> Tim wrote:
> >On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
> >> Excellent point. Do we agree that in this language we have to start with
> >> some "primary concepts" which can be used to define other concepts?
> >
> >No.
>
> Are you like a negative space, only defined by the absence or negation of
> something else?
I, Prof. Tim, do hereby believe and so state, that it is not only
unnecessary to define "primary concepts" about the nature of reality in
order to create a constructive language that can be used to further define
one aspect of what we mean by "reality", but that the effort is misguided
(and hopelessly recursive to boot!).
There is no need to understand the nature of "pencil-ness" in order to put
a finer point on one.
But if it helps you to do so, then by all means, be my guest. I will
merely sit here, quietly wondering about your motives.
-Prof. Tim