SUO: Re: Verb Imp Re: Dictations
Joshua Tonkel wrote:
>
> At 05:17 PM 2/15/01 -0500, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >
> >¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > Joshua Tonkel wrote:
> > >
> > > At 03:20 PM 2/15/01 -0500, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> > >
> > > > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> > > >
> > > > Ah, Set Theory, How Do I Love Thee!?
> > > > Let Me Just Try To Count Thy Weighs:
> > > >
> > > > There's the set of things that are abstract.
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > No there isn't.
> >
> > Hence The Humor ...
> >
> > > You are talking about something ...
> >
> > Am I really talking about something?
> > That is far better than I had hoped!
Still, If some Body is said to be "Talking About some Thing",
Where, If What is said There is granted to be Sound and True,
Then, Is that Thing not CircumScribed by that very same Body?
> > > that is equinumerous with, e.g., the collection of all sets,
> > > namely a "proper class" (von Neumann), "ultimate class" (Quine),
> > > "megacollection" (Langendoen and Postal), or, perhaps best of all,
> > > an "inconsistent multiplicity" (Cantor's 1899 letter to Dedekind).
> >
> > You seem to be Assuming
> > That I am Assuming that
> > Sets are Abstract Stuff.
>
> JT: No, I was just assuming that you meant what you said, viz.
> "There's the set of things that are abstract".
Echo: Do you now take it for granted ...
And might you be being misled ...
How was there an I who said ...
What you say as you read ...
? ...
Rispondi! Spondi! Ondi! I! ...
> > Perhaps the Rub is there.
> > Maybe there's the Fly in
> > Lord Russell's Snake Oil.
> > Something to think about?
> >
> > > According to Fraenkel, Bar-Hillel, and Levy, "The only difference
> > > between proper classes and sets is that, because of the antinomies,
> > > the proper classes cannot be members of classes whereas sets can."
> > > (_Foundations of Set Theory_, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam,
> > > 1973, p. 137.) Some authors take a dimmer view of "proper classes".
> >
> > Maybe that's just because they do not see them in the Proper*Light.
> >
> > > Josh Tonkel
> > > Farance/Edutool
> >
> > Keep Yer Feet On The Ground,
> > & Keep Reaching Fer The *'s!
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> >¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Josh,
When there is a problem with interpretation,
one may find it helpful to consider several
additional features appertinent to the text:
1. Consider the Context.
2. Consider the Recipient, Perhaps Thy Self.
3. Consider the Source.
Now, the context of my text entitled "Echos" --
okay, I will take 'some' rispondibility for
re-transmutating it the way that you read it --
is a discussion going on all around us about,
or rather, allegedly about, apparently about,
let us say, what is abstract, and what is not,
and what is concrete, and what is not, gliding,
if not glossing, over an unremarked assumption,
that "abstract" = "non-concrete", and inversely,
that "concrete" = "non-abstract", I am guessing --
there's always a lot of "plausible deniability"
with the lot of these "unremarked assumptions" --
and who has a space-time locus, and who may
located "elsewhere", I guess again, and so
on and so forth, and so it goes, I might
have missed a lot of the details, but,
anyway, I just had a dim sense, which
everyone will tell you I have a lot of,
that I had heard many a talk verisimilar
to this, somewhere, somewhen, once or twice
before, and so I was trying to remember where
and when, and to see if I could guess what the
upshot would be before I actually had to wait for
all the shooting up of it, and if I had taken the
trouble to continue the cascade of echoes that I
could hear reverberating throughout the emptier
barrels of my mind, I would have recountered
the extra questions of what is a particle,
and what is a wave, and all the ruckus
that ensued from forgetting to ask
some simple questions of those
subjects and those predicates,
and that was more or less the
drift or the gist or the point
of those echoes that I transmuted
to the group, for your consideration.
Many Regards,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤