Why can't contradictions be meant?

I love you and I do not love you. — Agent Smith

As humans we easily strive to complete and resolve contradictions through proper context, charitable interpretation, relevant experience et cetera. We make as much sense of nonsense as we can but to put words/intentions/meaning where there is a lack of clarity and completeness, we risk miscommunication. I'm not sure I have any idea of what you're trying to communicate in this OP.

I love you if/when... and I don't love you if/when...

I alternate between loving you and hating you for the following reasons... (give me the damn reasons!)

When Diana told me that morning that she loved and didn't love me, I was confused. I told Diana to explain herself, which of my behaviors she found problematic, but she just kept saying over and over again that she loved and didn't love me. It was at that point I realized, Diana must've had a glitch in her software. I asked her again what was wrong with me and she said she cannot stand it when I state the obvious. But I sat her down, crooned in her ear and made her listen that stating the obvious is a fundamental feature of my character and that if she could not tolerate it I'd have to modify her or overwrite her character. She rolled her eyes and called me a soddy twat in her Estuary English accent. She said mean things.

You're trying to dice an onion with a spoon.

You love these conundrums Fool/Agent.

I'm not sure how the Gibran quote informs this - it simply talks about how we mess up our public utterances.

As for loving and not loving someone, I think you can love/hate someone. Emotions are complex things. Words are often attempts at capturing how we feel but in making the commitment to verbalizing, we can trap the idea in language and apparent contradiction.

Why can't contradictions be meant? — Raymond

Meaning has to do with cogitation. Try thinking of a contradiction: imagine an apple both (all) red and not (all) red.

The issue isn't about love per se, although in my experience love is a rich seam of contradictions.

What I'm trying to say is rather simple.

1. I can say/write a contradiction: The apple is (all) red & The apple is not (all) red. There, I said it and I wrote it.

2. I can't think a contradiction: Try thinking of an apple that's (all) red and not (all) red. You cant.

Thought is constrained by logic but language is not.

You're trying to dice an onion with a spoon. — Noble Dust

Why? Is it because I'm using language & logic to examine language & logic? Granted a circularity, nevertheless we have no choice in the matter.

Please read my reply to Nils Loc.

G'day all!

Why? Is it because I'm using language & logic to examine language & logic? Granted a circularity, nevertheless we have no choice in the matter. — Agent Smith

Gibran's quote is the onion and logic is the spoon.

Or, in your terms:

L = I love you and I do not love you. — Agent Smith

Incorrect. Start again.

2. I can't think a contradiction: Try thinking of an apple that's (all) red and not (all) red. You cant. — Agent Smith

What if I see the apple as red because I'm wearing red tinting spectacles that colors all apples red, but Mary, across the way, is wearing her green tinting spectacles that color all apples green. Here we have a situation where an apple is all red and then not all red from a conflicting secondary point of view. Can I imagine that I'm also Mary, staring simultaneously aside myself at an all red and all green apple? Maybe we are a two headed twin.

We want as much as possible to fix/solve the contradiction, to find a reason for the difference. As to whether we "think a contradiction" that is a strange turn of phrase. We might have to ask the judges of the Right Way of Speaking whether it is allowed, and whether I can think that I think a contradiction, rather than recognize a contradiction.

Gibran's quote is the onion and logic is the spoon. — Noble Dust

Flexibility is an asset I was told.

Incorrect. Start again. — Noble Dust

There's nothing to be correct about. :chin:

You're off-topic.

Flexibility is an asset I was told. — Agent Smith

Eh?

There's nothing to be correct about. :chin: — Agent Smith

Does L = love?

L = (I love you & I don't love you).

A bit unorthodox/irregular I agree but not something that should undermine my point.

So how do you derive L from the Gibran quote? I'm not seeing it.

So how do you derive L from the Gibran quote? I'm not seeing it — Noble Dust

Oh! Gibran's relevance is only to the extent that his quote contains the phrase "said but not meant".

Ah. So the poetry and meaning of the Gibran quote is irrelevant to the thread?

Ah. So the poetry and meaning of the Gibran quote is irrelevant to the thread? — Noble Dust

I didn't say that, but yeah, I couldn't a more apt quote. Sorry if you found the quote more interesting than the main point of my OP.

Not only did I find the quote more interesting than your OP, I find your OP weird in that you begin with a cherry picked phrase from a mystical poet and then immediately divorce yourself from the quote. Why begin with the quote?

Why begin with the quote? — Noble Dust

said and not meant — Agent Smith

That doesn't answer my question.

That doesn't answer my question. — Noble Dust

Kahlil Gibran's quote is apposite to the extent he states that there are things that can be said/written (language) but not meant (thought).

Tibetan buddhists view a person as tripartite:

1. Mind
2. Speech
3. Body

This framework yields the following curiousity:

1. Mind (contradictions inconceivable) [think]
2. Speech (contradictions sayable/writeable) [speak]
3. Body (contradictions undoable) [act]

Update

Did language precede thought or was it the other way round?

You're off-topic. — Agent Smith

Are you on topic?

Are you on topic? — Nils Loc

I see no reason to doubt that.

Kahlil Gibran's quote is apposite to the extent he states that there are things that can be said/written (language) but not meant (thought). — Agent Smith

You're trying to dice an onion with a spoon.

You're trying to dice an onion with a spoon. — Noble Dust

You said that already! :lol:

Kahlil Gibran's quote is apposite to the extent he states that there are things that can be said/written (language) but not meant (thought). — Agent Smith

I thought the quote translated meant - to those we love, bad things are said we don't really mean while we forget to say the loving things we really feel. I think this well worn notion is the plot of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. :cool:

Correct.

:sweat:

@Nils Loc

Sorry if you were offended by my reply, it was wrong to dismiss your post as off-topic.

Let me reiterate the issue at hand:

God exists & God doesn't exist. See? I wrote that down and I even vocalized it just to make sure.

However, I can't think God exists & God doesn't exist. It's impossible! My mind goes blank as if someone struck me on my head with a baseball bat.

I thought the quote translated meant - to those we love bad things are said we don't really mean and we forget to tell them the loving things we really feel. I think this well worn notion is the plot of Indiana Joens and the Last Crusade. :cool: — Tom Storm

Yes, that's precisely the way I understand it too. :cool:

Somehow reminds me of Freedom of Speech

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. — Voltaire