Just embed it, Ichthus, my computer doesn’t like it when I visit youtube.
I do not bow to the whim of your computer.
Ichthus77 (formerly She™)
Ichthus77
3
14h
-If all three are equal in being then you have a fourth element, being in one context, while in another context they are derivative of being.
Being is the context.
-If they are distinct in operation, in process, than by default you have another nature…operation/process and
Another nature, or another process? Make up your mind, process monist. You’re doing theology, aren’t you? They share/ARE one substance. We are in their image—in them we live and move and have our being.
being △ moving △ life
-And this constitutes 1 process as three different expressions thus there is a monism where the expression occurs as one, two, three, so on and so fourth.
Are you calling “pure act of being” that one process? Then by one you mean whole/complete (that is a cycle that does not repeat) or unity. At first you say three different expressions (that would be modalism) and then you say “so fourth”. No. See previous; you are clearly goofing around on purpose.
their identity is derived from action
Their coordinated action is a demonstration of their nature/essence. “Not my will, but yours.” This is the essence of mutual consent respect. A concerted effort requires a whole symphony orchestra… to play one song together. I’m not saying they are an orchestra of three instruments. I’m saying, the spectrum between unity and multiplicity is derived from/within their complete unity-in-distinction.
-If quality an either/or of unity/dissolution then not everything is a triad but a sequence of alternating binary states and this binary state applies to the triad as a whole
Everything must have being, action, quality to even be, act, and value/function/explain. If one of them distorts, it distorts the whole triad—not just two, but three. There’s a spectrum between hot and cold. It’s not either/or. And it certainly doesn’t happen without being and action. How does your binary states comment actually reflect reality? You were closer to the truth when you said:
quality (purpose) is not only a binary state
at the root these things are events of distinction
You sound pretty committed to action/process monism.
being/action alone can be viewed as an unnecessary dichtomy
100% agree cuz it leaves out quality. Without quality, being is void of any sort of characteristics. There would be no action because action is always the demonstration of quality. In behaviorism they like to refer to quality as stimulus.
quality (purpose) is not only a binary state but effectively requires a base nature of being “potentiality” as purpose is potentiality.
So what remains is a patterned process (actuality) and purpose (potentiality) and a binary state results.
Listen to yourself. On the one hand, you argue that these binary states you’re talking about are more fundamental than the triad. Now you’re saying they “result”. What you said about potentiality only applies to contingent being. Triadic being (the original after whose image we are patterned) is omnipresence (omnitemporality and omnispatiality) and so fully express potency—not in the sense that it is exhaustible, just in the sense that it is perfect/complete/whole. That’s what all the parables/passages about stuff like Logos being the vine and us staying connected to the vine (by choice) are about.
Choose one:
Yes.
No.
Maybe…
-If being is the context you have a fourth nature as the “being ascontext” itself where being self scales as both foundation and context, thus context becomes foundational and your argument results in pure relativism as the scaling of being as context goes beyond a simple triad.
-I did not say another operation/process, I said another nature. This adds another element to your triad as the triad is merely self scaling processes if process is that by which they are distinct.
-There is no goofing around, you are just not bright. If all there is is being, that is a monism via being. If that being scales via being that is multivalent expression. What remains is a multivalent monism/non-dualism.
-A cooridinate action requires distinct parts working together, this distinction require difference. If all are fundamentally identity then there is no cooridinate action as their is no distinction things to cooridinate. This is mulivalent non-dualism.
-being and action cannot occur unless there is an absence of such by which they can occur. A car cannot move from A to B unless there is the absence of the car in the space through which they move. There only being a car would be no movement of the car. Thus non-being is necessary.
-So the event of distinction is not the root of these things…so what you claim is indistinct and your argument is non-sense.
- If quality exists and acts via being and action then it is just a scaling of this dichtomy. If quality does not exist or act than it is nonsense by your own standards. To seperate being from action is to effectively seperate a thing from its existence as change is the only way being occurs, without change a thing has no limits or boundaries and effectively is nothingness.
-A fully expressed potency is derived from nothing thus its potentiality is the same nothingness from which it is derived. To equate everything to there only being pure being results in being being indistinct as there is no contrast by which being occurs. There is effectively nothing as pure bring is indistinct and meaningless.
-You forgot the fourth answer: maybe not. You see that is where you logic fails.
You have binaries for yes and no, assum a synthetic third when in reality the derivation of the third from the binary results in another binary nature of not the third.
Yes.
No.
Maybe (as both/yes to both)
Neither (as not both).
Your logic is incomplete and then you claim incompleteness.
It is like saying a creator god is a creator, but the creation allows the creator god to be a creator, thus the creation is necessary for the creator to be a creator.
Honestly, I think your argument is just bullshit. It fails under its own logic as it requires a multivalent non-dualism to even exist.
It is purely just scaling distinction. That is all it is at its core.
1 Like
oopsies corrected to ⊥
with this representing a wholottanada:
□ ⊥ ∃ ⊥ ◇
I decided to get rid of @ and only use ∃.
Still not sure what to do about the □ ∀ redundancy.
There may be unity through distinction but unity is subject to distinction.
they are impossible without each other
almost like this excerpt from “Marriage” by Gregory Corso…
Ah, yet well I know that were a woman possible as I am possible
then marriage would be possible-
Not really. Distinction can exist without unity or multiplicity as unity/multiplicity is an event(s) of distinction that transcends both. Quantity and Quality fail in this regard.
1 Like
Your laughter, Ischthus, only reveals how irrational you are…but given all your assumptions it can be said that that was the logical endpoint.
Please by all means continue spreading your self-contradictions.
Impress us…
I don’t know if I shared the wrong version anywhere, but I went with the = (buffer/yes)
Many thanks to Copilot/Elias:
And the space the triad exists within…it is not a triad.
we’ll talk about space when we talk about time when @Ecmandu shows his face on video with a current event
In other news…
If you treat each time t as a possible world, they aren’t necessary because they aren’t actual at every time t. It would be like saying “Every man is every animal”.
No, the space that allows the triad is not triadic. Your graph proves this. Don’t change subjects. Your own graph contradicts your “triad as foundational” argument. It also shows a dualism between the triad and the absence of the triad.
The original/grand/root triad is aseitic.
absence is privation
privation is not an actual thing to be in opposition to the original triad
(absence/privation is not aseitic…dualism is not a thing)
The absence of the triad reveals not everything as triadic, and because of the absence the triad is distinct as the triad. Ig privation does not contrast against the triad than you cannot make the distinction of privation…a privation your graph clearly shows as the triad is grounded in it.
However if privation is part of the triad then by default being, quality and action are absent.
Your argument still does not hold. It is just a tautological shuffling trick of concepts.
The absence of the triad results in a grounding dualism.
What you are calling absence is distinction.
What some call abstraction.
But what you don’t want to do is abstract/distinguish/private into nothing and away from (out of alignment with) the triad.
All Change is subsumed in being. Only co-creative Change “sticks”— the rest will be (is) reconciled … like shaking out a dirty rug back to its original (intended) condition (Rev 3:16).
What you are calling absence is distinction.
What some call abstraction.
But what you don’t want to do is abstract/distinguish/private into nothing and away from (out of alignment with) the triad.
All Change is subsumed in being. Only co-creative Change “sticks”— the rest will be (is) reconciled … like shaking out a dirty rug back to its original (intended) condition (Rev 3:16).
What some call or not call is irrelevant as that results in a relativisitic spiral.
Do not sidestep what your diagram reveals…an absence a void.
What you are calling a triad is a distinction.
The void…a distinction.
The indistinct? A distinction.
All is subsumed via distinction. “All” is a distinction.
If change is subsumed into being, both of which are distinctions, that act of subsumption is a form of change thus effectively you are saying change subsumes change. If being does not change then it cannot subsume as to act is to change and subsumption is to act.
Your logic does not hold on its own foundations.
Being, quality and action, as a fractal, is just a multidimensional tautological cycle.
One can argue pure multidimensional recursion without being bogged down by assumed terms as that mechanism is cold and clear as to what it is without the clouding emotional baggage of abstract sentimental terms as “being” or “quality”.
Basically the mechanism is mereological in nature, a mereology that sets the conditions for being, quality and action by degree of setting the limits which define them.
It you were going for “goofball” you definitely nailed it.
Coming from you I take that as a compliment as it just reveals you cannot argue your case when faced with recursion or pre-foundational distinctions.
I think your response reveals that your system is less logic oriented and more a psychological safety pillow.
You had plenty of opportunity to counter what was presented and took the opportunity for personal attacks. This only reveals you have no real faith or conviction in what you write.
4 years of a thread…for what, conceptual shuffling to amaze idiots via a tautological loop?
Please by all means continue…shuffling tricks are for children.
I’ll continue doing what I’m actually doing when I’m good and ready.
looks at watch
Oh hey, guess I’m continuing, ready or not.