Posted by Kazper at 12:19pm Feb 4 '08The effect of denying your unpleasureable thing may be more unpleasureable than your unpleasureable thing.
In "I brush my teeth in the bathroom." you are saying that your teeth are in the bathroom and so, since you are currently brushing those teeth you are in the bathroom. If the reality in "I eat food on table." is that the food is not on the table then you can't (you can but...) say "I eat food on table.". I think you should say "I eat food while I on table." ... Or "I eat food and on table." since the action takes place on the table.
You have to convey enough but you do not have to convey more.
If in the context of a... discourse a... "it" can be understood as a subject representing a previous clause... then use the "it" and save yourself the trouble of saying something like this: "clause that you said just recently..."
Some [pronouns] we could use could be: previous independent clause, previous dependent clause, subject of previous independent clause,... And maybe one that's not specfic at all and can really, really only be understood in contexts (::shrugs:: :/)
"other" = (x1 possessnot equal x1 this/that/these/those) (this one was a kicker and may still prove to be. Phew!)
"Pass me the other keys." = "I YS request equal G you create G keys (possesnot equal keys these) B move (in direction of) I [F] [F] C (:/ ahhhhh lol.)
If the opposite of "create" is "destroy" then I would be saying "x1 destroys sound." if I said "x1 createnot sound." but if I say "x1 possessnot create sound." I'm saing that x1 does not possess the action:create and "sound" is just narrowing down "create".
"x1 right equal G x1 run [F] C"
"x1 possessnot right equal G x1 run [F] C"
You can't always convey exactly what you want to convey because it may be too long and you don't always have to because contexts (of various kinds) can convey alot.
If I create a premise or two for a fictional reality logical laws could be created for the fictional reality which are all consistent with each other and the premise/s (if correctly deduced). I think then that even math could be used that proves the truths of this reality. Now, if this is true then it means all the math of a theory of reality may only be completely correct within that theory of reality... So, the arguement that Einstein has to be right because all his math checks out shouldn't completely hold, since a premise or two of his may have been wrong... (I'm defineitely not a logical expert, seeing as how I'm not really conscious of my own logicalness but this seems to make sense...)
"There are no contradictions in nature. Check your premises." -Ayn Rand (I think)
"or" as in "creator" and "ion" as in "creation" are just suffixes which attach to a predicate to create an arguement (of that predicate) pronoun (we use affixes for this so that we don't have create a new word for every arguement of every predicate).
"Creator YS create creation."
"Creation YS of create of creator."
If the "creator create creation" event is over I do not think it correct to say that the creation is a creation because that would be saying "creation YS of create of creator" which can't be the case since that event is over...
"Cooker YS cook cook[ion]."
"Cook[ion] YS of cook of cooker."
If cooker is cooking pizza then "pizza YS equal cook[ion] of cook of cooker." When the event is done the pizza is cooked it is not cook[ion]...
When we say "the pizza is cooked" I think we're saying something like this: "The condition of the pizza equals the effect of the cause: cooker cooked pizza." So, if the creative process is done and [something] is a [creation] then I think we're saying "The condition of [something] equals the effect of the cause: creator create [something]."
If the word "think" is "x1 use brain and purpose equal G x1 attempt equal G x1 find solution of problem [F] [F] C" then imagine all the other verbs... (Oi :()
(YS = x1 in time of present and in time of middle of event equal G x1 x2 [F] C These YS type words may change too, if not fade away...)
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
In "I brush my teeth in the bathroom." you are saying that your teeth are in the bathroom and so, since you are currently brushing those teeth you are in the bathroom. If the reality in "I eat food on table." is that the food is not on the table then you can't (you can but...) say "I eat food on table.". I think you should say "I eat food while I on table." ... Or "I eat food and on table." since the action takes place on the table.
You have to convey enough but you do not have to convey more.
If in the context of a... discourse a... "it" can be understood as a subject representing a previous clause... then use the "it" and save yourself the trouble of saying something like this: "clause that you said just recently..."
Some [pronouns] we could use could be: previous independent clause, previous dependent clause, subject of previous independent clause,... And maybe one that's not specfic at all and can really, really only be understood in contexts (::shrugs:: :/)
"other" = (x1 possessnot equal x1 this/that/these/those) (this one was a kicker and may still prove to be. Phew!)
"Pass me the other keys." = "I YS request equal G you create G keys (possesnot equal keys these) B move (in direction of) I [F] [F] C (:/ ahhhhh lol.)
If the opposite of "create" is "destroy" then I would be saying "x1 destroys sound." if I said "x1 createnot sound." but if I say "x1 possessnot create sound." I'm saing that x1 does not possess the action:create and "sound" is just narrowing down "create".
"x1 right equal G x1 run [F] C"
"x1 possessnot right equal G x1 run [F] C"
You can't always convey exactly what you want to convey because it may be too long and you don't always have to because contexts (of various kinds) can convey alot.
If I create a premise or two for a fictional reality logical laws could be created for the fictional reality which are all consistent with each other and the premise/s (if correctly deduced). I think then that even math could be used that proves the truths of this reality. Now, if this is true then it means all the math of a theory of reality may only be completely correct within that theory of reality... So, the arguement that Einstein has to be right because all his math checks out shouldn't completely hold, since a premise or two of his may have been wrong... (I'm defineitely not a logical expert, seeing as how I'm not really conscious of my own logicalness but this seems to make sense...)
"There are no contradictions in nature. Check your premises." -Ayn Rand (I think)
"or" as in "creator" and "ion" as in "creation" are just suffixes which attach to a predicate to create an arguement (of that predicate) pronoun (we use affixes for this so that we don't have create a new word for every arguement of every predicate).
"Creator YS create creation."
"Creation YS of create of creator."
If the "creator create creation" event is over I do not think it correct to say that the creation is a creation because that would be saying "creation YS of create of creator" which can't be the case since that event is over...
"Cooker YS cook cook[ion]."
"Cook[ion] YS of cook of cooker."
If cooker is cooking pizza then "pizza YS equal cook[ion] of cook of cooker." When the event is done the pizza is cooked it is not cook[ion]...
When we say "the pizza is cooked" I think we're saying something like this: "The condition of the pizza equals the effect of the cause: cooker cooked pizza." So, if the creative process is done and [something] is a [creation] then I think we're saying "The condition of [something] equals the effect of the cause: creator create [something]."
If the word "think" is "x1 use brain and purpose equal G x1 attempt equal G x1 find solution of problem [F] [F] C" then imagine all the other verbs... (Oi :()
(YS = x1 in time of present and in time of middle of event equal G x1 x2 [F] C These YS type words may change too, if not fade away...)
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~