Dear Sl,
I do not know if I really am ready to attempt this dissucsion to the brain of an ant that rants the difference of a Canadian and American dime recto view but I will note that in an "Outline of Metaphysics" F.J. Matchette noticed (page 12 by the Philosophical Library of New York); "Thus the principleof Duality is, in effect, a principle of DOUBLE DUALITY (my caps). Not only is every entity an aspect of the Relative World dual with some other relative, but also with the Absolute."p12
I have tried to say in my various posts, if you search for them, that Mendel was onto the seperation that Cantor gave to ordinal & Cardinal numbers ThrDOUGH what the Mendel scholar Olby names "developmental bionomial" (eg ontogney remands the expression becoming nature of the bionomial expansion by growth and allometry.one metric at a time) and by this metaphyics is read/writable if one understands both the letters and numbers in Mendel's signs but I have not gotton this view really across because of the passing all of Mendel's objects requires more than mere reference to Mendel objects but to some hypothetical biogeographic map. Now you are asking about Jesus not the alter that Mendel may have mounted.
I actually UNDERSTAND this paragraph of Matchette (page 11) "In one immediate sense, there is a gigantic consequence of these considerations of Duality. For clearly the world of immediate experience, the physicsl, material universe of alteration and decay, of becoming and change, the world of births and deaths, of stars, of galaxies, of men and civilizations- this world must also be a term in a duality, one of a pair of opposites. The totality which this dulity comprises - the totality of the universe and its dual- we shall call the Cosmos; its two elements, the Major Dyad, the relation between these elements, we shall call the Major Duality, or Dualism."
I have often wondered that the Golgi body may show that Matchette was wrong as to infinity but that is only my own feeling that is rather not yet my most immediate object as much as I will it to be but conditional plurality of topological conditons by updating topobiology with this ontology derived approach of two returns FROM infinity for "two elements" etc etc etc but my own philosophy is just that.
I have tried to say in my various posts, if you search for them, that Mendel was into Matchette's apriori map but we need a web experiential existenial at least adaptation of Matchette's p43 "For the phenomena of nature, of the relative world, will be quantitiatively explained in the same way whether the ultimate constituents of the world are taken to be material particles, in the Newtonian sense, or rather foci of energy, in some Boscovitch-like interpretation, or Poltergesits. These interpretations will not alter Galelio's Law of Falling Bodies, or Coulomb's Law of Electrostatic Attraction, or Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy." but no one here has even tried to engage my postings in this interpreted under Boscovitch's name and instead we feel like we are seeing Matchette's "poltergeist" ever time we log in.
I had gotten quite upset when Cornell profs continued to rebuff my leanings to test any of this dualism with the dielectrics of electric fish communications for such behaviors are restrained when not constrained within this philosophy but they saw the Fisher of Men and not me own generation as every one was looking at the WWII guys instead of the punk rockers. This is a language thing first that humans use. Nature is not science. I can probably re-write this in terms of Freeman Dyson' book "Origins of Life" but I am not going to embark on a single c/e web site proprietary listing. We all have to learn together.
The double I take grammetologically but not lexically except when it comes to "AI" (artifical intelligence). I dont believe that stuff but my youngest brother does however rule based computers will undoubtedly do better at "interacting" with us. You should not get committed for understanding this today but in the 80s.... well that was a differnt time.
™ Version 4.2
