Replying to LO25270 --
you are really struggling hard to get my soul ;-).
>> When I read statements like this I am compelled to answer them:
>To be compelled is to be driven (so what is it specifically that compels you?)
Well, in fact this first sentence is not true, I have just cited you. But
because I indeed DID write, I thought this little cheating keeps unnoticed
and privately I enjoyed this littlebit of recursiveness. It was also meant
to indicate my awareness and suspension of the law of the excluded middle
as well as the law of non-contradiction on the level of the continous
But I also choosed to identify what I have cited from you as a statement.
And as such I have treated it playfully. Your explanations show me that
you did not realize this playing but that you assume my attachement to
logic. But I hoped I made my willfull choosing clear by referring to me as
a democrat (didn't this word surprise you?). This includes the hint that
in democracy logic IS applied on at least written language, on
'discriminated objects' generally I think. And I wished I would be better
in Logik .
Unfortunately, my original sending at 22nd of August arrived somewhere in
Nirwana and that's too long ago to keep the implicate in the explicated
implicate. Now you have torn it out to the light.
"Winfried Dressler" <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.