Hot Damn, Georges, I didn't know you had it in you... my *sincere* *apologies* for thinking you were bereft upstairs. *I was wrong* (I hope)... there IS hope for you after all.... Now, take this Axiomatic Collection in lieu of the Set Theory (common ground(?) for you, myself, and most everyone else) and *apply* it to all the new "maps of the mind" with which you come into contact. *>>>Human awareness and the "levels" that comprise it are all based upon these "prima facie" observations that build to greater understandings.* >>This inspires me to keep working diligently on my group's "outreach" efforts. > Yes. perhaps common ground *can* win the day for a revolution in human thinking. May your explorations bring an unprecedented surge of creativity and a gratified sense of renewal & teleological factoring... a veritable renaissance! We *all* hope for that kind of ongoing encouragement. Good Will in the Hunting, Timothy (chreodman)
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Joseph Polanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Georges Metanomski wrote: > > >Let's shelve for the moment Awareness and move to another allegedly > >most rigorous and exact area - the Set Theory. Now, the Set Theory is > >founded in the intuitive concept "Collection". What could you say about > >"Collection" in this sense of foundation of the Set Theory? > > self-asserted self-awareness is self-verifying. > > I posted about Axiomatic Set Theory, AST, in relation to self-awareness > during a dialogue with Professor Crifasi about 6 months ago; but, > perhaps, that thread wasn't cross-posted to the list whose mail you are > now reading; so, I'll summarize: > > [1]: the assertion 'I am self-aware' is self-verifying for the reasons > previously given. > > [2]: since nothing unreal is self-aware, it follows that I am real (in > some sense); and, one may reasonably follow up this insight by asking > 'what sort of reality am I?' > > [3]: the principle 'nothing unreal is self-aware' is intuitively > obvious; but, if a logical argument for it is required, one can be > given. it is derived from an assumption built into the foundations of > both predicate logic and axiomatic set theory: it is impossible to > attribute predicates to nothingness. > > I take this assumption as the Axiom, IPN: it is Impossible to attribute > Predicates to Nothingness. > > alternately, one can state this axiom in the jargon of AST: it is > impossible to attribute predicates to a member of the empty set --- > because there are no such members. > > hence, if I can attribute a predicate to the referent of 'I' then the > referent of 'I' can not be a member of the empty set --- and, therefore, > must be real in some sense. > > in making the self-verifying claim 'I am self-aware' I attribute a > predicate to the referent of 'I'. hence, it can not be the case that the > referent of I is nothing at all. > > > Joe > > -- > Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the > first person. --- H-N Castaneda > > @[EMAIL PROTECTED]@^@ > http://what-am-i.net > @[EMAIL PROTECTED]@^@ > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
