virus: Re:PCR Three Axioms

D.H.Rosdeitcher (
Sat, 27 Sep 1997 21:48:44 -0400

Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
I wrote:
>> statements like jokes,
>>exclamations, commands do not fall into the category of being
>>axiomatic, or tautological. (D.H)


>I disagree, the statement appears to be an axiom. Further, I would say
>a joke and an exclamation are tautologies and a command is a teleology

>A joke is self referential --it is an axiom if it has a point (a riddle),
>but is most likely a tautology...the point being to make fun of itself.
>Similarly, an exclamation is a phenomena (tautology--something like
>excitement, realizing itself through the individual...a phennomenology of
>spirit; though if it is recognized by the self and has a continuence it
>would be teleological. A command has an implied continuence which can be
>proven false but is not self referential and is therefore not an axiom nor
>tautology; it is a teleology.

I see jokes and commands as actions--the joke is for getting the person to
laugh and the command is for getting the person to obey. I see
exclamations as reactions to something. How can an action or a reaction be
falsifiable or tautological or axiomatic? For instance, Brett, here's a
Did you hear about the new "Toys R'Us" in Harlem? It's "We Be Toys". Isn't
that statement making fun of not just itself but of how people think?
And how can exclamations like "Oh, shit!" be a tautology? and how can the
command, "Go to your room!" be falsifiable?

>*I'm making this assumption following a line of reasoning I have been
>that all statements (reality) is objective, subjective, or shows a
>relationship between object and subject. I have used the terms "(implied)
>reality" is "objective", "subjective", or "continuous"..."consciousness"
>"tautological", "teleological", and "teleotautological"..."Self" is
>"existence", "being", and "continuence of being": I've used pragmatism to
>suggest that a "meme" is "objective", "historical", and
>phenomenology to show that "spirit" is "self-same", "self-other", and
>"consistent"; used "the one in the many" and "the many in the one" to
>"trust"...and used the "king" and the "queen" to show "jester".

I did not grasp that paragraph. What class do statements which don't seem
to make sense belong to?

--David R.