Curiouser and curiouser

Спасибо за ссылку, попутно нашёл ещё один классный ресурс, посвящённый Луллизму.

В частности, там пишут (выделение моё - jayrandom):

The Art went through two phases, the quaternary and ternary, named after the fact that the majority of basic components were respectively in multiples of four or three. In the quaternary phase, Llull’s arguments were based on typical neo-Platonic comparisons, in which goodness, greatness, virtue, etc. were concordant with being, and their contraries with non-being or privation. This comparative technique could be extended to analogies between the different levels of being, as well as to the exempla of Llull’s narrative works, most of which date from this period. In the ternary phase his arguments were based on definitions such as ‘Goodness is that by reason of which good does good’, and ‘Greatness is that by reason of which goodness, duration, etc. are great’. These seemingly tautological definitions in fact corresponded to a dynamic reality in which what a thing did was almost more important than what it was, a dynamism that was articulated through Llull’s correlative doctrine. These definitions were, moreover, univocal, in that they could be applied indifferently to the divine or the created worlds.

По-видимому, более частные варианты Искусства схлопнулись до более общего (и неизбежно более сложного для словесного описания).

Артур М. Янг, сравнивая троицу с четверицей в своей книге "The Geometry of Meaning" постоянно напоминает о том, что троица непередаваемо проще четверицы, однако именно поэтому её невозможно понять:

"If we try to analyze what it is that the threefold describes, we are in a bind, for it is just that element of participation in life that analysis cannot, and does not even pretend to, cope with.

If the threefold describes the 'active element', it does so only by pointing to it; it does not describe it in the way a map (а карта у него - основной пример четверицы - jayrandom) describes the relation of points on a surface. The description given by a map is not a substitute for the relationships of points described; it IS that relationship. The relation of points on a map is less ambiguous than the relation of places in the landscape. On the other hand, the definition of love as 'the attraction of one person for another' also describes a relation, but the definition is completely devoid of the content of actual love. In the case of the map, the lack of content is irrelevant."

Кажется, оба автора сталкиваются с одной и той же проблемой - определения субъектов Троицы - и приходят к необходимости указать на функцию каждого субъекта в составе целого (потому что больше ничего нет).