Ok. Let’s see if I can be clear about what I’m saying. Then maybe our conversation will be a little more productive at this point. 1. The names we … …Correlation
——- perhaps that is where we are off: But I am talking about is completely the opposite of what you’re saying
I’m not saying that the physical is completely untenable. I am saying that we have to account for certain things that are physical that phenomena Lizum does not allow for.
I think I’ve pointed this out to you before in other areas of our conversation. The points that I made in the previous post, the one that started off with on one hand I’m a person like every other person. And then I go onto 234. That is not linear, it is not reductive. I’m not saying that I start out as a person as any other person as I’m thinking about it and then here’s my reductive reason why that should not be the case or that somehow I am navigating it through the rest of what I’m talking about.
I’m saying that it is the case that at all times I’m a person just like any other person. And that there is no underlying situation except that my dog shits, people think that Trump is the savior of the United States because the liberal left is based on child trafficking, cars go down the streets and hit squirrels, some people it doesn’t bother that much, some people about there’s a whole bunch. But it no time I am saying that well, the reason and whatever is actually the case is because here’s the truth of the whole situation and how it all lines up with evolution etc. etc. there is a physical world, there is a mental world, there’s an argumentative world, there is a chemical world, etc. that’s just reality.
I think this is what throws you off because you take that conjunctive in phrase and think that I’m arguing toward an end to say that it all must be some proposal that I’m going to argue through these various cases. Like you’re taking the “then also“ as a reduction to somehow compromise or suggest that the first statement I said about I’m a person like any other person must enter into this new condition and be qualified to it likewise such that the first condition gets dementia somehow, or expanded upon.
That’s not what’s happening. I’m putting forth situations as they are. That’s where the physical is substantiated in the category of its physical Ness. As true, as I say.
Now, also I think as soon as I use the word “category“, you start thinking along lines of mind, language, as if it all just occurs in one centralized place of thinking that is lance, or Warren. And I’m not referring to that in this instance. If we want to start talking about language and how that all goes, then sure we can have an argument about how such and such might reduce within a language or linguist dick world. but here we’re not talking about the physical world. We’re talking about how language functions and works. We’re not talking about that it might be located in some physical mind, because then we’ve breached categories. And I don’t mean categories only in the linguistic sense. I am in categories in the sense that it is the only way that we could possibly know if things, and it’s a convention to be able to talk about things.
The reason why, or the manner why, I say that I’m not speaking in a linear reductive argumentative fashion, is because reality is dynamic. And, if only because using a linear reductive logic will never reach the actual physical thing. Because physical things are not linear and they don’t reduce to other physical things. Though they can.
Physical things are dynamic in the sense that on one hand I have the cement that I’m walking upon right now. It is a physical thing. It has nothing to do with what I think about it. It is going to limit my ability etc. to do things by the fact that it is cement. But there is no linearity to say that the concrete is actually made up of lime stone and sand and water. Because then we would have to ask phenomenal logically why I am even able to put my foot on a piece of solid cement.
The physical world, the physicality of things is dynamic. To say that well it’s not even really sand or lime stone, or whatever goes into cement, but it’s actually these molecules that are made up of more space than they are physical matter. So what?
The linearity of making a reductive argument about physical things never grasps the actuality of the physical Ness that is happening as we speak.
Becuase to speak of physicality one must speak of dynamics, not of reductive logic. And I mean this in the sense of the beingness of physical things. It is a non-Sequitur to say that I’m walking on nothing. That the actual hardness of the ground in which I’m walking is an illusion, or some fantasy that my mind is not being able to grasp.
So when I’m talking about things, when I’m talking about actual objects, I am speaking dynamically. I am using language in a dynamic way, a multi dimensional way where, as Harmon has suggested, things sit continuously, they appear side by side.￼￼￼￼￼￼￼