Philosophy Now Forum

What most so called genius' cannot see, is once you have recognized, as Plato did, as the authors of the Bible did, that all information processing is derived from binary recursion, these so call new grammar systems, like Predicate Calc, etc., are simply constructed on the renaming of names and for the sole purpose of pretending to know what you do not.

Obfuscation is not learning.

So, when I read the Bible, for example, I see this,

Adam and Eve were a Conjugate Binary Pair, whereby Complete Induction and Deduction, produces the human race.

Which is the same as,
The Noun and Verb are a Conjugate Binary Pair, whereby Complete Induction and Deduction, produces the life of the mind, i.e., all judgments.

Or the computer
The 0 and 1 are a Conjugate Binary Pair, whereby Complete Induction and Deduction, produces all information processing.

Or in short, there is nothing fucking complicated that I do.

Complete Induction and Deduction can be put into a single word, Recursion. Which means, if you did it once, you can do it over and over again, unless, of course, you have a restraining order.

Are you having your own private party in the lounge this week, Phil?

I like Aristotle's Nicho M ethics, myself. When I think of a man I think of an ancient robed Greek philosopher walking into a group of heathen commoners fighting over some stupid thing and silencing the entire mob by raising a hand up like Socrates in that pic and saying something of immeasurable philosophical depth that paralyzes everyone.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 8:05 pm I like Aristotle's Nicho M ethics, myself. When I think of a man I think of an ancient robed Greek philosopher walking into a group of heathen commoners fighting over some stupid thing and silencing the entire mob by raising a hand up like Socrates in that pic and saying something of immeasurable philosophical depth that paralyzes everyone.

Today we use tasers.

So you are alpha animal groupie type.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 7:59 pm Are you having your own private party in the lounge this week, Phil?

If it is private what the fuck you doing here?

You should know by plenty of experience that even a fucking moron can come and go.

I start this project using Hunters, Trigonometry for Beginners.

I took his table of 8 trig functions, and reduced them all to the expressions of the sine function. This means that we are down to the arithmetic expression of dividing a circle into 360 parts, or the original naming convention. Instead of jumping right in with arithmetic functions, in trig, they jump in by renaming these functions, which is really odd.

What you see when you strip away the renaming of names, become clear. They name another angle using the same function as something different, they then name a ratio with those two, multiplying the name. They cover, addition and subtraction, once again assigning a new name and calling it a trig function, when it is no such thing, it is an arithmetic function.
I am doing the drawings in Sketchpad, and will probably post, in pdf, the rectification of these names by themselves. It will show the math.


What they did, in Trigonometry everybody is familiar with. In Common Grammar, the renaming of names start with the two parts of speech. According to a words geographical location in a sentence, it became a new part of speech. That is why people cannot even agree as to how many parts of speech there are, because the common man is wrapt up in the perceptible, he cannot recursively use the intelligible.

You can point out the fact, as Plato stated, as the computer demonstrates, that there are two and only two parts of speech, the common man cannot even imagine how to understand it.

Thus, one's basic I.Q. is told by how you use the original convention of names.

Many linguist claim that there is no Universal foundation for Grammar, while typing up those words on their own computer. Talk about being thick, take a good look at the so-called intelligentsia. Take a good look at those who use the expression AI, when they display, themselves, the lack of I.