As I said, I am using grammar as taught by Plato, not by those since.

Since we have 3, and only 3 primitive categores of names,

we name things directly, or we can name them by a composition of their two elements, form and material difference.

This composition is a predicate.

In school, you never learned that assertion and denial, "is and is not" does not indicate that a predicate is present.

Anyway, the geometry work I did, and the work on analogical algebra, were only part of learning to understand language, Grammar, common grammar I will do a rewrite of, and I have started with that project by posting audio books of Websters work, and outlines of grammar that Plato was trying to teach, but I have not yet done all the work on it because I am video logging this discovery in geometry of mine, along with my understanding of it.

An element cannot be defined. See Aristotle.

One cannot define lineatiry, or plane, or space.

These are material differences.

The name of a thing directy.

A man is an animal.

"A man" is a composition, therefore it is a predicate.

"an animal" is a composition, therefore also a predicate.

Tom is happy.

Subject = subject.

Tom is a man.

Subject = predicates.

(there are always at least 2 predicates.

There is no use of names, words, that is valid in any logic, or grammar system, that violates the original naming convention.

Our bodies environmental acquisition systems are divided into two classes. Those that abstract material, and discard its form, and those that abstract form, and disregard the material.

This gives two logic systems, depending on if we start with form, or material difference.

Then you also have to agree that because there are three, and only three primitive categories of names, and to predicate one equates the names of things to the names of that things forms and the material difference in those forms, that you cannot predicate of a predicate,

i.e. The names of things directly are subjects.

The names of things composed by adding the names of forms and material differences are predicates.

This is not how you learned English in school, but it eliminates the confusion in the books.

Some sentences then do not have subjects, some do not have predicates. And most importantly, since you cannot abstract from an abstraction, you cannot predicate of one either.

Because of the confusion in language understanding, progress in understanding the Universe has been derailed.

I did. And Plato was one of the teachers in history who could have led you to understanding how you contradict yourself when you think and speak. It is not my invention. It took me quite a long time to comprehend it and put it down simply.

Now, you can search the net and find at least a half dozen theories on what a sentence is, however, none of them are correct. Plato did have it right, portions are mentioned in Aristotle, but Aristotle was not very sharp.

It is a two element metaphysics, that if you learn how it applies to language--every language, you can even demonstrate how Einstein was in error time and again.


One error is having the same name for a thing and the material difference of a thing. When you confuse the two, you cannot speak or think correctly.

A second of time, an hour of time, etc are things, time is not a thing.

I must be one of the few people in history who can see the humor in Plato.

And lady, you have no idea of how rude you are. There is nothing rude about what is true. I will not lie for you, or to you, I don't care how polite you think it is.

Where I come from, it is rude to put your own twist on words instead of simply examining them to see if they are true or not.

A wise man once said, judge not by appearance, etc. I am sure you may have read it. It is not technical at all, it is just a fact.

I am just socially mala, malajus, whatever.

I did.

Your not listening.

Me, listen to yourself. I said nothing but the truth and you retorted with your childish character references.

I see you are more emotionally moved than rationally. Don't you think it is a contradiction, to pretend to be interested in reasoning, but then cop out on ego and emotion?

Nothing like a common display of appearance versus reality.

And you really believe all that non-sense?

As I said, it is logically impossible to predicate of a first principle. Once you say that time is different from time, you have contradicted yourself. This inability to keep standards for the meaning of terms is what makes people pre- or proto- linguistic.

Now, if you want something really interesting, think of this. I have discovered a new analogic, I can pair 4 systems of reasoning that all come to the same results for mathematics.

This means, that your non-Euclidean concepts cannot even call math to its aid, for if you negate any of these systems, you must negate them all.

You can cite all the references you desire, however, I can also do what Linguist cannot do, walk you through common grammar using the two-element metaphysics. Plato did it well, and people never could figure out how. Not enough grey matter.

There are well defined principles on how words cannot and cannot be combined. If one does not know them, they never know when they are speaking gibberish.

:You can see my work on the Internet Archive or YouTube.

The end of time as we know it? You mean time is different from time? Besides, we do not know time qua time. We know minutes, seconds, etc, but since we cannot abstract from an element, in this case time, we do not know it. Just like we do not know linearity qua linearity, but do know line segments.

Truth in language is maintained when we respect the principles of predication, predication is the inverse function of abstraction.

These were ideas Plato, Zeno, Parmenides, were working with.

If you were familiar with the Two-Element Metaphysics being explored by some early Greeks, and understood how it applies to all forms of reasoning, you would be able to comprehend the error in so many theories today.

One cannot predicate of an element, because one cannot abstract from an element, therefore, time does not have a beginning, nor an end.

Statement of Principles.
Simply put, I was born with a very high IQ. I decided that the best use of my talents would be to try and do things no one had ever done—and I am doing just that.

I belong to absolutely no organization, as I decided that I would work common labor while pursuing my own education.

I post free audio books, ebooks, and videos on the Internet Archive, I also post video’s on YouTube.

My latest accomplishment is the discovery of a new analogic, algebra done geometrically. This project will take a lot of work.

My main intention is the definition of what we are and how we accomplish our task as mind. Therefore, my audio-book projects include various translations of the dialogs of Plato.

I need a helpmate and companion.