[The normal context3 brings what can be composed and decomposed2 into relation with a potential that cannot be composed or decomposed1.
The realm obeying the laws of exclusivity3 brings the realm that obeys the laws of non-contradiction2 into relation with the realm that is inclusive and allows contradictions1.
‘The mirror of the world3’ is rooted in the realm obeying the laws of exclusivity3.]
Summary of text [comment] page 88
[I suspect that the common rootedness of all normal contexts comes from the fact that they all bring an actuality (which is dyadic and may be decomposed into any number of dyadic relations) into relation with a possibility (which is monadic and so may not be decomposed).]
Summary of text [comment] page 88
[A mirror of the world3 taps into the other triadic relations found in An Archaeology of the Fall and How to Define the Word ‘Religion’. These include:
‘the system3’ of ‘a system3 of differences1’
a symbolic order3
an animating prinicple3
a mediator3
a normal context3
lawessential3
thinkgroup_or_divine3]
Summary of text [comment] page 88
[Maybe I should have said, in the last blog, the following:
The image of a mirror of the world3H radically grounds the images of both the thought experiment3H and the light source3H.
I like the words radical and grounds.
“Radical” derives from the word root. “Grounds” reminds me of soil.]
[Both the ‘thought experiment3H’ and the ‘nature and source of light3H’ could be called the ‘mirror of the world3H’.
The image of a mirror neatly captures both ‘the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’‘ and ‘the experiment where, with a light source, ‘I see something’‘.]
[For the single actuality:
(1) My heart2 combines my choice2V and something situating the potential in me2H.
(2) What I see2 combines my attention2V and my sight situating my potential2H.]
[For the horizontal axis:
(1) Thought experiment3H( my heart2( potential in me1H))
Compares to:
(2) Nature and source of light3H( what I see2H (potential in me1H))]
[For the vertical axis:
(1) I, seat of choice3V( my heart2( something that I may choose1V))
Compares to:
(2) I, seat of sight3V( what I see2V( potential of (some)thing scattering photons1V))]
Summary of text [comment] page 88
[Let me place (1) the thought experiment and (2) the physical analogy side by side.]
[Perhaps, for the intersection, the scenario should be:
With a light source, I see something.
I realize that I am seeing. Seeing is not part of some ongoing operation. There are two drivers, my neurophysiological potential and the potential of whatever is specular scattering light.]
