tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30588510.post744838465916783336..comments2024-01-20T19:11:56.655+00:00Comments on metaphysical values: The Time-Travelling Trinitarian GodRobbie Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02081389310232077607noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30588510.post-33332846745267331912020-01-27T02:37:37.984+00:002020-01-27T02:37:37.984+00:00:時間的計算單位,通常以10分鐘或15分鐘算一節。 (現主流以10分鐘為1節,1小時為6節)
△訪檯...:時間的計算單位,通常以10分鐘或15分鐘算一節。 (現主流以10分鐘為1節,1小時為6節)<br />△訪檯:公關原在A包廂服務,暫借3~10<a href="http://blog.sina.com.tw/waynenana666/" title="酒店公關" rel="nofollow">酒店公關</a>分鐘不等,到B包廂向其他客人打聲招呼,之後再回原A包廂。<br />△跑檯:兩桌以上客人同時坐同一位公關(目前都會區的酒店較少)。 <br />△點檯:指定某位公關(一般以多加2節or3節計算)。 <br />△卡檯:排換其他公關。<br />△看檯:公關到包廂內讓客人選擇。<br />△止檯:等同於卡檯。<br />△轉檯:公關從正在服務的A包廂,<a href="http://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/waynenana66" title="酒店賺錢" rel="nofollow">酒店賺錢</a>轉往另一間B包廂。<br />△冰檯:如某公關時常無法配合公司合理政策(工作態度不佳),導致業績幹部或大班,不想也不敢帶上檯(怕因此流失客人)。<br />△打槍:行政人員帶公關讓客人挑選,而客人拒絕,但再排換其他公關。<br />△快歌:指公關在包廂內點快節奏的歌曲來炒熱氣氛。<br />△框:買時段到底的意思,一般以7小時計算(12點以前買到6點,12點後買到7點,2點過後最少買足4小時等等)至於"框"這段時間內,可以在店家包廂繼續唱歌或外出陪客人吃飯,看電影...等等。<br />△解框:除非客人要有充分理由,<a href="http://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/waynenana001" title="酒店應徵" rel="nofollow">酒店應徵</a>才可讓店家解除原本【框】的消費,以保障公關權益。<br />△大框:買足公關一整天的節數,一般以10小時計算(可不用進店家打卡報班)。<br />△全場:等同於大框的意思。<br />△打卡框:也算是大框全場的一種,不同的是必須<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30588510.post-54483661253025473142012-06-16T15:37:10.127+01:002012-06-16T15:37:10.127+01:00Thanks, Ross. That's really helpful. I think...Thanks, Ross. That's really helpful. I think you're right that something's gotta go. I think the choice is amongst these three:<br /><br />There's one trope of divinity.<br />There are three tropes of personhood.<br />The identity relation is absolute, that is, not relative to a sortal.<br /><br />Because of my theological commitments, I give up absolute identity in favour of relative identity. Relative identity is very helpful in solving a lot of theological problems, not least giving a coherent doctrine of the Trinity that respects what I take to be theological constraints. (Assuming of course that relative identity itself is coherent . . .)David Efirdnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30588510.post-72761839311986732302012-06-11T08:17:10.859+01:002012-06-11T08:17:10.859+01:00Andrew: thanks!
David: no, I agree, there's s...Andrew: thanks!<br /><br />David: no, I agree, there's strictly speaking only one person on this view (although it might be appropriate to say sometimes that there are 3). So yeah, I can see why you might rule it out on those grounds. I was thinking: something's gotta go if you're aiming to give an account of the Trinity, so the strict truth of 'there are three persons' is mine. (I'd rather give that up than 'there is one God'!)<br /><br />Alexander: very interesting, thanks!Ross Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01900752201200020829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30588510.post-52350450352691245372012-06-10T14:49:40.762+01:002012-06-10T14:49:40.762+01:00I have serious theological worries (atemporality o...I have serious theological worries (atemporality or at least immutability, simplicity, etc.), but I want to offer a constructive suggestion. The endurantist version relativizes to times and places (either by using relational properties or by using time-indexed monadic properties). But God is supposed to be either aspatial or omnipresent or in some sense both. Relativizing to times and places won't help the endurantist with an aspatial or omnipresent time-traveler, since on both views, wherever (if anywhere) one version is, there the other is, too. <br /><br />I think that apart from your story, the endurantist would do better to relativize to <em>internal</em> times, as that would account for time-travel of ghostly beings that can interpenetrate (and hence can time travel to the past and "twice over" be in exactly the same place, but "with different properties"), and that would solve this problem. (Not for those of us who believe God is atemporal.)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30588510.post-1293626739321119862012-06-10T14:29:47.313+01:002012-06-10T14:29:47.313+01:00I found your metaphysical model very interesting, ...I found your metaphysical model very interesting, and the metaphysics is, as is typical of you, very carefully done. I wonder about the theology though. In the version of the doctrine of the Trinity I favour, it's important that there are three tropes of personhood yet only one trope of divinity. This guarantees that the doctrine won't be tritheistic or modalist. It seems relatively clear to me that your model is not tritheistic (as it seems there is only one trope of divinity in your model), as it's relatively clear to me that Leftow's isn't either. But I wonder if it's not modalistic. Are there really three (including the Holy Spirit) tropes of personhood on your model? When a person travels back in time to visit her younger self, are there one or two tropes of personhood? It seems to me there's just one. But I could be wrong about that. I would be interested in your view. It's great to see you doing some philosophical theology.David Efirdnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30588510.post-61717012378272586472012-06-10T13:53:22.561+01:002012-06-10T13:53:22.561+01:00Here's a link to the Leftow paper (this is the...Here's a link to the Leftow paper (this is the original F&P version): http://www.andrewmbailey.com/trinity/latintrinity.pdf<br /><br />Another paper that's relevant is Harriet Baber's "Sabellianism Reconsidered" (Sophia, 2002). Link: http://andrewmbailey.com/trinity/sabellianism.pdfAndrewhttp://www.andrewmbailey.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30588510.post-16292461716659559762012-06-10T09:57:28.126+01:002012-06-10T09:57:28.126+01:00A couple of people have pointed me towards this pa...A couple of people have pointed me towards this paper by Brian Leftow:<br /><br />"A Latin Trinity", Faith and Philosophy 21 (2004), 304-33. Reprinted in Michael Rea, ed., Oxford Studies in Philosophical Theology 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); Michael Rea and Thomas McCall, eds., Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)<br /><br />where apparently he appeals to time travel in giving a model of the Trinity. I haven't managed to get a hold of the paper yet, so I don't know how close what he says is to what I'm saying here, but I thought I should acknowledge it and point interested readers towards it!Ross Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01900752201200020829noreply@blogger.com