A set cannot be a member of itself because the members of that set are
identical, and so unless they also were members of themselves, it could
not be included.

If there were qualifiers eg: this item is an animal, it is a mammal, it
is large.
So member of animal, member of mammal, member of large.

So much for his paradox. Expound on this for the barber.

The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not
shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?

Two different sets here, the operator and the operand.

In article <hUCdnUfmlYYFbZv4nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, me@my.com
says...
>
>
>A set cannot be a member of itself because the members of that set are
>identical, and so unless they also were members of themselves, it could
>not be included.
>
>If there were qualifiers eg: this item is an animal, it is a mammal, it
>is large.
>So member of animal, member of mammal, member of large.
>
>So much for his paradox. Expound on this for the barber.
>
>The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not
>shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?
>
>Two different sets here, the operator and the operand.
>

So to begin with he has not shaved himself, so then he shaves himself,
and now conditions have changed so he doesn't shave himself any more.
No paradox there. Just the normal passage of time and events are
separated by time.

These are the sorts of things that acacademics who want to do nothing
for a living must omit in order to wrte papers and fudge data.

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:36:35 AM UTC-7, Rick_S wrote:
> In article <hUCdnUfmlYYFbZv4...@giganews.com>, m...@my.com
> says...
> >
> >
> >A set cannot be a member of itself because the members of that set are
> >identical, and so unless they also were members of themselves, it could
> >not be included.
> >
> >If there were qualifiers eg: this item is an animal, it is a mammal, it
> >is large.
> >So member of animal, member of mammal, member of large.
> >
> >So much for his paradox. Expound on this for the barber.
> >
> >The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not
> >shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?
> >
> >Two different sets here, the operator and the operand.
> >
> So to begin with he has not shaved himself, so then he shaves himself,
> and now conditions have changed so he doesn't shave himself any more.
> No paradox there. Just the normal passage of time and events are
> separated by time.
>
> These are the sorts of things that acacademics who want to do nothing
> for a living must omit in order to wrte papers and fudge data.

I wish I could help, it must be hard being so much cooler than anybody else..

Bertrand Russell is at once labeled a git, who at the same time is "there is
the most perfect logician at Oxford, it is Bertrand Russell", who not only with
Alfred North Whitehead proved 1 + 1 = 2 in a "Principia Mathematica", have
usual sorts he did his own stunts, though these days are getting blamed by
apologetics, because "the statue must come down, it's Bertrand Russell",
not so much "the statue must come down" as "a new statue must come up".

I'd like the guy but I am constantly pointing directly at him and saying
"Russell, j'accuse!" and he's like "as long as you compare me to the Pope".

Then, what people learned or I learned about Russell, is that Russell, lived
in the age of nuclear disarmament. So, "nuclear disarmament: N.D.", is one
the semaphores or the sign, that "The symbols N., D., together make the peace sign",
where "the peace sign is the old hippie peace sign", as also where "the usual
peace sign gesture is the two-finger peace sign, little fingers under the thumb".

So, Russell was such a pompous git that he was a celebrity. Then today
in contempt it's like "it must be pretty good to have to get any contempt
in apologetics of modern mathematics and modern logic", "Russell",
as to where "not to get disrespectful, thus subject to contempt".

He builds about an entire arithmetic in about three laws,
Quine's recommended to help explain "... this is Russell's theory, ...".

Then, Russell's paradox is the go-to for any "numbering, counting, ...",
"the theory we uncountably antidiagonalize, under Russell's ordinary".

I'm not I hope a pompous git but some pompous gits are actually likable.

Russell: .... Can't say.

I respect him, ....

Bertrand Russell is about 20'th century first-guy in his field.

I.e., "obviously I know that anybody could think pompous git".

I don't know many pompous gits, I think everybody's humble respectful,
themselves.

Certainly though there are inflated people!

Russell though you can pick up or put down along with the rest of it.

In article <9295672c-c06e-4bf4-b8fb-a01a2c3cdf05n@googlegroups.com>,
ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com says...
>
>
>On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:36:35 AM UTC-7, Rick_S wrote:
>> In article <hUCdnUfmlYYFbZv4...@giganews.com>, m...@my.com
>> says...
>> >
>> >
>> >A set cannot be a member of itself because the members of that set are
>> >identical, and so unless they also were members of themselves, it could
>> >not be included.
>> >
>> >If there were qualifiers eg: this item is an animal, it is a mammal, it
>> >is large.
>> >So member of animal, member of mammal, member of large.
>> >
>> >So much for his paradox. Expound on this for the barber.
>> >
>> >The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not
>> >shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?
>> >
>> >Two different sets here, the operator and the operand.
>> >
>> So to begin with he has not shaved himself, so then he shaves himself,
>> and now conditions have changed so he doesn't shave himself any more.
>> No paradox there. Just the normal passage of time and events are
>> separated by time.
>>
>> These are the sorts of things that acacademics who want to do nothing
>> for a living must omit in order to wrte papers and fudge data.
>
>I wish I could help, it must be hard being so much cooler than anybody else.
>
>Bertrand Russell is at once labeled a git, who at the same time is "there is
>the most perfect logician at Oxford, it is Bertrand Russell", who not only
with
>Alfred North Whitehead proved 1 + 1 = 2 in a "Principia Mathematica", have
>usual sorts he did his own stunts, though these days are getting blamed by
>apologetics, because "the statue must come down, it's Bertrand Russell",
>not so much "the statue must come down" as "a new statue must come up".
>
>I'd like the guy but I am constantly pointing directly at him and saying
>"Russell, j'accuse!" and he's like "as long as you compare me to the Pope".
>
>Then, what people learned or I learned about Russell, is that Russell, lived
>in the age of nuclear disarmament. So, "nuclear disarmament: N.D.", is one
>the semaphores or the sign, that "The symbols N., D., together make the
peace sign",
>where "the peace sign is the old hippie peace sign", as also where "the
usual
>peace sign gesture is the two-finger peace sign, little fingers under the
thumb".
>
>So, Russell was such a pompous git that he was a celebrity. Then today
>in contempt it's like "it must be pretty good to have to get any contempt
>in apologetics of modern mathematics and modern logic", "Russell",
>as to where "not to get disrespectful, thus subject to contempt".
>
>
>He builds about an entire arithmetic in about three laws,
>Quine's recommended to help explain "... this is Russell's theory, ...".
>
>Then, Russell's paradox is the go-to for any "numbering, counting, ...",
>"the theory we uncountably antidiagonalize, under Russell's ordinary".
>
>I'm not I hope a pompous git but some pompous gits are actually likable.
>
>Russell: .... Can't say.
>
>I respect him, ....
>
>Bertrand Russell is about 20'th century first-guy in his field.
>
>I.e., "obviously I know that anybody could think pompous git".
>
>I don't know many pompous gits, I think everybody's humble respectful,
>themselves.
>
>Certainly though there are inflated people!
>
>Russell though you can pick up or put down along with the rest of it.
>

Well I read a bunch of his stuff including his analysis of religion as much
as I could take.

And wasn't he instrumental in analytic pholosophy?

"Analytic philosophy as practiced by Russell logically analyzes concepts,
knowledge, and language to say what there is and how we know it. Analysis is
a significant part of analytic philosophy and its role in the movement is
largely due to Russell."

So much of academia seems to be about make work projects.

For a brilliant logician, he missed the part where the barber hasn't shaved
himself, so he shaves himself, then once he has shaved himself, he does not
shave himself to meet the new conditions.
Somehow that logic flew completely over his head.

His analysis on religion I think was a bit wordy.

"New truth is often uncomfortable," Bertrand Russell wrote, "but it is the
most important achievement of our species." In "Religion and Science" (1961),
his popular polemic against religious dogma, he covers the ground from
demonology to quantum physics, yet concedes that science cannot touch the
profound feelings of personal religious experience."

Unless you yourself have a Eureka event.