XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com
"noname" wrote in message news:nub2cc$lg5$3@dont-email.me...
>
> dagnabit wrote:
> > "Tang Huyen" wrote in message
> > news:85724f2c-4545-882e-aaa7-977199a4778b@gmail.com...
> >>
> >> On 10/20/2016 8:52 AM, dagnabit wrote:
> >>
> >>> "noname"
> >>
> >>>> I think the proper tense is "must have been". Everything that is,
> >>>> must
> >>>> have been necessary. Otherwise the case would have been, that what
> >>>> is,
> >>>> would have turned out some other way, because that other way, was
> >>>> more
> >>>> necessary.
> >>
> >>> then your notion of must bes must be the most necessary must be unless
> >>> of course you change
> >>> your mind and find a more necessary must be to
> >>> replace previous must bes due to some prioritized
> >>> necessity and that would mean that any previous
> >>> certitude as to the necessitation of specific must bes must be
> >>> unnecessary.
> >>> see how human logic can be a rut loop of unnecessary
> >>> must be conundrumisms and that must be the easiest
> >>> way to show that must bes must be flexibly necessitated?
> >>
> >> Jen chérie, You are back with your famous circular
> >> logic, which can tie logicians up in self-circling
> >> knots. Keep up the good work.
> >>
> >> Tang Huyen
> >
> > that's how logic and intellect operate. ask what a certain
> > concept means and you simply get more concepts until
> > finally you make it back again to the first concept, and
> > that's the must be of all must bes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The trick is recognizing the first concept. Not such a trick if you're
> working your way up the logic tree from where you are. First-concept is
> truth, binary, true-or-false, is-or-ain't. But maybe that's too far up
> the
> tree.
>
> --
> email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
if that's a dogwood tree don't bark
because you'll just confuse it.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
