Philosophy Now Forum

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:56 am piano hinges are musical

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:00 pm the words of intact cookies...

(they have yet to make crumbs...)

-Imp

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:38 am Claim All Words are Fulcrums.


Fulcrum: the point against which a lever is placed to get a purchase, or on which it turns or is supported.
a thing that plays a central or essential role in an activity, event, or situation.

Examples: 1. (X) cow eats grass.
2. The cow (x) grass.
3. The cow eats (x).

Analysis
A)
2 Is not even a sentence. No fulcrum is evident
B)
In example 1 the word "eats" provides a fulcrum between which the activity of the cow in relation to grass is known. "Cow" and "grass" are "moments about a point.

False, the action of eating require a both a noun that directs the verb and a noun toward which the verb is directed. Both nouns maintain a respective balance as to how the verb is directed. Dually the verb balances the nouns.

In one respect the nouns are directed to eachother through the verb and are balanced by it. In another respect the verb is balanced as both being directed to and from a noun.

Conclusion

You seems to have a false definition of fulcrum "a fulcrum shifts the balance of power"
It is well understood that a fulcrum is a passive hinge point through which the forces act on the moments at either side of the hinge.
Example a door hinge is a fulcrum, the door and the door frame are neither hinges not fulcrums.

Case not made, claim false.


False, "a thing that plays an essential role in an activity, event or situation. All sentences, in both being written and read are activitied, and in this respect they are events in time.

Thus each word as directed to and from another word, maintains an essential role and acts as a center point.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:28 am The placement of a word determines how an interpretation is made.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:28 am The placement of a word determines how an interpretation is made.

1) False this is and untrue in many languages always.

2) This is false and always untrue in many languages.

3) And always untrue in many languages this is false.

4) This is untrue and always false in many languages.

5) This is always false and untrue in many languages.

6) In many languages this is always false and untrue.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:54 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:28 am The placement of a word determines how an interpretation is made.

1) False this is and untrue in many languages always.

2) This is false and always untrue in many languages.

3) And always untrue in many languages this is false.

4) This is untrue and always false in many languages.

5) This is always false and untrue in many languages.

6) In many languages this is always false and untrue.

The above are tautologies within tautalogies. As "false" and "untrue" variate meanings, where respective of each sentence they are tautalogies of the other, with these respective tautalogies being directed towards different meanings under different value placements.

For clarity (F) will represent false and (U) untrue. (A) will represent my argument and (L) will represent general language.

1) (F)-->(A) & (U)-->(L) or [((F) --> (A))&(U)] --> (L) or ...
2) (A)-->(F) & (U)-->(L) or ((A) --> [(F))&((U)]-->(L)) or ...
3) (U)-->(L) & (A)-->(F) or ((U)&(L)) --> (A)-->(F) or ...
4) (A)-->(U) & (F)-->(L) or (A) --> ((U)&(F)) --> (L) or ...
5) (A)-->(F) & (U)-->(L) or (A) --> ((F)&(U)) --> (L) or ...
6) (L)-->(A) & (F)-->(U) or ((L)-->(A))--> ((F)&(U)) or ...

And a variety of other interpretations can be applied to the above.

But the above is not really necessary for my example What the above shows is each described context as directed towards another context.

Each beginning context in turn projects to a new context, which in turn exists as a variation of the origin precedent context. In short terms, each context is a beginning of a tautology where the next context is a variation of the previous.

The interpretation is grounded in a value placement where each word as directed to another necessitates it as the context from which it orginate.

So for example, using the above:

1) "This is false..." = (A)-->(F) = ((A)F)
2) "False, this is..." = (F)-->(A) = ((F)A)

In example one the interpretation began with (A). This is the primary context from which the other context (F) is derived.

In example two the interpretation began with (F). This is the primary context from which the other context (A) is derived.

Both are different interpretations of value place. In example 1 (A) exists as the beginning of the tautology and (F) is a variation of (A). In example 2, (A) is a variation of (F).

Each tautology differs in meaning due to the origin point.

Example 1, observes a variation of (A).
Example 2, observes a variation of (F).

The meaning of each context is thus derived from the context it variates from, with each manner of wording necessitating a value. This value is the angle in which the phenomenon is observed, thus each wording results in a different in perceived values, with these values underlining the meaning of the sentence as relative to the observer.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:54 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:00 pm

1) False this is and untrue in many languages always.

2) This is false and always untrue in many languages.

3) And always untrue in many languages this is false.

4) This is untrue and always false in many languages.

5) This is always false and untrue in many languages.

6) In many languages this is always false and untrue.

The above are tautologies within tautalogies. As "false" and "untrue" variate meanings, where respective of each sentence they are tautalogies of the other, with these respective tautalogies being directed towards different meanings under different value placements.

For clarity (F) will represent false and (U) untrue. (A) will represent my argument and (L) will represent general language.

1) (F)-->(A) & (U)-->(L) or [((F) --> (A))&(U)] --> (L) or ...
2) (A)-->(F) & (U)-->(L) or ((A) --> [(F))&((U)]-->(L)) or ...
3) (U)-->(L) & (A)-->(F) or ((U)&(L)) --> (A)-->(F) or ...
4) (A)-->(U) & (F)-->(L) or (A) --> ((U)&(F)) --> (L) or ...
5) (A)-->(F) & (U)-->(L) or (A) --> ((F)&(U)) --> (L) or ...
6) (L)-->(A) & (F)-->(U) or ((L)-->(A))--> ((F)&(U)) or ...

And a variety of other interpretations can be applied to the above.

But the above is not really necessary for my example What the above shows is each described context as directed towards another context.

Each beginning context in turn projects to a new context, which in turn exists as a variation of the origin precedent context. In short terms, each context is a beginning of a tautology where the next context is a variation of the previous.

The interpretation is grounded in a value placement where each word as directed to another necessitates it as the context from which it orginate.

So for example, using the above:

1) "This is false..." = (A)-->(F) = ((A)F)
2) "False, this is..." = (F)-->(A) = ((F)A)

In example one the interpretation began with (A). This is the primary context from which the other context (F) is derived.

In example two the interpretation began with (F). This is the primary context from which the other context (A) is derived.

Both are different interpretations of value place. In example 1 (A) exists as the beginning of the tautology and (F) is a variation of (A). In example 2, (A) is a variation of (F).

Each tautology differs in meaning due to the origin point.

Example 1, observes a variation of (A).
Example 2, observes a variation of (F).

The meaning of each context is thus derived from the context it variates from, with each manner of wording necessitating a value. This value is the angle in which the phenomenon is observed, thus each wording results in a different in perceived values, with these values underlining the meaning of the sentence as relative to the observer.

The above demonstrates that word placement does not determine interpretation. The tautologies have the same meaning despite different word placements. That is all.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:45 pm A shorter example of value placement by word order is this:

"You look pretty with that bow in your hair."
Vs.
"That boe looks pretty in your hair."

The first one says the girl was ugly and now she looks pretty,
The second one says the girl was always pretty and makes whatever she wears look nice.


Ta-da....magic...

"You look pretty with that bow in your hair."

"That boe (sic) looks pretty in your hair."

i. Suffering is a product of belief-based ignorance.
ii. Belief-based ignorance is a product of suffering.
____________________________________________
both: (misplaced) belief in/as: to-be, effectively taking the place of: in-reality-not-to-be
(belief-based ignorance thus begets suffering)

iii. Ignorance is a product of *believing to suffer...

Ignorance is a product of *believing to suffer (due to) others (rather than) self...

nothing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:45 pm A shorter example of value placement by word order is this:

"You look pretty with that bow in your hair."
Vs.
"That boe looks pretty in your hair."

The first one says the girl was ugly and now she looks pretty,
The second one says the girl was always pretty and makes whatever she wears look nice.


Ta-da....magic...

The first one takes the girl as the primary subject:

"You look pretty with that bow in your hair."

with the bow as a modifier. The second takes the bow as the primary subject:

"That boe (sic) looks pretty in your hair."

with the girl as an accessory to: "that bow looks...".

I bring these up as it has to do with the gravity problem from earlier. It is not unsound to say that words are (like inter-playing) fulcrums: just as a pianist presses down on a (new) key to carry along all of the prior energy/momentum, words serve the same: words (ie. images) make for the notes that try to shape/define any likeness (particle/wave relationship).

Thus there are certain words/expressions whose gravity is dependent on usage; depending on the order of the words, the dynamics of the resulting likeness is altered accordingly, thus it is not necessarily sound to state that the placement does not alter interpretation. On the contrary: it is the very choice(s) of placement (incl. any/all choices to *not*) that defines the likeness. Choosing not to manifest a variation is still a kind of form that, while having no form, is responsible for the likeness of the resulting form(s) owing to such a creation ex nihilo. For example:

i. Suffering is a product of belief-based ignorance.
ii. Belief-based ignorance is a product of suffering.
____________________________________________
both: (misplaced) belief in/as: to-be, effectively taking the place of: in-reality-not-to-be
(belief-based ignorance thus begets suffering)

however there is an alternative arrangement:

iii. Ignorance is a product of *believing to suffer...

____________________________________________
* former noun "belief" becomes active verb "believing"

which actively allows for:
i. trial of any/all ongoing believing to suffer...
ii. any/all variable dichotomies, such as self/other viz.:

Ignorance is a product of *believing to suffer (due to) others (rather than) self...

and establishes a qualitative perspective(s) which can try the existence in/on terms of belief:
Is it possible to erroneously believe ones own suffering is due to others?
If so, can this develop into a pathology (ie. to pathologically blame others for ones own?)
Could one religiously rely on scapegoating ones own onto others?
Would "the accuser is the accused" satisfy as a fixed characteristic describing any/all such scapegoating?
Can this potential axiom be tested against any/all accusation(s) by initially trying the accuser as the accused?

If knowledge begins with self:
I believe not, knowing I am willing not to believe.
Ignorance too begins with self:
I believe, therefor I am...
whereas the former is immediate, the latter is the genesis of an isolated tautology of ignorance(-in-and-of-itself).

This brings us to gravity: in particular, the gravity of a claim/assertion if definitely true/false if/when applied to the (real) practical reality. However it would need its own thread because Western handling of gravity is thoroughly ridiculous for being trivially truncated into such a shallow context as being "physical". When it comes to gravity, its physical properties are the least-important viz. a confusing means to approach the subject.