Truth is Triangular

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

ughaibu
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 09:37 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134306 wrote:
I completely disagree. The distinction is essential.
In that case, I think you need to reconsider your symbology, for the reasons given.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 09:41 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;134339 wrote:
Be fair. You did write:
But it did indeed seem like a big digression, and I'm quite glad that it is over - not that I actually know what to say that is on-topic!



What we are looking at is the basic way humans think. They synthesize. Why symbolize this w/ triangles? The two bottom corners meet at the top corner. This is a basic structure. Man only evolves because he synthesizes, which is the same as to abstract, or "yank out." He yanks out pieces of his experience by naming them, putting a frame around them.

He can then synthesize these synthesized pieces. In other words, he can reconstruct his constructions. This is why philosophy is possible.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 12:47 am
@Reconstructo,
The truth is engendered within error. The transcendental is abstracted from the incidental, over a period of time, by means of synthetic logos. This process is driven by desire, a desire for error mistaken as truth. At some point the error is recognized for what it is, an error. Because the the thinker is presented with an anti-thesis that manifest how his error-mistaken-for-truth is lacking. The anti-thesis is incorporated into the error, and the error is again mistaken for the truth (the whole truth). Yet again this error-mistaken-for-truth is met by an anti-thesis.

In the long run, this error-mistaken-for-truth, having assimilating many antitheses, is no longer met by an anti-thesis. It finally is the truth.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 02:43 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;133948 wrote:
No, the value is equal to the number of sides. This is the case for any convex polygon, they dont need to be equilateral, but that reduces the eccenticity of the idea. The interesting point is that pi for circles is between three and four, not infinitely large, as one would expect if a circle is a polygon with an infinite number of sides.


I'm joining this thread a bit late, but how are you equating pi to the number of sides? Pi is a ratio used to convert between a circumference and a diameter. If you made a triangle out of the diameter of a circle, it would account for almost all of the circumference, this is why pi is between 3 and 4.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 02:47 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;134496 wrote:
I'm joining this thread a bit late, but how are you equating pi to the number of sides? Pi is a ratio used to convert between a circumference and a diameter. If you made a triangle out of the diameter of a circle, it would account for almost all of the circumference, this is why pi is between 3 and 4.
See posts 6 and 18.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:14 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;134496 wrote:
I'm joining this thread a bit late, but how are you equating pi to the number of sides? Pi is a ratio used to convert between a circumference and a diameter. If you made a triangle out of the diameter of a circle, it would account for almost all of the circumference, this is why pi is between 3 and 4.


Welcome friend! I expect you actually know more complex math and science than I, who am a humble focuser on the absolute basic concept. what say we synthesize our specialties?

I just changed my icon to an illustration of what this thread is about. the infinity sign is either the qualia or the words to be abstracted from. the minus sign is the negation of qualia into object and not-object or the abstraction of a group of words into a class concept.

the plus sign on top is the synthesis, and it also represents man as the fusion of two transcendentals, the continuous (or infinite) and the digital (which is made possible by negation). Pure negation is not truly representable, but the minus sign is close (it's a dead one sign?).

The whole thing can only be experience from the top, the plus sign, but that's we we are. language users who can figure out exactly this triangular relationship to transcendental intuitions...And the logos which evolves to exactly this transcendental self-consciousness.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:21 pm
@Reconstructo,
To me, it's seems right to seek out the basic structure of thought, the essence of essence. Was this what Wittgenstein tried to do? Especially in TLP?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:37 pm
@Reconstructo,
One more time. Because I think the structure of thought is crucial.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 10:09:01