The Harmonic Triads

In terms of Scripture itself the Bible does not declare creation ex nihilo or creation from nothing. That view largely results from theological interpretation and tradition.

Genesis 1 states “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep”.

As observed Genesis 1 does not declare creation from nothing. Nothing is not suggested, only things are expressed.

“Without form” suggests chaotic or unstructured, not nonexistent. “Void” is referring to the state of a thing, the state of the unstructured Earth, not nothing.

“Without form”, “formless”, nor “void” suggest nothing or nonexistence. They are all qualities or things in reference to other things.

In other words God is shown to bring order and structure out of chaos, not create something from nothing.

The next relevant verse is Isaiah 45:18, “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else”.

Again Scripture emphasizes forming and shaping, suggesting things already existent, not creation of something from nothing.

The closest is Hebrews 11:3, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear”.

But even here no explicit reference is made to nothing or nonexistence. Scripture simply states that things seen were made of things unseen. All things, not nothing.

The doctrine of creation from nothing or creation ex nihilo developed later in Jewish and Christian thought.

The Bible itself does not explicitly teach creation ex nihilo.

In the most basic sense God would not create from nothing as God, too, would be during the process of creation. God is eternal. God is not nothing.

Nothing is not and cannot be as expressed in Luke 1:37, “For with God nothing shall be impossible”.

Three causes. Because reason why is both formal (beginning) and end (final).

Hold on to your …. something.

Aristotle’s causes/substances are like a harmonic taxonomy that sees they are mutually productive.

because

…and I am pretty certain Aristotle approves if correctly interpreted.

Also relevant… yes… I’m trying to herd cats…

Way overdue holy wow…

And stuff:

Some rapper can make this sound a lot tougher, I’m sure:

Stop treating me like a what-object, and stop treating me like a how-means, when I am the muthah freaking WHY-end, bitch.

Of course, some other schmuck is gonna come back with “I AM the what, and the how, and the why!” Of course they better be right when they say that …or stand back.

I know I sound like a doofus, but that whole being treated like an object, and being treated like a means, instead of being treated like an end, never happened all at the same time in my head before.

So anywhayz.

One of these is a repeat probably:

blue, red, yellow (body/character of work/life):

sorry if I’ve already done any of this

y brains (recognizing the true)
b beastly & bold brawn (defending the good)
r beauty (cultivating the beautiful)

The way the triangle is normally presented, it is with the sun at the top as the point/tip, and the red is at the bottom (earthy).

…but you should flip it upside down to where the wide part is at the top because the sun is at the top of the whole timeline (the what) (heaven)…

…and blue is the now where the eternal point happens (the how) (“earth”)…

…and the thing that glues it all together (red… the why… formal/final) is smack dab in the middle of the what and the how (on earth as it is in heaven).

But that still doesn’t show their mutual dependence/production, so…


Baseline hypothesis: You’re more likely to have good reasons (and to believe them) if the thing is actually the case. The good reasons (blue) and the belief (red) do not make the thing actually the case (yellow). However, in order to have conscious knowledge, you cannot privilege reasons (justification), belief (positional awareness), or the case (truth). You have to have all three (hence the Venn).


The yellow (ontic) whole (transcendent timeline) subsumes all possibilities red (thetic) which we co-creatively help actualize/demonstrate with our (immanent now) choices in each blue (deontic).


blue how middle/center [immanent now] (efficient cause) (deontic) … do

red why actual middle (formal/final cause) [alpha & omega… Logos] (thetic) … end

yellow what outer/whole [transcendent timeline] (material cause) (ontic) … be

Red tin man

Blue lion (p.s. it was my oldest son, Ethan, who helped me understand why blue has to be smack dab in the middle)

Yellow scarecrow

Men Without Chests (from “The Abolition of Man”)

https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/reflections-august-2012


also see the comment immediately following or preceding this one:

Sorry, this is a mishmash right now (the two images)—I need to get ready for work. I’ll upload the final draft as soon as I complete it. @Ecmandu where the frick are you?


Erm. Second image. I accidentally put category/set under blue, and example/member under yellow. Gosh dammit. Switch that. I’m going to sleep.

2010 … when I had it before I knew I had it.

  1. Red
  2. Yellow
  3. Blue… the trust fall

Granted, it needs a lot of cleaning up because I did conflate value with Action/ought. I’ll put that part in bold. The only way it would not be an actual conflation as if I accidentally did something right that is also done here:

So glad I’m not the only one. “Philosophize This!” podcast dude also gets it. His name is Stephen West. Pretty sure he’s not a real atheist.

Thanks to the partially examined life for reminding me of or introducing me to thumos:

Fixed it.


Index of relevant posts:
Harmonic Triads Reference, Current Index | Ichthus77

The definition of a good teacher: A fluency (quality)-influencing (activating) influencer (being).

Let me tell you about a sock muppet who is evil, dumb, ironically smart, and physically blind.

evil (existential choice, blue)

dumb (this is an ugly/mean worldview/focus…BLINDness, red)

smart & blind (material intelligence, blindness, yellow)

This is how it is possible to have so many intelligent people who are so dumb & evil. Their skewed worldview causes them to abandon ethics in their science. They think they get out of it by claiming they don’t have free will.

behaviorism/perceptualism
being/conceptualism
becoming/functionalism

(Still holding on to your butts?)

(Apologies to Katy Handley.)