================================================
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.
================================================