The Positive Aesthetic and Dialectic

Accessing Strongs Dictionary...


Bible Tools Metaphysics Mathematics Prophecy Book Errata Must Reads
Must Reads What Is The Revelation? Introduction What Is The Revelation? A Living Moving Proof Of His Work The Sign Of The Son Of Man Co-Heirs In Christ Discernment Introduction The Textus Receptus – Not The Whole Story The Positive Aesthetic and Dialectic Positivity Found A Dilemma Who Is This "Mark" Anyway? Not Just A Matter Of Timing 42 Rising Up From The Sea The Heresy Corner Introduction An Apology For Heresy Taken Too Literally? Heresy And That Which Is Not Work Yet Undone The Present Grace Is Not Incomplete But In Part Unjustified A Trick Of The Light Not Sold Under Sin Only the Least Prevails Lively Stones The Last Positive Property Nothing New Under The Sun Loose Ends Introduction The Law Broke A Literal Hell Or A Literal Judgement? The Image A Statue? Did You Ever Stop To Think? Like Unto An Emerald	The Positive Aesthetic and Dialectic Before you read the book consider the disjunction: Pos(r) v Pos(s). Solving such a disjunction dialectically privates the positive, i.e. judging the difference between good and evil. For, it is immediately apparent to the observer judging their environment that the following disjunction is under consideration. Pos(r) v ¬Pos(r). However this is simply and logically not the case. The disjunction is instead r v ¬r and given Pos(r) I also have Pos(r) v ¬Pos(¬r). Pos(r) is truly a constant. In the dialectic paradigm,, the individual so judges the positive for Himself; but for the Christian the disjunction is properly decided with virtue, the paradigm of Jesus Christ. In Christ, there is never a privation. So, the disjunction Pos(r) v ¬Pos(r)=>Pos(s) is logically contradictory and everything is judged synthetically in the dialectic if this is truly the case. In the account of the temptation in Eden, concerning that "one tree", Eve judges its fruit as good or bad to eat: God did not state that it was poisonous, but that His commandment, strengthened by a curse was intact and that the true case was to keep the commandment which itself remained positive. Eve, misjudged the tree as if the fruit were aesthetically "good to eat": i.e. Pos(q) v ¬Pos(q), instead of the intact commandment as, say, N(Pos(q)). In the paradigm of Christ, Pos(p&q^-1)=>Pos(s) and virtue moves the disjunction in mercy, compassion, charity and love etc. This, is obedience to the Christian. If it is not present, there is no faith on that paradigm making any difference as found in the person of Christ. To the lukewarm and/or the Christian finding themselves confused or more worldly (a consistent "error" of the book's third and prior editions), it may appear true that ¬Pos(s)=>Pos(q)&p^-1=>Pos(r), but in truth (and as so for the perfect) the only inference is: ¬Pos(¬s)=>Pos(q)&p^-1=>Pos(r), which shows that ¬s entails the necessarily negative p^-1 and cannot be a positive predicate. The positivity of s is a constant over both sides of the disjunction. It is never (and is not to be) privated. Similarly, a condition of the ultrafilter will not permit p^-1 to be a predicate in the ultrafilter of Pos(r). The ultrafilter or the "aesthetic measure" or, indeed, "faith itself" cannot perceive p^-1 present in the perfection of the ultrafilter. The result is that Pos(r) and Pos(s) are disjoint sets, as is the entirely negative ¬Pos(¬s). Then the ultrafilter cannot include Pos(p^-1). For that is impossible for the perfect. God, then, is always and entirely consistent - but the dialectic not so. Judging good and evil for one's self began this debacle of a fall. The real danger this day and today is that the Church now has a complete lack of discernment, and this is found in employing the dialectic in self-governing. Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (KJV) The problem is unrighteousness,.. here not the term of the parable describing that worthy conceit (of the worldly) surpassing the wisdom "of the children of the light" - of the apostle and the valid Christian who lets their apostles do the heavy lifting and upon whom those apostles may fall back upon and rely on when they fail (as unjust stewards), but here, unrighteousness refers to all those with a paradigm opposed to all those others that do the works of virtue (which is righteousness). The verses below indicate a lack of virtue as certainly "unrighteous", and God would condemn all those (tares) employing the dialectic; those having it as a "reprobate mind" - as Christ does not have them or even know them! 2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (KJV) Then the interpretation of the Revelation should be read with a discerning eye, that being the "lamp of the body". Eyes affixed firmly on Jesus, there is no darkness (dialectic logic) found in Him. Continue To Next Page Return To Section Start Return To Previous Page