>>11867631>>11867557>>11867601So, what I am basically saying with this is that the idea of using the four elements synonymously for the periodic table doesn't make sense, since the concept of the four elements isn't even meant to be a physical concept. It's an abstract concept. They are "a priori". The periodic table is good as it is. It provides a solid classification of the physical elements. Fire and Water are the only "true" abstract concepts. Air and Earth are just derivations from the interaction of the elements itself (not with the physical world!). Air as the communicator between Fire and Water. Earth as the interaction between all the other three elements, which results in vibration. Therefore a generic term can only be formed on the term of the "earth" element, because there are different degrees of vibration, and only these allow the different forms of matter, whereas Fire, Water does not allow such, since these concepts have no sort of "degrees" (except in their quantity: hot/dry and cold/wet). One might think that Air is perhaps a generic term. However, this does not work, because Air always creates the same balance between the first two elements. Air is always neutral. Therefore, there are no types of "Air" here either. Only Earth is generic and the closest of the Elements that are "material", but still not measurable.
