## Re: [GTh] Configuration......Rexponse to Mike

Expand Messages
• Tom- In the previous note, I said that you did not understand either the logical or linguistic concepts you were using, and for that reason I suggested that
Message 1 of 1 , Nov 2, 2004
• 0 Attachment
Tom-

In the previous note, I said that you did not understand either the logical
or linguistic concepts you were using, and for that reason I suggested that
you drop them. In this note, I'll explain that remark.

The logical concept involved is the square of opposition, which you've
mentioned on several occasions, most recently in a note called 'Blind'. In
that note, you write:

> "If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall in a ditch."
>
> If we put this statement in the 'square of opposition,' we can see
> something really special. The square has four points where the level of
> understanding of logic can be concluded. So, the statement about blind
> people will be true if, A. The blind person who leads always causes both
> to fall in a ditch. B. The other blind person causes the fall in the
> ditch. C. Both blind men fall in the ditch with equal blame. D. Neither
> falls into the ditch.

Ironically, both you and anyone who follows you will fall into a ditch here,
because you have not applied the SO correctly. Let me explain some facts
about it. First, the SO has four points, as you say. The statement-forms at
the four corners are:

A. All X's are Y
I: Some X's are Y
O. Some X's are not Y
E. No X's are Y

You've tried to adapt these statement-forms to the two-blind-men saying, but
you haven't done so properly. The first rule of the SO that you've violated
is that the four statements have to have the SAME SUBJECT and SAME
PREDICATE. The second rule you've violated is that they have to have the
same logical relationship to each other as the four statement-forms.
Fortunately, you don't need the SO at all - it's just another irrelevant
factor that unnecessarily complicates your analysis, making it utterly
confusing both for youself and for others.

The linguistics concept you're misusing is class-forms. Here's one of your
statements:

> The ('Those that have ears'/one who hears) is a Core 'Class-Form,' in the
> Gnostic framework

If you'll look back at what you yourself wrote about class-forms, you'll see
that a class-form is a statement-form (i.e., it has a blank in it and
therefore doesn't make sense in itself) It's intended to be used to define a
linguistic class by identifying those concepts which FIT into it. The word
'fit' is of the utmost importance, and yet you've ignored it. What it means
is that when a word or phrase is plugged into the blank in a class-form, the
resulting statement has to make grammatical sense. The "class" is then the
group of concepts which make sense when plugged into the form. As you can
see, the above quoted statement is really quite nonsensical altogether.
Among other things, a class-form has a blank in it, so that what you call a
"core class-form" above (i.e., "Those that have ears/one who hears") isn't
even a class-form, core or not.

stuff you don't need, and getting clear about what's left. Class-forms are
not applicable, so you shouldn't try to use them. One big bug still
remaining will then be the word "Gnostic". If you use it to characterize
these 8 texts in advance, you will have begged the question of whether the
GTh is "Gnostic", by assuming the very thing that dozens of scholars have