the triumph of maybe logic (?)

[LMNO]

Not on it's way out-- it has to do with the way the primate brain functions.  Labeling, categorizing-- hell, even the bible has Adam classifying things right off the bat.

humanity as a whole will probably never get over "is".  But trying to escape tends not only to be fun, but itis mildly enlightening as to how we function as humans.

Also, as Hugh will probably point out, it can be a mistake to put too much faith in simple semantic word games to lead us into bliss.  Just because you sometimes use maybe/fuzzy logic doesn't make you much better tham the pinks/greys/cabbages/opiez.

[LHX]

believe it or not
it may not have anything to do with 'being better than'

actually
it doesnt




maybe the only thing it changes is that you will not find yourself in a situation where you were depending on something (an implication of using the word 'IS')
only to have that something not dependable



also
doesnt this whole thing point out that even the bible (gasp) could be subject to this fallacy?

or perhaps even takes advantage of this fallacy?


i agree that conspiracy has gone out of style
but
that does not mean that any and every advantage was used throughout history


even a salesman knows that
(this is the last appliance you will ever need)





maybe the only difference between us and pinks/greys/cabbages/opiez is restlessness and discomfort

[hooplala]

I love E-Prime.

At work I speak almost solely in E-Prime, but it's difficult and almost pointless to try to speak in E-Prime when simply shooting the shit with friends.  Although if an argument pops up it is very helpful.

[Schizzy]

It's a conspiracy.  Er, it seems to be a conspiracy to knock the fundamentalist existentialists off-kilter.  They're watching!  I never relayed this message.  It doesn't exist.  Think of a pink golf ball!  ::POOF::

[LMNO]

doesnt this whole thing point out that even the bible (gasp) could be subject to this fallacy?

The bible does indeed seem to be filled with this apparent fallacy (even down to YHWH,Äôs ,ÄúI am that I am.,Äù).  My point was that the tendency to name and classify things can be traced all the way to the creation myths.  Even in our beloved Tiamat and Marduk story, we had Things (stuff that has been ,Äúis-ed,Äù) separated from chaos (undefinable; Cf: the tao that can be told is not the eternal tao, etc).

[Jean-Paul Fartre]

We are in a sea of information that is now proven to be indestructible.

For us to feel as if we understand, we label, assign limits, delineate rules and place it into our constructed system.

However, we cannot be complacent!  Filet mignon is not simply a delicious dish, it has many levels, which may or may not be appreciated by our little minds.

[Rev Thwack]

Mu

[Jean-Paul Fartre]

miao.

[Rev Thwack]

People that misunderstood my previous statement = 1

[LHX]

doesnt this whole thing point out that even the bible (gasp) could be subject to this fallacy?

The bible does indeed seem to be filled with this apparent fallacy (even down to YHWH,Äôs ,ÄúI am that I am.,Äù).  My point was that the tendency to name and classify things can be traced all the way to the creation myths.  Even in our beloved Tiamat and Marduk story, we had Things (stuff that has been ,Äúis-ed,Äù) separated from chaos (undefinable; Cf: the tao that can be told is not the eternal tao, etc).

fuck
that tao thing fits right in

i forgot about that



just because the fallacy might be deeply rooted does not really mean that it can be written off

it also doesnt mean that it wasnt put in motion with conscious intent



the more i look into it
the more evidence there seems to be that 'IS'ness might be an anomaly





the leap from communicating to recording information to recording false information may be a lot more significant that it appears at first



the only way you can broadcast false information seems to rely on 'IS'


there IS a god and he IS watching
vs
there might be a god and he might be watching




how else can you send someone down the wrong path than by selling them a definitive reality?

[Jean-Paul Fartre]

People that misunderstood my previous statement = 1

Persons that cared about what you were talking about = 0.
Persons that simply wanted to miao = 1.
Persons that were persons and not people = subject to debate.

If/not nor, bleep, bleep...

[Rev Thwack]

the only way you can broadcast false information seems to rely on 'IS'


there IS a god and he IS watching
vs
there might be a god and he might be watching

How about:
god exists and watches all.

[LMNO]

just because the fallacy might be deeply rooted does not really mean that it can be written off

Agreed.  Nor should it, IMO.

it also doesnt mean that it wasnt put in motion with conscious intent

Then again, it doesn't mean it was.

the only way you can broadcast false information seems to rely on 'IS'

how else can you send someone down the wrong path than by selling them a definitive reality?

It appears that I seem at this current moment using the best perceptive skills possible, that I probably am wearing the bodies of dead babies as shoes.

^written in E-prime, and false.




Wait a minute...

::checks feet::


AAUGH!

[LMNO]

People that misunderstood my previous statement = 1

Persons that cared about what you were talking about = 0.
Persons that simply wanted to miao = 1.
Persons that were persons and not people = subject to debate.

If/not nor, bleep, bleep...

43 posts and counting...

[LMNO]

the only way you can broadcast false information seems to rely on 'IS'


there IS a god and he IS watching
vs
there might be a god and he might be watching

How about:
god exists and watches all.

Also:

The "is" appears to be hidden, but still there.

In E-prime:

The concept commonly referred to as "God" seems to exist for me in my current belief system, and it is my opinion that he watches all, as improbable as that may sound.