#trinities

Not all trinities are the same, or maybe all are different. That’s what makes this matter so hard. In one fundamental trinity, that of matter-space-time, it seems as though matter I can feel or is tacit more so than space and whatever time is. And now with virtual worlds also space is pulled into the same realm of whatever time is. 

But then look at the trinity of matter itself, gaseous-liquid-solid, showing the same kind of distinctions, and thus pure metaphorically, matter is solid, space liquid, time gas. But the trinity of time, present-past-future, is different in kind. None of the parts of this type are matter. Although the present can be space and time is future - even if it’s a stretch, matter must be the materialized, solidified past, perhaps almost in the way Marx meant it.

Left is the space trinity and here length and width are the same and height is really depth (unless length was already depth, but at least one of them has to be depth) differs considerably from that of the 2-dimensional plane. Depth is important in writing, thought and conversation, and regarding its nature as movement in time. Length-width causes this trinity to be a twofold to the innocent third person, the onlooker, due to our layered existence in virtual worlds. We need continuous adjustment to continuous plane shifts and the depth we perceive is only in relation to this continuous adjustment, not pure in its relation to either length or width, nor as analyzed, structured depth. Qualitatively, the trinities of matter and time seem to have three sides where the pace duality could now have just two: length-width and depth. 

Hence this last space trinity should be viewed more in-depth by metaphorically taking length-width to be ‘politics’ and depth to be ‘art’. Then and only then it becomes clear that length-width are functional entities that manifest out into the world. Length and width emancipate, claim their space, and raise their voice inside it. Depth is indeed itself as qualitative as anything can become. It may be the most qualitative entity out there. Art or depth breaks through obvious hinderances, it seeks a deeper look at things. 

To continue the metaphor by applying the BM-model, the time trinity contains the present as social organizations one feels one belongs to, and which have been and will be around long after everyone you know has perished. It also contains  the past as death aka the health realm; your body is history and you know it. It may be the only thing you can feel, in the end. And future is the religious pursuit of the unknown. Matter is family, blood, kinship, but also job, practical know-how or DIY, material gain, and science is the matter probing industry.

In any case I would advocate in this manner for using the 138 model to analyze the quality of trinities. My book explaining the model can be found here. Unless you take the human body and say look your width is your gradation of let’s say ‘groundedness’. your materialization or manifestation and what not, and your height or length is the space part where you know you could have been shorter but you decided after all to grow up in a literal sense perhaps to help the other sense. 

The matter of space is, thus, imho, unsound in its interpretation as trinity comparable to other more holy trinities. It’s ironinc how Marx the bitter materialist was however more tolerant of religion later on in his life. But famous he is for his claim that generation upon generation the same wealth and societal standard was maintained, meaning ideas were not the stuff pushing history forward. In fact, it rather all went backward. 

His argument about time and history as material prolongation of the status quo could be taken in light of his being ‘overwidth’ and his frequent travels to London and Frankfurt. He was sick often and at times lived impoverished, undernourishing his kids. Maybe he wasn’t as tall as he could have been, or didn’t walk straight? It’s a conjecture but it seems as though something remains hidden regarding the space part of original trinity of matter-space-time. And it’s likely that Marx was too focused on the political but underestimated his artistic side. He may have been a great artist yet the world will not recognize this.

To summarize, length-width is in writing characters on a plane and depth in understanding any meaning, which is shallowly reminiscent of Margritte’s pipe and Wittgenstein’s language games. But how did God make the difference between plane and depth, as in something that levers out, is both but also not? Since the interpretation of symbols happens within us, we are God, but He is also bigger than us, as every human and likely animal has this capacity one way or another. But can we say that virtual worlds fade our knowledge a deeper reality? Has originary space lost its own third dimension, its quality as trinity, as  leveraging in-between? Has it lost its magic?