Alabama Municipal Judge Carlton Teel is packing more than legal principles under his robe. When a defendant Brian (Bryant) Keith Ford reacted badly to a sentence and started swinging his crutches at the judge, Teel whipped out a gun and then a deputy shot Ford in the side.
Accounts differ on how much danger the man posed — with some witnesses saying that he was not attacking the judge when he was shot. Others say he tried to grab the gun.
Ford was in the courtroom on a harassment charge from a neighbor who said Ford had cursed at her in December after accusing her of talking about him to police.
Teel reportedly fined him $800 — a rather modest sum when one considers he now faces serious criminal charges and remains in critical condition.
The most disturbing account was:
Sara Williams said she was sitting in the front row when the man, whom she knew, got agitated after the judge fined him $800. He waved one of his crutches in the air.
“The police were hollering for him to get down” when an officer opened fire, she said.
Williams said she yelled “Don’t shoot him no more!” right before the officer fired again.
If that is true, it is hard to see why potentially lethal force was used. However, others describe Ford as attacking the judge.
Do you believe judges should be allowed to pack heat in a courtroom?
Source: ABA Journal
Caught another typohno
“e^j*pi = plus or minus magnitude unity at angle 200 grads” got edited into a mistake. The phone rang and I found myself interrupted. Movie and book, “Girl, Interrupted.” Not about me, exactly
Properly typed, is:
e^j*pi = magnitude unity at angle plus or minus 200 grads
Missed steaks happen. They fall off the spit and into the campfire. Or, the aluminum foil for the foil pack is too thin for the heat of the fire, or not enough layers of aluminum foil were used. The steak (ground?), the carrots, the potatoes, the butter, and a Boy Scout camp meal. Delicious if done well.
“And no one has demonstrated to me that I do not understand the Adversarial Principle”
Oh yes they have, Brian.
You just can’t accept it because your circular logic is dependent upon the unproven assumption that the adversarial process causes the adversarial nature in humans when it is a demonstrable fact that adversarial process is a reflection of the existent adversity in both human nature and in the adversarial situations that arise as a normal course of human interaction with each other and the environment. Nor can you accept the fact that adversarial process is the civilized way to handle disputes. Civilized people go to court to resolve their differences. Animals simply kill one another – the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
You can say you haven’t been proven wrong all you like.
It’s still a delusion upon your part.
You have been proven wrong.
Repeatedly.
And unlike Galileo, you will never be vindicated by history. He relied upon observation, logic and empirical evidence to back his assertions.
You rely upon supposition, circular logic and faith to back your assertions.
So there you are.
Wrong again.
I sometimes dare to wonder whether someone may recognize and note the rather peculiar word patterning I have been using here, using it with obvious formidable ineptitude, and fear not to ask me, “How on earth do you write as you write?”
Misteaks hoppen:
“Let “pi” be the ration of circumference to diameter of a circle in a plane.”
was intended to read
“Let “pi” be the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle in a plane.”
I try to ration my typographical errors, sometimes doing so by mistake.
Let “e” be the base of Naperian Logarithms, circa 2.7818…
Let “j” be the positive square root of negative unity
Let “pi” be the ration of circumference to diameter of a circle in a plane.
Let “^” be “raised to the power
Let “-1” be the square of j
Let “=” be mathematically equals
AND
e^j*pi = j^2 = -1
OR
Using polar coordinates in the complex plane
and
Using grads
e^j*pi = plus or minus magnitude unity at angle 200 grads
Because us electrical engineers, back in the days of conventional current (holes in semiconductors) had chosen to represent current by the letter “i”, the next available letter,”j” became the symbol for the positive square root of negative unity operator.
Want the seven seventh-roots of -1? The first one is easy, it is -1. Using algebra, the other six may be a challenge to find.
But, Wait, There’s More!
Whack the unit circle in the complex plane into seven equal segments, with one segment boundary along the negative real axis.
The other six seventh-roots will be at the remaining equiangular segment-boundary unit-circle intersects.
Shall we next dialogue regarding contour integrals in the complex plane as an aspect of theory of functions?
TonyC., thank you, thank you very much, for finally putting forth something not akin to a broadside of 18 inch battleship guns.
During the Adult Forum at Hope United Church of Christ this Sunday past, the presenter asked those attending to do an activity in which we formed groups of three people, and were asked to comment about with each other about a concern raised by the presenter. The question touched upon what might be thought to be “mental intelligence” as I understood it.
So, I commented to the effect that, before we (humans) search for extraterrestrial intelligence (as with SETI), it may be wise to look here on earth first, because, if we cannot find any form of intelligence here, how would we know for what we are looking anywhere else.
IQ does not measure any form of personal attribute, it is simply a measure of acculturation to the particular culture used in the concocting of the psychological instrument.
I have no biophysical evidence that the traditional notions of intelligence and intelligence quotients are other than superstitious cultural artifacts. So, inform me that my intelligence quotient is negative unity and I find that to be conjecture because it totally and perfectly lacks falsifiability.
In the early 1950s, my dad had long pondered why Albert Einstein had flubbed his effort at doing a mathematical Unified Field Theory.
My dad’s view, Einstein got the dimensions wrong.
By then I had worked through how reactance is orthogonal to resistance, partly by digesting the Sturgeon Bay Public Library’s copy of Keith Henny, “Principles of Radio: Fifth Edition,” Wiley, copyright 1929, 1934, 1938, 1942, 1945. Henny was Editor of the McGraw-Hill journal, “Electronics” and was an Institute of Radio Engineers Fellow.
Concerned that I was wearing out the Public Library book, my parents gave me a copy of the Sixth Edition for Christmas, 1953.
As a complementary text to Principles of Radio, John Keel, the art teacher in the Sturgeon Bay Public Schools gave me the copy of Marcus and Marcus, “Elements of Radio” which he received as part of his World War II Navy electronics technician training.
Keel later became a professor at SanFrancisco State and worked as a colleague of S. I. Hayakawa and was involved in the work of “ETC: A Journal of General Semantics,” to which my dad was a sometimey book review contributor. Keel reached the end of his earthly life some time ago.
That as preface, what aspect of the dimensions of a mathematically valid unified field theory did Albert Einstein miss? The same aspect as anyone who believes that there can be a thirteen-dimension string theory model which is not of ridiculous nonsense.
All actual numbers are complex numbers, consisting of orthogonal pairs when viewed in the complex plane. There can only be an even number of dimensions to every physically real mathematical equation. The supposedly conventional space-time continuum is of eight orthogonal dimensions, half of which have that j-operator thing intrinsic to them.
Not everyone has read Thomas S. Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Third Edition.” It was published posthumously in 1996, and I have that edition in hand.
For those who have yet to read and understand Chapter IX, “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions,” and Chapter X, “Revolutions as Change of World View,” my work may be misinterpreted as being of the form described in Chapter III, “The Nature of Normal Science” and as described in Chapter IV, “Normal Science as Puzzle-solving.”
While my research effort and research methodologies use aspects of Normal Science, its entire core is purely of the sort of Scientific Revolution which is circumscribed by a plausibly unprecedented-within-the-annals-of-science “Change of World View.”
While “Normal Science” is based on scientific discoveries already made, it is the work of Scientific Revolutions to make its scientific discoveries available to those who do the work of Normal Science.
If there is normal psychology and there is abnormal psychology, perhaps there is also Normal Science and Abnormal Science, and it is the exclusive purview of Abnormal Science to do the Scientific Revolution dance.
There simply cannot ever be science of the Scientific Revolution form which does not reveal some “facts” to have actually been sincerely held “fictions.”
Within the cutting edge work of the science of scientific revolutions, a fact is merely an opinion which has been so very difficult to refute as to have taken upon itself a very strong social convention acceptance.
All that actually distinguishes facts from opinions is the strength and distribution of its being believed; facts being more strongly, more widely, and more sincerely believed than are opinions.
Put another way, a fact is an opinion not yet falsified. An opinion is a fact not yet thoroughly tested. Save for believability aspects, facts and opinions are the same as neurological biophysical phenomena.
When someone wakes up enough to allow that Scientific Revolutions are possible, and becomes willing to communicate with me in the manner of decent dialogue (instead of those battleship fleet 18 inch gun simultaneous broadsides), there remains a chance for something useful to happen.
The scientific fallacy we may have encountered is the using of Normal Science replaced by the Scientific Revolution to refute the Scientific Revolution which replaces the Normal Science which has been replaced in the Scientific Revolution. That is blatantly circular and is inextricably so.
I keep indicating that there is the world of the Adversarial Principle, which is of Normal Science, and there is also, now, the world of the Affirmational Principle, which is of Scientific Revolution.
Because many alleged Scientific Revolutions were really Scientific Frauds, I welcome and endorse every scientifically rigorous challenge to my reasearch, research methods, and research findings.
Citing that of Normal Science which my work refutes as disproof of my work is scientific nonsense at best.
The Michelson-Morley experiment of circa 1887 utterly demolished any scientific validity of the then-prevalent notion of the luminiferous æther. However, science fact is a cultural phenomenon and is without actual objectivity, as may be here illustrated.
I have previously mentioned the two books that mostly got me started in electronics, Principles of Radio and Elements of Radio.
Keith Henny, in Principles of Radio was of the level of scientific acumen to never drop even a hint of the luminiferous ether or æther. Abraham and William Marcus were not similarly gifted. Chapter 3 of the first edition of Elements of Radio is titled, “Waves in Ether.”
Read that first edition of Principles of Radio, and the ether is obviously a fact. Read any edition of Principles of Radio and one will be ignorant of the ether, for it is never mentioned.
I do not yet know whether Abraham and William ever did “get it.” My latest copy is the Fourth Edition, copyright 1959. I understand that there was a Fifth Edition, 1966, and perhaps a Sixth Edition, 1973, and some are listed with BookFinder, but not at a price that interests me.
However, in the Fourth Edition, copyright 1959, is written, in a footnote on pages 10 and 11, “There is no proof that ether does or does not exist.”
So, if that science fact in the Fourth Edition of Elements of Radio is true, it absolutely refutes the Michelson-Morley experiment. Some folks really study the History of Science (as, for example, through the work of William Cecil Dampier).
Within the purview of Normal Science, I am an obvious impostor and my work is utterly deceptive and I am using an false identity.
Hey, folks, I picked up on my being deemed an impostor almost instantly with the first pejorative comment flung toward me. However not being an impostor, I remembered Dr. Abraham A. Low’s comment, “If my patient had patience, I would not have patients, and further realizing that, were I to really be impatient, I may soon thereafter risk becoming inpatient, I opted for outpatient patience.
Were my work to make sense within the realm and purview of Normal Science, my work would intrinsically be excluded from the realm of Scientific Revolutions. Such is the inescapable nature of dichotomy.
Until sch time, if ever, as my work successfully embeds itself within Normal Science, it will only be as of the work of an impostor within the Normal Science realm.
So, Michelle, I am grateful, as always, for everything you write in your posted comments. Likewise TonyC., Buddha is Laughing, and everyone else.
As a form of scientific revolution scientist, I seek and welcome every form of attempted rebuttal and/or refutation in every form that comes my way.
From time to time, I offer the notion that I may qualify as some (rare?) quirk of the autistic savant happenstance. No one has demonstrated to me that my Ph.D. dissertation is not as I have represented it. No one has demonstrated to me that my Wisconsin P.E. license is not as I have represented it. No one has demonstrated to me that my Wisconsin Master Electrician certification is not as I have represented it. No one has demonstrated to me that I do not understand complex-variable tensor calculus. And no one has demonstrated to me that I do not understand the Adversarial Principle, which can, as I so far find, be understood yet only within the purview of an ongoing Scientific Revolution.
So, to reiterate, Michelle, in quite the opposite of being offended, I am truly grateful for everything you have written and posted in response to my comments.
And I would really welcome, with delight, refutation and rebuttal from folks who have studied my dissertation well enough to fully understand it and whatever real scientific errors are in it which thus far eluded my notice.
And, TonyC., I am more used to using operator notation such that said equation is written, using the electrical engineering j operator:
e^(j*pi) = -1
And here I am.
Brian’s just an idiot, he doesn’t even know he is miserable, even though it screams from the page. He has to make everything mean the opposite of what it means in order to define his condition as “happy,” losses must be wins, hatred must be love, repulsion must be attraction, humiliation must be affirmation, whatever.
He has retreated to a fantasy world. I do not believe he has a Ph.D. from any actual accredited university; I do not believe he is a P.E. (Physical Engineer), I do not even believe he has any diagnosed mental disability. I think he is a liar and a fraud, a time thief. Or, some Google engineer is hoping to pass the Turing Test with a conversation bot designed to be irritatingly impenetrable.
Let’s see: Hey engineer bot, what’s e to the pi * i? (Answer: Your IQ!)
Ohh my goodness Brian, read your last couple of posts, they both contain errors, at least if one sides it up to the facts. I have no ill-feelings towards you at all, I apologize if I have offended you in any way, that was never my intent. I am just fascinated with the display of some denials and refusals of facts that dominate your comments. But, Abnormal Psychology is a fascinating field of study.
When a person looks in a mirror, why is left and right reversed, but not up and down?
The Beauty of really living in an world of affirmation is, whenever Buddha is Laughing wins, so do I.
I truly want Buddha is Laughing to score every point.
Same for TonyC.
Same for everyone.
I am so pro-life that I want my purported adversaries to win far more than I want to win.
Oh. Sorry. My game is played with “keep-away rules”.
BiL is playing to win?
I am playing to lose.
Boink!
Pow, slam, smash, and another victory for Buddha Is Laughing, way to go!!! 🙂
By all traditions I can find, of course what I have learned is wrong. But that is the inescapable characteristic of every “scientific revolution” in the sense described by Thomas Kuhn.
The people who have bothered to study my dissertation, some very capable scientists, found it to be characteristic of the sort of scientific revolution that, unlike something of the form of the Nash Equilibrium, rectifies a fundamental error in a field of scientific inquiry.
I named the thing about mistakes “The Fundamental Error of Social Reality for the simple reason that it is plausibly just that, an error of such foundational significance as to refute beliefs sincerely held for far longer into pre-recorded-history than written historical records reach.
What is beginning to amaze me is the absolute refusal of anyone I can identify to even ponder the significance of the bioengineering research I have done.
I did the work because I found no intelligible explanation for human violence that was not of biological nonsense, once I learned how to decently model human brain activity according to clearly established biophysical laws.
New paradigms quite naturally overturn prior paradigms, so, citing the overturned paradigm does not challenge the new one, because the new one is made specifically to challenge the old one, and claiming that the old one is true because it is old is exactly what the new paradigm calls into question.
Within the old paradigm, the new paradigm is inescapably wrong, or the new paradigm would not be a new paradigm.
Many scientist really work as very high level technicians, doing useful research that is of simple-to-complex extensions of settled work, because most useful research never questions or challenges the foundational paradigm of a field of inquiry.
The work I have done quite exactly challenges and, when properly studied, appears to all who have really studied it, to refute what may really be the foundational construct of many human societies.
That I cannot find anyone, unless I talk with them for several hours, who is willing to actually do other than reject the work with absolute prejudice is quite accurately that which informs me that teaching a child that the child made a mistake the child could and should have avoided because of having been told to not make it, with resulting punishment of the child until the child capitulates is exactly what I find neurologist Robert Scaer found to be the cause of trauma in the sense of time-corrupted learning. Think what I am writing is nonsense? Perhaps your ignorance is showing or your trauma-generated prejudice against questioning the most tyrannically imposed of all authoritarian dogmas…
I am not writing on this blawg with the intention or the expectation of persuading anyone of anything. I came here to learn what would happen if I brought peer-reviewed research which appears to have exceptional significance for the law profession to the attention of those interested in the law and its function. I have collected the necessary research data for publication purposes, and my presence here is now changing into being a run-of-the-mill blawger with the one exception that, if what may be deemed a “personal attack” comes my way, I will acknowledge the attack without otherwise responding to it.
My late brother earned his Ph.D. in Sociology with a study of grass roots organizing principles; his work was so advanced that he found that I was the only person who really understood his work because no one else had the exceptionally diverse with depth background to seriously critique his work.
By all the evidence available to me, I properly fit in the “savant” group with regard to unriddling social tranactions, and I plausibly needed to be able to do this merely to “survive kindergarten.”…
If you search carefully, you may find nested triple and occasional quadruple entendres in my writing. They are there as a research technique.
And, claims based on misunderstanding(s) to the contrary notwithstanding, I simply and categorically do not use deception in my research. Instead, I use multiple entendres which allow for misunderstandings to easily surface without my imposing deception upon my writing. Much of the difficulty some folks may encounter with my writing (what the #%&* does he mean?) is needed for the nested multiple entendres to work properly as researcher-imposed-deception-free research tools.
I readily allow that my using words having subtle context-dependent varieties of meaning may leave many folks struggling for the intended context. Alas, I have intended every form of connotation that may arise, without having any prior expectations as to what they may turn out to be.
One might usefully regard my research method as being of a way to expose subconscious taboos to scientific scrutiny. This sort of research would be catastrophically unethical if done in the traditional way of a laboratory type experiment in which all but the dependent variable is controlled.
In my research method, a form of naturalistic experiment, I let all variables but one run free. The independent variable is the countertransference and the dependent variable being closely observed is the transference.
The nifty thing about this method is that it simply is how I live my life in the ordinary course of living my lire. That I can rather easily do this may be that of which I may have a hint of the savant.
Anyone not understand my research method, now that I have concisely described it? Didn’t study psychoanalytic theory using graduate school level materials starting in third grade? Whether or not you didn’t, I did.
Dr. Abraham A. Low, a neuropsychiatrist, said, “If my patients had patience, I would not have patients.”
That pun only works when read aloud, a spoken double entendre in the form of homonyms. If you didn’t before, now you know of a form of double entendre.
I would guess that it is a really bad idea to check the level of gasoline in a half-full hundred gallon gasoline tank by using the lit fuse on a stick of dynamite as a match, dropped into the tank to light up the inside of the tank.
“I know it is a fact, I read it in the Bible.”
No. You know for a fact you read it in the Bible. The presence of that phrase in the Bible does not equate to it being a fact, merely factually part of the text which was both written and edited by men for men. You may believe it’s a fact, but you have no proof “God” requires a “sin offering”. For someone who claims to be big on proof, you’ve offered . . . exactly none.
Unless you’re a Biblical literalist.
In which case you are simply ignorant of the history of the book in which you put such blind faith and/or delusional.
I’m leaning toward delusional as delusion is the inability to distinguish reality from beliefs no matter how irrational said beliefs are in reality.
As to Galileo? He was a true man of science, with assertions backed by observation and mathematics. He was oppressed by men of belief, namely Pope Urban VIII who – despite being Galileo’s friend, even encouraging him to write on heliocentric theory if not openly endorse it – threw the Great Man of Padua “under the ecclesiastical bus” when he finally succumbed to his own paranoia induced by the intrigues of court that inundated him after being made Pope. Galileo was as much a victim of Urban’s weakness of character in the face of Spanish accusations that he was too soft defending the Church as anything else.
The difference between you and Galileo, Brian, is that he had facts and empirical data to back his theories. You do not. Only speculation and mere belief.
I agree, you’re still wrong Brian. Sorry. 🙁
Of course, facts prevail over speculation.
It is a known fact that the earth is the immovable center of the universe. It says so in the Bible.
Ask Galileo Galelei, supposedly muttering, almost unheard.
It is a fact that if a woman be cleansed of her issue, on the eighth day she shall take two turtles or two young pigeons to the priest which the priest shall offer for a sin offering. I know it is a fact, I read it in the Bible.
So, the joke is, absent reproducible hard science evidence, even the question as to what is and is not fact is purely of speculation. Wheeeeeee!
Introduction to Science 000, anyone?
Lord, what a Dance!
I’m with Buddha is Laughing and TonyC, facts prevail over speculation, at least according to many Experts. 🙂
Buddha is Laughing and TonyC.
Starting from the bottom of the two posts which were the last ones before I began this writing effort…
As I do not have, and never have had, misery, whose misery speaketh?
Of course my life is overflowing with deception, because so much deception is poured on me, none do I drink nor absorb nor adsorb, so overflowing happens with just the tiniest drop of deception.
I keep bringing attention to the fact, and fact it be, that I do not live in an adversarial world means that words I truthfully use in my world as of fact become words as of falsehood in an adversarial world. It is this reversal of context which I have found myself investigating.
Because of copyright laws, and because I have not assigned copyright to Professor Turley and because I cannot imagine being given permission to use words of those who as though fault me by those who so do, I have been making mutiple archives of the relevant posts which contain my writings and, when I get ready to publish my research findings, will given the date and time of each relevant posted comment and will paraphrase all the words I have not myself written, using different pseudonyms than the pseudonymous here use, all in the interest of ethical research integrity
Thus, if Professor Turley leaves this blawg reasonably intact, people will be informed as to where to look for the original posts and posted comments, while I will not infringe on anyone’s copyright ownership.
When I am able to do that, and I imagine I plausibly have three months of work to do in fully analyzing the data and preparing it for copyright issue avoiding publication, it will be for the larger world to determine if I am other than as I present myself.
Not very long ago, I located a dual processor G5 Macintosh which is decently optimized for video editing, and, as I have some hundreds of already recorded research video, I will be needing the time to put together video clips of YouTube affordable size, and putting them out for all to see.
One of my schoolmates became a licensed psychologist who has done extensive work on violence issues. He gave a talk about his work a few years ago, I heard him, and, without using any of his proprietary intellectual property, have used his work to help validate my research methodology.
As for, TonyC, “I don’t think you do know yourself,” I have long noticed a curious feature of people of the broad path of the hypothetical “most people.”
It is possible for a person to say what the don’t think, don’t believe, don’t understand, don’t want, and countless more things not about the person and put forth an entire lifetime without ever disclosing even a hint of self other than not wanting anyone to know anything about the person.
“I don’t believe the applesauce ate the potato peelings,” may sound like something said to someone who only hears words as a form of massage, yet it is true that never believe that applesauce can eat potato peelings with any sensible sense of “ate” or “eat” I can imagine. So, what someone does not think regarding me is not about what someone does think about me, a classical subterfuge if ever there were one.
So, to borrow that Harriet Lerner book title, “The Dance of Deception,” methinks enough bioengineering research data from this thread has been gathered for now.
Truthfulness has a peculiar quality. A truthful person may not need to hide behind a pseudonym.
73.
@Brian: I don’t think you do know yourself. The fact that you claim you do implies the opposite is a possibility, and it would explain a great deal if you indeed do not know who you are or how your mind operates. I, on the other hand, have a fair mental simulacrum of my mind; albeit not a perfect one and not a perfectly accurate one. But I do have a fairly good predictive record, for the last 30 years at least, of what my emotions will be in various hypothetical circumstances. I understand my fears, affronts, compulsions and limits of acceptable behavior. You, I think, do not, because you have substituted unverifiable fantasy for reality.
Your life is filled with deception, it is overflowing with deception so you have to lie to others, deceive others, and most of all deceive yourself into thinking this bullshit is working for you.
You are a pitiful wretch, Brian. Not because of any disability, but because you are consumed by your own fears and lies, which ultimately are your own choice. So I do not feel sorry for you, your trap is of your own making. Presumably you find some twisted joy in your misery.
You can say orange is blue all you like, Brian.
“The law of identity.
The law of non-contradiction.
The law, for dichotomies, of the excluded middle.
The law of rational inference.
The Adversarial Principle violates all four of the necessary laws of intelligible thought.”
Saying that adversarial principle violates the laws of thought does not simply make it so. In fact, the adversarial process is an expression of the laws of thought.
1) The law of identity. Discovery is a key component of the adversarial process in which facts are both found and admissibility in court determined by application of the laws of evidence. It is an identification process.
2) The law of non-contradiction. This is par of the the discovery process and part of the adversarial argumentation process in which evidence is contested, proved, disproved or flagged as irrelevant.
3) The law, for dichotomies, of the excluded middle. This is also part and parcel of both discovery and adversarial argumentation. Facts are established, weighed and argued as to relevance under the rule of law. In many instances the law of the excluded middle does not apply because nature and circumstance often impose a fractional value on reality that exists between 0 and 1, thus resulting in gray areas of the law. Far from being a fatal flaw, it simply points the courts to an area ripe for adjudication.
4) The law of rational inference. Also part and parcel of both discovery and adversarial argumentation. Facts are established, weighed and argued as to relevance under the rule of law. Relevance and applicability are irrevocably tied to rational inference because, unlike your favorite way to argue, judges and juries require a rational connection between evidence and law to render a decision. Failure to do so mean failure to make the case which can result in a loss, a dismissal or a hung jury.
It is these very combination of processes that allow judges and juries to see evidence, weigh its validity, apply the appropriate laws and reach a final judgment (although sometimes capable of appeal).
Adversarial process negates the rules of thought? Hardly. They are a manifestation of those very rules codified and applied via process.
The rest of what you say is simply nonsense.
Buddha is Laughing,
Yes, there is objective truth, for the connotation of objective truth is that it cannot be what it isn’t.
Objective connotative truth obeys the laws of intelligible thought, to wit:
The law of identity.
The law of non-contradiction.
The law, for dichotomies, of the excluded middle.
The law of rational inference.
The Adversarial Principle violates all four of the necessary laws of intelligible thought.
Of course, within the belief system generated by the Adversarial Principle, the Adversarial System cannot be adversarial because, were the Adversarial System adversarial within the world of the Adversarial Principle, neither the Adversarial Principle nor its world could exist.
Within the world of the Adversarial Principle, it is impossible to understand the Adversarial Principle because understanding the Adversarial Principle within the world of the Adversarial Principle would make both the Adversarial Principle and its world identically vanish.
Enigma of Existence Existentially Resolved in Connotation.
Denotation next follows.
And there is no prison.
Tony C.,
I never claimed that I am your brother in the sense of agape love, for it is no less for you to know your brothers in agape than it is mine to know my brothers.
I do neither know nor understand the language of the world of the Adversarial Principle except as its denotation.
As I allow you, and you alone, to know who is and is not your brother, so I allow that need not know that you are my brother in agape love, for I do not allow myself to have any authority over me you than I allow you to have any authority over me, for, in the world of the Adversarial Principle, I exist only as deception, and as fraud and as every other form of evil that will ever exist, and, in the world of the Adversarial Principle, I simply do not exist in any way whatsoever.
What you protest is my non-existence in the world of the Adversarial Principle and you seek to bring me in with you, and that I shall never do, for on the day I do that I am forever after dead in spirit, in hope, and in love itself.
Yet, you will be welcome in the world of the Affirmational Principle whenever you become ready. Even if it takes past the end of forever.
As it is impossible for me to live in the world of the Adversarial Principle, the builder of that broad path to perdition, so I can only learn of that world from those who have been given to live where I am forbidden to live.
Only one thing is forbidden to me, that I be not who I am, for I know who I am. It is one thing for me to know who I am, a matter of connotation or declarative learning, and quite another to understand who I am, a matter of denotation or procedural learning.
And the dance of eternity, The Eternal Now, the Dance of the Lord of The Dance dances on, through eternity and beyond.
It is difficult to love a brother in agape unknown. Thank you for giving me to know and understand you enough to prepare the way for you. The table is already prepared and waiting, as it will always be, until you become ready for the bread and the water promised to all.
I do not make that promise, the only Real Promise, for I am an ordinary person, who simply accepted the Promise as it as offered to me as the Way of my ordinary life.
No words of hatred can reach me, they are forever entrapped in the world of the Adversarial Principle. People are not so trapped,for the Adversarial Principle, adversarial even to the whole of existence is its own prison, its own asylum. And there is no prison.