THE UNITY PROJECT        --Nathan Coppedge           page 2   (Preface, cont'd)

PREFACE

CHART

SUMMARY

PART I.

PART II.

PART III.

PART IV.

NOTES
Truths about the center can be found by creating axes. These truths are relative to the framework adopted in pursuing truth. It seems it�s a matter of persuading oneself that one deserves the significance of significance, which is to say, the consequences of pursuing knowledge. Whether it�s a bargain with Time or Death or the Devil is not always entirely clear. Certainly it seems that there�s some risk involved. Although, it�s a risk that replaces whatever other risk I might have found without that knowledge. It could be a matter of convincing myself that I already have knowledge, when in fact real knowledge is only found by experience. But then, I�ve heard it said that ignorance is more taxing than wisdom. But is it wisdom that taxes ignorance? Maybe only ignorance of wisdom�

So these axes are designed to describe a unity, and not an opposition. That�s important to understand. Now I�ll see what (subordinate) axes I can find to describe the center, each of which reflects a truth in the form of a not necessarily subverted union of seemingly contradictory potential unions. So, to be more clear, none of the axes actually pass through the middle�there is only one possible reality that exists there, and so I have left the limits of the circle ambiguous because I know of no other alternative, suggesting that there is a limit to what has meaning in relation to this particular truth. I am also assuming that anything can relate to God, perhaps with the assumption that what is real is what relates to God. So as a corollary, I�m stating that in this context all potential truths pass through the center. So the center is where all potential truths are, so long as I don�t know exactly what that truth is. So long as I�m not God, or a part of God, I cannot know. So the outer boundary of the circle is where truth ceases to pertain to my first pair of axes (x and y) which I must assume pass through the middle. For if they do not, I cannot derive any meaning from the analysis.


Now, the first comparison is the context for the chart. It is supposed to represent the outer boundary that is still truthful to the nature of this study.
The first comparison: �Individual : Material :: Private : Public.�
This is something that is meant to be obviously true, and is intended to serve as a metaphor for all the potentially conjectural analogies within.
The comparison is meant to suggest not just a simple similarity (the obvious connection between the privacy of the mind and the shared quality of the outer world), but also a paradoxical relationship between internal secrets and external, and hence, objective, knowledge. From one standpoint the self changes, and might be construed as subjective, and from another standpoint it is the basis for all understanding, and is the nearest thing to the origin, and one might then say, to God. So this relationship between internal secrets and objective knowledge may not be contradictory. I have been supposing that ideas must be relative to be objective.

The following page will serve as an order of operations for the entire argument, which intends to find a unity between the individual-material and the private-public. Ultimately it may be a matter of defining categorically creative spaces and (semiotic systems).

                                                                                                                                                                 NEXT


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Philosophy and Writing                                     Main Menu
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1