Names are

Month, Day: Names, Power (Perfection)

We'll keep the sufficiency discussion going by taking a meandering path for awhile. The road to truth may be straight, yet some side-trips are allowed (that we're given science as a means to know necessitates such [ah, Independence, for us, free will]).

In the progression of months, there has to be some meaning embedded in the sequence. Why? Nothing is random, essentially, though there are quasi-random processes that keep us within our limits. Now, whether or not we can discern what the meaning might be is one issue.

Another support for this notion is the Valley of Contentment (they eat of the endless bounties of inner significances) using the knowledge that we are part of and do not encompass Creation.

So, we can use the myriad potential permutations as inspiration to contemplate the Oceans that have been opened to our exploration with the advent of the Baha'i Revelation.

So, that Words and Names are symmetric around Perfection is very interesting. Of course, the former leads to ponder LOGOS and much more. The latter, from one viewpoint, is very much related to that world view that arises out of mathematical and computational efforts. How to show this is very much on the plate, and the topic does relate to the notions about sufficiency.

In our trek toward abstraction, which we can see this type of thinking as growing from way back in the past and accelerating from the works of 17th century minds onward to now, we loft ourselves, essentially, into a growing maze of groundless speculation. Okay, perhaps that is too strong; yet, that the epitome of thinking pushes us toward the loose mindset (relativity, unstructured) has to be explained somehow.

And, criticism without some notion of alternatives is as worthless as the groundless speculation. That is where Names comes in; but, Names, as we see in it being part of a collective, is not alone, nor sufficient. Names brings structure in several ways; such is imperative to our foundations.

Even though Creation-oriented thinking leads to a change is foundations, use of this respects the notions raised by the arguments of the quasi-empiricists and is operationally sound. The aforementioned audacity would be necessary due to the current climate that mocks any but the most extreme materialistic viewpoints.

The main question to ask is, how is it necessary that abstractionistic thinking leads to materialistic outcomes? Would not the spaces and structures that are the most powerful rest better on something that was revealed?

Ad hominen attacks against those struggling to turn the divinely inspired into the understandable demonstrate more the weakness of those lofting the attacks than it undermines the source motivating the studies to found a better ontology.

By the way, the motivation of all this is not to found some spiritual-based science; rather, it is to put a firmer foundation under our tenuous structures which are shaky from several sides (that things are not as firm as they could be is arguable, however it cannot be refuted); and, it might be said that some of the shakiness is in the design (Perfection has been misconstrued which will be part of the sufficiency discussions).
Remarks:

08/14/2009 -- We're starting the Operational, soon.
Modified: 08/14/2009