Towards a JTB Ought-Is-Value Litmus

This is where I am at–work in progress:

LITMUS KEY: [define the three imports]

J (justified): OUGHT/ACT/DO: Ethico-existential (epistemic) import; Aristotle’s efficient cause.

T (true): IS/FACT/BE: Ontologico-material (scientific/metaphysical) import; Aristotle’s material cause.

B (belief): VALUE/-ATE/END: Hypo-/hyper-thetico-essential (aesthetic/teleological) import; Aristotle’s formal and final cause.

J, T, and B are a reality litmus called a harmonic triad, which means:

  1. Analytic: None of them have import unless they each have import independently (as they are distinct from each other) – one cannot stand in for the other.
  2. Synthetic: If one of them has import, they all have, had, and/or will have import in alignment with each other (as they all share the same substrate).

THREE FORMS OF DIALECTIC

The first is structured so that when you cross out two conflicting ideas and keep their commonalities, there is something “whole” left standing. This kind of dialectic removes the dross (nihil).

The second is structured so that a privation (nihil) is resolved with something “new” (not nihil) towards a “whole”. This kind of dialectic repairs what is broken.

The third is the starting/ending point (harmonic triad) whole towards which the first two forms of dialectic progress. It is a litmus against which all that is in conflict is compared to distinguish between dross, privation, and wholeness.

(Moral) Truth Litmus

This three-part (Moral) Truth Litmus tells us when a particular (moral/ethical) theory or model is artificial (versus anchored in or descriptive of reality), when that theory or model fails any part of the litmus:

(L1) Part 1: Essential Question Aspect: A (moral) theory/model must describe the answer to a question (“How and why should we be or behave with the other and self?”).

(L2) Part 2: Existential Demonstration Aspect: A (moral) theory/model must be discovered in reality, not created in divergence from reality.

(L3) Part 3: Universal Aspect: A (moral) theory/model must hold for all or none.

If no theory passes all three parts of the litmus, there is no (moral) truth.

Being discovered in/by every culture in history is good for part 3, but to pass part 2, you need a being whose essence is demonstrated (exists its essence).

See Parts In Red

Three (6?) Distinctions (D)
…Could you say each distinction is attended by two fallacies and two principles (itself, and its reverse)…does reversing the principle have a similar consequence like reversing the fallacy (below)…a way of regressing/returning back to the mean/dao/litmus (baseline is fubar if not the mean/litmus (dao/reality)?

D1. fact (is)-value distinction (violated by F2, F3)
T is distinct from B (and vice versa)

D2. ought-is (fact) distinction (violated by F4, F5)
J is distinct from T (and vice versa)

D3. ought-value distinction (violated by F1, F6)
J is distinct from B (and vice versa)

Six Fallacies (F)

F1. value→ought fallacy (violates D3)
The B→J fallacy (reversal of F6) is when you let value/-ate/end count for ought/act/do.

F2. value→is (fact) fallacy (violates D1)
The B→T fallacy (reversal of F3) is when you let value/-ate/end count for is/fact/be.

F3. is (fact)→value fallacy (violates D1)
The T→B fallacy (reversal of F2) is when you let is/fact/be count for value/-ate/end.

F4. is (fact)→ought fallacy (violates D2)
The T→J fallacy (reversal of F5) is when you let is/fact/be count for ought/act/do.

F5. ought→is (fact) fallacy (violates D2)
The J→T fallacy (reversal of F4) is when you let ought/act/do count for is/fact/be.

F6. ought→value fallacy (violates D3)
The J→B fallacy (reversal of F1) is when you let ought/act/do count for value/-ate/end.


The names of the fallacies have other names than the names given. I have withheld their given names because they often trigger a conflation of some combination of ought/is/value (or justified/true/belief)–and the whole point of this project is to untangle the conflation.

This has application across every field once I get it squared away, but because I don’t have knowledge in every field, I’m not going to be able to fully explain that.

Updates here.

Posted in Apologetics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Four Groups

Which group ARE we in, and which group SHOULD we be in? Does it exist, or can/should we cultivate it in everything we do? The 4 groups… can you think of another?

The Four Groups

The first group of people only takes care of their own self and never of anyone else because they think it is leeching to make other people take care of you. They refuse to work with others unless there’s some sort of survival benefit they can get out of it, so they euthanize those who cannot eventually contribute to survival. They’re only focused on survival and don’t have time for thrive needs.

The second group of people never takes care of their own self but instead takes care of someone else. Nobody’s needs go unmet because everyone is taking care of someone else.

The third group of people doesn’t take care of anyone else and doesn’t take care of their own self. They leech off of the group that takes care of other people.

The fourth group takes care of their own self and takes care of other people. They only take care of the survival needs of others if the other is unable to take care of their own survival needs, so no one’s survival needs go unmet, and no one leeches off anyone else. Because of that, they have plenty of time to take care of each other’s thrive needs.

Posted in Ethics & Metaethics, Golden Rule | Leave a comment

Local Changes Needed Re: Housing & Homelessness

Just passing on my vision for how to improve the situation locally, in view of global cooperation.

What Needs to Change (begun May 30, 2018) – updated February 2023

Posted in Ethics & Metaethics, Golden Rule, Neighboring | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Counseling Theory & Basic Listening Sequence

Just passing on some of the knowledge I gleaned from obtaining my Psychology/Philosophy B.A. through Stanislaus State:

Longer, but missing the below: My Integrated Counseling Theory

Shorter, but missing the above: Basic Listening Sequence & 5 Stages of a Counseling Sesh

Posted in Ethics & Metaethics, Golden Rule, Neighboring | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Good News of the Kingdom

Good News of the Kingdom:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vt45yxiSdRn3Y4ODjrYDbhUQ5ZDKGVjS7oaiVKUI4G0/edit

Posted in Bible Narrative Project, Ethics & Metaethics | Leave a comment

Harmonic Triads

Posted in Epistemology, Ethics & Metaethics, Justified True Belief | Leave a comment

Modesto Mural Map

I took liberties to add another mural to the MODESTO MURAL MAP (below) put out by Murals in Motown and Fasm Creative. The latest mural is The Burnt End by Vincent Cabrera, owner of Painted Ape Gallery and Tattoos. Watch him in action at the mural this past Monday here.

If you like watching LIVE art, put this on your calendar: Fasm Creative Battle 6 – Seven Artists from Around the World.

Posted in News, Positive Modesto News | 2 Comments

Why do bad/good things happen to good/bad people?

Why-Do-Bad-Things-Happen-to-Good-People1-930x300Thesis: Bad things happen to bad people, good things happen to good people (according to Job’s friends, Pharisees, & prosperity preachers…& those who believe in karma).

Antithesis: Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people (according to Job, Jonah, and King Solomon) (the problem of evil & suffering).

Synthesis: God loves both the same, so bad/good things happen to good/bad people (according to Jesus, Paul, and just all throughout Scripture…this is the Gospel…love despite circumstances…).

Unfortunately, that answer doesn’t satisfy everyone. See the discussion that followed in this Facebook thread.

Posted in Apologetics, Ethics & Metaethics, Problem of Evil & Hell | Leave a comment

#Good: Still thinking about QoW #379

b4472-16678638-abstract-word-cloud-for-anti-realism-with-related-tags-and-termsHi Dr. Craig. Still chewing on QoW #379. I keep coming back to this video, especially Q & A, especially 01:01:07 & context … do you address Aquinas & divine simplicity (as relates to the rest of my question below) in your current lectures?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVoXs4qQIl8&feature=youtu.be&t=1h1m1s

Also, does this correctly represent your view?… Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Epistemology, Ethics & Metaethics, Euthyphro Dilemma | Leave a comment

‘Tis the Season to Study the Virgin Birth with Your Kids

JesusInFocus_VirginBirth-300x300My high school aged sons and I were recently offered a free review of the first lesson in a new youth apologetics video curriculum by Mikel Del Rosario, the Apologetics Guy. Knowing that Mikel is *already* accessible, we had to see what this new curriculum specifically targeted to youth is all about. The curriculum is called Jesus in Focus, and this first lesson is called Is the Virgin Birth a True Story?. Could the timing be better, with Christmas right around the corner?

While everyone else was out in the craziness on Black Friday, we saved ourselves an hour of madness and geared up for Christmas studying the virgin birth. What better way to kick off the holidays? You know it’s going to come up soon at school, in the media, and basically everywhere. Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox, Youth Apologetics | 11 Comments