This statement happens to be falsifiable, since, statements like jokes,
exclamations, commands do not fall into the category of being falisifiable,
axiomatic, or tautological. (D.H)
List,
I disagree, the statement appears to be an axiom. Further, I would say that
a joke and an exclamation are tautologies and a command is a teleology
(falsifiable).*
I have also said I do not care if a statement is falsifiable--that is
subjective, teleological, historical...a social metaphysic. An axiom (if it
is self-same and therefore existent, "Truth") states a continuing
relationship between object and subject--and is preferable in both it's
ability to state both the objective, the subjective and to varify if the
relationship is a teleolotautological one. The above statement, "Any
statement is either falsifiable or it's either a 'tautology' or an 'axiom"
(rewritten "A statement is *either* a teleology *or* a tautology, unless it
is *both*--and therefore an axiom) , states the subjective,
"falsifiable/teleological"; states the objective, "tautology", and states
the teleolotautological--continued manifestation of the relationship between
object and subject--as "axiom". The axiomatic nature of the statement
(implied, "This statement is an axiom") is true since it is part
falsifiable, part objective--it makes a teleological statement about an
objective phenomenon but is tautological ("An axiom--exists and does
something and, therefore--is an axiom"...existing and doing something, ad. in.).
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'm making this assumption following a line of reasoning I have been using
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" is
"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 "replicable"...used
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 show
"trust"...and used the "king" and the "queen" to show "jester".
In the above, "statement" is referred to as "reality", "implied reality",
"consciousness", "Self", "meme" "spirit", "trust", and "jester" (a statement
by any other name). "Falsifiable" is rewritten "subjective",
"teleological", "being", "historical". "self-other", "many-in-one", and
"queen" (the last, a feminine "social metaphysic"). "Tautology" is either
objective, "tautological", "existence", "self-same", "the one in the many",
or "king" (the last exemplified in the post on solomon as well). "Axiom"
has been shown as "relationship between object annd subject", "continuous",
"teleotautological", "continuence of being", "replicable", "consistent",
"trust", and "jester" (the last implying that the child archetype contains
the contradictions of the mother and father but in a developmental fashion
is unified). All of my above posts have argued the point that "Any
statement is either falsifiable or it's either a 'tautology' or an 'axiom'".
I am reasonably convinced.
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Brain, v. [as in "to brain"]:
To rebuke bluntly, but not pointedly; to dispel a source of
error in an opponent.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"