You're wrong.

As I've been pointing out, the words "exist", "there is...", and "real", are rarely used non-contextually, and they don't need to be defined in order to be understood. This is self-evident, so doesn't need an argument. But note that the contrary would be absurd. Plenty of people clearly indicate such an understanding when these words are used in conversation. They both implicitly and explicitly confirm that they've understood through what they do and say. Without good reason to suggest otherwise, it's implausible that you're so extraordinarily unique that you are unlike other people who do understand the meaning. Hence, it is more plausible that you're deluded or pretending. But I expect that I'm wasting my breath on you. You'll probably just keep on repeating this copypasta of yours like a spambot.

S

Some nonsense from a calendar that no one cares about.

It is. — Rank Amateur

Well, it's a philosophy forum after all, so one can never be sure!

You use philosophical terms on this forum that the ordinary person would not understand, therefore I should conclude that you are an obscurantist because you haven't dumbed down your language and that you do not, as you claim, privilege ordinary language. I do think I have been clear in this thread though. — emancipate

I make a conscious effort not to use philosophical jargon where possible, and in any case, if I use a philosophical term, I'm willing and capable of translating it into ordinary language. And I don't take ordinary language - words like "rock", "orange", and "potato" - and give it a ridiculous hidden meaning which conflicts with ordinary usage.

So no.

Why is it that Hegel, Lacan, Derrida, etc. have been accused of obscurantism by some and yet others have found their work insightful and meaningful? — emancipate

Because those others are either plain wrong, or because they took the time and effort of translating the peculiar language: which is a con, not a pro. So it's lose-lose, even if there's a decent point to be gained from the philosophy.

With a little effort you could understand, but I'm afraid that would mean stepping out of your ordinary langauge cave. One man's obscurantism is another's philosophy. — emancipate

And the predictable ad hominem. It's not about that. It's not about me. It's not about my willingness or ability to understand. It's about the language they use. That's what my criticism is regarding. It's bad for being obscurantism in the first place, even if the philosophy has some merits.

Sorry, before I could possibly address your point you will need to define potato, because there are many things that one can call potato and some may or may not be mashable, and what really is mashed? If I use a ricer is that a mashing? And if there is pulp in the juice does that help or hurt its orangeness? Is a tangarine an orange or not? — Rank Amateur

:rofl:

Yes as a tactic it is a game of mere one-upmanship. But, not readily accepting the traditional (or simple) understandings of language is useful to ascertain and analayze potential presuppositions. — emancipate

You would say that, though. It's clear that you're a big fan of obscurantism from your posting history.

Sorry before I could possibly address your point you will need to define potato, because there are many things that one can call potato and some may or may not be mashable, and what really is mashed? If I use a ricer is that a mashing? And if there is pulp in the juice does that help or hurt its orangeness? Is a tangarine an orange or not? — Rank Amateur

I really do hope that this is a deliberate parody from you. What's a photocopier? Also, what's a beard? What's a heap of sand?

I understand that it serves your purpose but be aware that this is a limit to philosophy's potentiality. Not only philosophy but yours also. Philosophy isn't about regurgitating what has been said before, but an exploration of concepts in novel ways that push the boundaries of our understanding. Sometimes experimental and even creative language is needed for that. Anyone who doesn't spoon-feed you with easily digestible concepts is a sophist I suppose. — emancipate

Who said anything about regurgitating what has been said before? Ordinary language philosophy is a modern thing, and it might just be one of the biggest challenges that philosophy has ever had to face. It's an attack from within. It is far more novel and creative than most of what has preceded it, which is, like you say, to invent peculiar ways of speaking about things, and to foster the illusion of pushing the boundaries of our understanding. Clouding good sense is what philosophy is a great tool for. It's great for obscurantism, great for absurdity, great for feeling special and insightful without realising the rather empty and senseless nature of what you're declaring as a philosopher.

It makes me think of William Tyndale, who first translated the Bible into English. He ended up being executed. He was before he his time, and the authorities weren't too happy about that.

So you are content to talk about things in peculiar ways if it is through the mode of science, but not philosophy? Afterall, the ordinary way of discussing (or understanding) something is not the scientific way. And why privaledge the ordinary epistemologicaly? — emancipate

No, I am content to talk about things in the mode of science, and I am content to talk about things in the mode of philosophy, so long as it ends up making sense. I am against talking about things in a peculiar way which doesn't end up making any sense. I accept the science of particle physics, for example, but I don't say the absurdities associated with this bad sort of philosophy which uses, or rather exploits, the science to say things like, "rocks don't exist".

And I privilege ordinary language philosophy because it makes more sense and is far more useful outside of the special little context of bad philosophy, and because ordinary people don't think I'm some kind of idiot or crank, and more astute people don't think that I'm some kind of sophist.

Imagine telling people at your workplace that rocks don't exist. What would they think of you if you said that? How would they react?

You could look down your nose at them and think them unsophisticated, not like a special philosopher with special insight. Or, you could take a valuable lesson from this situation about the merits of ordinary language philosophy.

In a sense you have eaten how it appears, because it no longer appears in the same way as it did before you took a bite. You are consuming and modifing the experience and the appearance. — emancipate

In a sense...

And what about the ordinary sense of how we talk? Does it make sense to say that I've eaten an appearance? What makes more sense to say: that I've eaten an orange, or that I've eaten an appearance? Why should we talk in peculiar ways? Because that's the job of a philosopher? To appear to be talking utter nonsense? If so, I'm not sure I want to be a philosopher. Or, better yet, philosophy needs to be reformed. It needs to be emancipated from the scurge of so-called philosophers, and a new breed of philosopher should take the reins. Out with the old, in with the new. :ok:

Diogenes and Socrates now? I thought you were Winston from 1984? Who next? Wonderwoman? — Baden

I'm all of them and more. In short, I am God. In fact, God pales in comparison to me. I'm like God, but much better. Perfect in fact. No, wait, I'm better than perfect. Like, perfect, but more perfect. No, the most perfect. Greater than which no other being can be conceived.

Now step aside, you're blocking my glorious rays of brilliance.

This is a category mistake. You are confusing the stuff behind the scenes with our sensory experience of the stuff behind the scenes. — Herg

:100:

The mashed is the potato! @Mww

Properties of the appearance of the tabletop
1. Coloured brown
2. Size alters if we move away from or towards the table
3. Shape alters as we change the angle from which we view the table
4. Is continuous, i.e. not made up of discrete parts

Properties of the tabletop
1. Is not coloured, but rather reflects light of particular wavelengths
2. Size is fixed
3. Shape is fixed
4. Is discrete not continuous, because made of molecules.

It is evident that the corresponding properties in each list are mutually exclusive. That shows that the objects of which they are properties cannot be the same object, i.e. the appearance of the tabletop cannot be the same thing as the tabletop. Thus an appearance of a thing is not the same as the thing itself. Nor is the thing itself merely another appearance, as you suggest, because if it were, it would have properties of the sort we find in the first list, rather than, as it actually does, properties of the kind in the second list. Appearances have the sort of properties in my first list; the objects of which they are appearances have the sort of properties in the second. To take your own examples, brains and atoms have properties of the sort in my second list, and therefore are objects, not appearances.

In fact the tabletop is a hypothesised external object. The hypothesis (that there is an externally existing tabletop with the properties in the second list) is a good one, because when coupled with the fact that we experience appearances, it explains why the appearances have the properties in the first list. Without the objective existence of the tabletop, there would be no explanation for the appearance having these properties, i.e. there would be no explanation for our sensory experience being the way it is. This, of course, is the flaw in idealism; by removing the objective world, it removes the most plausible explanation for our experience being as it is.

I hope this is helpful. — Herg

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Two reasons: ego and intelligence. The first for thinking I might actually understand something so incredibly convoluted, and the second for thinking it actually makes sense to me.

It’s just speculative philosophy after all, which means it’s being correct is not a consideration, whereas it’s usefulness might be. — Mww

You want to be a special philosophy-type with a special insight? And Kant's philosophy is useful for that?

Even though it fails outside of that little context, where realism and ordinary language philosophy succeed.

I got forcibly removed from the role of moderator by the owner of this forum because he judged that I was being too honest, and I didn't change my behaviour accordingly. It was akin to being fired for straightforwardly telling a stupid customer why they're being stupid, only here, in my evaluation, we're supposed to be better than such a superficial way of looking at a situation like that. But if the owner wants superficiality from the staff, and he's going to enforce that principle, then so be it. I'll just have to deal with that, but I'll deal with that in my own way. And I did.

Apparently telling people how it is pisses them off, and that they get pissed off is my fault for not sugarcoating the truth, instead of their fault for not being a man about it. Apparently this looks bad. Apparently it's supposed to be style over substance in their world, thus sayeth the lord, or something tantamount to that anyway. He probably wouldn't put it quite like that. Apparently I'm supposed to care a great deal more about etiquette than I do.

These were given as examples of my "sophistry" in the message notifying me that I had been removed:

"Yep. That's the cold hard truth."

"Exactly. If you have faith, then you fall for it, and if you don't, then you don't fall for it."

"It would be a fact if God existed, and if God did so, but God doesn't, so God can't."

It's a joke, right? I'm much better off not being pressured into pussyfooting around, being too afraid to say boo to a goose for fear of what the boss might do. (My former boss also happens to be biased against New Atheists, and thought of me as he thinks of them, but I'm sure that that had nothing to do with it).

The whole saga was like expecting Diogenes to be "diplomatic" with Alexander the Great. But, of course, had he been so, instead of just telling him to step aside from blocking the sun, then Alexander wouldn't have respected him half as much, and there wouldn't have been an anecdote worth bringing up. Better to drink the hemlock, like Socrates.

Facts are what's the case. If you are going to claim that what's the case has a location,
— S

Just saw this response now.

"What's the case" is ambiguous to me, because people often use it to refer to, for example, stating propositions. Otherwise, what's the difference between "what's the case" and "state of affairs" a la there being some dynamic physical things in particular relations to other dynamic physical things? — Terrapin Station

What's the case are facts. The two are no different. It's the case that today is Sunday. It's a fact that I'm at home.

I just reject your, "It must be about dynamic physical things in particular relations to other dynamic physical things!".

It's just about stuff. I'm not committed to that stuff necessarily being physical. Is Sunday physical? Weird.

Your dreams are something in a sense that they are appearances. But they came from nothing... — Nobody

No, they came from me. I am not nothing. And I couldn't exist if I didn't exist in the world. My dreams resemble my experiences, and my experiences are of the world and the many things which make it up, like people and cars, which are subjects and objects. My explanation makes sense and works, yours, if it can even be called that, doesn't and fails. It has problematic gaps, and filling the gaps with literal nonsense won't help you.

Take LSD or DMT and see for yourself. — Nobody

:rofl:

Yeah, that's a real good argument. I actually have taken LSD, on multiple occasions, yet I see that you've got it wrong, not right.

What is the ultimate ground of reality?! — Nobody

No, reality is the ultimate ground of everything, including you and your perceptions. You can be a sceptic about what exactly there is beyond your perceptions, what it consists of, and so on, and still be reasonable to some extent. You can't deny that there is anything there at all and still be reasonable, not even close.

Isn't that theoretical? — Terrapin Station

It's nonsensical. Literally.

In conscious awareness, that which appears are intuitions representing sensory impressions. — Mww

It's the orange which appears to you a certain way. The orange is not an intuition full stop. I don't eat intuitions. It's a particular object. An orange. These are what I eat. There must be an orange for it to appear to you a certain way. If you deny the orange, then you cease making sense. If you accept the orange, but say that it's an intuition, then you cease making sense.

Example: if you hold an orange ..the colour..the smell..the touching is your perception which is your direct experience of a perceived object. The actual object is not any of these perceptions..it is the stuff behind the scenes which is sourcing these appearances . But of course there is no such thing as there is not a shred of evidence for an objective world. — Nobody

Here's the problem: you were making sense right up until you denied the objectivity necessarily implied in what you said before your denial. If you remove that, then what you said becomes nonsense on stilts. Even a position lacking evidence is better than nonsense. You're not even wrong!

It makes sense to say that there's an object, the orange, that I'm perceiving. If you say that what I'm perceiving is an appearance, then what's it an appearance of? Kicking the can down the road won't help you. You need a fundamental reality, otherwise you're not making any sense.

It doesn't even make sense to say that reality is appearance if you can't say what reality is an appearance of. Appearances must be appearances of something, otherwise you're talking nonsense. Your argument is self-defeating.

1.Can you teach people how to feel? Not always. Most people already feel. Humans are sentient. — Amity

Yes, no technique is guaranteed to be successful. Any given technique will inevitably only work in some cases, not all.

The question and answers given make sense if you think about it in terms of how you can go about trying to change indifference and inspire feelings. That humans are sentient and that most people have feelings should be taken as given. Even psychopaths and people with Asperger's have feelings, despite common misconceptions. People in persistent vegetative states on the other hand...

But yeah, sure. I didn't read all of your reply, to be honest. I switched off because it was lengthy and it looks like we more or less agree.

I don't know why that discussion was closed but I am a Mentor over on Physics Forums and can assure anyone deciding such things is both consensus based and exceedingly difficult. Much discussion with other mentors goes into it first. I do not agree with all closures, nor do I agree with some left open. Despite being a Mentor I have had discussions started by me shut down and at first its not nice. But after a while you realize - really is it the end of the world? Nowadays I personally just shrug my shoulders and say that's just the way it is. There is always plenty of other things to discuss.

Thanks
Bill — Bill Hobba

This is kind of funny, because I already said that it's not the end of the world, in those exact words. And I know how it works here from a staff perspective better than most, because I am a former staff member. But the Feedback forum is here for a good reason. I'm not just complaining for the sake of complaining, I'm being constructive about it. I don't think that the attitude of shrugging your shoulders and saying that that's just the way that it is is a great attitude to have if you actually care about the forum and what can be done to improve it. It's especially not a good attitude for a member of staff to have. That there are plenty of other things to discuss is beside the point.

I'll shrug my shoulders and move on after I've given my feedback and made my case, which I have done. And others have had a decent opportunity to give their input.

I would be okay with this discussion being closed now for that reason, although I doubt whether that's really necessary. And if it's not necessary, then why do it? What's the loss? Feedback should be more open and ongoing, unless and until it gets too disruptive or chaotic.

The contentious matter is about whether or not the linguistic meaning continues to exist when the language users do not, but the writings do.
— creativesoul

Exactly. — Terrapin Station

Yes. And no one has provided any substantial basis for rejecting my position on that. We've just had illogic and trivial semantics.

We've also had inappropriate approaches, like the approach of a scientist who thinks that we need to perform some sort of experiment, or the approach of a psychologist who thinks that we need to analyse how a person understands meaning.

No. We need the approach of a logician.

I think the question is relevant. It's not a matter of whether we can know (in the sense of have absolute certainty) that we have deciphered an ancient text correctly, but of whether it is possible to be wrong or right about whether we have deciphered its meaning. If we accept that there can be unknown, but decipherable meaning, in other words that there can be meaning there to be deciphered, then that would seem to commit us to accepting that meaning is not merely in the human mind. — Janus

I didn't think that his question was relevant because it was asking a question about a different issue. It was asking whether or not we can know, in practice, that the text had been translated correctly.

I think that for it to be relevant, it would become a loaded question, which is just to swap one logical problem (about irrelevance) for another (about a presumption of warranty). The controversial assumption would be that in order for the text to have meaning, it would have to be known at the time, in practice, whether or not the text could be correctly translated. And that assumption hasn't been warranted.

I think that he misunderstands or is misapplying Wittgenstein's beetle.

I was harsh, because it annoyed me that he wasn't explicit about all of this. I've had to try to work out all of the logical connections which he has left implicit. And his general manner of how he goes about discussions annoys me also, where he just comes out with something directed at no one in particular, and seemingly going down a disconnected line of thought, and multiple posts like that in a row. So I was partially venting about this stuff with my snappy replies to him.

Anyone who breaks one of my cardinal rules risks triggering my wrath:

1. A reply which doesn't make proper use of the quote function.

I'm typing up these comments for a reason, and I want you to put the effort into at least making it look like you're trying to address the points I'm making. So quote me, and break what I say down into more manageable chunks so that you decrease the risk of digressing or missing something important.

This should be quid pro quo. If I do it in my reply to your comment, then I expect the same in return. — S

That wasn't what I was focusing on yet for this tangent. The point was simply to suggest that a mere correlation isn't sufficient. There needs to be a correlation, but we need more than that, too. — Terrapin Station

I still don't accept that for there to be linguistic meaning at the time, there would need to be an intentional act of associating one thing, like bell ringing, to another thing, like a melody; or with dictionary definitions and alphabetical order, at the time.

But I do accept that some sort of human act would have been required at a time in the past for there to be meaning at the time that we're talking about.

That first paragraph above is my understanding of where you were going with that, or where you would need to go for it to be logically relevant. It doesn't seem to take us anywhere new or helpful. It seems to be just a rehash of your psychologism, where you merely assert or assume that psychological requirements for other purposes, like understanding and whatnot, are somehow required for there to be linguistic meaning at the time. That last step, where you misapply these psychological requirements, is unreasonable and without foundation. Or you could be just talking past me by assuming your own interpretations of things like linguistic meaning, when I'm obviously not arguing for your interpretation, I'm arguing for mine.

It's like you begin by thinking along the lines of what it would take for someone to understand something, or some sort psychological or epistemological angle, but then you unreasonably switch to metaphysics and misapply this angle. There seems to be no logical basis for doing that. I'm after this presumed logical basis from you, but you never provide it.

That's partly why I think that it's so important for you to be explicit about what these requirements are requirements for each time you go down this route. Because if at any point, you're just talking about what it generally takes for there to be understanding, or for someone at the time to know something about the meaning, or something like that, then we might well agree, but the problem there would be logical irrelevancy. It's the next step which is problematic, and which remains problematic and without a resolution.

I'm saying that there's a correlation in dictionaries, for example, between the definition of a term and the term that follows that definition.

In other words, we have word A and definition x. Then we have word B and definition y. B follows A in alphabetical order. Well, in dictionaries, there's a correlation between x and B. B immediately follows x after all, and that's the case in multiple dictionaries. — Terrapin Station

How on earth do you get from that to, "For meaning to occur at a given time, people must exist at that time"?

I thought that would be clear from what I wrote. It needs to be a direct connection and not just a correlation to do the work that we want done, because if it can just be a correlation, then we get the definition of dodecaphony attached to the word "dodge," for example. — Terrapin Station

What the...? To get the work done? What does that mean?

All you seem to be doing with your example is showing that there's some kind of logical relationship which can be deduced from one set of terms to another. But you still haven't given me any reason to conclude that there is a need for anyone to exist at the time to make logical deductions about anything at all, or to make any kind of intentional anything, or draw connections of any kind, let alone with regard to your example with its weirdly obscure language. (Couldn't you find a more readily understandable example of this? All of this "dodge" and "dodecaphony" business makes it a lot harder to understand what the hell you're going on about).

This just looks like more psychologism nonsense.

I'd add that it has to be more than a mere correlation, it has to be a "direct connection" between two things (I would say an intentional connection, but it's too your benefit for me to not use that term, because we don't have nonmental intentionality).

The problem is that when no people exist, the world that's independent of us has no means of making such direct connections.

It needs to be a direct connection and not just a correlation, because, for example, "the composition of music employing the twelve-tone scale" is correlated with "dodge" in the dictionary, because that's the definition of "dodecaphony," and dodge follows dodecaphony. (At least hypothetically--I didn't actually check a standard dictionary to check the example, but all we need is an example of the types of correlations we find--definitions of a term followed by another term.) — Terrapin Station

It's really unclear what you're talking about here though, and unfortunately not for the first time. It's not so much what you're saying that is unclear, but rather that you've once again left out what this is supposed to be required for. This is a reoccurring problem which you need to iron out.

You need to understand that when you say things like, "It has to be...", and, "It needs to be...", but you don't explicitly state what for, then that will cause a problem of ambiguity.

That's an example of self contradiction. — creativesoul

No, I suspect that it's an example of you failing to realise that you're talking about a difference sense of existential dependence which completely misses the point of what I'm getting at.

Your sense seems to be the sense that I'm existentially dependent on my parents. If they had not conceived me, then I wouldn't be here right now.

My sense is, and has always been, that I'm not existentially dependent on my parents in the sense that they could both be dead right now, and yet I am still here.

I depended on my parents in order to exist, but I no longer do.

Fortunately, I'm very good at analysing what goes on in exchanges such as this. I can do it on a level far greater than you. You just think that I'm making a self-contradiction.

When you learn proper grammar, and when you're capable of logic on my level, get back to me, and we can sensibly continue this.

You evidently do not understand the difference between assuming and concluding. — creativesoul

No, you're just bad at logic beyond a more basic level. You can't just assume what the debate is over as part of your argument.

Surely you're not claiming that correlations can be drawn between things without a creature capable of drawing the correlations? — creativesoul

Jesus H. Christ. No.

I think the problem here is that you're not good enough at grammar or logic or both to avoid problems relating to tense.

Let's say that there is a correlation that has been drawn between apples and pears. It was drawn by a creature who died last night. The correlation depended on the creature for its existence, but it does no longer. The creature died, yet the correlation made by the creature remains.

The correlation was dependent on the creature's past actions for it to be there now. But it isn't dependent on the creature now. The creature is dead after all.

That's an example of how to use the grammar of tenses properly, and how to do logic properly. Perhaps you can learn from my example.

Correlations that have been drawn between different things are themselves existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing them. No such creature, no such correlations. — creativesoul

I knew this would lead to disappointment. That is precisely what the debate hinges on. Assuming what you're supposed to be concluding is a logical fallacy.

Look, if you're just not up to it, if you're not on my level, then this won't be worth it for me.

All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. — creativesoul

I don't care what you think about that, because I've confined the discussion to linguistic meaning only, so whether that's true or false is irrelevant.

Woah, déjà vu.

Now...

Whatever drawing correlations between different things is existentially dependent upon, so too is linguistic meaning. — creativesoul

You have such an awkward way of wording things. What are you even talking about? Just say it. What is it that you think both things are dependent on?

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things. — creativesoul

I don't care what you think about that, because I've confined the discussion to linguistic meaning only, so whether that's true or false is irrelevant.

"Drawn" is past tense, so the pedantry is unnecessary. — creativesoul

I bloody well know that "drawn" is past-tense. Your statement contained an ambiguity because of what was missing, and what was missing can be filled in a number of ways. I know this because I'm just better at spotting these grammatical things than you are. You would do well to bear this in mind the next time you think of replying like that. I will show you what I mean, since you obviously missed it:

All [linguistic] meaning consists of correlations [that are] drawn between different things.

All [linguistic] meaning consists of correlations [that have been] drawn between different things.

It's only the second one that I'll accept.

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.

Let's start there.

Do you disagree?

If so, offer me one example to the contrary. That's all it takes. — creativesoul

It seems a little unclear. I would change it to: all linguistic meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. That way it makes it clear that only linguistic meaning is being talked about, and it makes it clear that only a past act is required for there to be linguistic meaning. This past act required subjects, but that's all that they're required for, as far as I can reasonably assess. There's a linguistic meaning if it was set, and if nothing of relevance has changed.

One person is insufficient for language. The entire scenario is ill conceived.

Linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon language users. The meaning does not consist of language users. The meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things. The meaning lives or dies along with the users. If someone or other later finds a text, it is possible for them to decipher some of the meaning. That would require that an interpreter draw the same correlations between the marks and whatever else those marks were correlated with by the original actual users of that language... — creativesoul

That's far too many assertions there that you're bombarding me with all at once. You're getting ahead of yourself now. Each one would require careful analysis. Each one would require an argument from you. I don't need to be presented with claims which are already what the debate hinges on, like this:

"Linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon language users".

And this:

"The meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things".

And this, which is redundant, as it is basically just another way of putting the first claim:

"The meaning lives or dies along with the users".

Again, these should be your conclusions, not your premises!

And as for this:

"One person is insufficient for language".

Even if true, that's not a big deal, as that wasn't the point of the thought experiment. Just change the number to whatever you think the minimum requirement is.

Step one is for you to go back and revisit the post where I did quote you and offered relevant answers...

page 6 maybe? — creativesoul

I lost patience after your problematic first reply, which I did briefly address. You were just getting the wrong end of the stick, and it would sap my will and my energy to explain why that it is, and where you're going wrong, and I wouldn't find that rewarding. With others, they either got it, or they didn't get it quite so wrong, and it was something I could work with.

Pointing out that the methodology(the terminological framework) you're insisting on, is inherently inadequate for the task is the wrong way to involve myself in the discussion?

How else to I tell you that the problems are the inherently inadequate conceptions, language use, and/or the terminological frameworks you're adopting and working from?

Flies and bottles... — creativesoul

Step 1 is to quote something I said. The quote function is your friend.

Look, I'm not saying that you had bad intent, but I really think that you have a tendency to go about involving yourself in a discussion in the wrong way.

Can you quote something that has been said, try to remain on point, and if you seem to be going down a different avenue of thought, then explain the relevance to what has been said? I don't want the subject changed without very good reason, and I'll be the judge of that. Can you please respect my wishes?