Scott Mayers wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:21 am
There is no difference to some 'mover'. How can this be anything but something that has some mystical willpower to be something it is not? [ie, "stable"]
I propose only the nature of exhaustion of all possibilities. The 'pattern' of those sub-worlds in totality that have the pattern to maintain 'stability' (a mere concept of consistency) that contrasts to contradiction. I use the word "contradiction" to reference the idea without some actual "desire" to be 'stable'.
bahman wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:15 pm
I cannot understand what you said here.
Scott, the problem of not understanding you does not lie in some inferior IQ by us. It lies in your style of writing.
Take this paragraph, for instance:
There is no (1) difference to some 'mover'. How can (2)this be anything but something that has some mystical willpower to be something (3) it is not? [ie, "stable"]
1. Difference between what and what?
2. You used a demonstrative pronoun, "this" without any defined or implied or clearly referenced antecedent.
3. You used a personal (in this case also acting as a demonstrative) pronoun that has no defined, implied, or clearly referenced antecedent.
I wish writers would stop using pronouns in a manner that is clear to them, but only to them, that is, to the writers, but not to the readers.
Another example for why we don't understand you may be this:
"I use the word "contradiction" to reference the idea without some actual "desire" to be 'stable'."
So... you negatively defined contradiction. You gave no indication what it may mean, you only gave an indication what it does not mean. But that leaves an undefined and huge number (in the millions) of what you could mean with "contradiction", and you leave your readers in the dark. In a semantically close paraphrasing, you wrote "I redefined the word "contradicion", and in my new definition "contradiction" means something which I won't reveal to you; let it suffice to say it does not mean that it (antecedent, by the way?) has an actual desire to be 'stable'."
I don't think you can fault your readers for not understanding you.