Your browser does not support scripts; to use all features enable it

  Love Interpreted in terms of the Unity of Dialectical Triad through the prism of the Four Ancient Elements: Fire, Water, Air, Earth

The Symbol of the Human(e) Genus

The Symbol of the Human(e) Genus

In everyday social and life reality, the notion-Love is presented and interpreted from the DUAL perspective because this approach creates an opportunity for easier crowding people, understood in the sense of grouping proponents of this way of thinking who share akin value systems, based on the bipolar DIA binary way of thinking (loved-unloved, love-hate, ....), and in such a form is accepted in the philosophic, artistic, cultural and scientific creative circles, as well as implemented in the social, political, business and life reality, generally speaking. On the other hand, seen from the dialectical perspective, based on the individual humane way of thinking, each notion should be (re)considered, and then reinterpreted in terms of dialectical trinity dia dialectical unity of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis DIA renewed thesis, .... until a temporary conclusion was achieved. For this reason, this creator of knowledge uses in the creative works of his the dialectical triad of the closely related notions (truth, trust, love) in order to express the full meaning of each of these three inter-related dialects. Recall, the basic postulate of the dialectical interactive approach (DIA) is that the dialectical synthesising in terms of the so-called concept of "absolute truth" (within time DIA space, as a copy of the eternal model) is reserved for GOD, while all others (of the human descent and root) have to follow this much closer and more appropriate methodological approach for a human being.

Seen from this methodological perspective, by intermediating between these "dialectical worlds of value numbers", understood in terms of the time and spatial value of the considered dialectical content, while creatively acting in an earthly social environment, each dialectical content under creative consideration should be deduced on the number three (3 dialects) DIA a continual deducing this dialectical interactively creative content on the number one (1 dialect) in the most feasible extent of this way of dialectical synthesizing

  • [using God as an ideal (role model), that is, trying to imitate, how God would have solved this creative challenge of the considered time dia the appropriate space (but not equalling yourself or try surpassing Him). The capability of dialectical synthesizing in this way depends on the cleanness of thy inner being dia the inmost one: the kingdom of ???? (Job-26:4). No need to emphasize in the case that God is not the master of thy inner kingdom, this methodological approach is not right for you but rather a dual → bipolar dia binary methodical approach.]

Or put it in another way, you are actually trying creatively to approach closer the set objective in this dialectical way, understood in terms of overcoming deepnesses, remoteness, and wideness (the creative gap) of the eternity of times DIA infinity of spaces, which actually separate a creator (of) knowledge (copy) from the owner of the "absolute truth DIA all knowledge(able)" (eternal ideal): the greatest (knowledge) Creator of all (us): God.

Culture DIA Religion

The Background Simulative Methodological Assumptions of the Dialectic Interactive Approach


Ultimate DIA Probable Methodological Presumptions of the Dialectic Interactive Approach

The Ultimate DIA Probable Methodological Presumptions of the Dialectic Interactive Approach

However, the dialectical synthesising in time DIA space using the four dialects DIA two pair of triangles (thesis - antithesis) for the thorough consideration and creative interpretation of a dialectical interactive content, understood in terms of implementation of the methodological creative framework of pairs of six-pointed stars DIA a twelve pointed one, and so on, and then reflecting this dialectical content through the prism of the three basic dialectical principles, aspects, properties, and manifestations in time DIA space in terms of dialectical quartet DIA the triad of dialectics of dialectics DIA negations of negations of it within this star-like creative methodological framework, is much closer to the capabilities of dialectical synthesizing of human beings. For example, if the topic of the falling in love, as an aspect or a precondition of the broader understanding the notion-love, is under creative consideration, then these four (three dia one) dialects (truth, trust, love dia falling in love) should be placed within the "Dialectical Creative Framework for Orientation in the Eternity of Times DIA Infinity of Spaces", and then these dialectical contents should be creatively reconsidered from the (tri)angles of the PHILOSOPHY, CULTURE, ART and SCIENCE [The Background Simulative Assumptions of the Dialectic Interactive Approach] DIA the creative uttering of it from the viewpoint of "The Ultimate DIA Probable Presumptions of the Dialectic Interactive Approach". For further info, READ: "Dialectic Interactive Approach: Its Methodological Creative Framework".

Anyway, both in the living and business reality a lot of time DIA the appropriate space (spirit, mind dia reason, matter) has been spent on dealing with the triad of TRUTH, TRUST and LOVE. In the opinion of this creator of knowledge, in the hard, earthly creative environment, this triad under creative consideration should be arranged in the order as it was specified by him, and then the inter-relations of this dialectical triad should be dialectically synthesised in time DIA space, understood in the sense of distinguishing good from evil. Keep in mind, from the point of view of this implemented methodological approach (dialectic interactive approach), this distinction between good and evil is more important than any other dialectical content considered, even if the word goes about such buzzy-notions such as in this particular case: truth, trust and love. Recall thyself, the only unsolved bipolar dilemma, which was retained and included in this methodological approach is distinguishing good from evil, but understood in terms of the implementation of the main method of the dialectic interactive approach: thesis, antithesis, synthesis DIA renewed thesis, amended antithesis... until the temporary conclusion was achieved.

As it will be later shown, exactly the lack of the clear, unbiased, and impartial way and method for the distinction between good and evil is the main stumbling stone, as well as the main cause of the related disagreements when making the right or proper decision, judgement, or coming to a sensible conclusion, which will satisfy all and everyone during the (creative) consideration of complex relations within the dialectical triad of TRUTH, TRUST and LOVE in a particular social and cultural context. Especially, this is true when the final creative result [.... a multitude of renewed thesis until a temporary conclusion was achieved] from the point of view of common sense is considered. Either way, seen from this dialectical perspective, separately considering each of these concepts, understood in terms of the rectilinear bi-polar DIA binary way of thinking (binary value of the logical operation OR - OR: yes/no, black/white, love/truth, love/trust, truth/trust...) is not the appropriate way and methodic approach to deal with such a complex dialectical interactively creative contents. Particularly, when this subject under (creative) consideration was (in)seen from the perspective of the time DIA the appropriate space, which has to be invested in the building of a personal relationship, even in the business sphere. You would LIKE

  • [a business presentation DIA interpretation of the love, impressed in the medium of space (mind dia reason), and then expressed in terms of your emotively emotional dia physical presence(s)] while trying to achieve this objective],

understood in terms of the potential gain from an established business relationship between two actors [business meaning of the notion-LOVE], that is, to earn some money, understood in the sense of some kind of mutual satisfaction and realization of involved business interests. In short, to be realized this business goal, the related distances between and among constituent dialects of the considered triad of TRUTH, TRUST, and LOVE should be overcome in one or another way, by (re)considering this dialectical interactive content from the viewpoint of the (available dia creatively accessible) time [Future, Emotively Emotional Presence dia your necessary Active Physical Presence, Past] DIA your shared space [Spirit, Mind dia Reason, Matter]. Like in the everyday scenario in time DIA the appropriate situation in space, someone has to make the first step in order to be initiated appropriate dia-process of prevailing these interrelated distances between the dialects-truth, trust, love.

By using this methodological approach, other key-notions and concepts can be (re)considered by arranging, classifying, and clustering them in triads according to their shared qualities or characteristics. For example, the very popular buzz-notions, which were debated in the antique Age by great Greek thinkers and philosophers, could be reconsidered by reflecting them through the prism of this dialectic interactive approach. The dialectical content of corresponding triads could be expanded by incorporating more akin notions: six (6) dialects - six-pointed star, 8 - eight-pointed star, 12 - twelve-pointed star.... or 5 - five-pointed star or any other manifestation of the star. But there is a catch because at the very end you have to synthesize this expanded dialectical content, understood in terms of your (temporary) conclusion of the subject under creative consideration. And as more dialects were included as more complex and difficult is to dialectically synthesize this dialectical content. In other words, the greater bandwidth of thoughts, feelings, and information and the related mentally emotional capacity and faculty is required to deal with this expanded dialectical interactively-creative content.

Love Interpreted in terms of the Unity of Dialectical Triad through the prism of the Four Ancient Elements: Fire, Water, Air, Earth

The Unity and Struggle of Dialectical Contradictions in Time DIA Space


The Four Primary DIA Proto Paradigmatic Presumptions of the Dialectic Interactive Approach

How can this be done by implementing the dialectic methodological interactive approach? Simply by applying The Four Primary DIA Proto Paradigmatic Methodological Presumptions of the Dialectic Interactive Approach in the life reality: Fire, Water, Air, Earth. In other words, to the dialectical triad of truth, trust, love should be assigned the most suitable symbolic element: Fire, Water, Air, and then, this dialectical creative content should be placed in a particular (earthly) scenario in time DIA the appropriate situation in space [which is, for this reason, symbolized by the element - EARTH]. As this creative challenge of the considered time DIA space had been already thoroughly considered in the creative age of the rule of thinking in terms of the implementation of these ancient four elements for solving various creative challenges, the symbolic attributes of the dialectical triad of truth, trust, love are known to me. In short, because dealing with the topic of TRUTH is a very "hot" thematic and problematic ("playing with the fire"), the notion - truth was symbolically associated with the element - fire. On the other hand, the notion - love in the ancient hidden knowledge was considered as something vague, foggy, airily, heavenly, and for this reason, was associated with the element - air.

Finally, the notion - trust, as a mediator between these two often contradicted worlds of dialectics [of the dialectical interplay between truth and love, respectively, between their symbolical representation with the elements - fire and air], was symbolically associated with the element - water: evaporating when exposed to the element fire (sun or heat, for example, some manifestation of jealousy, financial disagreements....) and then falling down when longer exposed to the element air (by cooling it, for example, "honeymoon is over"). Or said this in a philosophical way: Thy trust (WATER) is a messenger between the truth (FIRE) and love (AIR). Because neither of these elements is firm but rather insubstantial, unstable, and changeable, a solid element (EARTH) is needed in order to put, test, and verify this complex dialectical creatively-interactive triad in a particular (earthly) scenario in time DIA the appropriate situation in space during the intermediating with mutual trust between these two very interactive realms of facing the truth with the love. In other words, while hovering in kingdoms of love, truth, and trust, the landing down on the Earth is necessary as well as unavoidable, from time to time in order to verify these complex relations of the dialectical triad of truth, trust, and love in the earthly sense.

From the aforementioned, it is easy to conclude that in an earthly social environment, dealing with issues of the truth is the most difficult and controversial of all dialects of this dialectical triad. In short, the dialect-truth because of its divine origin and understanding (absolute truth) is the most misinterpreted, misused dialect of this triad. In other words, such an understanding of the role of (absolute) truth is usurped and discredited by numerous earthly gods [various manifestations of dogmas], and for this reason, became an almost useless concept; but still, a very important concept because this is a postulate, lever, and symbol of the earthly power and might. As a consequence of this, almost everyone attempts to tear off and to appropriate a piece of this misused vastness of the earthly understanding of truth [as well as the role and meaning of the truth in this dialectical triad]. For this reason, this creator of knowledge during the initiated creative dia-processes (of creating knowledge), in full agreement with the dialectic interactive approach, uses the conception of the temporary conclusion as an earthly substitute for the unachievable divine truth [absolute truth is in the hands of God], that is, the undisputed or the agreed creative upshot of a creative discussion or debate. In other words, this dialectical (earthly but humane) understanding of the concept-truth is only valid until a better interpretation of the subject under creative (re-)consideration appeared on these endless creative expanses of the encompassed span of time DIA the creatively considered scope of space (spirit, mind dia reason, matter). On the other hand, love is heavenly and universal, and for this reason, everyone needs love (as well as to love someone). To hold them together, as well as for continual maintenance of these very complex relations of the dialectical interplay of truth and love, trust is necessary, both in an earthly and heavenly environment. Now, after all aforementioned, try to apply this ancient methodological approach in the living reality, and then compare thy creative result with the everyday binary (one-sided "OR") comprehension of the truth OR trust OR love:

  • The truth is the most important in a personal relationship.
  • No, love is the key!
  • What is then the role of trust in this black-white understanding of this established personal relationship? .....

Can this problem or creative challenge be solved by coupling them in pairs in a dual sense (AND - AND)? In my opinion, even handling and solving challenges of this triad with the previously elaborated tripling them in terms of the afore-elaborated way and method - three (3 - the triad of three dialects) DIA one (1 dialect) is also a very tricky business. What is thy opinion?

  • Since your earliest childhood and youth, your closest friends were a girl and a boy, with whom you spent a lot of time together, sharing both good and bad moments, which considerably contributed to building mutual trust among the three of you. You were an inseparable band of three people, who shared the same value system and interests. When they later married, you were their best friend. They got three children, and after your marriage, you have continued your friendship, and there were no secrets between you. Unfortunately, by chance, you were the witness of a love affair (adultery) of one of your friends (choose which one of them) with a fellow-worker [because (s)he was drunk, for example].
  • What would you do in such a scenario in time DIA this unexpected situation in space (spirit, mind dia reason, matter). Reconsider carefully each possible scenario in time DIA this particular situation in space in different social and CULTURAL contexts by implementing the afore-elaborated triad of the truth, trust, and love reflecting it through the prism of four ancient elements: fire, water, air DIA earth [the act of cheating is under creative consideration: adultery]?
  • Do you think, it is worth to sacrifice mutual trust and love, built over so many years, on the behalf and name of truth, but at the expense of losing at least one of your friends, or both of them, including the scenario of divorce, or quarreling, beating, or even murdering....?
  • Reconsider your made decision by reflecting it this time through the prism of distinguishing good from evil, on the way you make the distinction between good and bad, or evil if you so please. Then re-consider your made decision in the sense, whether this will bring more good or evil as a consequence of your decision?
  • Have you considered the future fate of their children (your god-children) in the case of divorce as well as other possible scenarios in time DIA the appropriate situation in space? Do you think that you had inflicted harm (or committed evil) to your god-children by your made decision, understood in terms of the well-known human prick of conscience, because they lost a parent, especially, if they blame you for it, and never forgive you? Do you think that due to your close friendship you have the right to intervene in the personal relations of a married couple?
  • You can also put this dialectical content in a broader social context by comparing this bad act or committed evil, if you so will be said, to the even greater committed evil all around of you including killing (world-wide), which perhaps can also influence and affect your final made decision.
  • Keep in mind, all this aforementioned was considered from the earthly standpoint of distinguishing good from evil. On the other hand, the tasting various bitter fruits of the after-life VERSUS enjoying the sweetness of the heavenly fruits is not in the jurisdiction of earthly authorities and tribunals (based on their power and might) but rather in thy hands [avoid committing evil (to others)] DIA heavenly judgement and verdict of that.

Do you still think, the complex inter-relations between the truth, trust, and love in a particular earthly (social, cultural,...) context is easy to handle, followed by making the right decision regardless of which methodical approach was used and applied by you? Especially, when this dialectical content was considered in different cultural dia the appropriate religious contexts and environments. In my opinion, during the distinction of good from evil, each human and humane being avoids to commit evil, on the first place, to harm other good persons, and then her-, himself, as well as with her-, his actions and made decisions, (s)he endeavours to reduce (not to increase) the level of committed evil and inflicted harms in the societal environment and the world-wide as well. In short, evil, bad, and harm is everything you commit and inflict (pain and harm) to others, but which you personally do not want that they do to you. Here, the very important is to pay attention to the committed evil to other good persons. Either way, this ancient methodological approach was re-introduced from oblivion by bringing its methodological postulates, methodical procedures, and techniques to the light of day, which, to my opinion, can much better deal with challenges of the social and living reality. Or at least, much better to identify, explain and elaborate creative challenges of the dialectical content under (creative) consideration than the existing dual (AND-AND), bipolar (OR-OR) dia binary (OR) methodological approaches.

Now READ the Next Part: