Triune or Nondual God 🤔

[henry quirk]

Who guarantees a right? It is one thing to say I have a right but unless someone or something guarantees a right, it is meaningless. If neither a personal God or a government guarantees a right, what IYO does?

You do. Your life, liberty, property are yours: defend them.

Does Deism consider conscience as learned knowledge acquired in life (a posteriori) or remembered knowledge which always existed (a priori)? In Genesis 2 for example the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil existed before Man was put into the garden. This means that the duality of good and evil is a necessity and knowledge of it is a priori knowledge and not something we create through reason. Is this in accord with your conception of deism?

Conscience is with you from the start. You don't learn it, you have it. But it's useless without reason. A compass is no damn good if you don't know what it or what it's tellin' you.

Good, you have your own ideas of Deism which means you've thought on it rather than just accept it.

This is probably true for anyone who calls himself deist. Deism isn't exactly a well-known religion. It has no holy book, no holy men, no places of worship...and no coffers to fill. Deists don't go door-to-door spreadin' the good news. Airports lack a contingent of deists chantin'. Seems to me: anyone who is a deist had to go lookin' for it and had to think about it.

But you must have thought on natural rights and what gaurantees them as well as the difference between the ACTION of free will and the REACTION to desire. It seems to me what we call free will is just an indoctrinated reaction to a desire. Have you experienced the difference?

Well, as I say, your life, liberty, property are yours; you are your own. As I say...

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).

Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).

Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

As for free will: fundamentally all that means is one chooses, not as mere reaction to what has come before, or even as response to what happens now (though both past and present can figure into it), but for reasons one susses out for himself. These reasons may not be good ones or right ones, but then free will isn't about common sense or wisdom. More technically, free will (agent causation) is about man bein' an agent, a cause, a beginner, bender, and ender of causal chains. More esoterically, man is the wildcard; in a determined universe he is undetermined.

Man is a composite thing -- spirit & substance -- his mind (spirit) intermixed with his flesh (substance); he is both equally. You might say these are his higher and lower natures. His substance grants efficacy in the world and anchors and constrains his spirit, which grants identity, intention, etc.

As for the guarantee: I'm fond of this line of pulp writer Robert E Howard...

He (God) dwells on a great mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?

Now, I don't think God is indifferent or prickly as Howard suggests, but He is absent and expects you and me and him and her to stand up. Each of us is a point of creative and causal power: we ought exercise ourselves in the world. Self-direction, self-reliance, self-responsibility: these are a man's birthright. This passivity TPTB lay on each of us is unnatural, and why so many of us are crazy as a shithouse rat.

I've rambled enough for now.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Transposed from an adjacent thread:

Parents can tell their children about how 'life' was, back in the olden days, thus children can know about agitations, but without those children ever having to experience agitations, first hand.

Dude, the far-right AfD party just won a German state election...

Another manifestation of fundamentalism. A turning against “the Liberal order” (which is a régime in its own, peculiar ways).

The Fight for Germany

[Self-Lightening]

Our world — the largely mad world of consumer culture with its mindlessness and lack of sound grounding — produces social and psychological disassociation. Without a solid relationship to a believed-in structure of metaphysics people are, to speak generally, unable to navigate life through tangible value-sets. And they become merely cogs or victims of determining political and cultural arrangements into which they are subsumed.

Man needs — we need — a metaphysical picture with which we identify. In a postmodern reality no such thing exists.

Yes, exactly.

YouTube/The Aspen Institute, "World On Fire: The Root Causes of Populism, Authoritarianism and The Whole Global Mess".

The root cause, in my view, is that the great age of classical Greece had such a secure base as to make the series of most daring explorations called "philosophy" possible:

"Both thinkers [Nietzsche and Heidegger] regard as decisive the nihilism which according to them began in Plato (or before)—Christianity being only Platonism for the people—and whose ultimate consequence is the present decay. Hitherto every great age of humanity grew out of Bodenständigkeit (rootedness in the soil). Yet the great age of classical Greece gave birth to a way of thinking which in principle endangered Bodenständigkeit from the beginning and in its ultimate contemporary consequences is about to destroy the last relics of that condition of human greatness."
—Leo Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, page 33.

There hasn't yet been a true postmodern reality, though. So-called "postmodernism" is still inherently modern, albeit a form of modernity turned against itself. The problem is modernity itself, which was originally a response to the fundamental flaw of Platonism. As to a true postmodern reality,

"modern opinion necessitates what it also makes possible, the attempt to bring society's opinions into accord with philosophy's character, not by making society wise but by making its opinions reflect rather than contradict the truth."
—Laurence Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 168.

Cf. Ned Lukacher, Time-Fetishes: The Secret History of Eternal Recurrence: the Abrahamic (exoteric Platonic) world view is a time-fetish in the sense of a prosthesis, a substitute "penis": the soothing view of something surveyable, with a definite beginning and end; the idea of eternal recurrence, on the other hand, is a more subtle time-fetish, in that it at least images time as a ring or circle—a hole...

"The name is a combination of Chanda and Munda, two demons whom Chamunda killed."
—Wikipedia, "Chamunda".

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

If you do not mind, a quick comment on David Brooks: though I certainly appreciate those expressions of his values and ideas, I do not think that Brooks in any significant sense (based at least on what I have read of his and perusing the Wiki page and listening to most of the video) has the sort of grounding within (strict) metaphysical principles that is needed for an individual to reestablish themselves within a believable metaphysics. He is described in the Wiki page as "squishy" or a liberal-minded sort-of Conservative just a wee bit right of a general center position.

Strangely, it seems to me that one must turn to the extremes for some sort of outline of what a strict and demanding metaphysical vision would entail. To the degree that one subscribes to Liberal values -- the standard version -- is the degree to which one has become separated from what I describe as "strict" metaphysics. The true-blue Liberal (people like Brooks) cannot really ever establish themselves within strict, demanding values. In this sense, and by its very nature, Liberalism is a dead-end.

Personally, I think people like Brooks read the signs of the times wrongly. That is, they are frightened and appalled by the so-called turn to the Right which they label "extremism". But any rigorous, demanding spiritual path or disciple could only be interpreted by these people as "fascistic" though not, necessarily, as politically fascistic. All paths of rigorous discipline are, in different senses, intolerant and perhaps unforgiving.

[Self-Lightening]

If you do not mind, a quick comment on David Brooks: though I certainly appreciate those expressions of his values and ideas, I do not think that Brooks in any significant sense (based at least on what I have read of his and perusing the Wiki page and listening to most of the video) has the sort of grounding within (strict) metaphysical principles that is needed for an individual to reestablish themselves within a believable metaphysics. He is described in the Wiki page as "squishy" or a liberal-minded sort-of Conservative just a wee bit right of a general center position.

Strangely, it seems to me that one must turn to the extremes for some sort of outline of what a strict and demanding metaphysical vision would entail. To the degree that one subscribes to Liberal values -- the standard version -- is the degree to which one has become separated from what I describe as "strict" metaphysics. The true-blue Liberal (people like Brooks) cannot really ever establish themselves within strict, demanding values. In this sense, and by its very nature, Liberalism is a dead-end.

Personally, I think people like Brooks read the signs of the times wrongly. That is, they are frightened and appalled by the so-called turn to the Right which they label "extremism". But any rigorous, demanding spiritual path or disciple could only be interpreted by these people as "fascistic" though not, necessarily, as politically fascistic. All paths of rigorous discipline are, in different senses, intolerant and perhaps unforgiving.

I referred to Brooks only for his exposition of the problem, starting at the point I linked to. I did not mean to point to him for a solution.

That solution, in my view, can take one of two forms. The one would be a historical recurrence—a return to pre-Homeric conditions (Platonism being originally a response to the Homeric Enlightenment). The other would be a Nietzschean Enlightenment (which is what Lampert was talking about in that passage):

"As Nietzsche puts the concept 'will to truth' in place of knowledge of the truth, he has thus carried out the great inversion. He wants to know the problem of science no longer on the soil of science, but sees the process of designing the schema of a permanent world from the perspective of the artist. From this perspective, too, the truth is still only so-called truth; it is the show [Schein] in which the counterworld shows up [erscheint]. But only when considered from the side of the will to truth does it come to light what is really true about the so-called truth, namely the necessity to found an abiding order, in which life is possible. Once again it turns out that Nietzsche's inversion of metaphysics has a double meaning. On the one hand, the basic error of metaphysics¹ is as it were unmasked; it is now no longer possible to pass off as Being what in truth is show. On the other hand, however, it is through the exposure of the will which is active in the basis [of metaphysics] that the proceedings of metaphysics in their inner necessity first become understandable and in this sense get justified. Only through the overcoming of the error of metaphysics does what had been true in all metaphysics come to the surface [zum Vorschein, "to the fore-show"]. If one understands 'truth' in the concept 'will to truth' as the truth in truthful show, then the will to truth is no more only a will to so-called truth; it is then rather the will to poiesis or, as Nietzsche says here, to 'making,' that is to say to the production of a show which does not negate life but affirms it; which is thereby in unison with life and thanks its truth to this unison.” (Georg Picht, Nietzsche, pages 281-82, my translation.)

Genuine Liberalism—basically what Brooks calls Extreme Liberalism—, i.e., nihilism, is the truth, and not the so-called truth:

"The philosophers alone have the fortitude to withstand nihilism or the truth. They alone can love myth and illusion while knowing that they are merely products of art. […] In the face of the nothingness of reality, they are the makers of truth, the interpreters of the nonexistent text. […] This is not to say that the order the philosophers impose on reality's chaos is arbitrary. Even though nature and human nature set no limits on human conduct (they contain no moral standards), they nevertheless provide the rough outlines of what is necessary for collective preservation. The philosophers fashion the horizons of the herd which endow the good and evil with meaning, but they themselves are beyond good and evil." (Shadia Drury, "Strauss and Nihilism: Response to Professor Harry Neumann", in Neumann, Liberalism (pages 78-79).)

"What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 2, translation Mencken.)

¹ ​"The traditional, metaphysically based morality, however, is false in the sense of falseness raised to a higher power. It does not just posit the necessary show, but on top of that it passes this show off as truth. Traditional morality is therefore false in a dual sense, whereas the world is only singly false. In morality, the spiral of show is, if I may say so, rotated a full rotation further. Therefore, the truthful show of the world is not affirmed; the world is rather, on the basis of an additional deceit, negated in the name of the alleged truth." (Picht, Nietzsche, page 280.)

[Alexis Jacobi]

While I do not wish to divert away from the many interesting and I think important points in your posts, my comments will be just what is passing through my mind as I have read what you write and present. One, I would describe Brooks as "symptom of the problem(s)" and not one who articulates the problem. His positions, his posture, his "location" if you will, is within the problem.

However, and with that said, I do not suppose it possible to describe or outline a program that will or could lead to some large, general movement in our present social and political circumstances that would amount to a "solution". So, as I read what is written in this forum, and what you have written, I tend only to try to define and outline what choices I can make, and will make, in respect to re-grounding within a believable metaphysics.

I tend to see the quotes that you present -- intricate, detailed and interesting as they are -- as also expressing "symptoms" of the Problem rather than presenting solutions. In this sense the problem is the situation that these intellectual minds find themselves in. They can (if I may be so bold as to put it plainly) believe in nothing. The core idea is that people will, we will, or perhaps the leaders of culture will succeed in the poetic creation of another defining mythology and succeed in getting enough people to believe the "show". It sounds good on paper but in fact I do not think it could ever work.

Various times I have presented this Thomas Carlyle quote:

But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion.

My impression (of those whom you have quoted) is that they are on the intellectual outside of a felt metaphysics. They do not *believe in* any fundamental truth since, within the sphere of their minds, there is, they are convinced, no such thing. So then, they could only become artificers, conjurers, concocters. I have a feeling that you might agree that they write, and think, and conceive, from within the nihilism that you refer to (and they refer to).

Lampert: As Nietzsche puts the concept 'will to truth' in place of knowledge of the truth, he has thus carried out the great inversion. He wants to know the problem of science no longer on the soil of science, but sees the process of designing the schema of a permanent world from the perspective of the artist.

Yet this too, rather obviously, negates any metaphysical foundation. It iterates the core assertion: there is no sense to anything; there is no foundation; there is no *true metaphysic* that could be discovered or perhaps is shrouded from us. Thus, man is the inventor; the fabricator; the concocter; the myth-weaver.

"The philosophers alone have the fortitude to withstand nihilism or the truth. They alone can love myth and illusion while knowing that they are merely products of art. […] In the face of the nothingness of reality, they are the makers of truth, the interpreters of the nonexistent text. […] This is not to say that the order the philosophers impose on reality's chaos is arbitrary. Even though nature and human nature set no limits on human conduct (they contain no moral standards), they nevertheless provide the rough outlines of what is necessary for collective preservation. The philosophers fashion the horizons of the herd which endow the good and evil with meaning, but they themselves are beyond good and evil." (Shadia Drury, "Strauss and Nihilism: Response to Professor Harry Neumann", in Neumann, Liberalism (pages 78-79).)

"What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 2, translation Mencken.)

I rather think that *the philosophers* end up in, and can only end up in, a dead-end. In fact they describe the dead-end in which they are located. Perhaps because their own ideas are the actual constructs, but such constructs do not reflect the realness of metaphysical truth. They operate within simulacra therefore.

​"The traditional, metaphysically based morality, however, is false in the sense of falseness raised to a higher power. It does not just posit the necessary show, but on top of that it passes this show off as truth. Traditional morality is therefore false in a dual sense, whereas the world is only singly false. In morality, the spiral of show is, if I may say so, rotated a full rotation further. Therefore, the truthful show of the world is not affirmed; the world is rather, on the basis of an additional deceit, negated in the name of the alleged truth." (Picht, Nietzsche, page 280.)

I have, as so many have, thought all these thoughts, been affected by them, fallen under their sway of determined inevitability. And I have also squirmed under their weight and felt the need, the resolving desire, to harmonize the discord with an aggressive, desperate rush toward *a solution*. I will admit that if there is a solution it must be spoken of in the first or the second person -- it is you or I who will resolve the conflict -- and I am not convinced this comes about through (mere) intellectual organization of the show-items on the table.

[promethean75]

"Perhaps because their own ideas are the actual constructs, but such constructs do not reflect the realness of metaphysical truth. They operate within simulacra therefore"

Ah but isn’t all of metaphysics already operating within a simulcra? Your boy N talks about how this happened in 'how the real world became a fable' i think it was called.

What N is tryna suggest in that quote by Saully outta the WTP is that this being the case - metaphysics as a blend of intellectual, emotional, and artistic forces in man that express themselves in that final product of 'religious' thinking - what must be more substantial for the existence of this process is not any single metaphysical theory but the impulse behind it, what is driving it. The WTP could be sufficient to describe this process reductively. It would describe not only mechanistic processes but also that impulse in man to seize, control, examine, and shape the world with his metaphysical thinking.

What makes it more sketchy is that metaphysical thinking isn't disinterested 'objective' reasoning but very 'psychologically invested' reasoning that will be given direction and use by a thinker who wants certain things taken for granted, to be already true in his particular case; that he has a spirit, that he is immortal, that there is the 'good', that there is a purpose to anything, etc. From there he fashions his metaphysical systems, not vice-versa. He doesn't find out he has a spirit and then become a metaphysican. It's the other way around. Your homeboys Schop, Fritz and the Buddha were right when they implied that self flattery is at the orgins of metaphysics.

Regarding simulcras and metaphysical systems, you'd find it interesting how there's always some coorepsondance between the structure of the state and the hermeneutic structure of the religious dogma prevailing at that particular time in history: when animism became anthropomorphic and man began conceiving of his gods as human like, authoritarian state systems naturally started to emerge becuz the content of the dogma was under the control of and disseminated by whatever class had the most power. The class structures of society and their effects had everything to do with the development of the religious ideas now (then, i mean) in the making.

U can map the course taken by man from his prehistoric animistic stage to his bronze age monotheistic stage in perfect correspondance to the changes in the structures of his societies. Your boy Comte's got a stage theory about that very thing, and your homegirl Rosa wrote all about how metaphysics is a type of - directly or not - expression of the ambitions, aspirations and values of a ruling class over and against the interests of the ordinary citizens. A very long and very great story as told by Rosa. Starts with a corruption of (communal) language, and then a bunch of words are made up that keep everybody calm and cool so the guys that made up the words can continue ruling. The structure of the state becomes one which is eventually sanctioned by and through the dominant philosophical and religious narrative being disseminated by the property owning ruling class.

Okay so we've gone from a simple impulse in man that directs, according to how he would be most flattered, what his metaphysics will be like, to whole civilizations ruled by kings who are god's elect on erf to rule.... and then to some kind of funky post-protestant age where there are no more kings but the people still, and must, worship the state as the ultimate authority... a state (our western one) functioning on a few essential principles that are dogmatic nonetheless. Created equally. Right to liberty. Right to property. Even secular societies are still too pious in their reasons. This is not to say that these rights can't exist, only that they exist for reasons and in ways that one isn't aware of. They get it accidentally right, then, when some constitution is written.

But you see the long amorphous process of how things come and go in religious thinking, how some ideas remain consistent throughout all religions, and how, regardless of all these details, 'god' will always be the alpha authority that u are to live for in a society that he designed and sanctioned, and the laws of that land reflect the will of em. Ergo, when in [insert where u are], do as the [insert nationality of people in place where u are] do.

We have to conceal the truth of natural hierarchy from the plebs becuz it's precisely the fear of authority - that image put into their heads by their religion - that prevents them from improving themselves and their societies. We must teach the plebian and ignoble that there are no gods or masters.

[promethean75]

The Antichrist, rather. Not the WTP but u might as well say he said it there too I mean c'mon.

[Self-Lightening]

Yet this too, rather obviously, negates any metaphysical foundation. It iterates the core assertion: there is no sense to anything; there is no foundation; there is no *true metaphysic* that could be discovered or perhaps is shrouded from us. Thus, man is the inventor; the fabricator; the concocter; the myth-weaver.

What N is tryna suggest in that quote by Saully outta the WTP is that this being the case - metaphysics as a blend of intellectual, emotional, and artistic forces in man that express themselves in that final product of 'religious' thinking - what must be more substantial for the existence of this process is not any single metaphysical theory but the impulse behind it, what is driving it. The WTP could be sufficient to describe this process reductively. It would describe not only mechanistic processes but also that impulse in man to seize, control, examine, and shape the world with his metaphysical thinking.

Yes, exactly! It's ultimately not man who is the inventor etc., but the will to power:

"For philosophy, Kant's knowledge that reason only has insight into what it itself brings forth in accordance with its design can, if finite reason is historical, only mean that thinking, in an ever-revolving change, makes its own designing of the design the object of its knowledge. If the knowledge however is to be true nonetheless, then absolute spirit must manifest itself in every finite form of reason. For a thinking which radically carries out the change of consciousness, the self-knowledge of reason in the act of its designing becomes a 'phenomenology of spirit', that is to say a doctrine of the forms in which the absolute essence of spirit appears as finite. Now Nietzsche carries out a change which puts into question even the fundamental presupposition of Hegel's: that the absolute in and for itself is already with us. Kant's doctrine 'that reason only has insight into what it itself brings forth in accordance with its design' is taken so radically that it now comes to light how reason itself has been brought forth in history by man, in accordance with his own design. The force which brings forth and determines both reason and the principle of identity that constitutes it bears the name 'the will to power'. Thinking, knowing and acting is now interpreted out of the historic carrying-out of designing, that is to say out of value-determination. Whereas in Kant the apriority of reason is condition of the possibility of designing, through the change carried out by Nietzsche the design becomes the condition of the possibility of reason." (Picht, Nietzsche, pages 71-72, my translation and emphasis.)

Strauss says something similar to the line I italicized:

"Precisely if all views of the world are interpretations, i.e. acts of the will to power, the doctrine of the will to power is at the same time an interpretation and the most fundamental fact, for, in contradistinction to all other interpretations, it is the necessary and sufficient condition of the possibility of any 'categories'." (Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, paragraph 8 end, my emphasis.)

But in order to truly understand and appreciate this, I think you need to read the whole essay (it's the second central chapter of Strauss's final work, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy), probably with the aid of Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche (which includes the essay as its appendix), and then at least my first amendment to the latter, which, like my second, can be found on this very forum:

'The Difficulty Inherent in the Philosophy of the Will to Power. A first amendment to Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche'.

('The Ideal of the One Who Paves the Way. A second amendment to Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.')

This is where Strauss's essay first starts to address the said difficulty:

"[I]n Nietzsche's thought […] philosophizing becomes a mode or modification of the will to power: it is the most spiritual (der geistigste) will to power; it consists in prescribing to nature what or how it ought to be (aph. 9); it is not love of the true that is independent of will or decision. Whereas according to Plato the pure mind [Geist] grasps the truth, according to Nietzsche the impure mind, or a certain kind of impure mind, is the sole source of truth. […B]y suggesting that the truth is human creation, he suggests that this truth at any rate is not a human creation. One is tempted to say that Nietzsche's pure mind grasps the fact that the impure mind creates perishable truths." ("Note on the Plan" paragraph 7 = SPPP pp. 176-77.)

[Self-Lightening]

"For philosophy, Kant's knowledge that reason only has insight into what it itself brings forth in accordance with its design can, if finite reason is historical, only mean that thinking, in an ever-revolving change, makes its own designing of the design the object of its knowledge. If the knowledge however is to be true nonetheless, then absolute spirit must manifest itself in every finite form of reason. For a thinking which radically carries out the change of consciousness, the self-knowledge of reason in the act of its designing becomes a 'phenomenology of spirit', that is to say a doctrine of the forms in which the absolute essence of spirit appears as finite. Now Nietzsche carries out a change which puts into question even the fundamental presupposition of Hegel's: that the absolute in and for itself is already with us. Kant's doctrine 'that reason only has insight into what it itself brings forth in accordance with its design' is taken so radically that it now comes to light how reason itself has been brought forth in history by man, in accordance with his own design. The force which brings forth and determines both reason and the principle of identity that constitutes it bears the name 'the will to power'. Thinking, knowing and acting is now interpreted out of the historic carrying-out of designing, that is to say out of value-determination. Whereas in Kant the apriority of reason is condition of the possibility of designing, through the change carried out by Nietzsche the design becomes the condition of the possibility of reason." (Picht, Nietzsche, pages 71-72, my translation and emphasis.)

Picht immediately continues:

"The model from which the essence of the design can be read, however, is still the experiment. Hence philosophy as a whole must now emerge as an attempt [Versuch], for the attempt is the design of the open horizons for the future forms of thinking and acting. The attempt is the design of the possibilities of the future history of mankind. […]
If the attempt is understood as the design of the future possibilities of historic existence [Dasein—Picht had just mentioned Heidegger], the experiment carried out here can no longer be interpreted as if the experimenter stood toward the experiment he conducts as an impartial observer. In this design he designs his own possibility. The carrying-out of his own life [or living—Leben] is the attempt. […]
This is the total sublation [Aufhebung] of the traditional distinction between theory and practice [Praxis]. Since Nietzsche, every thinking is reactionary which does not venture to accomplish the entire life of him who thinks as an experiment of the knower, as a designing [Entwerfen, lit. "unthrowing"] oneself into the future possibilities of human history." (Picht, Nietzsche, pp. 72-73, my translation.)

Compare my 'A study in Nietzschean religious philosophy', part 3 (a):

'I contend that man only becomes natural when all of nature becomes human for him, in his hypothesis, his postulation,—his willing to power. Of course, I don't mean literally or fully human. Still, it may be helpful to pretend it means just that for a bit. Let's compare my contention with Buddhism. In Buddhism, to be fully human, fully vernatürlicht ["naturalized"] as a human, means to fully realize one's Buddha-nature—in other words, to be fully enlightened. But this Buddha-nature is something the human being has in common with all [sentient] beings: it is not just the deepest, but also the highest reality of all beings. But here's the thing: one can only be fully enlightened when all other beings are also fully enlightened. This is called anuttara samyak sambodhi, and I've translated this literally as "unsurpassed correct coillumination". The prefix "com-" in "correct" and (my coinage) "coillumination", like the "sam-" in "samyak" and "sambodhi", is an intensive prefix, but it's quite apt that it literally means "together" (for both prefixes). A bodhisattva is more enlightened than an arhat because he realizes he cannot be fully enlightened unless he is so together with all other beings.
[…I]f the absolute moment were only the absolute moment of all previous history, the possibility of another legitimate change in the future would remain. The absolute moment of all previous history may be rendered obsolete or as it were mediatized, but only by an absolute moment of all previous history that anticipates the absolute moment simply more completely. The absolute moment of all previous history can only be absolute insofar as it anticipates the absolute moment simply. Now let us compare Buddhism. Anuttara samyak sambodhi would of course be the absolute moment simply. But bodhisattvas are already "enlightenment-beings" (literally) because they anticipate that absolute moment. The moment in history in which the bodhisattva lives is therefore the absolute moment of all his previous "personal" history (i.e., the whole sequence of his many lives, previous and present).—Well then, Strauss speaks of "the universal culture, the culture of mankind, the world culture"; and, with Nietzsche, of the super-man of the future. But can the universal culture really be only the culture of mankind, i.e. of all human beings? Wouldn't it have to be the culture of all sentient or intelligent (sensing or understanding!) beings simply? […] And if thought has never yet been simply human, the universal culture may still be the culture of all humankind: when, as I said, all of nature becomes human for man—in his postulation that all beings have the true Human-nature (Buddha-nature = "Sapiens-nature"!) in common with him.'
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=419493#p419493

[Age]

The terms triune or trinity, or, that “a seeming three are actually one”, is an idea that is simply saying “not three”
The term nondual is simply saying two, but “not two”


It’s like saying - that which there seems to be - ideas such as humans (human constructs), what feeling is (feeling constructs), Atman, Brahman, person, God (mental constructs) - don’t actually exist, or, are just appearing thoughts (theories, concepts, philosophies, dogmas, etc).

Hence the pointing term nonduality, one, not two, or two, but not two. Simply the many of the One.

Well, there's probably some trinity believers who'd go along with that and think that was the idea. I like the idea of it is really being a sort of game (thinking more of Chritianity) than the nondual traditions. I mean, what an ornate game, so much detail and theology, fussing over there being three and yet it's a monism - of course they generally don't include us and the mud, stones, trees, glaciars and wolves in that monism.

How can 'the son', in the trinity, not be including you human beings when the word 'son' is referring, directly, to a human being?

The saying, 'the father, the son, and the holy ghost', just refers to the invisible 'Father', the visible 'son', and how they are linked together, as One, through and by the 'holy ghost'.

Even the non-dual traditions have the non-three....

Brahma - the creator
Vishnu - the preserver
Shiva - the destroyer

To make up a term for "not-three" in Sanskrit, it could be Atriputi:

A (अ) is a prefix meaning "not."
Tri (त्रि) means "three."
Puti could imply "counting" or "division."

From the Latin that gives us non-dual, non-trial (which makes a nice pun)

Christians have seemed to take issue with destroyer deities (I mean, destroy in relation to everything) and then also sex: Shiva and Parvati. Or gods sleeping. And then the Catholics have Mary, and even if she isn't officially number four, a lot of people, especially female Catholics pray to here, getting the sense she's more forgiving and empathetic.

So, there we have non-quadrial.

[Iwannaplato]

How can 'the son', in the trinity, not be including you human beings when the word 'son' is referring, directly, to a human being?

'is referring''? as if only one interpretation is being referred to, when there are so many different perspectives and referrings out there. And one wonders why this act of referring manage to leave out half the human beings, when words that did not were available and could have referred more clearly.

The saying, 'the father, the son, and the holy ghost', just refers to the invisible 'Father', the visible 'son', and how they are linked together, as One, through and by the 'holy ghost'.

That's certainly an interpretation.

[Fairy]

The saying, 'the father, the son, and the holy ghost', just refers to the invisible 'Father', the visible 'son', and how they are linked together, as One, through and by the 'holy ghost'.

Or, another way of saying this would go something like…

When Awareness ( Holy Ghost, spirit father) knows sensation (Mother Nature) son or consciousness is born.

The whole tenet of nonduality, is that it is only a pointer, it points to the eternal formless invisible spirit experiencing many finite transient life forms. That’s a bonafide nondual reality right there.

I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp for some people.

[Age]

How can 'the son', in the trinity, not be including you human beings when the word 'son' is referring, directly, to a human being?

'is referring''? as if only one interpretation is being referred to, when there are so many different perspectives and referrings out there.

Well, and obviously, an interpretation has to 'fit in' with, and 'work' with, every other 'interpretation', otherwise if 'an interpretation' does not, then it would be and is a 'misinterpretation'.

And one wonders why this act of referring manage to leave out half the human beings, when words that did not were available and could have referred more clearly.

Why did you begin to assume, and then believe, that this referring, or this interpretation, left out the human beings?

Also, I have already explained why 'those words' were being used, back then, in the 'olden days'.

Did you forget this explanation, and reason? Or, was this just any thing that you just missed, just misunderstood, and/or just misinterpreted, as well?

The saying, 'the father, the son, and the holy ghost', just refers to the invisible 'Father', the visible 'son', and how they are linked together, as One, through and by the 'holy ghost'.

That's certainly an interpretation.

Is there another one that 'fits in' with everything else?

If yes, then what is it, or are they, exactly?

[Age]

The saying, 'the father, the son, and the holy ghost', just refers to the invisible 'Father', the visible 'son', and how they are linked together, as One, through and by the 'holy ghost'.

Or, another way of saying this would go something like…

When Awareness ( Holy Ghost, spirit father) knows sensation (Mother Nature) son or consciousness is born.

There may well be countless ways of just saying;

The Universe, is just One eternal and infinite Thing, which is made up, solely and fundamentally, of the visible, and, the invisible.

But, the Universe, being Aware of "Its" Self always IS. 'Consciousness', though, may well have come-to-be, or was 'born', as some might say, when a biological organism with computing abilities came-to-be, or evolved into being created.

The whole tenet of nonduality, is that it is only a pointer, it points to the eternal formless invisible spirit experiencing many finite transient life forms. That’s a bonafide nondual reality right there.

I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp for some people.

When 'you' also do understand the 'why' here, then 'you' will be closer to finding the 'right words' so that every, perceived, 'different one' can, and will, also understand all-of-this, HERE.

Obviously the words, so far chosen, under the labels "fairy" and "age", at the moment of these written words, have not necessarily helped any one to understand better, here.

Also, and by the way, why 'this' is, only seemingly, difficult to understand is because:

1. Absolutely any thing new can be, relatively, difficult to understand, especially when it goes against or is different to the 'current' popular beliefs or views.

2. Whilst one is believing it presuming some thing to be true, then any thing opposing that belief or view can be very, very difficult to comprehend, and understand,. Even up to be impossible.