RE: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

[Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com>]

--- ROY DAINE <rdaine(at)btinternet.com> wrote:

> Georges,
>   You will have to elucidate. Can you supply me with
> your rigorous extensional definition of DD, arriving
> at kibbutzism.
>
>   While I wait for that, I must say that I find it
> quite acceptable for anybody to give their own
> intensional definition.
==============
G:
Your problem. There is nothing to elucidate. It's all
explained in my essay "DEFINITIONS"

http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/definitions.html

I cannot write a book each time somebody does not
deign too read it. If you understand my essay, there
is nothing to elucidate. If not - ask for
clarification of points you don't grasp. That's as
far as I'm prepared to go.

I show there that and why mathematics is not and
cannot be intensionally defined.

Now, of all general domains of the humane
universe of discourse, mathematics is the simplest,
because most abstract and least empiric. Ordering by
increasing complexity we may list physics, chemistry,
biology, psychology and the socio-political.
DD enters this last, highest complexity domain and
thus, obviously cannot be intensionally defined.

Just as understanding mathematics comes from doing it,
understanding DD comes from practical experience,
such as living in a kibbutz, or having thoroughly
studied the history of Athens.
The historian and the kibbutznik will agree on both
phenomena coming under the heading of "Functional DD"
and eliminate Athens from "Social DD" as an Oligarchy.

Then they will agree on a set of functions present
in both systems and not entirely present anywhere
else, thus defining extensionally both as
"Functional DD" and restricting "Social DD"
to Kibbutzim.

Many prattle about mathematics and DD, but only those
who lived them know what they are about, without
meaningless verbal "definitions".

Georges.
==============