X

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 02:56 am
At the moment it seems to me that the x or the + is an ideal symbol --and this symbol is a "synonym" of the triangle.

We can think of one "legs" or stroke of the cross as the transcendental or eternal. We can think of the other "leg" or stroke of the cross as the incidental or the temporal.

Humans are not eternal, as they develop over time in the flux of experience. But humans are not completely temporal as their transcendental faculties impose a consistent form on this same flux.

What makes the cross triangular is that these two "legs" or aspects must be taken together or synthesized. Man is a collision of the transcendental w/ the accidental, or a form imposed on flux.

Interpreted as an "x" or a "+," it comes to the same thing. Man is either x, as in unknown and unknowable, or a plus sign, a being who synthesizes or creates. It's because humanity creates that humanity is unknowable. His story remains unfinished, and unpredictable. In either of these scenarios, the cross/plus represents eternity in time, yes, but also, and just as important---> the logos itself. Or human discourse.

The cross-as-logos is Hegelian dialectic, or abstraction. By means of the logos (the element that essentially differentiates us from animals), entirely novel conceptions are born. We are created in the image of the creator, or "he" is created in ours. Jesus is the Human Form Divine, a perfect triangle, the ideal human, and not from my perspective "supernatural" in the least.

Reason is numinous. Logos is Reason. Reason is God in Man.
 
William
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 04:13 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;133972 wrote:
At the moment it seems to me that the x or the + is an ideal symbol --and this symbol is a "synonym" of the triangle.

We can think of one "legs" or stroke of the cross as the transcendental or eternal. We can think of the other "leg" or stroke of the cross as the incidental or the temporal.

Humans are not eternal, as they develop over time in the flux of experience. But humans are not completely temporal as their transcendental faculties impose a consistent form on this same flux.

What makes the cross triangular is that these two "legs" or aspects must be taken together or synthesized. Man is a collision of the transcendental w/ the accidental, or a form imposed on flux.

Interpreted as an "x" or a "+," it comes to the same thing. Man is either x, as in unknown and unknowable, or a plus sign, a being who synthesizes or creates. It's because humanity creates that humanity is unknowable. His story remains unfinished, and unpredictable. In either of these scenarios, the cross/plus represents eternity in time, yes, but also, and just as important---> the logos itself. Or human discourse.

The cross-as-logos is Hegelian dialectic, or abstraction. By means of the logos (the element that essentially differentiates us from animals), entirely novel conceptions are born. We are created in the image of the creator, or "he" is created in ours. Jesus is the Human Form Divine, a perfect triangle, the ideal human, and not from my perspective "supernatural" in the least.

Reason is numinous. Logos is Reason. Reason is God in Man.


Hello my friend. I have said this before of others; I am not smart enough to understand all that you have offered here, but I have observed enough of what you have said to appreciate the fact that you said it. Whether I understand it or not, I agree with what you said and that my friend is what trust is all about.

William
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 04:18 am
@William,
William;133987 wrote:
Hello my friend. I have said this before of others; I am not smart enough to understand all that you have offered here, but I have observed enough of what you have said to appreciate the fact that you said it. Whether I understand it or not, I agree with what you said and that my friend is what trust is all about.

William


Thanks William! To sum up all that I just said: the Divine was always in us from the get go.....we just didn't know it.

All the time that cross was before me. I see now in a way quite hard to explain (symbolic geometry), that this cross is also a plus sign, a triangle, an equal sign, and a negative one.....oh yeah, and the intersection of the divine & it's shadow, spirit and meat, the Human Form Divine (Blake), a castle on the river, a spiral that simultaneously widens and narrows, ascends and descends, & not supernatural but as natural as a newborn child.....
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 09:21 pm
@Reconstructo,
Natural science is not the Truth, but the "truth."
Transcendental philosophy is not the "truth," but the Truth.
Mysticism is either superstition or misunderstood transcendental philosophy.

These are my opinions. And note ye atheists out there, reconstructo is not a mystic.
And for the skeptics: he will pragmatically assimilate yr dynamic anti-truth. Like Pac-man.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 09:43 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;133989 wrote:
To sum up all that I just said: the Divine was always in us from the get go.....we just didn't know it.
"We" includes you, so you dont know that which you've asserted, by your own admission! So, why should your reader take this assertion seriously?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 10:46 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;134347 wrote:
"We" includes you, so you dont know that which you've asserted, by your own admission! So, why should your reader take this assertion seriously?


Man, seriously.....You need to realize that logos or discourse is not mathema...

It's just like the god issue. Please, do some research on rhetoric, metaphor, irony....

Still, I'm not trying to insult you. But you're objection is way off. No offense, but you might not be ready for what I'm saying here.....
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 12:01 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134393 wrote:
you're objection is way off. No offense, but you might not be ready for what I'm saying here.....
I'm not going to dispute it. As far as I understand it, the philosophical process goes something like this:
1) some claim is made, and understood by those to whom it is presented
2) any potential flaws in that claim are suggested by those to whom it is presented
3) any interesting consequences of the claim are assessed and discussed.
For all these threads that you're posting, I cant even get to stage 1. You present a set of assertions concerning undefined terms, without any explanation of what the implications are meant to be or why anyone should care. I'm not offering an objection, I'm just trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Frankly, these opening posts come over as some kind of acid-ramble.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 12:04 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;134431 wrote:
I'm not going to dispute it. As far as I understand it, the philosophical process goes something like this:
1) some claim is made, and understood by those to whom it is presented
2) any potential flaws in that claim are suggested by those to whom it is presented
3) any interesting consequences of the claim are assessed and discussed.
For all these threads that you're posting, I cant even get to stage 1. You present a set of assertions concerning undefined terms, without any explanation of what the implications are meant to be or why anyone should care. I'm not offering an objection, I'm just trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Frankly, these opening posts come over as some kind of acid-ramble.


I understand. Yes, it's going to sound strange. But I've put quite a bit of time in. The problem with point 1 is that it misunderstand the very nature of discourse, which is not tautological but synthetic and metaphorical...

That's the crux. There's no way around it. All I can do is assure you that it's no acid ramble, but a presentation of some of high-tech German philosophy, seasoned w/ this and that.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 12:24 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134432 wrote:
I understand. Yes, it's going to sound strange. But I've put quite a bit of time in. The problem with point 1 is that it misunderstand the very nature of discourse, which is not tautological but synthetic and metaphorical...

That's the crux. There's no way around it. All I can do is assure you that it's no acid ramble, but a presentation of some of high-tech German philosophy, seasoned w/ this and that.
But you still haven't explained anything. And by your own admission, in this thread, you dont know what you're talking about, and if you dont know what you're talking about, then you cant understand what you're talking about. So I dont feel at any disadvantage to you by virtue of my lack of understanding concerning this thread.
If you have something to say and that thing is worth reading, surely you can present it in a form that your reader can comprehend. If you cant, this particular reader is going to liken your threads to a cry of "wolf!".
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 12:30 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;134445 wrote:
But you still haven't explained anything. And by your own admission, in this thread, you dont know what you're talking about, and if you dont know what you're talking about, then you cant understand what you're talking about. So I dont feel at any disadvantage to you by virtue of my lack of understanding concerning this thread.
If you have something to say and that thing is worth reading, surely you can present it in a form that your reader can comprehend. If you cant, this particular reader is going to liken your threads to a cry of "wolf!".


I know exactly what I'm talking about. I don't mean to insult you. Sorry if I have.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 12:35 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134450 wrote:
I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Then your position is inconsistent.
Reconstructo;133989 wrote:
To sum up all that I just said: the Divine was always in us from the get go.....we just didn't know it.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 12:40 am
@Reconstructo,
The triangle is a great representation of dialectic or synthesis. The circle is a great representation of logic or number.

Pure logic is pure number and pure number is only one number, despite appearances. All number is a modification of 1. Don't be deceived by our ten-digit positional system. It's convenient, as we have ten digits. But ten digits is one quantity. (More on that later...)

Logos, however, is not circular but triangular (or spiral, but that's another thread). For logos, or word, is not only the unification of qualia, but also of other words. Logos is an transcendentally synthetic, but only because it relates us to the incidental, by unifying qualia. The first way that logos is triangularly describe is: one bottom angle is number, and the second bottom angle is qualia. At the top, we have the synthesis of qualia and name, or concept. This is concrete concept, or less-abstract concept.

Sometimes the "triangle" is used to synthesize not qualia but two or more concepts (so the triangle isn't a perfect analogy in this case.) But essentially, the synthesized concepts are the lower corners of the triangle and both are negated/synthesized in the new concept, the one represented by the peak of the triangle.

Philosophy is nothing but this synthesis, by which the transcendental is revealed/abstracted, including the synthetic process itself, which is both transcendental and incidental. (symbolized quite well by Christ...)

The cross (+) expresses the same synthesis, but that's another thread....
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 12:48 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134458 wrote:
The triangle is a great representation of dialectic or synthesis. The circle is a great representation of logic or number.
And any triangle is topologically equivalent to a circle. I have already pointed this out on your other thread.
Reconstructo;134458 wrote:
Pure logic is pure number and pure number is only one number, despite appearances.
You're just repeating yourself, and what you're repeating doesn't seem to have any meaning, it's just assertion. Formal systems consist of three things:
1) an alphabet
2) rules of inference
3) definitions.
Numbers are examples of an alphabet and logics consist of rules of inference, so your claim appears to be false. Arguing your case and demonstrating that your claim isn't false, and is meaningful, is your responsibility.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 12:57 am
@Reconstructo,
If it's an offensive question, how old you are? How long have you been studying philosophy? Who are your favorite philosophers? What's your general background of study? This might help me relate to you.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 02:26:09