Forgive just bookmarking this at this time, for memory and time are my problems at hand creating contradictory sensations of lack.
But for the moment there appears a reversal needed here of some kind.
….
Is rust the opposite of iron? Privation is not an opposite. There is no absolute evil. That is why everything points back to the good even if it tries to “overcome” it. Imagine thinking overcoming was about overcoming the good, rather than overcoming that which breaks alignment with (diverges from) the whole (reality). Imagine the confusion of someone who thinks that is “natural”. That a brokenness is how things are supposed to be, rather than growing pains (which need not result from violating self=other, but are likely to result from realigning with it) toward full development.
But I feel the nudge to work on …something…dialectic-y. So, thanks. Maybe.
Altertheses is a better word than antitheses for a whole harmonic triad dialectic, btw.
Opposites, privation and evil are categories of the mind superimposed on nature. They don’t exist “out there” in the phenomenal world. They are apriori structures that inform judgments. I suppose you’re saying privation is not an opposite because in every case it depends on an existing being which is good by definition. True there is no absolute evil. But, there is no absolute anything in the world where everything is relative.
Brokenness is another projection based on the lack of conformity to the ideal of wholeness which is derived from the unity of subjectivity in which everything is perceived.
I think the square of opposition needs to make a comeback (with revision—in one case, a return to its original definitions to align with the Venn of Import) to show the distinctions between actual opposites (and the fact that there can’t be any in reality … and how the way we “construct” reality develops/abducts dialectically). Maybe will post more later.
Ahhhh… memories:
Good times, mew mew, good times.
That part I got. But I don’t understand the apparent complexities of your system. What’s the “Ichthus for Dummies” version?
Your faux-flattery is insulting because you think it actually flatters me that you would insult me in this manner, and that I’m actually insulted by it.
Prepare to … meh.
Whatevs, man.
You said “ Reality is irreducibly complex (3-in-1)” I think Reality is uncomplicatibly simple. Nature is irreducibly complex. Granted the 3-in-1 symbolizes this fact. That is why the wise acknowledge it is a mystery.
Irreducibly complex is not in conflict with uncomplicatibly simple.
Have you tried willing one thing?
Human phenomena are not simple. So why would willing one thing be simple?
Well there’s the irreducibly complex, uncomplicatedly simple essence of the whole thing.
And that’s what we have to overcome towards. By letting go of the “nothing” to make way for the fullness.
Count it all joy.
The irreducibly complex is irreducible by definition. So it can’t be reduced to its essence, whatever that is.
1 Like
Nah man. You can’t reduce the essence.
Apparently, you don’t know what irreducible means.
It’s maximally great, man.
You are maximally illogical.
You are maximally wrong.
Hope you get back on here soon Arc
Thou art that” seems to contain a distinction between thou and that.
I myself do not intuit any distinction within thou art that. The words to me seem to claim one identity only there.
Does it mean the same as self=other?
Not to me it doesn’t. With self-other, does there not still have to be a relationship between two people who have separate self-identities.
Of course, it would depend on who is doing the speaking and what they mean.
We all express ourselves differently and we are not mind-readers.