And that sums up the journey mankind made since the Garden of Eden or paradisaical walled gardens does it? Same problem with every single one of the very rough and tough calculations made by the men, not in your life to invent for you ladies, the tumble dryer or any other time saving device. A lot has been found during the near too, say catch 2.2 million days since. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Simple command do not eat from the death tree if you do you will be denied access to the life tree as a simple paraphrase of the popular translations policies terminology. If the man in your life was God and you said he was not, that makes you better than God. If so then, please part or walk on the waters, heal the sick, raise the dead and bruise the serpent of deceit in the head. We will say thank you, for that and forever after, that rafter is from your eye extracted, since then there will be no more suffering nor outcry of pain forevermore, the former things will have passed away, never to be recalled to mind and we have found the news heavens and the new earth in the gravitas of this horizon. Take all the whole numbers that exist in the linear dimension and no prizes for guessing that 1/2 of them are divisible by 2 all the way up the line we are all relatives in the flesh but not yet of one spirit.
== 2.2 Identity Propositions and Significant Assertion ==
The distinction between the intension (or connotation) and extension (or denotation) of names was widely acknowledged by nineteenth century logicians. But the distinction was applied, as a rule, to general names, not proper names. With regard to proper names, logicians generally sided with John Stuart Mill in holding that they lack connotation. Keynes, for example, writes that proper names are “non-connotative”—that is, “their application is not determined by a conventionally assigned set of attributes” (Keynes 1906, 42).
Jones's “New Law of Thought”—the law of significant assertion—incorporates the distinction as follows.
The Law of Significant Assertion:
Any Subject of Predication is an identity of denotation in diversity of intention. (Jones 1910–11: 169; 1911, 2)"
If I am allowed to speak here someone is going to go eek. Original research is not allowed I am led to believe in Wikipedia articles. The lack of confirmation via peer review networks not being present in a case as presented for review by an accepted committee is not present in the following formulation. We are in some rather heady and heavy material in the above with Mill and Keynes being in agreement that "proper names" lack connotation, a proposition which I assert is in error.
""A proper name [is] a word that answers the purpose of showing what thing it is that we are talking about" writes John Stuart Mill in A System of Logic (1. ii. 5.), "but not of telling anything about it". The problem of defining proper names, and of explaining their meaning, is one of the most recalcitrant in modern analytical philosophy."
Firstly the Stanford article has toward the end a log of events which holds that "The Aristotelian Society" held debates between Jones and Russell over the right to call Scott "The author of Waverley" that the first "proper name" Scott, is correct and the second is disallowed on principle by their system of logical identifiers. "Scott is the author of Waverley" identifies but one attribute that is but one part of the domain of the life of Scott as an author. Rob Roy is as much of a character in the novel's fantasia as Scott is and the author of that fantasia in reality. That Scott was of Scottish origin is as important to Scott as it was for him to invent Rob Roy as a Scottish patriot since he thought of himself as a Scottish patriot. Since these characteristics are denoted as being attributes to both Scott and Rob Roy we now deal with an abstract noun called patriot which if it does not possess connotations then neither Scott nor his invented character could act their part as servants to the land that they held up high on their moral pedestals to serve and die for, most especially, if and when they have no intentions or connotations in accord with their confusion over the choice of synonyms that speak from different viewpoints about exaxtly the same subject "actions of the will". Thus it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that simple extension is expressed in simple intention. For without the voluntary powers contained within the "intent to serve" there can be no service or act of will to extend the helping hand as a "patriot". "The Aristolelian Society" to my understanding that is also my power to comprehend a difference in a word like "British Law" of the brutish bulldogs, Prime Ministers and its "logos" of the Greek geek, Heraclitus or the "Dharma" of the Sanskit kitchen hand, Krishna or the "Tao" of the Chinese character set called Lao Tse contain one difference which is each particular parties ethnic origin. Proper names represent not just the authors, countries, companies but also the influence that each author who believes in "whatever names on the letterhead" or has, as a respected authority to the population of readers even if and when it is "Mill" or "Keynes" being accepted as right when it is but a personal critique that I think them wrong. If that is not also another position or point of view that is not in possession of connotations or intentions then I will have to eat my trusty little powercap, batteries, wires, cloth and plastic included. I know I am safe from that torture how about YOU.