July | 2013 | The Map Thinker (tm)

Archive | July, 2013

The law of Non-Contradiction.

Nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect; or no statement is both true and false.

Let us start with the easy one.

To a Map Thinker™ truth is virtually nonexistent. Those truths that do exist are ephemeral. This state of being existed at this specific time at this specific place. The most enduring truths are relationships and they are complete abstractions.

For example Pi.

Unfortunately the exact truth of Pi can never be known to the final digit and if it were it would be useless knowledge.

As Steven Hawking points out: In mathematics it is often the case where two different, even opposite, models can explain the same phenomena. Which one you use is a matter of choice or convenience. One of his sentences I love is that all P-branes are created equal.

Truth is not an issue.

Usefulness is.

To a Map Thinker the simplest solution that yields a useful result is the best solution.

Now on to: Nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect.

Aristotle expressed this as A(A and not A).

Lets examine this a bit. In poor Aristotle’s defense, ( I do pick on him a LOT) he had no way of guessing our formula for A: A_n = R_n = (R^siR^pi )_n -> Q = I <- P_n . Science of the time, while more advanced than many people believe, was not what it is today.

What he was looking at as A was Q = I.

In simple words he saw the forest and thought it was the thing itself. He did not see the trees that made it up. Sort of the opposite of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

In complexer terms he saw the qualities expressed by(R^siR^pi )_n and thought this I(dentity) was in fact the thing itself.

And yes, I do know “proper grammar” does not include “complexer”. Someday I will write a “Map Thinker’s Guide to Creative Grammar™” Just because I can.

R -> Q = I <- P

R = R^ipn

Lets take a closer look at R.

R = (R^siR^pi )_n means that A (Tree for example) is both the sum of its parts and the proportion of those parts. Thus to reiterate what was said before: It is possible to hold a rock in one hand and a glass of sea water in the other that both contain exactly the same ingredients. The only difference being the proportions of those ingredients.

But just like a stew can contain salt or not contain salt, or contain oregano or not contain oregano and still be identifiable as stew, so can sea water and a rock can contain or not contain different ingredients and still be identifiable as both a rock and sea water.

Tiny differences in the DNA of trees tells a scientist which tree was involved in the crime.

Some scientists tell us an interesting possibility about emus.

It seems that birds and reptiles are virtually the same creatures. Every feathered friend that exists is a potential scaly monster from bygone eras — If you knew how to flip the right switch.

Therefore an Emu is a potential tiny dinosaur of the same size and shape.

Is that true?

It remains to be proven.

Gene splicing, cloning, DNA fiddling… this could get confusing.

So the law of non-contradiction that Aristotle was so fond of is in reality a pleasant fiction that bears no relationship to the world of reality — Only the world of appearance.

Once we replace A = A with we are forced to replace NOT (A and not A) with A = A_n and R_n where A_n equals slight variations in A (possibly over time) R_n. When R^ip as perceived by Aristotle had a large enough difference he saw A as something entirely different.

Let us say A = grass.

If grass is given the right nutrients it will provide your lawn with a richer, more bountiful color to show off your skill and your house.

Thus A = A_n.

Very slight variations in the same grass over time and environment (a hefty word meaning place / space).

Your neighbor has a different breed of grass.

A = Aª_n.

Where A is A but shows a wide variation. Enough to be a separate variety.

A = (R^siR^pi )

Where A = any potential state of A both known and unknown.

An example of this could be instead of feeding the lawn a diet that produces a more robust color the homeowner instead forgets to water the grass and it becomes dry and brown and eventually dies off.

Or it could be the neighbor’s cow eats it and it changes state completely.

Aristotle never considered time, space, or process in any of his laws. With modern knowledge of how the world works we cannot ignore them. Any change, even the slightest, in time, space, or process, will have an effect on A no matter what A is.

A is only A at a specific place, during a specific time, while no process is happening.

Thus A is ONLY A while you are pointing at it.

As soon as you have turned your back on it it has changed.

The grass, A, is changing at some microscopic level even as you point at it.

Thus A_n -> I <-P.

I will name the Perceiver George.

This comes from an enjoyable Fantasy novel titled “The Dragon and the George” by Gordon R. Dickson.

It is a reply to The Ultimate Prisoner Riddle. ( I will get into the Ultimate Prisoner Riddle and its social aspects another time.) The oldest of these I know of is Sinbad. But Sinbad the Sailor and Sinbad the wealthy and Sinbad the Pauper are all the same. And this is very transparent.

Jim Eckert on the other hand enters a world of magic as the Dragon Gorbash. And is forced into another Point of View entirely.

George is a suitable name for our Perceiver.

We, as does George, must face constant change in our Point of View.

A_n -> I <-P.

Where there is a slight difference, even a profoundly noticeable difference such as color change or growing too tall, George is able to maintain continuity. He can say, “My grass sure looks better after I added that new ingredient to it. But it is growing faster so I got to cut it this weekend.”

Thus George can think about, and talk about, the grass in front of his house that he calls a lawn as though it existed in Aristotle’s simplistic universe.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Remember a basic principle of Map Thinking:

Always use the simplest map that serves the purpose.

Just because George knows, or should know, that at some level A -> I <- P does not mean that he has to use it every time he draws a breath.

Here is another basic principle of Map Thinking.

The human mind, in order to function, simplifies everything. There is no way the human mind can encompass all the complexities of the universe. Even if it could it would have to focus on one aspect at a time in order to function as a human being.

In art you are taught the basic shapes. Circle, square, rectangles, triangles, ovals, — None of these shapes exist in nature.

They are mental simplifications the mind uses to deal with all the complex information presented by a confusing universe.

Does not matter.

If you learn to draw, and learn to see, basic shapes, you will always be able to produce a picture.

No tree or bush that ever existed was ever exactly ball-shaped or exactly triangular-shaped — But the mind will process them as such. Even houses built by humans do not form exact squares and rectangles, but the mind sees them as such.

Thus the law of non-contradiction must be replaced with,

A ≠ -> I <- P

A does not equal the Identity it projects to the Perceiver.

A is both A and Not A.

At one and the same time.

You should notice that nowhere in here have I directly discussed particle physics or quantum physics / mechanics. Both are implied. It would be hard for me to discuss reason or science without some references. But everything I have discussed has been on the macro level.

Aristotle could have seen it.

Anyone since Aristotle could have seen it.

Some did.

Those who did were quickly drowned out by those who worshipped Aristotle as the Thinker of all Thinkers. Just last week I met a man whose basic attitude is, “Aristotle said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Had Aristotle not been so simplistic, or had his adherents not been so fanatical, Quantum Physics would not be such a shock to the average person. Because the activity at the Macro level is NOT that different from that at the Micro level — If you take the time to look.

Tags: Aristotle, DNA, Dragon, Gordon R. Dickson, Grass, Mind, Sailor, science, Sinbad the Sailor

Comments Leave a Comment
Categories Uncategorized

The Seventh Law of Identity

21 Jul

A = A

_{A = DR}ip_{/Tn -^->DQ/Tn = I (EE)/Tn <-^- P/Tn -^-> B -^ -> FAR/T}t

_{Should be complicated enough. However something obvious is missing. The answer to the question, “What is P?” It is easy to develop the superior position and assume that “P” refers to the human perceiver.}

_{But it isn’t true.}

_{P is any Perceiver.}

_{A cow perceives grass. The grass, though totally passive in this situation has produced a change in action and desire in the cow. Because of this the cow eats the grass. This produces further change in the cow and the grass responds by re-growing itself if its root system is strong enough.}

_{Oooops. Lets look closer at the grass:}

_{In the November American Journal of Botany, Susan Dudley, a McMaster University biologist says common flowering plants devote less energy to growing roots when surrounded by family. In the presence of unrelated plants, individuals grow their roots as fast, and as competitively as possible.}

_{So now at a grassroots level you have mutual perception.}

_{In other words P -^-> I <-^- P.}

_{Or at this level A -^-> I <-^- A.}

_{In a way we have come full circle.}

_{The only difference between A and P is DR}ip_/T.

_{If we say that P = (DR}ip_{/T) where P has the Greatest Variety of Action, and A =}_(DRip_{/T) where A has the the Least Variety of Action then we can establish three states of A <-^-> P interaction.}

_{A <-^-> A}

_{Where both A’s have limited awareness and interaction with each other. Plants recognizing related members and then competing less for resources would be an A <-^-> A situation.}

_{A <-^-> P}

_{A cow eating a blade grass, or choosing to eat another blade of grass. A scientist looking through a microscope. A doctor choosing an antibacterial agent.}

_{There is a story wherein a student asks the Zen Master, “What if you are walking in the woods and meet a tiger?”}

_{“Perhaps,” answers the Master, “The tiger is not hungry.”}

_{Thus even though the Human is the more adaptable and has a greater ability to reason; in this case the tiger is in control, it is the P and the human is the A.}

_{Understanding the relationship A <-^-> P it should never have surprised anyone that bacteria, and obvious A was able to adapt and virtually outsmart the Human P with all of its antibacterials.}

_{Then we have P <-^-> P where both}_DRip_{/T’s have high, and fairly equal Variety of FAR/T}t_.

_{If this strikes anyone as familiar let me point out that we have just arrived at a form of Cybernetics. In fact we are looking at a simplified rule of The Law of Requisite Variety. That which has the greatest Variety of action in any given system controls the system.}

_{Which in turn leads us into Systems Theory wherein we can see:}

_{A (or P) = DR}ip_{/Tn -^-> DQ/Tn = I (EE)/Tn <-^- A (or P) = DR}ip_{/Tn -^-> B -^ -> FAR/T}t

_{As a system.}

_{We can “Black Box” any part or parts of the formula and concentrate on the particular part we are interested in examining. I personally feel the most interesting parts are the “bumps in the road” as I call them, “^”.}

_{Thus P1 -^-> I <-^- P2 applied to Schrödinger’s cat means that you are also in a state of questionable existence until the cat sees you.}

_{We can expand and contract any system for as many A’s and P’s as we want to include or exclude from the system.}

_{Once you actually examine A and the meanings of A all of this is obvious. Once you get past the A = A and face reality as it is these things are obvious, even necessary.}

_{I hope you have enjoyed, and profit from, my presentation.}

_{To me the subject is fascinating.}

_{It is unlikely I will get this complex again.}

_{Doesn’t matter. There are a lot more implications to Map Thinking™.}

Tags: Cattle, cow, Cybernetics, McMaster University, Recreation, Susan Dudley, Variety (magazine), Zen Master

Comments Leave a Comment
Categories Uncategorized

The Sixth Law of Identity

14 Jul

_{Now we have a tiny little itsy bitsy teeny-weeny problem in the <- .}

_Ready?

_{There are two senses we know for a fact do not act the way we think the senses work.}

_{One is what we see.}

_{The other is what we smell.}

_{I suspect those two rascals the ears as well, but that is unproven.}

_{The oldest cones in our retinas sense the color blue.}

_{But do those cones report this color blue to the optic nerve? Does it travel to the part of our brain that says what we are looking at is blue?}

_No.

_{They report to other glands and organs that relate to our ability to adjust to time. In other words our sleep cycle.}

_{Our noses sense smells called pheromones. But this information is not passed on to the olfactory system. It is sent somewhere else and causes reactions that could be called romance or lust.}

_Ooops.

_{So we have to live with the conclusion that we do not know for sure what we are sensing and we do not know for sure how we are sensing it. Nor can we ever be sure what our bodies are doing with that information.}

_{This puts a whole new spin on A <- P.}

_{We do not know for sure what A is.}

_{We do not know for sure how well we perceive A.}

_{We do not know for sure how we perceive A.}

_{To make it worse when synaesthesia kicks in. That is when someone smells yellow, hears blue, sees the sound birds make, or hears someone touching them.}

_{All answers are provisional.}

_{Only questions have meaning.}

_{If we can find the right questions.}

_{It order to account for these types of phenomena we must add in the uncertainty of what might be being perceived.}

_{I <-^- P}

_{Hmmm. We have another problem. This one is with ->.}

_{A = R}ip_{/T -> I}

_{I do not want to dig too far into Complexity Theory, Breaking Points, and Emergent Phenomena, but let us simply say the recipe sometimes produces unexpected results. Without trying to account for it we still need to include it.}

_{A = R}ip_{/T -^-> I}

_{So now we have:}

_{A -^-> I <-^- P}

_{So lets take a look at one of the unexpected things in A -^-> I.}

_{Most people are aware of Herd Mentality and are disparaging of it. That is where a group of livestock will follow the leader anywhere without question. Sort of the way people follow Rock Stars, Politicians, Preachers, and Talk Show Personalities. It enables unscrupulous slaughter-house owners to train Judas Goats to lead the herd through the slaughter-house.}

_{What most people are unaware of is Herd Intelligence. This is where the intelligence of the individuals in the herd is low but the effective intelligence of the group is high. This is most obvious in ants that appear to have no intelligence as individuals but have been known to perform amazing feats of engineering in large groups.}

_{If you recall P(EE) where EE is Experience and Expectations. If we add cultural bias and other factors that influence perception into the ^ of <-^- P we can pretty much cover the entire gamut. Other people from other disciplines can add whatever unexpected influence might occur here.}

_{In short:}

_{Even if a human ever did come across an A = A situation there is little chance that human being would ever be able to experience it.}

_{Yet, of course it appears that we do.}

_{A baseball bat is a baseball bat and whether it is made out of wood, aluminum, or plastic, it is still a baseball bat.}

_{And we all know it.}

_{We are able to function not because A = A but because we can act as though A = A.}

_{The ^. I call it the Bump, as in “The Bump in the road”.}

_{Normal humans only have three cones. Red, blue, and green. Butterflies can see ultraviolet light. Mantis Shrimp — The number of colors they can see is just plain scary.}

_{Two things that look exactly alike to a human might look like two entirely different things to a Mantis Shrimp.}

_{Thus our own senses, such as eyesight, limit out ability to comprehend reality, to reason through reality, and to be creative with reality, if we actually believe and treat reality as if A = A.}

_{Or when:}

_{A <- P -> B}

_{When A as Perceived and Processed by P become Absolute Belief then we have an individual or group who are locked into mental prisons of their own making and will be unable to cope with any emergent reality their belief system does not encompass.}

_{When A <- P -> U}

_{That is when A as Perceived and Processed by P produces a deliberately useful Future (Where future can be the time it takes to respond at the speed of light) Action or Reaction. Please note that an Action or Reaction can range from discounting the tree as not being relevant to the current situation, or a simple admiration of its habit (Habit means “Shape” to non horticulture types), or snapping its picture. It does not have to be a physical action or interaction with the tree.}

_{Thus P is aware, at some level, that other Actions and / or Reactions are available but are not included because they are not useful at the time.}

_{Thus if we expand the new formula derived from A = A out to its maximum we would have:}

_{A = DR}ip_{/Tn -^->DQ/Tn = I (EE)/Tn <-^- P/Tn -^-> B -^ -> FAR/T}t

_{It is doubtful to me anyone would have any use for such a cumbersome formula aside from explanation of its parts and how they fit together.}

_{The simplest accurate formula we can use is: A <-^-> P = ? where A and P interact with each other in ways that produce results that have statistical probability but are not individually predictable. Yet managing, in most cases, to produce the illusion that A = A.}

_{It is almost scary to me that I could do that to Aristotle’s poor little A = A.}

_{But to me it is just, well, obvious.}

Tags: Aristotle, Computational complexity theory, Emergence, Herd Mentality, Judas goat, Mantis Shrimp, Perception, Sense

Comments Leave a Comment
Categories Philosophy

The Fifth Law of Identity

6 Jul

So far we have considered many things. Until now we have considered only one Perceiver and attributed only one Point of View to that Perceiver.

Humans are the only intelligent species we know about that is able to actively consider Points of View of Others, either other humans or other intelligences. This is a valuable ability that should be tended and cultivated. It increases one’s ability to solve problems, achieve greater understanding, and increases creativity.

But here we get into a real tangle.

How many Points of View do we have and do we pick it or does it pick us?

Logically A = A and there is only one Point of View.

Mapologically A_n /T-> I_n /T <- P_n.

We need the T (Time) in our formula because Timing is often important to P.

Farmer George waits for the fruit to be ripe enough to pick.

Courting George must wait until the girl is old enough to marry.

Fisherman George throws back all that are too small.

Historian George wants to save the tree because it is so old it is a part of history.

Thus Time plays a part in our Point of View.

A/T = A A becomes A when A is ripe enough to be A.

A/T ≠ A A ceases to be A when A is overripe, old, and rotten.

But…

Not everyone sees a banana as being ripe at the same stage.

Some people like their bananas firm and almost green: Others like them soft with brown spots on them.

Cooks who only eat firm bananas will wait until they are soft to make banana bread with them.

Therefore a Cooks perspective changes with whether they are going to eat the banana or cook the banana.

Thus

A = DA/T -> I^u/T^0-n <- P

A is A.

DA/T is the difference in A over Time.

I is the Identity of A as Perceived and Processed by P.

^{Iu is the usefulness of that Identity as Perceived by P.}

^{/T0-n is the length of Time A is Perceived as being useful for a specific purpose by P.}

In English:

A is only A over the length of Time George Perceives of A as being useful.

At all other times A ≠ A.

But if we are going to discuss the fifth law of Identity, then we also have to discuss a phenomena called Pareidolia.

What is Pareidolia?

It is that wonderfully creative process that allows you to lay on the grass, look up at the sky, and see all kinds of pictures, creatures, things, etc. Or the stars. Those pictures aren’t really there. Our minds are able to recognize patterns in random events. This is an advantage for us. We can take the night sky, look at the random array of stars there, and create constellations in our minds. Cassiopeia and Orion do not exist until we look at them and identify them. Once done we can organize, study, and use the night sky to guide us home.

It doesn’t just happen with things that we see. In Lady Chaterley’s Lover, D. H. Lawrence has her attempting to understand what the windshield wipers are saying. I believe this apparently “non-episode” episode is more important to the story than is generally supposed.

Pareidolia enhances our lives with art and creativity of all kinds.

But:

Pareidolia has a negative side.

While it grants us creativity and gives us superior problem solving skills, it also allows us to delude ourselves and allows others to delude us when we are not self aware enough to realize what mental tools we are using when.

When we convince ourselves, or allow others to convince us, that random static on the radio or TV is in fact spirits of the dead trying to contact us — We have carried our wonderful gift of Pareidolia a bit too far.

Pareidolia is creative.

Pareidolia is NOT proof.

Add Confirmation Bias and you have Delusion.

I’m not going to go into a lot of detail here, there should be no need to. This is the day and age of computers. Even if you are not reading the blogged version you should have one handy.

Use it.

Research anything that interests or confuses you.

A/T -> I/T <- P/T

A over Time produces an Identity over Time that is Perceived and Processed by P over time even though A is a random series of events that have no innate meaning.

So. The Fifth Law of Identity explores the POV, or Point of View of P.

In order to apply this law we must first be aware there are always more POV’s than we are aware of. (Don’t bother to point out I just split an infinitive. I am a native speaker of English — Not Latin.) Or more specifically, I have a different POV of Grammar.

Which points out the First POV we have to be aware of is our own.

My POV regarding Grammar is that the subject needs to be revised until all rules, not just some, make sense and serve a worthwhile purpose.

We have to be aware of the POV’s of others.

I am aware there are people whose POV will discount everything I ever say based on my use of Grammar. After all how can anyone who refuses to dedicate himself to observing all the rules of Grammar, even the most idiotic, have anything worth while to say about reason?

And I have to be aware that my POV could be wrong.

And I have to be aware their POV could be right.

And I need to be aware that BOTH could be either wrong or right.

Now toss in the factor that whether either of us is either right or wrong may depend on factors neither one of us have any control over, and that the correctness or incorrectness may be fleeting, and you have something to wrap your mind around.

The Map Is Not the Territory.

A better set of questions might be:

When and where:

am I right?

am I wrong?

are they right?

are they wrong?

are we both right?

are we both wrong?

The best answer might be:

Depends on the audience.

And now we have to add:

Belief.

A <- P

Where P perceives and processes.

To Perceive an Apple and to Process all the data at hand to define it as a “ripe” apple, that is one ready to eat, is one thing. This is a conclusion. Conclusions are to be tested.

We may call a Conclusion a provisional belief. A conclusion is subject to substantiation, and when proven incorrect, can be changed.

A belief, on the other hand, is an investment of one’s own identity in a conclusion.

So now we must extend our poor little A = A equation further.

_{A = DR}ip_{/T ->DQn/T = I (EE) <- P -> B -> FAR}

_{Let’s simple it down:}

A -> I <- P -> B -> FAR

Where A produces an Identity that P not only perceives and processes but forms Conclusions and Beliefs about. These Beliefs dictate FAR = Future Actions and Reactions.

Let’s continue.

B can be an Idea, a Theory, a Conclusion, a Belief, even a Delusion, or in its most extreme case, a Trigger.

What is a Trigger?

A Trigger is a reaction that has become so ingrained emotionally that it bypasses all intellectual contexts.

It is often induced by severe emotional trauma. I met a girl who had nearly been strangled to death. A man could not put his arm around her neck for a hug or a kiss, as is commonly done, without evoking an extreme fight reflex from her.

I met a man who as a child had been constantly yelled at and punished by his parents for slamming the door shut. One day he slammed his way out of the house — Just as a severe earthquake struck collapsing the house and burying his parents inside. To this day he has a hard time closing a door, let alone slamming it.

But a Trigger can be induced with less trauma over longer time.

I knew a man whose father taught him to spit every time he passed a Synagogue. Even though he disowned the teachings of his father toward all things Jewish — His mouth still watered every time he passed a Synagogue.

My late wife was a diabetic. She took insulin. A friend, who was an ex-addict, could not watch her take insulin because of the overwhelming desire it caused in her to go back to her old ways.

I’ve known several women whose mother’s potty trained them using running water. These women could not be around running water without wanting to go to the bathroom.

During the cold war the word “Communist” evoked a Mass Trigger Effect.

What is a Trigger?

Any emotional reaction that bypasses all critical thinking. Especially if it is disadvantageous in the current situation.

Not all triggers are simple.

Rituals, both simple and complex, are often used by individuals and societies as triggers to certain types of action.

Not all triggers are erroneous.

A boxer enters a frame of mind when he puts on gloves and enters a ring. This triggers a certain type of behavior. When the opponent raises his hand the boxer will likely strike.

The same person would not be likely to strike someone at a party who raises their hand to their chin.

The trigger was not present.

Thus:

A -> I <- P -> B -> FAR

Means that we must always question each step along the way.

The Identity we Perceive is not A, it is the amalgamation thereof. We tend to treat this Identity as though it were the Territory itself, even though it is not. Our Perceptions are limited, our ability to Process the information is limited, yet we develop beliefs and belief systems based on them. These in turn produce Future Actions and Reactions that are often so instantaneous there is not perceptible time lag.

Thus Time is a factor in FAR:

A -> I <- P -> B -> FAR/T

Knowing this a Map Thinker must ask questions at all five stages of A.

But first: The /T is not quite complete.

We need a superscript ^t for “trigger”.

A trigger is something that triggers a reaction. We can never be quite sure what that trigger might be or when it will go off. We can give pretty good guesses based on probabilities of large populations or on intimate knowledge of an individual or culture.

I knew a lot about triggers before I ever heard of one.

I read a Science Fiction story once about ( I think ) an alien who could read minds. Some very very intelligent people tried to outsmart him, but alas he always knew what they were thinking so nothing they tried worked.

Then the Mind Reader gave an order to a man who was not all that smart.

The man hit the mind reader, knocked him cold. Everyone was then able to jump in and hog tie the Mind Reader.

The reason the man won was because he did NOT think. He reacted instantly. What the Mind Reader said to him caused a Trigger to react. The Trigger was to hit, hit now, and hit fast. Without thought, without plan.

I dated a girl who would not allow anyone to put their hand or arm around her neck because someone had tried to strangle her. This had so traumatized her that putting an arm around her neck sent her into a violent panic reaction.

On the other extreme when I was a bartender I came across a woman. People who had known her for years had no clue she had ever been pregnant.

Until one day she saw some women putting their children on the school bus for the first time. And she realized that had her baby lived it would now be six years old and would attend kindergarten.

She had a complete breakdown at the bar.

Six years before she had had an abortion. She had not mentioned it. She had not thought about it. She had had no emotional reaction to it.

Until that day, when it hit her.

She had killed her baby.

And if she had not she would be putting it on the school bus for the first time today.

A trigger does not have to be complex or dramatic.

It can be as simple as suddenly realizing what your mother meant when she said “Don’t be Walter Mitty.” too you.

So now we have:

A -> I <- P -> B -> FAR/T^t.

Tags: Apple, D. H. Lawrence, Law of Identity, Narrative mode, Pareidolia, Perceiver, Perception, point of view

Comments Leave a Comment
Categories Philosophy

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Search

The Map Thinker ™

The law of Non-Contradiction.

The Seventh Law of Identity

The Sixth Law of Identity

The Fifth Law of Identity

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Follow Blog via Email

Archives

Blogs I Follow

Meta