The essential question will become the Clintonian
"It all depends on what isn't 'not'".

A Curious Question
~v~~

Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?

~v~~

On May 10, 1:31 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:
A Curious Question
~v~~

Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?

~v~~

Well, since anything that is predicated is predicated of a subject,
and "not" is not a subject, it follows that everything is not
predicated of "not".

Two dollars, please.

Next question.

PD

On 10 May, 19:31, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:

A Curious Question
~v~~

Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?

No. On the contrary, *only* "not" is a predicate of the universal set
U, where ~U is the empty coset E (and ~E = U). Complementation is ~A =
U \ A, where A c= U, U is the universal element, E is the zero element
(contra-universal), and so on (by transfinite induction over the set
of symbols).

-LV

~v~~-

On 8 Jun, 02:35, ju... at (no spam) diegidio.name wrote:

On 10 May, 19:31, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:

A Curious Question
~v~~

Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?

No. On the contrary, *only* "not" is a predicate of the universal set
U, where ~U is the empty coset E (and ~E = U). Complementation is ~A =
U \ A, where A c= U, U is the universal element, E is the zero element
(contra-universal), and so on (by transfinite induction over the set
of symbols).

~A = U \ A

E c= A c= U
E c= ~A c= U

A != ~A

... = (~~)~U = (~~)E = ~U = E c= (~)A c= U = ~E = (~~)U = (~~)~E = ...

-LV

-LV

~v~~

PD wrote:
On May 10, 1:31 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:
A Curious Question
~v~~

Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?

~v~~

Well, since anything that is predicated is predicated of a subject,
and "not" is not a subject, it follows that everything is not
predicated of "not".

Two dollars, please.

Next question.

PD

I'm confused... isn't "not" the subject of this here thread?

and as previously pointed out this is no different
than saying "blue is not predicated of not".

The only correct answer to the question is that "there is no thing
which is not predicated of not".

Of a thing and another
thing, 'not' always describes another thing. It is a term that is used
in place of another. So another dog isn't this particular dog.

Except how do you figure that out? Is there some mystical insight
roaming the universe giving you the power to divine what is and isn't?

Yes, good mystics everywhere should know what I am talking about because
they have common sense. 'Not' means another. Common sense. No rabbits or
hats.

You claim "this dog" is not "that dog" but in order to know this you
have to analyze "differences" or "not's" in relation to one another,
which in turn means everything must be predicated of "not" to begin
with.

Yes! Everything is predicated of not in the rationale that has been
offered by others here. A negation is an act - 'from this to that', and
not 'this and that', or 'this or that'.

I can say 'not is not predicated of a thing'.

You can say anything you want but that doesn't make it true. For
having said "not is not predicated of a thing" you've just predicated
"not" of a "thing"

'not predicated of a thing' isn't a thing.

The ambiguous term 'predication' allows a confusion between grammatical
convenience or mere association of terms, with actual meaning or property.

"Actual meaning or property?" Shirley you jest. The purpose of grammar
and language is to figure out what "actual meanings and properties"
are based on relations between and among tautological alternatives.

What? 'predicate' can mean a number of things. It's a lazy word.

Yours is just another version of the antiquated mystical doctrine of
positivism, or intuitive empiricism, where there are supposed to be
innate, actual "things" floating around the universe just waiting to
be divined without any kind of reasoning, logic, or demonstration of
truth, and the only purpose of language and grammar is to catalog
these elemental "actual meanings and properties".

I'm drawing on the empirical, real world. We have no reason to draw on
any other. We cannot draw on 'abstract', 'transcendent' things without
saying goodbye to meaning.

As I said before, the term 'predicate' sounds impressive, but that's all
that's good about it. Its a pig of a word to use. Never use it again.

Well here you're just grasping at straws to excuse your own lack of
understanding of the purpose of the question.

Try the same question another way:

"Is there anything not subject to 'not'?"

And the answer, of course, is "no".

No thing is subject to not. It's self-evident. There is no state of not
a thing.

Why do you think there are so many philosophies floating around, none
of which are demonstrably correct and most of which are demonstrably
incorrect? Simply because no one has been able to achieve a
demonstrably true mechanical reduction of "actual meaning and
properties" to grammar and language". So philosophers just run off at
the mouth with their catalogs of "actual meanings and properties"
whose truth their language and grammar are useless to demonstrate.

Yes, you are talking about 'transcendent' objects and ideas - these have
no worldly basis.

This is why nature abhors philosophers.

They know where to throw the spanner.