Re: Unmudling some good stuff

["S'ace" <cjdegroot(at)wanadoo.nl>]

hi george ...

thnx for your approach on the good stuff ...

being a greeny in our groupings ...

a question raised to my mind ...

regarding the words:

"It's enough to spent a minute reading the following explanation of its intricacies to realize its inanity"

i thought: is George (et all) just working on the verb reading and then turning out on some kind of realization?

isn't reading just a lineair process ...

could there be more working in the mind on somebody manifestating himself than a lineair process?

what is the working core mindset?

like to hear a pivoting perception ... i think ...

...

with n.y. blessings ... G., A., et all fellow xxx democraters

s'ace

----- Original Message -----

From: "Georges Metanomski" <zgmet(at)wanadoo.fr>

To: <cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com>; <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>

Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 3:56 PM

Subject: Unmudling some good stuff

> 
================================================
> My following comments 
of Antonio's post DO NOT
> deal with contents, but exclusively with the 
formulation.
> It seems a pity that reasonable stuff, with which 
one
> would gladly and positively discuss, is muddled
> beyond 
communicability by misformulations.
> 
================================================
> Antonio:
> 
Recently, in cicdd list, I had to state an axiom on building
> Democracy 
up. It was:
>
> "1.  Since "Democracy" is a product 
of  the people's minds,
>      it is inside 
the people's minds that it must be built first."
> 
================================================
> G;
> An Axiom 
cannot start with "since": this would mean that
> it is deduced from some 
higher premise, which Axiom
> may not be, as by definition it is a top 
level assertion
> of a theory.
>
> It's this higher 
premise that should be taken as Axiom
> (if not in turn deduced from a 
still higher one).
>
> Deduced assertions 
are
>
> either "Theorems" when they become in turn premises 
of
> lower level assertions,
>
> or predicted "Facts" 
when they are bottom level assertions
> without deductive 
conclusions.
>
> In our case the proper formulation would 
be:
>
> AXIOM 1:
> "Democracy" is a product of  the 
people's minds
>
> THEOREM 1.1:
> it (Democracy") is 
inside the people's minds that
> it must be built first
> 
================================================
> Antonio:
> From 
this axiom some logical deductions, or subordinated
> axioms, 
follow.
> ================================================
> 
G:
> There are no "subordinated axioms", only deduced Theorems
> and 
Facts.
> ================================================
> 
G:
> All above applies to the final misformulations:
>
> 
<<<
> Thence, we can have further correlated 
axioms
>
> 4. Since Communication -- encompassing Democracy, 
Peace,
> Justice, Honesty and so on -- is  a product of  the 
people's minds,
> it is inside the people's minds that it must be built 
first."
>>>>
> 
================================================
> Antonio:
> 
Recently, I've been discussing the functioning of the human
> brain -- 
commonly named "mind" with Dave Taylor, who is
> a studious of the 
"Logical Types" theory. Under the light of
> this renown theory, I tried 
to expose the logical steps that
> could explain the why of  the 
mind's dogmatic approach to
> communication.
> 
================================================
> G:
> It would be 
human to tell your friend Dave Taylor
> that he is sadly misspending his 
life by being
> a studious of the "Logical Types" theory, instead 
of
> having a drink, taking his dog for a walk or being
> a studious 
of Flamenco Dancing.
>
> A few words about the renown 
theory:
>
> Russell discovered that the noumenalistic 
bullshit
> misnamed "Logic" is (not surprisingly) crammed with
> 
paradoxes. In order to obtain paradox free bullshit
> he conceived a 
solution whose stupidity matches that
> of the problem: he declared 
paradoxes as forbidden.
>
> There is nothing in being a 
studious of the "Logical
> Types" theory. It's enough to spent a minute 
reading
> the following explanation of its intricacies to realize
> 
its inanity:
>
> -A class has higher cardinality than its 
subclasses.
>
> -Thus a class cannot be subclass of 
itself.
>
> -Thus self-references are forbidden and the 
remaining
> self-reference free bullshit is paradox 
free.
>
> The remaining paradox free bullshit throws 
away
> all considerations of human decisions and actions
> which 
have cybernetic, thus self referencing structure,
>
> 
Consequently, I skip all further character strings of
> Antonio's post 
produced "Under the light of this renown
> theory" and advise all and 
sundry to have a drink rather
> than to read them.
> 
================================================
> I'd like to stress 
again that this is in no way an
> attack on Antonio, that IMO he has some 
quite good
> ideas which he unfortunately muddles beyond 
communicability
> with his obvious incompetence of formulating 
axiomatic
> theories and that my post is a sincere, well minded 
trial
> to help him and, maybe to do some day something together.
> 
================================================
> Georges.
> 
================================================
>
>
>