Blog for Nameless-Value

novel, essay, poetry, criticism, diary

Triplism's Suggestion Part 20

If all things take place seen at least to us are so accidental, that things as our truth eventually could have been either so necessarily, then these accidental things and necessity must be at accord as what we assume these things are the same, in the summary, so to say, the same things with each other so mutually, necessarily, otherwise (in other words) our assuming accidentally everything must have been taken place so accidentally so necessarily, eventually these two things could be the same condition to us, so principly.


Then, in conclusion, at the matter of fact, we need at least more than two different recognitions except these two things.


That upper truth corresponds that all things could be assumed with objectivity but either it could be assmed as one of subjectivity, a-pri-o-ri.


Because if we had absolute God, as some of metapher in terms of these debates necessarily deduces to us, He must have set us only min imal condition to our world as order or the way to be of time's running, necessarily it must be what only time could be dependent on what matter could take place is anytime essentially to us or necessarily so completely unideintified. In  other words, only absolute accidentality, except e.g. our regarding material's or particle's composition as so never be switchable facts, at the matter of fact, only that kind of accidentality could be  absolutely certain,  or centaily indentified, that thing could make sure it must take place, so desuctively we could define.


Let keep the chance to summrize here once!




〇1st; A-pri-o-ri set premise →Necessity 
                        ⇓


〇2nd; Time running gives us all only each time's accidentality 


 This recognition means what we have personally subject on our own mind.
                        ⇓


〇3rd; But what upper 2nd recognition that we must have meant that we are obliged to be at subjectivity, at our view to observe our thing as meta-cognition.




Ultimately, in conclusion, we anytime very consistently have these mutually unrelatively integral cognitive mind in our consciousness anyway, if we set our mind even at both subjective or objective, at any rate, that conclusion could be obliged to that we must have triple cogition, as constantly set cognition, we must have transcendence, more than dualism.


And that thing necessarily suggests that from the beginning a law of excluded middle could never be composed so principly and deductively or to say, so necessarily as what we deduce.


At next debating chance of us, let us address with our suggestive possibility to what a law of excluded middle could never be possible necessarily reffering some other materials as the convincing to us so necessarily.


(to be continued)





Feb. 25, 26, 27th. 2021