Thursday, April 21, 2011

On Account of Hearsay

On Account of Hearsay

Assume that for the sake of a valid argument their is a condition not deceptive.

Falsehood is a lie and belief in lies is an apostasy or a treasonable offense is evil.

Consistency of use of terms then is in accord with the invariable the absolute.

That is logic as the thing the subject of abstraction the object's objective as known.

We therefore need to illustrate the point by painting a picture analogically speaking.

I can see no other method to inform the ear about the way the noise is deciphered.

We do not smell nor taste nor touch noise since sound is the domain of the ear.

However there is a visual/verbal relationship between the eye and the ears domain.

That does link indiscriminately with the smell the taste and the touch by the senses.

Rotten meat's sound is possessed of relationship in context with odor + taste.

The very sound of the word brings to mind the sensation gained with it's experience.

The experience cannot lie to you especially if you had a bad one with decaying flesh.

This I believe is perceiver reality as presented by dear old Bishop Berkeley.

Well may we say that nothing but waves of light and color exist in our senses?

Atoms are immaterial have proved to be little more than some strange spirits.

Each with a taste a smell and a feel with qualities inherent within their substance.

Next we have to understand the distinction in existence in relation to reporters.

On account we hear an account on the evening news often with video footage.

Before photography turned up on the world stage everything was reported verbally.

Well except for a few paintings, drawings and heads and tails of sculptured coins.

Bones buried in the ground called fossilized remains are one sort, one kind of sculpture.

Then on to dealing with orders of magnitude scale of derivatives in the analytical.

Again trust is a prerequisite for when misplaced the t left out leaves us with rust.

Dear David Hume showed men how to be skeptical or how to doubt the evidence.

The problem of induction from first principles to general conclusions or confessions.

To doubt implies a mode of questioning of questing after fact whether true or false.

Yet here we trust the government's of the day who rules over us to tell the truth.

Watching each party debate their cause using every fallacious trick in the book.

1 comment:

PeatantiCs said...

Since it is a fact Dear M.medical there is a lot of blood on the tracks.
Whom do you trust then or has the hanger your coat hangs on rusted up.
Or perhaps hanger your plane sits in has becomes a shelter for the homeless.
The hanger man and prisoners dilemma paradoxical statements conclusions.

Contradictions: When a contracted party fails to come up with the goods.
Government: The party that the contracted party votes for to get the goods.
Criminality: The manufacture of a promissory note and failure to keep the agreement.
Standards: The department of weights and measures your neck in the noose.

So you have visited the homeless shelter and lived for a time in a cardboard box?
On a winters night in the middle of a storm without a fire or a blanket to keep warm.
Shiver me timbers while that was happening the Ebola Gay was running away.
From the hottest spot on the planet at that time in history a mushroom cloud.

And the fight was over America denying Japan access to material resources.
You believe that do you Doctor yet the evidence is based on fragments of hearsay?