quote:

---

Doc: This is all making me wish I didn’t develop a horrendous distaste for all forms of math when a student. (I think it was my anal Alegra teacher who hated me). I vaguely recall something alone the lines of this claim: all numbers (positive integers) can be arrived by the combination of 1,2 and 3. Less or more than 3 can produce them. True? (does "combination" here mean "addition and multiplication"?)

---

All numbers can be produced by multiplication of prime numbers (1,2,3,5,7,11,13,etc), so most small numbers and a lot of big ones can be produced by different combinations (multiplication) of 1,2 and 3, but not all. If we were able to use addition, then all numbers would be made of adding 1's...not interesting.

quote:

---

Doc: Someone today reminded me of Newton's three laws of motion. One was "all things at rest remain at rest unless moved." What were the other two?

---

Psuedo's law was #3. #2 is that the net force acting on an object is the sum of each individual force acting on the object. But, in terms of the number three, be careful how you use Newton's three laws. In terms of a human archetype, it works. But you can't use it as a fundamental structure in reality, because they were all proven false by Einstein's theory of relativity. This is the same for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

But, here's a three from relativity. An object's inertial mass (how much force it takes to move it), its gravitational mass (its wieght), and its rest mass (how much energy it contains when at rest) are all equal. There is no physical reason for these to be equal.

That's all for now.


chambes

Edited by - chambes on 08/02/2001 09:08:04 AM

quote:

---

PotonWheel: "I also liked...second and third derivatives. . . convex/concave . . .look. . .there it was."
Doc: When you get back from vacation, can you explain this to us?

---

I'll try to remember.

quote:

---

PotonWheel:" . . .NOT "Creation, Fall, Redemption"? It might describe the "Sin, Redemption, Response" triad. . .
Doc: How does it NOT describe Creation, Fall, Redemption?

---

My Bad! I won't make excuses for my late nocturnal typing--I trusted that YOU would be sharp. I actually read the first part (New glasses would help.) as: 1) The "feeling" of the experience. . .sheer TEDIUM . . . (Again, "My bad!") {;)} And thanks for responding.

quote:

---

Doc: You may mean that the FALL can't be a structural part of creation that reflects the triune God.

---

You are correct! And I think, from what I'm reading, that the Orthodox have a clearer (and more articulate) grasp on this than the Calvinists. Thanks.

quote:

---

Doc: . . . it reminds me of Aristotle's triadic analysis of drama (roughly, beginning, middle, and end) and Joseph Campbell's claim that all mythology follows a union, separation, re-union pattern.

---

I will not, as a matter of decided belief say that the Aristotle one "has" to fit--though it "is" our story now. That is because I am influenced by the view (EO) that says Adam and Eve did not have to fall...that they had it within power of their will to mature into the likeness of God, to be deified by grace (not in nature). BUT, that CAMPBELL quote is, using John Lenin's words, a chair to sit on. ("The Blues--you can sit on that chair.") Interesting form of "union" as being brought into being ex nihilo. But Being in fellowship as an ontological state is exactly accurate! Campbell fits perfectly. Thanks!

quote:

---

PotonWheel and Mouse: What about Hegel?
Doc: . . .He thought this was the structure of GOD.

---

I put the breaks on hearing that. (It may just be a case of my being slow-of-mind yet thismorning as to "structure." ) But many have presumed to try and put God under a microscope. "Unknowable in essence" (versus energies) fits me just fine. I've read that confusion of essence and energies in the West actually precipitated the intellectual crisis in the West.....even right down to influencing the development of the EDF! ("Warning Will Robinson!")

You and Modes (I believe that I know him, and won't presume to know you yet. ) seem to love speculating--the say I love to be creative with clay. The word "speculative" even on the same page as the word "theology" gives me a small shiver sometimes; but I do realize that it is part of the creative process--what a hypocrite if I don't, eh? But that said, I'd like to leave one final quote on this string. The Book-Of-Three's is in the Ovum, moving towards the tubes. Let me presume a relatedness with art and its relationship to culture and faith...

What "PotOnWheel" is thinking about what he reads about art, culture & the Kingdom: Speculative metaphysical ontologies are still a form of _art_ or culture, and as such find their fulfillment when they point beyond themselves.
========================

quote:

---

"Culture, at its limits, is like penetration of things and beings as God has thought of them, the revelation of the _logos_ the essence of beings and their transfigured form. . . .

The "communion of saints" is a reality. Culture is a symbol when it collects all the works and is essentially a museum of petrified cultural products, of values without any life. Those with genius know the profound nightmare of the distance between the fire of their spirit and their objectified accomplishments. Perhaps even a Christian culture is in this sense an impossibility. In actuality the great successes of creatures act as a great check upon creation, _for they do not change the world._

The paradox of Christian faith stimulates creativity in the world. But in the final phase, true culture, in its eschatological dimension makes the world shine, obliges history to leave its boundaries. Here it is not the way that is impossible, it is the impossible which is the way and the charisms of the Spirit help to realize it: "Divine power, capable of creating...a way through the impossible." (Gregory of Nyssa) These are the radiant irruption of the "Wholly Other," coming from the very depth of the same. All the forms of culture should lead to this border of the two worlds where they meet, relating the one to the other. This is the passage of the earthly "having" to the heavenly "being" of the Kingdom. The world in the Church, this is the Burning Bush located at the very heart of existence.

A great mind, a thinker, and artist, a social reformer, all ought to be able to rediscover the charisms of the royal priesthood, and each, as such a "priest," can make of his or her work a priestly action, a sacrament transforming every form of culture into a place of theophany. This is to sing the Name of God in the midst of science, of thought, of social action (the "sacrament of the brother"), or of art. Thus in its own way, culture joins with the Liturgy, rendering it a "cosmic liturgy." Culture itself becomes doxology, praise to God."

(pp. 212-213, , Ch.8/"Culture & Faith", in Paul Evdokimov's book "In the World, Of the Church", SVS Press 2001)

---

PotOnWheel



Edited by - PotOnWheel on 08/02/2001 11:34:29 AM

quote:

---

Question: its my understanding that relativity didn't REFUTE Newton's three laws. It is "relativized" them. That is, it showed their restrictive nature. In terms of the phenomenological world of our experience, the three laws still apply. Right?

---

quote:

---

This is one of the most common structures in Western ideography. The signs are used with different meanings in some 30 well-known ideographic systems from the Bronze Age to the present day, and in many alphabetical writing systems. The structure is especially common in modern-day technical and scientific systems (mainly because it is a letter in the Greek alphabet). One should not forget the use of as a sign for the number three.

The sign has been used to represent fire in alchemy and a modern day reflection of this use is the logotype of MacDonald's. In some modern military contexts it indicates air transportation, and in art it is a common (pictorial) sign for a flying bird.

---

• Niña, Pinta, and the Santa Maria.


• in gendered languages: male, female, neuter


• in TRIgonometry: sin, cosin, and tanget


• I just saw Jurrasic Park III and I hear they’re working on T3 (yay!).


• Chinese families are threesomes since they can only have one child


• Huey, Dewey, and Louie

• Cinderella (good) and her two stepsisters (evil)


• Cordelia (good) and Regan and Goneril (evil) in King Lear


• Bob Newhart and his brother Daryl and his other brother Daryl


• Butch Cassidy, the Sundance Kid, and that school teacher that always hung around with them—speaking of which, has anyone mentioned love triangles?


• the one-third fallen angels (evil) and two-thirds regular angels (good)