[What is the triadic relation that lawessential differentiates into?
“My acceptance of the potential consequences (lawacceptance)” and “my denial of the consequences of action (in regards to self (option A), self and others (option B) or self and others and order itself (options C and C-1); (lawdenial))” relate to one another on the basis of impossibility.
This triadic relation is most slippery because one cannot assuredly place any element solely into one category. Instead, the triadic relation writhes as a triadic system of differences with indeterminate normal context, actuality and possibility.
Does “impossibility3“ bring “denial of consequences2” into relation with “the potential inherent in the consequences1”?
Makes sense, since acceptance is “a potential of the consequences1“.
Does “denial of the consequences3“ bring “impossibility2” into relation with “the potential inherent in the consequences1”?
Makes sense, since denial could be the normal context so that certain consequences are regarded as impossible. Plus, acceptance is a potential consequence.
Does “acceptance of the consequences3“ bring “denial of the consequences2” into relation with “the potential inherent in the image of impossibility1”?
If acceptance is the normal context and the actions come out as denial, then something is making the normal context impossible. That something could be many things, such as misinformation (I mean, anti-knowledge.).
And so on. If you think about each permutation long enough, it becomes plausible.]