Comments on: Confusing mythos and logos

By: Ned

Ned — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 05:41:59 +0000

Llogically speaking, llama non est lama. One cannot prove this, but it IS in the same sense that Mount Everest IS, or that Alma Cogan ISN'T. Good night.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:06:19 +0000

beal

(Ooh, I’ve wet ‘em!)

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:05:17 +0000

I’m not sure whether I’m laughing harder at the idea of wearing a diadem while proofing papers, or at the image of the Dalai Lama with a beal for sipping honey.

“Where people are swimming say, ‘Look out! There are Buddhists!’”

By: JMike

JMike — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:45:42 +0000

I suggest that those who write with sarcastic condescension either spell correctly or reign* in their spell-checker.

The Dalai Llama would probably lie down and chew his cud in response.

–JMike
*tee hee

By: Logos76

Logos76 — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:40:20 +0000

“Dream logic” is an incoherent rhetorical ploy to discredit the quoted passage. You should be more careful with your words.

And just in case you are still missing the logic of the Dalai Llama’s statement, let me put it into propositional representation. Let S = science. Let P = Proves Facts. Let B = Buddhist Understanding

S does P –> B should change

What you’re saying is:

S does P –> B v S

Congratulations. You’ve just completed Logic 101.