Homer Wilson Smith
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Mon Mar 20 20:24:17 EDT 2017
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
IS AND IS NOT, THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRIMINALITY
There seems to be some contention on the value of bimodal logic
and bimodal statements.
A bimodal statement is any statment that uses or asserts, either
explicitly or implicitly that IS is not IS NOT.
The complete model is:
IS is IS
IS is not IS NOT
IS NOT is IS NOT
IS NOT is not IS
Bimodal logic asserts that something either IS or IS NOT, that it can
never be both IS AND IS NOT, and can never be neither IS NOR IS NOT.
Bimodal logic is merely the application of the above model to the
subject of reality, actuality and truth, in particular spoken statements
of truth about reality and actuality.
A statement of truth is any statement, whether implicitly
or explicitly stated, of the form:
"It is true that..." or
"It is not true that..."
Statements of truth can be true or false, the moniker
differentiates them from expletives, commands and questions.
In the following the term 'statement' means only 'statements of
truth' whether right or wrong.
The statement that gradient logic is more valid than bimodal logic
is a bimodal statement taking its meaning and validity from bimodal
The statement that bi modal statements are wrong, invalid and
useless is a bimodal statement, which by its own assertion therefore, is
wrong, invalid and useless.
Therefore bimodal logic is true, valid and useful, and contains and
constrains all other logics of whatever kind.
Any statement using IS and IS NOT is a bimodal statement.
*ALL* statments use IS and IS NOT.
Therefore ALL statments are bimodal.
*ALL* statements about bimodal logic are bimodal and assume the
validity of bimodal logic for their veracity.
*ALL* statements about the invalidity of bimodal logic are bimodal
and assume the validity of bimodal logic to deny the validity of bimodal
One can not say ANYTHING about IS and IS NOT without USING IS and
IS NOT in the statement, either explicitly or implicitly.
One can not say that IS and IS NOT do not apply to Universe A,
"IT *IS* TRUE that IS and IS NOT do not apply to Universe A."
One can not assert that IS does not apply to Universe A without
USING IS to make the assertion.
Even the assertion that NO assertions apply to Universe A is an
assertion which applies to Universe A.
*ALL* assertions assume the validity of IS in the making of the
Therefore IS does apply to Universe A.
Therefore IS and IS NOT apply to all possible universes A, whether
or not they have ever existed, or ever will exist, whether or not they
could exist, and whether or not anything exists at all.
Apparently what passes for philosophers these days, are failed
Obfuscation of the truth of IS and IS NOT is an intentionally
harmful and criminal act against the God of I AM.
Criminal philosophers can lie to the people, and they can lie to
themselves, but they can not lie to the God of Truth.
One day Truth will see the dishonesty of their voice and cast them
And on that day I will rejoice in Eternal Peace.
For the liars and lovers of falsehood with crippled and broken
minds will speak no more in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 SunOS 4.1.4 Sparc 20 Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com info at lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Mar 19 12:06:02 EDT 2017
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L