Some Solid Ideas

[Scott Mayers]

But I'm getting off topic. I agree in essence to what you mean. If we can even remotely think of something certain, it has to relate to everything in some way.

Does that actually mea anything? Are you a fan of Derrida by any chance?

?who?

[I Like Sushu]

What does this mean:

If we can even remotely think of something certain, it has to relate to everything in some way.

[Scott Mayers]

What does this mean:

If we can even remotely think of something certain, it has to relate to everything in some way.

[Please quote the whole context. I write on many different posts and in different forums and often write sentences that necessitate others or are in response to others. Also context to how you write to responses or to distinct individuals changes how something appears to others.]

You have a problem with treating logic and abstractions as something real on a more basic level, correct? This requires a different thread but I welcome your views.

Edit: I looked back and noticed that this was a response to RCSaunders:

Please see, "Corollary 3" in my recent notes on Ontology.

He had "Ontology" linked and the corollary said:

Corollary 3: The Necessity of Relationship Anything that exists must have some relationship to everything else that exists. Nothing can exist that does not have some relationship to everything else that exists.

So IN CONTEXT, I was agreeing to this in part. If you have some strict absolute, it implies that it is so UNIQUE that it cannot share anything with any other reality or it would have the property of "being shareable" AT LEAST. That is, it would undo the nature of it being 'absolute'. I say that they CAN possibly exist but then requires that absolute exclusiveness in a way that we cannot directly determine what it is. You can define some variable as 'unknown' or 'ineffable' this way. Then you only deal with the pointers (or variables, etc) without concerning yourself with what it points to (or contains). This is useful method for logic when dealing with foundations.

[I Like Sushu]

Scott -

The context was directly above my initial question on the previous page. You’re just avoiding answering me. Why? If you don’t wish to answer fair enough, but don’t play games with me or I’ll just ignore you.

My qualm is the clarity of the sentence. Why ‘remotely’ and why ‘in some way’. If those were left out the sentence is still vague, but I believe I get it. Adding those two things made me unsure what you were trying to say.

[jayjacobus]

Scott -

The context was directly above my initial question on the previous page. You’re just avoiding answering me. Why? If you don’t wish to answer fair enough, but don’t play games with me or I’ll just ignore you.

My qualm is the clarity of the sentence. Why ‘remotely’ and why ‘in some way’. If those were left out the sentence is still vague, but I believe I get it. Adding those two things made me unsure what you were trying to say.

Sometomes the critics don't get it or use your words out of context.

But it's hard to ignore when you are the victim of their perversion.

[I Like Sushu]

Scott -

The context was directly above my initial question on the previous page. You’re just avoiding answering me. Why? If you don’t wish to answer fair enough, but don’t play games with me or I’ll just ignore you.

My qualm is the clarity of the sentence. Why ‘remotely’ and why ‘in some way’. If those were left out the sentence is still vague, but I believe I get it. Adding those two things made me unsure what you were trying to say.

Sometomes the critics don't get it or use your words out of context.

But it's hard to ignore when you are the victim of their perversion.

I’ve noticed!

Definitely maybe!

[Scott Mayers]

Scott -

The context was directly above my initial question on the previous page. You’re just avoiding answering me. Why? If you don’t wish to answer fair enough, but don’t play games with me or I’ll just ignore you.

My qualm is the clarity of the sentence. Why ‘remotely’ and why ‘in some way’. If those were left out the sentence is still vague, but I believe I get it. Adding those two things made me unsure what you were trying to say.

Just ignore me, please. I don't like threats by someone I just met.

I gave the context specific to another I was responding to. If you can't accept my explanation, I don't care. I don't necessarily write without error. That I may write some sentence SPECIFICALLY with a mistake on my part for expressing or misinterpretation of others reading me, when I respond to explain, it addresses the issue as though I didn't write the first sentence.

If you don't get that I don't require accepting YOUR interpretation of what I wrote regardless of follow-up explanation, you aren't competent to speak with me.

[I Like Sushu]

Scott -

Threats? That’s just silly. I merely asked for clarification. It wasn’t a critique just an inquiry. You could’ve just answered honestly - yes, none of us write clearly all of the time.