[Here is the scenario for “gravity” that relies on the interscoping nested forms:

Knowledge₃( human action₂( subject₁))

Will₃( subject₂( object₁))

If I consider “gravity₂” as the “realm of actuality₂ in tension with the intersubjective₃ and the subjective­₁” then “gravity₂” precisely reflects “the aspect of human action₂ corresponding to the subject₂”.

Does this definition of “gravity₂” accord with the Dutch logic table?

It seems so.

The more grave₂ the sin or virtue, the more imprisoned or free the subject becomes.]

[What about the other question: What about the idea of “gravity”?

I can see two scenarios.

Here is one that relies on the polarized form:

Knowledge₃₍₂₍₎₎ Will₂₍₁₎

If I consider “gravity₂” as the “realm of actuality₂ in tension with the intersubjective₃ and the subjective­₁” then “gravity₂” precisely reflects “the aspect of human action₂ corresponding to the poles of knowledge₃ and will₁”.

“Gravity₂” is “that feature of human action₂ that must be intersubjectively contextualized₃ as knowledge₃”.

“Gravity₂” is also “that feature of human action₂ that reifies conscience₁ and disposition₁; that is, the will₁”.]

[The previous blog provided some insight into the normal context of the second, adjacent lower nested form.

In 1.5AA4 I wrote:

Normal context₃( subject₂( object₁))

Context of attraction, repulsion or neutrality₃( subject who desires₂( object of desire₁))

In 1.5AB1 I wrote:

Will₃( subject₂( object₁))

So these must be parallel.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 36 and 37

[Let me try to locate “gravity” once again.

Allow me to review the nested forms:

The most general are:

Thirdness( secondness( firstness))

Normal context₃( actuality₂( possibility₁))

Looking at the earlier blogs, I have:

Knowledge₃( human action₂( will₁))

And that can be turned into a polarized form:

Knowledge₃( acts of knowledge₂ acts of will₂( will₁))

Knowledge₃₍₂₍₎₎ will₂₍₁₎

Also, that can be turned into interscoping nested forms:

Knowledge₃( human action₂( subject₁))

Will₃( subject₂( object₁))]

[Let me write the full twist as two interscoping nested forms.

The higher level form is:

One subject contextualizes another subject’s actions₃( objective human actions₂( subject₁))

Knowledge₃( human action₂( subject₁))

The lower level form is:

Context of attraction, repulsion or neutrality₃( subject who desires₂( object of desire₁))

Normal context₃( subject₂( object₁))

Both the upper and lower nested forms have the qualities of:

Intersubjective₃( objective₂( subjective₁))

So, we should look into this second, adjacent lower level normal context.

And, what happened to to the idea of “gravity”?]

[There is a certain irony to the fact that the term “objective” covers two very different concepts.  So now, let me see whether I can accomplish the full twist to the claim:

Knowledge₃ is “intersubjective”.

Well, why not “interobjective”?  After all, there are two objects.

Then I can counter: There are also two subjects, each perceiving an “object”.

Knowledge₃ brings these two subjects, with their respective objects, into a nested form.

“Knowledge₃” contextualizes “human action₂“.

Human action₂ is the objective behavior of a subject₁.

“Knowledge₃” brings “objective human action₂” into relation with “the possibilities inherent in the subject₁“.

These possibilities concern some object perceived by subject₁.  That object, for the subject₁, must be actual on a different (interscoping, adjacent lower) nested form.

That suggests that there may be “some normal context₃” that brings “the subject₂” into relation with “the possibilities inherent in the (perceived) object₁“.

This “normal context₃“, plus knowledge₃, yields two subjects and two objects. Hence, in this case, thirdness is “intersubjective₃” and “interobjective₃“.

How twisted was that?]

[The term “will₂₍₁₎” labels the emergence of “objective” human action₂ (from the point of view of knowledge) from “subjective” realms₁ (from the point of view of the will, which operates with some “objective” in mind.  Plus, that “objective” may reflect the normal contexts of the intersecting nested forms).]

[But that is not all.

“Object relations” in socioanalysis (the non-existent sociological field that would mirror psychoanalysis) go with think^divine, think^group, think^pro-object, (projected) think^anti-object, as well as acceptance or denial of law^essential.]

[There is a certain irony to the fact that the term “objective” currently covers two very different concepts.  Here is the second:

Human action₂ is also “objective” in so far as it reveals the “object” of our will₂₍₁₎ (will₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerging from both conscience^specified₁ and dispositions₁).

“Object relations” in psychoanalysis go with conscience^specified and dispositions.  Our will bends towards an object.]

[There is a certain irony to the fact that, currently, in 2014, the term “objective” covers two very different concepts.  Here is the first:

Human action₂ is “objective” because it can be objectively observed by a disinterested scientist.

Human action₂ is an “object” that is contextualized through knowledge₃.  This is described in the the category crossing of two nested forms:

knowledge₃₍₂₎ = acceptance or denial of law^essential as well as think^{one_way_or_another} contextualizing the situation₂

The term “knowledge₃” labels the emergence of judgments on both the natural philosophical and the moral religious axes of the intersecting nested forms.]