Logic has to do with IS statements, statements that assign qualities 
to objects and objects to classes of common and unique qualities.

      Joey my dog is an object.

      "Dog" is a class of objects

      "Animals" is a bigger class of objects.

      "Joey has 4 legs" is an IS statement, it assigns a quality of 'is
possesed of 4 legs' to the object Joey.

      "Joey is a dog" is also an IS statement, it assigns a whole range
of qualities common to dogs to Joey.

      A nothing is an object with an empty quality set.

      A something is an object with a non empty quality set.

      Objects are classed together into groups called classes,
according to qualities that are common and unique to them.

      "Dog is a class".  All objects in the class of Dogs have
qualities which are common to all of them, and all objects which have
those qualities are also Dogs.  Thus the pertinent qualites of
'dogness' are both common and unique to the class of dogs.

      Commonness is easy to see, uniqueness is a little more difficult.

      IS statements can do at least 3 things.

      1.) IS statements can assign qualities to objects.

      "Joey has 4 legs and canine teeth."

      2.) IS statements can assign qualities to classes.

      "All Dogs (in general) have 4 legs and canine teeth."

      3.) Is statements can assign objects to classes.

      Joey is a Dog.

      Some IS statements are observational, and are thus true or false
on the face of it.

      "Joey has 4 legs and canine teeth".

      Other IS statements are definitional, they are true or false by

      "A dog is anything that has 4 legs and canine teeth, and
everything that has 4 legs and canine teeth is a dog."

      Definitions are arbitrary, but should be chosen for maximal
usefulness in the discussion of things as they are.

      Other IS statements are intuitional, hard to prove one way or the
other through direct observation, but none the less make for valid IS

      "Something can't come from nothing."

      Other IS statements are tautological, they are true by their own
logical nature usually dependent on the definitions of the words.
Given the arbitrary defintions of something and nothing above, the
following can be stated unequivocably:

      "Either something exists or nothing exists".

      Once you make an IS statement you are bound by the rules of IS 
statements.  These rules are determined by the directly observed
  nature of IS itself, namely:

     IS is IS
     IS is not IS NOT
     IS NOT is IS NOT
     IS NOT is not IS

      This nature of IS can be objectively and subjectively determined
by direct observation of something that IS.  It is not an arbitrary
construct, it is a description of a direct, actual observation of the
nature of IS.

      Something that IS without question, is consciousness, and it is
in fact from the observation of consciousness we can determine with 
perfect certainty the rules of IS.

      Those who can not see these rules or disagree with them,
can not observe, end of story.

      IS and IS NOT are mutually exclusive, for example a quality can
not be both true of an object and false.

      If it is true that all dogs are animals, then it can't be false
that all dogs are animals.

      Logic has to do with the internal consistency across a number of
different IS statements.  The nature of consistency is determined by
the nature of IS as described above, anything that violates the
observed nature of IS as described above is inconsistent.

      All dogs are animals.
      Joey is a dog
      Joey is not an animal.

      You see that violates the consistency of IS statements, it
violates logic.

      All that comes from God is Unconditionally Good.
      Man came from God.
      Man is not Unconditionally Good.

      Same thing.

      A mind walking around with

      All dogs are animals   AND
      All dogs are not animals

      is broke.

      When I was a kid we used to call such broken thinking 'female logic', 
because it seemed at the time to be mostly rampant in females, who were 
mostly busy making males wrong out of jealousy.

      One surmises that any male engaging in broken logic would be
removed from the gene pool by the time they were 12 since males in
general have to deal with the real world, and the real world tends to
off anyone that can't think straight.

      Females on the other hand seemed to never learn the lessons of logic 
as they were protected and kept alive by the males because the females 
were a good fuck even if their minds were an abomination.

      I always hope for otherwise...


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,  Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Apr 25 03:06:02 EDT 2015
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Sat Apr 25 17:23:26 EDT 2015