Re: Perspective
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:02 pm
Round and round we go. You believe in revelation - the “transmission of the mystery”. You equivocate as to whether it has been transmitted to you or not - you are in the cave but with experience that you imagine transcends the cave. You think you get around this problem by rejecting binary logic.
You advocate a Platonic education but ignore the part of that education that requires dialectics - the part that keeps your fantasy transcendent experience in check. It is “Plato, Plato, Plato” until you run up against the demand of dialectic, and they Plato goes out the window together with binary logic.
And as to triadic logic - you have demonstrated in previous conversations that you have no understanding of it. It is your get out of jail free card, a way of not having to deal with the logical incoherence of your claims. You used to claim it was the logic of included middle until I corrected you: https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... ic#p274797
You could not not apply a triadic logic to anything including what you claimed you could apply it to the Trinity: https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 45#p274862
And then you dropped it in favor of one of the other claims you cycle through endlessly. But now once again it appears. More things you have been told that you imagine you understand. Words that you use as a shield to protect yourself from criticism, but that only serve to shield you from yourself.
I am getting out before the next go round. As a chess player you should know that the game is not lost simply because you continue to move pieces around.
You advocate a Platonic education but ignore the part of that education that requires dialectics - the part that keeps your fantasy transcendent experience in check. It is “Plato, Plato, Plato” until you run up against the demand of dialectic, and they Plato goes out the window together with binary logic.
And as to triadic logic - you have demonstrated in previous conversations that you have no understanding of it. It is your get out of jail free card, a way of not having to deal with the logical incoherence of your claims. You used to claim it was the logic of included middle until I corrected you: https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... ic#p274797
You could not not apply a triadic logic to anything including what you claimed you could apply it to the Trinity: https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 45#p274862
And then you dropped it in favor of one of the other claims you cycle through endlessly. But now once again it appears. More things you have been told that you imagine you understand. Words that you use as a shield to protect yourself from criticism, but that only serve to shield you from yourself.
I am getting out before the next go round. As a chess player you should know that the game is not lost simply because you continue to move pieces around.