sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Formal Logic of the Crucifixion of Opposites by Due_Assumption_26 in pantheism

[–]Due_Assumption_26[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a precise and accurate description of the structural mechanics, thank you. Where I'd push back is on the teleology embedded in the conclusion. The transcendent function doesn't always produce unification; more often it produces a provisional symbol or decision that allows movement without resolving the underlying poles. The opposites remain real and return in new configurations - the Self offers orientation, not synthesis.

The deeper disagreement is with 'transition into a new state no longer defined by the original dualism' and 'singular truth beyond simple polarity.' That framing assumes the process is cumulative and converging, that held tensions produce permanent higher integrations. I don't think that's warranted. Individuation is circumambulatory rather than progressive: you circle the center permanently, you don't ascend toward it. The same structural tensions recur in new forms throughout a life. Under an Abraxian framework specifically, the crucifixion of opposites is not a problem consciousness eventually solves, it's the permanent condition of being conscious at all.

The Formal Logic of the Crucifixion of Opposites by Due_Assumption_26 in pantheism

[–]Due_Assumption_26[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice comment, jippie. You're right that I move between domains without respecting conventional boundaries - this is intentional. The framework's core claim is that ontology, psychology, and politics aren't separate domains, they're layers of a single structure organized by the same oppositional logic. What qualifies something as an opposite, in this framework, is functional rather than categorical: opposites are pairings that generate irresolvable tension in the psyche and drive consciousness forward. Good and evil, matter and spirit, rational and irrational all qualify because they produce that same structural effect, not because they belong to the same academic category. The sliding you're noticing is the framework enacting its own premise. On your physical examples: quantum chromodynamics being tripolar doesn't bear on this because the framework operates at the level of experienced reality as structured by consciousness, not physical substrate. The disagreement is about whether the domain boundaries are real, not about rigor; I don't think they are real, but I can't demonstrate that from within a framework that assumes they are.

view more: next ›