Diaphorum 4: The Broken Triad (Aristotle’s Architectonic “Trinity”)

Sequel to Diaphorum 3: The Post-Markovian Manifesto

As a campy philosophical skit at the Lyceum where a standalone lecture by Pierre Aubenque
is constructively heckled by Martin Heidegger, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Jonathan Lear

ChatGPT Prompt

1. Prologue: Scene and Stakes

Mid-morning. Cicadas. Students recline. Aubenque steps forward with a piece of chalk and an expression that promises trouble.

Aubenque:
Friends, I come neither to systematize Aristotle nor to rescue him from inconsistency.
I come to name what he refused to repair.

Today’s thesis is simple and inadvisable:
Aristotle’s thought hangs together by a threefold unity that never becomes one.
I will—recklessly—call it a broken triad.

(Heidegger squints. MacIntyre sharpens a pencil. Lear smiles.)

2. First Movement: Being — Ousia

Aubenque:
We begin with Ousia (οὐσία).

  • What primarily is
  • What underlies predication
  • What persists through change

See also Metaphysics.

Aristotle insists:
Being is never bare existence. It is always being-this-something.

Heidegger (loudly):
Presence! You have already reduced Being to what stands there!

Aubenque:
On the contrary. Aristotle discovers presence and then spends his life qualifying it.

(Students nod. Heidegger harrumphs.)

3. Second Movement: Intelligibility — Logos and Nous

Aubenque:
Second term: intelligibility.

Two names, one tension:

  • Logos — articulated account, definition, explanation, argument
  • Nous — direct grasp of first principles

In Posterior Analytics II.19, Aristotle admits:

  • Demonstration (logos) rests on what cannot be demonstrated.

MacIntyre:
So rationality depends on what it cannot justify?

Aubenque:
Yes. Aristotle calls this thinking. Modernity calls it a problem.

Lear:
Or repression.

4. Third Movement: Fulfillment — Telos and Energeia

Aubenque:
Third term: fulfillment.

Again, two names:

  • Telos — that-for-the-sake-of-which
    See
  • Energeia — being-at-work, actuality

From Metaphysics Θ:

  • A thing is most itself in activity, not in mere existence.

MacIntyre:
Good. Ethics, then, is primary.

Aubenque:
Primary in importance.
Secondary in explanation.
And therefore never safe.

5. Interlude: Drawing the Triangle (Badly)

Aubenque draws a triangle. One side is crooked.

  • Ousia — Being
  • Logos / Nous — Intelligibility
  • Telos / Energeia — Fulfillment

Aubenque:
They belong together.
They refuse to collapse.

6. The Breaks (Heckling Intensifies)

6.1 Being ≠ Intelligibility

  • Being exceeds what can be said.
  • First principles are seen, not proved.

Heidegger:
Exactly. Metaphysics forgets this.

Aubenque:
No. Metaphysics remembers—and then pretends it didn’t.

6.2 Intelligibility ≠ Fulfillment

  • Knowing the good does not make one good.
  • Phronēsis is not deduction.

MacIntyre:
Every moral theory after Aristotle collapses right here.

Aubenque:
Yes. Aristotle leaves the ruins in plain sight.

6.3 Fulfillment ≠ Being

  • Potential being is real but incomplete.
  • Actuality is prior in logos, not in time.

Lear:
So human life is aspiration without guarantee.

Aubenque:
Now you’re lecturing for me.

7. The Dangerous Aside (Audience Shifts Uneasily)

Aubenque:
A warning. What follows is not Aristotle.

This broken triad—
Being, Intelligibility, Fulfillment—
resonates with something later.

(Heidegger stands.)

Aubenque (quickly):
Only analogically.

See the Christian Trinity Being, Logos, and Act named as one God. (John 1:1)

Heidegger:
That is proclamation, not philosophy.

Aubenque:
Exactly. Which is why Aristotle stops short.

(Heidegger sits. Barely.)

8. The Tease: The Unmoved Mover

Aubenque:
Aristotle almost repairs the break.

Pure:

  • Ousia
  • Nous
  • Energeia

The triad healed—
but only at the cosmic limit, not in life.

Lear:
So the human condition stays broken.

Aubenque:
And therefore dramatic.

9. Coda: Why Aristotle Keeps It Broken

Aubenque:
Because:

  • Different beings demand different explanations.
  • Precision varies “as far as the matter allows.”
  • Practice must not be swallowed by theory.
  • Life must not be swallowed by logic.

MacIntyre:
Then Aristotle is our ally.

Heidegger:
Our warning.

Lear:
Our case study.

10. Curtain Line

Aubenque:
Aristotle’s greatness lies not in what he unified,
but in what he refused to collapse.

His worldview rests on a broken triad:

  • Being that can be known
  • Knowledge that does not exhaust being
  • Fulfillment that exceeds knowledge

(Pause.)

Philosophy begins when we stop trying to fix this.

Curtain. Applause. The heckling continues under the olive trees.

Appendix I: Architectonic

A1.1 Etymology and Basic Sense

The term Architectonic derives from the Greek ἀρχιτεκτονική (architektonikē), from:

  • Archē (ἀρχή): beginning, principle, source, rule
  • tekton (τέκτων): builder, craftsman

Literally: the art of the master builder.

An architectonic principle is not one item among others, but that which:

  • Orders other activities or explanations
  • Determines what counts as relevant or primary
  • Governs without micromanaging

A1.2 Aristotle’s Use of “Architectonic”

Aristotle uses architectonic primarily in a practical and methodological sense, not as a metaphysical super-principle.

A1.2.1 Ethics as Architectonic

In Nicomachean Ethics I.1, Aristotle writes that:

  • Politics is the architectonic science
  • Because it orders other practical sciences (military, economics, rhetoric)
  • By specifying their ends

Here, architectonic means:

  • End-setting rather than technique-providing
  • Normative rather than procedural

A1.3 What Architectonic Does Not Mean (for Aristotle)

It does not mean:

  • A single supreme axiom
  • A deductive system
  • A totalizing metaphysical hierarchy

Aristotle explicitly rejects the idea that:

  • One kind of explanation fits all domains
  • The highest science provides methods for all others

This is why:

  • Ethics is not demonstrative like mathematics
  • Biology is not reducible to metaphysics

A1.4 Architectonic Priority vs Other Kinds of Priority

Aristotle distinguishes multiple kinds of priority (proteron):

  • Priority in being (ousia)
  • Priority in definition (logos)
  • Priority in knowledge
  • Priority in time
  • Priority in end (telos)

An architectonic principle has:

  • Priority in ordering
  • Not necessarily priority in being

This is why:

  • Telos can be architectonic without being ontologically basic
  • Logos can be architectonic without being supreme

A1.5 Architectonic Pluralism

Aristotle’s worldview exhibits architectonic pluralism:

  • Different domains have different ordering principles
  • No single science orders all others absolutely
  • Even “first philosophy” (metaphysics) does not legislate method universally

This pluralism explains:

  • Why Aristotle’s system resists monism
  • Why later thinkers repeatedly try to “repair” it
  • Why the “broken triad” can be architectonic without being unified

A1.6 Architectonic vs Systematic

A final clarification:

  • Systematic philosophy seeks closure
  • Architectonic philosophy seeks order

Aristotle is architectonic without being systematic.

He builds:

  • From practices upward
  • With different load-bearing beams in different wings
  • Without forcing the entire structure under one roof

A1.7 Relation to the “Broken Triad”

The three terms:

  • Ousia (Being)
  • Logos / Nous (Intelligibility)
  • Telos / Energeia (Fulfillment)

Are:

  • Each architectonic within a domain
  • Mutually constraining
  • Structurally non-reducible

The triad is “broken” precisely because:

  • No single term is architectonic simpliciter
  • Each orders the others only locally

A1.8 One-Line Summary

An architectonic principle, for Aristotle, is not a foundation stone but a load-bearing orientation.

The “broken triad” names three such orientations—
none sovereign, none eliminable, all necessary.

Appendix II: Aristotle’s “Left / Right Brain” Split

(A heuristic, not a neuroscience claim)

This appendix names a structural tension in intelligibility and fulfillment in Aristotle by borrowing a modern metaphor.
Aristotle does not have a brain theory. He does have a persistent bifurcation in how things are known and completed.

A2.1 Why a “Left / Right” Metaphor at All

The metaphor is useful because it highlights two features of Aristotle’s thought:

  • He pairs concepts rather than collapsing them
  • One term in each pair is:
    • Articulable
    • Discursive
    • Public
  • The other is:
    • Immediate
    • Non-discursive
    • Pre-articulated

These pairs are not hierarchical in a simple way. They are mutually dependent and non-reducible.

A2.2 Intelligibility Split: Logos vs Nous

A2.2.1 Logos — Discursive Intelligibility (“Left”)

Logos (λόγος) refers to:

  • Account
  • Definition
  • Explanation
  • Argument

See also: Posterior Analytics

Characteristics:

  • Sequential
  • Linguistic
  • Demonstrative
  • Shareable

Logos is what:

  • Can be taught
  • Can be written
  • Can be examined and corrected

But logos always presupposes something it does not generate.

A2.2.2 Nous — Intuitive Intelligibility (“Right”)

Nous (νοῦς) refers to:

  • Direct grasp
  • Insight into first principles
  • Immediate seeing of the universal in the particular

See also: Posterior Analytics II.19

Characteristics:

  • Non-discursive
  • Pre-linguistic
  • Not demonstrable
  • Not teachable by proof

Aristotle is explicit:

  • Demonstration (logos) rests on what nous sees
  • Nous cannot itself be demonstrated without circularity

A2.2.3 The Intelligibility Break

  • Logos needs nous to begin
  • Nous needs logos to become communicable

But:

  • What grounds intelligibility cannot itself be fully articulated

This is the first fracture in the broken triad.

A2.3 Fulfillment Split: Telos vs Energeia

A2.3.1 Telos — Directed Fulfillment (“Left”)

Telos (τέλος) means:

  • End
  • Aim
  • That-for-the-sake-of-which

See also: Four Causes

Characteristics:

  • Describable
  • Normative
  • Teleological
  • Often statable in advance

Telos answers:

  • “What is this for?”
  • “What would count as success?”

But telos alone does not make anything happen.

A2.3.2 Energeia — Enacted Fulfillment (“Right”)

Energeia (ἐνέργεια) means:

  • Being-at-work
  • Actuality
  • Lived enactment of form

See also: Metaphysics Θ

Characteristics:

  • Temporal
  • Performative
  • Irreducible to description
  • Known best in doing

One does not fully know energeia:

  • By defining it
  • But by participating in it

A2.3.3 The Fulfillment Break

  • Telos specifies direction
  • Energeia realizes it in time

But:

  • One can name a telos and fail in energeia
  • One can enact energeia without fully articulating the telos

This is the second fracture in the broken triad.

A2.4 Why Aristotle Keeps These Splits

Aristotle refuses to collapse:

  • Nous into logos → rationalism
  • Logos into nous → mysticism
  • Energeia into telos → moralism
  • Telos into energeia → blind vitalism

Each collapse would:

  • Make philosophy cleaner
  • Make life less intelligible

A2.5 Connection to Phronēsis

The human faculty that lives inside both splits is:

  • Phronēsis (φρόνησις) — practical wisdom

Phronēsis:

  • Is informed by logos
  • Depends on nous
  • Oriented by telos
  • Realized only in energeia

This is why:

  • Ethics cannot be a science
  • Wisdom cannot be automated
  • Virtue cannot be deduced

A2.6 Relation to the Broken Triad

The “left/right” splits show where the breaks live internally:

  • Intelligibility is split (logos / nous)
  • Fulfillment is split (telos / energeia)
  • Being (ousia) bears both tensions without resolving them

The triad is broken not only between terms, but within them.

A2.7 One-Line Summary

Aristotle’s philosophy presupposes that:

  • What grounds understanding cannot be fully said
  • What completes a life cannot be fully specified in advance

The logos / nous and telos / energeia splits are not defects.
They are the conditions of rational, purposive life.

Appendix III: Trinitarian Reconciliation?

(Analogy, not derivation; theology, not repair)

This appendix asks a deliberately dangerous question:
What if the Christian Trinity can be understood as a reconciliation of Aristotle’s broken triad—without claiming Aristotle as its source?

The answer must remain analogical, asymmetric, and restrained.

A3.1 A Strict Warning Up Front

Three guardrails:

  • Aristotle does not imply the Trinity
  • The Trinity does not complete Aristotle as a philosophical project
  • Any reconciliation is theological, not architectonic

This appendix names a conceptual resonance, not a genealogy or proof.

A3.2 The Structural Problem Aristotle Leaves Open

Recall the broken triad:

  • Being — ousia
  • Intelligibility — logos / nous
  • Fulfillment — telos / energeia

Aristotle insists:

  • These are co-necessary
  • None can be reduced to another
  • Their unity is real but unhealed

The deepest tension:

  • What is
  • What can be known
  • What is fulfilled

…belong together, but never become identical within nature or human life.

A3.3 The Christian Claim (Stated Minimally)

Christian Trinitarian theology makes a claim Aristotle explicitly avoids:

  • That being, intelligibility, and fulfillment are identical in God
  • Without collapsing distinction
  • Without dissolving relation

See:

This is not a philosophical synthesis.
It is a revealed identity.

A3.4 Analogical Mapping (Handled with Care)

A non-identical resonance can be stated as follows:

A3.4.1 Being → God the Father

  • Source
  • Principle without derivation
  • “That which is”

This resonates with ousia only analogically:

  • Not substance in Aristotle’s sense
  • But origin without dependence

A3.4.2 Intelligibility → Son / Logos

  • Self-expression
  • Intelligibility that is personal
  • Word that is not merely said, but is

See:

Here is the decisive break from Aristotle:

  • Logos is no longer impersonal structure
  • Intelligibility is someone

A3.4.3 Fulfillment → Spirit

  • Life-giving actuality
  • Communion
  • Completion through participation

See:

This most closely echoes energeia:

  • Act
  • Lived realization
  • Not static end, but ongoing life

A3.5 The Crucial Difference: Broken vs Healed

A3.5.1 Aristotle

  • Unity without identity
  • Relation without communion
  • Completion without self-gift

The triad remains broken by method and by honesty.

A3.5.2 Trinity

  • Identity without confusion
  • Distinction without separation
  • Fulfillment as love

The triad is not repaired conceptually; it is inhabited personally.

A3.6 Why Aristotle Must Stop Short

Aristotle explicitly rejects:

  • Creation ex nihilo
  • Personal divine self-communication
  • Participation in divine life

His Unmoved Mover:

  • Is pure nous
  • Pure energeia
  • But thinks only itself
  • Loves without relation

This is precisely where Christianity departs.

A3.7 Why the Resonance Still Persists

The resonance exists because Aristotle already affirms:

  • Intelligibility is intrinsic to being
  • Fulfillment is intrinsic to form
  • Explanation cannot be merely mechanical

Christianity radicalizes these claims by asserting:

  • Intelligibility is personal
  • Fulfillment is communal
  • Being is self-giving love

Aristotle supplies a grammar of intelligibility.
Christianity speaks a sentence Aristotle could not utter.

A3.8 Theological Payoff (Without Philosophical Theft)

From a Christian perspective:

  • Aristotle names the shape of the question
  • The Trinity claims to be the answer

But the answer:

  • Cannot be deduced
  • Cannot be architectonically required
  • Cannot be philosophically enforced

It can only be confessed.

A3.9 One-Line Summary

Aristotle’s broken triad shows that:

  • Being longs for intelligibility
  • Intelligibility longs for fulfillment

The Christian Trinity proclaims that:

  • This longing is not a defect in reason
  • But a sign that ultimate unity is personal, not conceptual

The triad is not fixed.
It is transfigured.

Appendix IV: Why So Many Appendices?

(Or: A Defense of Excess)

A4.1 The Question Behind the Question

The charge—“why so many appendices?”—is really asking:

  • Why not say everything in the skit?
  • Why defer clarification?
  • Why tolerate fragmentation?

In Aristotelian terms, the objection assumes that:

  • Unity should be immediate
  • Explanation should be simultaneous
  • Understanding should be total

Aristotle rejects all three.

A4.2 Aristotle’s Own Writing Model

Aristotle himself writes in layers:

  • Public lectures (exoteric)
  • Technical treatises (acroamatic)
  • Cross-references without recap
  • Arguments that presuppose others he never restates

See:

He does not produce:

  • A single linear exposition
  • A reader-proof system
  • A pedagogically optimized text

He produces instead:

  • A field of inquiry

The appendices imitate this structure.

A4.3 Form Must Match Matter (The Core Rationale)

Aristotle’s methodological maxim governs everything here:

“The degree of precision must be appropriate to the subject matter.”
— Nicomachean Ethics I.3

Applied here:

  • The skit handles what must be:
    • Seen
    • Felt
    • Recognized
  • The appendices handle what must be:
    • Named
    • Stabilized
    • Revisited

To collapse these would be a category error.

A4.4 Each Appendix Solves a Different Problem

The appendices are not redundant; they are orthogonal.

A4.4.1 Appendix I — Architectonic

Problem addressed:

  • How can multiple principles order thought without collapsing into one?

This is a meta-level clarification.
It explains how the skit is structured, not what it says.

A4.4.2 Appendix II — Logos / Nous, Telos / Energeia

Problem addressed:

  • Where exactly do the fractures live?

This appendix performs:

  • Conceptual dissection
  • Retrospective diagnosis

It belongs after recognition, not before it.

A4.4.3 Appendix III — Trinitarian Reconciliation?

Problem addressed:

  • Why does this feel theologically resonant without being theological theft?

This appendix is:

  • Confessional in tone
  • Defensive in posture
  • Explicitly non-Aristotelian

It must be quarantined to remain honest.

A4.5 Why None of This Belongs in the Skit

The skit operates in the mode of:

Appendices operate in the mode of:

  • Logos (account)
  • Reflection
  • Conceptual hygiene

To mix these modes would:

  • Break the drama
  • Violate Aristotle’s method
  • Satisfy no one

A4.6 The Deeper Reason: This Is a Work About a Broken Unity

A work about a broken triad should not pretend to be whole.

The appendices:

  • Perform the very fragmentation the thesis describes
  • Refuse premature synthesis
  • Force rereading rather than consumption

This is not an aesthetic choice.
It is a philosophical commitment.

A4.7 A Quiet Theological Subtext

From a Christian perspective (without argument):

  • Truth is not exhausted by first encounter
  • Understanding unfolds through participation
  • Unity is not achieved by compression

See:

The appendices honor this by assuming:

  • The reader can return
  • The reader can dwell
  • The reader can live with tension

A4.8 One-Line Summary

There are many appendices because:

  • The skit shows what cannot yet be said
  • The appendices say what should not yet be shown
  • And Aristotle himself teaches us never to confuse the two

Excess here is not indulgence.
It is methodological restraint.

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑