It does not need the elaborate rehearsal of binary logic basics to recognise that any ALL statement in Aristotelian Logic and its offspring will contain an antimony or contradiction. Nor such verbalisation as inane garbage. The problem is that language is ambiguous, academia is addicted to its jargon confined to the assumption or stricture of one meaning per word, which is non-viable because language too is incomplete, as is logic. If people are unfamilair with rather post medieval binary logic - or any other speciality - they won't understand and stop hearing or listening or reading. Did you know there's about a 100 Logics around? Aristotle abstracted his logic from the Greek language, which is of the SvO variety and "is" is a dangeous word. Not a thing is fully, only partially, identical to any thing else. Nowadays things are referred to SET Theory, and words and sets are analogous. It is somewhat less prone to error than Logic.
Aristotle is flesh All flesh is edible Therefore Aristotle is edible. Is perfectly rational to all flesh eaters, cannibals, predators and ubiquitous archaea. Archaea even eat rock. One can construct a heap of the likes. Logic bears no relation to reality. It does not matter which object is named A, as long as it's flesh. I've already wrote that Epimenedis may have spoken truth in a fit of honesty to a non-Boetian, In fact any self-confessional statement will be incomplete, which is why it is a fool's game to misconstrue people's psyche and understanding with what they say. They usual thing there is that if people don't understand someone they poke the blame at speaker, which is also unsustainable. Freud rightly has it that projecting blame into others confesses the content of that blame by speaker, which is also not 100% reliable. What is the problem is that both the public at large, - which does dispermit the generalisation ALL of a public are "THE SAME" - hardly knows Logics, let alone Binary such that their beliefs can be quite 'irrational' which does not help any. Besides that Georges is himself prone and pray to making wild generalisations, somewhat obfuscated by over-verbalisation. IE He's stuck in the limits of his own jargon. It's something the Lady Jessica in Herbert's DUNE books comments on. Bearing on the case is the problem of paradox. Taking Russell's Theory of classes, In a town lives a babrber who only shaves himself. NO self respecting Barber conforms to that. Any question asked of ALL barbers will find that most, but not necessarily all barbers shave themselves. Thus, elementarily, anybody with sufficient insight, will find in the ambiguities, therefore contexts of use of a word, contradictory instances. Just tape some good debates and there you have it. If you go through the wikipedia list of paradoxes and fit them into various contexts you will find, that being constructed as stated, you can always flummox a fool with contradiction their knowledge also being incomplete. BUT do not be surprised at a feasible 1 to 5 % of a population able to beat you at it. Wild generalisations are frequent. There are, though a number of such 100% words like ever, never, always. nothing, everything and more that also carry such dangers. It all boils down to taking words as literally real, which is an unsustainable idea. It still makes Godel viable, even if it is an obvious fault. Standard binary logic has some twenty, repeat, twenty major faults built in. Chuang tzu, ZEN, puts it aphoristically: "The bait is the means to get the fish where you want it. Catch the fish and you forget the bait. The snare is the means to get the rabbit where you want it. Catch the rabbit and you forget the snare. Words are the means to get the idea where you want it. Catch the idea and you forget about the words. Where shall I find a man who forgets about words and have a word with him. In effect ZEN Koans and Mundos make a nice list of verbal mousetraps to avoid. There's quite a lot of them. If someone would tell Georges I've got an IQ of 215, give or take 40 points of fuzz, and he has not, it might sober him up some as he falls prey to an over-rated self esteem. It does not matter how smart you are, being error prone is unavoidable. At about 160 + IQ it all turns more obvious. Personally I think IQ is a piece of nonsense, but then I've administered them a lot. It's as easy as pie to make people's IQ vary by some 20 points by how one conducts a test. I find my IQ a bit of a farce. Genius boils down to being able to concentrate on more things, all at once and together, than most other people. Me, I've got more of a beef with the Bell curve of distribution and politics. Same gambit, different ballpark. "There is more beauty in truth, even if it is a dreadful beauty. The storytellers at the city gate twist life so that it looks sweet to the lazy and the stupid and the weak, and this only strengthens their infirmities and teaches nothing, cures nothing, nor does it let the heart soar." John Steinbeck, East of Eden adrian. Georges Metanomski wrote: > "GOEDEL AND LIAR'S PARADOX" has been updated and is > available in > http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/C_MODELING_AND_LOGIC/CB_CRISIS_OF_NOUMENALISTIC_LOGIC/cbd_goedel_and_liar_paradox.html > or indirectly via: > http://findgeorges.com/ > CB CRISIS OF NOUMENALISTIC LOGIC > cbd goedel and liar paradox > > Georges. > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
