I devoted a prior dialectic to a dualistic way of thinking. I guess it’s no secret that I am not a monistic thinker mostly because I am not a materialist. My mentality is one of “there’s more than meets the eye,” and that carries through all things.

In the past I have applied triism to the Anatomy of the State (that’s the title), and I stand by the idea that the state falls into three elements: the reasoning, the spirited and the physical. Socrates spoke of these three governing the individual, and I believe that they apply to the state as well.

So looking at the individual model of triism, where does our morality fall in relation to it?

In the Republic, Socrates says that courage is that which is most held by the spirited element of the state (which he called the military, but he spoke in a different sense) and that it is that which compels us to fight for what we hold dear. I interpret him to say that courage is the defense of values (a modern semantical twist). So then, in this model, values of all kinds fall into the spirited element of the human being.

Consider the physical element- can flesh and blood value this or that? You could say that the body values medicines and disvalues poisons, but I see that as a mistake, for isn’t it obvious that the body can only react to this and that- it is something else in us that cares about how it affects us. The physical element does not make choices, it only reacts. Modern medicine reinforces that conclusion, as we know that all bodily workings are a series of chemical reactions.

It seems that the rational element would be that part which cares, but I don’t believe that is the case. By its very nature, reason is the element that concerns itself with “Who, What, When, Where, How” questions. Reason is by my definition non-reactionary. It is the part of us that does not function automatically or by a set of rules. It is obvious then that dogma, which I consider far different from values, would not fall under this element. Nor would values, for reason is by nature non-committal. It is concerned only with facts and decisions- the Joe Friday of triism, if you will.

So then, the spirited element of man is not concerned with facts and decisions, nor is it reactionary as the physical. What is left is love and virtue, which cannot be understated. Notice I am not saying emotion. I suppose modern science leaves emotion to the physical in that it is reactionary to whatever extent. As I am not a scientist I will not insist one way or the other, but I will say that love in a sense wider than eros is not physiological, but spiritual. Many emotions are caused by hormonal/neurological reactions and are therefore physical, but those connected with love are not. This cannot be understated, for isn’t it the love of life, love of others, love of God, love of values, love of dogma, love of state and so forth all that we truly emote over? The rage I feel when you burn my flag is more than physiological, because my valuation of the flag (love) is not physiological, nor is it rational.

Consequently, then, we must separate by principle of triism, values from reason in the process of philosophy, for it is best to let one develop without the threat of the other's restrictions. If we are to do what is natural, we will leave values in its respective place as that which should be defended in the spirited element of the mind. We will then look only to facts and decisions, sort them out rationally, and assert after the fact that which should be defended.

It is interesting to me now that we can apply triism to the soul exclusively upon further reflection.

At the moment I am inconclusive on triism vs. dualism. Perhaps I will always be. I’ll try and elaborate soon.