Dear world, I am a crazy man with a crazy plan. Whats the plan?

you might ask - to which I would respond, I wish to create a way to link mathematics to philosophy, for in my eyes they are one in the same, meaning they are both linked by a certain commonality which we call logic. In order to link the two, we shall (1) recreate the system called mathematics, (2) use this system to define a specificity called logic, (3) use this specificity to define... Well, (i)String theory (which has been created by me and possibly others (but my way is best, as determined by me), (ii) theories of God (if God exists, which he does, as it follows from my theory of everything, String theory), (iii) et cetera, (iv)et cetera,..., (some other Roman-numerally-expressed integer, n>iv) et cetera. Boring perhaps? Not to worry: for this is just my Abstract to my work, my work being the content in this book which shall be expressed using (1) (a)words, (b)symbols, (c)concepts and (d)semantics defined by me through my work which, it cannot be denied, stems from my life experience and, thus: (2) (a) (i)words in the English language as defined by Websters dictionary (for I wish not to define every single word), (ii) colloquial expressions or (iii)foreign words for which there is no English equivalent or which I choose to use in order to be thought of as fancy, (b)concepts I have learned from teachers, classes, or books (but I dont really read that much), (c)symbols that are assumed standard in Academia (for I am a man who likes tradition), and (d)semantics which are in line with the set of all semantic rule books, which is impossible because one poses at least one contradiction to another, and each was, in fact, created by a human being (which is either (i) a human or (ii) a set of humans operating in a similar fashion and, hence determined to be one being (or group)) that is/was both logical and illogical - meaning that it, the human being, perhaps dissuades you from the Truth, and I am a being who knows the Truth in a greater sense than all others making me Gods representative. And this is why I am a crazy man! Disregarding all other questions, there is one which must be addressed first. For this question reigns as the most important question: Why did the author of this book use it as the pronoun to represent this being (the antecedent, in case you were wondering) when the being (assuming that it is represented by one organism) has a definitive gender? This is a point of digression, I understand, but the author of this book has stated that it is the most important question, so let us persuade the reader that the author is right in his usage of the word, it, first. Let us use a different sentence since this example is much too incredibly confusing. Suppose there exists a sentence (which is defined as: (1)either (i)a conglomeration of words with a clear verb (or verb set) or (ii)a set of such conglomerative instances linked together by (a) some conjunctive word or set of words and/or perhaps (b)some punctuative symbol without a dot on bottom (.?!) (but could be dot-dot-dot (...) or dot-dot (:)) such as (, or ;) that (2)expresses a point of contention and (3) ends with a dot on bottom (but you could have a bottom dot within a set of separative symbols (or a comma if the separative symbols are quotation marks and it meets the first two criteria) - which would make it a sentence within a sentence)). And let this sentence be: If one were to eat a symbol, one would die! The exclamation point has a bottom dot which satisfies condition (3) of being a sentence. Furthermore, the sentence contained within the quotations (a set of separative symbols) is complex for it conglomerates itself with not one verb set (a set of verbs that joins itself together without a conjunctive word or symbol (possibly containing a subject and/or adverb and/or preposition)), but two, where each conglomeration is separated by the use of a comma, a punctuative symbol that doesnt have a dot, but a tail attached to the dot. Shall we take the group of words up as a point of contention (the point of contention being the truth value of the statement)?... another sentence... I think not. The point of contention with which we shall concern ourselves, however, is the usage of the word one. I shall mathematically define this word as it is used in this sentence. The word one,

as it is used, means any given person contained in the set of all persons, or simply, any given person. So, lets rewrite the statement substituting the definition of one in place of the word: If any given person were to eat a symbol, any given person would die! This could be the sentence we are looking for, but say we want to link the given person in the hypothesis to the person in the conclusion all-the-while making use of the word one. We would state: If one were to eat a symbol, that person would die! To shorten this even further, let us use a pronoun in the place of that person. The only possible third-person-singular subject pronouns in the English language are: he, she, one and it... Not he or she, not they, not s/he or (s)he (although this could settle all gender disputes, but it is not explicitly accepted in most semantics books and there exists at least a teacher that deems it incorrect). So, which one is it? Why Ive just given you the answer by my interrogation, but for the sake of philosophy lets consider all possibilities. Traditionally, according to one of my English teachers, he is used in place of the word one. But a she could eat a symbol and die from it (unless symbol-induced death was gender-specific)... Denied! We could always use she, but that would just be too sexist. And weve ruled out using one twice. Therefore, by process of elimination, correctly written, the sentence would be: If one were to eat a symbol, it would die. You may say to yourself, Im not an it. Im no thing - even if I did eat a symbol. Well honey, you actually are. Youre a (1)collection of matter contained as one whole unit (and to get technical, a unit composed of units of collections of matter) that (2 - the other definition)occupies space; thus, you are, in fact, a thing. Everyone has a mind though (and perhaps a soul). This mind you have is composed of ideas, which exist only because you have a mind, and you exist because you have a mind or, at the very least, an idea (thank you Descartes), which is all it takes to have a mind. Furthermore, you identify with at least one gender and your gender, Im assuming, defines you. So why not write it: If you were to eat a symbol, you would die, because the first you could be any given person(s) and the second you substitutes itself for the first you (at least when written). How else could this sentence be written though? In verbal communication, it is acceptable to use they. It is also acceptable to repeat one if the structure of the sentence or set of sentences logically connects them together. Ergo, we have five possibilities of expressing the same statement using only subject pronouns, and these statements are logically equivalent (meaning they evoke the exact same meaning). Voici: (1 - the neuter case one) If one were to eat a symbol, it would die!, (2 - the Lets involve the reader! one) If you were to eat a symbol, you would die!, (3 - the more ethical than it, prettier than s/he, read she or he since the s comes first one) If one were to eat a symbol, (s)he would die!, and (4 - the accepted in verbal communication, but never in written form one) If one were to eat a symbol, they would die!, and (5 - the illogical but supported one) If one were to eat a symbol, one would die! Im not going to use (1) since it reads weirdly in my perspective (Thank you Niche). (4) is just as bad as (1) for the same reason. (5) is illogical; and (3) is going to be the new trend since it is most exact; but why not involve the reader and just use (2)?... The most previous sentence has a point of contention on which I wish that you not focus. If you can identify what kind of interrogative statement it is in one word, you get an extra-credit point. Is this a book on English? you might ask. Partly so, since I have focused on English, but the rules of language is not the main topic. Logos is the title of the book; thus logic is our main focus. For logic is supposed to be the basis on which all systems define themselves. If you take a look at whats been done big-picture-wise, you will see that logic has rendered itself useful in solving a HUGE topic of dispute in the field of English grammar. And if logic can be used in this system (English grammar), it can be used in another system and thus in any possible system. Five extra credit points if you can identify the form of logic I have used to create the sentence preceding this one. Hint: it is a proof style used in math. Why use math when looking at logic? Math is purely a product of logic. So, if we

can apply this pure form of logic in everyday life or at least in philosophy, the philosophy we create will be more on-target. Perhaps there is a philosophy that is WRONG but stems from something that is seemingly logical and thus, to the naked eye, looks true. It could be a philosophy upon which we have based our whole belief system. But if its false, why believe it? It is necessary to refine at least the structure of your belief system when posed with a contradiction. And this structure can be expressed in many different ways, depending on how you define your variables. Why recreate Math if it already exists? you may ask. Why ride a roller-coaster if you already saw that the other people had fun? I have posed to you an analogical retort. Let us define this analogicality. When you recreate a system, its fun, just as when you ride a rollercoaster its fun. Furthermore, through the process of recreating a system, you have a first-hand, in-depth knowledge of it. In the same way when you ride a roller-coaster, you have that firsthand knowledge (or experience) of it. It may take a long time to finally achieve the goal, but after its through, you feel... different. Love, Steven