Posts by Carl Lopez8

Philosophy of language is quite entertaining.

To be honest, perhaps it is time you started studying it, as your transcript suggests you lack even a basic understanding of the subject.

I suspect you weren't actually interpreting him, but rather just parroting his words without any real comprehension. Perhaps it’s best not to overexert yourself.

Yes, it suggests that language and logic can only map out a fraction of reality. At least, that is my impression.

On the contrary, language defines the very limits of our world. We can only articulate what we are able to perceive through language; anything beyond that remains a mystical experience that defies expression.

I agree; it might be more intuitive to view that rule as a contradiction.

No, I wouldn't call it a contradiction, per se; rather, it simply isn't necessarily true in every instance.

, though my real-world experience suggests that statement holds quite a bit of weight.

That seems to confirm the core solipsistic thesis. It suggests that this rule feels truer to you than it does to me. You may disagree, but perhaps that only illustrates how different our individual worlds actually are. This is merely a small indication.

Furthermore, the misunderstandings born from our differing uses of words seem to prove that language itself forms the boundary between our respective worlds.

even if it wouldn't hold up in, say, mathematics.

Quite the opposite—because it wouldn't hold up in the physical world, it wouldn't pass in math or in language either.

But for you, it would, which is the essential point.

Forget this debate and go hit some laps in the pool.

My take is this: any language is essentially a formal, rather than a natural, system. If a concept can be articulated, it is because there exists a shared space between reality and language that the language merely points toward. Since language serves as a reflection of the world—and logic forms its foundation—they likely share a common logical structure for mirroring one another. We cannot quite define what that structure is, though we can observe it. In this instance, intuition suggests it isn't entirely obvious; it seems reasonable that every rule possesses an exception, given that we possess neither complete knowledge of all rules nor all exceptions. The fact that the notion "every rule has an exception" is itself a contradiction might say something significant about the nature of our world.

What defines a human being? One writer might suggest uncertainty. I suppose I would agree.

Well, I suppose on an empirical level, one would need to establish every possible rule and determine if exceptions exist for each. Perhaps then we could see if the world and language share a common logical structure.

Your reasoning seems somewhat flawed, primarily because what you've presented isn't an actual rule, but rather a claim based on anecdotal experience.

And then you attempt to lecture me on logic? I guess that’s just... wow.

That is more of a logical paradox than an actual rule.

1. Every rule possesses an exception.

From statement 1, it follows that rule 1 must also have an exception. Given that this is a categorical judgment, the exception would be:

2. There exists at least one rule without an exception.

Which, I suppose, invalidates the first point and is quite contradictory in nature.

The same logic could perhaps be applied to the idea that an exception confirms a rule.

MODERATOR

What on earth is that supposed to be, some kind of macro-entity?

All traditional "modern" art is based on a linear perception of the world.

Is that so? And who says?

Stupidity No. 2
All traditional "modern" art discusses a dual—binary order of the world, whereas I, a fool, speak of a quaternary order.

Really? And who claims this?

Stupidity No. 3
All traditional "modern" art speaks of time flowing from a beginning in the past toward the future self, but I, a fool, also speak of time flowing from a beginning in the future self back toward the past.

Well, you are my guiding light.

Stupidity No. 4
All traditional "modern" art claims life began via chemical processes in a primordial "primordial soup," while I, a fool, say life was created (or transmitted) by a civilization similar to humanity. I am a fool because I suggest that life creates life.

You aren't alone, though. You should reach out to Deniken; maybe you could grab a drink together.

Stupidity No. 5
All traditional "modern" art focuses on the evolution of life and plants, whereas I, a fool, discuss the evolution of mankind, and most foolishly, claim that humanity evolves toward a cosmic macro-being that actually created us. As a stubborn fool, I have even provided a preliminary, foolish name for this being: HOMOTERAS.

It isn't macro; perhaps it is a micro-being.

After reading this, one becomes pathologically paranoid and enters an asylum, so I suppose I won't dwell on it.

I only hope you were slightly more coherent in those two books than you are here. If I had to guess, was your publisher Old Town?