Facts

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lloyd, I have a few comments about your reply:[COLOR=black]

1.Correctness of soul has nothing to do with it, my friend. I just choose to absolutely know I have and feel my soul, i.e., nothing but the genuineness of my emotions. Been there___done that___not going there again...

2.Logic and emotions are the mind and heart of the infinite singularity of one human being, if I want them to be. Truth is isomorphic and abductive, i.e., always changing. Logic can only be handled objectively, nothing truly exists except the super-objective of the super-subjective. There is much real, objective and absolute truth, you should study a real philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce. He and I quite disagree with you, at times, Guille. I have no gap between logic and emotions, logic is my greatest instinctual emotion, and has been since childhood. I always check my logic with intuition, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. The intuitive imaginal unites it all, Guille. The mind is a toy,,,ride it to the TOE.

3.Peirce's logic - "That one method consists in proceeding from universally observed facts, formulated abstractly, and deducing their consequences by mathematical reasoning."
Peirce's logic - "Namely, it must be shown whatever be the constitution of the universe, the method of reasoning adopted, if it leads to any conclusion, and if there is any such thing as truth to be reached, must in the long run reach a true conclusion."
Peirce's logic - "Logic is the formal science of the conditions of the truth of representations."
Peirce's logic - "For that reason, it is necessary to consider separately theoretical reasonings, the reasonings of pure science, and practical reasonings."
Peirce's logic graphs - "This was a discovery of no little importance, showing as it does that all knowledge without exception comes from observation."
Peirce's logic - "When you subtract perception from cognition, what remains is pure subjective cognition, with no objective grist for the perceptive mill - The subjective fallacy."

4.Guille, my soul being alive has no true bearing on quantum, trees, ants, as no one yet can say whether geo is alive or dead. The sun, in conjunction with nature, is a complete philanthropic life giving system___and all is dead without it___so who can say what is alive or dead, except personal choice? The next choice after the metaphysical academic foolishness is natural intelligence, of the natural intuitive soul and mind...the natural universal singularity of equilibriating liberty and justice for all, if you want it...?

regards

[Guille]

but what about the concept of everything?

Yes, that is a concept which embraces all. But in all adquisitions of good properties, there is a condition. And the condition of the concept of everything is that it actually embraces nothing (not as in nothingness, but as in no-thing (even though they physically mean the same, linguistically-metaphysically there is a difference)). In fact, 'everything' is probably (together with the inevitably linked concept iof 'god') the worst (as in 'most harmfull') concept ever developed by humanity.

[subversion]

In fact, 'everything' is probably (together with the inevitably linked concept iof 'god') the worst (as in 'most harmfull') concept ever developed by humanity.

hmmmm, sounds like you're in the wrong forum. Afterall, this is the theory of EVERYTHING. I think that everything is a brilliant concept, but why do you disagree? Just curious...

[Guille]

hmmmm, sounds like you're in the wrong forum. Afterall, this is the theory of EVERYTHING. I think that everything is a brilliant concept, but why do you disagree? Just curious...

No, actually this forum si most appropaite to me than anyone else. Preciselly because I believe we can't know everything, because we shouldn't wonder about what is true and what isn't, because I know the fallacyc nature of concepts like 'everything'... That I must be here to explain all these theroeis of mine, and discuss them. And actually I prefer to not believe in a TOE than to believe in any one which I've read in these forums.

[subversion]

No, actually this forum si most appropaite to me than anyone else. Preciselly because I believe we can't know everything, because we shouldn't wonder about what is true and what isn't, because I know the fallacyc nature of concepts like 'everything'... That I must be here to explain all these theroeis of mine, and discuss them. And actually I prefer to not believe in a TOE than to believe in any one which I've read in these forums.

so you're an anti-theorist of everything?

[subversion]

Guille, are you saying that the concept of 'everything' is a fallacy because it must include the concept of nothing? But nothing has no value and no meaning thus it doesn't matter right? Don't get bogged down in the paradox of Russell again. Besides, Godel told us that it's ok if the truth is contradictory (actually he didn't realize it, because he was taking the pessimistic interpretation, that truth could not exist, since it were contradictory). So even if everything must include nothing, it still makes sense, because afterall, nothing has no meaning, and thus is irrelevant. Right?