Eventually what is good for me is good for all of us, and especially for OpOssy. It's only a matter of agreeing on what's good. The Opossies like to keep things under tight rules. Kris doesn't fit in their idea of management based on strict enforcement. My approach with Kris is based on a principle of freedom of action. Thinking the Opossies would blindly follow my instincts would be naive. They'll try to enforce their rules anytime based on what they think is good for them, and for me.
yes but i was wondering about the logical implication in the form of an "unless" statement (these are sometimes tricky). what you transcribed there (thanks!) is the antecedent, but it is the consequent which i'm interested in. thus why i asked "then what?" in other words, it's not clear what the implied conclusion is.
it's as if they're saying, "Our only hope is that the path leads deeper."
but, and here's my question: "nothing we can do, our only hope" what is all this about? do about what? hope about what? it seems the answer might lie in the previously mentioned situation, to "accept his erratic behaviours as long as he has Mary's protection."
"nothing we can do" implies a need to change that situation, to negate it. but how do you negate that statement? not accept his behavior? him not having Mary's protection? or both?
How long can you accept his erratic behaviors? As long as I tell you to.
Now everyone cools off and we all get back work.
MaryKTyler 2 years ago
well said mary. but i dont understand the opossy's conflict. don't they want what's best for you? why would they doubt your instincts?
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
Eventually what is good for me is good for all of us, and especially for OpOssy. It's only a matter of agreeing on what's good. The Opossies like to keep things under tight rules. Kris doesn't fit in their idea of management based on strict enforcement. My approach with Kris is based on a principle of freedom of action. Thinking the Opossies would blindly follow my instincts would be naive. They'll try to enforce their rules anytime based on what they think is good for them, and for me.
MaryKTyler 2 years ago
lingued
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
apparently i'm some sort of spammer...
and whats up with YT fucking up the order and hierarchy of comments? maybe i should just put my logical conundrum on the forums.
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
codynes
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
Hmmm..perhaps Kris needs to open that last door within himself and face his inner demon? Maybe then he can get some peace?
I don't know...my house is a coffee free zone right now...
rockindanceteacher 2 years ago
oh noes, that can't be good.
*tempts zi with chocolate*
>my house is a coffee free zone right now
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
Yay for chocolate!! Although the lack of coffee has made your A B statement thingy thoroughly confusing. Well that and I'm reading it on my phone :?
rockindanceteacher 2 years ago
yea i know it's confusing
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
Unless the path leads to deeper places unknown to us. The Ninth (?) Circle. The last door that was meant to open (?).
This is a Kabbalah/Tree of Life image - is this the image that Nemesis has for the 13th, unnamed Malebranche?
chershaytoute 2 years ago
"that was _never_ opened"
yes but i was wondering about the logical implication in the form of an "unless" statement (these are sometimes tricky). what you transcribed there (thanks!) is the antecedent, but it is the consequent which i'm interested in. thus why i asked "then what?" in other words, it's not clear what the implied conclusion is.
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
let me try a simpler example:
consider the statement "You die unless you cooperate."
A: You die
B: You cooperate
A unless B is equivalent to A if not B, or:
You die if you do not cooperate.
this in turn is equivalent to, if not B then A:
If you do not cooperate, then you die.
and there's your logical implication in the form of an if-then statement. thus, using -> to symbolize if-then, A unless B is equivalent to -B -> A
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
but this in turn is truth-table equivalent to -A -> B
(although to make sense in english requires a temporal tense adjustment):
If you did not die, then you must have cooperated.
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
going back to the opossy's statement, paraphrasing:
>There's nothing we can do unless the path leads deeper
A: There's nothing we can do
B: The path leads deeper
"A unless B" is equivalent to "A if not B", or "if not B then A": -B -> A
If the path does not lead deeper, then there's nothing we can do.
furthermore, by truth table equivalence it's the same as "if not A then B", -A -> B
If there's anything we could do, then the path must lead deeper.
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
it's as if they're saying, "Our only hope is that the path leads deeper."
but, and here's my question: "nothing we can do, our only hope" what is all this about? do about what? hope about what? it seems the answer might lie in the previously mentioned situation, to "accept his erratic behaviours as long as he has Mary's protection."
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
"nothing we can do" implies a need to change that situation, to negate it. but how do you negate that statement? not accept his behavior? him not having Mary's protection? or both?
see my confusion now?
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
unless? ...then what?
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
:):):)
modelmotion 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but I'm working from migraine central. Is this video working our way at us with no sound at all...
Disturbing...
chershaytoute 2 years ago
Unstable... again? That's a bit worrisome.
jazmyngrey 2 years ago