From: Sarah Marr (sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Thu Sep 26 1996 - 15:20:01 MDT
At 12:05 26/09/96 -0400, you wrote:
> At 08:02 AM 9/26/96 +0100, Sarah Marr wrote:
>
> > ... the following sentence is a _complete_ nonsense:
> >
> > "But all that it is, is all that its not."
> >
> > OK: it's red. So apply that sentence:
> >
> > "It is red. It is not red."
>
>IAN: No contradiction:
>
>Its internal area (a) is red. Its external area (b) is not-red.
>
>Both areas (a) and (b) are inside the area that contains all
>those features necessary for its identity. Surely you agree.
>
>We might call this universal area, the "Super-red-box."
>Its "super identity" is its individual identity. As such,
>all things in its (b) area alter its individual identity
>as it alters the identity of all things in its (b) area.
OK so:
>We might call this universal area, the "Super-red-box."
We might do, but remember you require a 'not-super-red-box' otherwise the
'super-red-box' cannot exist. Since you posit that the not-red-box is
everything but the red box, then the 'super-red-box' must be everything,
since it is red-box and not-red-box. So what, then, is the
'not-super-red-box'? Your logical definition is iterative but is bounded on
its first iteration. Huh?
Sarah
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kathryn Marr
sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/sarah.marr/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:45 MST