Trialectics is not a viable logic system

It is important for me to respond to the issues you bring up here.

"And doubt is the mode that sustains dialectical thought. I doubt, so that I think, I think so then I AM. Identity."

This statement is hard for me to accept because, and this is just one of the weaknesses of Hegel's ideas, doubt is not the mode that sustains dialectical thought. The truth is that there is a wide spectrum of harmonies that fuel unfolding. Furthermore; I question the belief that dialectic can serve as a sole means for that unfolding. There is much more going on than conflict resolution.

"I doubt, so that I think, I think so then I AM. Identity."

For me it appears that thinking is not a source of identity. We must be and remember (among other things) and thereby affirm our identity. They define us; not our thoughts. Thoughts are messages that we choose to assign values to - or not (meaning). As we assign values to them they are given 'life' and begin to manifest themselves in some way.

"The child, the emphethetical does not get to speak."

Perhaps I am missing your point here so please correct me if I am wrong. Yet I see even babies speaking - not to mention children - with their being and remembering (among other things). It is we "adults" who have the communication problem because most of us have not trained ourselves to understand their language.

"The emphethetical is the weakest of our intelligences, by far. Thus practice."

I feel that the emphethetical is one of the most subtle of our intelligences. It allows us, if we able and/or are willing to reflect on them, to choose the manner/direction of our unfolding consciously (otherwise unconsciously).

It is unfitting to see it as a weakness for me.

"We all long for security. Something beyond doubt."

Yes, we have fallen into this habit of needing security and therefore it has become our shared reality. I believe that this habit has been conditioned into us (but that is a different thread).

Imagine how it would be if we were to feel at home here where we are; assured that our needs will be taken care of as they arose - as has always been the case. This would not be stagnation because we would develop a different relationship to doubt.

We would see ourselves as being a vital part of the U with as much value as anything else contained within it. Doubt would then be a form of communication that we welcomed as a doorway to something new and before unimagined. We would then be able to harvest those frequency areas instead of it giving us cause for fear and the resulting stagnation.

"But time and change leave nothing as permanent."

Use of the concept of "permanent" is admission of its existence. Time is change of space as is space a change of time: they embrace each other. From some perspectives they may even vanish into the void or into infinity.

"Analysis works with components which does not last in time."

Do we not avail ourselves ever anew of the means of analysis? Its by-products are the stepping stones to new horizons. They will always, once navigated, be a part of any journey. They remain in dialog with that journey to its conclusion.

"Find that which has no components. VOID."

The void has a component. It is defined through its lack of its component: infinity.

"Proving to oneself the truth of void in all quadrants is what embodiment and practice is about."

What about proving the fullness of all quadrants as well? Shouldn't that be desired? It goes even farther than that. What about assigning each quadrant its own vortex? They are there waiting for us, should we 'open our eyes' to them. We know that they are there because the U is holographic in its nature.

"Including and transcending doubt into void leads to states that make trialectics,"

This is the "Hegelian ghost" that 'haunts' Trialectics (as well as our society!). It was a mistake to allow the Hegelian Dialectics as a precursor for any kind of serious philosophical endeavor. The Hegelian axioms are flawed. The Hegelian Dialectic are false.

It is clear that doubt cannot be the only substrate upon which states are achieved. That is why there are so many of them. They are not all reducible to doubt. As a mechanism for the being of anything new they would be narrowing the domain of possibilities of enfolding (embracing) as well as unfolding (transcending) whether we 'live' at that place (stage) or only 'visit' that place (state).

"integral awareness a new point of view not dependent on the precedents of doubt."

Yes that is true, because doubt is one of an infinity of states (or stages) expressing itself in the model.

"For doubt exists because we do not know our source and origin."

Does doubt not exist as an indication of a need for new perspectives? We could have a sense of source and origin and still have doubt. Also our source and origin is so dependent upon the perspective we have chosen, that they can almost be considered secondary notions.

"Thus we make up for this lack with our identity process which leads directly into dialectics and the dominance of the head."

I am not convinced that lack of identity (or the process of which it is a part) can lead to unavoidably to the dialectics that Hegel posited. They are clearly inadequate and have only led to increased suffering in our societies throughout recent history. I do agree with you about the dominance of a rational thinking mind being the consequence of misguided identity or a lack thereof.

"Embodiment is impossible without the clarification of our egos such that the empethetical self awareness does not get shrowded over by the phobias of the heart and head."

I have seen this perspective in Gurdjieff's work. To some extent it is true, but the phobias of the heart and head can, as Carl Jung has made clear, be seen as part of the journey towards individuation. Clarification is not enough to achieve this stage of development for many reasons. One of them is that not every cause for a phobia can be determined. I can provide examples of this, should I be called upon to do so.

"To realize the void is the end of doubt."

Yes that is true because doubt is replaced by meaninglessness. This state is 'equidistant" to doubt's counterpart: belief. It is the place where both can be said to be the farthest away from each other (infinity being their closest point to each other).

"But how to share this? With another dialectically based thought system?"

Not all systems are dialectical. In fact, most of them are not!

"Something that grows out of the conflict of self and time."

There are other foundations for unfolding (as stated above). Self, by the way, has its counterpart too: other. Time's counterpart is space.

"Something that can see the process that reaches to the unity and cycles back to the many."

Yes, a new perspective is up to this task.

"Tradition[s] have done a[n] amazing job in reaching the top of the mountain."

Yes that 'wisdom' is very important in reaching new vistas, but it is only a part of what is needed and can also be a hindrance when it becomes dogma.

"The empethetical intuition that leads to clarity of spirit, soul, mind, emotions, and body."

This intuition finds and creates within itself the means to that clarity. Knowing is moving towards being.

"But the real issue is how to bring the intuition from the top into the vehicles of time in such a way that does not reduce it to them. Dialectics thought reduces intuition to the shadow of opposites, the shadow of separation. Thus our identity crisis."

Yes a crisis must ensue because dialectic is being used as the framework for the new perspective! Identity must not arise exclusively out of dialectic. Identity can also arise out of love, for one example. A particular higher state can last through time if achieved by stages of development.

"The child will grow into the crisis of adolescence ( loss of a sense of permanent I) into the challenge of understanding change ( dialectics) which leads to the crisis of maturity( Who am I if everything is changing including my psyche) What is my source that is both in time and eternal.

The dialectics are not the engine of change in our understanding. They are only one flavor of a whole spectrum of means. Other cultures treat this phase of life with elegance and harmony. The culture, in which the adolescent finds itself, is vital to how it navigates this stage of development.

"Thus the realization of void as both that which everything in time flows from and returns back into."

The void is simply a phase-transition for any holon. It is the place where something is neither this nor that. The counterpart to the void is infinity (of which there are many kinds) where it is everything in a multitude of ways.

A state that makes evolution in all quadrants understood to be reaching for the ultimate attractor.

Where could this ultimate attractor be? Could it not be that the ultimate attractor is the process itself?

That the process is not random or continuous but has jumps and leaps in state and understanding that has no precedents for it.

Yes novelty is definitely a part of the process. Understanding is not a requirement for change of state (as you well know).

Trialectics. If you use dialectics with no practice, then there is no injunction to verify it in your own awareness.

Yes, 'knowing' is nothing but potential for use. Being is the value of knowing. If we are not being, then our knowing is of no value. The dialectics are restricted to conflict. There are other means to avail ourselves of (as stated previously) in our movement through the stages.

I can not prove it to you.

Many things of value cannot be proven. This aspect of the U violates all of the Hegelian axioms (modern mathematics was not available to Hegel) and at least one of the trialectic axioms (1c in particular).

Your state determines it. A significant problem, a significant joy to share in.

Yes our state is determined by our perspective. But it is not necessarily generated out of a problem as I see it. And this perspective can be chosen consciously or 'assigned' unconsciously as wells by means of another agent acting upon that range of awareness.

Some observation of where we humans are at. We have heart doctors that can not regulate or change the state of their heart. We have psychologists that can not change their state of consciousness. We have philosophers who can not be aware of their center of gravity. We have athletes who are as intuitive as a shrimp.

Yes because their lines of development are so expressed (but you are aware of this).

The emphethetical is synonymous with our physical body and intuition. To awaken the gross,subtle and causal bodies to void would lead to transparency and bliss of being that is permanent. 

Void is not the only transition available to us. It is one of a multitude; each having their own mixture of characteristics and granularity.

So maybe we should be studying gravity, electricity, and time. Safe and not so taboo. Something direct and tangible.

We have been doing this for the last 300 to 400 years. The evidence around us is indicative that our deterministic, causal and materialistic bent is in need of an overhaul. That long-overdue overhaul is happening right now! Your work is a sign of that.

How can you characterize my stance as "no change"? You don't even know my stance other than my questioning Trialectics!

Your characterization of this a tug of war is a surprise for me and not at all my intent. I am simply stating the truth as I know it.

This is not a question of status quo verses change. This is a question if the system fulfills the criterion of a logic system. Here Trialectics fails.

I never inferred that you were a child for believing in Trialectics and it makes me wonder how that aspect even comes up. I said that reading the axioms is like reading something a child would say. That has nothing to do with you and how you view yourself.

I don't make this claim out of my inability to understand things. It is a fact that the axioms cannot produce these wonderful things you folks are talking about in connection with it because it is not only incomplete, it is not even a viable system.

You can keep your playground intact as I have no intention of destroying it. I am simply indicating that when you "play" with Trialectics, you are playing in a sandbox.

You say you want to get my attention to see the trialectic axiom... There is no single trialectic axiom, rather a set of them. And there is no built in "probability" aspect to this set of axioms.

I agree that higher consciousness can act as a catalyst for transformation, but that is something you and those who believe in Trialectics bring to the table and is not a component of Trialectics itself.

I agree with some of your tenents about patterns of circulation, dualistic seeds, the fiction of accidents and the other things. Only the axioms of Trialectics is not a basis for these worthy ideas.

The situation is not a difference in doctrine, scope or perspective between us as you frame it. There is no correspondence to the views of Einstein as apposed to those of Bohr so its usage as an analogy for us here is not correct. I verify that the wonderful and worthy things you referred to are stemming from the good intentions of yours and the other fine people who share this interest in Trialectics.

You don't have to believe me, if you don't want to. I am content to drop this subject entirely as I sure didn't have the intention of stirring things up. I only wanted to be truthful and clarify the state of affairs.

I have served you all very well in telling you the facts. I believe that someday you will appreciate it. For those who have taken me seriously, then you know I have saved you much embarassment in the future. I personally know I have done a good thing.

Yes, I can appreciate what you are saying. Surely there is more to this than can be expressed in this medium. I have the suspicion that you are on to something of great value.

Let us take this enneagram as an example. Please show me how that is in relation to any of the axioms - whether dialectic or trialectic.

And separately, I also need to know how this enneagram is being used to predict or explain anything.

These oversights on the part of the progenitors of a philosophical (not to mention logical) system cannot be ignored. How does it make you feel?

The Hegelian Dialectics are not a good foundation for something so wonderful as what you are building.

The Trialectics are not permissible as a foundation for anything.

I am so happy that your ego is not attached to this topic as it has been for others in this forum. You genuinely seem to understand that my perspective is not a vindictive or critical one. I am only trying to be of help. It is an honor for me because of this.