Symptom777 siad on the frostcloud forum:------
If P is true, then Q is true.
It doesn't matter in terms of this result whether P is actually true or not.
P = dogs are blue
Q = my dog is blue
P=>Q
Not all dogs are blue! Some are red!
P = Dogs are blue cattle dogs
Q = Roy's dog was a blue cattle dog.
These propositions are not as accurately correct as can be. Not all dogs are blue cattle dogs some are red cattle dogs, this statement invokes the law of identity. No wonder maths/society/civilisation is in a state of crisis. The distinction dog, red and blue are agreed upon naming conventions, necessary for ALL verbal communication to occur, that is in the subset of all possible languages the ENGLISH speaking tongue ONLY. Dependant upon visual conditions no matter which tongue is used that spectral range red to blue is common to all not some, therefore reason/vision is above language in its power to generate the patten whether red or blue cattle dog.
P=Some dogs are red cattle dog crosses.
Q= Dave's dog was a red cattle dog cross.
This is better but still not complete. By beginning with some implies that there is a class that is greater which is the class of all dogs. To begin inside that set of all dogs is better but it is still not the best way/mode/method.
P= All red/blue cattle dogs are dogs.
Q- My dog was/is/will be a red/blue cattle dog.
This is the best form I can come up with since covers all identity structures and all possible time considerations.
Why is it that best?
Because the process is all inclusive in mode of identification of objects that exist in that class. Dogs<Red/Blue Cattle Dogs<My Dog which to my feeble mind denotes a progression from the greater to the lesser, the whole class of objects labelled Dog to blue cattle dogs to my blue cattle dog. I can see no better way of understanding the subtleties involved with the term "IMPLY". Dogs<Red Cattle Dog<Daves dog is the inverted form of the statement from my peculiar perciever reality. Identification implies clear and consistent definitions. Without clear and consistent definition one can easily be misled/decieved/corrupted in ones reason/vision.
Both blue and red cattle dogs are dogs. The implications are all inclusive.
I prefer red cattle dogs not blue ones. The preference/choice implies the matter of taste. Aesthetics is the study of the judgements in relation to the senses. A good place to begin in an enquiry into science as external world reality and metaphysics as internal world reality to give valid explanation to those parts that are sets that are the parts of the whole.
There is the circle that is the set of all of the four footed creatures.
There is the circle inside that is the set of all male and female dogs.
There is the circle inside the set of all dogs that denote all cattle dogs
There is the circle inside of cattle dogs that denote the class red and blue.
There is the circle that denotes red cattle dog crosses that overlaps with other breeds.
There are all the breeds denoted and they exist within a boundary identifier class called DOGS.
Then the choice is made from the set of all dogs which type/kind is preferred.
That is the law of identity. Roy's blue cattle dogs name was Pirate, which separates him from all other blue cattle dogs in the pack so that Roy can direct that entity in particular to where the cattle have strayed to bring them back into the mob so they do not get lost in the bush, illustrates the point that it is practical, not some wild off the edge theory not a hypothetical, but a fact of life, easily proved via demonstration in ever day affairs.
Pirate then can be used to tell a story that involves my sister who in the early 60's got too close to him. He bit her on the face. He was not my dog. He was my mother's sisters husbands dog (ROY). As a memory he was a dog on a property near Orange N.S.W. Au. Doug was my son in laws dog. He was a red part cattle dog cross. Doug died aged 14. He was a good boy invokes the sentiment of attachment. Dearly beloved often missed. Pirate on the other hand was a working dog. My sister was too young to know the differance between a domisticated dog like the one at home. Lassie was a roan white bridle of a cocker spaniel. Pirate on the other hand is not missed, denotes the sentiment of detachment. The associations with that animal resulted in the gain of an experience that blue heeler working cattle dogs are to be treated with caution which is a part of the form of respect or the trust/distrust divide. Once that gap is understood it can then be bridged.
Simple PEaCe
If P is true, then Q is true.
It doesn't matter in terms of this result whether P is actually true or not.
P = dogs are blue
Q = my dog is blue
P=>Q
Not all dogs are blue! Some are red!
P = Dogs are blue cattle dogs
Q = Roy's dog was a blue cattle dog.
These propositions are not as accurately correct as can be. Not all dogs are blue cattle dogs some are red cattle dogs, this statement invokes the law of identity. No wonder maths/society/civilisation is in a state of crisis. The distinction dog, red and blue are agreed upon naming conventions, necessary for ALL verbal communication to occur, that is in the subset of all possible languages the ENGLISH speaking tongue ONLY. Dependant upon visual conditions no matter which tongue is used that spectral range red to blue is common to all not some, therefore reason/vision is above language in its power to generate the patten whether red or blue cattle dog.
P=Some dogs are red cattle dog crosses.
Q= Dave's dog was a red cattle dog cross.
This is better but still not complete. By beginning with some implies that there is a class that is greater which is the class of all dogs. To begin inside that set of all dogs is better but it is still not the best way/mode/method.
P= All red/blue cattle dogs are dogs.
Q- My dog was/is/will be a red/blue cattle dog.
This is the best form I can come up with since covers all identity structures and all possible time considerations.
Why is it that best?
Because the process is all inclusive in mode of identification of objects that exist in that class. Dogs<Red/Blue Cattle Dogs<My Dog which to my feeble mind denotes a progression from the greater to the lesser, the whole class of objects labelled Dog to blue cattle dogs to my blue cattle dog. I can see no better way of understanding the subtleties involved with the term "IMPLY". Dogs<Red Cattle Dog<Daves dog is the inverted form of the statement from my peculiar perciever reality. Identification implies clear and consistent definitions. Without clear and consistent definition one can easily be misled/decieved/corrupted in ones reason/vision.
Both blue and red cattle dogs are dogs. The implications are all inclusive.
I prefer red cattle dogs not blue ones. The preference/choice implies the matter of taste. Aesthetics is the study of the judgements in relation to the senses. A good place to begin in an enquiry into science as external world reality and metaphysics as internal world reality to give valid explanation to those parts that are sets that are the parts of the whole.
There is the circle that is the set of all of the four footed creatures.
There is the circle inside that is the set of all male and female dogs.
There is the circle inside the set of all dogs that denote all cattle dogs
There is the circle inside of cattle dogs that denote the class red and blue.
There is the circle that denotes red cattle dog crosses that overlaps with other breeds.
There are all the breeds denoted and they exist within a boundary identifier class called DOGS.
Then the choice is made from the set of all dogs which type/kind is preferred.
That is the law of identity. Roy's blue cattle dogs name was Pirate, which separates him from all other blue cattle dogs in the pack so that Roy can direct that entity in particular to where the cattle have strayed to bring them back into the mob so they do not get lost in the bush, illustrates the point that it is practical, not some wild off the edge theory not a hypothetical, but a fact of life, easily proved via demonstration in ever day affairs.
Pirate then can be used to tell a story that involves my sister who in the early 60's got too close to him. He bit her on the face. He was not my dog. He was my mother's sisters husbands dog (ROY). As a memory he was a dog on a property near Orange N.S.W. Au. Doug was my son in laws dog. He was a red part cattle dog cross. Doug died aged 14. He was a good boy invokes the sentiment of attachment. Dearly beloved often missed. Pirate on the other hand was a working dog. My sister was too young to know the differance between a domisticated dog like the one at home. Lassie was a roan white bridle of a cocker spaniel. Pirate on the other hand is not missed, denotes the sentiment of detachment. The associations with that animal resulted in the gain of an experience that blue heeler working cattle dogs are to be treated with caution which is a part of the form of respect or the trust/distrust divide. Once that gap is understood it can then be bridged.
Simple PEaCe
No comments:
Post a Comment