Part of what takes me so damn long with a lot of my research is that I am EXTREMELY hesitant to ascribe equivalence to singularities. I’ll do so as a pragmatic matter and will ignore that in 1=1, the 1 on the left is not on the right and the right is not on the left but I’ll stay aware of it.
Hard to get generalize or abstract anything in a singularity view. So I go slow and repeat a lot.
Vague memory. I didn’t start looking into philosophy ’til I was about 41 and made it a strong point to join a bunch of philosophy groups online and pretend I knew what I was talking about, researching as I went along until I could say “Epistemology” and have some idea what it meant. [took about a year].
Read a few snippets, found him mostly agreeable to my way of thinking. That was.. about 6-7 yrs ago now and I did it for about two years.
The arbitrariness of equivalence was first put into me when I was about 12 years old (48 now) from this computer manual. Most BASIC used “LET” for assignment; the one I learned at 12 made LET optional but I was already familiar with using LET.
You can do a lot with arbitrary nonsense which is one of the wonders to me of how any communication is possible at all.
most definitely. The unique pathways we each create while traveling upon I believe are useful in understanding each other. So you likely notice I bring up autobiographical background frequently – with source whenever possible. It’s an intentional choice as it grounds my understanding to spacetime and allows the receiver an opportunity to tie in their own spatiotemporal, experiential and cultural understandings in a more enriched way than if I had say “this fact was thus and therefore so? consequence.”
I like your style. You toss a ball out there in novel directions often with names unfamiliar with me and I go off and fetch real quick and come back with an thought.
I’m one of those “always googling something” people. I think my mind’s been extended by online for a long time by “search” functions on computers.