Quote:
Originally Posted by rybot  I have another concern about threeness which involves simple binary action or non-action( passive )that may or may not have been covered here as the binary enumerations.
I think Tina has a post regarding;
+ aka +1( e.g. postive charge proton )
- aka -1( e.g. negative charge electron )
and 0 aka neutral( chargeless neutron grey area )
My concern is to specific set of circumstances( light switch ) wherein there is *on*( ergo electrons flow ) and *off*( ergo no electron flow ).
There is no grey area between those two that I'm aware of.
Regarding the latter there is only one grey area of consideration in that circumstance and that is of the uncertainty of mind, as to whether the electrons are, or, are not flowing through the switch.
If there is no light bulb( or meter ) to tell us if the electrons are flowing through the switch --or not-- then we need to make a physical observation, by installing light bulb meter whatever.
So we have the physical flow( active ) or no flow( passive ) and then metaphysial abstraction uncertatinty( grey area ) of mind.
Rybo |
Rybot,
According to me, your answer is completely correct. Yet I would have to add that the context in which your answer is totally correct was also dictated by you. You write that your concern is to the specific set of circumstances (light switch) wherein there is *on* (ergo electrons flow) and *off* (ergo no electron flow). It is correct that there is no gray area between those two. However, the toe is not limited to just electrical charge or physical flow, the toe is limited in one sense only: it must encompass everything.
Your delivery is nevertheless fundamental and must be placed central in the toe, but since the toe is not limited to a light switch there must then indeed be a neutral position next to the on and the off positions. In nature, we find electrical charge, but we do not find every charge lining up behind a light switch, and we can find more than just electrical charge.
I do not know if you guys are all fed up with my repetitious words, but I place the basic set of positions on a globe: there are only two positions that are grounded: North (Northpole) and South (Southpole). However, other positions/directions are available and necessary to make the picture more complete: East and West. Any place on earth (except North and South poles) can become East or West depending on the point of perspective. In that sense a location on this globe is always neutral in regards to East and West (except for the North and the South pole), while each of the North-South locations are not neutral; each of them are rather and completely specific.
This means, according to me, Rybot, that even the neutral position as the third position is correct but in itself not specific enough; we need a fourth position to go together with the third position to deliver the completed neutral position, but we have to accept that there is no grounded natural distinction for this option. We are able to make the specific East-West distinctions on a map ourselves only because mankind agreed to let the largest ruler of the world of those days (Britain) draw a specific East-West line in the sand at Greenwich. So, threeness is indeed correct, but not as accurate as fourness. And if you know my pyramidal theory, there is also the option to move towards claiming fiveness as the basic set of positions.
Fiveness, because the global position system is not complete yet: there are two more directions that are often forgotten but quite important. They are the inward and the outward direction. The outward direction can be considered an infinite direction — shoot a rocket away from earth and if it doesn't hit anything it can go on forever. The inward direction can only be considered finite — even the largest object in our universe has in the inward direction a finite quality. Okay, that adds up to more than five (though the finite direction is really not that much in the large scheme of things), so you may call it sixness as well — be my guest.
Just to be complete here: the global set of positions comes back in the solar systematic set of positions, but it differs somewhat, just like the galactic systematic set of positions is similar but different yet once again. Same goes for the universe, similar, but different yet once again.
P.S. Fascinating videos, Tina.
)
Linear Mode
