No statement I make can "change your mind" or promt any action. You're the one who does that. The only meaning is whatever convention assigns to those words which is why legalese and technical writing are so demanding and rigorous i.e., so we can take action iaw wiords. One cannot say, "But that's not how I understood it."
No statement I make can "change your mind" or promt any action. You're the one who does that. The only meaning is whatever convention assigns to those words which is why legalese and technical writing are so demanding and rigorous i.e., so we can take action iaw wiords. One cannot say, "But that's not how I understood it."
If your understanding is not iaw with convention, you are wrong, not the piece even if it isn't the best example of the art. (and there is a lot of that about!)
Here, "supeficial" means unambiguous.
Ambiguity is what happens from trying to impose some universal theory or philosophy upon reaity when the more limited the theory the more accurate it is.
Bronsted-Lowry is another way to look ar Arrehnius acids and bases and both are simple.
Lewis acids and bases will get yo into organic chemistry.
Oxidation Reduction replaces the whole acid-base idea with electromotive force and we're into batteries although Brinsted-Lowry is the smart way to adjest pH in teh swimmjng pool.
Capitalism describes a system of investment, manufacture and profit but governments also do it, some better than others, but that can be said of private corporations as well.
And, how aren't large corporations "collectives"? At a certain point in size, individual ownership disapperas like it does in state corporation or any municpal project.
Do stock holders have any more say than tax payers? Somtimes less, I would say.
Innovations? Ah, "Mahatten Project"? The ME 163 "Komet"?
Ayn Rand tried to make some univserasl philosophy of "captialism" and "collectivism" into an evil : a pseudo-religion, assigning "meaning" to words like "profit" and "altruism" that they didn't have. It was as much a slight of hand as anything Marx came up with, a Prussian Jew who translated Frederick's "Kamarilla" via the French Revolution into his "holy cause" complate with an Apocalypse and 2nd Coming.
Well, I guess wehave to hand it to Marx for "slight of hand" or, at least, a lot more of it.
But that's how desperate COld War "capitalists" and Republicans were and still are, as though "meritocracy" didn't impinge on "equality".
>>No statement I make can "change your mind" or promt any action. ...<<
It's not the "utterance", but rather the proposition and/or the statement *as such* I was speaking about. I would agree with you if it was the former; but the latter is very different. If there was not "Gap" with regard to Descriptive qualities (i.e. "able to pinpoint") and Active qualities (i.e. "able to prompt"), then Formal Language would be the inevitable, Deterministic evolutionary endpoint of Natural Language in every Human Society.
However, not only do we not see this, but rather we see the Collapse of Formal Language systems (the 20th century failure of the Positivist movement was the start, now it has only accelerated) because of their overall inability to find within themselves the Normative standards which justify their own field to begin with.
It's not an accident that "Science" is collapsing as we speak (I can go on a tangent on Stanford and others being caught red handed falsifying all sorts of stuff, but I will desist on that); this is the inevitable result of the "Normative-Descriptive" Gap coming to the fore. And it will only get worse.
No statement I make can "change your mind" or promt any action. You're the one who does that. The only meaning is whatever convention assigns to those words which is why legalese and technical writing are so demanding and rigorous i.e., so we can take action iaw wiords. One cannot say, "But that's not how I understood it."
If your understanding is not iaw with convention, you are wrong, not the piece even if it isn't the best example of the art. (and there is a lot of that about!)
Here, "supeficial" means unambiguous.
Ambiguity is what happens from trying to impose some universal theory or philosophy upon reaity when the more limited the theory the more accurate it is.
Bronsted-Lowry is another way to look ar Arrehnius acids and bases and both are simple.
Lewis acids and bases will get yo into organic chemistry.
Oxidation Reduction replaces the whole acid-base idea with electromotive force and we're into batteries although Brinsted-Lowry is the smart way to adjest pH in teh swimmjng pool.
Capitalism describes a system of investment, manufacture and profit but governments also do it, some better than others, but that can be said of private corporations as well.
And, how aren't large corporations "collectives"? At a certain point in size, individual ownership disapperas like it does in state corporation or any municpal project.
Do stock holders have any more say than tax payers? Somtimes less, I would say.
Innovations? Ah, "Mahatten Project"? The ME 163 "Komet"?
Ayn Rand tried to make some univserasl philosophy of "captialism" and "collectivism" into an evil : a pseudo-religion, assigning "meaning" to words like "profit" and "altruism" that they didn't have. It was as much a slight of hand as anything Marx came up with, a Prussian Jew who translated Frederick's "Kamarilla" via the French Revolution into his "holy cause" complate with an Apocalypse and 2nd Coming.
Well, I guess wehave to hand it to Marx for "slight of hand" or, at least, a lot more of it.
But that's how desperate COld War "capitalists" and Republicans were and still are, as though "meritocracy" didn't impinge on "equality".
>>No statement I make can "change your mind" or promt any action. ...<<
It's not the "utterance", but rather the proposition and/or the statement *as such* I was speaking about. I would agree with you if it was the former; but the latter is very different. If there was not "Gap" with regard to Descriptive qualities (i.e. "able to pinpoint") and Active qualities (i.e. "able to prompt"), then Formal Language would be the inevitable, Deterministic evolutionary endpoint of Natural Language in every Human Society.
However, not only do we not see this, but rather we see the Collapse of Formal Language systems (the 20th century failure of the Positivist movement was the start, now it has only accelerated) because of their overall inability to find within themselves the Normative standards which justify their own field to begin with.
It's not an accident that "Science" is collapsing as we speak (I can go on a tangent on Stanford and others being caught red handed falsifying all sorts of stuff, but I will desist on that); this is the inevitable result of the "Normative-Descriptive" Gap coming to the fore. And it will only get worse.