| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Stormy
Member
United Kingdom
12836 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 7:25:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
Stormy says-
quote:
"...surely - modus tollens is of the form 'P implies Q; not Q; therefore, not P'.."
Well, you're quite right! It can be expressed that way or as the mirror of the statement. For example, 'P does not imply Q, therefore P is valid.
I don't follow - how is that the 'mirror' of the modus tollens argument form?
EDIT: plus what FDG says
- 
- Stormy [6w5]
"Some vices miss what is right because they are deficient, others because they are excessive, in feelings or in actions, while virtue finds and chooses the mean."
- Aristotle, "Nichomachean Ethics", Datalinks |
Edited by - Stormy on 08 Apr 2006 7:31:35 PM |
 |
|
|
FDG
Member
Italy
3311 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 7:28:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
Stormy says-
quote:
"...surely - modus tollens is of the form 'P implies Q; not Q; therefore, not P'.."
Well, you're quite right! It can be expressed that way or as the mirror of the statement. For example, 'P does not imply Q, therefore P is valid. The Ancients were quite capable of seeing the properties of reflection, and so, they could conceptualise the reversing of a statement. In fact, that might be a good way to test the strenght of a statement. Can it be reversed using the process of modus tollens for example, and still appear to make sense. Again for example, 'the lightning(P) struck the tree(Q)'(.i.e.,P not Q) when transformed into 'the tree struck the lightning' (.i.e., Q not P) tends to create a non-sensical statement. Maybe there is a proof relating to truth in modus tollens, though I am only speculating (?)
uchtungbaby
Your example is incorrect, since it lacks an enormous series of premises! Moreover, it's not in the form "p therefore not Q" as you say; "the lightning struck the tree" is only a "p". A correct example would be: The wheather was Stormy ( :D ), therefore the lightining struck the tree. If you reverse this statement, it's still logically coherent, even if the less strong "The lightning struck the tree" doesn't necessarily imply that the wheather was stormy.
------------------
ENTJ 8w7 (the dumb sociopathic mysoginist jock) sx/sp/so
|
|
|
|
FDG
Member
Italy
3311 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 7:40:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stormy
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
Stormy says-
quote:
"...surely - modus tollens is of the form 'P implies Q; not Q; therefore, not P'.."
Well, you're quite right! It can be expressed that way or as the mirror of the statement. For example, 'P does not imply Q, therefore P is valid.
I don't follow - how is that the 'mirror' of the modus tollens argument form?
I think it goes this way: someone proves wrong P with a reductio ad absurdum that ends to Q; the modus tollens in order to prove that P doesn't actually lead to Q, therefore it's valid.
------------------
ENTJ 8w7 (the dumb sociopathic mysoginist jock) sx/sp/so
|
|
|
|
Stormy
Member
United Kingdom
12836 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 7:49:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FDG
I think it goes this way: someone proves wrong P with a reductio ad absurdum that ends to Q; the modus tollens in order to prove that P doesn't actually lead to Q, therefore it's valid.
Doesn't a reductio ad absurdum that proves not P, by definition, start with P and end with not P i.e. isn't Q irrelevant to a reductio ad absurdum disproving P?
- Stormy [6w5]
"Some vices miss what is right because they are deficient, others because they are excessive, in feelings or in actions, while virtue finds and chooses the mean."
- Aristotle, "Nichomachean Ethics", Datalinks |
|
|
|
FDG
Member
Italy
3311 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 7:53:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stormy
quote:
Originally posted by FDG
I think it goes this way: someone proves wrong P with a reductio ad absurdum that ends to Q; the modus tollens in order to prove that P doesn't actually lead to Q, therefore it's valid.
Doesn't a reductio ad absurdum that proves not P, by definition, start with P and end with not P i.e. isn't Q irrelevant to a reductio ad absurdum disproving P?
That's true; he might have set "Q" as the step just before "non-P", even if it doesn't make much sense. Let's see what he replies.
------------------
ENTJ 8w7 (the dumb sociopathic mysoginist jock) sx/sp/so
|
|
|
|
AM Icon
Member
Canada
129 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 04:05:04 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FDG
My issue is mainly with the fact that the word "artificial", in its illogical twisted meaning, it's equated with "big bad mobster CEOs that pollute the environment to make profits in order to buy a new SLK to get women", which is not the case.
And my issue is with the use of the word "Nature" to justify social systems and customs that are obviously artificial.
For instance, though I find the specific statement which you find "Not the case" to be crude, I don't disagree with its spirit.
The powerful in a society tend to establish, believe in, and support norms that best represent thier own self interest, justify them to themselves and others on the basis of "Human Nature" and then (often out of "Benevolence") do thier best to have those beneath them on the social ladder, -on whom thier power depends- socialized towards those norms.
This seems to be a universal trend and, to be honest, I don't think any of our modern societies have managed to escape it.
--
If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, If at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptyness lay hid behind everything, what would life be but despair? Kierkegaard
|
|
|
|
uchtungbaby
Member
Armenia
3382 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 06:59:12 AM
|
FDG says-
quote:
'...The wheather was Stormy ( :D ), therefore the lightining struck the tree..'
Look I'll entertain it though I think we get into very muddy waters, and there are only a handful of people in the world who are capable of offering any form of consistency on the matter. But here goes. Think about this one. Why do you phrase the sentence in that particular order? I shall show you the correct non-sensical reversal of modus tollens in that sentence.
'...the tree struck the lightning therefore; the storm was weather..'
Now I know why the above sentence is wrong. It is wrong because it does not obey the rules of English grammar though, it may obey the rules of other grammars within transitional latin based languages and romance languages. And really that is why you are not right though you are also not wrong. Students of English Rhetoric seeking a physics of the spoken word, battle with this conundrum all the time. Admittedly English grammar is seldom obeyed anymore and this is why it would be difficult to prove that applying modus tollens and then reversing the principle might yield an economy of truth.
uchtungbaby |
|
|
|
FDG
Member
Italy
3311 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 07:11:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
FDG says-
quote:
'...The wheather was Stormy ( :D ), therefore the lightining struck the tree..'
Look I'll entertain it though I think we get into very muddy waters, and there are only a handful of people in the world who are capable of offering any form of consistency on the matter. But here goes. Think about this one. Why do you phrase the sentence in that particular order? I shall show you the correct non-sensical reversal of modus tollens in that sentence.
'...the tree struck the lightning therefore; the storm was weather..'
Now I know why the above sentence is wrong. It is wrong because it does not obey the rules of English grammar though, it may obey the rules of other grammars within transitional latin based languages and romance languages. And really that is why you are not right though you are also not wrong. Students of English Rhetoric seeking a physics of the spoken word, battle with this conundrum all the time. Admittedly English grammar is seldom obeyed anymore and this is why it would be difficult to prove that applying modus tollens and then reversing the principle might yield an economy of truth.
uchtungbaby
------------------
ENTJ 8w7 (the dumb sociopathic mysoginist jock) sx/sp/so
|
|
|
|
FDG
Member
Italy
3311 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 07:14:38 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
FDG says-
quote:
'...The wheather was Stormy ( :D ), therefore the lightining struck the tree..'
Look I'll entertain it though I think we get into very muddy waters, and there are only a handful of people in the world who are capable of offering any form of consistency on the matter. But here goes. Think about this one. Why do you phrase the sentence in that particular order? I shall show you the correct non-sensical reversal of modus tollens in that sentence.
'...the tree struck the lightning therefore; the storm was weather..'
Now I know why the above sentence is wrong. It is wrong because it does not obey the rules of English grammar though, it may obey the rules of other grammars within transitional latin based languages and romance languages. And really that is why you are not right though you are also not wrong. Students of English Rhetoric seeking a physics of the spoken word, battle with this conundrum all the time. Admittedly English grammar is seldom obeyed anymore and this is why it would be difficult to prove that applying modus tollens and then reversing the principle might yield an economy of truth.
uchtungbaby
Sorry, but I still don't agree with your modus tollens. Logic is based on propositions, not on words. So, you cannot mix up the words and say that it's modus tollens, you have to reverse the direction of the implication.
In this case p: the lightning struck the tree q: the weather was stormy. You cannot mix up the words because if you do so, you'll end up with a totally different proposition, let's call it z.
------------------
ENTJ 8w7 (the dumb sociopathic mysoginist jock) sx/sp/so
|
|
|
|
uchtungbaby
Member
Armenia
3382 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 09:26:35 AM
|
The problem arises in your analysis of modus tollens because you assume that the object of modus tollens is to disprove or invalidate a proposition. Modus Tollens is not concerned with truth or commonsense. It is a principle of discourse in classical thought. People often apply it quite unconsciously in their day-to-day debates with people. In fact, some people even make major decisions on the basis of the interaction between modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum. In classical thought however, nothing is taken for granted and the interaction between these two maxims, are often offset with notions of identity or resemblance, when discussing the two maxims. For example, Theaetatus and Heraclitus speak of identity as self-contradictory and irreconcilable. It takes the form P=Q. But of course, if P=Q, then by necessity we are embarking on a form of tautology. Quite literally, we are simply restating a proposition twice. Again for example, I might say dog equals four legged thing that barks a lot. Now if we accept that my definition is comprehensive enough, then we come to the conclusion that a definition is a tautology. It is simply stating something twice. In classical thought, that is ridiculous and unecessary. This is because the dictionary was not invented until at least 1700 years later. So for the classical thinker a dictionary definition is ridiculous because it is a tautology, and therefore, a waste of precious word space. So it is difficult to dispute your assumptions about 'proposition' and outcome because, to define these wordy things means to disobey the rules of classical thought on rhetoric. Consequently, your discussion could not even enter a debate involving a debate on modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum because these terms are correspondingly developed through principles related to modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum. I cannot even speak such things myself because I would be imparting a definition of a definition, which as I have already explained, is absurd because it is a form of identity or resemblance.
uchtungbaby |
|
|
|
atone
Member
New Zealand
6612 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 09:28:11 AM
|
Uchtung. Paragraphs. Use them.
-
"Life or death. Who's going to die first. You or me."
7w8 ENTj |
|
|
|
Stormy
Member
United Kingdom
12836 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 09:49:40 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
The problem arises in your analysis of modus tollens because you assume that the object of modus tollens is to disprove or invalidate a proposition. Modus Tollens is not concerned with truth or commonsense. It is a principle of discourse in classical thought.
It also has a definite form, which I can't seem to identify in your demonstration of it.
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
It takes the form P=Q. But of course, if P=Q, then by necessity we are embarking on a form of tautology.
That is a statement of equivalence, not a tautology.
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
Quite literally, we are simply restating a proposition twice.
'P = Q' asserts that P is equivalent to Q - they are to separate propositions, not a single proposition repeated.
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
Again for example, I might say dog equals four legged thing that barks a lot. Now if we accept that my definition is comprehensive enough, then we come to the conclusion that a definition is a tautology.
A simple proposition cannot by itself be a tautology.
- Stormy [6w5]
"Some vices miss what is right because they are deficient, others because they are excessive, in feelings or in actions, while virtue finds and chooses the mean."
- Aristotle, "Nichomachean Ethics", Datalinks |
|
|
|
uchtungbaby
Member
Armenia
3382 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 10:29:06 AM
|
Stormy me old pommy mate,
I can only refer you to my previous post as a rebuttal because the only way I can respond to you is by imparting one of the two maxims we have all been consumed by in this thread. The only way to respond to your position is to start stacking tortoises on top of each other. That is the classical response. Now isn't it funny that I already knew that you would know the analogy of the stacked tortoises.
You might also like to take note that modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum are considered in a qualitative sense, too be two different types of outcome. They are not both simply considering the grounds on which a discourse may be negated. The outcomes contemplated in the two maxims are similar though not P=Q, okay They do not fall into the contradiction of identity or resemblance.
Are you starting to see the water beginning to muddy up like a misplaced sewerage pipe in Thames.
uchtungbaby |
|
|
|
Stormy
Member
United Kingdom
12836 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 10:41:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
I can only refer you to my previous post as a rebuttal because the only way I can respond to you is by imparting one of the two maxims we have all been consumed by in this thread. The only way to respond to your position is to start stacking tortoises on top of each other. That is the classical response. Now isn't it funny that I already knew that you would know the analogy of the stacked tortoises.
...Maybe it would be funny if it was true; what the hell has stacked tortoises got to do with anything?!
-
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
You might also like to take note that modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum are considered in a qualitative sense, too be two different types of outcome. They are not both simply considering the grounds on which a discourse may be negated. The outcomes contemplated in the two maxims are similar though not P=Q, okay They do not fall into the contradiction of identity or resemblance.
Modus tollens is a valid argument form - any argument that is of the modus tollens form is automatically valid. The form is:
P implies Q
Not Q
-----------
Therefore, not P
Reductio ad absurdum is a method of proof whereby one assumes the opposite of what one is trying to prove and then shows that this leads to a contradiction, thus proving that the opposite of the opposite (i.e. what one is trying to prove) must be true.
Are we on the same page?
- Stormy [6w5]
"Some vices miss what is right because they are deficient, others because they are excessive, in feelings or in actions, while virtue finds and chooses the mean."
- Aristotle, "Nichomachean Ethics", Datalinks |
|
|
|
AM Icon
Member
Canada
129 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 11:59:19 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
The problem arises in your analysis of modus tollens because you assume that the object of modus tollens is to disprove or invalidate a proposition. Modus Tollens is not concerned with truth or commonsense. It is a principle of discourse in classical thought. People often apply it quite unconsciously in their day-to-day debates with people. In fact, some people even make major decisions on the basis of the interaction between modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum. In classical thought however, nothing is taken for granted and the interaction between these two maxims, are often offset with notions of identity or resemblance, when discussing the two maxims. For example, Theaetatus and Heraclitus speak of identity as self-contradictory and irreconcilable. It takes the form P=Q. But of course, if P=Q, then by necessity we are embarking on a form of tautology. Quite literally, we are simply restating a proposition twice. Again for example, I might say dog equals four legged thing that barks a lot. Now if we accept that my definition is comprehensive enough, then we come to the conclusion that a definition is a tautology. It is simply stating something twice. In classical thought, that is ridiculous and unecessary. This is because the dictionary was not invented until at least 1700 years later. So for the classical thinker a dictionary definition is ridiculous because it is a tautology, and therefore, a waste of precious word space. So it is difficult to dispute your assumptions about 'proposition' and outcome because, to define these wordy things means to disobey the rules of classical thought on rhetoric. Consequently, your discussion could not even enter a debate involving a debate on modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum because these terms are correspondingly developed through principles related to modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum. I cannot even speak such things myself because I would be imparting a definition of a definition, which as I have already explained, is absurd because it is a form of identity or resemblance.
uchtungbaby
Hello Uchtungbaby
While it is possible to construct a proposition about the world (Like "All things are identical") which is so vast in scope that it is neccessarily true, it must be done so outside the bounds of 2-valued logic, at which point all talk about modus tollens, reductio ad absurdum and tautologies becomes non-applicable.
So yes, perhaps P can neccessarily equal Q, but then P also necessarily equals not P, and Logic goes bye-bye.
--
If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, If at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptyness lay hid behind everything, what would life be but despair? Kierkegaard
|
|
|
|
uchtungbaby
Member
Armenia
3382 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 8:13:36 PM
|
AM says-
'...perhaps P can neccessarily equal Q, but then P also necessarily equals not P, and Logic goes bye-bye..'
Well, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. That is pretty much the point I end up on because, Stormy and a few others cannot keep to the classical script and end up mixing their metaphors. They jump between the logic of math and the syntax of English to suit their position. And quite honestly, never the twain shall meet, so really my appraisal of their approach would be to say that it is an anachronism of reductio ad absurdum. It falls for the all too common mistake of jumbling up the pre-theory of math with the pre-theory of grammar. It is quite unconscious for people to make this mistake, and most people are not capable of getting around the problem until age grants them the focus they need to develop a sense of classical understanding.
I was also susceptible to the view of Stormy and FDG when I was younger as well. A little hint to help you along the way is to remember that the Classical Greek understanding of theoria is based on the strength of arete (.i.e., virtue). All classical logic is designed to support the proposition of an moral intellectual elite, who rightly or wrongly, developed a method of discourse which worked in their ethical favour. Whoever could argue with the maxims best was the one who won. The logic they used was not a-centric in value, and consequently, a battle of wits contained winners and loser, and sometimes the winners were the bad guys, and sometimes the winners were the good guys. Strength of argument depended on how many of the umpires raised their blinkers during discourse
uchtungbaby |
|
|
|
Stormy
Member
United Kingdom
12836 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 8:27:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
...Stormy and a few others cannot keep to the classical script and end up mixing their metaphors. They jump between the logic of math and the syntax of English to suit their position.
This is what you are doing - modus tollens is firmly and exclusively in the realm of (propositional) logic, yet you treat it as if it is some ambiguous concept that can be applied to any situation, anyhow.
- Stormy [6w5]
"Some vices miss what is right because they are deficient, others because they are excessive, in feelings or in actions, while virtue finds and chooses the mean."
- Aristotle, "Nichomachean Ethics", Datalinks |
|
|
|
FDG
Member
Italy
3311 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 12:31:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stormy
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
...Stormy and a few others cannot keep to the classical script and end up mixing their metaphors. They jump between the logic of math and the syntax of English to suit their position.
This is what you are doing - modus tollens is firmly and exclusively in the realm of (propositional) logic, yet you treat it as if it is some ambiguous concept that can be applied to any situation, anyhow.
Yay!
Unchtung, try using formal logic to prove your point. You'll see that it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
------------------
ENTJ 8w7 (the dumb sociopathic mysoginist jock) sx/sp/so
|
|
|
|
uchtungbaby
Member
Armenia
3382 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 04:33:05 AM
|
FDG says-
quote:
'...it doesn't make any sense..'
You're quite right about that and Stormy knows it as well, though he's trying to play the patsy. They are as you have gathered internal contradictions of logic, which of course, is a totally non-sensical statement, since by definition an act of logic can never have irreconcilable contradictions.
Now if you were to assess the logic of what I just stated then you would be inclined to think that I had mixed the two maxims together in the sentences above.
By the way FDG I notice that you have Italy as your home base. What's the weather like? As a digression, I once studied a little Italian when I was a younger man.
uchtungbaby |
|
|
|
FDG
Member
Italy
3311 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 04:45:03 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by uchtungbaby
FDG says-
quote:
'...it doesn't make any sense..'
You're quite right about that and Stormy knows it as well, though he's trying to play the patsy. They are as you have gathered internal contradictions of logic, which of course, is a totally non-sensical statement, since by definition an act of logic can never have irreconcilable contradictions.
Now if you were to assess the logic of what I just stated then you would be inclined to think that I had mixed the two maxims together in the sentences above.
They're not contradictions of logic IMHO, they're contradictions of the english language.
quote:
By the way FDG I notice that you have Italy as your home base. What's the weather like? As a digression, I once studied a little Italian when I was a younger man.
uchtungbaby
Today the weather is [blocked due to guideline #4 violation]ty, but still in these days the weather is cool, warm and springy, and I'm reborn - the weather influences my mood. How was the language? I'd like to have a foreign perispective, since of course I find it easy.
------------------
ENTJ 8w7 (the dumb sociopathic mysoginist jock) sx/sp/so
|
|
|
|
envy
Member
1442 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 04:53:14 AM
|
Heratyck, you are so cute in your arguing 
Just can't drop it, eh? You know I don't HAVE to defend any of my statements. Defending yourself means that you don't believe in what you say yourself. But I do and as you can see many in here got my points or at least took a look at the book to understand.
I didn't mention the book to get attention or to make people mad. On the contrary - I did it because it helped me and I wanted to give others the same chance. If it's not your cup of tea, fine but then just drop it and don't undermine yourself.
My "Thanx for the attention" was ironic and I bet you are smart enough to see that. And I bet you are also smart enough to figure out what I meant by "women give life". Of course, men are involved but it's the woman who really does GIVE life, BIRTH. And not just that. She is the one who goes through menstruation, she is the one who decides to let which man in and in the end she is also the one who decides if she gives birth to the child or not. And in many cases she is also the only one who cares for the child...
I'd suggest who just respect that a bit, can you? A birth is no walk in the park. It's not long ago since women still lost their lives after giving birth.
Anyway, the "attention you can offer" would be very funny to see but as I said, don't undermine yourself, dear.
Thanks anyway. This is my last posting on that issue.
envy
4/3
|
|
|
|
FDG
Member
Italy
3311 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 04:59:57 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by envy
Defending yourself means that you don't believe in what you say yourself.
AHAHAHA! BOOOM!
Please, you've been spurring nonsense for too much time. It's for your own good to stop.
------------------
ENTJ 8w7 (the dumb sociopathic mysoginist jock) sx/sp/so
|
Edited by - FDG on 10 Apr 2006 05:00:48 AM |
|
|
|
Stormy
Member
United Kingdom
12836 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 09:45:48 AM
|
So...what does 'stacking turtles' mean?
- Stormy [6w5]
"Some vices miss what is right because they are deficient, others because they are excessive, in feelings or in actions, while virtue finds and chooses the mean."
- Aristotle, "Nichomachean Ethics", Datalinks |
|
|
|
heratyck
Member
USA
3603 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 5:16:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by envy
Heratyck, you are so cute in your arguing
Just can't drop it, eh?
drop what? Is this not a discussion board... for discussing things?
quote:
You know I don't HAVE to defend any of my statements.
Of course you don't... If you came right out and made the statement that you did not wish to defend your position, then I would respect that. But that's not what you've done. You have defended your position with insolence. Not there is anything wrong with insolence, but when that's the only thing you're using then that usually indicates you are defending a personal belief. Which IMO is pointless... Beliefs or personal convictions do not really make good subject matter for debates, because most people have a hard time seperating themselves from their beliefs.
quote:
Defending yourself means that you don't believe in what you say yourself.
But I am not talking about defending yourself... I am talking about defending your position... There is no reason for you to personalize it. You are not your arguments...If someone attacks your arguments they are not attacking you.
quote:
I didn't mention the book to get attention or to make people mad.
I didn't think anyone got mad...
quote:
On the contrary - I did it because it helped me and I wanted to give others the same chance.
If that was your motive, then you went about it the wrong way.
quote:
If it's not your cup of tea, fine but then just drop it and don't undermine yourself.
Undermine myself? That makes no sense...
quote:
I'd suggest who just respect that a bit, can you? A birth is no walk in the park. It's not long ago since women still lost their lives after giving birth.
LOL...you don't need to tell me what it's like to give birth... I already know from firsthand experience what it's like to give birth as I have done it several times... How about you?
*001101010111011100110100*
I’m blown to the maxim
Two hemispheres battlin’
Suckin’ up, one last breath
Take a drag off of death |
|
|
|
uchtungbaby
Member
Armenia
3382 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 5:25:55 PM
|
Stormy asks-
quote:
'..So...what does 'stacking turtles' mean?'
Actually, I presumed by the authority you spoke with that you would have learned the old turtle stacking metaphor long ago. But I guess I can be wrong in my presumptions. I shall tell you by way of a form of classical logic. In fact, I shall give you an example which is derived from an example.
Perhaps you have heard of theories of implication. A classic example often used involves a person who has the peculiar name of 'Well Named'. Someone once said of Mister Named that "Well Named is ill named." A contradiction of course because one cannot be both honorable and dishonourable. A paradox of sorts is clearly inferred in the statement. Now what if this world of internal contradictions extended beyond the surface structure of the sentence or phrase. What if the internal contradiction was within the words of every sentence ever constructed. Take the famous word 'determine' as an example. A superficial examination of the word suggests that it is a verb. Further examination reveals that it can be viewed as the Italians would say as a 'verbi reflesivi' (.i.e., reflexive verb). For example, I can apply the word without alteration to mean that I am controlled by an external 3rd person noun or I can suggest that I impose my will on others as a 1st person noun. The verb has a non-specific character which allows it to be interpreted through opposite ends of the looking glass so to speak. The meaning of the word depends on who is using it, not on any independent property within the word.
Through this interplay between the reflexive and inflexive nature of language, meaning is built up in layers. Oft times this build up of meaning can occur over centuries, like the old stacking of turtles metaphor spoken of in ancient hindi texts. The implication of the stacking turtles story relates to this example in that the metaphor is an example of how myth is a form of creation and how creation is a form of myth
Oh, and stacking turtles on top of each other is how some ancient people believed that the world was created and maintained.
uchtungbaby |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Sociopaths
