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

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?

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.

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!".

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

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

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.