On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse
and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy",
that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails,
so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up,
and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true,
though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the Nietzsche-Register
are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater
philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
On 6/10/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse
and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy",
that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails,
so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up,
and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true,
though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the Nietzsche-Register
are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater
philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
So the body of knowledge expressed in language is entirely
comprised of:
(a) Expressions that are stipulated to be true
thus assigning semantic meaning to otherwise meaningless
finite strings and
(b) Expressions that are semantically entailed by (a)
and/or (b).
Because the foundational basis for expressions of language
is finite strings of symbols this semantic entailment must
be specified syntactically and processed as finite string
transformation rules.
On 06/10/2026 09:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse
and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy",
that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails,
so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up,
and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true,
though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the Nietzsche-Register
are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater
philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
So the body of knowledge expressed in language is entirely
comprised of:
(a) Expressions that are stipulated to be true
thus assigning semantic meaning to otherwise meaningless
finite strings and
(b) Expressions that are semantically entailed by (a)
and/or (b).
Because the foundational basis for expressions of language
is finite strings of symbols this semantic entailment must
be specified syntactically and processed as finite string
transformation rules.
Nope, that's just a positivism.
Everybody had heard the song "Epic", with its iconic
motif "What: is it?", then with regards to something
like Mini Maggit, or Passenger, about Distintegration
or Fascination Street vis-a-vis Icing Sugar and Like
Cockatoos, or for Falling to Pieces or Love Hate Love.
That's "a" body of knowledge, not "the" body of knowledge.
Quit repeating yourself, it's irritating.
On 06/10/2026 09:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse
and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy",
that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails,
so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up,
and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true,
though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the Nietzsche-Register
are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater
philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
So the body of knowledge expressed in language is entirely
comprised of:
(a) Expressions that are stipulated to be true
thus assigning semantic meaning to otherwise meaningless
finite strings and
(b) Expressions that are semantically entailed by (a)
and/or (b).
Because the foundational basis for expressions of language
is finite strings of symbols this semantic entailment must
be specified syntactically and processed as finite string
transformation rules.
Nope, that's just a positivism.
On 6/10/2026 12:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 09:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse
and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy",
that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails,
so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up,
and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true,
though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the Nietzsche-Register
are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater
philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
So the body of knowledge expressed in language is entirely
comprised of:
(a) Expressions that are stipulated to be true
thus assigning semantic meaning to otherwise meaningless
finite strings and
(b) Expressions that are semantically entailed by (a)
and/or (b).
Because the foundational basis for expressions of language
is finite strings of symbols this semantic entailment must
be specified syntactically and processed as finite string
transformation rules.
Nope, that's just a positivism.
No one bothers to notice that a valid counter-example
cannot possibly exist.
How the Hell else do otherwise meaningless finite strings
acquire meaning?
On 06/10/2026 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 12:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 09:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse
and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy",
that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails,
so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up,
and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true,
though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the Nietzsche-Register
are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater
philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
So the body of knowledge expressed in language is entirely
comprised of:
(a) Expressions that are stipulated to be true
thus assigning semantic meaning to otherwise meaningless
finite strings and
(b) Expressions that are semantically entailed by (a)
and/or (b).
Because the foundational basis for expressions of language
is finite strings of symbols this semantic entailment must
be specified syntactically and processed as finite string
transformation rules.
Nope, that's just a positivism.
No one bothers to notice that a valid counter-example
cannot possibly exist.
How the Hell else do otherwise meaningless finite strings
acquire meaning?
Well, you see, there are differences.
Obviously two distinct objects at all makes a counter-example
to there not being two distinct objects at all.
It's the classical dialectic since Parmenides, dual monism
after Heraclitus and a holistic dual monism and dialectic,
that it's the very point of difference at all that two objects
have their own theories and together make one theory of two
theories, then naturally all the reasoning about factuals
and counter-factuals arises since platonistically it already
exists.
It's a sad case being so sure about what guarantees itself
un-sure, then it's worse to be wrong about it, then whether
it's more pathetic to be a liar or ignorant, has usually
that it's worse to be a liar than ignorant.
Since then one could get blamed for malevolence instead of stupidity.
On 06/10/2026 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 12:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 09:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse
and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy",
that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails,
so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up,
and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true,
though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the Nietzsche-Register
are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater
philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
So the body of knowledge expressed in language is entirely
comprised of:
(a) Expressions that are stipulated to be true
thus assigning semantic meaning to otherwise meaningless
finite strings and
(b) Expressions that are semantically entailed by (a)
and/or (b).
Because the foundational basis for expressions of language
is finite strings of symbols this semantic entailment must
be specified syntactically and processed as finite string
transformation rules.
Nope, that's just a positivism.
No one bothers to notice that a valid counter-example
cannot possibly exist.
How the Hell else do otherwise meaningless finite strings
acquire meaning?
Well, you see, there are differences.
Obviously two distinct objects at all makes a counter-example
to there not being two distinct objects at all.
It's the classical dialectic since Parmenides, dual monism
after Heraclitus and a holistic dual monism and dialectic,
that it's the very point of difference at all that two objects
have their own theories and together make one theory of two
theories, then naturally all the reasoning about factuals
and counter-factuals arises since platonistically it already
exists.
On 06/10/2026 09:27 AM, olcott wrote:[...]
Quit repeating yourself, it's irritating.
On 6/10/2026 1:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 12:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 09:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse
and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy",
that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails,
so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up,
and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true, >>>>>> though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the Nietzsche-Register >>>>>> are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater
philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
So the body of knowledge expressed in language is entirely
comprised of:
(a) Expressions that are stipulated to be true
thus assigning semantic meaning to otherwise meaningless
finite strings and
(b) Expressions that are semantically entailed by (a)
and/or (b).
Because the foundational basis for expressions of language
is finite strings of symbols this semantic entailment must
be specified syntactically and processed as finite string
transformation rules.
Nope, that's just a positivism.
No one bothers to notice that a valid counter-example
cannot possibly exist.
How the Hell else do otherwise meaningless finite strings
acquire meaning?
Well, you see, there are differences.
Obviously two distinct objects at all makes a counter-example
to there not being two distinct objects at all.
It's the classical dialectic since Parmenides, dual monism
after Heraclitus and a holistic dual monism and dialectic,
that it's the very point of difference at all that two objects
have their own theories and together make one theory of two
theories, then naturally all the reasoning about factuals
and counter-factuals arises since platonistically it already
exists.
Exactly how do we say: "cats are animals"
without any stipulated relationship between those
(or equivalent) finite strings?
On 06/10/2026 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 1:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 12:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 09:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse
and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy",
that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails, >>>>>>> so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up, >>>>>>> and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true, >>>>>>> though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the Nietzsche-Register >>>>>>> are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater
philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
So the body of knowledge expressed in language is entirely
comprised of:
(a) Expressions that are stipulated to be true
thus assigning semantic meaning to otherwise meaningless
finite strings and
(b) Expressions that are semantically entailed by (a)
and/or (b).
Because the foundational basis for expressions of language
is finite strings of symbols this semantic entailment must
be specified syntactically and processed as finite string
transformation rules.
Nope, that's just a positivism.
No one bothers to notice that a valid counter-example
cannot possibly exist.
How the Hell else do otherwise meaningless finite strings
acquire meaning?
Well, you see, there are differences.
Obviously two distinct objects at all makes a counter-example
to there not being two distinct objects at all.
It's the classical dialectic since Parmenides, dual monism
after Heraclitus and a holistic dual monism and dialectic,
that it's the very point of difference at all that two objects
have their own theories and together make one theory of two
theories, then naturally all the reasoning about factuals
and counter-factuals arises since platonistically it already
exists.
Exactly how do we say: "cats are animals"
without any stipulated relationship between those
(or equivalent) finite strings?
"Types" usually, accounts of relation.
Cladistics, phylogeny, morphology, ..., types.
Metaphor and simile often enough.
Relations, generally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
"Cladistics is now the most commonly used method to classify organisms."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics#In_disciplines_other_than_biology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
On 6/12/2026 11:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 1:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 12:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 09:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse >>>>>>>>>> and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy", >>>>>>>> that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails, >>>>>>>> so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up, >>>>>>>> and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true, >>>>>>>> though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the Nietzsche-Register >>>>>>>> are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater
philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
So the body of knowledge expressed in language is entirely
comprised of:
(a) Expressions that are stipulated to be true
thus assigning semantic meaning to otherwise meaningless
finite strings and
(b) Expressions that are semantically entailed by (a)
and/or (b).
Because the foundational basis for expressions of language
is finite strings of symbols this semantic entailment must
be specified syntactically and processed as finite string
transformation rules.
Nope, that's just a positivism.
No one bothers to notice that a valid counter-example
cannot possibly exist.
How the Hell else do otherwise meaningless finite strings
acquire meaning?
Well, you see, there are differences.
Obviously two distinct objects at all makes a counter-example
to there not being two distinct objects at all.
It's the classical dialectic since Parmenides, dual monism
after Heraclitus and a holistic dual monism and dialectic,
that it's the very point of difference at all that two objects
have their own theories and together make one theory of two
theories, then naturally all the reasoning about factuals
and counter-factuals arises since platonistically it already
exists.
Exactly how do we say: "cats are animals"
without any stipulated relationship between those
(or equivalent) finite strings?
"Types" usually, accounts of relation.
098b5d25-9aa2-45be-a279-f9d440cccf4f "cats" bef95c07-48b6-4067-99dd-dfe7c5f76aef "are a type of" ac7253bc-6686-4b42-b634-7ca55b3aef03 "animals"
Now where do get get the rest of the specific concrete meaning of 098b5d25-9aa2-45be-a279-f9d440cccf4f "cats" ?
Cladistics, phylogeny, morphology, ..., types.
Metaphor and simile often enough.
Relations, generally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
"Cladistics is now the most commonly used method to classify organisms."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics#In_disciplines_other_than_biology >>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
On 06/12/2026 09:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/12/2026 11:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 1:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 12:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 09:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse >>>>>>>>>>> and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy", >>>>>>>>> that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails, >>>>>>>>> so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up, >>>>>>>>> and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true, >>>>>>>>> though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the Nietzsche- >>>>>>>>> Register
are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater >>>>>>>>> philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
So the body of knowledge expressed in language is entirely
comprised of:
(a) Expressions that are stipulated to be true
thus assigning semantic meaning to otherwise meaningless
finite strings and
(b) Expressions that are semantically entailed by (a)
and/or (b).
Because the foundational basis for expressions of language
is finite strings of symbols this semantic entailment must
be specified syntactically and processed as finite string
transformation rules.
Nope, that's just a positivism.
No one bothers to notice that a valid counter-example
cannot possibly exist.
How the Hell else do otherwise meaningless finite strings
acquire meaning?
Well, you see, there are differences.
Obviously two distinct objects at all makes a counter-example
to there not being two distinct objects at all.
It's the classical dialectic since Parmenides, dual monism
after Heraclitus and a holistic dual monism and dialectic,
that it's the very point of difference at all that two objects
have their own theories and together make one theory of two
theories, then naturally all the reasoning about factuals
and counter-factuals arises since platonistically it already
exists.
Exactly how do we say: "cats are animals"
without any stipulated relationship between those
(or equivalent) finite strings?
"Types" usually, accounts of relation.
098b5d25-9aa2-45be-a279-f9d440cccf4f "cats"
bef95c07-48b6-4067-99dd-dfe7c5f76aef "are a type of"
ac7253bc-6686-4b42-b634-7ca55b3aef03 "animals"
Now where do get get the rest of the specific concrete meaning of
098b5d25-9aa2-45be-a279-f9d440cccf4f "cats" ?
Cladistics, phylogeny, morphology, ..., types.
Metaphor and simile often enough.
Relations, generally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
"Cladistics is now the most commonly used method to classify organisms." >>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Cladistics#In_disciplines_other_than_biology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
Don't you even have a grammar for language? Always?
Grammar and etymology? Those are words first, then words for things.
"Vector machines" aren't thinking, they're programs.
Obviously, modern accounts of mechanical reasoning are _reasoning_
agents, not "cats, following the red dot".
Then, while you're at it, define "oats".
(This is that robots are cats and thinkers are oats.)
That relations among objects are relations, as are theirs,
ad infinitum, shows that the language of objects is infinite.
On 06/12/2026 09:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/12/2026 11:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 1:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 12:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 09:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/10/2026 08:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Then an idea is that that's the entire domain of discourse >>>>>>>>>>> and it's one complete sentence
and it is what defines "true"
and it's called a "Comenius language",
Panglottia is an idea similar to mine.
Connecting together elements of the body of knowledge
such that every expression of language is necessarily
true. There is no such thing as false knowledge.
The Truth Teller lacks such a connection.
A "Comenius language" is an ideal, then there's
that a "Coleridge language" is the poesie.
So, it's figured that there's an ideal and perfect "Metonymy", >>>>>>>>> that is a real structure of all language,
and a practical and potential "Metaphor", which eventually fails, >>>>>>>>> so that Comenius & Coleridge for Metonymy & Metaphor,
are first-class sorts concepts in the dialectic.
So, the usual account of an "ontology" is that it's subject
to incompleteness, and also as about the inter-subjectivity
of the relay-able of the relate-able, while yet that the
objects of mathematics and logic have their own first-class
existence, so that "strong mathematical platonism" and
"weak logicist positivism" get put together to make
"strengthened logicist postivism".
One must always apply one's own deconstructive accounts
to one-self. Otherwise that's just hypcrisy again.
Nietzsche's "eternal basic text" has that Nietzsche
was _insane_ and said it didn't exist, then, in Nietzsche's
later years, sort of like Quixote, Nietzsche sobered or saned up, >>>>>>>>> and had again that a "true" eternal basic text was real, and true, >>>>>>>>> though by then most accounts of Nietzsche in the
Nietzsche-Register
are neo-Nietzschean and fail to make for Nietzsche's greater >>>>>>>>> philosophical maturity.
The neo-anybody's are pretty much fake.
"F for fake" - Faith No More (Stripsearch)
So the body of knowledge expressed in language is entirely
comprised of:
(a) Expressions that are stipulated to be true
thus assigning semantic meaning to otherwise meaningless
finite strings and
(b) Expressions that are semantically entailed by (a)
and/or (b).
Because the foundational basis for expressions of language
is finite strings of symbols this semantic entailment must
be specified syntactically and processed as finite string
transformation rules.
Nope, that's just a positivism.
No one bothers to notice that a valid counter-example
cannot possibly exist.
How the Hell else do otherwise meaningless finite strings
acquire meaning?
Well, you see, there are differences.
Obviously two distinct objects at all makes a counter-example
to there not being two distinct objects at all.
It's the classical dialectic since Parmenides, dual monism
after Heraclitus and a holistic dual monism and dialectic,
that it's the very point of difference at all that two objects
have their own theories and together make one theory of two
theories, then naturally all the reasoning about factuals
and counter-factuals arises since platonistically it already
exists.
Exactly how do we say: "cats are animals"
without any stipulated relationship between those
(or equivalent) finite strings?
"Types" usually, accounts of relation.
098b5d25-9aa2-45be-a279-f9d440cccf4f "cats"
bef95c07-48b6-4067-99dd-dfe7c5f76aef "are a type of"
ac7253bc-6686-4b42-b634-7ca55b3aef03 "animals"
Now where do get get the rest of the specific concrete meaning of
098b5d25-9aa2-45be-a279-f9d440cccf4f "cats" ?
Cladistics, phylogeny, morphology, ..., types.
Metaphor and simile often enough.
Relations, generally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
"Cladistics is now the most commonly used method to classify organisms." >>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics#In_disciplines_other_than_biology >>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
Don't you even have a grammar for language? Always?
Grammar and etymology? Those are words first, then words for things.
"Vector machines" aren't thinking, they're programs.
Obviously, modern accounts of mechanical reasoning are _reasoning_
agents, not "cats, following the red dot".
Then, while you're at it, define "oats".
(This is that robots are cats and thinkers are oats.)
That relations among objects are relations, as are theirs,
ad infinitum, shows that the language of objects is infinite.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,124 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 23:28:00 |
| Calls: | 14,393 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 186,389 |
| D/L today: |
5,017 files (1,262M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,544,959 |
| Posted today: | 1 |