Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

> 	You disagree because you just keep cheating. There isn't much
> 	to add. Logic isn't about 'agreement' with you, or with the
> 	party.

I take this to mean that you don't believe that logic requires fundamental
assumptions that cannot be proven, but must be agreed upon?

And using figurative language isn't misrepresentation of your position.
You have dismissed as stupid/retarded/nonsense my opinions because they
were not consistent. This is little different than a religious person
dismissing my opinions because they are "sacrilege." They are incompatible
with your system of thought. So, in this way, you quite do put logic on a
pedestal.

If it isn't logical (or holy) it is wrong. That is an accurate summation
of your position, and it is clear that the figurative speech of "putting
logic on a pedestal" .. in fact applies, pointedly.

> 	Oh, and as far as I knew, the pythagoreans were credited with
> 	discovering 'irrational' numbers (which of course are not
> 	actually irrational as in absurd or meaningless) - And the
> 	legend I knew is that they killed one of the sect who
> 	'leaked' (haha) the secret, but it's probably a bullshit legend.

I didn't hear the legend that way. As I recall it being told, they killed
the guy who discovered it. I'm not sure either version is true, and if I
had to bet, would wager that both are simply fiction.

> 	Logic is what it is. I 'accept' it, if you wish. I'm not an
> 	arrogant asshole who believes that inconsistent nonsese is
> 	'non-linear' 'valid', nay, even 'superior' thimking. It isn't.

You accept what, exactly?

I've never claimed that inconsistent statements are superior to consistent
statements, as such. What I claim in that regard is that there are certain
truths that can only be indicated by inconsistent pairs of statements. And
yes, within the context of our discussion, I have favored inconsistency as
a balance to your focus on minutia, mere points of debate, and reliance on
ideological principles which I obviously do not hold, and which therefore
have nothing to do with the actual ideas that you started asking me
questions about.

The reality of logical inconsistency is trivially observable even in
simple situations: It is logical for the USA to try to prevent nuclear
proliferation. It is logical for Iran to seek a nuke.

Therefore, what is LOGICAL tells us NOTHING about the actual situation.
What ACTUALLY informs us about the situation is the inconsistency.

It's also observable in more complex situations:  A person may
simultaneously "love" and "hate" another.

The apparent inconsistency points to, and indicates, the underlying
tensions of the situation as it really exists. In this way, there are REAL
contradictions. But lets get down right to physical reality with it, too:

A computer system with two sensors of arbitrarily high resolution and
accuracy, measuring the temperature of tank of water will, nevertheless
see inconsistent data from the two sensors. Measurement is an inherently
subjective activity.

Inconsistency and uncertainty is a fact of life, right down the the barest
components of physical reality.

The ability to deal with inconsistency without dismissal is, to me, vital
for 'valid proper thought' which is the goal of 'logic' as a discipline,
in my understanding.

>
> 	So keep up with the parables, the false analogies (now from
> 	maths) and the preaching. The more you preach...I hope you can
> 	figure the rest =)

Not preaching. I have no reason to believe that you'll get yourself into
any type of trouble, or doom for only thinking one way. I'm not trying to
save you from the evils of classical thought, nor classical liberalism.
I'm not interested in converting you, partly because I'm not interested in
converting anyone. Mostly, in your case, because I'm sure I wouldn't want
you in my circles. I'm just giving my perspective, and explaining what you
continually misrepresent and attack.

And I will point out that saying that I gave "false analogies" doesn't
make it so. I gave NO analogies in the bit about logic, and maths. An
analogy is to draw simile between two things. I didn't do that. I made
direct statements of fact. There are different branches of logic, as I've
described. There are different branches of geometry, as I described. There
are theorems which prove facts about the limits of logic, which while
stated informally, are in fact true.

If you're out of your depth, that's quite alright. You said before you're
not much for maths, so I didn't get into it, and instead tried to show
some of those limits playfully instead. But you're not the playful sort
either. So, I'll admit, I'm rather at a loss for how to convey these ideas
to you, except to say -- rather than merely "accepting" logic, perhaps you
really ought to consider studying it.