Perhaps we ought to dance again with the (revised) OP, then?
If reality permits diction, how can it not permit contradiction? I thought the purpose of Theory was to contain contradiction. How can theory not be contradictory? It would be voiceless!
Are we not first to permit reality? Who knows what reality is? All we have is theories for IT.
Supposing I tell you “This is the way,” – then where are you? You experience what I tell you. This knowledge you are going to use and create a state of being and think that you have experienced reality or that you have experienced truth. But that is not the truth. That is not reality.
When you say, “This is the way,” how am I not to know it is simply a reverberation of my own thought? In a site such as here, we hone our own echos, is how I’ve come to think of it. It becomes a curious opportunity of & for Personal Identity, where everything to be considered must take on personal dimension, I feel. Thus it becomes real, and I permit myself. For one must always have a permit before engaging in major renovations.
The only change takes place in your thought structure, you begin to think differently and therefore to experience and feel things differently. Basically however everything remains exactly as it was. Wanting to understand is only useful for changing small things in yourself. There is nothing you can do to change the past. In the hope of changing things in the future, you remain stuck with the present, which is in fact the past.
The past is always active. If the past ends, you end. That is the reason why you will never allow that, no matter how hard you try. The past is everywhere in you. Every cell in your body is permeated by it. Every nerve is involved in it. The past has this body so much under control that it will not let it go. The past will not come to an end through any effort you make or whatever will power you effect! The more effort you put into it, the more willpower you use, the stronger it becomes. You came across many insights in this process, but every insight reinforces the past. It does not in any way help to understand anything and to thus free yourself from whatever. Every insight that you obtain with your investigations only strengthens and solidifies that.
Thus… what should you try to do in such a situation? NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL! Nothing, no power in the world can help you, period. Thus, as long as you remain dependent on any authority outside of you, you remain hopeless. Once you understand this clearly, there is no more helplessness, your helplessness no longer exists. Then you actually don’t know what to do.
I totally agree about the “dependence” on authority thing. But can we still allow “reference”? I can’t recall if I’ve flogged the following on you yet, it’s one of my favorite references:
Such seems to reflect the notion of doing nothing which you refer to, no? (We leave aside, of course, what is God) I’m a big believer in doing nothing, though it tires me a bit when I do it too actively. 
Whether you do something or do nothing. How much do you move from what you are? Why should you move?
I’m not sure if it’s that I move, or I am stretched. Insofar as I (" ") do move, it is because, for instance, I’m a father, a husband, a teacher, and am firmly attached to Samsara. No questions there. 
That is a lot that you do. Trying to figure out where the ‘shoulds’ and ‘musts’ in life have placement I suppose is the job of society. I wonder how significant society is? Wadda you think? Hard to answer that from the standpoint of the fact that we are society, isn’t it? Everything seems so automatic. Would we agree that its evolving is a natural occurrence. But then nature is a curious thing. A good thing probably. I mean if you notice, there is no model in nature: no two things of her creation are the same – even within the same species. Every amazing creation is different and unique. But what’s up with human nature? Does nature form man’s nature or just provide a vast consciousness for him to experiment in? I would suggest that we bear in mind that nature’s laws know no reward only that we live in harmony with them. Does the litmus test involve an evaluation of how closely we honor nature’s ways? Is there a moral implanted in assessing our relationship with nature‘s laws? Does the whole establishment of morality lie within nature‘s laws, or do morals come from something even greater than nature? Is there some potential in human nature to arrive at ultimate moral comprehension and implementation? … Last question I promise … or, is nature controlling things so subtly, surely and creatively that it wouldn’t care if defects persisted in the way man thinks? If man violates natures laws and consequentially receives punishment to the eventual point that it results in the demise of the human race, nature can start all over go again and create a new kind of ‘human’ species.
My impression is that nothing is in control, which of course is to the dismay of something, anything and everything. Just as what is significant in one’s life (children, spouses, relatives, friends, careers, philosophy…) ought be no less significant to one even were a cosmic nihilism to be established as empirically sound, so to I feel it is what we relate to in our lives which creates the significance of morality, i.e. it is an epiphenomenon of our propensity to care about the fact we’re conscious of what fills our time. There is no litmus test, as there is no litmus. In the event of nature proceedint to repose a “new humanity”, nothing is lost to humanity. We’ve lived it through, whichever way, and that’s enough. Now I don’t mean to speak for the malnourished child in Biafra, but I would also not suppose to prejudge what value that life lives for itself nonetheless. What is of value, perhaps, is that our experiences are sheer creations of our time. We need not be appreciated by the audience of a different dimension to appreciate our own presence. Or so I say at the moment.
That’s what I’m wondering. There is an accumulation – a totality of experiences and the knowledge that complements those experiences – everything about the human element projected on to the world around man. A reflection of what is in his mind. Therein is a strength and inertia that defines purposefulness. It creates us demanding that we use its time to keep things as they are and not disrupt the present state of affairs. And yet it is an artificial dimension in a non existent reality providing a mold for a non existent self. How much a person buys into it determines how much self worth he wears on his sleeve.
Is it unjustified abandonment to break away from the establishment? Or is it with decency and honor one stands alone on his own two solid feet against the forces that tells him what he must be? Which one is not moral?
Might there be a third way, as well, where one flows with the forces whose conceit it is to further form one, and observes how those same forces are conformed by what one floats withinto them… so as to be as subtly “controlling” as is nature itself? Thuswise one need not do anything but be oneself with least effort, while both enjoying the benefits of human accumulation and influencing its course. In any case, I think it’s quite reasonable to suppose that all three ways may well be moral… differentiated simply by the amount of effort one is compelled to put into it. Nelson Mandela, for instance, clearly put both feet down; Jerry Garcia broke away; the ubiquitous multitude of anonymously unsung worked within, making their own little difference. So, though some ways are more dramatic, all, I think, contribute to the creative accumulation. I’m guessing I’ll be unsung, but here I am anyhow: Goin’ to the River. 
Diction, nor contradiction, are reality (though taking place within it)–they are part of appearance, a word which has no meaning if there is no reality to which appearance may or may not correspond.
Contradiction occurrs in appearance–reality does not permit it.
That is why there are no married bachelors.
Sorry–only scanned your dialogue, finished & Oughtist…and this is a drive-by…won’t be back for a while…
That’s why we have invented reality. Otherwise you have no way of experiencing the reality of anything—the reality of that person you are posting to there, for instance, or even your own physical body doing the posting. You have no way of experiencing that at all except through the help of the knowledge that has been put in you. So, there may not be any such thing as reality at all. I do have to accept certain basic things for the purpose of surviving and procreating. As far as the relationship between words and reality: None. There is nothing beyond language.
What is this ‘reality’ that words are being utilized to describe? We can talk about it or think about it only by use of the knowledge behind the words. The assumption of reality is there. Without the knowledge of ‘reality’ there is no way to experience it, obviously.
Knowledge (recognition) and naming are one and the same. Whether I name it or not, the very recognition of ’reality’ itself means that the naming is already there, whether I use the word or not. The word is the thing. If the word is not the thing, what the hell is it? It is all right for the philosophers to sit and discuss everlastingly that the word is not the thing. That implies that there is something there other than the word. So you cannot accept the fact that the word is the object. That is, even if you say that there is an object without using the word, it means that there is a separation there, a division.
Moral Truth Litmus
IS yellow/ontology/true
discovered/grounded in God’s always perfect being (existed essence)
^^What we should be.^^ Character. Virtue.
OUGHT blue/epistemology/good
treats other/them & self/us interchangeably, true for all or none
^^How we should do.^^ Conduct. Deontology.
WHOLE red/aesthetic/beautiful
Live (love) in immovable, abundant joy as loved despite circumstance, good or bad.
^^Why we should be/do.^^ Consequences. Teleology.
In sum: What/why we should be, how/why we should do, is grounded in God’s always existed essence (ultimately demonstrated on the cross), immovably loving the other as self.
In fact, it is improbable that any civilised community could survive without regard for important moral principles such as fairness and justice. Click Here
Funny thing about that. If we couldn’t survive without these principles, then how did we get started without them (or…did we?)? And why are they the things we consider worth dying for?
What Be? Answers what grounds the why/how in reality. True Virtue/Character. Ontology/metaphysics.
orders all being/truth under it
How Do? Answers how to apply/interpret/live the why/be. Good Duty/Conduct. Epistemology/justification.
orders all doings/goods under it
Why End? Answers why we be/do, to the point it is worth living/dying for. Beautiful Teleology/Aesthetic. Whole Purpose/Function.
orders all ends/purposes under it
Same sum as in quote above.
Revaluation/judgment happens up top. Need all three spheres for it to be justified & true.
There’s your movement in alignment with the eternal, Oughtist.
