Triessentialism

Galaluna - A Triessentialist Civilization

2011-03-26T22:51:00.000-07:00

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that one of my favorite cartoon show creators, Genndy Tartakovsky, had a new show which described Triessentialism - the philosophy I have been investigating since early 2001 - but not by that name.

(Yes, I'm a fan. I'm a fan of nearly everything Genndy Tartakovsky has done. However, I watched the pilot, thought it was cheezy and derivative, and dismissed it. That was a mistake; this show is totally awesome. And the tragedy is, it got cancelled before I had seen more than two episodes!)

The civilization on the fictional world of Galaluna is based on a parallel of Triessentialism: "Heart, Body, and Mind, Unite As One" is the credo of their royal family, and appears to be an avenue their science was still exploring, before they were invaded. (This was my own first formulation of Triessentialism, before I started using the equivalent technical terms Emotional, Physical and Logical.)

The Titan - A Triessentialist Symbiosis

When Princess Ilana and her bodyguard Lance land on Earth as refugees, they are surprised to discover that their robot battle suits combine with their android companion Octus to form a gigantic battle suit, the titular Sym-Bionic Titan. (Fans suspect that Lance's father, who was Galaluna's greatest scientist and one of the king's best friends, created Octus.)

Lance, the group's Physically intuitive member, was one of Galaluna's elite soldiers, rightfully the top of his class at battle school. He defeated one of the two known traitorous members of the coup/invasion in single combat with only a sword and a fist-sized rock. His contribution to the Titan is battle tactics, strength of will, and the right weaponry to defeat the mega-beasts.

Ilana, the group's Emotionally intuitive member, is the daughter of the king and presumably heir to the throne. Throughout the series, she is a highly compassionate person, to the point of putting herself in jeopardy for childrens' pets and her own bodyguards. Her contribution to the Titan is subtle than the other two, but she is also responsible for the generation of shields to block incoming projectiles and blows.

Octus, the group's Logically intuitive member, is a sapient robot who can alter his appearance with holograms. He is very intelligent, able to analyse the weaknesses of the mega-beasts using his sensors and keen mind. His contribution to the Titan is control of his robotic body to generate weaponry using his force-fields and replication units.

It is hinted that their minds combine to some degree while in Titan mode. The two Galalunans appear suspended in a trance-like state, protected from physical harm by Octus' force fields. They converse freely with eyes closed and lips unmoving. (I think it would be too confusing and unnerving to show a Trill-like symbiotic mindsharing in a childrens' show, but I think it could have been handled better.)

Triessentialism's Potential

When the alien teenagers and the A.I. enroll in high school as a cover, Octus points out the different social groups: the jocks, the nerds, and the cheerleaders/spirit squad, who run the school social scene and are "the most dangerous of all." These are, of course, the Physically, Logically, and Emotionally intuitive groups that naturally form in high school.

Princess Ilana compares them to the primitive tribes of Galaluna's past, a people divided. Of course, when she tries to unite them, she is mocked. (High schoolers are not the right crowd to try to unite. Early middle school would have been better to explicate differences and forge a bond, but what can you do?)

Triessentialism, when communicated properly, has the potential to aid individuals and entire cultures in understanding their differences, and seeing the strengths of others.

It has certainly helped me discover the differences between myself (Logically intuitive) and my father (Physically intuitive). He need to get things started and get them done; I want to analyze and talk. He has a sense of the urgent and the important that I don't, and he seems to figure out what to do in most situations.

Having discovered our differences, and later having worked for the same employer in the same shop, I was surprised to see that he is Logically intuitive like me, but was forced by the pressures of life to become Physically inclined. Upon reflection, it shouldn't have surprised me as much as it did. After all, watching science fiction shows such as Star Trek has been our primary shared activity since I was a youth.

The situation with Lance and his father is the opposite. His father was Galaluna's greatest scientist, but upon his apparent death, Lance was sent to a military school where he found the will to become a physical specimen of top quality. Lance's latent logical intuition has shown up in his tactical and strategic skills, from his early discovery of the coup/invasion to his skill in dispatching one of its traitorous heads in a swordfight.

I don't know if a society where children are taught the truths which Triessentialism reveals would be much more tolerant, but it would give young adults a greater understanding of their place in the world, and the differences between the people around them. It needn't be in a classroom; perhaps embedded in a TV show for children...?

I plan to watch the rest of the series very soon; I suspect I will learn a lot about my own philosophy from this show, from the perspective of the (probably Physically intuitive) minds of the writers.

Buy it on iTunes or DVD/Blu-Ray. If you're a fan of smart action-adventure, deep-backstory science fiction, or tales of heroism, moral fortitude, and hard decisions, you'll love it.

Lack Of Pretend Play In Autism

2010-12-24T01:47:00.000-08:00

For neurotypical children, pretend play is an important part of cognitive development. Thus, when autistic children "fail" to pretend that a doll or action figure is speaking, or when they "fail" to assign specific roles in pretend scenarios, such as "I'm the policeman and you're the robber," neurotypical adults notice the different.

However, from my own Asperger-tinted experiences, this is not failure to map imaginary onto real. The Transformer toy I'm playing with is not alive, and is not the "real" Optimus Prime. I can not lie about reality, even fictional realities, in that way.

Give me a hand puppet, however, and I'll gladly come up with a voice, personality, and facial expressions for it, because this is the "real" puppet, not a toy of it.

Primary Sorting Algorithms

2009-09-04T00:35:00.001-07:00

Everybody has a primary sorting algorithm.

Let me explain. The senses perceive something, and the brain then tries to recognize what it is. Then the emotions react positively or negatively.

Perception, recognition, reaction. Boom boom boom, it happens very fast. Then comes decision.

I was hiking with a friend once, and at the top of a hill, I looked down at my feet.

And at the coiled brown thing next to my right foot. (Perception)

Which looked very much like a rattlesnake I had seen in a Scout manual once. (Recognition)

Which meant I was in danger. (Reaction)

Which mean I needed to get down that hill as quickly as possible. (Decision)

My friend later told me that I had been yelling as I ran down the hill; I don't remember that part. Adrenaline does some funny things.

The primary sorting algorithm lives in the Recognition part of the decision cycle; it is based on everything you've ever taken as a fact.

When you see (perceive) a person, your brain immediately goes to work figuring out what type of person they are. For some people, the primary sort is, are they a man or a woman? For others, the sort is, are they my race, or another? For others, the sort is, are they a child or an adult? This DETERMINES how you react to them.

Some people have more esoteric primary sorts, such as, are they a cat person or a dog person? Are they a Star Trek fan or a Star Wars fan? Are they happy or negatively emoting?

Your primary sort is based on that one event in your past when you screwed up a primary identification, and something bad happened to you. In my case, I was de-pantsed by a cute girl, who had never shown any inkling of being mean to me before. (She solemnly apologized when she saw how embarassed and ashamed I was.) From then on, I primarily sorted people by whether they were going to hurt me or not. I determined this by their facial expressions, either of friendliness or of seeming guarded or mischievious. I haven't gotten over this.

Now things get tricky. There are people with screwed up genes, or screwed up hormones or glands or stuff, whose sexual characteristics are not fully male or fully female. These "intersex" individuals have a very hard time in a world that insists on a binary primary sort of male/female. (The same is true of dwarfs, little people, and short people, who are often treated like children despite being adults.)

People who are intersex inspire the same kind of "gender panic" in certain people that cross-dressers and transvestites do: "How DARE you be unrecognizable to my scheme of how the world works! How DARE you attempt to trick me into miscategorizing you!" In a civilized society, there is no reason for "gender panic" to turn into violence; however, it does too often, because not everybody who lives in civilization is civilized.

Learn Your Lessons

2009-05-26T07:45:00.000-07:00

God teaches people lessons in life, using everything that happens to us.

However, because there are three different types of people (Physically, Logically, or Emotionally Intuitive), there are three different methods He uses to teach us.

Physically Intuitive people learn life lessons like a coal being formed into diamond. Each hard thing they learn to endure makes them harder, more able to resist the hard things of this world. "What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger."

Logically Intuitive people learn life lessons like ore being purified into gold. God puts them into the furnace from time to time, and as they stop being so rigid, the impurities float to the top to be skimmed off. "If it doesn't work, don't do it."

Emotionally Intuitive people learn life lessons like a pearl being formed in an oyster. Each ugly bit of grit teaches them something beautiful about God and His plan for them. "But if it hadn't happened, I wouldn't have this testimony."

There are times when each of us experiences life lesson learning through the other methods, but I've found, as a Logically Intuitive person, that God prefers to purify me; that's just how I learn to deal with this fallen world. (I do have my pearl testimonies and my diamond resistances in some areas.)

And we will be His crown someday, to His glory as testimony for the angels who remained loyal, and against the angels who turned traitor.

The Constitution of Man

2008-08-24T22:58:00.000-07:00

The constitution of man is the most common misconception about Triessentialism. I do not deny the existence of body, mind, and spirit, but I believe them to be less than the whole truth.

"Physical" usually refers to the particle-based body in this space-time continuum. However, "Physical" also describes any plane of existence which plays by approximately the same rules. You push something, it moves away. You pull something, it comes closer. You cut something, it is split. In the context of a Christian cosmology, the usual thinking goes like this: there is a spiritual plane of existence called Heaven, in which we will have new spiritual bodies that never need food or cleaning or anything else. Will it be made of particles of matter like this universe? I doubt it; I think it'll be much cooler. However, it will be made of some sort of matter; we won't just be thoughts and emotions swimming in a sea of other minds. Keep in mind this is usually what guys mean when they say "spirit" or "spiritual," since guys are usually physically intuitive.

So already in one category we have both body and spirit -- at least, one definition of spirit.

You also said "mind." I consider mind to be a combination of emotion and logic; at least, human minds. Logic is all about truth, structure, and reasoning. Emotion is, contrastingly, totally and completely irrational. However, emotion is all about identity, purpose, importance, and desire, which logic has nothing to do with. The classical duality, the Mind/Body Problem, is not finely enough defined. Once you split Mind into Logic and Emotion, it becomes clear why the ancients were confused.

Some consider this to be spirit, because it is completely nonphysical. (Although the brain is the container of the mind, and damage to the brain impacts the mind, the brain is no more the mind as the candle is not the flame.) However, some people consider mind to rever solely to the intellectual (logical) capacity, and not the emotions.

Now we come to spirit. Some say it is a paraphysical or pseudophysical reality. Others say it is completely the opposite of physicality. A third option, one which I am loath even to mention, equates spirit and emotion. For example, a "spirited argument" is an emotionally passionate argument. People who are nice are often said to have "a good spirit." Positive or upbeat emotions are said to be spiritual by the world, while a "spirit of devotion" is often spoken of highly in the church. And so on. This option tends to be put forward by women, because they are usually emotionally intuitive.

So in a traditional tripartate constitution of man, "Body, Mind, Spirit" refers to one or possibly two things in two ontological categories, and one or up to three things in one ontological category each. The best possible Triessentialist interpretation of "body, mind, and spirit" is to call mind logical and spirit emotional. Yet surely most people, especially Christians, would chafe at equating emotions simply with spirit. After all, emotions can be influenced with drugs, the mood of the room, or a lack of sleep. Surely that does not imply that if a person dies while in a grumpy mood, they will go to Hell.

There must be a better constitution of man.

I suggest a sevenfold constitution of man. Primarily, the body, intellect, and emotions. Secondarily, the instinctual, philosophical, and innovative capacities. Thirdly, the moral capacity. Everything except philosophy requires a body. Everything except innovation requires emotional capacity. Everything except instinct requires some level of logic. They are not separable; any being without part of each of these would not be human.

That being said, where in this scheme is there room for the spiritual? What about the as-yet unmentioned "soul"?

In Triessentialism, I consider the moral capacity of man to be his soul, and "spirit" to refer either to a paraphysical plane of existence, or the emotional capacity. (I hate ambiguity, but since the words are already defined by the world at large, this level of clarification is the tightest possible.)

Triessentialism in the Job Market

2008-04-16T06:55:00.000-07:00

Physically intuitive people feel most comfortable in jobs of a physical, scientific, moral, or animal nature. These include construction, physics, robotics, chemistry, industry, medicine, law, law enforcement, politics, leadership, etc. Since most men are physically intuitive, most men will be found in such jobs.

Emotionally intuitive people feel most comfortable in jobs of an emotional, philosophical, moral, or animal nature. These include counseling, art, charity, religion, philosophy, politics, cheerleading, modelling, medicine, caretaking, justice, law, etc. Since most women are emotionally intuitive, most women will be found in such jobs.

Logically intuitive people feel most comfortable in jobs of a logical, scientific, philosophical, or moral nature. These include computer science, hard math, research, invention, philosophy, law, finance, etc. Since most people with autistic tendencies are logically intuitive, most people with Asperger's Syndrome will be found in such jobs.

If you're not in your category right now, consider that any job in your category would be more to your liking than even the best job outside your category. Take it frim me; I was in jobs that seemed to suit me, but were not in my category. Then I was given a job in a logic-related field. It's like discovering your favorite food at the age of thirty, and wondering how you never tried it before.

The Composition of Man

2008-04-02T22:42:00.000-07:00

Back in early 2001, God gave me an answer for my philosophical questions: a systematic ontology, a set of three categories into which everything could be divided: the Physical, the Logical, and the Emotional. Everything that exists, or even can or could exist, is made up of things from these three categories.

It made sense; man has a body, a mind, and a heart. At least it made sense at the time, but the primary objection most fellow Christians have is "where does spirit fit in?"

I need to ask them, each time, "What do you mean by spirit?"

You see, spirit is a word that, in contemporary American English, can be used for many things. It can be used in a philosophical sense, a psychological sense, a moral sense, a purely emotional sense, a metaphysical sense, an abstract sense, or as relating to consciousness either of man, of animals, or both.

Soul can usually also be used in such senses.

The Triessentialist trichotomy, by contrast to the traditional trichotomy, holds at its core the multiplicative combination of the three components (Body, Mind, and Heart): the person as a moral being.

A thing of Body only (such as a rock) cannot be held accountable under law, nor can a thing of Mind only (such as a mathematical equation), nor a thing of Heart alone (such as the emotion of anger).

Nor can the combinations of two alone be held morally responsible in the same way as a human. Animals are beings of Heart and Body (their mental capacity not encompassing the logical capacity necessary for language), and if they harm a person, they are destroyed without trial. Computers likewise are things of Science (Mind and Body without Heart), and as such are tools; they are no more legally responsible for their actions than would be a hammer used to crush a skull. A being of Mind and Heart without Body would be unable to affect the physical world in any way, except possibly through communication with humans; yet we cannot hold Holden Caulfield or Nietzche's Zarasthustra legally responsible for acts committed in their names, as they are fictional characters, beings of Logic and Emotion without real substance.

The only beings we hold morally responsible are humans, the only Earthly nexus of Body, Mind, and Heart.

Thus I define moral existence to require these three characteristics, these three components. I further define this Moral nexus as the soul of a person.

The being currently made of entropy-prone matter and arranged chemically to function as if a real person will be given a better Body, one made of better stuff, without dependence on gravity, electromagnetism, time, and oxygen. I term this the spiritual body, which will house the soul when this body dies or is removed.

Spirit remains, like Love, a word I rarely use due to its ambiguity. First, I state that there exists a pseudophysical realm that is "outside" but "near" our own, in which the general concepts of the Physical still apply, such as things not occupying the same space at once, and one thing pushing on another makes it move; this is the spirit realm, in which angels and demons exist; this is the realm in which we will exist, and the matter of which our new bodies will be constructed. Second, I state that the term spirit, when not used in this manner, is generally used to describe all things emotional; I generally try to refrain from this second use, as it seems more metaphorical than real to me.

When reading the Bible, I draw no distinction between soul and spirit, since the Bible itself draws no systematic distinction, except in the works of Paul. Since he uses them systematically, I see the term soul (psuche) as equal to "psyche", the flesh-based mind OR the fallen Moral will, but "pneuma" as EITHER the pseudophysical supernatural component of Man OR the Moral Will, the nexus that is the person, which Jesus restores through salvation and the Holy Spirit renews through sanctification.

And please, if you see ANY theological flaws with this, PLEASE alert me to them at once.

Real World Applications

2007-05-12T13:08:00.000-07:00

All this talk about philosophy is fine. However, Triessentialism (like any sufficiently utilitarian philosophy) really shines when aplied to cutting-edge problems.

Questions of intellectual property rights and laws, for example.

Matthew Skala, of the Bonobo Conspiracy webcomic for ultrageeks, has written a piercing examination of intellectual property rights, using a deceptively simple analogy.

He cuts through the intellectual wanking of Monolith, a program that "munges" (reversably merges and encodes) two files. A program that is as legal to own as a radio/tape player that can tape songs from the radio.

Monolith is designed to be a legal shield for unauthorized or unlicensed sharing of copyrighted material. It will fail at this precisely because of the reasons Skala gives.

Lawyers are masters of intellectual wanking, more so than geeks who've read too many issues of 2600.

Consider, for example, that a scratchy analog recording made with a home tape recorder is as much a copyright violation as a perfect copy made with professional sound equipment. The sound may be patchy and unlistenable in places, the song may even start cross-fading into the next song on the playlist and suddenly cut off, but if it is sold or given away, the seller and buyer are both liable. The audio tape is declared illegal, even though an audio tape is not a series of air vibrations, and a series of air vibrations is not the copyrighted material.

Now consider that digital files (an uncopyrightable series of ones and zeros) are already encoded, and as long as the process is reversable, further encoding and file-splitting does not matter legally. As long as the primary purpose of that file is to be turned back into sound when a human is present, any such file is prima facie evidence of intent to violate copyright.

How does this relate to triessentialism? It illustrates the inescapable gulf between the physical and the logical.

Any physical encoding of the intellectual property is subject to intellectual wankery.

For example, it could be argued that since the audio tape is physically different than the original record at the radio station, the one cannot be a duplicate of the other. The sound waves generated when each is played, however, are approximately identical. A bad copy of a movie, taken in a theater by cell-phone camera, is also approximately identical to the copyrighted

However, copyright law is not about sound waves, or patterns of light and color, or any other physical phenomenon. It is about the effect of those sensory inputs on the audience, and where those effects originate. If they originate at a private source, such as the mind of a musician or director or other artist, the approximate duplication of those effects are controllable by their originator.

When someone buys a ticket to a Broadway play, they seem to be renting a seat in the audience (the privilege of being in a certain place during a specific range of time), but that is secondary, as evidenced by rain checks. If the star and understudy both fall ill, that performance is cancelled, and each ticketholder is issued their choice of a refund or a rain check (a replacement ticket redeemable at a later time).

They are actually buying the privilege of the total sensory experiences and the logical and emotional effects they produce in their minds. The logical and emotional effects encoded into the physical by the intentional behavior of the actors (and the lighting and the orchestra), and unencoded from the physical by their own senses.

That is why it is called intellectual property: the word property refers not to a piece of physical personal property, but to the logical and emotional personal property, and only secondarily to the physical/mathematical encodings of those things, and only tertiarily (thirdly) to the licensing of those things.

(Both the Logical and the Emotional are herein counted as intellectual, since they are the two components of the Mind of classical Mind/Body Dualism.)

And now for some intellectual wankery of my own.

This blog post is copyrighted by me, Luke Allen, as of this day, Saturday, May 12, AD 2007. I am solely responsible for the logical concepts and emotional experiences that I have presented to you. However, those ideas are now yours. You own them, because an idea cannot be copyrighted, only my specific creative representation of them. I intend you to now have an approximate duplication of my concepts in your head, hopefully enhanced by my creative presentation of them. However, since I am an amateur, and since you are reading this for free, I have no idea how faithful that duplication is to the original in my mind. :)

I granted you the implicit license to read and link to this post, by placing it on a publicly available website. I encourage such activity. I also granted implicit license to make a copy in your mind. I hereby grant explicit license, at no cost, to archive this posting, in its entirety and with attribution, to a personal storage device, including hard drive, printout, thumb drive, etc., so that you can refresh the degradable copy in your mind. You may also share any such copy with anyone you wish. However, as copyright holder, I do ask that only short excerpts be used in forums and the such, with links back to this post. :P

Is-Ought and Fact-Value

2007-04-23T12:38:00.000-07:00

Triessentialism answers two of Hume's most interesting dilemmas, the fact-value distinction and the is-ought problem. Both of these highlight how emotions are a differeny type of thing from either the physical reality or from logic.

Is and ought are different on a fundamental level. Is describes physical reality, the (logical) words to describe it, and possibly the (emotional) reaction to it. Ought describes only an emotion, either an Identity (at a certain time in the future, this is what will be) or an Imperative. Imperatives are the emotions behind words like "should" and "ought", as well as "want", "need", and "must". "You ought to behave!" might be restated as "I want you to behave" or "you need to behave". "I'd like to" is a cautious or polite form of "I want".

Facts and values are also fundamentally different. Facts are logical descriptions of other things, while values are the emotional equivalent. Computers, which have no emotions, cannot say whether a thing is good or bad, only whether it is true or false, accurate or flawed. Animals cannot say whether a thing is true or false, only whether it considers it a good or a bad thing.

The tricky part is that you can state a fact about an emotion, just as you can state a fact about a thing or another fact. I can state in English that those Wikipedia articles are both true and good, but I've just stated in one sentence both a theoretically verifiable fact and a subjective valuation.

Ouchy Fear and Worry Fear

2007-04-11T16:47:00.000-07:00

As those of you who know me IRL already know, before I called it "Triessentialism," I called it "the three-thing." I don't tend toward fancy labels in general, because I'd rather use simple, easy-to-understand terminology, unless the wordier verbiage has a more accurate meaning.

That being said, I've recently discovered (when God pointed it out to me to resolve several personal emotional crises) a difference between two types of fear.

I call them Ouchy Fear and Worry Fear.

Both were used to abusively control me, both were causes of my procrastination, and both kept me from loving God.

Ouchy Fear is anticipation of pain, discomfort, bodily harm, or forseeable death. In its milder forms, it makes us wipe public toilets with tissue paper before sitting on them, it makes us put on a hat and coat before going out in the cold, it makes us flinch at loud noises or unexpected physical events.

In its more severe forms, it triggers a fight-or-flight response when someone threatens us. On September 11, 2001, the passengers of United Flight 93 had to overcome the fear of scary men with utility knives (razor blades) in order to prevent the plane's use as a flying bomb. It is this fear we feel when se see a gun in someone's hand.

In its more insidious forms, Ouchy Fear can manifest as a desire not to do something mildly uncomfortable, such as paperwork (taxes, anyone?). More often, Ouchy Fear is the reason we avoid boring tasks; we instinctively feel that boredom is painful. Daily chores, daily commute, daily bathing, daily mail retrieval from a mailbox twenty steps away, all get procrastinated, just because we fear the pain of boredom.

In its controlling, abusive forms, Ouchy Fear is the anticipation of being punished. By your man, for not giving him respect, woman! By your father, for being bad! By your mother, for being a failure! By your God, for being a shameful, shameful sinner.

Shame, by the way, is the feeling that you deserve to be hit; when you are shamed, you are put into bondage to Ouchy Fear.

I consider Ouchy Fear an animal reaction; animals also fear pain. Police horses and Army dogs must be trained to remain calm or controlled at loud noises. It is present in the pack dynamics (herd, hive) of human social groups.

Ouchy Fear is the face of danger.

Worry Fear is the more abstract fear. Some of you know it as "what if?"

What if my house burns down? What if my car stops working? What if I get sick and lose my job? What if he's sleeping with another woman? What if she's pregnant? What if I lose the baby? What if? What if? What if?

The brain is really good at simulating; that's how Major League batters can hit 90-MPH fastballs; that's how people can design a Lunar Landing with slide rules and paper, then fix it mid-flight with minimal resources (Apollo 13, folks).

Masquerading as a realistic scenario, the Worry Fear latches on to What Can Go Wrong to tell a story, a drama, a tale of loss and woe. Perhaps it's to relive (and attempt to resolve) the sudden loss of a loved one, perhaps a parent or a child.

Perhaps it's legitimately a warning of not having thought through a plan enough. Perhaps it's telling you that you aren't ready for this challenge, you aren't ready to climb that mountain.

Perhaps it's fear of success; I've made it to the top, but What If someone tries to knock me off?

What if, after all the Church has told me about God's total forgiveness through Jesus Christ's perfect sacrifice on Good Friday, What If it's all about how much my works please Him after all?

What if God allows my computer to crash before I can post thi$^@#^%=========^null;error

Triessentialism is an Ontology

2007-03-03T23:12:00.000-08:00

I just found out that what I've been doing with Triessentialism is a branch of philosophy called ontology. Ontology describes "what exists" within any specific context/reality/universe.

While ontologies have been constructed before, Triessentialism has several notable aspects:

It is simple.
It is iterative or recursive; one might even say fractal.
It is complete.

There are three categories, The Physical, The Logical, and The Emotional. I think of them as three separate, unique realms, in which things of each sort exist only in their own realm. However, the human mind is a nexus where all three meet and interact.

There are three types of logic, roughly corresponding to "What," "How," and "Why." In more forlam language, I call them "Definitions," "Interactions," and "Derivations." They are roughly analogous to the main categories.

There are also three types each of physical and emotional things. As before, they are roughly analogous.

Simple to grasp, a lifetime to master more than the basics.

Saying what you mean

2007-02-09T09:53:00.000-08:00

The significance of words is an emotional thing. Significance is one of the two meanings of meaning. The other meaning of meaning is definition, which is a logical thing.

For example, when I'm upset, people tell me to relax or calm down. This made no sense to me; if the problem still exists, calming down won't help it, and relaxing won't solve it. Most of the time, I can't calm down or relax if the problem still exists. The meaning by definition is nonsense to me.

However, the significance of their words is this: You are upsetting me; please stop expressing your emotions in a manner that upsets me.

I can understand that. I can dampen the expression of my upsetness. But please, people, say what you mean; express exlicitely the significance of your words.

Today, God pointed this out to me, and a lifetime's worth of stress vanished. Triessentialism is a philosophy uniquely suited to aid and improve psychology.

Music Theory

2007-01-07T17:30:00.000-08:00

When I was growing up, I "learned" cello and piano. However, I was never taught any music theory. Thus, I found myself struggling to memorize the entire fingering for any piece. In effect, I did not learn music, I simply learned two instruments.

As it turns out, with a simple introduction to music theory, I could have had a far better time of it. Of course, as with everything triessentialism simplifies (music theory, psychology, philosophy, metaphysics, sociology, economics, etc), since it didn't exist, I had to build it.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

There are three basic parts to music: The Beat, The Chords, and The Melody. (I know this may sound like an oversimplification to those of you with formal training, but bear with me.)

The Beat represents the Physical. It gives a physical presence to the music, as can be attested to by anyone who has ever ridden next to a car with great bass. Percussion is the usual carrier of the beat, but other instruments may take the job. The Beat tells you if it's jazz, rock, or a hymn. The Beat can be steady and machinelike, it can sound like a heartbeat, it can speed up or slow down, and it can change completely when it hits the bridge. The Beat is the What of the music.

The Chords represent the Emotional. They are the background, the mood. The chords tell the audience what to feel in general. With dissonance, the composer makes the listener uneasy; with perfect harmony, the listener feels relief, and even joy. Within the context of the key, and even several keys, the Chords tset the backdrop for the Melody. The Chords are the Why of the music.

The Melody (the primary voice) represents the Logical. It is the foreground, the story told against the backdrop of the Chords. Have you ever felt that the lead guitar was a singing voice without words? The Melody is the words of the story, a universal language. If the lead is a singer and not an instrument, even better; in most forms of song, the singers present the Melody, or several Melody lines.

The heart of Triessentialistic music theory is this: On the Beat, the Melody plays a note present in the Chord. Off the Beat, the Melody generally plays notes in the same key, and usually notes inbetween the on-Beat Chord hits.

Other implications:

Drums and other forms of percussion are generally found heavily in Physical-focused cultures. It is stereotypical to portray "the primitive natives" banging on skin drums, but instinctively we figure the natives are Physical-focused.

Songs built of Chords and Melody without a heavy Beat, without percussion, and generally without Beat variation, are considered more aetherial, in some cases more "spiritual." This makes sense; the combination of Logic and Emotion has long been considered "spiritual" within Triessentialism.

When the same Chord is in play for two measures, the effect is often hypnotic.

More later maybe,

The Three Types Of Emotions

2007-01-06T20:19:00.000-08:00

Emotions are the reasons people do things. They drive our actions; they are our goals, the vision of the future that we think is supposed to be, for better or worse.

They can be expressed in language, but they are not rational. Their subjects can be positive or negative, singular or plural. They can be first, second, or third person (me, you, him). They can be in any tense (future, present, past, etc).

There are three types of emotions, and you probably guessed it, they correspond to the three meta-categories. They are Identities, Roles, and Imperatives. Each seeks toward its positive pole (good) and away from its negative pole (bad).

Identities are value judgements best expressed in terms of the verb "to be." "He is a jerk." "They were all jerks." "We are nice." "I am a gamer." "You are quite the optimist." "It's not fair!" "Y'all aren't from around here, and we don't take kindly to strangers asking questions..." "I have a bad feeling about this." (restated, "I am apprehensive.") Notice that "I like/I don't like" are similar statements which give value judgements while making it clear it isn't the object that is good or bad, but the person's opinion of it. They are analogous to facts or existence; they are emotions' answer to "what" questions.

Imperatives are best expressed as needs and wants, though other terminology is often used too. "You should clean your room." "I shouldn't have done this." "I want to go home." "Billy needs his nap." Wants are imperatives that, if fulfilled, something good will happen. Needs are imperatives that, if unfulfilled, something bad will happen. Stating wants as needs can be manipulative, and stating needs as wants can be weak. They are analogous to causality; they are emotions' answer to "why" questions.

Roles are difficult to explain, and are often mistaken for Identities and Imperatives. In every relationship (business, personal, legal) they are integral; they signify the roles and duties played by each party. In language, they are best expressed using the possessive: "My boots", "my dog", "my servant", "my wife", "my father", "my master", "my country", "my God." (These examples are a favorite passage of mine from C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters.) There is, in each case, a reciprocal role possible, though a mismatch is also possible. Respectively, the reciprocals for this group are the boots' wearer, the dog's master, the servant's employer, the wife's husband, the father's son, the master's employee, the country's citizen, the God's worshipper. They may all be the same person! In each case, the subject and object can be singular or plural, as well as first, second, or third person. They can also be chained (linked together): "Our nation's forests." "We are all the children of the eaters of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is equivalent to "Good and evil's knowledge's tree's fruit's eaters' children." They are analogous to methods; they are emotions' answer to "how" questions.

The subject of one emotion can also be the subject of another: "I want to be married to a good person." Imperative: I want to be.

Though people rarely are this open with their emotions, it is often cathartic to express them this way; it releases some of the passion of an emotion that cannot fulfill its goal, like a steam release valve. "It's not fair! I wanted it! It's mine!"

If an emotion remains unacknowledged, it will continue to attempt to fulfill its goal. Sometimes, if the situation is not safe or not the same, but the emotion is still unfulfilled, it will latch onto anything that is similar, and attempt to be fulfilled. This is known in psychology as transference, and it is a real phenomenon.

When I was seven, my best friend moved away. I wanted to continue our friendship, but he was no longer available. Every friendship I had since that time was an attempt to rekindle that original friendship. The friends I wound up with were gradually reduced in quality, until I found I had been in an emotionally abusive relationship for five years, and had only pain to show for my efforts. I stated my needs as wants, and he shot them down; he stated his wants as needs, and I felt pressured to fulfill them. Finally, I realized that I was transferring my role as my friend's friend to my relationship with my non-friend. This realization ended any feeling of duty toward my non-friend. Within a month, I ended it.

The Unbearable Separateness of Being and Truth

2006-11-19T20:37:00.000-08:00

It takes most people a while to come to terms with how inescapably separate the three meta-categories undeniably are.

You cannot turn logic into emotion; you can only react to the logical with an emotion. If I said, "I am going to kill this puppy," your reaction to that statement is a separate thing from its truth-value.

You cannot turn logic into a physical thing; the electrons that represent this paragraph are separate from the paragraph itself. This paragraph could be embodied (manifested) by being printed out, written in ink, transmitted as TCP/IP packets, a video made of me typing this, or "spoken" in Morse Code, Braille, Pig Latin, or American Sign Language. Even changing the language to Klingon or Quenya or Sanskrit does not change the content of this paragraph, as long as the translator selects equivalent linguistic constructs.

However, this problem of separateness is not a problem for long.

It takes an intersection node, such as the human mind, to react (E), embody (P), or describe (L). Scientific tools are intersection nodes of the logical and the physical. Animals are intersection nodes of the physical and emotional.

Science: L x P
Animal: P x E
Philosophy: E x L

Choice: P x L x E

In Western Civilization, we only punish humans for moral wrongdoing, because as far as we're concerned, only humans can choose. A killer robot or a computer virus would be traced back to its creator or programmer, and they would be liable for its actions. The same is true of a dog driven to rage by starvation and beatings.

Triessentialism is even built into our system of justice. The historic indications of guilt are Means, Motive, and Opportunity, which are logical, emotional, and physical, respectively. Only a triple intersection node (a "person") can commit a crime.

Interestingly,

2006-11-19T20:18:00.000-08:00

Triessentialism is a systematic philosophy; it works from the basic to the complex. It is an idealistic philosophy; it assumes that everything falls into one of the seven metacategories, and is manifested as one of the three basic metacategories.

(The three basic meta-categories are Physical things, Logical things, and Emotional things, for those new to this blog.)

Triessentialism is a Christian philosophy; in concept it is 100% compatible with orthodox Protestant Christian doctrine (inerrant Bible, standard historic creeds claimed by most churches). It is also applicable to theology; it started as a basic theory of the Trinity, that the Father was somehow related to the Physical, the Son to the Logical, and the Spirit to the Emotional. It has since grown more complex, but never invalidating this early hypothesis.

Triessentialism, basically, states that the physical, logical, and emotional are different types of things, each with their own rules and contexts.

For example, a rock is a physical thing, the number "17.125" is a logical thing, and the feeling you get when you look at a stunning sunset is an emotional thing.

The physical operates by rules of motion, forces, space, time, energy, matter, pushing and pulling, bouncing and rolling, shape and chemistry. I sum it all up with the concept "What."

The logical operates by rules of rationality, true and false, reasoning, cold logic, if-then-else, comprehensibility, information, data, letters and numbers. I sum it all up with the concept "How."

The emotional operates by rules of feelings, happy, wistful, angry, why-because, us and them, identities, relationships, desires, needs, wants. I sum it all up with the concept "Why."

Things, Methods, and Reasons.
Body, Mind, and Heart.
Ability, Thought, and Motive.

More on the theology aspect in the next post.

The Physical - A Closer Look

2006-04-29T15:01:00.000-07:00

Dualism says that mind and matter are two ontologically separate entities, that the realms of each are separate and work with different rules.

Triessentialism goes one step farther, stating that matter, truth, and passion are three ontologically separate entities.

The physical includes the material universe of leptons and neutrinos, of quarks and electrons, of protons, photons, and quantum wave-form particle-probability-packets. This is the everyday stuff of the universe. However, one must ask: is this all there is?

As a science fiction fan, and a fan of science, I have to speculate. If there is another form of "matter" not made of this stuff, it may play by different rules. After all, the rules of Newton and Einstein and Schrodinger only apply to stuff made of this form of matter. That includes heat and gravity, and probably even probability.

If another form of matter existed, it might seem very strange or spooky to us. It would also be undetectible by science, because it might not interact with our matter-based scientific instruments, or it might interact inconsistently. One might even ask where exactly this stuff is located, since space-time is a function of matter, and this other stuff isn't the matter we know.

This brings up other important questions. The nature of the human consciousness is based in the chemical functions of the brain. One could call it a simulation of consciousness. If there was another form of matter, there might be beings whose consciousness is based in that form of matter. It is easy to postulate consciousness without matter, easy to suggest consciousness based in another form of matter.

You might say, "BlueNight, you're talking about beings of energy." Wrong. Well...

Technically, we're beings of energy. E=mc². Energy is matter times speed times speed. Energy is matter accelerated. Matter is energy divided by the square of the speed of light. However, our brains are based on the chemical reactions, not the particle physics of quantum theory. (Although some research is saying otherwise.)

Could angels be creations of God in another, coexisting, realm of other matter? If so, that brings the "spiritual" realm out of fantasy into science, out of philosophy into the realm of the real. Or does it? Perhaps in that other realm, the logical and the emotional are more than simulations in our brains. Perhaps in that other realm, True and Good are more than descriptions and reactions, and the three essences are unified.

Perhaps. Maybe. I don't know. But it's sure fun to think about!

Psychology and Triessentialism

2006-04-22T11:11:00.000-07:00

This is one of the first lessons Triessentialism showed me more clearly than modern culture: the difference between men and women.

Most men generally are focused on the Physical, while most women are generally focused on the Emotional.

As a person with Asperger's Syndrome, I generally focus on the Logical.

There are some men who are focused on the purely Logical, and some women also. There are some men who are focused on the Emotional, and some women who are focused on the Physical. These people are cultural anomalies, but no less people for it, nor of less worth to society. However, society does not cater to us.

Men think about camping, tools, building, science, cars, trucks, keeping order, and perpetuating the species.

Women think about art, religion, psychology, emotions, family dynamics, dating, decorations, sociology, clothing, literature, and stable, nurturing relationships.

This, of course, is a mass of generalization. However, this is also how the gender roles are marketed by advertisers.

The main point of connection between the two major gender roles is the Animal, the area where the Emotional and the Physical overlap. The Animal is focused on survival, pragmatism, us versus them, and the basic functions of staying alive. It was also the hardest for me to understand.

Each of the three primary views (Physical, Logical, Emotional) understand their own sphere instinctively. However, they often have a hard time seeing their own blind spots and the negatives of their "home" sphere.

I, as a Logic-focused person, saw the Physical only through Science, and had a very hard time dealing with it with no data, no gadgetry, no theoretical overview. I also saw the Emotional only in terms of Philosophy / Wisdom / Spirituality. I had a hard time seeing raw emotions without trying to figure them out, rationalize them, or idealize them. That led to some unusual and undesirable circumstances. I also saw the Animal as a bad type of thing, because it was inherently unpredictable and prone to constant change.

Most men instinctively see the Logical only though science and engineering. Most men see the Emotion only in terms of the Animal. For more in-depth on the Animal, pick up any book that relates animal or primate psychology to humans. The Naked Ape is a good one for that. The basics: us versus them thinking, protection of pack members from outside forces, keeping order in the pack or herd, keeping one's position in the pack through force if necessary. It is not unusual for male hamsters to eat their own children. I believe that a focus on the Animal side is what drives many men to abuse their partners (hetero and homosexual) and their children and step-children.

Most women instinctively see the Logical only through the lens of Spirituality / Wisdom / Philosophy. They can't help needing to add reasons or meaning or significance to understand something cold and logical, just as most men need something pseudophysical or some concrete analogy to understand the logical. Women generally see the Physical only in terms of the Animal. There are bodily drives, hormones, social behaviours, which end up sparking the creation of sexual displays which attract men to them. Ironically, this same instinct tells them that the first man to desire them sexually is probably not the best father for their children.

I heard on the radio about the results of a new study, which found that men are generally hardwired to react to the outside world of their senses and body, while women are generally hardwired to react to other emotions, to the world inside their own heads. I am donating my brain to the Autism Brain Tissue Program upon my death. I would not be surprised to find out that in my brain, and similar brains, a third region of the brain (distinct from the other two previously mentioned) triggers and is triggered by abstract, symbolic thinking.

My worldview originally only saw four types of things, and two types of people. Logical things were inherently good. Science was generally good, though it could be used badly. Philosophy was generally good, though it too could be used misleadingly. The Animal, the irrational side of behavior, actions taken without reasoning, actions taken too hastily, actions taken in anger. Locker room behavior, bullying, name-calling, jockeying for social position, and everything else bad in my life. I could see no good side to this category. Now I see that without it, life would lose a lot of its spice, and men and women would lose their major point of connection, and instinctive sense of social organization. Without the Animal, it would be a world of robots. Peaceful, but mind-numbingly dull.

3ism, Christianity, and Morality

2006-04-19T18:34:00.000-07:00

I believe that the theology of the Trinity is scripturally sound, and conforms to reality (is an accurate description). However, I take issue with the air of mystery that surrounds the topic.

One day in early 2001, while reading The Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6), the back of my mind was on this very topic. God surprised me with a series of thoughts that ended with a mind-blowingly simple philosophical / theological framework. For lack of a better term, I call it Triessentialism.

There are three realms of human experience: The Physical, The Logical, and The Emotional. These correspond roughly to the concepts What, How, and Why.

... Or as Matthew, chapter 6, puts it, "For Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory, forever. Amen."

The Power = the Physical = the Father

The Glory = the Emotional = the Holy Spirit

The Kingdom = the Logical = the Logos

The Logos is the Son of the Father by being embodied (put into flesh). The Bible says He will rule as king. Who better for a king than SOMEONE OMNISCIENT?

I believe The Father (title, not His name) is the essence of the Physical: Power and Change.

I believe Jesus, the Logos, is the essence of the Logical: Truth and taking-all-things-into-account.

I believe the Holy Spirit (title, not His name) is the essence of the Emotional: Goodness and Passion.

How are the Three also One? In this way:

Animals exist in the realms of physical and emotional. They have little logical capability, certainly not the complex abstract symbolism and toolmaking abilities that enabled humanity to create the technology of today through foresight and planning.

Computers exist in the realms of the logical and the physical. They can simulate anything that can be put into mathematical terms. They have no emotions. They feel nothing. They are tools.

One popular conception of spirits is that they have thoughts and emotions, but no bodies, no way to affect the physical, material reality. They cannot be seen or heard. I use this purely as an example of a thing that has no physicality.

One thing that all three of these things have in common is that none of them can make choices.

An animal does what it wants, sometimes for survival, sometimes for other reasons, but they cannot be held legally accountable for their actions, because they cannot think, they do not know the legal penalties for their actions. We may kill them to protect ourselves, but animals have no moral ability, no choice. Those responsible for them, however, can.

A computer also cannot choose, for it has no motivations. A computer also cannot commit a crime, because it only does what it is programmed to do. A time bomb cannot be held legally responsible for the lives it claims, but the person who set it can.

A spirit cannot enact choices, for a spirit has no body.

It takes all three, the physical, the logical, and the emotional, to make a decision, to make a choice. This realm of choice, the moral realm, is where God is One. He tells us in the Bible that our choices have real consequences, and indeed, has given us a world where everyone is affected by the consequences of everyone elses' choices.

We are told that if we make certain choices that harm other people, or could harm other people, or are intended to harm other people, we will be held responsible, either in this life through governments and other peoples' choices, or in the next life, or in both.

God is outside all realms, all categories, all contexts. He is all-knowing, master of Logic, Truth, Information, Intelligence. He is all-powerful, master of time and space, matter and energy. He is all-passionate, master of Love and happiness and laughter and also of serious things, never apathetic, desiring right and good behavior from all, and allowing and enforcing consequences of choice.

At the end of the day, an American's highest ideal, freedom, is also God's highest ideal. The Big Chooser, the Prime Mover, the Master Planner, The Flame of Passion, made us little choosers, secondary movers, minor planners, little lights in the darkness.

The purpose of life is to choose.

(This was originally a response to another blog: Disciples Theology blog)

Triessentialism: A New Meta-Philosophy

2006-04-19T17:46:00.000-07:00

Triessentialism is a response to monism (the -ism that spirit and material stuff are all made of the same stuff), dualism (spirit=good, material=bad) and classic formulations of different -isms. Triessentialism (3-ism for short) asserts that there are three basic essences or types of stuff, or three different realms within which certain rules apply.

Those three realms are the Physical, the Logical, and the Emotional.

They roughly correspond to the concepts What, How, and Why.

They are the three realms of human experience. We have bodies. We have minds (logical thoughts). We have hearts (emotions and feelings). Everything within human experience is one of these three.

Much, much more to come.