.01

Re. 20210228#n01

Pierre Rousseau, you are such a clever wordsmith that I must confess, I have difficulty following your meaning. I have trouble with your ideas around 'word' and its associated philosophies. That said, I think we are largely in agreement about your criticism of 'cancel culture' , globalism and other worrying trends. My comment was not intended to pass judgment on JP. In fact, quite the opposite. I try to remain fairly neutral on such things, and I think humour is sometimes a way of not taking everything too seriously. Of course, when there seems to be a very existential battle between opposing forces and points of view, it is serious, so I understand your comments. Just to clarify, I wouldn't dream of cancelling anyone for their point of view, and I despise these online bullying tactics. Humour can be a way of easing tensions, or slicing through confusion and hitting the nail on the head, sometimes brutally. It need not be dangerous, as long as one has a sense of humour. We take our ideas too seriously sometimes, and that can lead to all kinds of atrocities, but there are times when the ideas are serious and should be treated as such.

Soth de Witan

Soth de Witan I took it to be a takedown of humor, but I suppose it depends on what kind of humor and with what purpose. Pierre would say there is no purpose there is only word, which is not word.

Deborah Greene

Deborah Greene If it were true by these posts or comments that I am saying something (which it is not), I am not saying "there is or is not" anything. So in the world of people saying something (existence and ontology), the idea that I am saying, "there is or is not x" is a convenient strawman... for the utter bullshit, psychoanalysis.

The suggestion that I rationalize my preconceptions is projection. Normal reality as "existence" is what consists of dualism, duality, paradox and contradiction (both ontology and existence) which are endless logic for all kinds of archetype-mythological self-deception... usually in the form of trying to geniusly trying to trick others, including oneself in the so-called intersubjective field, which field is the abysmal nonsense that ultimately necessarily is the abyss.

As such humor is further facilitation of the absolute nonsense parading as formal and informal normality and nature, most egregiously as the commons for which men proudly wage the most brutal war. It is only (in terms of its own crappy logic, that of being or not) anecdotally, superficially and symptomatically tension or relief of tension.

The only nails humor hits on the head, are those in the self-similarly progressive fractal constructs of machine cybernetics, which are the boards of humanity's coffin.

No cliche is as devastatingly shameful in the establishment of the word "shame" in universal shaming as the bullshit existence and knowledge about existence (ontology) as the idea that one should not take things or oneself too seriously.

The point is anything but that there is no purpose or not. Point-i is that everything is word, which is exactly not that word is everything (there is only word), which it would be if it claimed "existence" as the (existential) explanation for meaning. The idea that I am saying everything is word, which is not word is projection. The paradox of reality as word and at the same time not word is exactly the error of the duality of reality as a world out there/in here AND knowledge about it, in terms of word vanishingly less than so-called "feelings" and "emotions," invariably words, by the way.

So in supposedly "being," whether you do understand and are joking to elicit the kind of response you are getting, or not, Deborah Greene, apparently you are stuck to the deep state pious fundamentalism of the psyche, replete with primordial tales and child developmental instructions about animal consciousness and the bottomless sinkholes of its deconstructive buzz.

.02

re. Fallacy

The nexus of confusion lies in ambivalence, i.e., the dualism paradox, "existence." The  Ambiguous Middle  is key to the formal Four-Term Fallacy and the informal fallacy, Equivocation.

...

The formal fallacies, Quantifier Shift and Modal Scope Fallacy are the setup for the intersubjective field as the metastatic extension of ontological integration, i.e., emotion as what something or someone does or has, the plethora of why and how, the ooh and aah, the babble of Scope [Fallacy]...

⇒ 20210311.07

.03

.04

.05

.06

.07

.08

.09

.10