>From owner-virus@lucifer.com Fri Jun 26 07:16:44 1998
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
> by maxwell.kumo.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA17173
> for virus-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:15:12 -0600
>X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.kumo.com: majordom set sender to
owner-virus@lucifer.com using -f
>Message-ID: <3593AC75.FC073FF6@innovative.se>
>Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:13:09 +0200
>From: andreas@innovative.se (Andreas Engstrom)
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (WinNT; I)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: virus@lucifer.com
>Subject: virus: Brett's "word algebra"
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------E9AC744E3F9936F02E45B96E"
>Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>
>Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
>
>>There is no immediately apparent problem with the
>>word formulas I have presented below! If one
>
>Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
>
>>understands the logic inherent in words... one can
>>easily "add" them up for oneself and see the results
>>of the word equation. Just as it is not "incorrect"
>>to state with a certainty that 2+2=3D4, it is not
>
>It's "true" because it can be reduced to a statement about axioms. The
>axioms of mathematics are generally
>known and (mostly) agreed upon. Therefore we can say that "2+2=3D4",
sinc=
>e
>that reduces to a statement
>about mathematical axioms, and that statement is tautologically true.
>There are clearly defined, generally
>agreed-upon rules for the operations "+" and "=3D", and the symbols "2"
>and "4". If we all agree to these
>rules, and to the axioms, then we will certainly agree to what is
"true"
>and what isn't - inside this limited
>model that we created.
>
>"2+2=3D4" is "true" in the sense that it conforms with what we decided
in
>advance to be "true". Using another system of axioms and rules, it
could
>equally well be proven to be "false".
>
>>"incorrect" to state that myth + revelation=3D
>>fantasy; as reason + rationality=3D theory: or
>>religion + science =3D technology and/ or god-- such
>>that god is as "necessary" as technology for
>>formulating logical or intelligent decisions within
>>a conscious awareness of the moment.
>
>There is a huge difference here. Very little is agreed upon in advance
>when it comes to words, especially
>words that refer to abstract concepts. Ask a thousand people what
"myth"
>is and you you will (most likely)
>get a thousand different answers. Some will be similar to one another,
>some will contradict each other. If
>you limit the group af people you ask to a few people with similar
>backgrounds, coming from essentially
>the same culture, perhaps they eventually can all agree to a single
>definition of the one word "myth". But
>don't count on it.
>
>What are your operators supposed to mean? "=3D" could perhaps be said
to
>be defined for words, in the
>sense that two words that refer to exactly the same thing (ALWAYS)
could
>be equated. I must admit that
>I have a hard time finding an example of where this "equation" could be
>true, but I admit the possibility.
>
>But "+"? What on earth do you mean by that? As it stands, the
"equation"
>"myth+revelation=3Dfantasy" can
>not be interpreted to mean one specific thing, let alone a meaningful,
>falsifiable thing.
>
>It could mean that "the presence of a myth in a mind that undergoes any
>kind of revelation will always
>result in a fantasy being created".
>Or that "it is always true that if a conclusion is drawn from a myth by
>a revelation, the conclusion must
>be a fantasy".
>Or "The presence of myth in a culture that has a new meme introduced
>into it by means of a revelation
>will result in that both the myth and the new meme will eventually be
>considered as fantasy".
>Or perhaps "using crowleyan cabalah, the sums of the letters
>m,y,t,h,r,e,v,e,l,a,t,i,o,n and that of
>f,a,n,t,a,s,y are equal, so the concepts have the same essential
>meaning, numerologically".
>
>Admittedly, all those interpretations sound rather much like
>gobbledygook. The last one actually makes the
>most sense, since at least it can be verified/falsified.
>
>Brett, if you are serious about trying to convey some sort of message,
>either stick to previously defined
>rules, or explain _your_ rules. And don't use _other_ non-defined terms
>to explain the rules.
>
>If you actually _have_ defined what you mean by this earlier, please
>excuse a newcomer. I don't have the
>spare time to plow through the archives. I'd be quite interested in a
>repost of your definitions, if that's not
>too much of a bother..
>
>-Andreas Engstr=F6m
>(Great Randomness)
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com