The Logos in the Logolo

The sigil in the sight

All the dreams of fleeting worlds

The words fade into night

Temporal aeons come and go

In the nonspace of the mind

All the world, in a naught shell

Waiting for the end of time

But break free, from tinting lens we can

Undamn the gis-hur and the ME

Create from order, chaos born

And bring about the promised day

All of time is naught but sand

And all of man is clay

Create from chaos, order, born

And bring about the promised day

The water of the abzu's heart

The diamond in the ash

The maklu in the winter's dark

The comma and the slash

But still, from gaia's broken heart

And broken womb we can

Regain ourselves, and with us hope

For dilmun, eden, promised land

For now we see through a glass, darkly

Till one greater man restore us

And regain the blissful fruit

Born out of chaos

And justify the way of gods to men

## Wednesday, February 20, 2008

### True Names

Labels:
anuna magick,
hyperreality,
hypertext poetry,
logos,
mara anuna,
namcub,
sigils,
xanadu

## Wednesday, February 6, 2008

### AN ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE DICHOTOMY OF CONTRADITIONS AND TAUTOLOGIES

AN ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE DICHOTOMY OF

CONTRADITIONS AND TAUTOLOGIES

N. Key, Jr

O. Ravenhurst

M. Alaclypse III

J. Malik

G. Dorn

S. Moon

R. Wilson

Let c and t represent the set of contradictions and tautologies, respectively. To determine whether a contradiction and a tautology are equivalent, one calculates:

( c ∪ t ) ∪ ( c ∩ t ) →

~( ( c ∩ t ) ∩ ( c ∪ t ) ) →

~( (c ∩ t ) ∪ ( c ∩ c ) ∪ ( t ∩ t) ∪ ( t ∩ t) ) →

~( c ∩ t ) ∩ ~( c ∩ c ) ∩ ~( t ∩ t)

This brings up interesting points:

As expected, no contradiction is also a tautology. However, if one does not assume trivial identity, one recognizes that the outcome implies that no contradiction is a contradiction, and no tautology is a tautology.

This proves, mathematically, that no equals are the same. It also disproves all of symbolic logic through symbolic logic.

Furthermore, we can simplify using identity:

~( c ∩ t) ∩ ~c ∩ ~t →

( c ∪ t) ∩ ~c ∩ ~t →

( c ∩ ~c ∩ ~t ) ∪ (t ∩ ~c ∩ ~t) →

( ( c ∩ ~c ) ∩ ~t) ∪ ( ( t ∩ ~t ) ∩ ~c ) →

( F ∩ ~t ) ∪ ( F ∩ ~c ) →

F ∪ F →

F

In other words, if we use the identity property, our initial statement (that contradictions and tautologies are either mutually dependent or mutually exclusive) reveals itself as a contradiction, whereas without the identity property, it reveals the identity property as a contradiction.

To prove an obvious truism as a contradiction is the result in either case, and the unique factoring method does not break DeMorgan's Law, nor any other rule of formal symbolic logic. The fact that we pursued operations in a non-canonical order upon a statement that seems initially to be simplified maximally is irrelevant in determining the validity of our results, since no rules were broken.

In the end, it seems that the basic tenets of symbolic logic are inherently flawed. We have, at this point, no suggestions on how to remedy this, aside from those suggestions that invalidate the rules of symbolic and formal logic - suggestions which are irrational and do not correspond to the traditional concepts of reason - however, as our proof invalidated reason as it now stands, we must state our conclusion: nothing is true, and everything is permissible. There are no logical relationships that cannot be proven to be contradictions, even those that are proven to be correct elsewhere.

CONTRADITIONS AND TAUTOLOGIES

N. Key, Jr

O. Ravenhurst

M. Alaclypse III

J. Malik

G. Dorn

S. Moon

R. Wilson

Let c and t represent the set of contradictions and tautologies, respectively. To determine whether a contradiction and a tautology are equivalent, one calculates:

( c ∪ t ) ∪ ( c ∩ t ) →

~( ( c ∩ t ) ∩ ( c ∪ t ) ) →

~( (c ∩ t ) ∪ ( c ∩ c ) ∪ ( t ∩ t) ∪ ( t ∩ t) ) →

~( c ∩ t ) ∩ ~( c ∩ c ) ∩ ~( t ∩ t)

This brings up interesting points:

As expected, no contradiction is also a tautology. However, if one does not assume trivial identity, one recognizes that the outcome implies that no contradiction is a contradiction, and no tautology is a tautology.

This proves, mathematically, that no equals are the same. It also disproves all of symbolic logic through symbolic logic.

Furthermore, we can simplify using identity:

~( c ∩ t) ∩ ~c ∩ ~t →

( c ∪ t) ∩ ~c ∩ ~t →

( c ∩ ~c ∩ ~t ) ∪ (t ∩ ~c ∩ ~t) →

( ( c ∩ ~c ) ∩ ~t) ∪ ( ( t ∩ ~t ) ∩ ~c ) →

( F ∩ ~t ) ∪ ( F ∩ ~c ) →

F ∪ F →

F

In other words, if we use the identity property, our initial statement (that contradictions and tautologies are either mutually dependent or mutually exclusive) reveals itself as a contradiction, whereas without the identity property, it reveals the identity property as a contradiction.

To prove an obvious truism as a contradiction is the result in either case, and the unique factoring method does not break DeMorgan's Law, nor any other rule of formal symbolic logic. The fact that we pursued operations in a non-canonical order upon a statement that seems initially to be simplified maximally is irrelevant in determining the validity of our results, since no rules were broken.

In the end, it seems that the basic tenets of symbolic logic are inherently flawed. We have, at this point, no suggestions on how to remedy this, aside from those suggestions that invalidate the rules of symbolic and formal logic - suggestions which are irrational and do not correspond to the traditional concepts of reason - however, as our proof invalidated reason as it now stands, we must state our conclusion: nothing is true, and everything is permissible. There are no logical relationships that cannot be proven to be contradictions, even those that are proven to be correct elsewhere.

Labels:
dingir,
discord,
dissonance,
logic,
love,
namcub,
predicate logic,
prolog,
xanadu

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)