Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion how is the set of all things not a thing itself? |
The sets which are nto inhered by the members previouslly do not contain the sets nor do they impply them necessarily and therefore cannot be things themselves. I am a person for what reason? Because the qualities and quantities (physical, mental...) that the being of I has, impplys neccesarilly the set of 'person' and 'human'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion Are you saying that everything is not contained in existence, and existence is not contained in everything? |
In no case. I never compared or relativised the two terms. I only paralellised them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion Can't a set be a member and still contain all things if the only thing it is a member of is itself and nothing else? |
Please re-formulate this question in a way that is understandable by someone. This is the problem with your so-claimed 'inlogicity' and 'non-dependency of rationality', that you can't communicate nor get across your message or thoughts, with coherence, clarity, and credibility (you might want to remember it as the 3c's law).