|
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:21:31 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In article <hfnbf29bigsbgndc97kf4daknn7ae4scjb@xxxxxxx>,
> Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:16:46 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <enj9f29ngo1k21std1159kfma3drdle1c5@xxxxxxx>,
>> > Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 29 Aug 2006 13:53:36 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Lester Zick wrote:
>> >> >> I didn't say I'd met anyone who assumes he knows everything entirely
>> >> >> just assorted mathematikers who assume they know everything there is
>> >> >> to know about what little they assume they know. In the trade they're
>> >> >> called neo platonic mystics. In other words a crank by any other name.
>> >> >
>> >> >Mathematicians are neo platonic mystics. If only I had realized that
>> >> >before. That trumps anything anyone could say, and makes it perfectly
>> >> >understandable that you desire to remain as ignorant as possible of
>> >> >mathematical logic, set theory, and all the associated mathematics. Now
>> >> >I just wish I could wash my own mind of what little I've so far learned
>> >> >about those subjects.
>> >>
>> >> Which if truth be the gauge appears to be very little indeed.
>> >
>> >As Zick keeps seeing truth, or falsehood, where there is none, it is a
>> >gauge by which Zick is himself miniscule.
>>
>> Which is considerably more than your own. What's so confusing here is
>> that if there is no truth or falsehood to what you say then why do you
>> even bother to say it?
>
>There are forms of speech to which the "true/false" dichotomy does not
>apply, interogatories, imperatives, and exclamations among them.
Is there a definition mood?
>When Zick requires such forms to be either true or false, he is asking
>for the impossible.
~v~~
|
|