Important Archetypes of Quadratics

NEW ARCHETYPES emerge in the use of quadratics, especially:

The Double-Dualism, such as time-travel, dimensional consciousness, and global government

Paradigms which do not accept traditional dualism, such as Intermediate Interface and Inter-Personal Psyche

Contexts and Applications for these things, according to the view that the fourth dimension is the dynamic of hyper-dimension: time-traveling buildings, time-traveling economies, professional artists, citizen-as-government, modularity, physical perpetual motion (a stage between the old paradigm of immortal bodies and the future stage of spiritual continuity)

BACKGROUND: The archetypes of a given period of time often correspond to the number of millenia that have passed according to the calendar. So for example, the first millenia is represented by a circle (one loop), the second millenium is represented by infinity (two loops), and the third millenium is represented by the synergy (three-loops). Thus, technically speaking we have not yet entered the era of the quadra. There is consequently reason to believe that the quadra still presents a realm of prophecy.

However, there are major precedents for the quadra and other systems dating back to the ancient Chinese. The system of five elements sometimes includes one element called void, which suggests that materially it is a system of four. This may be why Aristotle saw the fourth degree as referring to the earth element (also, plots of land are often laid out in squares for organization).

Extending further, quadra may also be seen as referring to books, which have four or eight corners depending on whether they are open or closed. Part of the mythology of the book developed even further when the fourth dimension was associated with Time, Mercury, and en-genesis.

However, it may be important to note that the fourth dimension in reference to time may easily be extended further down the line, leaving hyper-cubes in place of "true" dynamics. In this sense the hyper-cube is the fourth dimension.

Adding the earlier elements, there is a nature to add the knowledge of books and the knowledge of elements (and the knowledge of Mercury and Genesis?) to the hyper-cube.

What results, in my mind, is an exaggeration of the meaning of ordinary elements which refer to the number four:

BOOK represents WORLD

CROSSED STICKS represent KNOWLEDGE

TREES represent SYSTEMS

TECHNOLOGY / CIVILIZATION / PARADISE represents THE MIND

Coherency in Philosophy

Coherent knowledge is possible through exclusivity. But is any context exclusive? I argue that the term "absolute" is avoidable because afterall real objects can exist which are not absolute. This is similar to saying that "not everything is the sun" etc.

When it is realized that a context is composed of "qua-objects" it can also be realized that properties relatively exist or relatively do not exist. When there is ambiguity, we can say ambiguity exists or does not exist, or we can say that subtlety exists or does not exist.

In this context, I find it compelling that in a relative sense all terms used in a genuine system have some degree of absoluteness. There can be measurements of the degree of absoluteness, but this implies a "clausality" that power or some other distinct property is being measured.

In reality, a categorical system treats this property of measurement, say "power", "money", "pleasure", "pragmatism", just like any other word. Because of this, and because in axiometry opposites are used to contextualize exclusivity, it may be concluded that this form of exclusivity is relatively exhaustive.

Returning to the coherent concept from exclusivity does not imply much difference; only that 'system' or 'symbol' can be questioned. Yet, questioning the system is changing the system, and questioning the symbol is changing the symbol's function. So any other concept involves a new idea.

The Role of Complexity in Philosophy

Complexity has been illustrated as a primarily numeric formulation, with implications solely in mathematics, and sometimes logic, and as a reserve fictional accounts. This is reflected in the limited number of philosophical problems which have been discovered, which, as general as they are, point towards a coherent system more than a mathematical one. The 'spheres' of properties or 'modal rooms' of experimental philosophy still point towards quantification, but in a way that implicates entities and consequently questions the assumptions of mathematics.

'Any damned rule' might refute some functional effect of mathematics, or at least raise the question that it is not a universal science.

The natural composite with coherency is complexity, but I feel this is un-grounded and un-honed perspective; it is more accurate to say that coherency as we know it embodies history, as described earlier (The Value of History in Philosophy), and complexity is a second rule which combines with a third, that is, perfection.

Instead of describing perfection at this point I would like to explain several things about coherent quantity. Although it is obviously a formal principle, there is no reason to believe that it is wholly explained by geometry or mathematics. It is, in my view instead, a quality science.

The second level, of complexity and perfection, gives in to the third level, which explains the modality of typology itself, in the form of comparing opposites. Knowledge of neutrals comes about through a determination that a neutral is dynamic, permanent, or constitutes a paroxysm (third category) or metadoxy (fourth category or more), that is, a logical extension of opposite properties into a further opposite.

Learning more about complexity depends on interpreting the pithy logic of coherence: (1) Neutrals are highly correspondent, (2) Quantification is mostly substance or definition, (3) Conclusions depend on the exclusivity of the set, (4) This system allows for the generation of variable-dependence by a factor of ^2, constant. Other systems may be better, but ostensibly depend on the context of information provided in this system.

Intent to publish The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit

The book follows up unofficially on the work of Peter S. Fosl and Julian Baggini, by making great strides into the field of categorical and typological knowledge systems; The book is scheduled for release in early 2013, by Authorhouse.

The forms of knowledge present in the book make great strides beyond what I thought to be a rarified coherent system based on God and objects, which I wrote into my web publication, the Unity Project, a number of years ago.

Categorical knowledge will be a recurrent theme in future book projects, including a work I have already begun called How to Write Aphorisms: The Aphoristic Method. While this work may not be as initially popular as the 1-Page-Classics or the Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit, it seems possible that gradually the small numbers of sales from the entire collection will be mutually supportive, and determine that I have a minimum influence, if not upon future scholars, then at least upon a small sampling of students and "fringe thinkers". However, finding a means to advertise without paying a hefty sum has been difficult beyond belief.

Is the new Apple headquarters inspired by categorical knowledge?

The recent design for the Apple Headquarters resembles a categorical diagram of eight sections, a functional symbol for coherent knowledge:

https://plus.google.com/photos/112063946124358686266/albums/5640449248757661185

I've never been an Apple fan, but at least it's as though society is advancing. I have to have some respect for the "other half."