Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

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

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    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.

      My advice to you is to radically simplify your analysis by throwing out
      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
      spent decades quarreling about. It's alright to have that in your mind to
      spring out AFTER you've identified common themes in the remaining 7 texts,
      but I guarantee you that you cannot defend that as a claim up front, let
      alone as a PRESUPPOSITION. And that is just the beginning of the problems
      with what you're trying to do. (Another is lack of a proper control group to
      contrast with your "core group". And NO, it is not possible that some writer
      or circle of writers composed thematic "books" and then spread the contents
      of those "books" over 8 texts.)

      Mike Grondin
      Mt. Clemens, MI
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.