SUO: Re: Re: HOLy Orders
See, below, Jon.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@att.net>
To: "Jay Halcomb" <jhalcomb8@attbi.com>
Cc: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>; <cg@cs.uah.edu>; "SUO"
<standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 13:06
Subject: SUO: Re: HOLy Orders
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Jay Halcomb wrote:
> >
> > Jon, I know not what this antick term, 'weenie logic' signifieth.
>
> Sorry, that shudda been "over-weenie logic".
By the Rood! I am indeed mightily glad to hear of such doctrines as you've
conveyed,
scholiastickly, as they may yet be the saving of me.
For all along I've been in a great swivet and stew about whether 'tis better
to marry or
to burn, as a Saint has vouchsafed that one state was better than t'other.
But it now has
fallen out that learned men say that if we be but pleased in good sense to
take the having
and the not-having of a wife, we shall indeed find no repugnancy nor
contradiction in the
terms at all, betimes.
For example:
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/r/r11g/part135.html
Shall we not conclude that in like wise all nuptials may fare as well, both
in good Holy
order and with much attendant merriment?
Or, in simpler words, what formalized logic do you endorse, if any, and of
which do you
disapprove, Jon? And why? I freely confess it's awfully hard to tell.
It might be, e.g., weak (finitary) 2nd order logic, monadic 2nd order logic,
2nd order logic
itself, 3rd order logic, the theory of types, or something else.
Which do you think Peirce might have preferred?
Can you cite me some Holy Writ thereupon from the Canon to clear up the
matter?
>
> > Nor discern I where be the 'coops of Principia',
> > nor what strange fowl roost therein. Might this
> > bespeak the fabled land of 'type theory', of which
> > I have sometime heard strange ramifications?
>
> Close, but no cigar. True, there's mockingbird in this coop,
> but what I really had in my mental aviary was bird like this:
Etc.