Probably not.
he’s just gonna come back later and edit his response with hhfxvhhfddgbvg
You know what’s terrible? How many **** sock puppets are in this place.
All of the sock puppets should get together and study “the relational soul“ by Richard Plass and James Cofield … we could do it as an ILP random improvisational therapy session whenever we **** well feel like it.
Why is it any time I write something you don’t like suddenly I’m a sock puppet?
Grow up.
…why is it I get told to grow up when you’re the sock puppet?
Comments like that.
yeah, OK Captain Underpants
That’s an interesting concept.
1 Like
Bring back the triads.
I’ll stfu and just read.
what if energy is just purpose?
What if mass energy equivalence is the result of the purpose that unifies?
What if the what is material and spiritual substance (conceptual understanding)?
the how of Action reaction also including Will (perceptual)
the why of Energy and purpose involving the judgment (teleological)
combining UNITY‑IN‑DISTINCTION AS A METAPHYSICAL LOGIC | Ichthus77
you may have seen me share something that looks like this about “is △ ought △ value” previously (I was looking at the hardcopy when I did this one), but this is focusing on unity-in-distinction … eventually I’m going to make the fallacies, etc, between them, not be either different or redundant, if possible, and there will need to be disambiguation:
when I’m not tired, I will input it here:
One of my next steps (in preparation for disambiguation) is to familiarize myself with what is meant by bare particulars and constituent versus other ontologies. This seems to be a source of some of the semantic tangled uppedness.
…but I also already have a bunch of “next steps” in the fire, and it feels like I’m juggling all the irons at once. I’ll spare you the burning details.
1 Like
Added this to that^ sheet…there is a key at the top of the linked sheet:
(see Google sheet^ for a more updated version)
(Microsoft Copilot: Your AI companion)
Copilot offered this as a next step:
correspondence △ pragmatist △ coherence
was swirling in the background for months (prolly years, off & on, approaching through syllables), but Copilot just solidified it (It’s my fault they said analytic here… we had also been talking about analytic/synthetic stuff, and it creeped in to correspondence’s place when I asked the question):
errrmmmmmmmm!!!
I simultaneously like this new symbolic stage, and cannot do anything with it because you are committing a cardinal sin of symbolism: not defining each symbol in a legend that can be referenced as one decrypts.
-edir-
Sorry, that was re: your handwritten diagram. This one seems more complete. Let me study it a sec.
-edirr-
Yeah no there are a bunch of unexplained elements. Also I didn’t se ebefore that you are autogenerating some of it.
Rage muting this thread.
Ok no but rage fucking off from it.
What does auto-generating mean? If you’re talking about Copilot, I give him credit where credit is due. And it doesn’t mean it ain’t right. Stop with your lame replacements of actual counterarguments. If you click on the link to the sheet, it has a legend/key. And I also very carefully track the development of ideas since 2011. Actually 2009. If you want that, I can give it to you, but I don’t see how it is necessary.
How’s’bouts you join the collabo, jellymonster?