Some poems!!

Hello good time how are things!
    

It's sooner than usual. Because I thought it was later than usual.
Oh my, today the biological watch and the looking eyes did fail at once    
But well, Here I am, for one more day.
Everything's OK. No Lovely Brooke Pictures, no... (      )
Did Read Frege chapter, first from the many ones. There're things that can be Useful (now alarm in my cell is "phoning", yes I did prepared it for sounding a little later than usual; oh, it's a long story, I fell asleep on the sofa, later it was difficult to sleep on bed for that, noisy neigbours -authorizedly experimental and noisy neighbours- that make me   for each night... and prepared for this time for sleeping a little more, and...    ); yes Useful things to think about for a while. Not critizising all, not necessary -the fact is so Good asides-, but taking those parts that may be good for my theories. There's another article that I have noted and fixed that I think can be much more, about concepts, and I'll read.
Well, coming later for a while for doing it.
And some   more, if possible     
    Loving Well, Loving Fine, this is more than just a night     
        
    

Hi!
      

How are things Good Morning!
Many Nice things Here less or more around. God Bless   
Yesterday did Read. But Russell Concepts ("Descriptions") are All on logic and grammar of language, mainly. Eveh he himself says it. I don't think I say many things about it, because could not say almost anything that could be connected to my tasking.
Going to have an easy talking Day   
Can You believe I'm not sure if it's thursday or friday, today. It's True.   
And more. Yesterday was the thesis presentation at university, on Plato, where the doctorating person was Very Congratulated for bringing New things on it... Well, I thought I was on sunday. Mates called me after, because I had said I'd go (good for me) and I had to say the same to them.
Well     me   
Anyway, this (    ) asides, I'm taking care about all necessary things. So True.
It's time for having Good time Here.
Later I'll take a look to what I wrote yesterday, just in case anything better or more clearifying for Good. Not much more to add I think. But this Author, Frege, will be Key, I think, as one of parts of my tasking.
See in a moment and before too (    ), Loving quite Well!!
        
   

ps: Wishing Very Best to All in the World, as Love and Peace. Empathy is the way.

Hi!
    

Did not read the whole Article yet, the one from Peter Strawson but it looks like it's some qualitative step into Structures of Language, from Russell, p.e. Looks Very Good!
Well, going to some Walking, Reading and Resting.
  Big Hug, Loving so    
          
   

Hi!
     

I am posting the definitive version of last piece of investigation in Progress.
"16/07/2014

Keith Donellan. “Referencia y descripciones definidas”.

En este artículo, lo que en un sentido general todos calificaríamos, más o menos de forma parecida, como el lenguaje descriptivo en sentido genérico (aquí, equiparable también a las interrogaciones, en que aparece una delimitación con sentido del objeto cuestionado, aun genérica; creo que el sentido o significado sería la clave para definir este tipo de descripciones, en realidad –significado que, como veremos, parece ser para Donellan un reducto para la verdad más amplido de lo que sostenía el propio Russel), se es definido técnicamente como “descripciones definidas”. Si bien el autor no se entretiene demasiado en explicar el significado técnico del término “definido” dentro del texto, parece que éste no puede distar demasiado del que todo conocemos, lo cual implica un cierto rigor descriptivo. Poco más se puede añadir, si no es siguiendo la explicación del propio Donellan sobre los posibles usos lingüísticos que se pueden reconocer en las descripciones definidas.
Se presentan dos usos fundamentales (recordando, inicialmente al menos, a Strawson), que a menudo han de ser intercambiables (habla de alguna ambigüedad en ello: esto se observa como cierto en la propia explicación que sigue y en el ejemplo traído a colación en primer lugar aquí), en función del contexto y, sobre todo, de las intenciones del autor, aunque esto no queda del todo claro en una casuística muy detallista pero poco generalizante, en este aspecto, para lograr una categorización nítida de los supuestos.
En primer lugar, se describe el uso referencial, que es el referido a objetos o cosas específicos que se denotan en la frase y que quedan “atrapados” por la misma como fragmento individual definido de la realidad. Por otra parte, habla de una nueva función, que no aparece descrita en los artículos de Russell y Strawson (en el modo en que lo hace Donellan): el uso atributivo. Para explicar este segundo uso es clarificador un ejemplo que utiliza el autor. Cuando decimos la frase “El asesino de Smith está loco”, podemos hacerlo de dos formas. Una es señalando a una persona concreta, respecto de la cual deducimos que cumple esas características. La otra es hacer esta descripción definida en sentido genérico, sin tener ninguna idea, ni aproximada, sobre la identidad del presunto asesino; y esto último gracias al hecho de que que sí tenemos o podemos tener (esto que cito a continuación no es una regla, sólo se trata de explicar el uso atributivo en este caso concreto) información que nos permita pensar que esa persona no señalada ni señalable, por el momento, cumple con esa descripción (tales como el hecho de que el crimen fuese cometido de forma brutal o que fuera de sobras probada y conocida por todos la bondad de Smith).
Esta distinción es muy importante, y como se puede observar, empieza a hallar una conexión mucho más cercana a mis propias nociones sobre la abstracción conceptual. Ciertamente, puesto que en tal caso la indeterminación del sujeto no es óbice para que se pueda elaborar todo un informe sobre su descripción, comportamiento, rasgos, etc. Aquí, la generalización no estrictamente lógica (a diferencia de lo que señala Russell), por la conexión del lenguaje con la realidad, aparece en toda su extensión y lucidez en este segundo uso expuesto por Donellan. No hay un sujeto concreto al que referirnos para realizar nuestras afirmaciones (necesarias, en caso de juicio, por ejemplo), pero desde un punto de vista indeterminado y general no hay problema alguno en proseguir en el intento de identificarle, sobre la base de una noción “fantasmagórica” (expresión propia) implícita que, en realidad, es el concepto de presunto asesino potencial. Y añado potencial porque es posible trabajar en esa dirección cuando aún no estamos siquiera seguros de si el caso se trata de un crimen o de un accidente (he ahí una de las funcionalidades de tipo estructural-cognitivo del concepto categorizado en modo abstracto)
Antes de analizar muy brevemente esta primera aparición de los rasgos de la conceptualidad en la compilación bibliogràfica del profesor Valdés, es interesante proseguir por un momento con este último punto: la incerteza –o el error de apreciación-, incluso respecto de situaciones o sujetos genéricos.
En este sentido, Donellan trae otro ejemplo para el uso propiamente referencial. En el caso de ver –o, mejor, creer ver- en una colina y a lo lejos a alguien que ciñe un bastón. Pongamos por caso que en vez de un bastón es un paraguas. Y pongamos por caso también que nuestro error de visión es mayor y que, en vez de tratarse de una persona, es una roca, o, incluso, como caso extremo, que únicamente se trata de un reflejo de la luz del sol jugando con las sombras en lo alto de la colina. En todos los casos de error hay, para Donellan, una referencia no despreciable (excepto quizá en los dos últimos, donde señala que se trata de casos extremos; y donde yo creo que filosóficamente podría discutirse mucho sobre todo ello, en tanto que todas ellas son percepciones sensoriales que aparecen en la mente), siempre que de la afirmación resulte alguna información “aprovechable” (en el primer caso no hay una persona con bastón, pero sí una persona con paraguas; y dado el supuesto de que, por ejemplo, los interesados y participantes en la comunicación se hallen esperando a lo lejos la llegada a pie del médico, caso que se podría dar de vivir en una aislada granja de la Escocia del S XVIII, la afirmación inicial, aun parcialmente errónea, es perfectamente significativa y, además –esto es lo interesante aquí- denota una referencia que resulta esencial para nuestros intereses).
En todos los casos aportados, parece como si Donellan quisiera establecer una especie de gradación posible respecto del hacer referencia de algo o alguien, en función del rigor de cada frase y, también, de cada contexto y situación. En realidad, la finalidad de ello es hallar y salvar el valor de verdad de cada expresión, lo cual es imposible en la lógica russelliana formal, de valores absolutos estrictos (irreales: he aquí un punto donde podría tomar apoyo tamibén mi tesis sobre la noción de “referencia límite”). Esto es un paso muy importante.
Puede resultar interesante, para acabar de comprender esto, si bien ahora para el uso atributivo, este otro ejemplo que se cita: “Su marido es amable con ella” (supongamos que afirmamos esto porque se trata de una señora que parece ser feliz a nuestros ojos –no entraremos en cuestiones de sexismo conyugal, dado que es un ejemplo aleatorio que además sólo extraigo directamente del texto). Si nos referimos en sentido general al supuesto marido, sin referirnos a ningún sujeto en concreto, y luego nos enteramos de que esta señora no está casada, para Donellan la “aprovechabilidad” de la afirmación es nula y, además, absolutamente falsa –lo cual no afirma en el caso anterior. Sin embargo, si vemos salir a menudo a esa señora con un señor, y al ver que disfrutan públicamente de su mutua compañia en algún momento hacemos la misma afirmación, con el mismo resultado ulterior de tener que comprobar que no está casada; aquí sí se produce un uso con “utilidad” informativa potencial (no utiliza estos términos, tal vez sería mejor decir “cierto valor de verdad”), puesto que estaremos diciendo que un señor que no es el marido de esa señora pero sí su compañero sentimental, por ejemplo, es amable y atento con ella.
No obstante lo anterior, y sobre lo dicho en estos últimos párrafos respecto del uso atributivo, en algunos pasajes del texto parece haber alguna contradicción en las apreciaciones concretas que formula el autor. No creo que sea éste el lugar para entrar a discutir sobre ello.
Lo que me interesa, como decía al principio, es ver qué puedo extraer de todo lo dicho que resulte útil para dar un poco más de fundamento bibliográfico y doctrinal a mis tesis (en este sentido tengo que decir que la adecuación en la selección y ordenación de los textos que se presentan en la compilación de referencia me parece proverbial y exquisita, desde el punto de vista de su progresión teórica).
En tal sentido, el último párrafo del texto que se comenta aquí es casi perfecto. Sobre una breve referencia a Russell, en su uso de las expresiones “el tal y tal” (artículo determinado “el/ellos”, frente al uso de “un/unos”), explica que al señalar que “el X es A”, en muchos casos lo que se hace en realidad es efectuar una generalización del tipo “hay un X y sólo uno tal que cualquier X es A”. El autor sostiene que esto se trata de una referencia en sentido muy débil que, propiamente, puede considerarse un uso atributivo de la descripción definida, “precisamente porque la descripción es aquí meramente un dispositivo para hacer que la audiencia seleccione o piensen en la cosa de la que se está hablando, un dispositivo que puede cumplir su función incluso si la descripción es incorrecta”.
En la última parte de la última frase entre comillas se observa lo que he comentado sobre alguna contradicción sobre las apreciaciones de Donellan en torno a los errores parciales en el uso atributivo, ya que en la misma se admite una significaciòn no calificable como enteramente incorrecta, a diferencia de lo que sucede cuando habla, parece que a título general, sobre la base del ejemplo de “Su marido es amable con ella”. Realmente, en toda la dificultad que observa Donellan para categorizar y cualificar las distintas situaciones, se observa lo cierto de la conclusión de Strawson en el artículo anterior, el lenguaje no está sólo hecho de reglas puramente lógicas.
Volviendo al ejemplo de “X es A”, y retomando la noción misma de uso atributivo que presenta Donellan, parece que la identificación de ésta con la del concepto abstracto no es forzada. Nos hallamos aquí con la recuperación de las llamadas aserciones existenciales (genéricas respecto de una clase o tipo general) sin necesidad de tener que intentar -como hacen Russell, Frege y otros autores- cerrar el lenguaje en el círculo imposible de la lógica abstracta (por la estricta asimilación de las categorías generales del lenguaje a las categorías lógicas formales). Afirmación esta última ya demostrada por Strawson, pero ahora, con Donellan, desde una perspectiva en que ya se otorga un lugar mínimamente propio a la noción de categoría general independiente y determinada del lenguaje respecto de la realidad, por medio del anàlisis casuístico y lingüístico de las descripciones definidas".

Translated,
"Keith Donnellan. "Reference and definite descriptions."

This article, which in a general sense would classify all more or less similarly, as the descriptive language in a generic sense (here, also comparable to the questions in a meaningful definition appears questionable object, even generic; I think the meaning or significance would be the key to define such alerts, actually meant that, as we shall see, it seems to Donnellan a stronghold for more amplido what held the Russel himself) true, it is technically defined as "definite descriptions". While the author does not linger too much on explaining the technical meaning of "defined" term into the text, it seems that it can not be distant from everything we know too, which implies a certain descriptive rigor. Little more can be added, if it is not following the explanation of Donnellan own language about the possible uses that can be recognized in definite descriptions.
This is seen as the way in explaining own following and example brought up in: two basic uses (remembering, initially at least, to Strawson), which often have to be interchangeable (speaking of ambiguity it presents first here), depending on the context and, above all, the author's intentions, although this is not entirely clear in a very detailed casuistry generalizing but little in this respect, to achieve a sharp categorization of assumptions.
First, the use of reference, which is referred to specific objects or things which are denoted in the phrase and which are "trapped" by the same as defined in the single fragment actually described. Moreover, talk of a new function, which is not described in the articles of Russell and Strawson (in the way that makes Donnellan): the attributive use. To explain this second use clarifier is an example that uses the author. When we say the phrase "The murderer of Smith is insane," we can do this in two ways. One is pointing to a specific person, for which we deduce that meets these characteristics. The other is to make this description defined in a generic sense, without having any idea, or approximate, the identity of the alleged murderer; and the latter due to the fact that we do have or can have (that I quote below is not a rule, only tries to explain the attributive use in this particular case) information that allows us to think that that person is not indicated or is most notable for the moment, meets that description (such as the fact that the crime was committed in a brutal or was proven and known to all the goodness of Smith leftovers).
This distinction is very important, and as you can see, beginning to find a much closer to my own notions of conceptual abstraction connection. Indeed, since in that case the indeterminacy of the subject does not preclude that can develop an entire report on your description, behavior, traits, etc.. Here, not strictly logical generalization (unlike what Russell says), for the connection of language to reality, appears in all its extent and clarity in this second use exposed by Donnellan. There is a particular subject you refer to our statements (necessary in case of trial, for example), but from a glance undetermined and there is no problem to continue in an attempt to identify, on the basis of a "Spooky" (self-expression) implicit notion that, in fact, is the concept of potential alleged murderer. But I say potential because it is possible to work in that direction when we are not even sure if the case involves a crime or accident (behold one of the structural features of the concept-type cognitive categorized in the abstract)
Before analyzing this very brief first appearance of the features of conceptuality in compiling bibliographies Professor Valdes is interesting to continue for a moment with this last point: the uncertainty or error-appreciation-even to situations or generic subjects .
In this regard, another example Donellan brings itself for referential use. In the case of see-or rather believe in a see-hill and far away someone that encircles a cane. Let's say that instead of a stick is an umbrella. And let's say also that our vision is greater error and that instead of being a person, is a rock, or even as an extreme case, which is only a reflection of sunlight playing with shadows at the top of the hill. In all cases error there, for Donnellan, a not insignificant reference (except perhaps in the last two, which indicates that it is extreme cases, and where I think I could philosophically discuss much about all this, while all are sensory perceptions are in the mind), provided that the claim will result a "usable" information (in the first case there is a person with a cane, but a person with umbrella, and given the assumption that, for example, stakeholders and communication participants are staying away waiting to walk the arrival of the doctor, if you could give to live on an isolated farm in Scotland S XVIII, the initial claim, even partially wrong, it is quite significant and also-this is interesting here denotes a reference that is essential to our interests).
In all cases provided, it looks like Donnellan would establish a kind of gradation possible with respect to the reference to something or someone, depending on the rigor of each sentence, and also on the context and situation. Indeed, the purpose of it is to find and save the truth value of each expression, which is impossible in formal logic russelliana, strict absolute values ​​(unreal: here's a point where it could take tamibén support my thesis on the notion of "limit reference"). This is a very important step.
It may be interesting to finish to understand this, but now for the attributive use this other example cited: "Her husband is kind to her" (suppose we say this because this is a lady who seems to be happy with our eyes will not go into issues of spousal sexism, as a random example is also directly extract text only). If we refer in general to the alleged husband, without referring to any particular subject, and then we found out that this lady is not married to Donnellan's "aprovechabilidad" of the statement is null and also absolutely false, which is not stated in the previous case. However, if we often go out to the lady with a man, and seeing that they enjoy each other's company publicly at some point make the same claim with the same ulterior result of having to prove that she is not married; here if use occurs "useful" information potential (do not use these terms, it might be better to say "true truth value"), since we are saying that a man who is not the husband of the lady but her partner I, for example, is kind and attentive to her.
Nevertheless, and as discussed in the last paragraph regarding the attributive use in some parts of the text seems to be some contradiction in the concrete findings made ​​the author. I do not think that this is the place to come to discuss about it.
What interests me, as said earlier, is to see what I can draw from all this that is useful to give a little more literature and doctrinal basis for my thesis (in this sense have to say that matching in the selection and management texts presented in the compilation of reference seems proverbial and exquisite, from the point of view of theoretical progression).
In this regard, the last paragraph of the text discussed here is almost perfect. On a brief reference to Russell, in his use of the terms "the such and such" (definite article "the / them" over the use of "one / a") explains that by stating that "X is A" in many cases what is actually does is make a generalization like "there is a X and only one such that any X is A". The author argues that this is a weak reference in that sense, itself, be regarded as an attributive use of definite description, "precisely because the description is here merely a device to make the audience choose or think of the thing which is being discussed, a device that can fulfill its function even if the description is wrong. "
In the latter part of the last sentence quoted what I said about a contradiction on the findings of Donnellan around partial errors in the attributive use is observed, since in the same significance not qualified as supported entirely wrong, unlike what happens when you talk, it seems that general title, based on the example of "her husband is kind to her." Actually, the whole difficulty Donnellan notes to categorize and qualify the different situations, the truth of the conclusion in the previous article Strawson observed, language is not just made ​​of purely logical rules.
Returning to the example of "X is A", and returning to the notion of having Donnellan attributive use, it seems that this identification with the abstract concept is not forced. We are here with the recovery calls existential assertions (with respect to a generic or general class) without having to try, as do Russell, Frege and others-close the language in the impossible circle of abstract logic (for strict assimilation of the general categories of language to formal logical categories). Affirmation latter as demonstrated by Strawson, but now, with Donnellan, from a perspective already granted a minimally own rise to the notion of independent and determined general category of language from reality, through the casuistic and linguistic analysis definite descriptions".
      

But what I can not understand is how You're Doing for Being so Beautiful and Lovely and Nice (and blinding intense light!) to me.
I Love You!! See in a moment.
      

Hi!
    

I don't think I'm posting many more Pictures from the day. I'm Keeping as a Responsible Person, Respecting.
And this is Friendly Staying before some Public eye, so...
We're going to be Fine.
Those Pictures are Marvellous, and Wonderful.
And Goodness in Intentions (about me for All I've been lately sharing about my worries and problems in life, kind terms) are not less Beautiful.
Beautiful, Beautiful Day!
 See later but for All of the Time, Loving!   
        

Hi!
    

I've been working.
Today some calm about Thoughts. Tomorrow.
While I was working, it came to mind...
From Mazinger Z, Toei Animation -this was a subject made before Transformers- besides the Epic (Good Movie!) and the Originality in the making of new bad robots (this was so New to me, in that time from time, that Imagination used), it was the Relationship between Koji Kabuto and Sayaka Yumi, Dr. Yumi's Daughter.
About this last one thing, what about an idea of some Playful simmilarity.
Then...
      
    
  

Hi!
    

How are things! Here mood so Good. Much Nice mainstream Here Around!
Here it's a winded day, True, the weather.
For this me some real headache (since yesterday's night, in fact), though I took care of sleeping well, and I did. Anyway, today loving a little less, just because.
    

No, no, Loving Very Much!!
For some fun. When I was getting in the building, some workmates were in the outside, smoking minutes, and one told me (normal things, between some kind and some fun): "how handsome you're looking with that hat on" (I was wearing it not for the sun today, but for the headache for the wind; had truly protects me); and, for the coincidence I was entering the place I was taking hat off, and took the chance for directly say: "and with hat off?".
Some more fun more (those things I'm never talked if there're not more than one Person, normal). And the answer: "don't make I talk...".    
But, my potential answer, about this subject of hats would have been: "don't make you talk, don't make I talk!" But I was already inside of the building and I reserved this fun for this Place.
        

Today, headache -and hat, and hat- included    have to go to University for formal academicity.
There, Here and Everywhere Loving and Adoring You so Very Much, Brooke!!
          
  

Hi!
    

Now, taking a Look to last text. Happy about it. Posting if some edition was needed.
Loving Always, may More now that Time Did Bring Sense   
            

Hi!
    

Well, Focused. Going!
Wanted to share (for this insisting in posting this one) that though I do get Real Motivation and Joy by the same Fact of Investigating and Writing (So Tremendously Illusioned about main Subject Found -USEFUL- for doctorate), I can Only Enjoy this Human Selfish Sensation because I Do also Know this is Working Good for GOOD. I mean, because I thinkandfeel I can Help.
It's almost a perfect sensation, this. And for this I Wanted to Share!
Loving!!
    

Hi, Forum, FRIENDS GOOD  


Power of Symbols. All kind, including numbers. It was so fast, the Effect.
THANK YOU; TRUE!
Now going to dinner. Things I said, with the Help Here, Did Really Worked as some Valve of Feelings. Emotional level did get diminished Well.
How Beautiful and Impressive, that Picture.
It's the Beauty and the Emotion, in a Really Heavenly Context of Meaning.
It's been so Good.
Ah, and I've Worked. True!
Later coming for a while for some little saying.
 LOVING, TOUCHING AGAIN!!  
   

HI!
    

Came for a moment for One and with a little breaking, I think after walking, in a calf muscle.  Taking care, not run.
Sharing this, a little improvement upon last text I wrote,
"La concepción semántica de la verdad y los fundamentos de la semántica. Alfred Tarski. PARTE I del texto.
I read the first part of the Article from Tarski upon his concept of Semantic Truth. Though it's only the first part, as long as he is saying that this first part represents the necessary agreement of all about general linguistic forms, I think I'm authorized to make a first comment on it. My interest is in the way he explains the "incoherency" of language.
He says something like all language with appropriate words for designing things and with structures for expressing complex and assertive thoughts, and also, with the structural value of judgments of truth in the inside; do bring the seed of incoherency inside, necessarily.
For this discussion, my fist explanatory example is very similar to his: "The sentence number 19 from the page number 19 of this book is not true". Following Tarski words, the true problem here may come when we, empirical terms, may notice (empirical possibility) that this same sentence, that we could call as “A”, is exactly the number 19 from the number 19 of the book we're taking as main coordinate reference. In this case, conclusion of Author is: "The sentence A is true ‘si y sólo si’ -ONLY-, if it is untrue". We see this is an incoherency, he says. Of the Language.
This is just one more case, taken from a quite typical sentences type in philosophy books, from classics. I'm using the same but from my own: "All people from Mars are liars", with the adding of the empirical condition that we know this sentence is told by a person from Mars.
There's no difference between these sentences, in this context of explanation. The Transcendental and Important fact here (in Spanish "hecho dirimente" I'd say, as the key one bringing the solution to be explained), not worrying about how we should define the ontological nature of this fact (comparedly to the linguistic reality, I mean; something that we define, in fact, by the same argument we’re using; we can see it in next lines), is that Reality Defines the incoming of the incoherency, not some ethereal mistake "living" in the structure itself of language. This perspective on the situation, in fact, is coming from the "reificación" (or maybe we should say "deificación") of language (I mean, the making language as some kind of Reality apart, existing by itself as a non disputable universe alone), quite usual vision in all analytical perspectives in philosophy from S.XX.
Let’s see another example for clearing this problem we’ve got now. If I say "I can not write a word", this is quite incoherent too (exactly the same way the other sentences are). But if I say "I can not talk", this is an assertive sentence which judgment on its same truth or untruth has to be suspended until we can verify it or not. From this comparison, I think it’s already possible to understand that the incoherency from "I can not write a word", as all other ones in this text, comes from the reality, not from the language. It’s something the same Author says, someway. He mentions how that line from the book is an empirical fact we may be facing, hypothetical terms, though he’s not recognizing the true dimension (reaching the core of the problem of incoherency) of his words.
In fact, the language is so good that's even able to express our same incoherencies. It's the empirical situation what defines the incoherency, not any formal situation from language. Tarski says we have to admit this last thing because we can not doubt about coherency of logical systems. But this is "his" problem, because he has previously supposed that rules of logical systems are in the same supposedly real structure of language. He is supposing this, at once, in his describing argument, next to the fact languages have, supposedly and in terms of definition, properties we've defined in the beginning of this text (for these same properties he says they are called "semantically closed" –in second paragraph). As long as, as we said it is an “eternal” rule, logic does not fail, the only chance is admitting that the incoherency remains in some place of those properties commented about languages “semantically closed”: in the designing structures and/or in truth ones (not well explained by now in Author’s text).This choice he's doing is totally unnecessary. Typical Logic Basic rules are very conditioned in language. Language is only partially logical. And, as one more critic, have to say I don’t see how an use of language could keep the logical rules not failing and, at the same time, be incoherent the way he says, at the very least if we’re not making the statement I’ve tried to explain. As Quine says, in his text about Translation; all meanings are depending on the same reality they're defining; and, from this, he shows up the anthropological type problems that come in translating words or sentences from languages from different cultures.
Those sentences I've been talking about are what I'd call as "expresión reflexiva de una autonegación" (reflective -because we're talking about “ourselves”, one way or another, in all those sentences- expression of a “ selfdenial”). And how I can express myself when I've said I cannot do it, by my own expression? It's the same that, in the core of their meaning and for what it does interest to us, those sentences are saying. The lack of coherency comes from the reality, not from the language we’re using but from the use we’re making of it on the way of our practical, empirical, decisions".
   

Hi!
    

There're a good amount of Action Movies in the cinema on these days.  Looking Interesting, Really.  I'll Watch them All on time.
Came, I've been working, for sharing only something from last Text from Tarski.  19/08/2014
II PARTE Tarski y profundizando hacia Habermas y la razón trascendental
No many comments on his technical sources for developing his formalist philosophical conception on Truth (he tries to bring, Very Good terms -bringing order-, have to say, the simple technical-semantic conception of truth, by a metalanguage which is containing the language-object -because the first one is made upon this- and the logical sources for settling the truth, general terms: "... is true"; those words are key in the metalanguage); but about his final conclusions have something more to bring from him.
Transcription, in spanish:
"Hablando más seriamente, no negaré que el valor de la obra de un hombre pueda aumentar por sus implicaciones para la investigación de otros y para la práctica. Creo, sin embargo, que es contrario al progreso de la ciencia medir la importancia de investigación alguna exhaustiva o primordialmente en términos de su utilidad y aplicabilidad (...). Me parece que hay un dominio especial de necesidades humanas muy profundas e intensas, que están relacionadas con la investigación científica, y que son en muchos respectos similares a las necesidades estéticas y acaso religiosas (...). Acaso sea impopular y anticuado decirlo, pero no creo que un resultado científico que nos dé una mejor comprensión del mundo y lo haga más armonioso a nuestros ojos deba tenerse en menos que, por ejemplo, una invención que reduzca el costo de la pavimentación de los caminos (...)."

This is Amazing, from a logic-mathematician like him.
For this, there's a part of Habermas Philosophical Theory were I do have to disagree with him. I'm talking about (he Admires Kant so much too) the erasing of the transcendent aspect of human reason. He, I've read, tries, as brilliantly as always, in "Naturalism and religion" to explain the ways the relationship between the both phenomenons should be made up in modern societies. He says religion has to try to express itself on terms of modern an laic reason, to be able to be understood and shared from others who are not in this community of believers, because he knows the history of modern reason has been so highly influenced by the religious one; and that these second ones, the believers, have to try to listen to the first ones, for a free, rational and social dialogue.
It's so Great.
But I don't think, as he says, the discursive reason will ever substitute the transcendental needs of any subjective thinking. This is implicit in all conscientious people minds. So, the reason for not separating, absolute terms (as it's been done for last decades), in the public discussion "about everything" (in fact, we're talking about the philosophical debate, and about the Sense, at last) the reasons of religion from the reasons of naturalistic scienticism are not only historical or democratic. These reasons are printed in the most intimate nature of our thinking, which is at once a hearted one, not only made upon the "pure" reason (the discursive justification Habermas draws as main character in his formal pragmatism is, less or more conscientiously, supposing, still, its real existence -something impossible, because the "world of platonic ideas" is just a symbolic idealism, and because the social reason is always made upon individual -and, for this, natural- minds of human).
In the philosophical debate, all discourses have to be welcome on the wheels of reason, and this is a very greatly made idea from Habermas, but ignoring the real circumstances of discourse is going against the real possibilities of the discourse itself.
By the natural explanation of the transcendental side of all human (Alfred Tarski understand it, we see, and for this he compares the feeling of theorist thinker to the aesthetic or religious one), there's a chance, Symbolically Made Up (this is so Important for the Sense, made upon a "multidialogical" narrativity), for some truly deeper (and, for this, with much more real possibilities for its practical results for the communal living) understanding of the others; which also needs the natural explanation for the true understanding (educational -and, living terms, on practice- source) of empathic mechanisms of our hearted minds, as the base of moral choices that justify and, also, demand so loud the communal living on the ways of tolerance and peace for all. Moral has to be reasoned, obviously, and justified discursive terms, but this discussion can not forget the natural and fundamental base of morals: the human empathy. And this is not only the motor for moral decisions of people who has read nothing on moral philosophy, but also for all theorists working on it, in fact. Christian or kantian (the ones I know more, for this I talk about them) Universalism is an Eternal source for the moral reason. And now, by not exactly the same way (this is so good, for what I did explain about the tree or net reasoning), we're coming to the same place where we were before, trying to understand how to articulate the free and rational development of our transcendent reason.
   

Hi!
    

Came for some very   fun Try and also for sharing some reflective thinking on Davidson.
First, the   (many times I am asking myself if to Study and Study these things is more   than what's supposedly that; No!, but Necessary the Living Always together besides the thinking, for Health of mind and Heart).
It's almost -erase this last word-   
When I was a kid and was doing "all things Good I could" to All Ladies I did may find who were letting me to do them, by Permission, I remember my definition of things. I had to make up my own words, because did not know the adult ones. There were two, meaning a little degree difference.
There was the "augmentació aufònica", who was quite Good     , and the more intense by the passionate pressure   "  ". "augmentació ufònica". I did not notice this difference again for years, till yesterday, when it came to mind.
Then, "t'augment" meant "that thing I am doing to You...".
You can not figure out the real problem that came to my adult mind when I did find a Football Player, VERY GOOD, an European Star, who was called Taument.
My inner conflict was   for the   potential meaning the name brought inside, obviously only to my crazy dictionary.
        
  

ps: now the more   

Hi!


Came only for a moment for Hi!
Today more Babies. Asked for coming with me ( ). That Feels so Good!
Well, We're Going Well. See later and Always by and on the Loving!!
God Bless, Good Here Time!

Hi!


A workmate did give some good advices about the caring of injury. He's been quite good amateur football player and better coach, but he had no contacts, or just maybe he was not interested in searching them.
Well, the fact is that I have some advice. Caring Good!
Yesterday's night I was thinking.
It's Possible I may look for the Vero and Kelle Rhoads telephone number, and call them. For, if possible, have some explanation about the from these years.
I know I may be rejected from the first time, or just "flowered" with some "well, I don't know I was...". This All would be Normal, and I would not get much angry for this. But it's Possible I may Try it.
First I need to find the number.
Yes, Einstein's not good at all
Well, see in a while later and Forever Fine Loving!

Hi!


First of All, God Bless Families!
It was just a spontaneous feeling, True.
About Texts, I don't think I say many things today, because it's All about this new perspective on language, founded by Austin, about the intention and results of communication, some beginning for the "pragmática del lenguaje", quite Important for, p.e., Jurgen Habermas.
For some fun and real I'll say that among many People I could see today, I did find a Lady driving a van (it was the right word, I just found in the dictionary, ), who was going with another one with driving another one; and "hi and blas...", from the car she said she's working for promoting the "producte mallorquí", and while saying this she showed up high his index finger. And I could not do anything less than saying "you go!"


Well, quite me. Going to Work. Seeing later and for Eternity in Love!!
(these changes of context of communication I use to do do - ) even myself ).
Universal God Bless.

Hi!


As I'm feeling better, my leg, came for some more fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECmpYi0IkzY
Do You Remember when posted for the first time, this Beauty?
I did also post because I think yesterday I took a shower, and as long as I think this is a real event in my life...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCYznN1dhzA ( the childish me: HOW MANY QUESTIONS to INVESTIGATE ABOUT, the Violence on TV or any other public place and, specially, the kids)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nbjhpcZ9_g

Hi!


Only for a little moment, coming on Goodness.
The other day I sent the text on Arendt Movie, Great, to a workmate who asked me for it. He said it was a little "much density" subject, the text, but that he liked and was going to read all, calm.
This did mean very much to me, on its own terms.
Someway, it means my efforts are not going to anywhere.
Well, Focused for Working.
God Bless, Be Good, I Love You!
Brooke is so Beautiful and I Love her so Much!

Hi!


It's a Beautiful Morning. Today I'm going to be busy, it's True.
Sending such a Big Hug, Brooke. What a Lovely Cuteness of Pictures You're Posting; Adorable You Really Are.
Loving's so Necessary and Easy


ps: I could See sometime You did Work with Joan Rivers. She's such a Nice, Funny and Classy Lady, She will be Missed. Rest in Peace for Eternity in Heaven. God Bless.

Hi,

have to add that when it was decided to excave under the floor of the house, there appeared several pieces of bones, of children and one adult, but no skull among them did appear, even after deep excavation.
The results of reports say that there's no paint, no pigmentation on the walls. Anything different to the same material itself, mainly cement.
Terrific but Truth, the Results of Investigation.
The Lady owner did Live there with no problems, till the day she passed away because of older age (problems from the place I mean, the normal fear asides -though it's normal, the getting used-, because social problems, specially in the starting of the phenomenon were so real).
The other day I Did Watch another TV Program Very Good, about Particles Found, and its Results, from the Particles Accelarator, in Switzerland.
Till now (waiting for almost couple of years for repairs and improving of "machines" -most expensive machines), what's known is that the "Bosón de Higgs", or Elementary Particle, is weighted as 125 "gigaelectronvoltios" GeV. It's , because for thinking about a "perfect" classic Universe Needs a weight of 115. The first tests results, weight of 140, were too much and bad perspectives for that and the opening for the confronted theory of Multiverse, where this Universe is just a place of the global stream of the macrointerconnection. This last one choice is for Scientist, something quite Understandable, because this means the almost Fixed Impossiblity for going much further than were our Physics are (closed, the Human, in the limits of our Universe, where the access to the outside of it seems to be, even to the most optimistic ones, Impossible). We'll have to wait for more.
Congratulations to this TV Program because it was also so Great, Illustrative and Honestly Made too.



ps: It's Coming to Spain a "Congreso Científico" on Paleoanthropology, that's going to be the Biggest One in History, till this Moment. So Great!
So many Congratulations to All these Great People Workers too!

Hi!


Came for a little good moment for the One time.
Later coming for a while too.
Truly good, these comings.
Very Focused. I'll Make my Work. That's for Sure.
God Bless.
Later is still soon


ps: I don't know why I " ", because in real life I do it very rarely; but well, here it goes , contexts conditioning the mind. Normal. As normal it is the fact virtual games are the second important ones in ludopathy statistics. Here is a another new place for Study and Education.

Hi!


Came for sharing some thinking thoughts now ( ).
The other day Watched Good TV Program talking about experiences in brain. There, it was said that it's the same the virtual and the normal (the classic for life, the physical). That's not true. It's Necessary I say this.
The millions years of evolution have configured our brains for work in real situations, and the whole biological process is so complex and involving many things: previous mental structures and memories, nerves system and hormonal one, in a process that feeds itself on the situation.
Those things can never be the same as the virtual experience. Normal terms. I mean, we can create atmospheres, special situations, inducing expectations, etc., but before create the same emotion by virtual experience, you have had to make a big work on credibility of realism in brain object of experiment. In any other case, the results will not be "O", not insignificant, of course, I do agree with it; but effects will not be the same.
That's a reality.
For more things, have to say that things I had been reading on Popper (it's funny to me, only the name , for the simmilar to word I like "popes"), Kuhn (funny -I'm stupid! Sorry!), Feyerabend, Lakatos, Toulmin, Mariou Bunge...
All bringing Interesting things. The Most, Feyerabend (I had read before, as All others, less or more): how he talks about "anything goes" for Science Creativity, the Qualitative Conceptual Jump on it, maybe a little too much, but that's the Way. It's quite simmilar to what I have Tried to prove upon my explanations about Evolution and these things.
I'm taking it. As I'm taking Ideas in the Book that I'll comment, from X. Zubiri, about his Structural vision about the "diática" relationship Reality-Knowledge. I did not know this Author, and Ideas sound Interesing too, Very.
Seeing later on the Love!



ps: oh my, memories of me walking around the disco, posing in the pub, dancing on the floor... What a silly day of mine.
God Bless You All, True, from my Heart!

hi!


I was too much focused in the Persona of You to see all details.
It's How Lovely!
Came for Dedicating very little Loving poem.

Kisses of adoration and sweetness,
holding embraced beyond the living,
tight as a caring bow of heaven's love
born firm to preserve the eternal feeling.


Humble poem Dedicated. Not too much "from the deepest" but I think it's nice. This way is better. I Do Feel Calm after writing it. And I had to Kiss You someway.

Hi!


I think I've found the key argument for defining the fundamental aspect, for this defines it, of metaphore. I think I've not seen in texts, but it's very possible my memory is lending a hand to my on this. Anyway, qualitatively, the importance I'm giving to this I'm sure is not been contemplated in those Tremendous Texts.
Have to think for some more, and after I'll be sharing the basic principles as conclusions made. From the Reading and from my own reflections, on texts and my own experiences. These two aspects are so Important, Truly Key, for any good understanding of anything.
Those Jimmy Fallon Videos are Very I had a Good time!
I think it's possible Brooke is Feeling Something Good for me.
I'm not saying she's got something good for me ( ), please
Those literary sources...
Have to say that I think I Love her, and that I'm not coming back again to perceptions from these past years. Now it's Good. And that's All I'm going to have as present sense in my mind. True!
Last Brooke Pictures wearing that suit are sweeter than caramel, honey and sugar mixed in a golden pot. Yes.
Big Hug, I Love You so. Like my blood in living vains, for this all so intense always.
Later sharing some, as I said.
Later Loving more than now but less than yesterday. Oops, wait a minute, this is not how it had to end
The phonetic rhythm took me to this. It's a race on Time to the Infinite, this Love. Now it's OK.

Hello!

How Beautiful, You and those Pictures. Very Classy. Always.
Bye ( )