What the Beck?

[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

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.

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 ? 

Literally

The catch may be in the fold.  The pun is in the journalism.  The trick or narrative may be in the math and physics.  The point is: what is a dimension?  Not to mention: what is a point?  A point may represent a perspective in space as well as what it may represent in view of the perspective.  A point has no dimension.  Two points represent 1 dimension or a line.   Three non-linear points determine a plane or represent 2 dimensions.  Four non-planar points, require 3 dimensions and represent volume or space.  But dimensions are one level below the point[!]

Time is often referred to as the 4th dimension.  But returning to a point as representing no dimensions, 4 points equilaterally spaced require 3 dimensions (x, y & z).

(1-21-16)

1.):  Forward (Ironically), Para~graph Three!, Coordinary, Rough Philosophy, Order of Inserts.

2.): FOOTNOTES PAGE January 2016 (page 1),  Literally , Nadir, Dimentionalism(sic).

Then there is the Platonic Cave(or ideal). 
The tetrahedron is the most basic platonic form or ideal.  At least in our geometry, four points are the most that can be in perfect contact with each other.  Although a review of the perspectivism of Plato may be necessary. 

Image of Original In Tent

Re: Sources

C W
Homer, Plato**, Hell'nistic, Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian *: Evolutionary Thinking***.

* less than random link/Google of the day?
not fully read yet,
never completely endorsed, unlike Labelists [Well...not exactly.]

** lede not

[The under lying(pun) under standing(literal) as well as substance, regards semantics. Now that is a pretty firm line for a fluid foundation.
See W(hint pun/ribble)
The history of the constitution falls into this spectrum. The Federalist Papers were an argument, for what does not matter, it won and lost, as the amendments suggest. The constitution was signed but not without compromise. And we were never on the same page again. This is my perspective without the usual qualifiers.]
*** How prophetic?

[Unoriginal In tent: related links without hints]
[On the other hand... looking for spectrum.]

[Given the field of the Republican Presidential race, no apologies are in order. Excuses maybe, blame yourself. BTW: not disappointed by Herman Cain, to drop out but carry the mess age to the table. But in honor of the Federalists, the non-party party, here is a third field or party or option. Caution!]

[NPR: Re-education]
[Update: Herman

Mises...

in the corner ?

Caution: I have only read the last link, and this might seem a balancing* of fallacies**.
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they have nothing to offer, and of course your perspective might influence both.  Ths seems more a selection of unfinishted reads, although I did read Huntington, and gave a good shot at Sandel, and found Hasnas, and Fukuyama is a big bugaboo, as we come around to Nietzsche and Rand. 

*read juggling ?
** all thinking must be taken in the context of their times as well as the method of the format.
example:  Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine***, Aquinas and the web they weave sometimes in character or others.  Not to mention More's the Pity.

a. A Shot in the Arm?
(b.)^ The Bully...
c. GOP-GAP

^ new notation for (sc)
*** Punderous Ponderings
[Speaking of the corner, is it MAR (mutually assured rhetoric?)  The corollary, just because some have something to offer, does not mean they got it.]
(pocket ?)

Tetrahedral log: Page One

 Page One https://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2002/09/this-will-start-with-backlog-of.html

Stumbled upon*:    My response to Terrence Howard. 

By Neil deGrasse Tyson

https://youtu.be/1uLi1I3G2N4?si=FCWNGUTmmB6fkEoY

Pardon my neglect in maintaining my skills in blog construction.  Hopefully it is needless to say that I agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson and appreciate his perspective, intelligence and patience in addressing the piece submitted to him.   I would certainly be happy if I had such input.  Not that I have made any clear claims that may be disputed or tested.  **

https://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2008/10/tetrahedron-ramble.html

Post under construction:

Tetrahedron Model 

https://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Tetrahedron

Bingo!  I must credit a partial reading of The Republic, by Plato and my report on it which involved a tetrahedral pillar.  This is my theory of everything ...of sorts.

https://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2002/07/ie-se-vi-edgy.html

* used before finding out a site by that name existed

** I use a semi-conscious and semi-scientific method[!]

[!] : indicates or punctuates play of words or intended pun.