1. ## the fundamental contradiction in logic statements

Copy pasted from metasocion.com, the underlying logic responsible for dual type theory:

Okay, it's been a while. I've come across some things.
It's come to me there may be an entanglement related flaw within logic statements. As follows:
B is not C,
C is B.
The logic we're examining is what the words 'is' and 'is not' are referencing. Consider the establishment of variables as assumptions. "C is B" is an assumption of C relative to B in "B is not C"; "B is not C" allows for B to be considered distinct from C in "C is B". The fundamentals of a logic statement contain a contradiction.

I think it is this contradiction which allows for two simultaneous dual processes to run; actually, necessitates.
As all of us here know, compound logic statements are representations of the functions.
This is also what is responsible for duality.
I will probably write more on this.

2. Not sure if I misunderstand the above, but a car is a vehicle, but a vehicle is not a car.

3. Right. Examine closely the assumption of what it is you're saying. Reread the example if you need to.
The reversal in variable order is only for recognition purposes. You can also say a car is a vehicle, but a car is not a vehicle.

4. Originally Posted by crazedrat
You can also say a car is a vehicle, but a car is not a vehicle.
You mean, a car is a vehicle, but a vehicle is not a car (C is B, but B is not C).

I agree completely with what you said, and am interested in reading more. It is a much more fundamental statement of logical exclusivity, which I think spans into many realms. The simple notion of distinguishing for exclusivity, so as to allow for mutual interaction, or compatibility.

By differentiating you assume a category which things can and cannot be subsumed under. This is what allows you to reference objects.

So... it's like a nihilation in order to allow for creation.

5. A car is a type of vehicle. A type of vehicle is a car. This isn't exactly a logic problem, more of a linguistic one which leads to logical contradiction.

6. No polikujm, you are wrong. It is definitely a logic problem. As you can see it works just as well with neutral variables like B and C. Infact it is easier to see in those terms.
Yes strrrng, and rules for the inter-reliance of both processes; having both in proper balance (duality). But both occur simultaneously. There is not a destruction, and then a creation. That is merely an elaboration of a logic statement into a compound logic statement.

7. Well if C is not B, then B is not C.

XY contains X, where X does not contain XY. I understand what you mean.

I don't understand what you are expressing about duality though. As in a dual is someone who is < and you are >, so in your relation, dual is X and you are also X. ?

8. Wrong, you have missed the flaw and need to reread the first paragraph.

9. Originally Posted by polikujm
A car is a type of vehicle. A type of vehicle is a car. This isn't exactly a logic problem, more of a linguistic one which leads to logical contradiction.
Stop injecting the word 'type' to qualify each object -- we are looking at isolated variables. A vehicle is a general category; a vehicle is B; a type of B is C; a car is C; therefore a type of vehicle is a car.

crazed, I don't necessarily mean destruction literally. It's more that the generalized notion of dualistic logic is destroyed, with an elaboration on the interdynamics of the previous apparently contradictory statements

10. Originally Posted by strrrng
Stop injecting the word 'type' to qualify each object -- we are looking at isolated variables. A vehicle is a general category; a vehicle is B; a type of B is C; a car is C; therefore a type of vehicle is a car.
I don't think l'm understanding you. No logic exists in saying B = C even though C ≠ B, "is" being "=". In this case B ≠ C. B is not C.

The flaw exists when one says B is C, when in fact it isn't.

11. Originally Posted by polikujm
I don't think l'm understanding you. No logic exists in saying B = C even though C ≠ B, "is" being "=". In this case B ≠ C. B is not C.

The flaw exists when one says B is C, when in fact it isn't.
The essence of it lies in the contradiction. 'Is' does not mean '=' in the sense of some direct relation; 'is' is a relative state of being, in this cased marked by a differentiation.

C can only be B if B is not C. This is because by B not being C reality is divided into relevant categories. reread it if you still don't get it.

12. Yes strrrng, exactly.
Polikjum, just reread. The best way to describe these processes is with vague arranging words like the ones we are using. It's a lingo I have naturally developed from being in arguments on this board again and again. If there was a better way to describe what it is I am describing, I'd take it.
As for the relationship this has with duality, well.. that comment was directed at those people who may comprehend of their own accord; and particularly at tcaud.
I am expecting tcaud to have something interesting to say on this, and as things develop further I will probably keep this board posted..

13. I get it. I just don't understand how these two processes are representative of dual processes. Does that make any sense?

14. lol. you sound like archon did the other night on stickam. if you got it, you wouldn't be inquiring in this manner. how's that for necessitative contradictions

15. You're right. That is a necessitative contradiction. I mean to say I get all of it, but this... and then I say what I didn't get. So what I didn't get is why 2 essences stand for 2 dual types. That seems cross-parallel to me. I understand all the rest, without those bonus words. Those bonus words just aren't explaining the reasoning which I don't get.

16. and you just deleted the quotation and comment on crazed's post, which tells me you're backpedaling.

crazed, I think another alpha NT is about to get ass-raped.

17. Originally Posted by strrrng
and you just deleted the quotation and comment on crazed's post, which tells me you're backpedaling.

crazed, I think another alpha NT is about to get ass-raped.
Strrrng, your association doesn't define alpha, nor do you know that the reason for me deleting the post is the same reason for me disliking those extra words in rat's explanation. I dislike confusing the situation, and I didn't expect a deletion of failed communication would confuse you.

18. It just indicates you are confused, and we know you're confused through the questions you're asking, since their assumptions are reliant on a misinterpretation of the initial statement..
As I said vague arranging words are miserable but needed in discussions like this.
If you comprehend the contradiction it should be pretty clear how this necessitates a dual process.. if you indeed understand one logic statement assumes the other, and that both must necessarily occur simultaneously.

19. I thought I just explained it in that last post ..
"if you indeed understand one logic statement assumes the other, and that both must necessarily occur simultaneously."

20. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
It just indicates you are confused, and we know you're confused through the questions you're asking, since their assumptions are reliant on a misinterpretation of the initial statement..
As I said vague arranging words are miserable but needed in discussions like this.
If you comprehend the contradiction it should be pretty clear how this necessitates a dual process.. if you indeed understand one logic statement assumes the other, and that both must necessarily occur simultaneously.
Right. Everything here I understand perfectly, except for the reasoning. If I may clarify, you are telling me how something works, and that is all I am catching onto.

21. Originally Posted by strrrng
Better to just resign one's self to subjective discrepancies than get eaten alive for explicitly misconstruing someone else's words.
I honestly don't have such a fear as I see in others.

22. we have explained it how many times now? give me a break.

23. Okay I just saw the added part:

Originally Posted by crazedratXII
As for the relationship this has with duality, well.. that comment was directed at those people who may comprehend of their own accord; and particularly at tcaud.
I am expecting tcaud to have something interesting to say on this, and as things develop further I will probably keep this board posted.
Now I understand that the explanation lies within one's intellect, that is why I am not seeing it. I also have little experience with socionics in the real world, so experience with duality is obviously an important key.

Originally Posted by strrrng
As for me being an Alpha, strrrng, that seems wrong to me.

24. No, the explanation is within the paragraph, I just realize that it might be beyond your willingness or ability to grasp. I have gotten into endless arguments on this board over far simpler things.

I think you may be wrongly interpreting the initial paragraph as acknowledging an unsaid "D" variable for which to silently existentially relate B and C to. No, it doesn't do that. The point of the initial paragraph, is that if B is C, then also C is not B. That one necessarily implies the other. You should get this from the first paragraph. If you don't, then you need to reread the first paragraph.
Realize this and then reread what I just said to you in the post before this and you will understand why this necessitates dual processes.
If, then also. Those are key words. One process, then necessarily another process. Understand?
If this point on an existential D variable is not why you're confused I dont know why you're confused.
Also, do not delete your posts; and particularly not after I have replied to them. Deleting your posts only further disorganizes the conversation, makes it difficult to see where you're coming from, and is a meaningless attempt to take the high ground. If that is what you're interested in then this may be a waste of time altogether

26. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
If this point on an existential D variable is not why you're confused I dont know why you're confused.
The logic and how you explained everything was confusing to me. Saying that the contradictory element of duality is the assumption that B isn't C even though C is B, would have been the perfect wording for me to grasp right on the spot, though there was much extra you posted. After you reworded it, I could understand what you meant as far as theorization. However, as far as I can see, you are relating two things to each other without having a reason to. That is what has especially been bothering me.

Originally Posted by crazedratXII
Also, do not delete your posts; and particularly not after I have replied to them. Deleting your posts only further disorganizes the conversation, makes it difficult to see where you're coming from, and is a meaningless attempt to take the high ground. If that is what you're interested in then this may be a waste of time altogether
I do a lot of deleting, and would also have expectations for others to delete parts straying away from the discussion. I don't see why everyone doesn't do this in key conversation points where miscommunication has occurred. Keep the flow of conversation easy and organized for everyone.

27. yeah, that's pretty much bullshit. deleting may reorganize it in your mind, but isn't necessary, and just makes you look dumb.

now, getting the logic of crazed's basic phrase is not all there is to this discussion. so, you can continue to purport to understand because you can grasp a simple statement, but it is not true understanding.

28. No.. Deleting just means we all have to go back and delete, regressively as we understand eachother up until the point where there is no discussion at all. Only agreement and dropping the subject. How else are we going to see where the initial disagreement lies, if we don't show that fourth through our confusion as we discuss things?
yeah, I suspect you still don't realize the point. "You are relating two things without a reason to, that is what has been bothering me". Are you talking about relating B and C at all? Or are you saying I'm wrongly comparing the is with the is not statement? If the second, then you're still confused. If the first, then realize functions are logic statements. And no, that wording doesn't work. "The contradictory element in duality".. NoNo, when I speak of dual processes, I am talking about a person having two types running in their mind at the same time, tcauds dual type theory.
Looking back at how it was explained, i don't see a way to make it much clearer. Maybe a few modifying words for clarity would work. Really I think you're still looking at it wrongly. Could you maybe describe the point back to me in your own words, in its entirety?

29. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
No.. Deleting just means we all have to go back and delete, regressively as we understand eachother up until the point where there is no discussion at all. Only agreement and dropping the subject. How else are we going to see where the initial disagreement lies, if we don't show that fourth through our confusion as we discuss things?
yeah, I suspect you still don't realize the point. "You are relating two things without a reason to, that is what has been bothering me". Are you talking about relating B and C at all? Or are you saying I'm wrongly comparing the is with the is not statement? If the second, then you're still confused. If the first, then realize functions are logic statements. And no, that wording doesn't work. "The contradictory element in duality".. NoNo, when I speak of dual processes, I am talking about a person having two types running in their mind at the same time, tcauds dual type theory.
Looking back at how it was explained, i don't see a way to make it much clearer. Maybe a few modifying words for clarity would work. Really I think you're still looking at it wrongly. Could you maybe describe the point back to me in your own words, in its entirety?
So you are comparing this to a new theory altogether? Ok. That explains me having doubts as well as not understanding your reference. There are too many theories going around, if you are to reference a person, you should quote him too, if you want me to understand. It appears that I am just inexperienced with his words.

30. Everyone old on this board knows tcaud. Everyone new doesn't. And that's one of the reasons I said "that part was mostly directed at tcaud". However, from the logic put forward on this thread, you should be able to understand the premise of two simultaneous processes necessarily running.

31. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
Everyone old on this board knows tcaud. Everyone new doesn't. And that's one of the reasons I said "that part was mostly directed at tcaud". However, from the logic put forward on this thread, you should be able to understand the premise of two simultaneous processes necessarily running.
Yes I do. I can see how that applies to his words. There was no given new theory for me to conduct with. Each theory is a disk, and I had my traditional understanding plugged in, and had no expectation of something out of my comprehension of existence on the board. All of these bonus words were actually references to him.

32. yeah, I don't know much about tcaud or dual-type theory, but it made sense to me. so just stop bothering us until you figure it out, k?

33. Good, I am glad you now understand. Now you can join the effort of developing the new theories based on this premise of simultaneous process. Just keep posted

34. This brainstorming style of development isn't my cup of tea now that I think about it. I want to see some initial development first before I make a large investment.

Originally Posted by crazedratXII
Good, I am glad you now understand. Now you can join the effort of developing the new theories based on this premise of simultaneous process. Just keep posted
Right. I have this in mind now.

Originally Posted by strrrng
yeah, I don't know much about tcaud or dual-type theory, but it made sense to me. so just stop bothering us until you figure it out, k?
We obviously have come to an understanding, for all accept that part that I do actually understand what he means, I just wasn't expecting a reference to an older unknown idea. So I assumed there was some logic involved in the explanation and that is precisely why I was having a hard time getting to the heart of the explanation, even changing my explanations until you agreed. I did not know of the source. You strrrng knew of the source. (This is something you need to really try to clarify.) I however don't know the broader points of tcaud's analysis, so that I will allow you to demonstrate in your explanation in the future.

As for deleting posts and discussion about my type, I honestly don't know how these statements are relevant to anything but to a cycle which you have called bullshit.

35. Originally Posted by strrrng
lol. you sound like archon did the other night on stickam. if you got it, you wouldn't be inquiring in this manner. how's that for necessitative contradictions
thats unfair.

One of the first things I learned about logic was the difference between is and =, and I dont think it had to do with the stickam discussion at least directly.

and I still dont get how you "owned me", largely because I still dont know what you were arguing (not the introversion part, the previous discussion)

36. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
thats unfair.

One of the first things I learned about logic was the difference between is and =, and I dont think it had to do with the stickam discussion at least directly.

and I still dont get how you "owned me", largely because I still dont know what you were arguing (not the introversion part, the previous discussion)
The similarity lies in the manner in which each of you went about inquiring, not the actual content you inquired about.

And no one is posturing about how they "owned" you; not every argument has to be some politically-fueled battle of wills. I just think your premises were wrong, and that we pointed them out as such in the debate. I wasn't trying to drive you into the ground about it; we all lose some arguments.

37. You did get owned, but it wasn't necessarily out of a will for you to be owned.. more that having a 3 hour debate about something and then realizing you're wrong fulfills the definition of getting owned, from a realist standpoint.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•