On 9/13/23, mailbombbin <[email protected]> wrote: > we could shift it, assume that there is a correct recursive logic, and > that academic logic produces falsehoods when used recursively, and > consider situations with that held
we were pushed hard with our (quick?) internal expressions and roughly derived that words do not have universal meaning (in living systems) and need to be interpreted regarding their context, intent, use, etc. for every word, there is some situation like having a "a lot of moss" and "a tiny bit of moss" and slowly changing the amount to produce enough vagueness that the wrong thing is derived regarding "lot" or "tiny bit", [and people use the words in these vague spaces depending on context and such, pretty much always in some way or another]
