[lit-ideas] Re: It is worth a theorem etc
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:22:57 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
>It is worth a theorem, which is not the p minimal adequacy, since as it is, it
>is inconsistent. Hence Alfred Tajtelbaum, known to the ignorant of history as
>"tarski" proved that there exists a hierarchy such that the minimal adequacy
>is satisfied. That is in the "concept of truth in L" by the way studying
>helps.>
Was finding this quite hard to get the drift of and then, suddenly, like a
sudden shaft of sunlight in an arboretum...
>in order to "decide" what is true we have to be sure to get rid of the
>perverts and buffoons who have a theory of knowledge.>
...by jingo, that's it. Must be. "...get rid of the perverts and buffoons".
Now it all became clear. Missing piece of the jigsaw. Rosetta Stone of heaven
on earth. From this we can surely now just, in a few easy steps, get to the
where dry of mouth and full of beard Abraham once promised, the land our
forebears fought and died for, where the child may lay down with the lamb and
the kangaroo and gambol with the scarecrow and the rook and still rush back in
time for tea, where the ancient footsteps of times past patter past like
knee-capped antelope flopping on marble...
>Mya not be enough, but it is a first step that goes some distance in the
>correct direction.>
No. Sorry. Fog descended again.
Donal
Some people say this is a day only the Lord could make
And today tending to agree
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: It is worth a theorem etc - Donal McEvoy
