[Under-De(con)struction.]
OK, this actually works in the perspective of the way some use words.
As in De for Dem and destruction, and Con for conservative and construction. Heck even conservation. Oops. I think we get the flip-flop. Lack of perspective is the subject, and preemption the aim of their construction. This is a work in progress. I'm still chalking it up.
My friend Thrasymachus* is embedded in the above (con) link...
while our seemingly seemly nemesis might be lost in Flatland.
I have recently revamped my PBMP tetrahedron, to the Tetrahedron of Will or TOW. It all began with my reading of Plato's Republic, going on 40 years ago, and my presentation not in a Platonic solid form but in a Platonic pillar model. Justice being the point, with appetites, emotions, and intellect being the base. I cannot vouch for these as being my original tripod to the triangular pillar, but I more recently reconstructed this balanced purpose on the legs of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy coming together to evolve Justice, much as our constitution rests or rather works with the balance of three branches and rests or works on the people.
Words are sometimes only ideals, but in reality I must say they are always ideals, but in some they are missing the concept of perspective, if not even a dimension(or pun, just dimentioning it), and whether you seem left or right or middle the reality is not even in line or online with a spectrum. The Third Way might not even be enough of a perspective, but it is better than Linear Beck or my way or the highway. [It was purported to be the Clinton way in that the aim was a balance between the goals of the left and right of the political spectrum(Ideally to move the middle nontheless) but I might say that the Obama way is more balanced, and may point to answers that are not always just a balance between two extremes or even two parties, and many people understand that, even though we feel that our way might be better it is hard to let go of our ideals.
[I believe I have now finished construction of this post, but have yet to finish reading the first link, and my "What the Beck" referred to my own preemption or condescending reference in the previous post.]
* Thrasymachus: a character in The Republic, and nickname for a Neo-Con I know, who might more accurately be called a Beck Head, or Eon-Libertarian (which I just pegged). [I won't peg any meaning on the Eon part, only to say I(not quite) flipped Neo.]
[Disclaimer: My first use of the term phrase "What the Beck?" was just yesterday, and until I just googled it, I had no knowledge it was a YouTube Channel, and I only used it as a segue to MoveOn to other issues. A search also found the Daily Beast and Op-Ed references and I might have picked on the Countdown but not the Intelligent Design, but the Gee Oh Me Try is similar but I can't dig up that one.]
[UPDATE 3-17-10: The "seemingly" link does not quite buffer completely, and has moderate moments but lacks perspective and balance let alone appreciation of others or perspective**. It can certainly be understood why everything seems off balance, but it is another to have an intention to balance it or respect dynamics, human or natural.]
** pulled from second link in the context of Thrasymachus
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Plato's Republic. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Plato's Republic. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Monday, February 09, 2009
hmmm?
New Thinking on the Economy
by Dean Baker,
co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)
also Beat the Press
[This points to an interesting problem or ROR:
(see labels for explaination)
The government is not getting its money's worth when buying bad assets. Anyone who understands how the economy works and the market works should not wonder. That is how it works. That is the point of buying bad assets, whether one wonders whether it should be done or not. If someone else would buy them the same would apply. The housing bubble* is a similar mechanism within the greater mechanism that is the financial problem.
How the economy works is different than how economics works. The economy is the thing. Economics is an equation. They both need tweaking and can work the way they are designed, but will tweak someone. Unfortunately an equation in economics will work only to the extent that everything (that is needed or wanted) is included in it. The economy works regardless but almost everything is included, except they are tweaking when they do the economics. And speaking of bubbles, they leak.
It might be easier to agree what not to do, than what to do, as long as failure is an option. But failure is not an option; it is a choice. This may seem like lost words, but failure is a potential outcome. And it can no more be simply allowed**, than freedom. Maybe this is Philosophy 701, but the Washington Post is not up to Journalism 201, let alone the economy.]
* housing equals assets except for the financial blowing of the economics.
** meaning failure should be prevented, and freedom promoted(are these not good points to work on?)
[Speaking of link(and equations): the stimulating if not shaky journalism below.(nfry)]
[only glanced at but likely recommended read: and see comments and embedded Krugman. For now: They'll be back.]
[That was Shwartznegger but later Ron Reagan covers similar territory with a guest who earlier slammed the stimulus. That was in December, so it was not the current plan. Which should be called what is: ARARA for Jobs! or just the begining or what is a quick and practical start. But does have a good chart on "Bang for the Buck", which depending on the math(see comments), could make a 1 trillion dollar difference in effectiveness.] [Post comment comment: of course this is as ridiculous a hypothesis as Plato's Republic, but for the sake of dialogue, a totally bipartisan package, could be seen to have potential for zero stimulus, as dollar for dollar is not really a bang.]
by Dean Baker,
co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)
also Beat the Press
[This points to an interesting problem or ROR:
(see labels for explaination)
The government is not getting its money's worth when buying bad assets. Anyone who understands how the economy works and the market works should not wonder. That is how it works. That is the point of buying bad assets, whether one wonders whether it should be done or not. If someone else would buy them the same would apply. The housing bubble* is a similar mechanism within the greater mechanism that is the financial problem.
How the economy works is different than how economics works. The economy is the thing. Economics is an equation. They both need tweaking and can work the way they are designed, but will tweak someone. Unfortunately an equation in economics will work only to the extent that everything (that is needed or wanted) is included in it. The economy works regardless but almost everything is included, except they are tweaking when they do the economics. And speaking of bubbles, they leak.
It might be easier to agree what not to do, than what to do, as long as failure is an option. But failure is not an option; it is a choice. This may seem like lost words, but failure is a potential outcome. And it can no more be simply allowed**, than freedom. Maybe this is Philosophy 701, but the Washington Post is not up to Journalism 201, let alone the economy.]
* housing equals assets except for the financial blowing of the economics.
** meaning failure should be prevented, and freedom promoted(are these not good points to work on?)
[Speaking of link(and equations): the stimulating if not shaky journalism below.(nfry)]
[only glanced at but likely recommended read: and see comments and embedded Krugman. For now: They'll be back.]
[That was Shwartznegger but later Ron Reagan covers similar territory with a guest who earlier slammed the stimulus. That was in December, so it was not the current plan. Which should be called what is: ARARA for Jobs! or just the begining or what is a quick and practical start. But does have a good chart on "Bang for the Buck", which depending on the math(see comments), could make a 1 trillion dollar difference in effectiveness.] [Post comment comment: of course this is as ridiculous a hypothesis as Plato's Republic, but for the sake of dialogue, a totally bipartisan package, could be seen to have potential for zero stimulus, as dollar for dollar is not really a bang.]
Thursday, April 30, 2026
Confession: No pun intended.
In regards to the Tetrahedron of Everything, I may need to give credit to Ken Wilber. While I was not aware of it at the time, and I had recovered it base on earlier work of mine(i.e. a reading of Plato’s Republic), I may need to give him credit for it. Even to the point of unconsciously stealing it lock, stock and barrel. Alternatively it is a case of synchronicity* but it turns out, he had a late night radio program from 1973 to 1982 about such “new age” matters. This coincides with a period I worked mostly graveyard shifts and had access to a radio. I recovered this not only through Plato other fields of study. Only thanks to a question to Meta AI did I discover that he had the same disciplines on the vertices of the tetrahedron. They are Physics, Psychology, Philosophy and Politics. HOWEVER: while this has not been run through AI even for cleanup, in a quick search I could not find the sources for what AI had given me on another device.
A more comprehensive search (who came up with the Tetrahedron of Everything Physics, Psychology, Philosophy and Politics.) does not find what I have on my other device either. But it does remind me to credit Buckminster Fuller who I saw speak at our high school in the early 70’s. Then there is Milo Wolfe who I can not place on the timeline of this process. More credit to be processed.
https://youtu.be/bc5V_YXvGC8 This has not been viewed yet, but shows four people I have studied. Three of them in one class. “Marx, Nietzsche, Freud” and Einstein an early publication. Sometime in the early 70’s I read the book, Man and his Symbols by Joseph Campbell, with a forward by Carl Jung.
* Update: I have found that Wilbur had not mentioned it until his book in 1995. Which I did not read or have.
5-9-26 However Arthur Youg mentioned a Tetrahedron of Will in 1976>
Sunday, December 01, 2013
Too Random...
...Righty[!]
Knot 2 fraught with fraud'nfreud?
Freedom the foundation or fountainhead?
A stopped clock is right...
too undimention,
1* over infinity has left.
* poetic license in 3 or 4-D.
won over
**
knot exactly; 1/infinity= zorro?
But seriously to unpun one in particular, freedom over everything is the problem.
Freedom over everything equals nothing over physics.
12-2-13 (...)added and *reframed
** s/b standard mobius/infinity (Thought I had previously used one, not this one.)
Embedded links:(Not fully read.)
1. The Difficulty with Hegel
2. Hegel or Anti-Hegel
Fully Read and Reviewing:
The Hegel Myth and its Method: (Kaufmann 1959)Akin to Plato's Form(The Socratics of the Ideal and States)^
Selections:
"The writings of Hegel and Plato abound in admittedly one-sided statements that are clearly meant to formulate points of view that are then shown to be inadequate and are countered by another perspective. Thus an impressive quilt quotation could be patched together to convince gullible readers that Hegel was — depending on the “scholar’s” plans — either emphatically for or utterly opposed to, say, “equality.” But the understanding of Hegel would be advanced ever so much more by citing one of his remarks about equality in context, showing how it is a step in an argument that is designed to lead the reader to a better comprehension of equality and not to enlist his emotions either for it or against it."
"Hegel was rarely cited in the Nazi literature, and, when he was referred to, it was usually by way of disapproval. (...) Rosenberg also stressed, and excoriated, the “Socratic” elements in Plato."
References to 3D/4M@. English***, Math, Form~process.
*** generic word language/numbers as an ideal and a language/so-called results.
I do not necessarily want to break out of my understanding of Hegel, not say he would have understood it my way or anyone else's. But is Popper properly popped? Yet I do use a method of labelism/reference/progression-digression. The hazards of the Internet, not to mention old material, one might not recall running into sources before. I developed my tetrahedron courtesy of my older work on The Republic(1970~), delineating the mass-energy equivalence formula, and possibly Milo Wolff.(2004~)
In the above not yet reads, but glanced at's, they may have a point, and may be missing or pointing from their own point. I may yet to agree or disagree with them, but still appreciate or depreciate their points.
^ & ~ must be reviewed. "Dates~" note time of encounter.
12-3-13 (FP1) Have yet to locate "^". [rtd]
12-4-13 That's the ticket ! ?
But to tilt at swans?
12-9-13 Roughly 13 in rough.
12-10-13 Scientific American Dispute over Infinity Divides Mathematicians
verses RealClearPolitics Newtonian Government
Trinity Squared ?
Knot 2 fraught with fraud'nfreud?
Freedom the foundation or fountainhead?
A stopped clock is right...
too undimention,
1* over infinity has left.
* poetic license in 3 or 4-D.
won over
**knot exactly; 1/infinity= zorro?
But seriously to unpun one in particular, freedom over everything is the problem.
Freedom over everything equals nothing over physics.
12-2-13 (...)added and *reframed
** s/b standard mobius/infinity (Thought I had previously used one, not this one.)
Embedded links:(Not fully read.)
1. The Difficulty with Hegel
2. Hegel or Anti-Hegel
Fully Read and Reviewing:
The Hegel Myth and its Method: (Kaufmann 1959)Akin to Plato's Form(The Socratics of the Ideal and States)^
Selections:
"The writings of Hegel and Plato abound in admittedly one-sided statements that are clearly meant to formulate points of view that are then shown to be inadequate and are countered by another perspective. Thus an impressive quilt quotation could be patched together to convince gullible readers that Hegel was — depending on the “scholar’s” plans — either emphatically for or utterly opposed to, say, “equality.” But the understanding of Hegel would be advanced ever so much more by citing one of his remarks about equality in context, showing how it is a step in an argument that is designed to lead the reader to a better comprehension of equality and not to enlist his emotions either for it or against it."
"Hegel was rarely cited in the Nazi literature, and, when he was referred to, it was usually by way of disapproval. (...) Rosenberg also stressed, and excoriated, the “Socratic” elements in Plato."
References to 3D/4M@. English***, Math, Form~process.
*** generic word language/numbers as an ideal and a language/so-called results.
I do not necessarily want to break out of my understanding of Hegel, not say he would have understood it my way or anyone else's. But is Popper properly popped? Yet I do use a method of labelism/reference/progression-digression. The hazards of the Internet, not to mention old material, one might not recall running into sources before. I developed my tetrahedron courtesy of my older work on The Republic(1970~), delineating the mass-energy equivalence formula, and possibly Milo Wolff.(2004~)
In the above not yet reads, but glanced at's, they may have a point, and may be missing or pointing from their own point. I may yet to agree or disagree with them, but still appreciate or depreciate their points.
^ & ~ must be reviewed. "Dates~" note time of encounter.
12-3-13 (FP1) Have yet to locate "^". [rtd]
12-4-13 That's the ticket ! ?
But to tilt at swans?
12-9-13 Roughly 13 in rough.
12-10-13 Scientific American Dispute over Infinity Divides Mathematicians
verses RealClearPolitics Newtonian Government
Trinity Squared ?
Friday, March 10, 2017
Bookmark
What is the point?
A temp late [!] ( to view later.)
Related charge:
Consciousness
Value of information.
Linguistic turn
Mind outside
??? Not exactly
They say time is the 4th dimension, not that is only one dimention[!]
What about perspective? Or perpendicular?
My point at this time is that I believe I developed my template of the tetrahedron before running into Arthur Young. And I am only now in the process of watching his seminar on process theory.i do know I must credit Plato for an earlier model (based on The Republic) which I revamped with the help of Einstein's famous equation and geometry. (X,Y,Z & P). P for perpendicular and perspective(only now so designated) let alone Plato's ideal or the point.
A temp late [!] ( to view later.)
Related charge:
Consciousness
Value of information.
Linguistic turn
Mind outside
??? Not exactly
They say time is the 4th dimension, not that is only one dimention[!]
What about perspective? Or perpendicular?
My point at this time is that I believe I developed my template of the tetrahedron before running into Arthur Young. And I am only now in the process of watching his seminar on process theory.i do know I must credit Plato for an earlier model (based on The Republic) which I revamped with the help of Einstein's famous equation and geometry. (X,Y,Z & P). P for perpendicular and perspective(only now so designated) let alone Plato's ideal or the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)