The Circular Repetitive Monotony of Philosophical Discourse | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 12:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So for example, earlier, the 4 supremes were related into 6 variations (an example of what I mean by "essence mathematics"). Now there is something else going on, there are really only 2 supremes being mentioned, and the rest are reduced to examples of them. IF Axiology and Architectonics are sufficient as Supremes, their essential relational quantity could only be 1. That unit relationships of the two would be Philosophy ding an sich. What I dislike about this is the implicit exaltation of mathematics to the level of philosophy. It is implicit only if "counting" begins. On the side of benefits gained from this re-arrangement, the 2 becoming 2 of 2 means that the 4 Categories: Ethics and Logic, Aesthetics and Epistemology, cannot relate essentially, since they exist in essentially differing categories (which is why they are categories). This allows Ontology to return to being about Substances (such as matter and space) rather than a computational metaphor. It also means the 2 Categories, having 2 Archetypes (within the categories) Would also result in essentially 1 unit relationship. This could be extended indefinitely. This would mean that although Axiology might have Aesthetics and Epistemology as two aspects of a Unit (such as Design) they interact conceptually in a unique way that is by Axes. Further, this would then reveal an emptiness in what is known about how Logic and Ethics as a Unit might relate. Hiearchy is implied, however its full form isn't definitive in this analysis. For better or worse, at this stage of development, it could be anything. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80111781 Canada 06/26/2022 12:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 12:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80111781 Canada 06/26/2022 12:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80111781 Canada 06/26/2022 12:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 12:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Sure. I'm just going to assume the video was intended to be seen by someone who would relate to the what it conveys. I am not deleting it since some people do return to this thread to see something, however, if I wasn't aware of that I would assume otherwise. So since it would be like a loner thread for a loner who doesn't relate to confusing, somewhat jarring, flashing lights and creepy visuals, I'd find it something to delete. I am not criticizing you nor telling you to post something else, or saying you must communicate with words. However if you would choose to write that is what I personally would prefer. I hope that's clear. I'm not trying to be mean. By all means, feel free to use this thread space for the benefit of communication however works best for you and your audience. :peace |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 12:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79799033 United States 06/26/2022 12:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What this update does differently is that it changes the layout such the "essence mathematics" cannot be employed at that categorical level. It can only show up at a lower level of implementation. Quoting: Tihatatatan So for example, earlier, the 4 supremes were related into 6 variations (an example of what I mean by "essence mathematics"). Now there is something else going on, there are really only 2 supremes being mentioned, and the rest are reduced to examples of them. IF Axiology and Architectonics are sufficient as Supremes, their essential relational quantity could only be 1. That unit relationships of the two would be Philosophy ding an sich. What I dislike about this is the implicit exaltation of mathematics to the level of philosophy. It is implicit only if "counting" begins. On the side of benefits gained from this re-arrangement, the 2 becoming 2 of 2 means that the 4 Categories: Ethics and Logic, Aesthetics and Epistemology, cannot relate essentially, since they exist in essentially differing categories (which is why they are categories). This allows Ontology to return to being about Substances (such as matter and space) rather than a computational metaphor. It also means the 2 Categories, having 2 Archetypes (within the categories) Would also result in essentially 1 unit relationship. This could be extended indefinitely. This would mean that although Axiology might have Aesthetics and Epistemology as two aspects of a Unit (such as Design) they interact conceptually in a unique way that is by Axes. Further, this would then reveal an emptiness in what is known about how Logic and Ethics as a Unit might relate. Hiearchy is implied, however its full form isn't definitive in this analysis. For better or worse, at this stage of development, it could be anything. While I also dislike exalting mathematics to the level of philosophy, due to the danger of implying that counting and it’s derivations are a primal force in the universe, we must remember that philosophy itself is necessarily composed of words, and words are, in essence, mathematical, by nature of their distinction of one word from the rest of the universe. So they are pre-mathematical, since their use gives rise to the fungibility that defines mathematics (a equals a). Since a word is drawn by its distinction of the thing that word represents from the rest of the universe, it gives rise to multiplicities of that word and hence mathematics. But we must remember that at the source lies integration or no distinction due to the interrelatedness of all things. Thus, at the source of philosophy is the nonverbal, which predates philosophy itself. So the pinnacle of philosophy isn’t philosophy but that which predates it. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80073096 United States 06/26/2022 12:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 01:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | In the spirit of free talk, here's an old thread of mine from 2019 that has some traces of ideas related to what this thread was about. Back then I was much more besotted with electronics and also trying to cram a million things into an idea. Rereading it was enjoyable though. Thread: dont read this garbage Some good old randomness to help me feel like less of a control freak Real |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 01:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What this update does differently is that it changes the layout such the "essence mathematics" cannot be employed at that categorical level. It can only show up at a lower level of implementation. Quoting: Tihatatatan So for example, earlier, the 4 supremes were related into 6 variations (an example of what I mean by "essence mathematics"). Now there is something else going on, there are really only 2 supremes being mentioned, and the rest are reduced to examples of them. IF Axiology and Architectonics are sufficient as Supremes, their essential relational quantity could only be 1. That unit relationships of the two would be Philosophy ding an sich. What I dislike about this is the implicit exaltation of mathematics to the level of philosophy. It is implicit only if "counting" begins. On the side of benefits gained from this re-arrangement, the 2 becoming 2 of 2 means that the 4 Categories: Ethics and Logic, Aesthetics and Epistemology, cannot relate essentially, since they exist in essentially differing categories (which is why they are categories). This allows Ontology to return to being about Substances (such as matter and space) rather than a computational metaphor. It also means the 2 Categories, having 2 Archetypes (within the categories) Would also result in essentially 1 unit relationship. This could be extended indefinitely. This would mean that although Axiology might have Aesthetics and Epistemology as two aspects of a Unit (such as Design) they interact conceptually in a unique way that is by Axes. Further, this would then reveal an emptiness in what is known about how Logic and Ethics as a Unit might relate. Hiearchy is implied, however its full form isn't definitive in this analysis. For better or worse, at this stage of development, it could be anything. While I also dislike exalting mathematics to the level of philosophy, due to the danger of implying that counting and it’s derivations are a primal force in the universe, we must remember that philosophy itself is necessarily composed of words, and words are, in essence, mathematical, by nature of their distinction of one word from the rest of the universe. So they are pre-mathematical, since their use gives rise to the fungibility that defines mathematics (a equals a). Since a word is drawn by its distinction of the thing that word represents from the rest of the universe, it gives rise to multiplicities of that word and hence mathematics. But we must remember that at the source lies integration or no distinction due to the interrelatedness of all things. Thus, at the source of philosophy is the nonverbal, which predates philosophy itself. So the pinnacle of philosophy isn’t philosophy but that which predates it. This is an exciting paragraph, I could reply but it would take some splitting in quotation process. Is that okay? |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 01:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, I'm glad the thread is enjoyable. Giving it some more thought on my own, I have the feeling that the conversation potential of such themes can extend for quite a while. I do usually write based on my mood, however, the mood to understand these ideas is pretty regular. I can see myself returning to this thread steady. Thanks for reading. I do value that. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79799033 United States 06/26/2022 01:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What this update does differently is that it changes the layout such the "essence mathematics" cannot be employed at that categorical level. It can only show up at a lower level of implementation. Quoting: Tihatatatan So for example, earlier, the 4 supremes were related into 6 variations (an example of what I mean by "essence mathematics"). Now there is something else going on, there are really only 2 supremes being mentioned, and the rest are reduced to examples of them. IF Axiology and Architectonics are sufficient as Supremes, their essential relational quantity could only be 1. That unit relationships of the two would be Philosophy ding an sich. What I dislike about this is the implicit exaltation of mathematics to the level of philosophy. It is implicit only if "counting" begins. On the side of benefits gained from this re-arrangement, the 2 becoming 2 of 2 means that the 4 Categories: Ethics and Logic, Aesthetics and Epistemology, cannot relate essentially, since they exist in essentially differing categories (which is why they are categories). This allows Ontology to return to being about Substances (such as matter and space) rather than a computational metaphor. It also means the 2 Categories, having 2 Archetypes (within the categories) Would also result in essentially 1 unit relationship. This could be extended indefinitely. This would mean that although Axiology might have Aesthetics and Epistemology as two aspects of a Unit (such as Design) they interact conceptually in a unique way that is by Axes. Further, this would then reveal an emptiness in what is known about how Logic and Ethics as a Unit might relate. Hiearchy is implied, however its full form isn't definitive in this analysis. For better or worse, at this stage of development, it could be anything. While I also dislike exalting mathematics to the level of philosophy, due to the danger of implying that counting and it’s derivations are a primal force in the universe, we must remember that philosophy itself is necessarily composed of words, and words are, in essence, mathematical, by nature of their distinction of one word from the rest of the universe. So they are pre-mathematical, since their use gives rise to the fungibility that defines mathematics (a equals a). Since a word is drawn by its distinction of the thing that word represents from the rest of the universe, it gives rise to multiplicities of that word and hence mathematics. But we must remember that at the source lies integration or no distinction due to the interrelatedness of all things. Thus, at the source of philosophy is the nonverbal, which predates philosophy itself. So the pinnacle of philosophy isn’t philosophy but that which predates it. This is an exciting paragraph, I could reply but it would take some splitting in quotation process. Is that okay? Fine by me. :) |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 01:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | While I also dislike exalting mathematics to the level of philosophy, due to the danger of implying that counting and it’s derivations are a primal force in the universe, we must remember that philosophy itself is necessarily composed of words, and words are, in essence, mathematical, by nature of their distinction of one word from the rest of the universe. So they are pre-mathematical, since their use gives rise to the fungibility that defines mathematics (a equals a). Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79799033 I would suggest another way of looking at words in their "function" of drawing distinctions from (within) the universe. I would say a word is Systemic, in the sense that a System implies both itself and its environment. In this case the word is a system and the cosmos is the environment. This would give mathematics an optionality and would instead make Systemics more primary. However this would swiftly, once again, bring Logic to the fore (due to the input-process-output nature of Systemics "in action"). Since a word is drawn by its distinction of the thing that word represents from the rest of the universe, it gives rise to multiplicities of that word and hence mathematics. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79799033 I do see what you mean. Simply adding a letter "s" gives the meaning of multiplicity for basically anything, and it's not even a word. It's a single symbol. However there are some words that preclude a meaningful use of this....operation. For example, Totality could "technically" be modified to Totalities and that's fair, but it inherently contradicts itself. Totality is totality, any multiplication of any thing conceivable would be included in the meaning of "Totality". This is actually one good example for why I say "a definition is an axiom of meaning". The definition of Totality has as its axiom the meaning of "All Things", although to be more precise and (for now) anti-mathematical it could also be expanded as "All things as unitary". So to make Totality multiple -as Totalities can be a word - it would just Necessarily have to mean something else. It cannot mean its own contradiction (thus definitions are the vaguest form of logic). I also think Cosmos is a good example too, but it could be considered an analog of the same example. It touches on the same topic because we are discussing how a word, or any symbol (or definition or meaning) inherently separates from totality. What to make of that? It could be quantities, it could be relations. It could be definitions. It could be systems. I think Systems is best because Systemics is all-inclusive in the sense that it represents the possibility of a system as such, and the "environment" of the system, from which it separates. So it is the most generally applicable and useful for the other variations of what separateness can mean. But we must remember that at the source lies integration or no distinction due to the interrelatedness of all things. Thus, at the source of philosophy is the nonverbal, which predates philosophy itself. So the pinnacle of philosophy isn’t philosophy but that which predates it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79799033 It reminds me of the quote “Silence is God's first language; everything else is a poor translation.” I find that rather profound. |
Seer777
Ride the wings of the mind User ID: 534086 United States 06/26/2022 01:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 01:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It reminds me of the quote “Silence is God's first language; everything else is a poor translation.” Quoting: Tihatatatan I find that rather profound. I love that. Thank you. Of course Though I dont like the color. I didn't know how it would look I just wanted to try it out....probably should have previewed it first |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 02:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So I'm tempted to joke about the poor translation that is this thread, however... I know I'm pretty tired and I usually have gone to sleep by now so instead I'll name drop Haragei The stomach art! Four dimensions of silence include Truthfulness, Defiance, Embarassment and Social Discretion. It can be summed as the wisdom for remaining silent at the correct moments. Of course it can also be expanded for more detail. I find that this works especially for emotive communication. Yet I prefer neutral relations. So ultimately I choose to be idiotic at times to maintain my sense of neutralness. That's just me being selfish because no one else will or can be selfish on my behalf. Anyway, I'm delirious. Good night |
Seer777
Ride the wings of the mind User ID: 534086 United States 06/26/2022 02:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It reminds me of the quote “Silence is God's first language; everything else is a poor translation.” Quoting: Tihatatatan I find that rather profound. I love that. Thank you. Of course Though I dont like the color. I didn't know how it would look I just wanted to try it out....probably should have previewed it first [link to youtu.be (secure)] Last Edited by Seer777 on 06/26/2022 02:18 AM Difficulties strengthen the Mind as labor does the body... ~Seneca |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 03:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It reminds me of the quote “Silence is God's first language; everything else is a poor translation.” Quoting: Tihatatatan I find that rather profound. I love that. Thank you. Of course Though I dont like the color. I didn't know how it would look I just wanted to try it out....probably should have previewed it first [link to youtu.be (secure)] Like the man screaming in the cover photo who got destroyed in an unempathic blast I did scream one night alone in my car, for an answer. There was only silence. I have been a wicked one, the memories are not good ones. I worked it out this way for me. No matter the good things I do, I have regrets for which I probably would be send to torment on a judgment day. I don't do what I think is morally correct for the sake of being spared. I do it because it's correct. I figured that if there is God who would send me to hell of some kind, the many others worse than I would also be sent to pay for their crimes. It feels to me that I'd rather burn in agony while knowing God is there, while knowing Fairness prevails. It is better than God not being there at all, or not caring for the bad things that happen. I even considered all these small things don't signify much in the eternal amount. We could live more lives where it adds up to some balance of a bit of everything and no one can judge correctly anymore. But that seems like a blackmailish sort of justification or, we all got dirty together so everybody now hush up But I'm not playing I don't want to play along It's not good enough as an answer. Not for me I'd rather be at the mercy of those who value fairness than those who revel in their wickedness So I choose my Probability of being at least among the righteous if I may, or a traitor to the wicked at my worst I won't play along in secret. Embarrassment won't stop me. Maybe that's where the divine orchestra would have me be I've been through worse. And yeah some people have relatively suffered more and that's bad. It shouldn't have happened. I call out the design on some mistakes I think someone else as me would not have made it. Though I wonder if it's the other way around, but here's the meaning of my writing this.... Meaninglessness is worse than torment |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 03:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So that got an emotional response from me though now a few beats later I recall an excerpt from a book by Roy Sorenson Its titled A Brief History of the Paradox - Philosophy and the Labrynths of the Mind The quote "God has an unlimited perceptual span. Everything is in the present for him. He grasps the entire history of the universe in one panoramic glimpse. If we relativize "past" to God, there is no past. Hence, God cannot have literally waited to create the world. If we relativize "future" to God, then there is no future. Hence, God cannot literally have foreknowledge of Adam and Eve's wicked decisions. God is omniscient in virtue or what he perceives, not in virtue of what he predicts. "We naturally tend to relativize our temporal vocabulary to a human perspective. This is fine for understanding ordinary affairs. But if we hope to solve theological paradoxes, we must scale up to the mind-boggling terrain of eternity. Augustin agrees this stretch might be too much for a human being to achieve on his own. But if you put your hand out, the Lord might take your hand and guide you to a vision of eternity." This excerpt appears at the end of a chapter 12 which focuses on St. Augustine's paradoxes. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 03:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | There isn't a rule or expectation for this thread ... which will become whatever is made of it. Now I really do must go to sleep despite the stimulating discussions I don't want to mess up my sleeping cycle |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 03:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 03:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm contemplating the only ethical ways to earn vast sums of money in a relatively short period of time. Quoting: Lookless Sight, Soonless Light I obviously dont mean gambling or lottery. It's not that I would say those are unethical, simply that I dont find them good for strategy. The simplest and most obvious is to take a commission on coordinating a deal with high enough "amounts" that even a small percentage can mean something. Preferably it would be enough to pay for college and also have a place to live in that time. So..... simple enough to talk about? Why would someone ask you to arbitrate a deal? The only collateral I can think of is some kind of information. But once you give information, its gone. You have no leverage. It can be shared and duplicated as necessary. So it would have to be something else. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/26/2022 09:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I did have some ideas once more about how hiearchy might be employed in architectonics. Earlier I had described how Value, as a measure, demonstrates and obvious "verticular" hierarchy. For example if you might take a trip you can favor two separate locations on different continents, but you will only go to one at a time. This means you can go to both, but Time will have to progress for that to occur. So one will come before the other. Of course this description isn't a vertical one. The Before/After measure of time is a horizontal one. It is similar to how logical operations work. It is similar to how the meaning of this sentence reads from left to right, and would mean something else (if anything) read in reverse. When getting to the "verticular" hiearchy of value, the simplest way I can think of it is with the question: what falls of your list of favorites first? The first thing that leaves the list is the least valued. This is self-evident. The pressure for "what falls off the list" can be from limited space, or time - or it can be from dichotomy (mutually exclusive options). Imagining the value as a vertical list is helpful to see how the bottom of the list is the least valuable...so the hierachy is obvious. With logic it is also vertical but that is mainly because English language follows a clockwise vector. It moves from left to right, and from up to down. So English reasoning will flow the same way. But in Logic there are some "operations" that only work in one direction. They show up as conditional statements. For example: If you are in Denver, you are in Colorado. (True) If you are in Colorado, you are in Denver. (Not true. It is unknown.) In very simple basic logic, the second statement would be false. However in the ontological discipline there is a term used called "necessarily true" which shows that some things CAN be true, or CAN be false, and there isn't a mechanical determination for the outcome. But what is "Necessarily true" (or necessarily false) is determinate, as a mechanical operation of thinking. Finally, due to discussions of such things as "Holarchy", it is no longer possible to determine the second statement to be false AT ALL, because Denver and Colorado are not really separate, only by conscious designation are they different. So Logic could be said to have become trivial in some ways, though I dont compeltely agree, it isn't the point. The point is to say that logic, as a utility, operates by a horizontal hierarchy more similar to how time would work. However more precisely it is like a cascade of waterfall, which, as a river it flows, and flying over the edge, falls. It flows onward. This is how I wish to reveal the hierarchical components of architectonics. I would like to insist that they are not Axes. This sucks, few would favor it, because if the vertical and horizontal hierarchy are not inherent in each other, what does it mean? It means we cannot automate our judgement of truth and value. We cannot "automate" ethical procedures. It is case by case, forever. We might see a valid pattern on the vertical, or on the horizontal, but there will not, and can not ever be, a valid pattern that "transcends" this difference. Before we can move from Logic into Ethics we must pause, and same the other way. It wont be obvious. It will always require attention, awareness and an acuity. At least, in Axiology, we do not have this problem. We can almost say the natural world and our experientialism of beauty and pleasure are procedurally generated for us based on our axiology. That's rather nice, for playtime. It's good for fun. I agree. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 81035135 United States 06/26/2022 10:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/27/2022 12:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 74533487 United States 06/27/2022 12:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62727939 United States 06/27/2022 09:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Jordan Peterson with Dr Warren Farrell – The boy crisis & avoiding school shootings [link to youtu.be (secure)] (1.9 hours and very good) |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9936370 United States 06/27/2022 10:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Mathematics is an example of an axiomatic system Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78153869 Is philosophy a collection of various axiomatic systems albeit in these realms the discourse is usually carried out in a less rigorous or precise way? What is deductive reasoning other than working within an axiomatic system and determining what conclusions follow from some given assumptions? That is precisely it. What is the difference between an axiom and an adage? What is the difference between an adage and a cliche? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76530926 United States 06/27/2022 12:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Mathematics is an example of an axiomatic system Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78153869 Is philosophy a collection of various axiomatic systems albeit in these realms the discourse is usually carried out in a less rigorous or precise way? What is deductive reasoning other than working within an axiomatic system and determining what conclusions follow from some given assumptions? That is precisely it. What is the difference between an axiom and an adage? What is the difference between an adage and a cliche? An axiom is the possibility of any probable condition. To deconstruct that here: IF <- an indicator of possibility X <- the axiom THEN <- condition, or conditional inference 'IF X THEN' <- a probability (stated) A cliche is an archetype of language, precisely as an archetype composed of words. These elements of words exist and appear as a unit. They repeat as a unit and are processed as a unit. They exist because words, or a single word, do not always encapture a concept. An adage (I have been unfamiliar with this word) is a saying or a proverb expressing a general "truth". I understand it to mean that an adage is a common sense phrasing that is expressed as a reminder and a contemplation for practical benefit of understanding. The similarity if adage and cliche is in their fixedness. Yet a cliche is necessarily fixed, so an adage by contrast would be something more flexible in its usefulness. The similarity to axioms is the fixed nature, however an axiom is fixed within a system it defines, because without it no inference is possible (meaning that no deductigr reasoning can occur). The difference is that an axiom is not "true" but admits the possibility of truth as its basis. It enables the process of "getting at" the truth. To deny an axiom is the same as denying the system that is based on it, as a necessary logical consequence. Cliches and adages do not necessarily operate as what axioms are meant to be, but there isn't any particular reason why they couldn't. The biggest difference I see is in how they are used. Axioms are used to define the boundaries of a system of inference within which proofs are possible and truth can be ascertained. Cliches are used to fix together words for the purpose of encapturing an idea that isn't representable by a single word in that language. Adages are used to communicate practical and common sense ideas that are expressed as cliches for the purpose of simplicity and mnemonic effect. In summary, axioms are logical, cliches are rhetorical, and adages are social in their process and effect. |