Godel's position boils down to the rejection of, or the lack of
consideration for, a transcendental logic.

In a transcendental logic there are no sentences that can be generated
in any closed system AND be shown unprovable.

It therefore behoves us to determine whether the Godel sentence is
transcendental or not. I am pretty damn sure that it is
transcendental, and that it has always, in error, been taken as a
transcendentally real statement in common with all contemporary
logical statements.

Chris Menzel wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:54:48 +0100, J Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> said:
Godel's position boils down to the rejection of, or the lack of
consideration for, a transcendental logic.

In a transcendental logic there are no sentences that can be
generated in any closed system AND be shown unprovable.

It therefore behoves us to determine whether the Godel sentence is
transcendental or not. I am pretty damn sure that it is
transcendental, and that it has always, in error, been taken as a
transcendentally real statement in common with all contemporary
logical statements.

For your claims to make any sense, it would help a great deal if you
provided an example of a transcendental logic. Along the way, be sure
to define "system", "closed system", "provable (in system S)", and
"sentence A is generated in system S".

Transcendental arguments are commonly types of argument raised against
various skepticism's. They aim to deflate to extinction the skeptical
position by showing that it bites its own tail.

A stronger version: Transcendental systems are those frameworks,
systems, or 'matrices' which have a manifesting condition, these
conditions themselves not being subject to any object properties
exhibited by the objects in the system itself.

'system' in a transcendental framework is any range of objects/object
behaviours manifested by a transcendental condition. A
non-transcendentally grounded system, similarly, is a range of
objects/object behaviours in relationship but this time under a
rule(s), rather than a condition for manifestation.

In both transcendental and nontranscendental systems objects are thus
interdependent or in relationship. For 'interdependent' read in any
other metaphor to suit, eg coherence, consistency etc., and exchange it
with any object/object behaviour to suit, it does not matter which.

"Provable in system S" is a definition whose application applies only to
nontranscendentally grounded systems, such as those employed by Godel.
Transcendental systems are not provable.

Still there? "Not provable" can mean two different things depending
on whether the system is transcendental or not. The failure to heed
the difference can prove terminal. I'm not saying any more.

"Sentence generated in system S" ... any statement that can be placed in
a relationship with statements in system S. How are they 'generated'? -
could be part of a sequence, but ultimately the 'generation' per se of a
sentence is transcendentally conditioned. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
don't just throw technical translations at me.

For transcendental conditions see Kant, Strawson, Peter Sullivan, Mark
Sachs, Nagel, Wittgenstein

Transcendental systems are those frameworks,
systems, or 'matrices' which have a manifesting condition, these
conditions themselves not being subject to any object properties
exhibited by the objects in the system itself.

On Apr 29, 1:08 pm, J Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:

Transcendental systems are those frameworks,
systems, or 'matrices' which have a manifesting condition, these
conditions themselves not being subject to any object properties
exhibited by the objects in the system itself.

Yes, of course, 'manifest conditions'. I believe it was Welterbrauner
who championed this notion in his famous Antwerp lectures.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:54:48 +0100, J Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> said:
Godel's position boils down to the rejection of, or the lack of
consideration for, a transcendental logic.

In a transcendental logic there are no sentences that can be generated
in any closed system AND be shown unprovable.

It therefore behoves us to determine whether the Godel sentence is
transcendental or not. I am pretty damn sure that it is
transcendental, and that it has always, in error, been taken as a
transcendentally real statement in common with all contemporary
logical statements.

For your claims to make any sense, it would help a great deal if you
provided an example of a transcendental logic. Along the way, be sure
to define "system", "closed system", "provable (in system S)", and
"sentence A is generated in system S".

On Apr 29, 1:08 pm, J Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:

Transcendental systems are those frameworks,
systems, or 'matrices' which have a manifesting condition, these
conditions themselves not being subject to any object properties
exhibited by the objects in the system itself.

Yes, of course, 'manifest conditions'. I believe it was Welterbrauner
who championed this notion in his famous Antwerp lectures. Quite
provocative stuff...and heuristically challenging too.

MoeBlee

[snip]
(Quote source if used please. This stuff is for a thesis.)