Aren’t you glad I didn’t just post another Venn?
don’t forget merging of east and west
Relevant:
Three (3) Axioms… Principles… Laws
(1) force. change in quality essence (that’s why Liebniz priors force, because essence/form is eternal)
(2) action. the changing action (that which becomes it) (a/o in every middle)
(3) position. change in being (only ONE never began to exist/be)
Previous translations from Plato’s Theaetetus:
The Three Axioms
- No object can become greater or smaller without having something added to or subtracted from it.
- No object to which nothing is either added or subtracted is made greater or smaller.
- Any object that now is, but previously was not, must have suffered becoming.
The Three Axioms
- Nothing can become greater or less, either in number or magnitude, while remaining equal to itself.
- Without addition or subtraction there is no increase or diminution of anything, but only equality.
- What was not before cannot be afterwards, without becoming and having become.
God is quality from which nothing can be subtracted, and to which nothing can be added. Maximal greatness.
God’s quality is unchanging, but actively subsumes all change. Unchangeable actor.
God did not come into being, but has always been. Eternal being.
Maximally great, unchangeably active, eternal being.
Some actual starting/ending points
(non”sequential” subsuming “sequential”)… from Kant’s CPR:
See also: Paper 1 Kant's Threefold Synthesis (A Deduction in CPR) - Google Docs
(maybe also compare it to the 1787 edition, since I was forced against my will, and with deep gratitude for the tutelage of my guardians, to stick to the 1781 edition)
What do you think, @PZR? (Unless you’re Jakob…then we already know.)
Hi in 15 characters.
FJ’s fault. Whatever it is.
Maybe there is a better word than set.
This dude: https://www.trialectic.net/
These dudes: Trialectics - P2P Foundation
Also this: https://www.wordsense.eu/trialectics/
Sorry if this is already shared above, but it fixes the mistake in the post I’m replying to (I put possibility primarily in the blue, and left out actuality). Meta knew better back when we discussed that Venn (37 weeks ago) but did not explicitly correct me—instead, knowing what I meant to say, and saying that to me. Not sure why I’m just now realizing that. If Meta corrected every little thing we got wrong, we would probably never even have a conversation, because they would be constantly correcting.
I also fixed here, but did not connect back:
I’ve saved your Harmonics triad diagram on my desktop. It touches a chord. I had something similar in mind but never got around to it - c’est la vie. Good to see someone made so much progress.
Where did you encounter the transcendentalia?
- Pulchrum (beauty)
- Verum (truth)
- Bonum (good)
There’s a Hindu mantra, it goes Satyam (truth) Shivam (good) Sundaram (beauty)
I encountered them without knowing it in C.S. Lewis, but other than that, my brain summarized my first Ethics class’ textbook into three main theories I shortened to “be, do, end”… realizing we need all three, and only the Golden Rule delivers them out of all the competing theories.
But I didn’t realize the wider significance (fully…I had an inkling) …or that others also saw it… until I got my B.A. in psych & philosophy, studying Kant, Hegel, Plato, so forth.
Thoughts?
gentle reminder:
To deform/deface (the material) is to denature (cause dysfunction)… unless personhood is your essence (but at least showing a face helps … facilitates… in matters of recognition… preferably not a false front…).
See also:
possibility/quality, actuality/action, and necessity/substance
…I just love reading that.
@futureone: “If there is no such thing as pain or suffering then there is no such thing as morality. Therefore, subjective pain and suffering is the foundation of all.”
Me: What about pleasure and joy? Isn’t it moral to seek after that for the other the way you would hope they would seek after that for you? Words like seek after and hope are consent words.
Still me: Even more dangerous, too, because with a why (pleasure and joy), you can endure any how (pain and suffering).
@Hudjefa “Is it good because we want it or do we want it because it is good?”
Me: It’s good because we respect/honor each other‘s wants (which respect/honor each other’s wants), even if that means tempering our own.
Still me: The isness is the usness, the eachotherness, the Igotchuness.
Believe it or not, these both happened in the same thread:
Utilitarianism Mistakes Correlation for Cause
At this point, I also feel like linking to this funny dialogue between Bob and myself:
For further reading: