...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 Roughl
y 13 in rough.
12-10-13 Scientific American
Dispute over Infinity Divides Mathematicians
verses RealClearPolitics
Newtonian Government
Trinity
Squared ?
