Trivium, Quadrivium, & Jacob's Ladder

>>18086786
>What do you think about the trivium & the quadrivium?
They should be part of the essential education again. They cover literally everything. That's why we have them in Masonry.

>>18087014
Would you say that the meta-structure of all knowledge has already been mapped out?

Any kabbalists, or hermeticists want to chime in?

Any perspective on this would be great, this is bugging me

>>18087014
>They cover literally everything
LMAO
M
A
O

>>18087211
do tell.

Look you see what I'm getting at right
There has to be a supersystem that really does organize "everything" or at the very least can absorb all other subjects into it because the geometry of the classifying system is somehow based on the structure of knowledge

>>18087100
All knowledge? No. But it could be possible. The seven are all knowledge reduced to core components.

>>18087211
Well they do. Your shitposting doesn't change that.

>>18087222
You seem to think an argument demonstrating such a supersystem necessarily exists would then imply that it is in fact this specific one. Where does, say, computational chemistry fit into this framework? Functional analysis?

Moreover, does the set of all knowledge contain itself?
Hence, is this set well-defined?

>the geometry of the classifying system is somehow based on the structure of knowledge
This is a tautology.

>>18087303
>Where does, say, computational chemistry fit into this framework?
Arithmatic and geometry. Duh.

>>18087314
Only it doesn't.

>>18087321
>Chemistry doesn't have objects in space or time
You might want to go back to school to actually do some book-lernin', boy.

>>18087303
I suppose it would contain itself from the perspective of its most simple vantage point by depending on its transcendental axiom of absolute complete unity, the crown of the system (classically, I think its theology)

I see how that could be a tautology, but what I mean is that there seems to be a universal structure of truth & knowledge, which you can glimpse by seeing the generative principles of all systems, and the nature of coherency (grammar), etc. -- and mapping that onto its own containing taxonomy. It's self reflective, but not paradoxically self referential

>>18087337
>objects in space or time
Oho, so you actually meant it's a type of astronomy, then?

>>18087368
In a sense. Astronomy is better for general physics (objects in both space and time). Arithmatic is obviously anything involving numbers. Geometry = objects in space, and Music = Objects in time.
From those we really can derive all the sciences. The Trivium is also able to encompass all the arts (though often requiring the addition of the sciences for full comprehension).