Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wesmorris, Dec 7, 2007.
but you just rated stuff, and your "face value" is a 'value' which is a rating.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I think it all boils down to that last semantic quibbling I made.
To me the phrase: It is possible that…
Implies to heavily that the speaker is asserting the way things are.
‘For all I know it is possible that…’
does not bother me the same way. (this all in the context of a speaker claiming to have no absolute knowledge)
Is it possible that you are incorrect and it is possible to have absolute knowledge?
If your answer is: No
Doesn’t this constitute absolute knowledge?
A further related but not identical question:
Is it possible that considering ones beliefs all tentative is not the best lifestyle choice?
(again a ‘no’ answer raises issues of your having absolute knowledge)
Another way of phrasing the first questions is:
Do you think that the only absolute knowledge is metacongnitive?
And doesn’t that seem a bit strange. That we cannot know about anything absolutely but epistemological rules?
Well maybe you're projecting a smidge. I know what you mean, but cut me a smidge of slack on minor semantical errors on my part if you don't mind - unless of course they become exceedingly relevant.
Here's an unfortunately necessary semantical breakdown:
The term "absolute knowledge" can be applied in a lot of different ways.
=> but I think the term is self-contradicting.
"absolute" means "universal".
"knowledge" is a collection of abstracted experience.
there is no "experience" (something that happens to the individual - is "to" an individual) to something that isn't an individual -> like the universe.
hence: knowledge is subjective because it is "to" something that embodies its meaning.
what say you?
(this space cleared for objections)
Think of this as pure geometry. It's a very simple relationship that I cannot find a way to rationally deny. To me this entire line of thinking is based maintaining consistency with it. Here is a simple model:
That's it. Inside the circle is "that which experiences perception. The circle itself is representative of "the limits of perception" - whatever those happen to be, regardless of the value. Assuming perception has some "extent" at a given time, the circle represents the boundary of self and not-self in all possible representations thereof that are confined to self. Outside the circle is "that which interacts with perception"... "the tao", or "objective reality". It's the "unknown", that couldn't be known or it would be called that. It's the rock, not the mental impact of the rock.
and it's description are not wholly representative of "objective reality", perhaps they are. The only means of validation is internal satisfaction as the the utility of the data - ego gratification. I do really think it all comes down to satisfaction or the lack thereof - sinks and sources and such in the conceptual inter-relationships we all got upstairs. it's all this analysis we're doing that's
As no matter what you utilize to justify acceptance or rejection - it was the inside of the circle that did the evaluation.
Oh.. finally a straightforward answer: I think it's quite possible that we all may have tons of absolute knowledge in the objective sense. However, I don't think it is possible nor necessary to absolutely confirm that we do.
Answer wasn't no or yes. Does that mean I'm "meta-evasive"?
Best to what end? Rather subjective don't you think? If you mean "best to whatever end deemed by the individual", well then sure yeah. This isn't a matter of "what I think you should believe", it's a matter to me of "what I can't deny".
If I want your shit, it's best that I know you have shit and I'm willing do do whatever I know I have to do to get it. Considering epistemology is really irrelevant to the task at hand. It's a matter of utility. I'm saying though.. that exactly. It's utility that you're really working with - absolute knowledge is utterly irrelevant in most contexts.
No I think the term absolute knowledge is self-contradictory.
Oh that brings up a point that always wigs me out a bit.
It's sort of about pure form.
If we minimize our assumptions to that which can't be usefully denied - like simply "self" or the little circle model I offered above.... wouldn't it be weird if all this shit about relativity and whatnot really was absolutely true! Too much! Lol. But alas, I got nuthin.
hey, you got slack.
I mean semantic errors, ain't that philosophy? I can't even say I was pointing out your use error but rather my interpretive one. I was just highlighting the issue so we could both look at it and make sure we were on the same page (you don't think exists, ha, ha).
I can't be sure the universe does not have knowledge and is not an individual and we are subpersonalities.
I can't be sure inner and outer are as clear as most people seem to take them. I feel I can, on occasion, speak in absolute terms - in other words, without doubt - about some things inside me.
Think of this as pure geometry. It's a very simple relationship that I cannot find a way to rationally deny. To me this entire line of thinking is based maintaining consistency with it. Here is a simple model:
I can't say I disagree.
Sure, our perception is 'perfect' for us humans.
But I meant imperfect as in, we don't perceive things as they really are.
This can be proven by eyewitnesses that all see the same thing but describe it differently.
For instance, I am red-green colorblind. I don't perceive color the same way you do.. probably no one perceives exactly the same as the next person.
Well I have evidence that subjective reality exists. The existence of subjective reality means there is an absolute (objective) reality perceived differently by different people, yet similar.
Our senses simply did not evolve to perceive this absolute reality as it really is (and it probably couldn't have to begin with).
I agree, but I am convinced we can derive the existence of objective reality. Yet, this objective reality cannot be accurately described or perceived.
No I haven't. Space and time influence our perception and thus subjective reality, but I'm not sure how we can use this in this discussion.
Explain please ?
I admit there is the appearance of contradiction but I don't think my view (that I apparently cannot fully explain) has any contradictions.
Are you hinting at Intelligent Design again ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, subjective reality incorporates meaning and value.. and everything else that is subjective.
This where science comes in, through repetitive testing and experimenting we can be sure of things.. although we will never know all about it.
We can say for example that 'this' will happen if we do 'that'.. but at the same time we can never accurately know every facet of what is happening in objective reality, we can only model it.
They only exist as completely subjective concepts, they do not exist in objective reality. But still.. yeah, they do exist (to us).
"Things are intrinsically meaningful therefore, intrinsically valuable - to things that intrinsically create meaning and value."
Ok, maybe not circular, but wholly subjective at least. 'Intrinsically' seems to loose it's definition in your statement.
If you had said "Things are meaningful therefore, valuable - to things that intrinsically create meaning and value.", I would have agreed immediately.
How can something be intrinsic when it's totally subjective ??
I never did any such thing, objective reality cannot be accurately described or known. But it can be described or known to an extend, as I have explained earlier in this post.
Though I think I didn't express myself as well as I could have in other posts, where I said that objective reality cannot be described.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
in a conventional sense perhaps. i think my point was if it quacks , it is a duck.
Increasingly these last disputes, too, are rejected as misleading, and some philosophers prefer to call the kind of realism espoused there "metaphysical realism," and eschew the whole debate in favour of simple "naturalism" or "natural realism", which is not so much a theory as the position that these debates are ill-conceived if not incoherent, and that there is no more to deciding what is really real than simply taking our words at face value. link
its like if true nature is unknown, how can one judge worth?
alternately remove "face value" from my quote
i accept "as presented" in a non judgmental way
i do not automatically discount or doubt apprehension
i think the above "maybe" a desired condition. feasibility might have to be pondered further.
Yah sometimes, and sometimes it's just miscommunication.
No biggie, and yeah I think the page exists. I even know it, I just don't know anything outside my own context, as I am what stores and embodies the page, as you are to you. I even suspect strongly that it's that way regardless of whether or not I believe it.
Of course not. Do you have any reason however, to believe that it does? Do you find that model to have any useful potential? My personal problem with other models is that for all of them I can think of, I can't see them as truly representative of what seems to be "the reality" of things as they are skewed through my perspective.
Me either, but I think the way it's defined renders this point moot, as I said "whatever the extents of you, is" or something like that.
I always feel I can speak in absolute terms about me if I choose to. The thing is, "me" limits the scope of term "absolute" to what I consider to be perfectly acceptable. This is why I think it gets screwed up in speaking about it, because the scope is not specified. Actually I think the scope of anything ever uttered is actually "self", no matter how much it insists otherwise. It's fine though, if we both agree it's raining - we both get out of the rain. Whether or not it's "absolutely raining" in the objective sense is utterly irrelevant to the course of action either of us might choose.
They why not offer a specific alternative view?
... how so?
Feel free. I'd love to have my mind changed! Shine on!
*shrug* how can you do so and understand what I mean? sounds to me like "I'm just going to evade them". well shit the easy means of avoidance is to ignore me! lol. why do you want to show me that? what do you hope to accomplish by doing so?
I suspect sometimes I might have stumbled upon some, but again to me it's a matter of scope. Within the context I establish by having noticed I exist and such, my knowledge is "absolute" in some areas. How applicable is that knowledge to the general case? How applicable is it to 'what is real'? How representative is the reflection of that which it reflected?
Sure, I can tell you what I think "every subject is limited by" and you can tell me if you can find an exception or contradiction in my opinion. If not, then perhaps we'll agree... if so, we might disagree. Then you won't think what I think, but I'll still do so until I figure out a way to improve it or my mind degrades, I learn someting new that alters it, etc etc. Hopefully, we're trying to help each other expose potential fallacies in our perspectives, etc. If so, thanks.
Ok then. To me, the impact of accepting this as "agreed" is the scope thing I was talking about above. This is the framework in which I operate. If you would be so kind as to tell me where you think it's off, I'd appreciate it.
Meh. Not really, a little maybe but you haven't been particularly combative or rude so it would seem you're attempting to discuss the topic as fairly as you can... so I'm okay with it.
I dunno about that. My mind is optimized for a certain approach. I think it's rather gifted in a particular manner, but I'm quite retarded in other areas, depending of course on your perspective. I was just fucking with you about the psychoanalsis thing, sorry... lol.
No it's just me. I'm a teeterererrrerer perhaps. I'm not sure how much of the conversations between the four or five related threads you've kept up with, but I've repeatedly stated that I think that the leg is "self" - assumed. For the purposes of all my analysis I assume that self is not questionable as the building block for reason. If you question it, then the analysis doesn't stand. I just don't question it because I assumed it. If you think it should not be assumed, I'll listen to the arguments but I've been over and over and over it every way I can concieve it and have so far found no viable alternative as a conceptual basis for modelling well, all this stuff.
I did a thread somewhere once about logic being a transform, and that transform requires input or it is unbound and utterly useless. This is basically how I feel about self in terms of a building block for philosophical thought. To me it is the optimal assumption for several reasons.
Well it's possible, sure. It's not so much really that it is "objectively usefull" as that it's "subjectively useful to me" and it has been reported to me on numerous occasions as "subjectively useful to others" and if nothing else, it's a very interesting topic to me, as it's something I'm sort of always processing in the background, often times in the foreground of my mind.
Sure. Beleifs are internal representations of your mind trying to work out how to interact with stuff right? Actually I'd guess it's the result of that, but sometimes if you expose to yourself that they clash, it can become dissonant. dissonant? crap I don't know if that's the right word. "to cause internal conflict" is what I'm trying to say. I'd say as long as the beliefs are not contextually required to co-exist in teh same moment of whatever is focused in the mind, they can exist for a long time and be totally contradictory. And if you're somewhat sociopathic, it's all good - contradict away!
I'd call hedonism perhaps the inevitable result if being utilitarian, or at least one of its possiblities, yeah. Perhaps "it's a flavor of utility".
Yeah I'd just call that emotional utility. Cost-benefit. The emotional utility of body surfing outweighs the risks, and risks are only possilities where choosing to get in the water and surf, that's a sure thing.
Yah! Hehe, honestly - I often think every utterance ever made by every human is probably just one giant rationalization used to justify their actions in reviewing them. I don't think that necessarily contradicts everything else I've said, but it certainly puts it in a lighter, more entertaining scope - at least to me.
Uhm.. not exactly. I mean more about trying to figure out "a general case of self", and how that self relates to everything else, including all the other instances thereof. There's a lot of relativity in there, where things appear different from different "reference frames" if you will.
More like that, but not that people "physically create worlds", but that their minds are conceptual collections and shape their impression of the world such that interacting with other minds introduces a noteable skew?
relatively? why would there be a "true nature" as I think you mean it, to something that is inherently relative? I mean that quite literally as in "I relate to my stimulous", "I relate to world through my stimulous". Like that.
I was just fucking with you man, pardon. I mean it's sort of true, but I think I know what you meant.
in a really basic way though, isn't labelling something "judging it"? maybe you just mean "moral judgement" or something?
But how do you know that? Maybe we do? I don't think you can "know" one way or the other. If you think you can, please explain. I mean, you can "know" in relation to yourself, but you can't "know" in that "this is how it really is regardless of self[/i], even though it may seem that to yourself "this is how it really is"! Lol.
I agree, but that doesn't mean that the parts you're percieving "are" or "aren't" real or in correlation to the tao. You've agreed that we can't know the tao, so why would you say positively we are or aren't reflective of it? Per your prior assertions, we can't know that!
Oh SURE you do!! Give it to me now! Put it on the table in front of me please! Lol. I believe you though, without requiring proof! I project me onto what I think is you and feel kinship in plight! I think I'm me too! So it only bolsters my me to think of your you. Yeah!
I buy this or reject it based on a context that I don't see firmly established. If you mean to that your opinion on the matter is definately objectively correct because you know you, then I think no. If you mean that from your perspective it seem that way, then I'd say my perspective is in full allignment, except you know.. in a slightly different way... lol. Assuming you exist. bugeye.
I agree but see this a framed all fucked up as I see it. Ok I'll entertain that thought as literally as I can manage:
IF for instance, you could "percieve absolute reality".. you couldn't have a perspective, as you would be the thing you percieve - not you. If you're percieving the thing - you're you. See what I mean? Think of it as the thing reflected and the reflection. If you are the thing reflected, you are not the reflection.
Or perhaps to buck typical notions of logic - you're both (at least in the case of "self" (which is one of the reason I find it to be the perfect building block))? This would throw a wrench in the workings though eh? Or would it?
Back to point however – to perceive is to render personal. A person is not absolute reality in the apparent entirety of its scope. Therefore, as you said:
Seems on the mark to me, as a matter of definitions.
We can infer it, but please consider the source of the inference! It was subjective!
This conclusion is inconsistent with your other claims as I explained above. Maybe everything you’ve said is a perfect representation of objective reality! It’s not that we can’t do it – it’s just that we can’t know if we did or didn’t! We can know however, if what we contrived was useful to us as we see it… right?
I thought I already did, no matter. I’ll just see where it goes.
Lol. When did I hint at it the first time? I can assure you I did not, and still haven’t. I can debunk that crap all day, and were you ever so bored to check – you’d note that I’ve at great length in the sciforums historical records!
But as you yourself have framed it, subjective reality is a subset of objective reality, therefore part of it!
I’m pretty sure that knowledge of “all that is” would take up the entire space of all that is, for to know every aspect of all of it – you’d have to be all of it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I mostly agree, but again find “objective knowledge” a bad combination of words, and “knowledge of the objective”, necessarily subjective – as in “to know” lies the implicit “to whom”. Maybe neither is what you meant by “being sure of things”. The deal is, I think it’s very, very human to be both sure and unsure of a wild array of topics. This however, says nothing as to the relevance of “what we’re sure about” in regards to “objective reality” – whether it is perfectly correct in “the tao” or not.
Right, and as long as we keep experiencing “I did this, and that happened”, we gain the utility of the relationship until there is reason to reject or modify it. Everything I write is an example of this or a variant like “I went piss and felt better” or “I said this and it worked in my story”, etc. I think perhaps, so is everything ever written.
This is just wrong to me, as a subset it part of its parent set by definition. For what you said to be true, “subjective reality” and “objective reality” are necessarily mutually exclusive – which I have not seen reasonably supported at all. In fact I’m almost sure you agreed subjective reality is part of objective reality (as modeled). If so, then it’s a subset and the above is incorrect.
Honestly I can’t see a substantial difference in the two statements. Hrmph. I’m getting tired.
Because that’s where it exists?
But you’ve said so SO many times “meaning does not exist in objective reality” – which is in exact contradiction to your assertion above! Which is it? To say that meaning does not exist there is an attempt to accurately describe objective reality!
that too. you just said there is an absolute reality, but you said you can't say that! maybe you're just talking about the model. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
this is perhaps why I find relevancy to objectiveness ultimately wholly lacking. we can't say much about it, so who gives a fuck? we can talk about value and utility instead, and they are actually functional terms of actual relevance.
You mean to a subjective extent? Eh? Huh? *eyebrow dance* Gawd I’m a dick, my apologies for thinking I exist and such.
Sure it fits quite of few of the experiences I've had.
I think you have worded what most people would say about other people's beliefs - if in your own idiosyncratic way.
My intuitive reaction to this is that most rationalists accept a quasi newtonian universe with in here and out there quite well defined - perhaps coming down from Descartes - and then aim their common sense and skepticism outward from these. Even those who know and understand - intellectually - all the advances in physics since then. I am talking about the simulation they check in their heads when guessing at beliefs' liklihoods. If out there is also in here it does change the ball game.
We are not strangers here in a universe that is neutral.
I am skeptical that mind's change through rational discourse. Especially if the minds are very 'clever' I include both of us in that. I think we have very little control of the protection devices that make us slide over steps in logic, miss connotation confusions, miss that we denied the use of the argument we are using now a few minutes back, etc.
I think in relation to your position my interest is more in seeing if I can keep it out of my head where it once used to bother me, while at the same time noticing the details of it. To not be persuaded and also to feel into and express the contradictions I feel inherent in it.
I think I do understand what you mean. I've been there. I've had a belief system that was much more like yours. I am not evading you. Does that seem like my side of the interaction? I think I have been asking intelligent questions and pointing out potential implications and contradictions in your philosophy. Evading is very easy. I could put you on ignore - not that I have felt the slightest urge. As far as accomplishing: I can restate what I said above: it is to see that the model you have is no longer seductive to me by presenting my problems with it and noticing myself in the interaction. This of course includes taking your responses seriously and if, as examples, I hit a 'oh, my god I hadn't thought about it that way' or 'ooh, he's right I am losing out over there,' or 'righteo, that is a blind spot on my part,' I check in out on my own and in relation to you to see what's there.
you do realize how hard it would be for me to prove or disprove your theory. We can use deductive logic on it, but especially via the internet we have problems of interpretation. The objects are the same. To make us both very crude.
'It's a chair'
'no, its a chair, for you, we just both happen to have similar experiences of it'
'no it's a chair'
1) I find that you seem to be presenting a version of what must be true in aboslute terms, but you qualify this, occasionally, as your perspective. If you go back to the what I called Boolean 0 and attendant arguments, I think you will see that you are presenting what must be and is universally. You may qualify this now or ask me to provide another model. But as far as experiencing you I find you at least as certain - in both the main senses - of your position being right and having as much an absolute position as, for example, Greenberg. Your absolute position contains this subjectivity clause, but it still seems absolute to me.
2) I think it limits me by encouraging me to add an asterisk to my experiences.
I guess I could say the same thing. I used to do more what you are doing - I think - and found it was not as pleasurable or fit my experiences.
yeah. I don't want that layer as a rule. I want that layer as intuitively brought in. Now I feel my perspective may be distorting. Other times I do not have this added layer.
I'd call hedonism perhaps the inevitable result if being utilitarian, or at least
Oh, yeah. (mock hackles go up) Well utilitarianism has no flavor, buddy. I think a position that all one knows is subjective knowledge is a funny fit with utilitarianism. It's like 'my little objectivity'. It's almost like you have reversed the traditional. I certainly hope you use a lot of intuition when judging the utility of something. I think the conscious mind is too small to get at all benefits.
yes, I think think most rational explanations are post mortem.
Oh, that's not so much fun.
Hmm... it just occured to me that we always change each others minds by having interacted. The foundations of mind and ideas important to its structure tend to merely integrate or diminish results of interactions that might threaten their strength.
Yes. I did feel a little insulted above when I was accused - not with rancor, I know - of evading. I think that this kind of interaction can serve a wide range of purposes, each brain - oh, I feel disgustingly reductionistic - choosing it's own goals.
Some seem to come to simply mock the ideas of those they consider irrational - this seems to me to offer them little growth on their own. What will they learn from this: I guess to be honed at doing that.
Then there are others who seem to put themselves, in their complexity, on the table - presenting confusion is a brave act. It offers rich potential results: since it is not simply a position to be broken or defended.
What would you say you are doing here?
Just a quick note as I'm sitting and reading this brought the following gush of bullshit:
"I think in relation to your position my interest is more in seeing if I can keep it out of my head where it once used to bother me, while at the same time noticing the details of it. To not be persuaded and also to feel into and express the contradictions I feel inherent in it."
Perhaps our key issue here then is that really you think I'm "the old you", whereas... I'm not. I might have been once, but what you don't see is that this stuff doesn't trip me up really. I like it, I find it wildly entertaining - for real. It's beauty enthralls me - sorry if that sounds teh ghey, but I'm serious (perhaps to my man-shame, lol). All of this is integrated shit for me, doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's strangely inspiring to me really. I feel like a spelunker kind of! Yeah!
Sometimes I feel like the tour guide, sometimes I feel like the nerd at the back of the room picking his nose and making goofy comments in a ridiculous accent. A lot of times though, I feel like I sort of connect with parts of other minds and maybe if I'm lucky I get at least a simulated glimpse of truly relating to someone. That's more likely in person it would seem, but still.
More than anything else - right or wrong, shit or shinola - this shit tends to allow people's substance... or at least their ability to appreciate it - to shine through. Even if that substance is some abbrasive shit! (not referring to anyone in particular, occasionally fits me)
If this is all bullshit, do the parts where in saying things that at the time didn't seem like bullshit still hold true, I mean about the function and interaction of the bullshit?
do you think if you deconstruct (or reduce) to self, that self can be built again round itself as the premise, recognizing its scope in a larger framework (while also noting the only means of this recognition is the self itself)?
My enormous ego requires the entire forum to follow me around and tell me I'm pretty and cater to my whim.
You can imagine my confusion.
Vision for example.
We know that we can only perceive electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths of 400 to 800 nm. We also know that some animals, including birds, reptiles, and insects such as bees, can see into the near ultraviolet.
"Birds can see ultraviolet and have at least four types of color sensitive cone cells. Humans have only three types of cone.
On the other hand, bees are like humans in that they have only three receptor types. But in contrast to humans, bees are sensitive to ultraviolet but not to red." http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/birds-color-vision.html
Also, the very fact that falcons have a visual acuity of 2.6 times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon) that of a human means our vision 'ends' 2.6 times nearer to the eye than that of a falcon.
No creature we know of can perceive all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, ands certainly not humans.
I say the same for hearing, touch, smell and taste..
Huh? Where the hell did this tao come from ? lol
If this tao is unknowable we can't be accurately perceiving it then, seems obvious to me..
It seems you are rejecting the idea of subjectivity..
Something can be perceived by someone as uncomfortable while to another person it might not be. A face can be perceived to be ugly while it is beautiful to another. There however is a real face that neither fully sees and which is ugly nor beautiful.
Pain threshold, might be another example.. etc, etc.
I'm not sure I follow.. but I guess it comes down to the same thing (?)
Mirror world ? lol
I kind of agree, it would say it differently though. I'd say "to perceive is to render subjective".
I was arguing from an evolutionary point of view though, I suspect you are not.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One can still know that what we are experiencing is not the whole picture.
Erm.. no I have to disagree here.
lol ok, never mind then Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I refined my argument later:
"What you said about subjective reality being a part of objective reality got me thinking. I disagree with that somewhat.
The way I see it is that there is one reality, objective reality. Subjective reality and physical reality are in fact nothing more than models conceived by us to describe objective reality. They are not a reality in the sense of objective reality, they are only realities to us (especially subjective reality).
- Subjective reality is a subconsciously fabricated and filtered practical model of objective reality, of the brain." http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1669200&postcount=166
I didn't mean knowledge of all there is. In this discussion we only need a tiny bit knowledge that can't be derived through subjectivity. If we can do that, and I believe we can, then that is evidence (if not proof) of the existence of objective reality.
Apply enough force to a twig and it breaks. Repeat that as many times as you like, it always happens. Maybe we can later revise how we think it happens, but it will always happen no matter what.
See post 166 (follow link above)
Ok, maybe this helps ?
"Things are subjectively meaningful therefore, subjectively valuable - to things that subjectively 'create' the subjectivities meaning and value."
Maybe I didn't formulate the question properly.
How can something have intrinsic value when value is totally subjective ?
Well, that is hardly first hand knowledge.. it is derived from the fact (yes fact lol) that meaning is subjective.
It is not an attempt to accurately describe objective reality, rather it is a recognition of objective reality. Subjective realities cannot have any impact on objective reality.
Eh? I did not say that..
How do you think I said that ?
I can only agree with you there..
Wes wtf ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, part of what I am trying to find out is if it is the same or not. My interaction with you, I hope, is not simple, nor simple rejection. I do not think I have made you a thing or that I am simply interacting with a projection. I could have not said what I said about having a stance more like yours and we would still be left with working it out. In other words I dont want to be psychoanalyzed out of possibly reacting to you and your position.
I kinda got that. I certainly, absolutely in no way, was assuming that your system bugged you or was somehow dissatisfying for you. Id have nothing to go on for that theory.
Well, those are roles. Do you have a goal when you come here? Or when you interact with someone?
This went right through my head. I need help to grasp it.
Separate names with a comma.