[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> LLoyd, I agree completely with your post. I find an interesting way of calling the three points: 1.indirect, 2.direction, 3.direct. It's hard to explain what I mean by using these three terms, so I'll use some analogous (but not abstract) ones: 1.derivatives, 2.axiomatization and derivation, 3.axiom. Or another set of non-abstract analogous terms: 1.abilities, 2.limitation and abilitation, 3.limits. Tell me if you get what I'm meaning, cause I just can't explain it with sentences, I have to use the terms, tell me if they are good or not.

You know Guille, our greatest problem to overcome is right here___the problem of accurately defining the three being states. I got thinking the other day and realized there was also no alternative word in the english language for god___I mean as to its fullest meanings. Can you imagine how much easier it would be if we simply had another word with comparable power to describe the being states? Can you think of a word, analogy, concept to help us out? I'm stuck on this one, as it seems to have the power of historical precedence on its side___it's the weirdest idea I've ever come across___is this truly its only power___the simple fact we don't have a comparable word to challenge it___and mean the same but different, i.e., the scientific quantum, or whatever...? Think about all the words that will not qualify to replace it___is there One...?___or is it, or can it simply be ONE...?

As to your ideas of what to use as words/ideas to describe the three being states, I think we still gotta work hard to find the absolutely most appropriate ones here too, just as much as solving my above riddle___what to replace the word god with. Many of your words/ideas seem fine, if you're comfortable with them___I think being comfortable with the words is important. Let me just throw in a few I have thought; 1.Intrinsic/Extrinsic 2.Intrinsic/Extrinsic/Intrinsic 3.Intrinsic/Extrinsic/Intrinsic/Extrinsic, or 1.Innate 2.Animate 3.Animate/Inanimate, or as before; 1.personality/ego/reason/intuition 2.essence/emotions/soul/intuition 3.universal concept/universal idea/universal singularity/logic/intuition. A lot of it just seems so overly convoluted___we need simplification___and I think simplifying by creating a new word for god is key...unless we use the word god as defined by atheists...?

regards

[Guille]

I agree with you that we need to make up a term or a concept which is the three beings. Which isn't god, but the three beings still. But actually we cannot give it any other property than being the three beings, and that god has, for example omnipresence, omniscience, transcendence, inmanence... Because that is what has taken it to Nietzsche's "God is dead". The deconstruction of metaphysics, I must remember, is also the deconstruction of faith. Therefore, the new term must only have the property of being the three beings. But what? I think the name we give it will derive directly into the name we will use to our alternative to metaphysics. In fact, it will lead to the name to what art will be after it's deconstruction, what science will be after it's deconstruction, what philosophy will be after it's deconstruction, what the praxis will be after this nouveille pensée (new thought). I've been thinking that we should use the greek language, as so many philosophers have, because it is a much more precise language than the rest (maybe german is near in precision). I've been in the internet ended up making a term: the 'oloi-entheto-paronomastis' which textually means the 'pan-inserted-denominator' which I believe describes what we are actually looking for. Pan is all, inserted because it is included as part of each being, and determinant because it is inherent in the fractiosn of the three beings. Even though it's long, it's apropiate. oloienthetoparonomastis (I guess it's harder for an english speaker, cause in spanish it's easy to say), not only is a good term, but it unites three important ideas that we have to replace metaphysics; 1. talking of the subject and objec as part of one, of a thing, of a total, of part of the particular pan, oloi, 2. insertion of all, oloi, not by structure only, but by strategy better; the method on top of the system, 3. determinant because it shows what we want with Anun; that the analysis is ina ccordance with the previous analogy to be used, that the paper is how the pencil needs it to be, that is, they are the two parts of a fraction. This is great I think, the only inconvinience is that it's a long term, the main problem is to say it, cause there is no problem writting it or reading it if it's explaned. We should think how to derive the other names from this one, like the new substitude for metaphysics? Should it be (the new substitude for metaphysics) the 'paronomastis'?

[michellemfry]

While philosophy rests on it's logic, the absurd roams free, unidentified in the realm of logic. When time is not taken to absorb and think out the consequences of a step in logic, absurdity is all around and constantly avoided out of habit and our reliance on the sanity of logic. But what of the insane, does it not exist just the same?
If a, then a again, instead of if a, then b, then c, etc. When angular momentum is found, what became of reverse angular momentum? To turn in the opposite direction, in exact opposition to forward angular momentum. And whatever forward encounters, the reverse reacts in kind, but exactly the opposite. But we are not accustomed to following two lines of logic at once. We are simple that way, and very faithful to what we have learned. But the universe seems to be able to follow multiple lines of logic at once, simultaneously, without deviation, without lag in response, without skipping a beat. I can only stand to watch with awe, as the omniscient handles the logical and the absurd with ease and practice. Always keeping us safe and holding to one path that we can rely on.

[Guille]

Michelle,

I think you've given a good point. Humans have never been able to think both absurdly and logically. Or wait, they have: it's what philosophy is about, isn't it? Yes, I believe. Philosophy is the art of the concept, or the science of the expression. And it is there between art and science; between the absurd and creative and the logical and empirical. I do think nature also goes in many ways in the dimension of logic. But still, me, you, humanity and nature are all trapped in the dimension of logic, just as in those of time and of space.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Michelle, I think you've given a good point. Humans have never been able to think both absurdly and logically. Or wait, they have: it's what philosophy is about, isn't it? Yes, I believe. Philosophy is the art of the concept, or the science of the expression. And it is there between art and science; between the absurd and creative and the logical and empirical. I do think nature also goes in many ways in the dimension of logic. But still, me, you, humanity and nature are all trapped in the dimension of logic, just as in those of time and of space.

Though the world may be emotional materialism, emotions can't exist without logic also... I like Michell's point, also___nature has designed a very complex magic for us to figure out... I've thought a great deal about bi-directional logic, bi-jective has something to do with it, but much better deffinitions of multi-directional logic are sorely needed... Just think of art or music to realize how much larger is this logic than Aristotle's principled logic___kinda makes the mind wander offfffffffffff...

regards

[CA Gamer]

New to Toequest, registered and logged in to thank Lloyd Gillespie for their posts.


Many here appear to have much to say, however it appears maybe a bit too much. The intuitiveness, or I dare say initiative, of conclustion to contemplation appears entirely undermined in most of the posts here. Lloyd's point of going back to the foundations appears extremely on point in this regard. Those who most of you have read that established certain criteria, certain principles to achieve a comprehension of these states LLoyd pointed out, and to use them accordingly in seeking the answers of the future appear to need a simple review to aid in determining if one is involved in philosophy or posing from a whim. These principles are objective. Positions based on some whim will naturally be unable to stand up against these principles, meaning you, the philosophically inclined, must operate from a genuinely objective position. This is well founded in that where we are now, whatever state it is, occured because of what preceeded our existence both the good and bad--The learning, the wisdom that comes from all aspects taken in and in context, not without it.

To use a phrase from Ayn Rand, our "range of the moment" method of processing appears the culprit in that the whimsical "pholosophies" of the modernists are thought out within the confines of the here and now, not that they lack forecasting a future but that these fail to include the lessons learned from the past and thus thrust the future into a less organized potential. Most people and their television controller are a perfect example of the power of the "range of the moment" and how it's influenced our actions, thus our minds, and our perception of "normal." Our attention spans must be greater than this if solutions (versus just more grey area more "analysis paralysis") is our true goal.

For clarity, and not as any sort of affront, we simply have dropped, or not taken to heart as a stake of our race's continued existence, the actions that preceeded ours and how they set forth a future as a certain, specific, non-negotiable intention we shall continue the tradition of in what we do today because it is necessary to our survival. Apparently those"pholosphers" from a few hundered years ago, for the sake of whims--their own throat and their kings for his--appear to have begun the dropping, the forgetting the necessity to not negotiate their integrity in upholding what those long before them had done that provided these servants of the crown with their position. These depth of those who set these foundations in our past as Lloyd brought up must be the the inheritance we strive for and to surpass in the entirety of everything, and we should settle for no less. Taking a moderate stance in this regard will leave us with much agreement, even much done in the name of agreement, but little done in holding ourselves to the highest standards of integrity.


I am no scholar and likely misused grammar pretty regularly so should there be some need to argue, bantor, etc. Go for it! However this post was done in the interest of injecting the influence of reality (as in our physical existence and it's demands, limits and thereby the call for enlightenment to help release us from these, a call that appears to have gone awry) not as an argument but as an observation of the unlearned who generally are effected by those in the ivory towers making the directing assertions and decisions, and, who have erected their tower so high we can't even try to throw a pebble at the window to get their attention :P


Enjoy

[mkirkpatrick]

Welcome CAGamer to the toequest community,greetings from the UK to you,hope you settle in,and look forward to your further posts.


regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Thanks CA Gamer, for the identification/recognition of my ideas, and welcome to ToeQuest. Hope you enjoy yourself, here...

Regards,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by CA Gamer New to Toequest, registered and logged in to thank Lloyd Gillespie for their posts. Many here appear to have much to say, however it appears maybe a bit too much. The intuitiveness, or I dare say initiative, of conclustion to contemplation appears entirely undermined in most of the posts here. Lloyd's point of going back to the foundations appears extremely on point in this regard. Those who most of you have read that established certain criteria, certain principles to achieve a comprehension of these states LLoyd pointed out, and to use them accordingly in seeking the answers of the future appear to need a simple review to aid in determining if one is involved in philosophy or posing from a whim. These principles are objective. Positions based on some whim will naturally be unable to stand up against these principles, meaning you, the philosophically inclined, must operate from a genuinely objective position. This is well founded in that where we are now, whatever state it is, occured because of what preceeded our existence both the good and bad--The learning, the wisdom that comes from all aspects taken in and in context, not without it. To use a phrase from Ayn Rand, our "range of the moment" method of processing appears the culprit in that the whimsical "pholosophies" of the modernists are thought out within the confines of the here and now, not that they lack forecasting a future but that these fail to include the lessons learned from the past and thus thrust the future into a less organized potential. Most people and their television controller are a perfect example of the power of the "range of the moment" and how it's influenced our actions, thus our minds, and our perception of "normal." Our attention spans must be greater than this if solutions (versus just more grey area more "analysis paralysis") is our true goal. For clarity, and not as any sort of affront, we simply have dropped, or not taken to heart as a stake of our race's continued existence, the actions that preceeded ours and how they set forth a future as a certain, specific, non-negotiable intention we shall continue the tradition of in what we do today because it is necessary to our survival. Apparently those"pholosphers" from a few hundered years ago, for the sake of whims--their own throat and their kings for his--appear to have begun the dropping, the forgetting the necessity to not negotiate their integrity in upholding what those long before them had done that provided these servants of the crown with their position. These depth of those who set these foundations in our past as Lloyd brought up must be the the inheritance we strive for and to surpass in the entirety of everything, and we should settle for no less. Taking a moderate stance in this regard will leave us with much agreement, even much done in the name of agreement, but little done in holding ourselves to the highest standards of integrity. I am no scholar and likely misused grammar pretty regularly so should there be some need to argue, bantor, etc. Go for it! However this post was done in the interest of injecting the influence of reality (as in our physical existence and it's demands, limits and thereby the call for enlightenment to help release us from these, a call that appears to have gone awry) not as an argument but as an observation of the unlearned who generally are effected by those in the ivory towers making the directing assertions and decisions, and, who have erected their tower so high we can't even try to throw a pebble at the window to get their attention :P Enjoy

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Guille Michelle, I think you've given a good point. Humans have never been able to think both absurdly and logically. Or wait, they have: it's what philosophy is about, isn't it? Yes, I believe. Philosophy is the art of the concept, or the science of the expression. And it is there between art and science; between the absurd and creative and the logical and empirical. I do think nature also goes in many ways in the dimension of logic. But still, me, you, humanity and nature are all trapped in the dimension of logic, just as in those of time and of space.

You are absolutely right there my friend,unless we firmly grasp the absurd and the
illogical,we will never fully understand the complex nature of simplicity?


regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Absurd, illogical simplicity, taken too far, is imbecility...

regards,