None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

The Fixed Viewpoint Of Identity

In the model of the trinity the four elements of the octal that are not in the K4 subgroup in view as Christ (0,a,b,c) "sat at the right hand of God" can be labelled as {d,e,f,g}. It is intrinsic to the model that the K4 subgroup may not contain the unity element.

Likewise the addition that is naturally defined on the K4 subgroups as (A v B)^c (The complement in the octal of the symmetric difference of the two groups A, B) may span the octal elements with the groups (a,b,c),(a,d,e),(a,f,g) where we would consider the element 'a' as unity, and the subgroup of the octal that is sent to itself (as static) under frobenius is (b,d,f) say. (Which does not contain unity.)

We then note that those three subgroups under addition are cycled under that same frobnenius map that holds static (b,d,f) and the elements {c,e,g}. There is no direct correspondence between the elements {b,d,f} and the subgroups (a,b,c),(a,d,e),(a,f,g).

However we will assume that the fixed subgroup is (a,b,c) and the four remaining elements of that group's coset are {d,e,f,g}.


One element of {d,e,f,g} must be unity then, and as this is arbitrary at this point we have four choices: each of which indicate that the remaining three elements from {d,e,f,g} are also sent to themselves (static) under frobenius. We make the associations then that;

d = {e,f,g}
e = {d,f,g}
f = {d,e,g}
g = {d,e,f}

Note the cases that:

i) d = {e,f,g} is a solid principle (as a crown with {e,f,g} as a bow) in the definition of the finite field GF(8) - of the octal with multiplication from which the frobenius map arises.

ii) a second case, say of 'd' and 'e' allow cross substitution so that; d = {e,f,g} = {{d,f,g},f,g} => {f,g,f,g} is absorbed somehow into 'd'. Likewise e = {d,f,g} = {{e,f,g},{f,g} and {f,g,f,g} is also absorbed. Then the "two parts cut off" in either case are done so with the same "great sword".

iii) We have reached the case of {e,f,g}=>{d,f,g}<={d,e,g} say, that would imply 'e' is absorbed into the synthesis {d,f,g} So that either side has the identity of unity "absorbed" - Almost as two sides of a weighing scale were to be lightened of the common weight of "e". Of particular note is that with 'e' = 1, {d,f,g} is static and likewise the remnants of {e,f,g} and {d,e,g} are cycled within the synthesis {d,f,g}. In some manner {d,f,g} becomes the only "stable" solution in the finite field under frobenius.

iv) We find that each set of three from those four defines a balance as in (iii) - The excluded triple say {d,e,f} with g = 1 would 'define' which element was taken off the sides of our "scales" (balances) - yet this immediately invalidates the remaining "scales" (g is common to more than two - it is in all three!)

We should define in the case of (iii) that the 'oil' would be 'unity' which is absorbed, and the 'wine' would be the common element to all three, (as at every place on the table).

We must press the case that the fourth triple invalidates the previous three - the choice of 'g' = 1 as above is contradictory to the dialectic balances of (iii) in its four cases or positions.


In the case of dialectics themselves, we may choose any one case of (i) to (iii) to construct these methods: the case in (iii) is a fourfold dialectic, a set of four possibilities. It is the place of the "lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and the pride of life" to sit within the place of what would be (iv) so as to complete the state of whoever is in view as "Death" or is spiritually dead. This is the position of antichrist.

Moreover, in constructing three cases of (iii) if (iv) were reached it would also be a contradiction! We could relate a choice of unity and a single "bow" uniquely as a particular synthesis: For;

if {e,f,g} is our "bow" then in the case that d = 1 we must have {e,f,g} as the synthesis of {d,e,g} and {d,e,f}. A synthesis with 'e' as wine. Also of note is that the remaining triple or static "bow" of e = {d,f,g} would contradict this balance.

So each triple itself is a synthesis of a thesis-antithesis pair. And the properties of these four "balances" also obey the cases (i) to (iv). Thus the first four seals of revelation do not so much show the construction of the dialectic "balances" but in fact show four fully formed dialectic "balances" that obey the same rules of construction themselves. We saw this at work in the temptation of Christ in the wilderness.


So what is the fixed viewpoint of identity? Clearly that a person must shirk the unity element for it to be absorbed. In order for the dialectic to work in a four-fold case the fixed view that 1 = 1 and can not be any other number must be subject to the process. Someone standing firm on the particular doctrine of what here is represented by unity must be shifted off that position else the dialectic becomes logically void.

In case then is the oil as unity that is always absorbed - the process would be to make the viewpoint of that unity element irrelevant, to lighten each side of the scales and to facilitate the synthesis to it's (as unity) corresponding static triple. If there is then a shift to another dialectic "balance" then that fixed view that was held to is made void by an apparent shift of unity: It was removed from the meeting table prior to the shift in the act of lightening the scales - a didactic paradigm is completely rejected in the process.

Likeiwse the dialectic can not function without participants compromising their fixed views. If someone will not compromise then the dialectic can not work.


Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start


'