Speculation is fictional at its root. I participate in it but always aware of its fictional nature,

Speculation is fictional at its root. I participate in it but always aware of its fictional nature, from thought experiments to movies to what if’s and wherever they’re found.

Impersonal is a style of communication but I do not believe it holds ontological value.

I speak in the subjective because it is the only thing I can give some semblance of validity to. It is me, my perspective, from this viewpoint.

I try not to speak for the Universal or for all time (this is what I mean by “working for eternity”) – but I do believe that it is valuable to determine pragmatic truths of a transient, practical nature.

Ultimate things are, to me, fictional and subject to change and found in many human systems that have pragmatic and social value.

==

Truth is generally of a consensus nature.

You say there is a deep inversion of subjective and objective but I do not see objectivity-as-fixed.

It is pragmatic to act “as-if” it is fixed for the purposes of getting things accomplished, just as logic is practical, formal discourse is practical. But something that is useful makes it a contingent truth.

I do not have absolute truth. Perhaps you do. Perhaps your sources do. Perhaps logic is. I don’t know.

I am a systems thinker. I think in terms of systems.

Logic is a system among other systems and is functional and useful for its purposes, but I do not utilize it as a basis-for-truth except truth that is considered truth from within the confines of its system.

Outside of its system? I care if it’s practical or not. If it’s not practical, then it is speculative fiction.

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


nine − 6 =

Leave a Reply