That’s why the Trinity is not three people like Tom, Dick, and Harry are three people, but is also not just one person like Tom is one person.
Even if we share all the same thoughts, we know we are two different people. I accept/reject thoughts differently than you do.
That’s why Jesus could say “Not my will, but yours”. It’s why we can experience internal conflict, and that’s okay.
I learned something today. I need to stop ASSuming you’re making typos and start asking more questions.
The relevance if Acquinas/Augustine per Aristoteles/Plato>>>>(Socrates~meno) becomes appearent here, as post-genitors of the logically exclusive continuum’s hidden variables: alpha through omega, (4,5,6) in the 1-12 scheme.
Just muse’ing
Oh no mu bad, if You are referring to ‘svolution’ then again it may have been a synchronous higher order err, for it’s Russian derivative may be proof of the three parts coming out of it’s nasty primal organic beginning.
Let’s not get into geneology, for that itself is based in perhaps near miraculous variences of coincidentality of meaning intertwining through the word.
So it may haves been a typo or maybe not nearly, …
If that’s the word You are signifying, at any rate please don’t worry about it, in the future i do not want to give the wrong impression.
I meant where I said:
You then mentioned Bateson epistasis.
Now you’re saying more stuff that is hard for me to parse.
Good save? Whooshed over my head? Ignorance is bliss? lol I must turn my attention to my homework. 
(4-5-6)
John, Philip and .Bartholomew …
Philip is most intriguing cause he is in middle between witnessing the ascension and being the disciple He loved.
Not necessarily.
Oh yes, Philip was associated with the transsubstantiatiin mentioned above, previously.
He comes as an in between the Assumption and Love.
No need to get away from whatever You are doing, I got to go and do some gaming
But it was Simon not Philip:
“A Dishonest Honest Trade
Owning a house and a boat, the brothers turned to gambling to make extra money and paying tax as well. After years of gambling, Andrew began to follow a rogue preacher called John the Baptizer and started leaning on God. However, Simon continued to only gamble and work night and day, and sometimes even mocking his brother’s rabbi calling “Crazy John”. At one point, he ran the wagering table at the Roman foot races.”
However Acts:13 6-8
27 thoughts on “Acts 8 – Philip, Simon, and Magic
However there arises the question of weather it’ s a good bet to assign such earth shaking questions, as indicative between homework or the prisoners’ perplexity?
From this vantage point yes, but then a gain this sort of assumption could be the effect of some kind of wish fulfillment, no?
( In which and through which the other may exceed the substantive attention spanning those variable ratios, resulting in insurmountable odds)
Course nickel and dime bettor here.
This is obvious,
It’s the same answer as the chicken and the egg.
Its always the egg.
Before things we call words, animals species of all kinds were engaged in communications of various kinds.
Before homonids distinguished specific words they were already equipped with the ability to point to objects and make sounds.
On the level of one life, before a child knows a single word they already have the brain capable of understanding one.
So on both the level of a single life, and an entire species the ability to understand words precedes the apprehension of words
Scultpor:
Even if there are intermediate links, it all still implies an Original. A Logos. O Logos.
You like? I like.
In the beginning was the Signal, and the Signal was the Source, and the Signal was with the Source, and the Signal became the Sink.
sink is receiver/storage of information/message/signal that also transmits, like a work of art. all of creation has various ways of being a sink in general revelation terms.
because God exists his essence, as Uncreated Creator (Word) he is all three: source/sink/signal — timelessly (whole), but in time (subsumed in whole)
the medium that is the message is Jesus, ultimately communicated on the cross
we are the sink - the intended receivers of the message, but the seeds (word) get sown funny & the message gets garbled (noise)
he became the sink – like us — to demonstrate what it means to send/receive without noise
cuz if we receive it correctly, we will also transmit it. like cb radios. i dunno. all metaphors break down.
he did not need us in order to be the source/signal/sink, because he is complete within the Trinity, besides all sequential time is subsumed in him simultaneously—but, we are sinks receiving from the overflow. when we are transmitting the signal from the source (vine), there is less noise in our signals (branches)
I am only somewhat familiar with Shannon’s information theory.
the sink shows up in a lot of systems. Photosynthesis has a source where light is turned into food and a sink where that food is stored. botany.one/2018/09/source-sink-or-both/
See also, for “BIF” ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 0#p2869910
The analogy is appropriate as derived from the light, and that energy ‘sinks’ to the synthetic level of the level of cognitively developed energy, risen from it’s ‘phenomenal’ transformation unto the ‘sunk’ , invisibility of the color -green.
From the invisible sense of the white, whose image can not be imagined as a transparency( wittgenstein) - to it’s synthetic- cognitively. ‘reduced’ green, phenomenally .
The cognitive impossibility of a transcended transparent white, imposes on a an admixture between blue and yellow, another boundary, that the ‘dialectical limit’ imposed by Kant, can be sensed as invariably related.
Such may resemble as propositional foundations to the idea of: ‘trans imminance’.
That concept builds on such, as more than conceptually illusive , reduced reflective resourceful images. These objects, will be able to utilize properties of dispersion , while the unelected , white transparencies can not.
This ‘realization’ guaranties the underlying forms predating even the ‘Metamorphosis of Narcissus’, as per the basic myth of defining reflection as a matter of perception over that of the synchronous definition of conscious thought it’s self.
How these permeate as underlying prescriptions , are basically as forms as building blocks within an aesthetic formulation, ard indeed, more prophylactic intents to an aesthetic for balance , to further the virtual object of the aesthetic for it’s self as a stepping stone to it’s self- for the objective Other.
so I don’t know what you’re saying but this is what it triggers. You’re saying that God is whole (One), mother, father, child, in family/community. There can be no unity if there are not clearly defined boundaries between those things that are in union. There is a mutual serving between each one and respecting between each one—self/otherness, switching places like a square dance. Their colors therefore all show up together perfectly in white or black (unity), but they each retain their identity. Who they are as an individual also shows who they are as a member of the group.
That’s kind of beautiful. I kinda wanna make that happen but I kind of think only God can do it. That whole vine/branch thing.