the triumph of maybe logic (?)

[LHX]

after reading about maybe logic and e-prime
it seems that there is suggestion that perhaps not only is the verb 'to be' not good to use
but
it may in fact be a fallacy altogether



as in - it may be inherently contradictory to say this IS that


has anybody here read into any of this e-prime or maybe logic business?



if the language we use to communicate really does reveal itself as faulty as it seems
then perhaps maybe logic goes a long way in determining how the mess developed on this planet




adherance to maybe logic immediately puts to rest nearly all causes of conflict that are known
there does not seem to be any room for opinions in maybe logic
and as such
no room for differences of opinion



the biggest drawback that i can see regarding maybe logic
would be that it could prove difficult to come to an agreement to get certain things done
(basically anything political)
but
that may not be such a bad thing



maybe logic also lends itself to all the new age folks hellbent on crowley - aquarius - the mayans - 2012 - ufos - etc etc etc

as all of these can be summed up with a resounding maybe



does anybody have any insights on e-prime or maybe logic?

the shit is looking pretty damn good from where i am sitting right now

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Logos died in 2000.

[Schizzy]

STOP EXISTING!!!!!  
Solves everything.

[Chef]

STOP EXISTING!!!!!  
Solves everything.

YUO FIRST, OPIE!
\

[Schizzy]

NEXT!
\

[Chef]

NEXT!
\

CHEF LIED.

[Schizzy]

OBLIVION > CHEF

[LHX]

Logos died in 2000.

pardon my retardation yet again
but
i didnt catch that one


logos?

[LHX]

Logos died in 2000.

pardon my retardation yet again
but
i didnt catch that one


logos?

okay

i did some reading

to say that logos died in 2000
has some fascinating implications




most of which make me want to slam a door on my face



interesting

[the other anonymous]

after reading about maybe logic and e-prime
it seems that there is suggestion that perhaps not only is the verb 'to be' not good to use
but
it may in fact be a fallacy altogether

as in - it may be inherently contradictory to say this IS that

"To be" or not "to be", that is.. er, um,...

Define existance without refering to existance. In other words, define existance in such a way that we can conclude, after due analysis, that a thing does or does not possess the quality or property of existance.

Can't be done. We can define hot as "an ambient temperature above 70 degrees Farenheit", instead of saying "Hot is not cold" or "Hot makes you sweat" or "Hot burns".

I never looked into maybe logic, but I've read enough about e-prime to not bother writing a post in it.

The real problem with e-prime involves the way the mind thinks. We build associations, categories, and relationships, all of which can be easily described using "to be". (Assoc: A is B; Cat: A is a member of B; Relat: A is [damned if I know the term for words such as "closer" but what it boils down to is describing an association in terms of comparison] than B.)

For example: "The apple is closer to me than the orange." Both the apple and the orange are associated with the observer and categorized according to proximity.

Another example: "That is mine." is more common than "I own that." because "that is mine" shows a categorization of possession ("Some things are mine. Some are not mine.") whereas "I own that." is a verb, ownership as a continuing action.

Which is why "You are owned" or "You got owned" ("got" as a colloquialism for "have been") is more common than "I owned you".

Anyway, that is my two-cents.

[the other anonymous]

Third cent:

Also, Gor:

Why do I bring this up? There is a common phenomenon in online Gor, in discussions about how to think and be Gorean, in conversations in which people "ask how to live"... the phenomenon of "ought". The idea that people "should" attempt to behave this way or that way, not because they will gain benefit or happiness from doing so, or avoid disadvantage or misery, but simply in order to fulfill some abstract, arbitrary, and inflexible ideas about "The way things should be."

It's all so much bosk dung.

[...]

Should a woman defer to a man whose presence is no reward, and whose disdain is no punishment? Why the hell should she? It is just as much a denial of the realities of power and nature to treat such a man as if he has power which he does not, as it is to pretend that the other, more masterful sort of man has no power whatsoever.

[...] if I want something, I'll take it if I can, and if I can't, I'm not going to complain that the woman didn't play along like she was supposed to. If I can't get it myself, I don't deserve it.

And, in another essay:

The Gorean lives in an Aristotelian world where A is always A, recognizing that it is pointless to speculate about anything which cannot be either perceived or deduced since such things can have no effect on the real world.

[...]

The only reasonable criterion for judging an ethical system is objective success: How well do those who practice these ideas survive, prosper, and propagate, compared to those who practice other ideas? Natural selection applies to philosophy, just as it does to any other characteristic of a man: A good philosophy will increase his viability, his ability to overcome the challenges of environment and competitors, while a poor philosophy will lead to his defeat, poverty, eventual extinction.

However, we cannot place the viability of the individual organism as the sole criterion of value, because all individual organisms die, and a philosophy which does not propagate itself will likewise die. Rather, we must judge the viability of a population as a whole, and see how the philosophy espoused by that population enables the population to survive, prosper, and propagate itself, even as individual members leave the population and others enter it.

[...]

So, where does this leave us in terms of ethics? Simply, here: each individual has a right and duty to seek to understand the consequences of his choices, as a rational human being living in an objectively real world. Moral action, for any individual, is that action which will best enable him to accomplish whatever goals he chooses for himself, while exposing himself and his people, however he defines that community, to the least risk of harmful consequences.

Or, in short, the Gorean metaethics can be simply stated as, "Nature is the only judge of morality."

[...]

This, then, is the Gorean philosophy: A philosophy grounded in the world as it is instead of as we think it might be, one which recognizes that the failure of a people is the failure of their philosophy, one which declares boldly that things are as they are, that the mystical is not the rational, that failure is not achievement, and that nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

To put it simply: you have to be what you are.

Or, to paraphrase Yoda: You are or you are not. There is no Maybe Logic.

And, according to Gorean philosophy, English has and will continue to thrive, as it is, "to be" and all. (Cindy Crawford's mole, I say! MOOOOOOLLEE!)

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

The real problem with e-prime involves the way the mind thinks. We build associations, categories, and relationships, all of which can be easily described using "to be". (Assoc: A is B; Cat: A is a member of B; Relat: A is [damned if I know the term for words such as "closer" but what it boils down to is describing an association in terms of comparison] than B.)

The mind thinks you need to get back in touch with how nobody knows what the mind "is" let alone all the ways it works.

We're all blind people touching an elephant here and I think you've got a hand in it's ass.

[the other anonymous]

The mind thinks you need to get back in touch with how nobody knows what the mind "is" let alone all the ways it works.

We're all blind people touching an elephant here and I think you've got a hand in it's ass.

We may not know exactly how it works, but we aren't completely ignorant, either.

We have enough info to make fair guesses and reasonable generalizations.

Like, for example, the notion of 'property' and the notion of 'people as property' is so ingrained into our psyche that people voluntarily submit to slavery. Q.E.D. RBTL BABOA

[LMNO]

I'm a big fan of both e-prime and maybe logic.

to me, it's all about clarity and accuracy, to myself as well as to others.

The only problem is, it tends to make for shitty rants, and it can suck the fun out of a good joke.

I think the big problem with the "is of identity" seems not to be so much that it labels an object, but that it tends to exclude all aspects of the object that are not part of the label ("the flower 'is' red" excludes all the other aspects of flower-ness).

Also, inserting the observer as part of the observation tends to remind us that subjectivity plays a key part in most observations (and even can remind us of basic physical properties of seeing - Cf: the "Blood is blue/red" thread).

[LHX]

it may be possible that e-prime still holds the trump card -


it could be said that the IS of identity has no real function anyway

since coming to this forum
i have been made aware that classifying and defining things seems to be nothing more than trifles and a cause for debate



as in
"this is a real discordian"


it always comes down to
'well - what do you mean by that'


how many different words are there for 'red'

it may be comfortable to use 'is'
but
it may also be something that is on its way out
seriously