tar

Moontanman, Yes, I suppose that is what I am saying, and it is what I mean. Only suggesting that that is "our" way. Or one of "our" ways. From the perspective of an outsider to any particular "way", the way choosen is false. To the "insiders" the way is true. That is what we are talking about here, in the general sense of Reality, Theory, God. My truth is the one they do not see. You see it in a similar fashion. They do not. Suppose we would achieve John Lennon's "imagine" situation, and then all the world would be as one. And there was "one" person in Podunk Mississippi, and he did not want to go along. We would have to start all over again. The whole dream would be dashed. How are we to get him to agree with us? Or if all the world was for Allah, except "him", or if everybody except "him" believed in the scientific method, as the "only" way to get to the truth. What if this guy in Podunk thinks there is another way? We would have to rethink the situation, or kill him, or just continue on, without him. Regards, TAR2 The LAST thing in the world we would want to do is consider that the guy in Podunk is RIGHT.

Immortal, But you say an important thing about the elephant story when you draw a different lesson from it than I do. That there is indeed more than one way to "listen to the story". That there is not only one way. Now my answer to this, if it is to be "correct" must satisfy the critera of being able to have both of us "meaning" the same thing. That is, neither of us, can be faking. But somewhere, on some level, we must be looking at it from a "different" perspective, or the lessons we take, would not be contingent on our view of it. Both of us must be faking. We are either lying to the other, or lying to ourselves. The mystics, as they ask the color of the jewels, are choosing a "particular" way, a "particular" lesson, that divides the "ways" into "various" ones. Only when this particular lie is understood as the truth, only when the true meaning of this particular truth is commonly understood, can the teacher and the student know they mean the same thing. But what of my contention that there is not a wrong, faked way to arrive at this truth? What if we "start" with the truth AND end up with it, and can do nothing but become it, willingly or unwillingly? Then "the will" becomes important. Our "knowledge" of good and evil becomes apparent. We know the "ways" to approach or avoid the truth, and we choose "our" way. You say that there are only a select few sages who have done it right? Would this not mean that they are fakers by default? That "the individual", located at his/her/its particular place and time, has "already" divided himself/herself/itself from the unity? That their "lie" to themselves is that they have done no such thing? My proof that they are liars, would be that if "after" they have seen the truth, in the only true manner, they get hungry for supper. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, In the last several months in some of the philosophy threads, like this, and science vs. religion, many good minds have said their piece. There is disagreement and argument, not usually on the facts...those are accepted...but on the interpretation of the facts. "But what do you mean by that?" is not an unusual concern. In the exchange between Immortal and PeterJ, two "philosophers and mystics", who have "understood" the teachings of the sages, there is STILL disagreement on the fine points. You think its a bunch of hooey. I think its partial hooey...but can "imagine" that perhaps what I consider the truth of the situation, is the same "truth" that they are talking about. (bear in mind, I am refering to that which can not actually be described as an object...but which is reality itself) Where you might not see the value of the mystical interpretations is where you have just assumed their conclusions, as indeed, the way it is...so...what do we do next? What's for dinner? How do we get a better handle on the things that threaten our existence and the existence of our fellows, and children? What of overpopulation, and pollution, and radioactive accidents? These are more important concerns. The things that are bad for our survival must be handled, removed, fought or worked around. And the world around us is complicated and huge, and we have to work together to make it work for us. With evil at bay, we can explore and enjoy, and extend our reach, and prepare a "better" place for our children to exist in. The mystics have "always" known the truth. The preists have "always" known the truth. Even if the truth is EXACTLY what they say it is. It still leaves the question of what we are going to have for dinner. You and I would rather see a well designed transit system, than a circular argument. BUT, one of the "dangers" in this world is having other people who are your enemy, that want to kill you, so that "their" truth can survive. Religion, and mystical "agreements" bind people together, into the same "we" group, who protect each other from all that would hurt them. As you see, this gets complicated, because the same mystical agreements that bind people together on the one hand, put them at odds with those who hold "different' mystical agreements. Religions are built and civilizations and nations...but there are "other" religions, and "other" civilizations, and other nations. And there are wars between them. Sometime fought with "gentleman's rules". Sometime fought with the gloves off. And sometimes fought to the death. So consider this. If we could ALL agree on the same "binding" mystical argument, under whose authority we each would police ourselves, and do only good, for ourselves, for our families, for our neighborhoods, for our states and countries, for our hemispheres and for our Earth...that would be good. But how are we to agree on that mystical thing? We have been trying. And its been working. And we have work to do. But how are we to get this agreement, without using the "truths" that mystics and religions have provided us? We have to, by my current take, see the meaning behind EVERYONES truth, that is look for the "oh THAT'S what they mean", rather than assume the worst. But that would be using philosophy or mysticism. What posssible credence could that have? Regards, TAR2

And of course, that is where the strawman shows up. Just for fun, consider yourself looking in a mirror and making determinations of what your face looks likes, "for real". we have light reflecting off your face, traveling to the mirror, reflecting off that, going through "two different" lenses, where the images are flipped upside down and backward and projected on the back of each eye, where rods and cones create chemicals that create electrical signals that proceed to change the "state" of the arrangement of synapse and neuron connections, creating an anolog re=presentation of what your face looks like "for real". If someone else where to look directly at you, from some further distance, he might say, that "for real" you face was flipped horizontally and a bit smaller than you thought. "AHH bullpoop" Owl replies. I have a real face, I see it right there...non of this fancy 180 degree flipping and moving away is going to change the shape of MY face! seems you have to do a bit of abstraction to come up with what reality is in the first place

Immortal, I do not mind putting you in my "we" group. I have read your posts, and "know" you a little bit. I would guess that you would agree that when it comes to blind men and elephants, it is "better" to be the one "listening" to the story. And that we "truely are" on many levels and in many literal ways both the characters in the story and the person that can listen to it and understand. and in this way, for this purpose, our own blindness is removed and the elephant appears and neither you nor I are suggesting that we can actually "see" it ourselves, but that we can know of it, by listening to our(the) story Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, Thank you for answering my question directly. PeterJ and Immortal, Thank you for your discussion, you are answering my question by demonstration. I do not wish to sound "removed" or clinical here, but I am on an "investigation" of the meaning behind language. And I inspect myself as I am "inspecting" you guys. And my particular "reason" to ask the question, is because English has these three persons. I(we), you(you), he-she-it(they). And I don't think it is by accident. There is a difference between these ideas. And the ideas mean something. And it appears to me, to be bound up in "identity". That is, "who one identifies with". It is an "associating factor", when someone else knows what you mean. That the two of you, see the same truth. As in "we all know the moon appears in the sky". Everybody (sighted) on the planet knows this. Science goes after these kind of truths. The ones we can all agree on, that can be demonstrated. This associates everybody to everybody. We are all in the same "we" camp when we talk about things which have empirical, sensible existence. We can point to what we mean and say "there, that is what I mean". Pretty safe bet we are talking about the same thing. The "meaning" of our reference is clear. And of particular interest to me, in PeterJ's and Immortal's recent exchange is the authorities they quote and reference. And the references to "knowing when someone "else" was "faking" knowledge of the truth". Not unlike believers and nonbelievers as described in the Koran. And the similarity that "It is not outer awareness, It is not inner awareness, Nor is it a suspension of awareness. It is not knowing, It is not unknowing, Nor is it knowingness itself. It can neither be seen nor understood, It cannot be given boundaries, It is ineffable and beyond thought. It is indefinable. It is known only through becoming it." has to my description of "Unity" earlier, as a "pure" intuition, which nothing can be said about. Except for the last line, where I would say that the "becoming" is not required, if you already know. So either "I" have a different idea of "the truth" than the actual correct one, or "they" are wrong, or we all have a perfectly sound grasp of it, and fail miserably at giving the "other guy" the benefit of the doubt. That is, given the all encompassing nature of "unity", and the fact that it therefore can be nothing but obvious, it has to "mean" the same thing, to anybody and everybody, whether they start with it, or end up with it, are born with it as a pure intuition, or "become it" after years of instruction, or are "graced it" by the gods. There is no "other" "only thing" to be had. How could anyone be the only one to know the only thing there is to know? Reminds me of my concern that somebody "reaching" nirvana is doing it quite by themselves. They have not really reached very far, having never left themselves to get there. Of course they will say they left themselves behind on the trip...but I will not know what they "mean" by that. Seems undoable, according to my understanding. I have a problem also with those who describe "it" as "listening to the silence", once you remove all "thoughts" from your head. Describes perfectly what I was saying about a "pure intuition", but I doubt that is what they "mean". I think they are "faking it", fooling themselves into thinking they can think without thinking. Exist without existing. Or have a soul, without a body...but that is just me and "my" beliefs talking. Where I draw the line between literal and figurative. Regards, TAR2

PeterJ, I forgot I was supposed to "not interfer" with the discussion. Looking back through the thread I see I have done nothing but. So I guess I lack self-control, and have gone back on my word...but darn it, people keep bringing up stuff I need to respond to. Been thinking all day about "your" unity. And wanted to share a few questions and observations. Is your "unity" also "my" unity, or not? It seems to me that it should have only one characteristic, and that would be that it has no characteristics. That is, nothing can be said about it. If something could be said about it, then it would be an object we could judge in terms of its quantity,quality, relation and modality. If it CANNOT be an object of our understanding, then it best be left out, or remain out of our understanding. Even if we wanted it in our understanding we have no way to get it there, because it is not an object that we can judge...unless...it is "something" we just automatically know, a pure intuition, even purer than space or time. In which case we already know it. There is no "path" to it. It does not take years of study and practice and musing to "arrive" at. It cannot be "found" by a select few. Any "further" realization of it, would have to be a "part" of it, or incorrectly assign it as an object of our understanding. It may however be important what each of us does with this "knowledge", or how each of us relates to this "knowledge", or the way we handle or refuse to handle this knowledge being in someone else's mind. After all, you can't say anything about it. And if you try, you just look really goofy to everybody else. You are either making things up, or saying something untrue about something they already know everything there is to know about it. Regards, TAR2 Or we keep "looking" for it, as if it could be anything different than what we already know it is. Like it would be a "surprise" or a secret treasure, or that thing that "everybody else" has been missing all these years. Seems like it might be the kind of knowledge that religions claim they have special rights to.

Owl, Cap'n has a real good point. The discussion is about where a scientist has used, does use and could continue to use philosophy, therefore consider philosophy "relevant". It's not about where philosophy would make science irrelevant or wrong. Any argument in that direction would actually, in this context, be dismissive of science and the scientist and therefore not only very possibly untrue, but also very possibly misplaced. Regards, TAR2 And as an aside, in general I would say that telling other people what they mean is probably dogmatic in nature, and I would "philosophically" suggest that it is better to look for what someone else means than to figure that somehow, you already know that they must be looking at it wrong. Take the ole discussion of the two men standing next to each other "you are standing on my left", "no, no, no, you idiot, you are standing on my right".

ydoaPs Sorry, that last post of mine was meant to append to the previous one. I did not realize others were posting as I typed. I have more knowledge of my own philosophies than of Kant's. Granted. But I am "conversing" with him through the pages of one of his books, and I am not "ignorant" of his thoughts. Since I have not yet grasped fully what he "means" by all he has said, I will grant you the possibility that I might not yet have "gotten" it. But please allow that I might have an inkling of knowledge on the subject, and that Kant was saying more than one thing, and that Kant was attempting to lay down some ground rules for Metaphysics as well as say a bunch of other things about a bunch of stuff, each in their own context, and each with their grounds and conclusions, and each with their place and role in "the understanding". And I don't remember Kant ever saying that there was not an elephant to intuit. Any idea you have that Kant was saying we were blind, therefore confined to darkness, I would have to question. Does not seem to me that that is what he means. Lack of certain, final, direct knowledge of the thing does not leave us without an inkling of a clue. We can, within what I know of Kant's ideas, still be the blind men AND the person listening to the story. Regards, TAR2

That was addressed to you, and you could take it as an affront, and say "so why should other's not look for how I am right, that together we should be able to see the elephant better'. And you would have a point...except 50 blind men(women) comparing notes is better than one blind man that will not accept the collected notes of a bunch of blind guys.

Owl, Just for the sake of argument. What if, ALL scientists and ALL metaphysicists, and ALL humans in general are after understanding reality. REAL reality, and have approached it from slightly different angles, using different methods. Being that we are all "blind" to the same aspects of reality, the blind men and the elephant story, is not to be dismissed lightly, and teaches us something, about how we should go about understanding the elephant. It REALLY is like a snake. And it REALLY is like a wall. Better in my estimation to figure out what there is to learn about reality if the other guy is correct, than to try and figure out what reality is if the other guy is wrong. Regards, TAR2

Owl, No, the ship really can’t travel faster than light and get there in a fraction of 4.3 years. But in your thought experiment, you have to change all variables that are changing, AND retain all relationships that exist REALLY in the REAL world (local part of the galaxy) in a manner that keeps things that HAVE to be the case, the case. The universe, every piece and part of it, will HAVE to have experienced every instance of spacetime it occupied in the 8.6 (plus) years of the ships journey to Alpa Centuri and back. This is not hard to imagine for Alpha C. which is in our frame of reference, simply 4.3 lys distant. But we have to imagine the ship's instances of spacetime coordinates along which it is constantly existing during the trip in a manner that will "hold to" reality, which is very "difficult" to picture in your mind, and carry out realistically, without the assistance of mathematical equations that will "stand for" reality and vary where relationships will vary, and stay consistent where relationships will stay the same. If given the choice between imagining what has to happen on such a trip, to keep reality real, and putting it down on paper to see what actually has to happen for reality to continue to behave consistently...I pick the paper and pencil method. Its going to turn out to be MORE realistic. Regards, TAR2

PeterJ, You wrote the above, and I would like to use it as an example for Mooeypoo. Mooeypoo, It mirrors exactly a thought I had myself, about us and the universe, or should I say about me and the universe, which I extend to include others with the same human equipment I have. We are of and in the universe. Subtracting, for the lack of evidence of it, the immortal soul of TAR, from the situation, we are left with a few facts. There is no part of me, that is "other than" the universe. That is, there is nothing real about me, that is not real, and explainable or that does not have a "basis" in reality. However I am not big enough to be all of it, and not old enough, and seem, by all evidence to be only associated with one particular body/heart/brain group. That is, identity wise. There is you and there is me. And as you have probably heard me mention before, we each hold in the folds and synapses and connections in our brains, an analog "model" of the universe. (this statement is rather similar, and probably "the same" statement as is made above in PeterJ's quote of Imam Ali.) It can serve as an "example" of something metaphysically arrived at, by Iman Ali, that I also arrived at, using a combination of abstract thought, metaphysical logic, general musing and "feeling", and the empirical reality, reported to me by scientific inquiry and experienced by me throughout my life, and is indeed a "positive statement" about our condition that is both metaphysical, AND falsifiable. The fact that two people can arrive at the same "truth" (although differently worded), says to me that it probably is not too far from the actual case. If you can agree empirically with my statement, and know what I mean by it, then "if" Imam Ali, is talking about the same thing, and PeterJ would agree that Imam Ali is talking about the same thing (with stated reservations, of course), we may have an example to explore from both the metaphysical and scientific viewpoints. Regards, TAR2

PeterJ, I am a fan of Kant. But I am still reading him and trying to figure out what he means. I do not need to, nor should I, believe anybody's determination, till I know what it means. At that point, I can see what is meant figuratively, and what is meant literally. You talk about pink unicorns, and we all know what you are talking about. That means they exist in exactly the senses we are considering them. You say unity is that without parts. I have plenty of evidence of parts. Things inside, things outside. Relationships in time, relationships in space. If I cannot agree with your premise, why would any conclusion you draw from it make any sense to me. If you wish to prove something to me. Start with something we agree on. Let's say unity got lonely... so forgot it was alone. So things are different now. And are exactly as they appear. Regards, TAR2 I will retain the right to look at things from my point of view, because it is the only one I have.

What if you are a wise-guy? Can you, then?

PeterJ, What? Ok, you know what you mean, but I have no clue. These circular logic things are stupid in my estimation. If you have a logical sequence that leads to a contradiction, my rule is...YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG. If you are going to talk about true and false things, you have to know what you mean when you say it. If you change meanings in midstream, that is your fault, not mine. If the universe is a unity, then there is nothing different to consider. So there is nothing to point to, and nobody to do the pointing. I am pointing this out. So logically the universe is not a unity. Not anymore. At least not at this time. Not at this place. And not as far as I am concerned. If you have anything "different" to say, then the unity is disproved. Absolutely. Tar logic says. Regards, TAR2 I can make a positive metaphysical claim, and its truth depends on whether or not that which I refer to in the claim is true. If there is meaning behind my claim, then there is something I am refering to. If I am refering to it, and you know what I am refering to, where is there an issue that the thing exists for you and me. Let's say I make you a promise. It is a positive metaphysical claim I am making. It is true and it exists. I can either keep it or break it, but the promise exists, and is true. No Earthly clue what you are talking about, when you say that it is already been proven by metaphysics that no positive metaphysical claim can be made. What could that MEAN? Its already a gosh darn contradiction. Its already WRONG. Say something that means something to somebody. Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

Owl, If you remember, early on I was very much on your side on this, suggesting what shape the flyby guy would see the Earth if he swung around and passed by again at a 90 degree different angle and so on. I then "learned" what the equations where telling us. That if the speed of light is constant, time dilation and length contraction MUST be the case. And indeed the Earth would be squished in the "other" direction on the second pass. If we are to see the traveler as shortened in the direction of his travel, then the traveler must see us as shortened as well, because we are passing by HIM at incredible velocities, and as far as he can tell, since he an his ship are stationary in regards to each other, everything is perfectly correctly shaped, locally. And to him, these oblate sphereoid things he sees flying toward him is what reality looks like. EVERYTHING zooming past him looks like that. That must be how they are "really", objectively shaped. Plus I just realized that he probably can not turn around and approach from a "different" angle without some acceleration, that would change the equations. (I think somebody mentioned that at the time, but I just got it.) Anyway. The Earth stays spherical to anybody with no relative velocity to it. This fact ensures its oblateness to anything or anybody that it "passes" at a high velocity (near C). At least that is the way I understand what has been discovered about how the universe works. Remember that the model of the universe you have in your mind has the same abstract nature to it, as the model in SwansonT's mind. You both depend on sense experience to inform you of "what is real". 'Cept SwansonT believes what he sees. You believe what you imagine you should see. If SwansonT is going by the observations and experiments that suggest a mathematically consistent spacetime geometry, that allows for, no, that demands time dilation and length contraction be the case, if C is to remain constant...then that is what observations and experiments "tell us" is the case. It is the way it "looks" to be. Nobody is "making it up", they are reporting what they have found to be the case. If you are going to have faith in the observations and measurements of others, that tell you, you are living on a sphere, why stop believing them at a point of your choice. For four generations reality has looked more and more to be as relativity theory describes it. AND the speed of light is very very fast and the solar system is very very huge. It is hard to model such, "realistically" in ones mind using no math, just using a "feeling" that this or that has to be the case. It is more likely that what the math says are the actual relationships, ARE the actual relationships than what you guess/figure have to be the actual relationships, are the actual relationships. If you are going to figure. Why not go with what the actual figures say? Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Thanks. I think we are talking about the same thing. And if understood or "taken" in this fashion science is our(second person) collective third peson...literally, although it is figurative in nature...that is, has no substance, outside of "establishments" and institutions that stand for it. And God is also a third person, for any 1st person according to their personal take, and collectively for any group of people(second person "we") that have the "same" take on the nature of the third person. Seems in any case, that I am in and of reality, we are in and of reality, and he, she and it, are definitely real as well. One can not question the take of another person, without denying the reality on/in which the questionable take is grounded. There is enough room to simply shift a few facts/concepts across the literal/figurative line to "understand" where another 1st person might be "coming from". That does not mean you(we) have to agree on where the lines are actually drawn. In fact it assures that they are indeed drawn differently, in different minds. Which leaves me personally to feel that science and philosophy and religion are each grounded in the person they attempt to understand. In this thought, Science would be grounded in the third person (emperical reality), philosophy in the second (logic/theory) and religion in the first person's direct (unthought) connection and grounding to reality(GOD). I would not consider any part of the elephant, completely descriptive of the whole elephant. They each explain each other. We should probably remember that if we focus only ahead, we lose sight of what is behind, figuratively speaking. And since each of us DOES take a third person view, whether it be grounded in ourselves at times, in others, or in a direct "understanding" of the thing we are of and in, there must at least be "something" that we literally/figuratively have in common. Whatever our take. It is real and true. Regards, TAR2

Listen to what I mean, not what I say. post not, for thou shall be revealed or the correlary to Phi for All's, To a scientist, one universe is not complicated enough.

Further muses along this line, Immortal, Well yes, but this "problem" is solved, or becomes not so much a problem, but a description of what is actually going on, once you "have" the problem. And still and yet, the universe remains as huge and timeless as it is...and still and yet it is reflected in your limited self. Why to we have such a term as "insight", unless we actually have them on occasion. And although the "content" of an insight may or may not be the same as another insight of the same mind, or a different human mind, there is a "sameness" in the process of finding or seeing something you had not noticed before, using no actual new inputs from your eyes, but "seeing" something new about reality, just "looking at" your "model" of it. Many threads on this forum have the theme "I have found the answer, that everybody else has been missing". Not likely. Not even in this threads case. There have been too many good minds, noticing real stuff, for too long, for any obvious stuff to have gone so unnoticed. But this hints at the "nature" of "third person" conceptions. That any one of us, could consider that we could "contain" or know that which is "outside" our knowledge...without even leaving our own first person. Has to be some multiple senses in which the third person can be taken. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Thank you for that response. I thought for the moment that we were each talking about something different than the other. Had an insight a number of months ago, can't put a date on it, 'cause it includes thoughts I had prior the insight and has been a component of thoughts I have had since. But it went like this. We take our thoughts from the world we internalize through our senses. Our thoughts are analogies of what actually is. Really, really good analogies, that match exactly on a number of scores. I did not detail the scores but considered that basically we mirror the outside, on the inside, and therefore our "thoughts" are made up of the "stuff" on the outside. The patterns, the timing, the distances, the scale, the relationships, the forms and shapes AND colors and textures, actually reproduced in a rather intact fashion in the folds and connections and firings of our brains. When we make an analogy on a higher level, we do it with the analogies we have already collected and stored. So my thinking is now, that figurative things, abstract thoughts have some basis in reality. Not only are they made up of literal things, but they are made up IN a literal brain. Enough basis in my mind, to consider that which we take literally to actually be real and true by default. And that which we take figuratively to be an internal "manipulation" of, or imaginary inspection of, literal things. When we drive past a tree every day, and one day it is knocked down it is literally knocked down, and our mental model of the world is immediately adjusted to match reality. But in our imaginations we can still see the tree as it stood. Even though, it is no longer "really" there. If we changed our route the following day, a year later we might even "forget" that the tree was knocked down, and still have the image of it standing, and be "surprised" for a moment when we turn the corner for the first time in a year and find it missing. "That's right! It blew down in a storm, last year." Reality trumps memory, we have no problem with that, its automatic. But it gives a basis for making a literal distinction between literal thoughts and figurative thoughts, even though they are both had "representationally" and are not in and of themselves the thing as it is that is being thought. We still know the difference. At least as far as we are concerned there is perception, there is concrete thought, there is abstract thought. Things can be taken literally and things can be taken figuratively. But if it is taken at all, there must be some truth to it, it must have a referent, be it a literal referent or a figurative one. It is with these thoughts in mind, that I started the thread. Regards, TAR2

yeah, but we need somebody to keep the books

and Mooey, what would we be doing science for in the first place if it wasn't for us(humans). Sort of subjectively powered. I think it is worth the discussion. If only to understand ourselves, individually, and to see what others may be "on our side" in various senses. But in a search for figurative associates, not a search for literal enemies. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, I am not thinking that You can take the third person role in my example. You are second person to me. And the things that you take literally and figuratively are different than the way I take them, so you are only second person to me when we agree. Where and when we disagree we can not consider the same things literal and the same things figuratively, we can not agree on what is literal and figurative in the first place, so it is hard to apply the "taken literally" and "taken figuratively" in the same fashion as is my intent in the OP. So my OP statement definitely needs some work. It does not work as stands. I have not clarified the meanings, and it in no way was intended to give a first person the rights to third person status. In fact it is an argument "against" having the ability to arrive at the third person grounds, by yourself. You can not even arrive at the second person without somebody else to take a look at you and for you to take a look at. I am willing to let this thread go. The thought I had might be workable. But my expression of it was very very weak. And the assumptions I was making are not universally held. Sorry.

Immortal, Yes, but there are "literal" ways that the planets effect us and the things around us, the planet's gravities are "in the same literal direction" when they are aligned. Do you literally "think" differently when this is the case? That would be a matter for science to investigate. To see if perhaps people's thoughts and other literal aspects of reality are affected by the pull of gravity, and if so, in what ways. The assignment of an agent responsible that fulfills both literal and figurative requirements is in order. But it doesn't have to be the agent we imagine. If my OP statement is to be a workable one, at finding logical grounds upon which to determine truth...the requirement would be met only when a thing was valid in a literal sense AND in a figurative one. Then only the thing that is the SAME thing in both arguments would be the truth that had grounds. Here I would like to still keep the rules of logic, and of reason. I am not looking to overturn anything that has already been found to be the case, and is already reasonable and is already deemed to be real. I am only after finding grounds upon which we can all agree on the "truth". And have started this thread with the understanding that we have already done an incredible amount of truth finding and have established some very good ways, to together, go about it. And on a selfish note am looking to test my ideas, my guesses, as to what is both literally and figuratively true about the universe, and about our collective view of it, and about my personal view of it. This has already been done. By many, if not all humans automatically. And by many in a very careful and thoughtful and systematic way. Just looking to make a contribution. Have no clue what that might be, or if I am capable of making such. Just seems that we have some "problems" to solve. And I am a troubleshooter by trade. And I feel that when valid arguments come up with contradictory conclusions, something has been taken in the wrong sense. (literal/figurative) And I am, by this particle thread, trying to sort it out in a way that would be grounded. As to looking at it, in a "true" way, that is both valid, and sound. Regards, TAR2 Well I have no particular clue, but I think it might be in the area of "the meaning behind language" so that is where I am looking.