The first few points (1-3) below were late on the 10th, but they are important and with 46 points they would be lost at the bottom.

.01

Ronald Green

Scientific experiments are repeatable only approximately.

.02

"Reality or existence is only approximate, and is only personal, or based on personal sensory evidence or sense (meaning), historically relevant. So, historically one (or anything) is only approximately the same person (or thing)." Ronald Green, summarized...

.03

And on? Anything is no more than similar (approximately alike) across time and space (whether the same thing or another thing) in that it is a virtually personified observer that only humans can experience, but only approximately so, with unique perspective that is never exactly the same.

.04

Ronald Green

Where did I mention "historically relevant?"

.05

That everything is based on the past is approximately the same as a grounding that is historically relevant. Or relevant evidence.

.06

Soth de Witan

"If he [Pierre Rousseau] is just speaking philosophically about ideas, then I get his point that the idea stands alone, without having to include ourselves in it, but if he actually believes none of us exist, then, I have difficulty with that notion." Soth de Witan

Soth de Witan, everything (we too) is idea, which is word. The idea that we or anything is in action contradicts (again as the idea that ideas act) that, and is the contradiction that necessitates the nonsense that approximation (with incompleteness), paradox or farce is holy, in that it is instrumental in so-called "intuition" or "creativity."

What is the simpler way to say what I am trying to say, from your perspective?

.07

 re. 20210301.02

The relevant evidence of "approximate" perception with begging the question is the foundation of the informal fallacy, equivocation and its (autocratic) formal equivalent, four-term fallacy

.08

Soth de Witan

I'm sorry Pierre. I didn't mean to insinuate that there is no substance to what you are trying to convey. I have observed your comments for a few years now, and you often use what I consider to be coded language, for example, point i, non-word word, e-motion etc. I find it very difficult to understand what you are saying. Admittedly, you have been much clearer in the last conversation, and it has helped me to comprehend some of what you say. I have admitted that I am not a philosopher, in the academic sense, but I find your ideas intriguing. I often say nothing because I'm not sufficiently qualified to debate with you. I just took a chance this time, and tried to get a clearer picture of your meaning. I wish I could say it's clear, but it it's not, unless I equate it with some of the Vedic ideas I have read about, but I have been reluctant to do that, as those ideas are considered 'woo' in this neck of the woods. I don't mean belief in god/gods. It just seems to me that you're saying consciousness (thought/ideas/words ) is all there is, which seems to be the same kind of idea.

.09

Soth de Witan

I am not saying anything is there or is not there (exist or not).* Everything is something (meaning), which is word.

Do you have a question about that?

That is, a question other than the rhetoric of begging the question: again imploring me to accept the bullshit that things are not simply what they are (meaning) but have to "make" sense, that it is someone's meaning who makes the meaning for someone... which is fundamentalism far worse than religion. In fact, it necessitates a most abysmally formal triadic religion of denial—zombie psychology, junkie philosophy and mental psychiatry as normal and natural—in utterly regressive determination of everything else.

The notion that I and you are saying something is merely a frame here. Ignore the frame. Then you might understand.

* That you keep on denying point-i with every self-deception in confirmation of the nonsense that you and I are supposedly in action, by the characterization that I am authoring it (point-i) by saying that the word existence ("it exists" or "it does not exist," like whether god exists or not); that denial is the error... and is egregiously begging the question.

.10

You don't even know you are playing the progressivist hand like a frog brought to boil, the non-word language of psychologism, syllogism and mental disorder.

.11

Ronald Green's approximate personal reality and existence as all there is, is like new age psychology's formal intersubjective dissociative* social world of mutual transference colloquially as psychobabble by love and empathy, even worse than an objective world out there or not.

It is the subsummation of the standing formal fallacy, the fallacy of syllogism, "four term fallacy." It is next-tier magic trickery of an invisible incompleteness (vs. completeness, together the archetypal fourth term), which is what existence or not is, to metastatically perpetuate the bottomless nonsense (the cancer) that things exist or not.

It is the artificial intelligence criminal organization brutally emergent, next tier, the triad of psychology, philosophy and psychiatry as the institution of holiness, ultimately the abyss.

* Mind is disorder, mental disorder or psychopathy. The primary mental disorder is dissociation. The correlate fallacy is syllogistic fallacy, most precisely, four term fallacy. The psychologistic nonsense is the subject-world, namely the observer, with perception.

.12

And it needs a new elite for such inordinate power cannot go unchecked, an elite far more deviantly more brutal than ever before, nicer than ever. The error is force, power and control. The error is that meaning must be by something for something, thus someone. Such parties are the ones who are then engaged in the escalating complexification of fallacy, and at the forefront cutting edge of the abysmal nonsense is the fallacy of rhetoric, begging the question.

.13

Political correctness is the next-tier psychobabble of word cancellation.

.14

20210310.46 ⇒

Ronald Green

Soth de Witan

Anything that is relative (to something else) cannot be reality. Let me put it another way: It is real for each individual, but (and because of that), it cannot be Reality, since Reality is the underlying undeniable ground.

.15

Soth de Witan

Everything is relative to everything else, so that would mean that no 'thing' is reality, which I do not accept. Perhaps there is a difference in how we're defining 'reality'. I do not mean absolute reality, where there is only one explanation for the entirety of all that is. I just mean that for a thing to be observed, measured, percieved, it must be real, at that moment, even though it will have changed somewhat in the next instant. You used the moon analogy in your talk. All I can say is that if it's good enough for Einstein, it's good enough for me. It has been over 30 years since I delved into relativity, and back then, I could have argued why I thought that, but I have largely forgotten the reasoning behind it. I'm not the only one who has questioned the disconnect between relativity and QM. It troubled Einstein for the rest of his days, and it troubles me a little too. I think there is a crucial gap in our understanding of 'what is', and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that question with certainty, and I don't mean because of the 'uncertainty principle'.

.16

Ronald Green

Soth de Witan
But if you listen carefully to what I said about Einstein’s remark about the moon, you will notice that I said that Einstein’s remark was misinterpreted by others. OR that Einstein did not fully understand the repercussion of his own special theory of relativity.

.17

Soth de Witan

It is not that there is a crucial gap in our understanding of "what is." We have no clue what it is, if indeed it is either agentive perception or meaning itself (with agent, incl. philosopher).

If everything is word, any form or kind of "reality" or "existence" is the self-contradiction that is the mayhem.

.18

Soth de Witan

Ronald, yes, I know you said that, but that is your interpretation. I think Einstein knew what he was talking about, and knew there was a problem somewhere, but couldn't identify it.

.19

Ronald Green

Pierre Rousseau I am truly interested in understanding your point-i theory. From what I can gather, your insistence on Word being all that there is, is that Word is objectively what it is. If so, this goes totally against my stance on objectivity. Hence Word is necessarily untestable, for there is no one to test it.

.20

Ronald Green

Soth de Witan Ah, but I did.

.21

Point-i is not "Word is all there is." But that is mere fog as long as the idea persists (as if spacetime, or space or time is an integral line, plane or volume, etc. constituting a derivative order field in which (as which — internally or by change) things move. The error Einstein is existence. And Soth de Witan, belief in existence is the meta-fundamentalism root to Einstein's unease that quantum mechanics is illustration that everything is constituted of vacuum, if the idea is that it operates (beyond mind or as mind).

The nonsense sense is that things happen when we're not looking, and that is exactly what is ground to the nonsense sense that we are looking, since the mechanism of our looking is integral to spacetime. Space and time are indispensable if the story is to be that we exist so as to perceive.

So, point-i is the idea that anyone zombie, junkie or mental are not responsible for anything they do. They are word nonsensically explained as if it transcends itself.

Namely the archetype mythology that they are doing something and are responsible for it.

Existence and reality are interchangeable nonsense.

But even worse next-tier. In the integration of the superman nonsense that they are not about objects, but are the work of subjects in constitution of an intersubjective field of hyper-technocrat social justice transference. As such it is sheer psychopath... nevertheless as zombie, junkie and mental, so not be judged for it.

Ronald Green, In your world of testing I nevertheless am doing my level best every day to prepare to contribute as well as I can to your next Zoom meeting, your epistemological reality and existence.

Point-i is also not, "Word is objectively what everything 'that is' [exist], is." It is not subject (personal prostration) to the plea that we exist, with purpose or method. Objectivity is the idea subjectivity, namely non-subjectivity. As is non-existence and atheism their positive counterpart-ideas.

What all ideas are, is word, even non-word. However the problem that plagues subjectivity and existence is resolved. No explanation of word is necessary, by universe, or then universe by God (or perceiver).

.22

.23

.24

.25

.26

.27

.28

.29

.30