A site dedicated to the rational study of the UMMO affair
D77 Language and our logic.
LANGUAGE AND OUR LOGIC.
The first objective of our thought was to elaborate some dialectical bases, a logic that would be independent of language, of the idiom. This was of vital importance if you bear in mind that our form of expression is bisynchrovalent, and that the verbal encoding of thought in two modalities capable of being voiced simultaneously (one of them by a linguo-guttural mechanism similar to that of the languages of EARTH, and the other by means of a code involving sequential repetitions of phonemes) predisposes to erroneous interpretations and is a source of fallacies, owing to the ambiguity of the terms used and the emotional nuance with which they are expressed.
For this reason our OIYOYOIDAA (our way of expressing ideas by means of the encoded repetition of several words in the context of a normal conversation) was chosen to serve as the basis for the verbal communication of our AADOO-AUGOOA (logical) concepts. Transcendent ideas are thus expressed in a language of mathematical basis.
In this way, the OEMII of UMMO can use at will three verbal instruments, which are used according to the needs of the individual at each moment.
The first, DU-OI-OIYOO (it can be translated as linking language), uses ideograms in its graphic expression, and connected or linked words that represent concepts, values and concrete objects, or else complex orders of ideas. It is a vehicle that serves for conversing about routine matters (domestic, technical, everyday macrosocial language) (See Note 8).
NOTE 8. -
On another occasion we shall tell you about our form of communication OANNEAOIYOYOO (you would say “TELEPATHY”). It allows us to connect the members of our SOCIAL NETWORK over great distances. Two difficulties, however, cloud this channel of information:
Initiating contact between two OEMII requires a certain time.
Complex concepts of a transcendental logical character cannot be conveyed by this channel, which is useful only for the transmission of simple and commonplace ideas.
During the teaching process; at meetings of a transcendent character; in dialogues among what you would call intellectuals; when the hierarchies of our society (our supreme authorities are situated on three planes: UMMOAELEWE, UMMOAELEVEANI and UMMOEMII) must address the members of the Social Network for transcendent reasons; and in typical cases when the urgency of the matter requires great informative speed, two orders of ideas can be poured out onto our interlocutor simultaneously. Of the two communications, the more transcendent, complex one, or the one that requires an expression of great exactness, is elaborated by means of a numerical encoding in which each digit is captured through the repetition “n times” of the same phoneme, with the help of a peculiar modulation of these. (See Note 4).
NOTE 4. -
We illustrate this modality of verbal communication of information with a real example.
In this type of language no “words” are used; propositions are encoded by agglutinating the components of the sentence (subject, predicate and verb, as you would say) in the form of an encoded proposition. Euphony matters less than the real meaning of the thought.
Thus the proposition:
“That greenish planet seems to float in space”
would be expressed in our ordinary language (DU OI OIYOO) in this way:
AYIIO NOOXOEOOYAA DOEE USGIGIIAM
but if we wish to express it by means of the OIYOYOIDAA, we shall need only three encoded symbols.
PROPOSITION: (That planet floats in space) CORRECTIONS: (Greenish), (seems; we believe that)
three numbers are used (in the duodecimal system); the proposition requires seven digits and the corrections five and four digits respectively.
Thus, in a trivial chat such as
UAEXOÓE IANNO IAVAMII lE OEMII - UAMII XOA AALOA
the preceding information would be interspersed as follows:
AEXOÓE IANNOO IANNO IAVÁMII lE lE IE UÁMII XOA AALOA AALOA AALOA.
in which the digits can be expressed in two ways: by repeating certain phonemes, and by markedly modulating some of these words in a characteristic way.
It is this latter modality that serves as the basis for a third kind of language which, taking advantage of the fundamental encoding of the more elaborate propositions (numerical encoding), establishes flexible rules for the communication of information, much more complex and exact.
So when we need to dialogue or to express transcendent ideas of a logico-mathematical, “metaphysical” or physical character, we require a singular encoding of propositions, formulated in such a way that our dialectic meets no idiomatic, phonetic or emotional obstructions. The high gain in informative power compensates for the slowness or lack of fluency of the flow of verbal communication.
We observe notable discrepancies between the logical bases familiar to you and ours.
We deny the EARTH principle of the excluded third (exclusion of the middle, enunciated by Aristotle), according to which propositions can only be TRUE or FALSE.
A certain dialectical line likewise requires not accepting the principle you call CONTRADICTION (for example in the field we call the Theory of BIEEWIGUU) (it can be translated as psychophysiology).
We respect in all cases what you call the principle of IDENTITY.
What we have just told you requires a clarification. In our normal “becoming”, in our routine life, our dialectic may be confused with yours. If I say that YES, I woke up at 26 UIW, that proposition is TRUE, or I may have falsified reality, in which case no other kind of statement than TRUE or FALSE is possible (and this HERE, in my three-dimensional frame of my WAAM (Universe)).
For the typical purposes of daily life, this artificial bipolar-bivalent principle is valid and useful (nor do you need, in the market, to make relativistic corrections to the mass of a piece of merchandise that moves from the trader to the customer).
But when we need to speculate about transcendent values, or try to study concepts that you would call gnoseological, ontological, physical, biological, theological... that principle is totally to be rejected.
This is precisely the great obstacle we alluded to in preceding paragraphs. How can we set out our metaphysical bases to you if our respective “languages” rest on contradictory logical principles? The problem is not solved by transcribing the meanings of phonemes, as you may suspect.
That is the reason (apart from those inherent in an imperative of censorship) why in our reports we are obliged to use Earth-centred similes, mutilated and narrow propositions that prune away all the informative richness of our dialectical expressions. The mere use of the verb TO BE already restricts all our possibilities. The whole ontology of the thinkers of EARTH is saturated with expressions such as “TO BE”, “I AM NOT”, “I EXIST”, with no option for other forms of different content.
In this sense the orientation of neopositivist thinkers of EARTH such as Rusell is clear-sighted, not as regards the rejection of all metaphysics but as a demand for a revision of language. As long as you do not clarify your forms of informative communication, the process of searching for truth will be very laborious and slow.
