Morality and Intelligence

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:

Apparently you are one who follows the dictates of the Great Beast. You are only open to what a bunch of experts decided is the truth of the matter. If a bunch of experts decide that the Jews are the cause of all evil, then kill the Jews. The legitimate search for truth is not pursued by believing a bunch of experts but by self knowledge – self verification.

You say "self knowedge". Do you refer to knowledge about your self; or do you mean knowledge that you yourself have somehow achieved?[/quote]

We live as if in a living machine but we don't know how it works. Rather we just go along for the ride. Conscious self knowledge is the result of impartially experiencing how it works. Sounds easy but it is a long and difficult struggle. For example, even distinguishing between sensing and feeling is not so easy. What is the difference between sensing and feeling cold for example? So many times we say "I feel cold" when we mean "I sense cold" or "I sense cold" when we mean "I feel cold". Self knowledge requires consciously experiencing this thing called "self" rather than imagining it.

-- Updated Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:56 pm to add the following --

Nick-A wrote:

I left Philosophy Now because it is controlled by a secular atheistic clique intent on the nasty cooperative destruction of anything suggesting the reality of the triune universe. Nothing good can come from such a dominant collective attitude so I left. I’m not a victim. It is just senseless to contribute under those circumstances.

You further the spirit killing taking place within institutions of psychological child abuse called schools. I prefer to defend the alternatives offering education as opposed to indoctrination.

Within the triune universe, what is the ascribed status of human critical reasoning?

Literal critical thought is dualistic. It is based on two principles - yes/no, affirm/deny, positive/negative and so on. It lacks the third dimension of thought. Duality can be expressed as a horizontal line. Forming a triangle invites the third vertical direction.

[Fooloso4]

Nick_A:

Socrates said “I know nothing.” F4 says “I am ignorant.” Can’t argue that one.

From the IEP:

This awareness of one’s own absence of knowledge is what is known as Socratic ignorance ...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/socrates/#SSH2bi

You really can’t help yourself can you? Here you have demonstrated both your ignorance of your ignorance and your need to have the last word.

[Nick_A]

Belindi asked

Within the triune universe, what is the ascribed status of human critical reasoning?

I replied

Literal critical thought is dualistic. It is based on two principles - yes/no, affirm/deny, positive/negative and so on. It lacks the third dimension of thought. Duality can be expressed as a horizontal line. Forming a triangle invites the third vertical direction.

I should have been more specific. Probably the easiest way to understand the limits of critical thought is to see it in the context of the relationship between yin, yang, and qi as well known in the East. Yin is the denying force while yang is the affirming force. Without a third force there is no way they can unite to form a thing. Qi is this third force that unites yin and yang while creating this third dimension of existence including thought. It is an interesting topic even though the secular experts would hate it since it introduces a conscious vertical direction they are dedicated to oppose.

[Belindi]

Belindi asked

Within the triune universe, what is the ascribed status of human critical reasoning?

I replied

Literal critical thought is dualistic. It is based on two principles - yes/no, affirm/deny, positive/negative and so on. It lacks the third dimension of thought. Duality can be expressed as a horizontal line. Forming a triangle invites the third vertical direction.

I should have been more specific. Probably the easiest way to understand the limits of critical thought is to see it in the context of the relationship between yin, yang, and qi as well known in the East. Yin is the denying force while yang is the affirming force. Without a third force there is no way they can unite to form a thing. Qi is this third force that unites yin and yang while creating this third dimension of existence including thought. It is an interesting topic even though the secular experts would hate it since it introduces a conscious vertical direction they are dedicated to oppose.

Yin and Yang are ideas which as you know describe how The Way becomes relativistic. Personally I find Yin and Yang excellent images, even when they are expressed in Chinese topographical imagery, and so I understand what you are saying.
I never learned that about Qi , and what you say about Qi also makes sense to me.

I think I differ from you in that Yin and Yang are not dualistically cut and dried but are in practical terms probabilistic. They are probabilistic in our thoughts which are unable to be other than probabilistic , and in our actions of which we barely know the causes and of which we can predict even less.

However I do like what you said regarding Qi which I view not as another dimension to ameliorate the (specious)duality of Yin and Yang, but as the driver which allows us to cut through the hopelessness of fatalism. Moreover, a large part of Qi is our ability to reason, and the greater remainder of Qi is conatus or will to live.

[Rr6]

Triune Universe begins with the concept of the greatest whole and Ive labled that as "U"niverse/"G"od.

1a} metaphysical-1{ spirit-of-intent-1 }, mind/intellect/concept
-------------line of demarcation--------------------------------------
1b} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that,embraces the following,

1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse or G-o-d

This is real simple, not complex to grasp.

No philosophical circular logic, mumbo-jumbo can get around these above set of rational, logical common sense truths. imho

The next subset of three is as follows;

1c2} spirit-2, observed physical/energy i.e. fermions, bosons and aggregate thereof,

1c3} metaphysical-3{ spirit-3 }, gravity,

1c4} metaphysical-4{ spirit-4 }, dark energy.

Simple not complex to grasp.

There is no special access to God/Universe, there is however, a feeling of connected-ness to the whole Universe, that, can occur in some special-case circumstances. This is most likely were ideas of oneness stem from.
The feeling of connected-ness and to all existence, and peace/contentment of mind.
out > past > ( * / * ) > future > In > ( * / * )> out > past
To see, as one, to feel, as one and to be/exist as one, amongest the whole-ness of existence.
I exist as part of a greater whole even as the "I"-verse exist in differentiation to the whole

Cosmic Evoluting Transformations
By R6
From the synergetic concentric hierarchy,
To the action of the toroidal process,
So begins our fall,
From equilibrous grace,
And the God-ess-ence,
Of total comprehension,
Into the quasi-reality,
Of disequilibrious,
Oscillating states of consciousness.

We evolute outward from an involution,
With seven planes and seven faces,
Sometimes diverging and then converging,
In eternal transformation,
From the unknown to the known,
In orbiting trajectories,
That are forever approaching,
The critical proximities,
Of absolute truth.

Intellect beyond time,
Purpose preceding space,
Falling in and out of love,
The interrelationships of God-ess-ence,
Encompasses all experience,
As limited, finite, quantum bits,
And their associated voids of space,
Tuned-out, as ultra micro-fields of gravity.


(Nested quote removed.)

[Nick_A]

Belindi asked


(Nested quote removed.)


I replied


(Nested quote removed.)


I should have been more specific. Probably the easiest way to understand the limits of critical thought is to see it in the context of the relationship between yin, yang, and qi as well known in the East. Yin is the denying force while yang is the affirming force. Without a third force there is no way they can unite to form a thing. Qi is this third force that unites yin and yang while creating this third dimension of existence including thought. It is an interesting topic even though the secular experts would hate it since it introduces a conscious vertical direction they are dedicated to oppose.

Yin and Yang are ideas which as you know describe how The Way becomes relativistic. Personally I find Yin and Yang excellent images, even when they are expressed in Chinese topographical imagery, and so I understand what you are saying.
I never learned that about Qi , and what you say about Qi also makes sense to me.

I think I differ from you in that Yin and Yang are not dualistically cut and dried but are in practical terms probabilistic. They are probabilistic in our thoughts which are unable to be other than probabilistic , and in our actions of which we barely know the causes and of which we can predict even less.

However I do like what you said regarding Qi which I view not as another dimension to ameliorate the (specious)duality of Yin and Yang, but as the driver which allows us to cut through the hopelessness of fatalism. Moreover, a large part of Qi is our ability to reason, and the greater remainder of Qi is conatus or will to live.

Yin and yang can be considered as the two extremes of the law of the excluded middle that cannot be reconciled

Compare the more common law of the excluded middle which features binary thought with the law of the included middle which includes the conscious middle within which the extremes are reconciled

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.

https://www.edge.org/annual-question/20 ... onse/27155

Included Middle is an idea proposed by Stéphane Lupasco (in The Principle of Antagonism and the Logic of Energy in 1951), further developed by Joseph E. Brenner and Basarab Nicolescu, and also supported by Werner Heisenberg. The notion pertains to physics and quantum mechanics, and may have wider application in other domains such as information theory and computing, epistemology, and theories of consciousness. The Included Middle is a theory proposing that logic has a three-part structure. The three parts are the positions of asserting something, the negation of this assertion, and a third position that is neither or both. Lupasco labeled these states A, not-A, and T. The Included Middle stands in opposition to classical logic stemming from Aristotle. In classical logic, the Principle of Non-contradiction specifically proposes an Excluded Middle, that no middle position exists, tertium non datur (there is no third option). In traditional logic, for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true (there is either A or not-A). While this could be true for circumscribed domains that contain only A and not-A, there may also be a larger position not captured by these two claims, and that is articulated by the Included Middle…………….

Of course this is poison for the secularists and atheists since admitting the possibility of the included middle which is really qi, invites the potential for a higher source of qi. I feel lucky to be part of a beginning where such ideas will eventually become mainstream. I hope it does since without it the essence of religion and science cannot be reconciled. Without this reconciliation IMO our race is doomed. But if nothing else I feel privileged to have become aware of the domain within which the law of the excluded middle has it importance and the law of the included middle within which the Holy Trinity, universal meaning and purpose, as well as human consciousness can be understood and contemplated. I may get cursed out on internet sites but regardless I feel I am in good company

[Belindi]

Nick_A wrote:

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.

But Yin and Yang are probabilistic because Taoism is essentially practical. It may be the case that any proposition is either true or false but we cannot know that and neither can we know whether a specific proposition is true or false. All we know is the probability. We don't live our everyday lives by formal logic.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.

But Yin and Yang are probabilistic because Taoism is essentially practical. It may be the case that any proposition is either true or false but we cannot know that and neither can we know whether a specific proposition is true or false. All we know is the probability. We don't live our everyday lives by formal logic.

In all fairness Belindi, yin/yang theory describes a moving relationship – an interaction of forces that we are normally unaware of.

What is the Yin Yang Theory?

Yin yang theory is a kind of logic, which views things in relation to its whole. The theory is based on two basic components: yin and yang, which are neither materials nor energy. They combine in a complementary manner and form a method for explaining relationships between objects. Gradually, this logic was developed into a system of thought that was applied to other areas. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is an example of one area where the yin yang theory is used to understand complicated relationships in the body.

We may not know if an assertion is accurate or not but that is not to say it cannot be proven. Of course we don’t live by formal logic but still our reason is duality based. We lack the third element. The conscious element or the third dimension of thought when we have it, allows us to experience yes and no together from a higher perspective. I find it awe inspiring that there are people out there who are exploring ideas which have been condemned in the past as heresy and today frowned on by the dominant secularism of the Great Beast. But these wonderful individuals persist and our future may well depend upon their collective influence regardless of how they are condemned.

[Belindi]

Nick_A wrote:

In all fairness Belindi, yin/yang theory describes a moving relationship – an interaction of forces that we are normally unaware of.

What is the Yin Yang Theory?

Yin yang theory is a kind of logic, which views things in relation to its whole. The theory is based on two basic components: yin and yang, which are neither materials nor energy. They combine in a complementary manner and form a method for explaining relationships between objects. Gradually, this logic was developed into a system of thought that was applied to other areas. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is an example of one area where the yin yang theory is used to understand complicated relationships in the body.


We may not know if an assertion is accurate or not but that is not to say it cannot be proven. Of course we don’t live by formal logic but still our reason is duality based. We lack the third element. The conscious element or the third dimension of thought when we have it, allows us to experience yes and no together from a higher perspective. I find it awe inspiring that there are people out there who are exploring ideas which have been condemned in the past as heresy and today frowned on by the dominant secularism of the Great Beast. But these wonderful individuals persist and our future may well depend upon their collective influence regardless of how they are condemned.

I find nothing to disagree with in what you say about Yin and Yang. I regret that your tone indicates that you believe me to know little about Yin and Yang. You ar quite wrong about this . Tai Chi Chuan is a performance of Yin and Yang in action. Yin and Yang might be incorporated into the Creation story in Genesis. All of us unless we are ill or dying have the will to live which is the proper way to describe the "third element". Taoism tends to be rather quiescent ,probably for socio-historical reasons.Christianity is much less quiescent and promotes personal activity such as the Protestant work ethic. Even Protestants can appreciate Yin and Yang. None of us in our life on Earth is supernaturally gifted, and a measure of Yin and Yang quiescence is probably beneficial for the majority of us who live among the ephemeral trivia of modern life. I believe that your claim to supernatural power is mistaken and that you are deluded in it.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Nick_A:

In your post #96 you quote a couple of paragraphs about ‘the excluded middle’ from the online magazine, The Edge. It includes an argument proposing ‘the included middle’, relating to quantum interpretations of neither/both states. This posits an adaptation of logical reasoning in response to physical observations on the quantum scale. Your observations in relation to this are as follows :

Of course this is poison for the secularists and atheists since admitting the possibility of the included middle which is really qi, invites the potential for a higher source of qi. I feel lucky to be part of a beginning where such ideas will eventually become mainstream. I hope it does since without it the essence of religion and science cannot be reconciled. Without this reconciliation IMO our race is doomed. But if nothing else I feel privileged to have become aware of the domain within which the law of the excluded middle has it importance and the law of the included middle within which the Holy Trinity, universal meaning and purpose, as well as human consciousness can be understood and contemplated. I may get cursed out on internet sites but regardless I feel I am in good company

I am perplexed. What is it about a position in relation to logical reasoning which would make it poison for 'the secularists and atheists'? I could imagine how the application of logic might create difficulties if discussion was about a particular aspect of personal belief, particularly if it was of a religious nature, but why should that apply to a non-belief?

Your article from The Edge makes no reference to qi. That is something which you have thrown in with no explanation, justification or definition. Nonetheless, if, according to common definitions, we assume that qi is something to do with a ‘circulating life force’ or ‘vital energy’, then what is the validity in your statement that it "invites the potential for a higher source of qi"?. Maybe it does invite and maybe it doesn’t. If it has the potential to be or do something then it does not follow that it will. If I claim that humans have the potential to become elephants, it certainly does not follow that they will. The claim is meaningless.

Having learned from the article that a ‘law of the included middle’ may be necessary to encompass neither/both states, it is completely beyond my comprehension how, from this, you can determine that, "Holy Trinity, universal meaning and purpose, as well as human consciousness can be understood and contemplated". Please explain.

I am also aware that the title of this thread is ‘Morality and Intelligence’ and that the current discussion is wandering far from this theme. I think it can be brought closer by an examination of the degree to which logic can contribute to discussions of morality. But that is not where it is headed at the moment.

[Fooloso4]

Iapetus,
You may recall the topic: “The Futility of Reason” in which Nick claimed:

I use it [included middle] to explain the Holy Trinity and how God is simultaneously ONE and three.(#33)

I pressed him on this and he was unable to identify the terms. From #39:

N:

The logic of the included middle explains how A can simultaneously be A and not A.

Me:

Wrong. It is triadic. Here is what the article you cited actually says:

the rules of logical implication no longer concerning two terms (A and non-A) but three terms (A, non-A and T), co-existing at the same moment in time.

N:

It can because A and Not A can simultaneously exist at a higher level of reality which reconciles duality beneath it.

Me:

Wrong again. They do not simultaneously exist at a higher level. Here is what the article you cited actually says:

A, non-A, and T — and the dynamics associated with them by a triangle in which one of the vertices is situated at one level of Reality and the two other vertices at another level of Reality.

N:

A I understand it, The Absolute, the Good, the Source, or whatever name a person has for the conscious wholeness of God IS outside the limits of time and space.

Me:

This has nothing to do with an included middle. What are the two contradictory terms existing on one level and the third existing on another?

N:

It is the law of the included middle which simultaneously allows God to be as ONE outside creation and THREE within creation.

Me:

And this is why I said you use it as a magic incantation. Try to assign the three terms of the logic A,not A, and T to what you have said.

Me:

No. I am asking you to identify the two terms of opposition within the Trinity, the A and not A that are reconciled at a higher level. If you do not have TWO mutually exclusive terms at one level, then the law of included middle does not apply. (#46)

He was not able to respond and moved on. And now once again he repeats the same thing. The question I always have with regard to him is whether he is fooling himself or just trying to fool others.

[Nick_A]

Reply to Impetus

I am perplexed. What is it about a position in relation to logical reasoning which would make it poison for 'the secularists and atheists'? I could imagine how the application of logic might create difficulties if discussion was about a particular aspect of personal belief, particularly if it was of a religious nature, but why should that apply to a non-belief?

Secularism and atheism limits the process of existence to one level of reality sustained through duality or the continual interactions of two forces: affirm/deny, yes/no, positive/negative. Male/female, and so on. These beliefs do not acquire a third force to add depth so discussion is limited to one level of reality.

Even though we reason by duality, we live in a triune universe consisting of the interactions of three forces. In the future, when more become aware of this, society will become more are of a higher quality of reality from which society has devolved. As soon as people become more aware of the verticality of this third force it will be obvious that it must have a source provoking contemplation as to the reality of this “source.”

Your article from The Edge makes no reference to qi. That is something which you have thrown in with no explanation, justification or definition. Nonetheless, if, according to common definitions, we assume that qi is something to do with a ‘circulating life force’ or ‘vital energy’, then what is the validity in your statement that it "invites the potential for a higher source of qi"?. Maybe it does invite and maybe it doesn’t. If it has the potential to be or do something then it does not follow that it will. If I claim that humans have the potential to become elephants, it certainly does not follow that they will. The claim is meaningless.

Qi is the third force permeating the universe that enables creation by reconciling duality. Obviously this is impossible to explain in a post but if you are curious you can get an idea here. Naturally if you are unfamiliar with the concept it makes respecting it difficult.

http://qi-encyclopedia.com/?article=Qi- ... tal-Energy

………………Chang, Ching-yueh [Chang Chieh-pin],[2] renowned Taoist author, wrote in 1624 in the Lei-ching [Lei Jing] or Classified Classic: "Ch'i is configurational energy of the Cosmos. Change, both inception and transformation, rests on ch'i, and there is no being in the cosmos that does not originate from it. Thus ch'i envelops the Cosmos from without and moves the Cosmos from within. How else than by ch'i can the sun and the moon, the planets and the fixed stars shine, can thunder resound and rain, wind, and clouds be formed, can all beings take rise, mature, bear fruit and withdraw in the course of the Four Seasons? Man's existence too depends entirely upon his ch'i."
Ch'i means energy permeating the cosmos and man. Within man, ch'i is energy that is attached to air, breath, blood and nerve. It is vital life force, the essence of being, what the French similarly call élan vitale. It is a potential energy latent in the body—for which the English language does not have a word. Other Asian cultures have similar if not identical concepts to ch'i. In Indian yoga, the cosmic spirit-energy is called Shakti; another form associated with breath and vitality is known as prajna; and yet another form, equivalent to psychic nerve energy, is called the Kundalini, or serpent power. In Tibetan tantricism, ch'i is referred to as spirit-force, or psychic heat.
Through Daoist yoga, ch'i is experienced as an energy phenomenon with a definable quality and configuration, and with a definite direction in space. The transformation of ch'i is manifested by the presence of two creative forces: ching-ch'i [jing-qi] and shen-ch'i [shen-qi]. Ching-ch'i, or ching, is a structive, unattached and unrefined potential energy, and Shen-ch'i, or shen, is psychic awareness, or the projected-focus of the mind, a "speculative concept of pure action," which by definition cannot be perceived directly. Ching is a function of the body's metabolism; shen is a function of the mind and is naturally projected through the eyes. The two forces are polar in relationship to each other: ching is "yin" in nature; shen is "yang" in nature. Ching-ch'i cannot assume form except in the presence of shen-ch'i ; shen also has no form but can constitute the ching into ch'i , a specific energy configuration. Through the interaction of these two polar forces, the energy of the mind and the energy of the body, the form or shape of matter and other energy configurations is determined.
Herein lies the difference between eastern metaphysics and western philosophy. The premise of western thinking boils down to the counterposing of two separate entities: mind and matter. Western man identifies himself with his mind as separate from everything else. By defining everything not-him as "other," he ignores the continuity of his energy with the whole of the universe. Western man thus splits in terms—in his language and thinking—what is always One to begin with. Thus when man attempts to conquer matter, or nature, or anything deemed not man, he unbalances and harms himself by attempting to subjugate a part of himself unconsciously. Eastern philosophy, on the other hand, starts from the premise of mind and form, and assumes as a matter of course that all phenomena is energy, that energy is always preserved and therefore that all events are interrelated. This holistic process is an idea recently proven by modern physics…………………………….

It is rough stuff and rejected largely in the West. But duality is reconciled by a creation of qi reconciling yin and yang at a higher level of reality as described with the law of the included middle. The West s not ready for this yet

Having learned from the article that a ‘law of the included middle’ may be necessary to encompass neither/both states, it is completely beyond my comprehension how, from this, you can determine that, "Holy Trinity, universal meaning and purpose, as well as human consciousness can be understood and contemplated". Please explain.

Each created thing is a union of three forces: yin, yang, and qi at various levels of reality. The Source of Creation outside time and space is also a union of the highest quality of three forces comprising the Holy Trinity. Since everything in the universe is connected, Man, within the universe has a relationship within the universal machine. The question becomes the nature of the relationship to establish human meaning and purpose.

I am also aware that the title of this thread is ‘Morality and Intelligence’ and that the current discussion is wandering far from this theme. I think it can be brought closer by an examination of the degree to which logic can contribute to discussions of morality. But that is not where it is headed at the moment.

True, but it can be said that objective conscience emotionally understanding our relationship to objective human meaning and purpose is intelligence while morality can be anything including blind indoctrination which is not intelligent.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Nick_A:

I asked you, "What is it about a position in relation to logical reasoning which would make it poison for 'the secularists and atheists'?" This is your first paragraph by way of response:

Secularism and atheism limits the process of existence to one level of reality sustained through duality or the continual interactions of two forces: affirm/deny, yes/no, positive/negative. Male/female, and so on. These beliefs do not acquire a third force to add depth so discussion is limited to one level of reality.

I can make very little sense of this. What do you mean by "the process of existence"? To what precise process are you refering? What is "one level of reality sustained through duality"? What two forces are continually interacting? To what beliefs are you refering when you say that they "do not acquire a third force to add depth so discussion is limited to one level of reality"? You have introduced unnecessary terms which you have made no attempt to explain or define and which seem designed to confuse. You have made no reference at all to logic, even though that was the point of my question and of the article which you chose to quote. Instead, you seem to be making unjustified assertions – though I am unable to make out precisely what they are - which are very far removed from logical reasoning.

Please tell me – preferably in comprehensible English – what assumptions you have made about secularism and atheism which make the ‘included middle’, as described in the article in The Edge, "poison for 'the secularists and atheists". Please take account of the fact that the article is related to the process of logical reasoning and that is my particular interest.

I am also concerned that you seem not to appreciate the significance of ‘excluded middle’ even though it is you who have brought up the concept. You quote these ‘forces’: "affirm/deny, yes/no, positive/negative. Male/female, and so on". These are not dualities. This is explained simply in the article you quoted. The duality is A/not A. So, for example, the gender duality is male/not male or female/not female or hermaphrodite/not hermaphrodite and so on. Because something is not male it does not follow that it must be female. In the light of current LGTBQ conversations and with reference to basic biology I would have thought that this must be abundantly clear. If I choose not to affirm a statement it does not follow logically that I must therefore deny it. You seem to be missing the entire point of the article and, thereby, completely misinterpreting its concept of ‘included middle’.

Your second paragraph continues as follows:

Even though we reason by duality, we live in a triune universe consisting of the interactions of three forces. In the future, when more become aware of this, society will become more are of a higher quality of reality from which society has devolved. As soon as people become more aware of the verticality of this third force it will be obvious that it must have a source provoking contemplation as to the reality of this “source.”

By the examples you have presented you have demonstrated that you do not reason by duality. Neither are we obliged to do so. We can, of course, discuss issues using terms such as affirm/deny, guilty/not guilty and so on, as long as we do not assume that they are logical dualities. There is a huge range of possible positions between affirm and deny or between guilty and not guilty which have nothing to do with the ‘included middle’ as described in the article. I do not understand what you intend by “we live in a triune universe consisting of the interactions of three forces“. If, by ‘forces’, you mean the three logical options as explained in the article, then I wish you would say so. If you mean something else, then you should explain precisely what. And what “verticality of this third force“ means is completely beyond me.

Qi is the third force permeating the universe that enables creation by reconciling duality.

So please, please tell me what you mean by three forces. Do you mean logical duality plus the neither/both option or do you mean two unmentioned forces plus Qi? This has become ridiculous.

Obviously this is impossible to explain in a post but if you are curious you can get an idea here.

If it is impossible to explain then you shouldn’t be refering to it.

Naturally if you are unfamiliar with the concept it makes respecting it difficult.

You have already tried this with Belindi. If the concept is relevant then you should explain how. But you haven’t made any attempt to relate the concept to logical reasoning, which was the point of my original question.

I thought my question was relatively straightforward but you have not come close to answering it.

-- Updated 05 Apr 2017, 22:30 to add the following --

Reply to Fooloso4:

Yes; I appreciate that we have been there before.

[Nick_A]

Reply to Impetus

I can make very little sense of this. What do you mean by "the process of existence"? To what precise process are you refering? What is "one level of reality sustained through duality"? What two forces are continually interacting? To what beliefs are you refering when you say that they "do not acquire a third force to add depth so discussion is limited to one level of reality"? You have introduced unnecessary terms which you have made no attempt to explain or define and which seem designed to confuse. You have made no reference at all to logic, even though that was the point of my question and of the article which you chose to quote. Instead, you seem to be making unjustified assertions – though I am unable to make out precisely what they are - which are very far removed from logical reasoning.

Thank goodness we’re not married. It would be suicidal. Your life is part of the process of existence. Regardless of what we imagine ourselves to be, our life consists of eating, drinking, breathing, defecating, sex. Along with a few other things, this is the process of our existence. The process transforms substances. It is our purpose. No sense being insulted, it is what we do. It only requires one level of reality.

Yin (passive) and yang (active) are the two forces. You may have an active desire to walk up the hill. Gravity acting as yin opposes it making it difficult. Associative thought and the domain of literal thought is structured on these two forces: active and passive.

The East is far ahead of the West in appreciating the significance of qi. Only relatively recently have scientists like Basarab Nicolescu begun to compare the law of the excluded middle made famous by Aristotle and the law of the included middle. Your problem is that you are using inductive reason to perceive the interaction of three forces. It cannot be done other than theoretically. For that you have to become open to deductive reason which begins with experiencing this third dimension of thought. Where inductive reason tries to create the whole through examination of parts. Deductive reason begins with the experience of the third direction from a higher more conscious perspective and then verifying through the lawful integration of parts. I know that you do not recognize the limits of duality based logic through lack of experience.

Please tell me – preferably in comprehensible English – what assumptions you have made about secularism and atheism which make the ‘included middle’, as described in the article in The Edge, "poison for 'the secularists and atheists". Please take account of the fact that the article is related to the process of logical reasoning and that is my particular interest.

The third and vertical direction of reason threatens the imagination of secularism and atheism which believes that human meaning and purpose is discovered and felt through the duality of literal thought. This mistake assures that our species continues to turn in circles following the cycles of life including war and peace. The third and vertical direction of thought is what supplies the objective human perception of meaning. The article describes the logic of the law of the included middle and introduces the verticality of this third force. It is up to us to verify it through efforts to “know thyself,” to have the experience of oneself. Once you have the vertical experience it all becomes clear.

The duality is A/not A.

Quite true. I just used classic examples of positive and negative. If you want to say that male is no hemaphrdite, A is still not A for the logic of the excluded middle. T in the law of the included middle becomes the quality of being in which A and not A exist as one.

By the examples you have presented you have demonstrated that you do not reason by duality. Neither are we obliged to do so. We can, of course, discuss issues using terms such as affirm/deny, guilty/not guilty and so on, as long as we do not assume that they are logical dualities. There is a huge range of possible positions between affirm and deny or between guilty and not guilty which have nothing to do with the ‘included middle’ as described in the article. I do not understand what you intend by “we live in a triune universe consisting of the interactions of three forces“. If, by ‘forces’, you mean the three logical options as explained in the article, then I wish you would say so. If you mean something else, then you should explain precisely what. And what “verticality of this third force“ means is completely beyond me.

As Jesus said: “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. If I spend fifty bucks in the grocery store and give the clerk a twenty explaining it is the third force in action, it won’t work. Our daily lives consist of duality and the third force which is the earth itself is not noticed. Giving to God means opening to the conscious experience of meaning which comes through the third force. An intelligent human being IMO is one who is skilled in critical thought who has become open to the third force of meaning. Only such people can put logic into a human rather than an egoistic indoctrinated perspective

You are probably sitting on a seat now. Your behind is the active force pushing down, and the seat is the passive force offering resistnce. The earth itself provides the third force making seat sitting possible. Duality is all the human animal needs. Conscious humanity is open to the three forces of the triune universe and human meaning and purpose that exists in accordance with them.

[Fooloso4]

Iapetus:

Yes; I appreciate that we have been there before.

I figured you would have. Do you expect things will be any different this time? I don’t, and yet I go round and round with him. He has his file folders of arguments that he has been working on for years. Whenever it is shown that he has not properly understood something he just reaches in and pulls out something else. Sooner or later they all show up again, without correction. Someone not familiar with his spiel might think there is something to it, and so, there is still some value in challenging him while he carries on in blissful ignorance imaging he might save a soul or two. Even if Plato were to come back and tell him he was wrong about everything he said, he would simply dismiss it, insist that Plato does not understand Plato, call him a secular, atheist, progressive and blame it on contemporary education.