Ichthus77

Jesus’ “State of the Kingdom” Address

Posted on February 18, 2025 by Maryann Spikes

Jesus’ “State of the Kingdom” Address: Good News of the Kingdom: Costly Grace

These are the words of Jesus found in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts, and John), and in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church, with only slight adaptation, as not much has changed in 2,000+ years. Parallel passages among the Gospels have been combined, and the order, rather than being (say) chronological, is according to the concepts being communicated.

Available in Kindle and Print, with discussion questions and Scripture references per section at the end.

Posted in Apologetics, Ethics & Metaethics, Faith, Golden Rule, Natural Law and Divine Command, Neighboring, Problem of Evil & Hell, The Gospel | Leave a comment

Elaborating on C Theory

Posted on February 10, 2025 by Maryann Spikes

“The end is hypothetical while you are advancing towards or falling away from it. The end is hyperthetical once you have reached it.” (C Theory and the Venn of Import)

That was END. Now let’s talk about NOW, relative to the END (plan) and its realization (our perspective as beings subject to Time).

From the perspective of the plan (already whole being), when it is not yet fulfilled (the past), it is hypothetical, but when it is fulfilled (the future), it is hyperthetical. NOW is thetical. Relative to the past (from the perspective of the plan) now is hyperthetical. Relative to the future (from the perspective of the plan) now is hypothetical.

[Think of nontensed language like gender neutral language. Instead of saying past and future, you say when, just like instead of saying he or she, you say they.]

From the perspective of realization (not yet whole becoming), what IS already fulfilled (the past), is hyperthetical, but what is not yet fulfilled (the future), is hypothetical. NOW is thetical from both the perspectives of the plan and realization. Relative to the past (from the perspective of realization) now is hypothetical. Relative to the future (from the perspective of realization) now is hyperthetical.

That being said, we need to balance this part and do for it what we did for B theory in C Theory and the Venn of Import:

“The C Theory of Time is unlike A Theory because A Theory only acknowledges the essential status of the present moment, disregarding the essential status of the past and future as part of the whole Metanarrative of Time that began complete.”

Here’s what we did for B theory that needs to be done equally for A theory:

“C Theory is unlike B Theory because B Theory elevates every moment to the hyperthetical status of the past, disregarding that the changes subsumed by Being who is Time are necessary for beings subject to Time to freely participate with/in “Being in Relation” – a willful demonstration of essence that would not rightly be said to exist (in action or being) without such demonstration. Prior to the demonstration to beings subject to Time, the demonstration has hypothetical (essential) import if ontologically grounded in Being-in-Relation who is Time.”

So B theory sees it from the perspective of realization.

And now we will do the same for A theory, from the perspective of realization:

C Theory is unlike A Theory because A Theory demotes every moment except NOW to the hypothetical status of the future, disregarding that the unchanging essence of Being who is Time requires demonstration for beings subject to Time to freely participate with/in “Being in Relation” – a willful demonstration of essence that would not rightly be said to exist (in action or being) without such demonstration. According to C theory, prior to the demonstration to beings subject to Time, the demonstration has hypothetical (essential) import if ontologically grounded in Being-in-Relation who is Time (the whole plan). A theorists criticize B theorists because evil is never vanquished, and Jesus is *still* hanging on the cross. However, if that was accurate, then A theory ALSO (to be consistent) has evil never vanquished, and Jesus *never* hanging on the cross, because only NOW has essential (thetic) import.

C Theory subsumes realization in the plan—they are mutually productive. In other words, the realization (the fullness of the Godhead bodily) exists co-eternally with the Father (the whole/fulfilled plan in whom we live, move, and have our being). The Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son exists thetically.

In the beginning was the Signal (eternal message, end), and the Signal was the Source (eternal “spiritual material” medium), and the Signal was with the Source, and the Signal became the Sink (efficient means, demonstration, action in time).

In the beginning was the End Quality (Value), and the End Quality (Value) was the Substantial Being (Is), and the End Quality (Value) was with the Substantial Being (Is), and the End Quality (Value) became the Done Action (Ought).

Here is a more simple version of the Venn of Import:

Posted in Apologetics, Divine Essentialism, Epistemology, Euthyphro Dilemma, Gettier Problem, Harmonic Triads, Is-Ought Fallacy, Justified True Belief | Leave a comment

C Theory of Time & the Venn of Import

Posted on June 14, 2024 by Maryann Spikes

First, an introduction of C Theory and the Venn of Import, then an explanation of how C Theory is distinct from and resolves conflicts arising from A and B theories, using the Venn (or Harmonic Triad) of Import. This is a first attempt at being concise.

In the C Theory of Time, there are beings (like us) who are subject to Time (language from Kant), and there is Being who is Time. Time is not “Being Alone” (Parmenides, unless he meant…) but is “Being in Relation”. As the unchanging ground or source subsuming all being and change, Time is both immanent (omnitemporal) in and transcendent (transtemporal) over all temporality. The past is hyperthetical and the future is hypothetical from the perspective of beings subject to Time. From the perspective of the Being who is Time, the past, present, and future form an essential whole, the Metanarrative of Time. Every moment contains the story leading up to that moment, and implies the story that follows that moment. In that way, every moment is a synthesis between the past and the future, and the story began whole and is subsumed eternally in Time (see Hegel). The Metanarrative of Time is an expression or demonstration of the essential character of Time as “Being in Relation”. Without that demonstration, there would be nothing: no essence to demonstrate, no action (the demonstration), no being in which to demonstrate (see Plato). The matter and energy of every moment is the “stuff” upon which Time and (with Time’s permission and concurrence) beings subject to time “act” or move in order to bring about the full expression of the Metanarrative of Time in each moment. So, the story never changes from the perspective of the whole (Being who is Time), but the whole subsumes the changes necessary for beings subject to Time to freely participate with “Being in Relation”.

The Venn (or Harmonic Triad) of Import. There are three imports: END or essential (hyper-/hypo-aesthetical) import, DO/ACT or ethico-existential (action) import, and BE(ING) or ontologico-material (ontic) import. Note that “existential” import is usually used in the case of BE, not DO, but to prevent confusion, I restrict it to DO, and use “ontological” for BE. Other names for these imports would be teleological (purposing) import, epistemological (demonstrating) import, and metaphysical (being) import. The way I have said this mnemonically for years is: end, do, and be. END… as in… the end goal you have to have in mind (or else it is like a game into which you are “thrown”) before you even start playing the game. The end is hypothetical while you are advancing towards or falling away from it. The end is hyperthetical once you have reached it. DO… as in… how you demonstrate you are reaching the end, or at least existing. BE… as in… a winner. There is only one winner (Being-in-Relation who is Time) who always exists (acts) their essence (you may recognize this language from existentialist philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre). Other names for these imports are value, ought, and fact/is, and you must clearly distinguish between them or you commit fallacies like the is-ought fallacy. The Venn of Import is relevant in every field of study.

The C Theory of Time is unlike A Theory because A Theory only acknowledges the essential status of the present moment, disregarding the essential status of the past and future as part of the whole Metanarrative of Time that began complete. C Theory is unlike B Theory because B Theory elevates every moment to the hyperthetical status of the past, disregarding that the changes subsumed by Being who is Time are necessary for beings subject to Time to freely participate with/in “Being in Relation” – a willful demonstration of essence that would not rightly be said to exist (in action or being) without such demonstration. Prior to the demonstration to beings subject to Time, the demonstration has hypothetical (essential) import if ontologically grounded in Being-in-Relation who is Time. Without such grounding, there would have been no demonstration of essence, and no essence (being-in-relation) to demonstrate. Another way to say “being-in-relation” is the recognition that every self is an other to another self. The demonstration acknowledges/communicates that recognition to beings subject to Time so they can likewise communicate it in their values (end, or essential import), actions (do, or existential import), and the character of their thoughts (be, or ontological import)–if they so choose.

Work in progress.

Posted in Divine Essentialism, Golden Rule, Harmonic Triads, Is-Ought Fallacy, Justified True Belief, Predestination | Tagged existential import, time | Leave a comment

“Euthyphro”-type Dilemma of Language Ability and Learning

Posted on May 31, 2024 by Maryann Spikes

I want to keep this as short, sweet, and simple as I can, so here’s the Euthyphro-type dilemma up front… but we will return to it below: Does what is encoded (the pious/good) get our attention, or is it that what we attend to (the loved/valued) gets encoded? This very condensed post basically shows we are hardwired for language/signal ability and learning in an irreducibly complex and very specified way.

I inferred it from what I gleaned from chapter 9, Language, from Radvansky and Ashcraft’s “Cognition” textbook put out by Pearson in 2018. It is a kind of agent/patient homeostasis in the brain that requires the system of communication between agent (self) and patient (other) already be in place, complete–that it could not have been “arrived” at (implying a whole that is third and subsumes self/other as an us/them). Think of agent and patient like actor and reactor, sender and receiver, source and sink, or subject and object of an active (not passive) sentence or signal. So this is a tripartite homeostasis, or a harmonic triad: source, sink, and signal.

These interlocking “separable but interactive aspects of normal language” involving parts of the intact (A) or damaged/disordered (B-K) brain show an “innate basis for language … specifically … to learn and use language … as opposed to simply being able to do so” (244, Cognition). Notice F through I involve seeing but leaves hearing intact, but J involves hearing and leaves seeing intact–and even if hearing (spoken) and seeing (reading) comprehension is impaired, production of audible and written language is not:

A. Dissociation (separableness, though interactive) of syntax (order) and semantics (comprehension) in the intact brain: The brain’s event response potential (ERP) patterns show that syntactic (P600) and semantic (N400) anomalies (exceptions to expectations) are detected independently during language comprehension [239, Cognition, citing Osterhout and Holcomb (1992)].

B. Broca’s (Expressive or Production; Syntactical) Aphasia affects Broca’s area of the brain towards the rear of the left frontal lobe: Written and spoken comprehension are unaffected, but there is impairment in grammatical markers, phonemes, morphemes, and sometimes just verb inflections. Persons may say “I don’t know” or give one word answers a lot.

C. Wernicke’s (Comprehension; Semantic, Lexical) Aphasia affects Wernicke’s area of the brain in the junction between the temporal and parietal lobes, posterior left hemisphere: Syntactic aspects of speech are unaffected, but there is impairment in comprehension, repetition (saying back what was heard), naming (lexical system), reading, and writing.

D. Conduction Aphasia affects the arcuate fasciculus pathway connecting Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas, which are left intact: The link between comprehension and production (order) is broken, so persons cannot conduct the message/signal between these areas and express it by repeating what they just heard/comprehended.

E. Anomic Aphasia affects the left temporal lobe: The impaired automatic retrieval shows the separation of semantic (concept) and lexical (naming) retrieval systems. Semantic retrieval can be preserved (intact) while lexical retrieval is blocked.

F. Alexic/Dyslexic Aphasia: Disrupts reading, but not spoken language production or aural comprehension.

G. Agraphic Aphasia: Disrupts reading what one has just written.

H. Written (but not Spoken) Verb Retrieval Aphasia

I. Anomic Aphasia for Visual Stimuli Only

J. Pure Word Aphasia: Disrupts comprehension of spoken language, but not its production, and not written language (production or comprehension).

K. Right Hemisphere Damage: Results in deadened triggering of connections/inferences between concepts.

From that^ we can infer these questions:

Is there such a thing as unmodulated “actual” meaning (raw/pure “bottom/concrete/analog” data/signal untouched by the skewing/biasing grasp of “top/abstract/digital” conceptualization)? (If analog/digital are misused here – throw it out, and recalibrate or synchronize back to source, sink, and signal.)
Does what is encoded (the pious/good) get our attention, or is it that what we attend to (the loved/valued) gets encoded? You could say this is related to Sapir-Whorf: Do we think about it because we have/learn a word for it, or do we have/learn a word for it because we think about it? Follow up question: What makes it a meaningful positive or negative difference/similarity (why does it get our attention/love/value) if there is no real/”actual” (ontic) point by which to compare the difference/similarity (piety or goodness)? Go back to question 1.
You need the language learning ability to already be in the genes in order to attentionally activate it. If declarative memory gets in (sticks) with repeated attention and practice, but is not genetically remembered (partly because epigenetic changes are reset with every sexual reproduction, and DNA transcription has error correction built in, but more because brain/embodied memory is not genetic memory), how was human language ability (which requires attentional volition to activate) “arrived at” (in order for the ability to be sexually reproduced) genetically? [For that matter, how did vervet monkeys genetically acquire the animal language that encodes different sounds for eagles, snakes, and leopards? Go back to the bold question in 2. Note the key distinction between animal and human-animal language is flexibility/volition.]
Since such an ability requires so many parts of the brain to be functioning separately and together (a kind of irreducibly complex homeostasis)…how was this functional system/ability something that could be arrived at piece by piece (in order to then attentionally activate it)? Could it be they, &/or the wholeness they imply, have always been?

Reference: chapter 9, Language, from Radvansky and Ashcraft’s “Cognition” textbook put out by Pearson in 2018.

Posted in Epistemology, Euthyphro Dilemma, Gettier Problem, Golden Rule, Is-Ought Fallacy, Justified True Belief | Tagged communication theory, information theory, language, Sapir-Whorf | Leave a comment

Towards a JTB Ought-Is-Value Litmus

Posted on May 4, 2024 by Maryann Spikes

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:

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.
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, Harmonic Triads | Tagged logical-fallacies, philosophy, psychology | Leave a comment

The Four Groups

Posted on September 26, 2023 by Maryann Spikes

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

Posted on February 13, 2023 by Maryann Spikes

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 homelessness, housing, income-based housing, low-income housing, Modesto, Stanislaus County | Leave a comment

Counseling Theory & Basic Listening Sequence

Posted on February 13, 2023 by Maryann Spikes

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

Search Youtube for “coping skills strategies animation kids” and start anywhere. For anyone who has ever been stuck in their feelings, rather than master of them.