I asked a question to get an answer. Are you asking me to answer my own question? Why is deserve a strange word in your opinion?
humming “And the wheels on the bus go round and round…”
T h e f u l l v e r b " I S " i s N O T a m b i g u o u s .
Arm,
A is A is ambiguous say if it is a reflection of A or is that a lack of advanced distinction?
A = A is the principle of identity.
The IS can be wrong, right? Misused and downright abused. It’s tossed around too much (my opinion).
Wiki
In logical discourse, violations of the Law of Identity (LOI) result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation.[5] That is to say, we cannot use the same term in the same discourse while having it signify different senses or meanings – even though the different meanings are conventionally prescribed to that term. In everyday language, violations of the LOI introduce ambiguity into the discourse, making it difficult to form an interpretation at the desired level of specificity.
How do you correct poor judgement?
No. The “is” itself can never be wrong, because it stands for the principle of identity. What can be wrong is the use of the “is”.
Several people use the language in several ways, so some people even use the verb “is” in a false way.
Normally, poor or incorrect judgement is and should be corrected by teaching the correct judgement. But the next question follows immediately: “What is the correct judgement?”. The only possibility we have is to keep on referring to logic, because all other possibilities can and often do lead to the misuse.
Arm wrote
Exactly.
What happens to a logic built on misused identifiers as well as poor judgement?
Are you talking about all human beings or merely those who can handle the truth? Ultimately it all boils down to what that truth is and what those
who have it will do with it. But do we deserve it? I honestly do not know. Maybe if we could at some point be trusted to use it for the greater good
Truth for all human beings. If it wasn’t for all it wouldn’t be a truth.
It would be a logic that is very much reduced for most of the people. “Less is more”, “black is white”, “male is female”, “left is right”, “right is wrong”, “war is peace” … and all the other uncountable examples of the misuse of words would boom (like in Orwell’s “1984”, for example). It would be like it almost already is. 
The problem with that is that what some think is objective truth is not what everybody else thinks it is
This can make the entire notion of what is and is not objective truth to say the least a tad problematic
I my self tend to be sceptical of any thing pertaining to such truth not grounded in logic or empiricism
And so if emotional reasoning is essentially all you have then it is a very inadequate substitute indeed
Therefore if that is it you really ought to know that the easiest person to fool is of course yours truly
I seek truth because it is true and not because it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside
So if that is what it makes you feel then it is in all probability the wrong sort of truth
Arminius: how about A= -(-A)? That would imply something else. What would it imply? That the negation of a negation is also an identity.But it is not. Any negation is based on absence, and it is absence of options, which marked induction different. The - signe, was not available to ancients way way back, the could only FORM identity by comparing characteristics of objects. So in this sense 1=1 never really existed as an absolute. It is a conceptual simulation, a retrospective, and one can never be for it or against it, except applying the principle of negation, or contradiction, which are again not the same thing.
All mathematics is logical, but not all logic is mathematical.
Mathematics is an axiomatically complete system of deductive logic
But not all logic is maths and so maths is therefore a subset of logic
That is what I said before, yes, and in earlier posts too:
jerkey
A reflection would be what? A negation? A contradition? Or something else?
Math blows, let’s try to ditch it!
Jerkey, ok… Thank-you for laying that for me.
I am not actually entering into your argument. I guess you are onto something, possibly quite dense and foundational, yet not really related to my position.
I guess that by logic we do not mean the same thing. You seemingly focus on the way perception is processed, assembled into representations, how representation ‘configure’ perception and how they are linked to each other. I am not looking into that - although the subject is surely worth of consideration.
‘My’ logic is (simply) a formal discipline that can be seen as a branch of mathematics, and even something more elementary like that ((A–>B) & A) → B is a tautology (and a simulation cannot fool anyone into thinking that it is not). Nor I care here about the way a theory is formed inasmuch as that means the actual making of the theory, I consider only the de jure (talking Kantian) aspects of it.
Logic is not a branch of mathematics. It is just the other way around. Mathematics is a branch of logic.
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=190558&p=2619024#p2618506.
[/quote]
jerkey
I call it perceptual intelligence, but JSS dismissed it.
[/quote]
The middleman (literally in the pic) let’s cut it out. If logic is gutted of math, what’s left? Too much dependency on it, abandon its’ crutchiness.