Revolution in Thought

[Logik]

I am not going to divert this thread further, you can copy and past the above to some other thread I created or a new one. The argument's peacegirl claim are sound.

You can't determine soundness without having the grammar and semantics of the system outlined...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness

In formal logic, a logical system has the soundness property if and only if every formula that can be proved in the system is logically valid with respect to the semantics of the system.

And we are yet to get a meaningful definition of the semantics at play...

[Eodnhoj7]

I am not going to divert this thread further, you can copy and past the above to some other thread I created or a new one. The argument's peacegirl claim are sound.

You can't determine soundness without having the grammar and semantics of the system outlined...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness

In formal logic, a logical system has the soundness property if and only if every formula that can be proved in the system is logically valid with respect to the semantics of the system.

And we are yet to get a meaningful definition of the semantics at play...

Save the wiki posts...If that is all you can provide; then you are useless to us.

The nature of the book argued, observes an application of semantics where the author conversed with multiple different people and authorities in the context of thier language and then observed this as a context. The book, in these respects, maintains a self-referential framework and is logical.

[Logik]

Save the wiki posts...If that is all you can provide; then you are useless to us.

Apologies. So a general introduction linking to specific research is useless to you.

Perhaps you should state your expectations upfront. Would you like to be spoon-fed?

The nature of the book argued, observes an application of semantics where the author conversed with multiple different people and authorities in the context of thier language and then observed this as a context. The book, in these respects, maintains a self-referential framework and is logical.

Authorities? In logic? Interesting concept.

[-1-]

-1- wrote:

How can God or Satan push an agenda when they don't exist? Answer that, my dear Nick_A.

One doesn't know whether or not Nick uses these names in a poetic sense, metaphorically. When I give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that he is using the old allegory I'm disappointed that all Nick has said is that the Jesus Christ theory ethic is right and those who disagree are wrong. What I'd hoped for was support for the Jesus Christ theory.

Apology for the diversion. My excuse is that there is no use in complaining any more about the so-called "revolution in thought" or the book that purports to change thought.

Nick_A has a very strong sense of some convoluted theory he himself does not understand, much less able to put into words, and this theory of his involves Socrates' teachings which Nick_A woefully does not understand, yet has claimed ownership of it. It also involves Christianity, Simone de Weir, and he revolves around these three theory-creators like a heavenly planet on a very precise yet absolutely complex spacial path around three suns which form a star-triplet held together by gravity out there somewhere in the universe. Trying to divert him from this spiritual-pseudo-intellectual path is futile. Even Archimedes with his pulleys could not do it.

I used to know people socially who did this, and they were all schizophrenia sufferers.

On the other hand, Nick_A is a gentleman (or a gentle lady, if female). He is smart, and polite, and never looses his cool. He never calls people names, like we others all have been guilty of. (Not an inclusive opinion; I actually don't have data to back this up.) Nick_A is exemplary with his patience and wisdom. Yes, wisdom... of what kind, well, the madman's kind, but he is definitely a wise old soul.

All in all, I like Nick_A, I adore him, and I love his ways, from which I ought to learn to behave by example, and yet I detest and hate his ideas and ideology.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Good grief. 45 pages of comments on a thread that's about....nothing....

[Belinda]

-1- what a nice post!

[Nick_A]

-1- wrote:

How can God or Satan push an agenda when they don't exist? Answer that, my dear Nick_A.

One doesn't know whether or not Nick uses these names in a poetic sense, metaphorically. When I give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that he is using the old allegory I'm disappointed that all Nick has said is that the Jesus Christ theory ethic is right and those who disagree are wrong. What I'd hoped for was support for the Jesus Christ theory.

Apology for the diversion. My excuse is that there is no use in complaining any more about the so-called "revolution in thought" or the book that purports to change thought.

Nick_A has a very strong sense of some convoluted theory he himself does not understand, much less able to put into words, and this theory of his involves Socrates' teachings which Nick_A woefully does not understand, yet has claimed ownership of it. It also involves Christianity, Simone de Weir, and he revolves around these three theory-creators like a heavenly planet on a very precise yet absolutely complex spacial path around three suns which form a star-triplet held together by gravity out there somewhere in the universe. Trying to divert him from this spiritual-pseudo-intellectual path is futile. Even Archimedes with his pulleys could not do it.

I used to know people socially who did this, and they were all schizophrenia sufferers.

On the other hand, Nick_A is a gentleman (or a gentle lady, if female). He is smart, and polite, and never looses his cool. He never calls people names, like we others all have been guilty of. (Not an inclusive opinion; I actually don't have data to back this up.) Nick_A is exemplary with his patience and wisdom. Yes, wisdom... of what kind, well, the madman's kind, but he is definitely a wise old soul.

All in all, I like Nick_A, I adore him, and I love his ways, from which I ought to learn to behave by example, and yet I detest and hate his ideas and ideology.

How can God or Satan push an agenda when they don't exist? Answer that, my dear Nick_A.

This is where you go wrong. Your premise is wrong. People have agendas. The universe doesn’t have an agenda. Universal purpose is revealed in its cyclical process. Results are by-products. This is difficult for us since we value results as representing the greatest value. The idea of the quality of the process as offering the greatest value is absurd for modern man attached to results.

Simone’s brother, the greatly respected mathematician Andre Weil wrote: “God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exists since we cannot prove it.

The universe is governed by universal laws. Its ineffable conscious source is known by many names including God.

For the universe to have any purpose, inexactitudes must be built into the laws to enable its cyclical nature. These inexactitudes produce results people will call evil and the work of Satan. People with agendas cast blame. It is an attribute of agendas. For those who strive to understand universal process, casting blame is unimportant. All that is important is learning to understand the process and how best to become human and serve a conscious process in accordance with the great universal process rather than fighting windmills or Donald Trump in defense of an agenda.

All in all, I like Nick_A, I adore him, and I love his ways, from which I ought to learn to behave by example, and yet I detest and hate his ideas and ideology.

It’s not just you. The world as a whole hates these ideas. It must since they interfere with self importance. This is why Jesus and Socrates had to be killed. The ideas they introduced are intolerable for agenda driven society and its God the “Great Beast.” They are even becoming intolerable for secular dominated philosophy sites.

A real revolution in thought would be valuing process over results. It cannot happen. The growing power of the Great Beast or society itself and its dedication to self importance can never allow it. It would mean the death of illusions which support it and they don’t want to die. The great ideas within philosophy and the essence of religion are now only for individuals who need them and for them the great ideas are priceless regardless of how they are hated..

[Nick_A]

-1-

On the other hand, Nick_A is a gentleman (or a gentle lady, if female). He is smart, and polite, and never looses his cool. He never calls people names, like we others all have been guilty of. (Not an inclusive opinion; I actually don't have data to back this up.) Nick_A is exemplary with his patience and wisdom. Yes, wisdom... of what kind, well, the madman's kind, but he is definitely a wise old soul.

I'll have you know I'm a broad shouldered long nosed Aries white male. Yes I know that is sufficient reason to be hated in these times.

I learned long ago in the science of Idiotism that it doesn't make any sense for one idiot to call another idiot an idiot. Yet it is a common practice so be careful who you call a madman. You may meet one one day (not me) and wonder who is mad: you or him.

The Madman

You ask me how I became a madman. It happened thus: One day, long before many gods were born, I woke from a deep sleep and found all my masks were stolen -- the seven masks I have fashioned and worn in seven lives -- I ran maskless through the crowded streets shouting, "Thieves, thieves, the cursed thieves."
Men and women laughed at me and some ran to their houses in fear of me.
And when I reached the market place, a youth standing on a house-top cried, "He is a madman." I looked up to behold him; the sun kissed my own naked face for the first time. For the first time the sun kissed my own naked face and my soul was inflamed with love for the sun, and I wanted my masks no more. And as if in a trance I cried, "Blessed, blessed are the thieves who stole my masks."
Thus I became a madman.
And I have found both freedom and safety in my madness; the freedom of loneliness and the safety from being understood, for those who understand us enslave something in us.
But let me not be too proud of my safety. Even a Thief in a jail is safe from another thief.

Kahil- Gibran, The Madman - His Parables and Poems

[Eodnhoj7]

Save the wiki posts...If that is all you can provide; then you are useless to us.

Apologies. So a general introduction linking to specific research is useless to you.

Perhaps you should state your expectations upfront. Would you like to be spoon-fed?

The nature of the book argued, observes an application of semantics where the author conversed with multiple different people and authorities in the context of thier language and then observed this as a context. The book, in these respects, maintains a self-referential framework and is logical.

Authorities? In logic? Interesting concept.

Why or why not is the author's argument logical?

[Logik]

Why or why not is the author's argument logical?

False dichotomy. Is that even a decidable question?

What if the "logicality" of the argument cannot be determined?

For somebody who claims to reject the law of excluded middle you sure keep falling into dualisms.

What tick boxes must an argument tick for you to call it "logical" ?

Surely at some point you have to appeal to the concepts of soundness, validity, semantics and completeness?

Every argument is logical! Some arguments are unsound, incomplete and invalid and or meaningless.

[Eodnhoj7]

Why or why not is the author's argument logical?

False dichotomy. Is that even a decidable question?

What if the "logicality" of the argument cannot be determined?

For somebody who claims to reject the law of excluded middle you sure keep falling into dualisms.

What tick boxes must an argument tick for you to call it "logical" ?

Surely at some point you have to appeal to the concepts of soundness, validity, semantics and completeness?

Every argument is logical! Some arguments are unsound, incomplete and invalid and or meaningless.

Actually the argument is decidable given a framework of logic. It either is contradictory or is not.

Logic is determination, as a framework. The author appears to provide a strong case of logic, for what I have read. With that logic observing connecting "how, why, when, where, who, why".

A. Evident as is, progressive and self-referencing.

Actually logic determines those concepts as observed in Point A.


If every argument is logical, then the author is correct?

[henry quirk]

Not as I reckon it, no.

There is an emphasis on 'compulsion' in the work, sumthin' I don't see in the real world.

Also: PG's dad plays fast and loose with defintions, tailoring 'em to suit his argument.

So, yeah, the work may internally coherent, but it ain't 'right'.

[-1-]

The Madman

You ask me how I became a madman. It happened thus: One day, long before many gods were born, I woke from a deep sleep and found all my masks were stolen -- the seven masks I have fashioned and worn in seven lives -- I ran maskless through the crowded streets shouting, "Thieves, thieves, the cursed thieves."
Men and women laughed at me and some ran to their houses in fear of me.
And when I reached the market place, a youth standing on a house-top cried, "He is a madman." I looked up to behold him; the sun kissed my own naked face for the first time. For the first time the sun kissed my own naked face and my soul was inflamed with love for the sun, and I wanted my masks no more. And as if in a trance I cried, "Blessed, blessed are the thieves who stole my masks."
Thus I became a madman.
And I have found both freedom and safety in my madness; the freedom of loneliness and the safety from being understood, for those who understand us enslave something in us.
But let me not be too proud of my safety. Even a Thief in a jail is safe from another thief.

Kahil- Gibran, The Madman - His Parables and Poems

So there was an old man, who lived in the greenwood
And nobody knew him, or what he had done
But mothers would say to their children, "Beware of mad John".

John would sing with the birds in the morning,
And laugh with the wind in the cold hand of mat(?),
But people from behind their curtains said he's not quite right.

Joiner(?)! and exhaust(?)! He was living the life of a tramp.
Yes, his bed was cold and damp, but the sun was his friend...
He was free...

So here was a wise one, who loved all the haters,
And his love was so strong, that their hate turned to fear
And shaking from behind their curtains
The loved ones would wail...

"Mad John" by The Small Faces... Elliott and Lane

(It would be much better if you could hear the melody and the music.)

The Fool on the Hill

The Beatles

Day after day, alone on a hill
The man with the foolish grin is sitting perfectly still
Nobody wants to know him
They can see that he's just a fool
But he never gives an answer

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round

His head in a cloud
The man with a foolish grin is talking perfectly loud
But nobody wants to hear him
They can see that he's just a fool
But he never gives an answer

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round

[-1-]

Every argument is logical! Some arguments are unsound, incomplete and invalid and or meaningless.

Erm... no. The box of arguments started with the single method (not simple, but only) of proving something false by showing it is absurd. This was the only function based on logic.

The second stage of arguments were created and validated by the creation of syllogisms by Aristotle. They have been slotted into valid and invalid arguments by logic.

The third and most recently discovered argumentation for valid argumenting expanded on syllogisms, and includes such things as "All Xs are not Ys" being invalidated by showing an example of an X being a Y.

Arguments that are valid in structure, i.e. their logic is impeccable, may still be invalid in their conclusions, if the premises they base the argumenting on are false.

This is not taken from a textbook, but from my slurping mind's memory, so please give slack to my perhaps inconsistent naming of things.

[Logik]

Every argument is logical! Some arguments are unsound, incomplete and invalid and or meaningless.

Erm... no. The box of arguments started with the single method (not simple, but only) of proving something false by showing it is absurd. This was the only function based on logic.

A false argument is logical. Its conclusion is false.
An absurd argument is logical. The conclusion is absurd.

Logic produces consequences.

Logic cannot save you from Garbage in - garbage out.

The second stage of arguments were created and validated by the creation of syllogisms by Aristotle. They have been slotted into valid and invalid arguments by logic.

Aristotle was wrong.

The third and most recently discovered argumentation for valid argumenting expanded on syllogisms, and includes such things as "All Xs are not Ys" being invalidated by showing an example of an X being a Y

The most recently discovered principles in logic are those of decidability. From decidability both validity and soundness follow.


Arguments that are valid in structure, i.e. their logic is impeccable, may still be invalid in their conclusions, if the premises they base the argumenting on are false.

This is not taken from a textbook, but from my slurping mind's memory, so please give slack to my perhaps inconsistent naming of things.

No. Your mind is impeccable at recalling the bullshit Aristotle pushed.

Validity and soundless both rest on the decidability criterion.

Decidability is computation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

To say that an argument is either valid or invalid is to say that a procedure exists to determine the "validity" or "invalidity" of the argument.

Aristotelian logic is tautological simply because of its condition "IF the premises are true".

Aristotelian logic provides no semantics for asking questions. So IF you never asked any questions, how did you acquire any truth to reason with?

Aristotelian logic pre-supposes truth. All swans are white...