wtf is the deal with the synergic mode?

I've been reflecting on how I've recently been grokking faith on a level that's as core as the level on which I've grokked trust, and it has me wondering about some of the other Christian virtues. Not even virtues, but what are the things in the category with faith and trust and joy and love and hope? I feel like I'm somehow getting something really core about what each of these basic psychic mechanisms is.

like "the greatest of these is love" - these what? what's the noun?

Claude says these 3 are the theological virtues

to just gesture briefly at what I know of each of some others — top level bullets are Claude, not necessarily canon

haaaa something else that just occurred to me is that if I get these clear enough, I might notice that there's some sort of missing one, like the periodic table (but not THAT systematic) or like the 2×2 with anxiety depression mania where the fourth quadrant (things are good but I'm not sure how) sure seems super great

To spell it out a little further: trust has “AND” nature.  I take this to be true by definition at this point, but I want to be clear that my definition was created to match most peoples’ intuitions: if I trust Bob and you don’t trust Bob, would we say “we trust Bob”? Of course not.  A little less obviously, it’s actually even stronger than AND, but instead requires common knowledge: if I trust Bob and you trust Bob, but I don’t trust that you trust Bob…  or we each trust Bob but you don’t trust that I trust that you trust Bob, then we still don’t say “we trust Bob”.  And it doesn’t have to be a perfect infinite regress, but it has to be sufficiently accounted for.

It’s a bit complex though, like, is it about the presence of trust or the absence of distrust?  Because there can also simply be a kind of neutrality, a lack of perceived relevance. The subsystems in me that track whether my automatic debits are set up properly simply do not have any involvement in the question of whether a stranger on the street is safe to ask for help or not.

[COMMENT 2025: my recent reading of Stafford Beer and thinking about fractal coalitions has me wanting to note that at the point when a seriously new entity (not just a plurality of entities) has emerged, then it can trust things the parts distrust, at least again as far as our intuitions are concerned. eg insofar as corporations trust, they can kind of trust things that many of their employees distrust.  But then, for any corporations of which this is true, I would hazard that the employees do not entirely trust the corporation!]

In a sense, "I can't trust that X" is saying “according to my organism’s personal skin-in-the-game, it’s not safe to treat X as true” (where again “safe” isn’t necessarily about physical safety from violence, but about one’s ability to make sense of things, manage slack, etc.).  This is thus a MUCH stronger type of statement than “I don’t think X” or “I don’t believe X”.

— Jarred Filmer