Okay. So, 'you', actually BELIEVE that 'you' REALLY ARE the 'ultimate guru', and, the 'true arbiter of truth', correct?Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pmfuck i hate this formatting bullshitAge wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:56 amIs it at all possible that "another" has answered MORE philosophical questions than you and/or has BETTER definitions and understanding that does ACTUALLY work, then you have and do?
Or do you BELIEVE that 'you', the self called "advocate", REALLY are the "ultimate guru" and "true arbiter of truth"?
No, it is not possible. If anyone else has a way to answer all philosophical questions they're either wrong (and my story can explain exactly how and why) or they're telling the same story in a different way.
So, very simply, what does it mean 'to answer everything'?
I do NOT need to read any thing other your 'very simple' clarifications here, to my 'very simple' clarifying questions, in order to ascertain if you REALLY do KNOW HOW to 'answer everything'.
Also, it was once written: If you can not explain 'it' simply, then you do not understand 'it' well enough. So, let us SEE just how well enough you KNOW what you allege you do.
I do NOT know of ANY human being that was born any differently.
Or, do you think or believe some human beings are born following, or looking for, lies and deception?
But you would HAVE TO KNOW 'It' first, BEFORE you could follow 'It', and let it lead 'you'.
But you have FAILED to do this so far. For example; your understanding of Truth is wildly different than "others" is. In fact your version of 'Truth' is more or less like the preachers and priests of by gone eras. When they are questioned in regards to what some thing is, and they have not the slightest idea what the actual True and Right answer is, they, just like you, replied like you do now, and just say some thing like; "There are some things we human beings can not know".
Will you explain how this is understanding Truth and explaining Truth at every level of detail?
To me, this just sounds like a pure cop-out for NOT knowing 'things'.
And, if one claims to be READY to explain a theory of Everything, then SURELY they MUST BE ABLE to explain Everything, properly, correctly, AND sufficiently. Saying; "There are some things we human beings can NEVER know", is NOT a sufficient enough answer, well to me anyway. Besides it being just a prophetical response, with NO actual evidence NOR proof of being True or Correct at all, WHY would you have such an low self worth of the 'human being'? Considering what they have discovered, learned, and come to KNOW, especially considering WHERE they have actually come from, TELLING "others" that they can NOT come to discover, learn, and KNOW some more things, seems like a rather VERY foolish and stupid thing to say, and claim.
Do you write the letter 'i' in capitals some times and in small case at other times for a specific reason?
If yes, then WHY?
By the way, when you say you have seen many examples of people understanding 'truth' in part, then are you at all AWARE that that 'truth' is EXTREMELY RELATIVE? In fact that 'truth' is SO RELATIVE that what you are SEEING when you SEE people understand 'it', or not, is actually just your OWN perspective or version of what the 'truth' is, FIRST.
This does NOT make you the sole and only greatest holder of 'Truth', as you BELIEVE you are. In fact, I actually posed the question; 'Is it at all possible that "another" has answered MORE philosophical questions than you and/or has BETTER definitions and understanding that does ACTUALLY work, then you have and do? to you, to SEE if you actually understood what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.
By the way, YOU FAILED. SEE, if you Truly understood thee Truth, then you would understand and KNOW that you have NOT read, nor listened to, EACH and EVERY "other" person's thoughts, views, nor understandings, and therefore it is NOT at all possible for you to KNOW, at any given moment, whether or not that "another" has actually answered MORE philosophical questions than you, nor if they have BETTER definitions and/or a BETTER understanding than you have.
What is also SHOWED and REVEALED, from YOUR response, here is that once a human being BELIEVES some thing is true, like you do here, then they are NOT open at all to what thee one and only actual Truth IS, like you are SHOWING and REVEALING here, now.
I suggest when, and if, you are serious about trying to explain 'it' into usefulness, then STOP using the 'it' word. Because, if thee Truth be KNOWN, I have absolutely NO idea what the word 'it' refers to EXACTLY. OF COURSE, I could make an ASSUMPTION about what 'it' is that you are talking about and referring to, but, as I have previously explained, I do NOT like to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing at all. Because of just how easily ASSUMING ANY thing can lead one astray.
Maybe you're thinking of the same story from a different perspective? [/quote]
I am pretty sure, behind EVERY thinking, the EXACT SAME story lies. There are, however, just as many 'different perspectives' as there are human beings, which has to be sorted through and filtered to reach thee One and ONLY True and Right, Correct Story.
If you think or believe that you can explain Everything, or a theory of Everything, which is what you call 'your story', and/or REVEAL how Utopia can be reached, or come to be, by NOT involving God, et cetera [whatever 'God, and 'et cetera' refers to, from your 'perspective'], then I think you might be sadly mistaken. If 'you' are going to not include 'God' or 'other things' in YOUR story, or YOUR theory of Everything, just because they do NOT fit in with NOR suit YOUR perspective, but they fit in with and suit the majority of human beings, then I am pretty sure you are setting "your" OWN 'self' up to FAIL, miserably.
But I do suggest that when, and if, you can explain HOW God, and EVERY thing else, fit together PERFECTLY, which then SHOWS and ILLUSTRATES, or REVEALS, a CRYSTAL CLEAR PICTURE of just HOW a Utopia can be Created, then, and ONLY then, Utopia CAN COME, to be.
I do NOT have any, so called, "caveats". Either I CAN or I CAN NOT, back up and support with evidence or proof. And, I am OPEN to EACH and EVERY clarifying question, and I would LOVE to be challenged on EACH and EVERY one of my claims.
But OBVIOUSLY if your claim was SPECIFIC ENOUGH, then, to ' prove 'it' ', [the specific claim], would NOT be too much to ask for, SURELY?
Maybe the case is that your actual claim is NOT that 'specific enough', and that is WHY it is just too hard for you to PROVE to be true and accurate anyway?
Also, WHY not just back up and support YOUR claim with actual evidence and/or proof BEFORE anyone asks you to?
I agree that statistics can be turned around in just anyway to back up and support one's ALREADY held BELIEFS.Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm b) appeals to statistics, etc. are a conversation-ender. You can prove or disprove anything with statistics and the conversation about sources is an infinite bog. The conversation has to stick close to logical necessity to be productive, and that must assume a certain core of common understanding at least in vocabulary.
Remember, that what one defines as being 'logical necessity' "another" one might not. This might, or might not be, because of each one's ALREADY held BELIEFS.
Also, if ANY one is going to ASSUME a 'certain core of common understanding' among "others", then that one will far more likely be far more MISTAKEN.
Only through Truly OPEN-ended clarifying questioning, and Truly OPEN and Honest answering and clarifying is thee One and ONLY actual "common understanding" found, and itself UNDERSTOOD.
If it is, then it would be so much EASIER for 'you' to PROVIDE that, so called, "answer" here, now.
Obviously, for 'you' to provide an answer here is far EASIER than "other" to go looking for some answer, some where.
Will you provide a few examples of some of YOUR ideas, which are the inherent and necessary rationality of them is immediately obvious, to us?
I apologize. I AM VERY SORRY.Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm >To me, your, so called, "arguments" are neither sound, valid, or both. We are in a philosophy forum. So, if you do not like having this pointed out or are NOT YET able to back up and support your claims and arguments, then I suggest not producing them here, or going away and working on them and then bringing them back here.
You have never given me any indication of what sort of response might count as evidence for you.
And, usually I would just say, Okay. For a specific reason, which will be explained shortly. However,
The response that would count as 'evidence', for me, is the actual available body of facts or information indicating whether YOUR proposition or claim is true or valid.
And, the response that would count as 'proof', for me, is the actual unambiguous and irrefutable body of facts or information indicating that YOUR proposition or claim is actually True AND Valid.
I hope I have provided you with enough indication now of what is being sort EVERY time I ask for evidence and/or proof. And, again, I apologize profusely that I did NOT make this CLEAR to you, previously. But, I was UNAWARE that you WANTED or NEEDED this indication. You, ALSO, have NEVER actually given me any indication that you have WANTED or NEEDED this information BEFORE. SEE, if you HAD, then I WOULD HAVE given this information to you EARLIER.
I wonder if a person was also NOT willing to get all the technical and specific and draw things out in analytical detail, because that would defeat the larger purpose of The Truth being made accessible to all also, then if The Truth; e=mc2, would actually make sense to "others"?
If you are NOT prepared to explain 'This Truth' of YOURS simply, NOR technically, specifically, and in analytical detail, then actually if This Truth of YOURS will EVER be accessible to all?
Okay. I am NOT sure of the relevance of this though. Oh, and by the way, I am NOT really that interested either.
What is the 'it', exactly, which you claim is "tied all together", through YOUR story, which you call and claim is "The Whole Story"?Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm >I have absolutely NO idea what this means.
>What is this in reference to, and what does this mean, to you?
Someone mentioned you self-identify as autistic so this could be an issue. I'll try to stick closer to ordinary speech but i have a habit of mixing metaphors quite freely, and The Whole Story is entirely a metaphor; a metaphor explaining metaphors. (I mention TWS quite frequently because everything else i say is a part of it already and that's the central reference point that ties it all together.)
Are the words, 'Universal Taxonomy', so called, "ordinary speech"?
If they are, then you have to stick closer to MORE "ordinary speech" if you want "others", like 'me', to understand you better and more fully.
If, however, the words "Universal Taxonomy" are NOT actually "ordinary speech", then you have NOT 'tried' to hard to stick closer to "ordinary speech", from my perspective.
By the way, you will define what the words 'ordinary speech' actually mean, to 'you'?
Well you appear to be VERY RIGHT here.Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm That's really just another lens for TWS but it's one that is, as it suggests, the complete organization of everything. That's appealing, right? However... that part of TWS really doesn't have anything in it yet. That was going to be the last bit i worked on as it's a project that is only just beginning. That's also the great appeal - getting in on the ground floor of it.
That is; suggesting to a human being to skip your whole writings and just go to the end part, which is titled 'Universal Taxonomy', which, to 'you', means 'the COMPLETE organization of everything' BUT which REALLY is a part that does NOT have anything in it, YET. So, from my perspective, you are VERY RIGHT:
That suggesting, by skipping and going to this, so called, "end" part, which is what you said to do, is 'an Autistic perspective', itself. You did, after all, say; "From an Autistic perspective" to do this.
Also, some would say that indicating to, and asking a self-identified autistic one, if 'the complete organization of everything' part is appealing, especially, when that 'part' REALLY does NOT have ANY thing at all in it, YET, is NOT the most wisest and smartest thing that one could possibly do.
But, from my perspective, you have NOT yet even begun to REALLY analysis things, at all.Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm This is also a sneaky test because if you respond to this in a blase manner you're either autistic or unusually self-restrained. Someone who is not will probably respond with a heightened emotional state at having their inner workings publicly discussed by a complete stranger. Also, if you're autistic you'll probably appreciate my over-analysis of things.
In fact, you have even stated that you are: NOT willing to get all technical and specific and draw things out in analytical detail, which could be a CLEAR INDICATION that you actually CAN NOT, YET.
Well is it NOT YET OBVIOUS, to you, that if you REALLY want to SHOW and EXPRESS thee actual Truth, then speaking in metaphor could not be anymore ridiculous.
What exactly is the 'that', which is the 'kind of editing help you are looking for with The Whole Story, too?
If using less metaphors with The Whole Story is the kind of editing help you are looking for, then I would suggest; Using less metaphors, and, literally, speaking/writing more, literally.
Surely you did NOT help in REALIZING THIS, did you?
Remember it is YOUR story. So, it is ONLY 'you' who is the one who Truly KNOWS what thee actual Truth IS, which you are writing about, and writing about at the moment, metaphorically.
Also, remember, there are MANY upon MANY stories written, metaphorically, including MANY religious stories, which have NOT been, at all REALLY, successful in accomplishing what they were set out to reach and achieve, that is; Utopia, or 'world peace'. So, this is a STRONG and CLEAR indication that using 'metaphors', instead of what thee actual Truth IS, is NOT the best way to write YOUR Whole Story. But, being an 'ultimate guru', a 'true arbiter of truth', or one knowing how to answer everything, then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW this, correct?
Obviously writing just thee One and ONLY actual Truth, instead of writing metaphors, then you could NEVER be mistaken, and you could and would then be expressing what are unambiguous and irrefutable FACTS, ONLY.