Truth

There are many important terms that have been overlooked or misunderstood that has become a part of the English language. Truth is one such idea that has gone through many phases and recontextualizations that it’s not clear to what was meant by truth without passing through an itinerary of the various primers concerning Truth. There are always going to be meaningless squabbles among historical dialectic narratives across multiple schools in multiple civilizations, so an idealized pattern would be modeled that has nothing to do with reconstruction nor existing recorded evidence, despite using a little bit of ancient words of ancient languages, the generalizations here are however are of a primal, nigh-timeless effulgence towards timeless truths.

Isn’t it a bit strange that it didn’t occur to many critics of Divine Truth to directly question the Etymology of Etumos/ἔτυμος? The root word Eteos/ἐτεός was used in Homer’s Odyssey and it means verily, truly. Eteos concerns the Origin, while Alethes/ἀληθής concerns second hand reporting of the Origin. The Alpha Privative in Alethes and Aletheia wasn’t of Apophatic-Theological concern earlier on. Myths over time have become Satiricized and partially devaluated by Philosophers that try to extract the truth behind the Epics and Myths while even directly criticizing them just as the Menippean Satiricists do. The polemical nature of Alethes comes about in Ontologization of Truth’s Beinghood also implies there being Truth about Falsehoods on things that lack Being or is still Being but in Becoming yet that Becoming is of the mode of Being, and this Ontology can be Epistemologically known as Platonic Ideas on Being yet there are many views concerning Being and many Distinctions of Being and even the Distinct Non-Distinction of Being where Modal Being distinctions ceases to be, while there’s greater and greater decoupling away from non-essential principles towards the first principality for there to be anything else called a principle, yet the elements and the groups of the same are not a single principle unto itself, but are many.

For the sake of understanding however, Euclid comes into the scene and comes up with a Geometrician’s Primer of Requisites and Notions, Definitions, and Propositions. We can call the Requisites and Notions as Prior and Posterior Elements incorporated within some method that culminates into a Definition which is towards formulating an Epistemology of Ontological referents, but Euclid didn’t explicitly outlined his method but nevertheless there was one even though Euclid may not have been reasonable all the time and tried to demonstrate proofs and propositions that depends on pre-proven definitions that don’t need any further proving whatsoever, there is a workflow of Epistemology that’s going on that isn’t mere Doctrines of Faith of which there are no Axioms whatsoever that’s dogmatically proclaimed to be straight/correct as Doxa Orthos or Right Belief, while there are many methods for many different things, a method that can’t update its own method is a fragile method, but concerning geometry, everything is posteriori knowledge and deducible, even inductive knowledge is deducibly inductive, like using a finite partial sum to come up with an approximate finite measure of some total sum that has no complete finite measure.

The Pali Prakrit word Samma’ does not mean Orthos nor is it Axiomata, nor is it Ateles Entelecheia. It is Transcendent Perfection, it is sort of like Entelecheia in its Power that transcends Potential-Actual distinctions without being Imperfect nor having anything to do with Imperfection. Samma’ is the Good, is the Necessity, is the Principle-Truth, is beyond all-things, no-things, one-things, many-things, the Irreducible.

Concerning Pre-Geometric Ontology, there are methods that are seemingly incompatible to the methods that come to realize definitions on things contingent upon some Euclidean-compatible methods, so there are abductive definitions and abductive propositions from the metaontological methods, as well as retroductive methods, definitions, and propositions from the apophatic methods, before culminating into irreductive methods, definitions, and propositions in surpassing the apophatic means, without descending into circumductive ends. There is an Epistemology of the Hierarchy of the Methods of Reasoning, simply a Meta-Methodeutic that is Twofold, an Epistemology of Ontology, and an Epistemology of Epistemological entities, which the Ontological Epistemology concerns itself with Induction, Deduction, Abduction, Retroduction, Irreduction, while Epistemological Epistemology concerns itself with Circumduction, Induction, Deduction, Abduction, Retroduction. The failure to realize the Irreducible leads to Circumductive, cyclical re-reasoning, remodeling, reformulations of which there is imperfections and no end in sight and so rightly called opinion which is a mixture of truths and delusions that one must have faith in to work within that paradigm that’s subject to error down the line. However, this ultimately sixfold dialectical modal system is ab-extra to processing concepts into definitions and is only mentioned here as ends to deprecation of that paradigm for something better, for it is an abstracted indirect logical categorization system that does not directly concerns itself in the transformation of any given yet workable concept that’s polished into a well formed concept, which is a definition.

What then is the non-abstract direct logical(in the sense of using reason) method to realize a definition? In a nutshell, if something isn’t Irreducible-Inevitable-Irrefutable all together, it’s not real. Expanded a little more, you first deal with a thought, a concept. You then check if it’s Reifiable. If something’s not reifiable, what’s attempted to be reified defies its reification, like say infinity isn’t truly reifiable as it is finitely reified while any infinite reification attempt cannot be started nor finished nor asserted to be completed via axiomatic assertions. A reification fallacy is when you treat something unreifiable as something reifiable unto itself as some ontological referent. Anything unreifiable lacks any ontological referent, cannot be named, cannot be properly put into words even if there is a word for it in any language for it cannot even be a thing. In essence, anything Reifiable is Irreducibly-Inevitable, anything Unreifiable is Indeterminately-Indefinitive. After you know if it’s Reifiable, then you check it has Positive Attributes that it possesses, not of Negative Attributes that it lacks. In essence, anything Attributive is Irreducibly-Irrefutable, anything Unattributive is Indeterminately-Ineffable. After you know if it’s Attributive, then you check if it’s logically Non-Contradictory or Not Non-Contradictory as Contradictory. In essence, anything Non-Contradictory is Inevitably-Irrefutable, anything Contradictory is Indefinitively-Ineffable. After you know if it’s Non-Contradictory, then you check if it’s Independent of any Intellect, which is to also check if it’s Semantic meaning exists Externally to the Knower in a valid manner. In essence, anything Independent of some Mind is Irreducible-Inevitable-Irrefutable, anything Dependent of some Mind is Ineffable-Indefinite-Indeterminate.

Now some people who has read my most recent update of my art book (see: https://pythagorical.com/ananke-logos/ ) might wonder what use is the sixfold dialectical modes and why does this fourfold method of defining well formed concepts have similar aspects in the sixfold dialectic like Circumduction in opposition of Irreduction and how the Irreducible is Irreduction while the Reducible as Indeterminate is Circumduction, and why even include it if it is somewhat deprecated. The Irreducible and Indeterminate simply has (meta)Ontological distinctions that corresponds to the sixfold dialectical modal system, but the remaining middle four terms of the sixfold does not fit neatly to the other four Ontological terms of the Inevitable, Irrefutable, Ineffable, Indefinite for the sixfold dialectic is predicative of something but doesn’t deal with what that something directly is prior to predication, so the non-pre-predicative terms are deemed useless when it comes down to knowing the ontology of ontology and the ontology of epistemology. The Reifiable-Attributive-(Non-)Contradictory-Independent Method is of the epistemological end while the Irreducible-Inevitable-Irrefutable is of the ontological end but the sixfold dialectical modes applies as a predicated model upon the methods as an act of desperation, a coping mechanism for those that seek to use it for any reason when they have failed to understand something, it’s also there to be known to avoid falling for predication-contingent arguments, for what use is to say something is, is not, both, neither? It’s profanely towards the ends of being stuck in a circumductive loop, but it’s divinely towards the ends of avoiding predication-contingent arguments in the first place. Mechanistic dynamic systems may incorporate predicated systems but it is not strictly philosophy nor geometry and is more towards modeling physical paradigms with ever-changing sets of functional input and sets of functional outputs.

The hard critique against most of what passes as wisdom literature as well as process ontology, concerns the obsessions that they have with groupings on cosmological questions and predicative logic, whether it be if all-things is, isn’t, both, neither, or whether it be inductive, deductive, abductive, retroductive, or both as predicated cosmological questions, or neither of both predicated cosmological questions nor predicative logic nor cosmological questioning. The utterly profound truth eludes these folks that think in circles and engages in the underlying fallacy of circumductive logic, which is a sign of their bewilderment in the indeterminate that they justify in appealing to indefinite and to the ineffable yet unable to know why they make those three principles in the first place. They are unprincipled in making the false-self-emptying culminates into negating that which does the false-self-emptying by engaging in the impossible true-self-negation fallacy. The gnosis in purgation of false views on the True Self, without the the gnosis in affirmation of the Perfected view on the True Self, makes those divine workings of profane ends regardless of how many trinkets used and devotees playing around and many ritual steps engaged towards elaboration of the mysteries, the keepers of the mysteries are their own gatekeepers that keep themselves away from seeking the Irreducible-Inevitable-Irrefutable of which none of their intercessory entities will ever be able to help you know thine True Self is indeed the Absolute. The Good cannot be sublimated, it is absolved from all sets and groupings and combinations and dissolutions. It in principle, subjugates sublimation away from the Ineffable-Indefinite-Indeterminate. Out of the goodness of the Good, the mystery keepers are subjugated by their own primordial nescience of which they foolishly ignore and so condemn themselves into the illusion of complete absence from the Good, that illusion that they’ve brought upon themselves in compounded nescience as ignorance of nescience that they couldn’t subjugate as they have assimilated it into themselves in foolish silence, their admission of guilt. All that must be done is to become the “That Thou Art” comprehensor, all else is to cultivate goodness that flows from the Good until Necessity ends the effects of consciousness in severing the Soul from the Body, ending that phenomenal life in its phenomenal death so that one with Wisdom seeks the True Self Union in becoming the Irreducible Good, actualizing Sammavimutti Perfect Liberation.

The Arche Principle, or in more illustrious words: Θεαρχία Divine-Rule, is the Grantor of the Irrevocable Divine Testament Trust whose Dominion is entrusted to the living man or living woman, the Trustee. The Trustee then makes Private Commercial Redemption Trusts and then Private Familial Revocable Trusts, but this concerns Truth insofar as the Principle-Truth, the Origin, the Arche is prior to spoken second hand truths as trusts, and there being tiers of trusts further away from the Dominion of God which is the Good-Necessity-Principle, the Samma’. The completion of the Divine Trust is demonstrated in what culminates after the Sammasamadhi in the Noble Eightfold Path as a part of the Ninthfold of the Tenfold Path of the Asekha Master as Sammananam, the Supreme Knowledge of Samma’-Perfection. It is also when a new School of Thought arises that the Scholarch makes itself known to the wider public and has attained self-mastery over the false-self. Whether I, the author of this article, already am a Scholarch of the School of the Good-Necessity-Principle, I genuinely don’t care, for it is not consensus, it is of the Irrevocable Trust that have been bestowed unto me, the Trustee, which shares the Irreducible Dominion of the Irreducible.

Back to the beginning: https://anankelogos.wordpress.com/