At Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:19:10 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>Joe writes:
>
>>If everything were a koan, equally nothing would be, [..]
>
>If everything were energy, equally nothing would be.
Still true, for the term "energy" would lose all definitional capacity, applying equally to matter and spacetime (there would be nothing energy were not).
>?!?
>
>>If you believe in error, you will lose, whether or not you have
>>the necessary cognitive abilities to realize it.
>
>This is not the lesson of memetics, Joe. Have you read the Lucifer
>Principle yet? Do you think Islam spreads so well because it is "right"?
>(I.E.: not "in error") Pah-leeze!!!
It spreads because it renders its more extreme adherents capable of the most brutish savagery in the service of its expansion, even more so than Christianity, from which it learned early on the neccessity of brutality when you lack logic. I do not look for it to spread much farther, because of the equal brutality democracies will demonstrate (and have) in defence of their freedom from theocracy, and the technological advantage which the untrammelled pursuit of scientific knowledge perpetually grants them. There will be painful guerilla attacks, and there will be painful institutional military counterattacks, and Islam's sphere of dominance, which has already begun to stabilize, will subsequently shrink.
>>A=True
>>B=False
>>C=Meaningless
>>
>>If A, B or C and if ~A and ~B, then C.
>>Q.E.D.
>
>Good job, fancypants! Now please prove your first conditional.
>(You didn't real think anyone would let you get away with that kind of
>pseudo-logic BS line, did you? Not here, baby! Not here! :-)
OK, then, give me a statement which is neither true nor false nor meaningless, or admit that you can't; to falsify the syllogism, the onus is on you to provide a disproving counterexample to the conditional!
>-Prof. Tim
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher