Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
>
> > The trouble is : I've experienced that saying *no master*
> > means *only math* as *only Truth*. That is :
> > the tool takes stance over the master.
> > I'm *no slave to one realm* as Josh says means to me :
> > not algebra more than philosophy.
>
> So you are a Humpty-Dumptyist (as in Alice in Wonderland).
I'm a slow drunken monotonous decongested French.
> I agree with that. The thought shouldn't be the master of
> the thinker, but it does try to take over. See also: "meme".
> The "the = only" fallacy is very common.
>
> The idea of existence of things implied by the verb "to be"
> is not itself essential ... or is it?
It's essentially Itself Who is self-essential but closed on sundays. So there's
still hope every seventh day.
All of math can be
> based on the concept of "X is a Y" versus "X is not a Y".
> One can't even say yes or no without that; only "um" and "arg".
Arg. Definitely. Arg, arg, arg.
Arg.
> Accepting that, one sees objects/nouns and relations/verbs.
>
> I do accept that, and math and science. But there
> could always be other ways of thinking, outside that.
There is. Oops. There... Wait a minute : how could I say that ?
> Nouns and verbs could be mapped onto something else;
> that is their inherent nature and use, mappability.
> Metaphor is the essence of language, and analogy
> is the basis of thought.
>
Arg.
> (End of lecture I just dreamed up.)
>
>
Mathias
-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=19188