A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 2
- From: "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Aug 2005 16:56:09 -0700
A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 2
Douglas eagleson, 2005
(Aristotle's works must be printed in simple
terms.)
In my last USENET posting a school of philosophical
physics was defined.
And when Penrose was trying to communicate the
school in relation to Plato's world of
abstract observation he had a single failure.
He could not either communicate as a teacher the
form of Plato or abstract the form in modern English.
I have written numerous examples of the abstract form
and its application.
And in this statement I seek to simply
clarify the form.
A word called the form was utilized by
Aristotle. And it was discussed ad-nausium.
ANd it was not given the correct translation
to the word inference.
A form is an inference.
It is a pattern of consistent thought
such that the outcome appears a conclusion.
People walk this earth with many
varied inference instillments.
And the common English instillment is
a predicate. A form of simple symbol
rememberence.
And to have the teacher discuss a classroom
topic without warning of the exact inference
utilized is a common occurance.
Instilled thinking is common.
And a form as the word to convey a correct
thinking as opposed to an arbitrary thinking
is a good translation.
Making the forms, as opposed to the form, the
kind of dilligence in readership required of
Aristotle.
B. Russell read and studied Aristotle as
a modern philosopher. He read the first
book of Aristotle and concluded that
Aritotle was incorrect.
He was guilty of reading incorrectly.
Another teacher might have convinced
him of his error. But as a real
philosopher he was left with only his
own pondering.
Russell's Paradox is solved.
His relation of inference was a warned of
by Aristotle. Aristotle had an
example of the kind of dilemma Russell's
inference would encounter.
A set of any thing as opposed to the
set of the abstract thing was his error.
Russell's inference was a single error.
A set of the abstract exists in relation
to only the set itself.
Russell abstract inately, but could not
cause the generalized abstraction to
exist. He needed a teacher.
And to take on the task of redefining
a school was B. Russells's.
Search the earth as a philosopher and many
teacher will be found to teach
Plato's form. By accident.
A task of mine is to ensure the
school is never lost to translation
again.
An english translation of
Aristotle work is surely gramatically
transformed.
And the dislocation I speak of is clearly
visible in the modern works, in English.
And here is a single sentence in
English in Plato's form, in example.
"An air"
A noun is stated and it is assumed
to be the abstract air. But in reality
it is the sentence, "For air."
A modifier called the adjective is used
to determine the kind of air.
A two word sentence in Plato's form
sets the context for the whole
paragraph. Aristotle used the first
word sometimes to make the context.
"For air."
The sentence preceding states, that
in relation to all previous discussion
on the theory of air, the following
statement is true.
And to mistake that is to never, ever
be able to read the work's of Aristotle.
A misreading is a failed read if
the work is surely in a form
distinct.
And to read a translation and assume the
translator able to make the form's
necessary context is a failed
philosopher.
A need to translate the works
of foriegn writer's personnelly
is a common knowledge.
Russell surely never translated.
And so here is a single error given
to english.
A new word is necessary to convey the
size of the error. An adjective
in relation to the original word
is a sorry example of 2000 years of mystery.
"A modifer of the symbol can be
used to alter its meaning."
A verb is defined where the abstract
modifier redefines.
And the word is a "countenance".
A word countenance is the correct
meaning in relation to the writer's
intention and not the assumed.
So, in relation to English all the
works of Aristotle have a grammatical
structure call countenance present.
And so to be able to translate
the modifier assigned must be correct.
And in reality a translation without benefit
of the modifier suits a reader well.
Leave it to the reader.
Let the reader determine the meaning
of the symbol.
And so the sophisticated translation
as opposed to the simple translation
is warned.
An entire school was destroyed by
sophisticated translation.
Who prints the simple works of
Aristotle?
A society of the printer has need to
violate the rule of the editor
a single time.
And the works of Aristotle must be
printed simply.
note: Aristotle was a kind of writer
who was prolific. And his error capacity
was zero. So, the necessity to simply
print his works is life threatening necessity.
2000 years of confusion. Simple printing
in English is mandatory.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 2
- From: Robert Kolker
- Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 2
- From: Uncle Al
- Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 2
- Prev by Date: Re: Feynman Double slit experiment and others
- Next by Date: Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 2
- Previous by thread: A Philosophical Physicist's Statement
- Next by thread: Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
