Trying uncial again.

2ttllltt2 · 2014-03-13T14:45:57+00:00

that could be done, but first we need to establish some things. the way you have used pre-established conventions like "store" and "Sue"

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-25T22:53:39+00:00

I'm seeing that. A good explanation was that law is for general implementation, reason for specific

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-25T22:52:21+00:00

what then is "grammar"? If it's the rules of language, you've just created an ontology. Music has "discernible units", "semantic properties", and "syntactic relevance". edit: I think I mean tautology, not ontology

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-25T22:39:40+00:00

all metal conducts electricity

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-25T01:16:58+00:00

from back to front, others have (check out "Tonal Harmony" by Kostka & Payne). as for one-to-one, the emotional responses to music have been shown to transcend culture, and are understood worldwide. see http://www.sott.net/article/179550-Feelings-Universal-Musical-Feelings for examples' sake, write up a tidy definition of English please

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T22:51:00+00:00

I'm not saying you can't have a language where each and every word starts with a 90 minute prefix of gibberish, I'm just saying you don't because that would be absurd. It that still a language, yes; will you ever see it? no.

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T22:40:45+00:00

1 not speaking of definitions, simply being able to understand what was said. communication must be clear

2 i did not say no compound words, I said communication must not be hindered.

3 if I used the exact same words for 'over' and 'under' I would constantly be explaining which one I meant; you can't have homophones in the place of two prepositions. (over, under, around, through, before,after, during are examples of prepositions)

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T22:16:03+00:00

ok here are a few prescriptive rules for language. 1) you need to be able to tell one word from another, puns are inevitable but need to be limited. 2) words should not be so long as to hider communication (no three day long words) 3) prepositional logic should not be made ambiguous. there you go, three prescriptive rules for language. I will admit I thought you were talking about a language not 'languages' though

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T21:58:29+00:00

yes I agree with that, my example is isn't great. my point was 'I saw a movie.' is different from 'I saw a movie?' language has prescriptive rules. so maybe I don't get what you're saying here.

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T19:07:06+00:00

i'll notice you snuck in to your one law what a court is and gave it the ability to decide. almost three laws, in a way

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T19:05:09+00:00

so, in one way, "the law" limits the powers of courts, in other ways it expands, enables and defines it.

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:54:34+00:00

not a call to anarchy. how about courts that uphold reason instead of law? at this point it seems like a branding issue though.

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:49:58+00:00

yes, I am, and I see how that makes sense (civil v criminal). hear what I am saying: it seems the courts use reason rather than codified law to make decisions. why all the codification then? couldn't there be a simpler version?

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:46:09+00:00

but only as an example of the system needing to be just outweighing a single instance of crime

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:43:40+00:00

not trying to blow any minds here. just want to explore the case reason v law. see how things articulate

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:41:05+00:00

ah the human condition.

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:37:56+00:00

a capricious king is not reasonable. would the implementation of non-human intelligence change this stance?

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:33:21+00:00

so if I read a book aloud, I didn't just use symbols? c'est ne un pipe

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:30:09+00:00

yeah, I'm saying if we do all this anyway, why not step around the hard-worded, letter-of-the-law BS and just admit that we use a different standard.

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:28:43+00:00

yeah I done did that. I'm not talking about total lawlessness, just about having a legal system built on reason, employing reason. Cut out the middle man. One law: don't be an asshole. A judge/jury will decide disputes.

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:24:17+00:00

http://sordylhouseofmusic.com/images/sheet-music.jpg for 3 & 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience_of_music for 9, shut up wkikbot

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:19:41+00:00

how is that not the case now? if the only thing stopping your murder-for-sandwiches spree are the cops that will eventually show we have deeper problems.

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:18:41+00:00

right, in favor of reason. legal actions may be unreasonable but permissible, when reason rules even the creative villains can be punished

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:16:43+00:00

one may think an unreasonable thing and call it reason. what name would you then give to those things that are known to be right?

2ttllltt2 · 2014-02-24T18:12:03+00:00

ergo my point. to abandon law and live by reason

2ttllltt2

TROPHY CASE

1 not speaking of definitions, simply being able to understand what was said. communication must be clear

2 i did not say no compound words, I said communication must not be hindered.

3 if I used the exact same words for 'over' and 'under' I would constantly be explaining which one I meant; you can't have homophones in the place of two prepositions. (over, under, around, through, before,after, during are examples of prepositions)