Godful Marxism ☦️🇻🇦

The Trinitarian Structure of Maximal Being On Being and Logos 1.1 For every limit placed on reality such that it has definition — including the phrase “reality itself” — that limit already presupposes reality. 1.2 In the ancient and patristic tradition this can be likened unto: a) Being Itself b) ipsum esse subsistens c) the One 1.3 Being is beyond all definition, no matter how completely its nature is supposed. 1.4 Yet every instance of reality is, in principle, comprehensible and approachable. In the same tradition this can be likened unto the Logos. 1.5 Every true proposition is true in virtue of some intelligible state of affairs. a) “There exist real things” is a true fact. 1.6 If these irreducibilities competed, and no higher principle could ground them, their relation would obtain as a brute fact. 1.7 If reason is substantially real, then as regards the whole explanation of reality a brute fact would be analogous to something from nothing. 1.8 That reality is beyond comprehension in principle, and that it is comprehensible in principle, are both irreducible — even though both obtain maximally, in the same way, at the same time. This is a genuine tension. 1.9 Being cannot compete with itself. a) There is no act Being can do that Being could not do. b) Because the nature of being is maximal, the idea of competition is incoherent. 1.10 Suppose that, because of the One’s transcendence, there were facts that transcend the Logos. The Logos would immediately and eternally instantiate those facts, if they are facts. a) We are speaking of unrestricted actuality, not coordinates in a landscape. 1.11 There cannot exist something from nothing, even analogously. 1.12 The purveyor of brute facts cannot, in principle, distinguish: a) “this is where explanation ends” b) “this is where we stopped looking” 1.13 Brute facts cannot meaningfully be referred to. a) Sentence structure tracks reality. b) A brute fact is like a sentence with no period. c) There is no principled reason an infinite string of facts could not sit underneath the supposed brute one. d) If we think we've found a brute fact, we should keep looking anyway. C1. Both the Logos and the One are Maximal Being; the fullness of being, without competition. Triadic Comaximality 2.1 Suppose the relation between Being and Logos: a) collapses into either one b) is only a conceptual distinction c) is merely a primitive relation 2.2 If the relation is only an aspect of the One, then the comprehensible things of the world are not ontologically real. a) What is real is the One. b) Everything else is a parasitic phantom of the One. 2.3 If the One is superseded by the Logos, the necessity of logical relations leaves no room for contingencies or free acts. 2.4 If the distinctness of Being and Logos is merely conceptual, and concepts cannot ground concretes, this cannot account for the concreteness of things. a) The only concrete would be the One. 2.5 If the relation collapses into a primitive relation, their irreducibility becomes a competing relation. a) The One would always outstrip the Logos. b) A brute, unaccounted-for relation would exceed the Logos’ comprehension. That is impossible, as already argued. 2.6 Contingent concrete things exist. C2. The relation between the One and the Logos is itself a distinct irreducibility: a) not collapsible into either term b) not collapsible into their primitive relation c) existing ontologically d) not a new competing instance of maximality e) but the way being has self-giving structure The Logos simply is the One impressing upon itself and being impressed. The Relation is that impressing. The irreducibility is structural, not substantial. The Trinity, One in Essence and Undivided 3.1 We are speaking of maximal being. Any term must itself have maximal being. There cannot be a non-maximal element. 3.2 Suppose any other element were claimed to be comaximal. This would require a new relation which would: a) compete with Maximal Relation itself, and/or b) be superfluous 3.3 A non-comaximal element would require an infinite regress in order to reach the transcendence of maximality. 3.4 A superfluous element would obtain for no reason. 3.5 If something competed with the Relation, then: a) its maximality would not obtain b) by extension, the maximality of the relation between the One and the Logos would not obtain 3.6 A further relation binding the Relation to the terms mistakes what a relation is. a) It simply is that which binds the One and the Logos, understood maximally. 3.7 Reality is rational all the way down. 3.8 Suppose there were an infinite chain of reasons. a) That infinite chain is itself a fact. b) It would therefore have a reason for its existence, or it would be a brute fact. c) Brute facts have already been ruled out. 3.9 An infinite chain, even if it existed, would still need some balancing principle in order to maintain the comaximality of Being and Logos. a) That is just a restatement of the Maximal Relation with an added, unnecessary infinity clause. C3. Exactly three co-equal, co-eternal irreducibilities must be Ultimate Reality without competition: a) mutually indwelling one another b) obtaining distinction by the origin of their relation This is identical to the rational skeleton of the Being worshipped at the center of Orthodox-Catholic apostolic Christianity.

This obviously isn't the same test, but this is the test I found. idrlabs.com/your-type/test.p…

Hilarious watching this guy trying to ask a simple question FROM A POSITION OF ALLYSHIP and it just gets him thrown in as part of the witch hunt. Something to be learned there.

It’s illegal to be even remotely masculine even by accident in this society.

If I was Trump I would start pushing Medicare for All. He knows the Democrats don't actually want to do it, so he can force them to give him a monumental policy to secure his legacy or admit that Democrats don't care about America.

Little known fact: This is why all of our children's media is about religion stealing our magic. All religion is depicted as Catholic. But it's actually the Protestants who made ontology a dichotomy between literal and metaphorical, totally rejecting the third category of myth.