 |
| Atlanta Times: A summer reminder to party with common sense. |
Since 2004, I have tried posting longer articles, less often, and more articles, more often. In agreement with most experts, it seems more articles, hopefully shorter, creates more pageviews. Moderate increases in readership are appreciated in today's difficult academic online market. I could have followed my Dad's half-hearted advice and attempted to become a televangelist, theatre implied, but this is rejected for various reasons, including the judgement of God (2 Corinthians 5).
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.
From previous related post:
The symbol fm2 is introduced. (82). The symbol int is = (equals) by interpretation.or identified with. (82). K=int 'persons' (82). fm2='fellowship of' (82). K=int with persons A, B, and C
The Arabic number two is dropped for Langer's examples. but it has been established that fellowship and fellowman would present two persons in context from my understanding. A fm B (Person A has fellowship with person B) B fm C (Person B has fellowship with person C) Or is A the fellowman of B (82).
A person cannot be a fellowman of self. Therefore A is not the fellowman of A (82-83).
The V means that either way one of the propositions is false. Or they both could be false.
As well, ⊃ is the symbol for implies (75) and implication (80).
---
Therefore in regard to constituent relations there are certain implications. (83).
(A fm B) ⊃ (B fm A).
A is a fellowman, or is in fellowship with B, implies that B is a fellowman of A, or is in fellowship with A. (83).
As noted in a previous post: Conjunction (.) Conjunctions within the universe of discourse are what 'makes sense' between constituent relations. (80). In other words, what makes sense between the concepts and terms documented.
Langers' example assumes that each relation belongs to the formal context. In other words as a constituent relation, all the elements are in relation. (70). All these persons (elements) know each other.
Therefore:
In brackets is read first...
[(A fm B) . (B fm C)] ⊃ (A fm C). (83).
The relationship between A and C is implied as they are in the same universe of discourse.
This can be true in real life:
B=Bobby Buff
C=Chucky
R=Dr. Russ
[(B fm C) . (C fm R)] ⊃ (B fm R).
However, a person that does fit into the universe of discourse, may know zero to two of these persons (elements), because this other person (element) belongs to a different formal context, and therefore a different universe of discourse.
As 'academic' as this section seems, it has practical applications. When discussing certain bible and theology issues, one should make sure that persons that are new to a universe of discourse are communicated with in an understanding way. A couple of weeks ago Mr, Matt and a friend of his that is a newer friend of mine were discussing bible, while I was chauffeuring them around Vancouver and Burnaby. Mr. Matt stated to me (paraphrased): 'Remember this person has no formal biblical training.'
Do not forget fellowship...(In various contexts).
