent don’t match up with the things that God thinks are excellent… you prefer vice over virtue, even though vice couldn’t even exist if virtue were not ontologically prior.
The thing Kierkegaard was all about, was living out faith (red) in one’s action (blue). Faith without works is dead. But, he went a little shallow on the truth part, even though he is right that not living it is … inauthentic. At least … one of his pseudonyms did. …unless he was merely agreeing that we shouldn’t put God to the test… like the Jews did in always demanding a sign, regardless how many signs he did. They wanted a magician; they wanted a circus act. They didn’t want their priorities called into question…to have a spotlight on the inconsistency between their thoughts, values, and behaviors (tells). So they questioned his authority, even though they had it in them, and in their history, to see his authority for what it was/is.
English is too straightforward and imprecise, unlike the sacred Russian language.
In Russian, “belief” (ubezhdenie) means “at the trouble of faith.”
Contradictions can be held when reason is present.
But beliefs are usually based on faith — on dogmas or on someone else’s so-called “knowledge.”
I’m talking to you about a different root of stupidity — DNA.
A program that prevents a being from becoming a rational human.
In addition, the cycles of becoming human have not been passed.
That is, the terms of evolution have not been met. 
An animal ends up in a human environment, memorizes words, but doesn’t understand their meaning. 
The animal has been taught the human language — but what’s the use?
Faith is a herd instinct — beastliness. 
Faith is exactly the test that easily distinguishes cattle from a human.
A rational human doesn’t rely on faith.
He replaces that beastliness with assumptions.
Demon, (nevermind that basically everything you said is wrong on purpose, lol) faith is a choice… it is consent/trust… I like how C.S. Lewis said that faith is continuing to remind yourself of the REASONS you believe and persisting in that belief (remaining faithful/loyal) in the face of obstacles challenging you to deny/abandon/betray … on pain of more than mere rationality. (Why gain the whole world and lose your soul?)
does a double take…moves on…
comes back… is that Russian for presuppositions?
In other evergreen news…
I’m sorry. Pun not intended, if you ever get it, like I did belatedly.
