Hi gib,
Sometimes I feel like calling you the gibinator - lol - only because you are so cool man . . . I also figure that you’ll be back.
Let me take a partial response here and make a partial response . . . when I interact with you I find myself having to contemplate often - this is a good thing.
To say that O is less that B is to say that the Origin by itself is less than the Biological; To say that this is less than C is to say that the Origin plus the Biological is less than all three combined. For it to have made perfect logical sense I would have had to write it a different way using other symbols that I consider a little uglier. To get what I meant straight off the bat requires a certain esoteric leap that not everybody can make the first time around. The beauty of many things in life is that they are somewhat exoteric which allows us to communicate - however there is a lot of beauty to be found in the esoteric also . . . often times there is elegance to be found in both the esoteric and exoteric.
What I wrote was delicate in nature so I allowed for the possibility that the hidden logic may or may not have been uncovered by:
Somebody please let me know if this logic is not making sense - I just want to make sure I am on a similar page if not the same page as everybody . . .
In which case I am so glad you asked - interaction allows for clarity.
I agree that our origin never changes, but that’s a specific case of: the past never changes. That shouldn’t come as a surprise. Change requires time, so if we’re considering something that happens at a single point in time, it can’t change
This is some deep stuff gib, no matter what angle you take. I have an idea that science as well as philosophy are big parts of your life - they are sometimes difficult to reconcile but most times have great synergy with each other. Your explanations are deeply alluring because they are very communicative and quite rigorous.
I could also say that change does not require time - that change requires motion. That time is often manufactured as a requirement to the analytical. We could consider each other both correct and both incorrect; this would only require choice . . . people do have some power over choice . . .
I think there is this other side to many people that can also be communicative yet less rigorous at times and yet it seems to lure us all at least part of the time.
Poetry and metaphor are fine examples of vocal and or textual information containing meaning of a more delicate nature - this allows for interpretation - it also allows for ambiguity - then again it prompts conversation - the same words can speak differently to many people . . .
We can not doubt the value of strict meaning . . .
. . . we also must place value in the less strict where meaning is to be found . . .
. . . it seems to me that we can not escape it . . .
You have used analogies in your examples and I use analogy quite often myself . . .
. . . I think your analogies are better than mine though because they are more expressive . . .
I assure you that I will respond more thoroughly yet concisely in form than what I have this time around . . .
In the meantime I am going to contemplate further the rest of what you have written as well as the writing I have partially responded to already . . . You are welcome to and may respond to this post if you feel the want to . . . I would again value your thoughts on what I have written here and it is likely that what you would write will imaginably enhance my thoughts . . . not trying to inflate your ego here . . . just being honest . . .
My last thoughts here in this post for now - even if they are a little off track - is that poetry along with its, at times, delicate nature, also has the potential to evoke emotion much like music - I recently read a study of brain scans that showed the same area of the brain activated when exposed to music and poetry.
Despite x amount of subtleties in this post . . . I do believe it contains some meaning . . . That it has its own essence too . . . Any thoughts on this?