Neither does my thinking not apply, nor does it apply, nor both, nor neither.
Neither have I refuted myself, nor have I not refuted myself, nor both, nor neither.
Don't let yourself be impulsively misguided when I am using standard verbal expressions that are formally affirmative or formally negative. As I've instructed yourself above you should always associate the [negative or positive] tetralemma formula to get my message. Since obviously you can't or you are not willing to you're very good in your dogmatist role play and make a good conversation partner for me!
You may also understand my expressions this way:
e.g. "Your thinking is the thinking of a dogmatist."
Here the basis for my statement is "Your thinking is not the thinking of a dogmatist." with a truth value of -1 assigned. And through applying an opposing affirmation I am only removing the -1 negation without switching to the positive truth value +1 which results and a 0 ('zero') truth value. Thus mentally assigning 'zero' truth is neither affirmation (+1) nor negation (-1). Be referred to What I've written above:
SteRo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:34 pm Zenny, I think what needs to be further analysed is affirmation and negation.
Let's take the proposition p.
Affirmation may be expressed like "p is true" or "it is the case that p". You may see that there is a mental factor involved when one says "p is true" or "it is the case that p" and that mental factor is assigned a subjective truth value of +1.
Now another contradicts saying "p is false" or "it is not the case that p but not-p is the case". Then this is called negation of p, right? Since from the perspective of the subject this is the exact opposite of the affirmation a mental factor is involved which is assigned a subjective value of -1.
Now both, +1 and -1 are connected with belief. In case of +1 there is belief that p is true and in case of -1 there is belief that not-p is true.
But what about '0' (zero)? If the expression "it is not the case that p" is without "not-p is the case" but is a mere removal of affirmation of p without affirmation of not-p? In that case a mental factor is involved which must be assigned a subjective truth value of 0 (zero). See? In this case saying "is not" or "has not" or "does not" does not affirm the negation to be true but only removes the affirmation without setting something in its place and the result is neither +1 nor -1 but 0 ('zero' truth).
So when conventionally negating something in speech that may mean that one affirms the negation to be true (switching from +1 to -1) or that may mean that one only removes the affirmation (switching from +1 to 0) without affirming the opposite (-1). But as to the words used in both cases it's something like 'is not', 'has not' or 'does not' which makes it impossible for a believer in truths to differentiate a negative claim of truth (-1) from an expression of non-belief (0) in either affirmation or negation.
Therefore for the dumb believers in truths the skeptics have the tetralemma expression "neither is, nor is not, nor both, nor neither" which leaves no room for misunderstanding a simple negation as a truth claim since it extends the negation to all possible alternatives of truth claims