∀¬Α ≠ ∀¬Α - Given That the Statement Is Composed by an a Priori True Value and a Non-Identical, Pragmatic Contingent Value

ti< 1.1 (Spring 2012) 122

At first sight, this text is not directly related to my book Lite Sweat Crude. In the book I was concerned about language structure, comprehension and how to generate new semantic objects using a distorted and fuzzy writing strategy. Well, the same content is developed below, though it has a more formal, academical approach. It’s a brief explanation about the EzraPounding/MerrillLynchyng method to generate critical and balanced systems of conflicted knowledge, based in a ruleset of self-generated contradictions. It’s a work & progress, hope you enjoy. Marcio Lana-Lopez, 2012 EzraPounding/MerrillLynching

EzraPounding/MerrillLynching (ΣΡΜΓ) is a coercive system that describes and regulates states of contradiction in a given alogical identity statement - i.e. ∀¬α ≠ ∀¬α - given that the statement is composed by an a priori true value and a non-identical, pragmatic contingent value. Its regulatory set is commonly used to establish, evaluate and develop principles of fuzziness in the fields of Linguistics, Conflict Theory, Unconventional Economics, Political Easing, Non Behavioral Biology, Soft/Flex Computing and Astronomy.

Historical Background

The main assertions of ΣΡΜΓ can be roughly traced to Aristotle’s Organon . The problem of future contingents and the contradictory solutions to the proposition/judgement binary presented on Perihermenias relates at some extent to the core hypothesis of alogical apprehension on ΣΡΜΓ introductory correlata. Nonetheless, a coercive system is not implemented within the logical treatise. It is also important to remark the strong variations between the texts compiled by Aristotle’s followers Andronicus of Rhodes and Phaenias of Eresus (apocrypha). Italian mathematician and astronomer Giacomo Scampini (1725-1803) was the first to develop a abbreviated instance of an alogical system of conflicted pragmatism. In his work Topica Contradictio in Ratio Ulteriorea , Scampini demonstrated that:

“ (...) ad aliquid a priori iudicium contradictorium valorem, potest profecto simili alogical moribus construi natura. In non identitatem sic constituentis indistinctum veritatem inter variabilis cogitatio et sua entia cogitationis. Ad hoc, aequivocum principium contigent identitas evolvit in systema dissentientibus et caliginosus speculatio. Quamquam improviso, hoc identitatem constituit necessarium et invariabilis causa non identitatem intra verum contradictoria ratio. Symbolica munus ratio est unice elementum essentiale quod definit et demonstrat actualitatem alogical processus PRAGMATICUS incertum. “1 ti< 1.1 (Spring 2012) 123

Bertrand Russell contribution to the alogical hypothesis of ΣΡΜΓ is still disputed. Principia Mathematica does not mention coercive propositions neither alogical processes. The “teabag notebook” contains a brief section on pragmatic arguments and unlogical rejected experience (the hippocampus’ dilemma), but the authenticity of it is questioned by several scholars.

Contemporary variations and correlata

ΣΡΜΓ was defined as a categorical method of alogical analysis in the 1920s. The first compendium of ΣΡΜΓ unstructured theory was organized and published by hungarian economist and mathematician Johannes Grieg-Kliszko, and is known as the First Correlata. This initial unstructure will be subsequently adapted to distinct modus operandi or research fields: 2nd Correlata (1932): Includes the political writings and commentaries of the Group of Genova; in the Historical Tabula, the corpus of Economica Utopica is added. 1st Variation 2 nd Correlata (1935): contradictions in Economica Utopica and the Kliszko foreword of the 2 nd Correlata are added after further pragmatic revision. 2nd Variation 2 nd Correlata (1938): further conflicts inside the original text are generated through coercive analysys (Mallbaum, Kahn & Hoffmeister). First attempt to produce a generalized system of refutable identity applicable to knowledge categories. Historical Tabula includes Sextus Empiricus’ Psychologica Uncertitate (apocrypha) and Miguel de Montalban’s Astrologicus Corollarium sublimis Caelestis obiecta 3rd Correlata (1957): major modifications in the alogical core. Coercive analysis are now exponential, contradictions are generated by a soft pragmatic interpretative loop (SPRILO). Economics contradictions are reinforced, unconventional behavior streamlined to a fuzzy ruleset. Conflicted Praxeology from the Austrian School is included in the Historical Tabula. N Variations 3 rd Correlata (1971): SPRILO automatically generated 256 Variations from the 3 rd Correlata. Minor (simultaneous) additions to the alogical core. Evolutionary unstructures supports the inclusion of new research fields, Political Easing pragmatic discourse generates infinitesimal contradiction nods.

4th Correlata (1992): First electronic edition of ΣΡΜΓ. Unstructure is more flexible and the alogical core acts as regenerative model of contradictory data. Soft/Flex computing are paired, FLE2COS (Flexible Coercive Conflicted System) replaces SPRILO. All european non-fiction romantic literature are included in the Historical Tabula. ti< 1.1 (Spring 2012) 124

The 4 th Correlata does not vary. The contradictions spontaneously generated by FLE2COS pragmatic system of non-identity will be added to the actual compendia. In this sense, ΣΡΜΓ and its variations are non-entropic formulæ and purely infinite, constantly multiplicating itself, ex falso aeterna quodlibet.

There is no timetable for the EzraPounding/MerrillLynching 5th Correlata.

1(...) at any a priori reasoning of contradictory value, one can certainly find a similar alogical behavior of constructed nature. The non identity thus establishes the indistinguishable truth between the variable thought and its own entities of thought. Ad hoc, an equivocal principle of contingent identity evolves into a system of conflicted and fuzzy speculation. Though unexpected, this identity constitutes a necessary and invariable cause of non identity within a true contradictory argument. The symbolic function of the argument is the solely essential element that defines and demonstrates the actuality of the alogical process of pragmatic uncertainty.