BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER-THOUGHTS ON NEGATION


	REMEMBERING  WHAT  LOGICIANS  SAY  ABOUT  NOT  CONFUSING  THE
NEGATION  OF A SET WITH ITS COMPLIMENT, I STILL BELIEVE THAT "I DON'T
LIKE HIM" HAS AS ITS PREFERRED MEANING "I DISLIKE HIM" RATHER THAN "I
AM NEUTRAL OR INDIFFERENT TO HIM".
	BUT NOTICE THAT IN SOME SEMANTIC SPACE,  OPPOSITES  ARE  MUCH
CLOSER  THAN  ANY OTHER PAIRINGS BECAUSE THEY SHARE A DIMENSION. THUS
IN ATTACKING SOMETHING ONE REALLY COUNTERSUPPORTS IT.
	HEISENBERG SAID THAT THE OPPOSITE OF A SHALLOW TRUTH IS FALSE
BUT THE OPPOSITE OF A DEEP  TRUTH  IS  ALSO  TRUE.  THUS  MATTER  AND
ANTI-MATTER  EXIST AS TRUE. OSCAR WILDE AND GBS CONSCIOUSLY EXPLOITED
OUR BELIEFS THAT OPPOSITES (OR NEGATIONS) ARE TRUE. ("EVERY MAN KILLS
THE THING HE LOVES", ETC.).
	AMONG OTHER ARGUMENTS,  THE  REASON  I  CAN'T  BELIEVE  THOSE
"TALKING"  CHIMPS  POSSESS  LANGUAGE IS THAT THEY NEVER USE NEGATIONS
EXCEPT IN THE SENSE OF "I  DON'T  WANT".  THE  OTHER  TWO  SENSES  OF
NEGATION,  I.E.  NONEXISTENCE  AND  DENIAL,  ARE  NEVER USED BY THEM.
NOTICE HUMANS DO NOT DENY SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT ASSERTED.
	FREUD  HAD AN AMUSING SUGGESTION REGARDING NEGATIONS OF DREAM
REPORTS. WHEN SOMEONE SAYS "I HAD A DREAM LAST NIGHT ABOUT  A  WOMAN.
IT  WAS  NOT  MY  MOTHER",  ONE SHOULD ASSUME THE IDEA UNDERLYING THE
VISUAL IMAGE OF THE  WOMAN  ACTUALLY  INVOLVED  HIS  MOTHER.  IF  ONE
INVARIABLY  TAKES  THE  POSITION THAT ALL NEGATIONS ARE DENIALS, SOME
FUNNY THINGS CAN HAPPEN.
	IN  YOUR PRAGMATIC IMPLICATIONS OR INFERENCES, WOULDN'T IT BE
MORE PRECISE TO SAY THAT IF AN  AGENT  CAUSES  X  TO  MOVE,  THEN  HE
DESIRES  OR WANTS THE RESULTANT SITUATION BUT HE DOES NOT NECESSARILY
"LIKE"  IT.  THIS  ALLOWS  AN  AGENT  TO  PRODUCE  NEGATIVELY  VALUED
SITUATIONS IN ORDER TO COPE WITH SOMETHING.
	GOOD TALK. IT INSPIRED JOHN TO WANT TO SAY SOMETHING  AND  BE
BARKED AT ALSO.