Discrete Language

If you can’t figure the logic of a sentence; you have to repeat it in your head and apply the logic and see if it makes sense to you at all, in part, some, or all. If you understand the logic behind every sentence that you read in your native tongue then I would say that you are a master in that language. And I don’t believe that one bit.

I think every language in every kind is open ended and thus an open system as the concepts in the mind of that person are never exhausted in language and that this is a bottleneck to its own library of meaning in general. And in “general” I mean that anything from the micro instance to the unlimited nature of its building blocks as in our own selves and in particular the human rationale.

If what read doesn’t make sense as to logic and namely the application of logic to semantic structure from a reputable source like Time magazine then you have to do it again and again until it makes sense; breaking the sentence structure down in your head slowly until the logic makes sense. No doubt the writer could make a mistake but for arguments sake lets let the article follow perfection in the English language.

If it doesn’t make sense then you have to figure out whether it’s the logic inherent to your mind that needs to be tweaked, your understanding of that particular language, or a flaw in the language itself which is only attributable to us and not the construct of the language itself. All this can be repaired and built upon either by re-examination or the build upon in a web like structure based on justified foundations (namely first principles).

But I want to talk about learning logic in my philosophy classes. They taught me logic in such a way that it made quite an impression on my intellect. However, I think too late in life. Some people grow old without ever questioning the matter (I would say most people on the planet). But learning logic and if you absorb at least a little bit will enlighten how you see language. Any language.

The principles of logic are universal and every individual possesses this capacity from sheer birth. If cultivated in you it could be a very powerful trait that could bring your understanding of logic inherent not only in language (thru self-evident values) which was created by groups but in every endeavor of spirit. It can bring to you to a higher level of spirituality if taken seriously but I am not saying that it is spiritual as it is surely with no doubt in my mind that it is related closely to science rather than anything else.

Furthermore, I would like to make a little mental note that the discipline of Numbers in their most simplistic forms and to the more general study of the rigors of Mathematics is the only universal language known to man (this is a common theme prevalent in these times, especially media), but I just want to let it be known that logic comes first and it is not a language like math. It is the construct of the human intelligent which gives way to numbers as we know them today. Granted the symbols are of one origin however we all need to agree in order to have this.

You can’t know the concept of “oneness” without first recognizes that it is single all by itself and then you apply meaning to it to mean the number one, number two, number 3, and so on. To add one to itself you would have to have the capacity to know what addition of two “one” things mean. And this capacity is very well known to man. Therefore logic precedes any kind of language even the alphabet in a given semantical systems.

[[[[[[[make concepts clear here in last paragraph and check grammar on entire article, Roger]]]]]]]

The very two first principles of the mind construct is being and not being. On and Off. One-ness and not One-ness and in machine language a one or a zero (a switch).From there we can go forward and bang the world as we know it. But there is no disconnection between the two. For example were awake (being), we fall asleep (not being) and the subconscious is the connection between the two on and off states. Awake, in-between and dream is the connection, Asleep is the off state. This analogy can be broken down, maybe but I’m trying to explain the best that I can. When you grab a switch and turn it on or off you are voluntarily practicing the essence of fundamental logic.

I’m mortal, God is immortal, and Christ is the medium or connection. P’s v Q’s (three states). To forgive, not forgive, Jesus the mediator. But you might say that Christ forgives for anything and everything and therefore he oscillates between the two, but he can’t if he cannot deliberate which we say he won’t. How do we know that at the final moment of his death? This is where this analogy breaks down. Is it in the New Testament; at the very last moment? I don’t know. Three is the first real prime number. It is of my opinion that the very first principles of knowledge is tertiary On or Off with “or” as the connection between the two.

Understanding integers or counting numbers is tertiary in nature -1, 0 , 1. A Sine wave is tertiary and I think I’m hitting a maximum state here. I can’t think past this concept because I can’t think of anything more basic.

[[[[[[[Take out Christianity stuff Roger, it’s for my own knowing, but maybe I can talk about a higher power whatever anyone understands that to be for their own selves. Take out God? Or is God the higher power[[[intelligent design[[[[the immovable mover.

as a side note that i might write about in this article is that since i live in the usa and especially in los angeles that the english structured by the differing people and their respective cultures are not all the same. Their explanation of the idea in english shows their intelligence as a perspective of the the discipline of English. Some people score a hundred percent all the way through from idea to idea, but others fail in degrees of lesser and lesser tones. And this degree is the intelligentic “punch line” in conversation.

[[[I mite have this idea of a Universal language that’s linguistic in nature and based on the characters and phoenetics of every language. We should all, I hope so, that every concept(s) behind every language is represented equally among us as ideas and images as an example and laughter as another. The charater scheme I would say would have to come from just straight lines. Examine Dreamsparks Rubiks cube where you solve the cube by congruent and adjacent angles (it’s the black and white toy for the immature like me but yet growing.).