cbw4.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Mon Nov 21 12:06:02 EST 2016


CB Willis (cbwillis at adore.lightlink.com) wrote:

>The foregoing 2 posts by Homer refer to a way of thinking that's too
>limited for what I want to say. 

     If you use an IS statement to say something, you MUST remain
inside of the boundaries of the definition of IS and IS NOT.

     It is quite possible that language and IS statments are not
suitable for what you want to say, but THEN DON'T USE LANGUAGE AND IS
STATEMENTS TO SAY IT.
 
>I could spend all day refuting each point
>and have comments at every juncture, but frankly I don't have the
>inclination and feel it would be fruitless for reaching agreement even if
>I documented all my comments. While your presentation may be persuasive in
>one sense, mine would be persuasive in another sense.  

     Well until we see a presentation on how Logic is useless and
without value, I doubt we will see how persuasive you can be.

     I don't think you can do it.

     I think if you tried you would make a laughing stock out of
yourself.

>In scn terms, the demand that I adhere to those standards without
>qualification "ARC-breaks" me and "my itsa line" in in real life.

>Anyone else is welcome to their own viewpoint. If there's enough
>misalignment on fundamentals, there are some futures you just can't build
>together. Why try to build a future on fundamentals you don't agree with? 

     People who build their futures on illogic are not sane.

     All I ask is that if you use statements that PRESUME logic is
valid and useful, then obey the laws of that logic.

     The minute you say ".... is true"  or ".... is false" you
have asserted that logic is valid because you issuing IS statements,
 
     If you assert that logic is valid and then deny logic is valid,
you are talking nonsense that not even you understand.

     The very statement "Logic is not valid" is an IS statement
that assumes logic is valid to even make its statement.

     You may know what you are trying to say, but you aren't saying
it.

     A no one else can get it either.

     Except those that like to fancy their own hallucinations of what
you mean are similar to yours.

     Homer

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,  Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Nov 21 12:06:02 EST 2016 
WEB:  http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP:  ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic2.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, 
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.



More information about the Clear-L mailing list