From: nospam@example.net   
      
     This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,   
     while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.   
      
   On Sat, 11 May 2024, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > On 2024-05-10, D  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>> True... but   
   >>>   
   >>> True *but*? Doesn't the latter word at least somewhat   
   >>> nullify the former? How can there be any "buts" about   
   >>> truth?   
   >>   
   >> Beats me! ;)   
   >   
   > Well, then, next time I need to beat you, I'll be sure to   
   > type the words "true but" in succession!   
      
   Touché! Is that how you win in ping pong as well? ;)   
      
   >>> All I can think (haha) is you pick one model, consider it   
   >>> The Reality, and stick to it. Serious attempts at trying   
   >>> to "get to the bottom of it" seem to necessarily lead   
   >>> to this madness being represented in this attempt to put   
   >>> "it" (double quotes indicate not being sure "it" is some   
   >>> reality, or a model...) in words.   
   >>   
   >> Well, all models are not equal. There is one model, par   
   >> excellence, that seems to tower above all others, and that   
   >> is the one where there actually is an external reality,   
   >> that can serve as common ground for truth, which can be   
   >> communicated with language and investigated by science.   
   >>   
   >> No one in 2500 years has been able to credibly disprove   
   >> that model.   
   >   
   > Modeldolatry. Got it.    
      
   Might I interest the gentleman in a 9 oz steak of golden calf? ;)   
      
   >>> Well, okay... I should have read further. In other words,   
   >>> *EXACTLY*.  Except that the "getting hooked on" part is   
   >>> incidental. The part about distraction was what I meant by   
   >>> "deepening of delusion".   
   >>   
   >> Got it! =) I think trying to convince others that there   
   >> is no external world also counts as a distraction. ;)   
   >   
   > "I"'m on a complicated trip, dude ;-) in that one of   
   > the "others" in my model of reality speaks as though a   
   > free-willed being fully convinced of an external world,   
   > which "I" considers a sort of nagging pebble in the sock of   
   > a shoe'd foot attempting to re-convince me of the reality   
   > of an external world, primarily because "I" has yet to let   
   > go of "i" (see also: ), i.e. the model of "I"   
   > (aka ineffability). It's just this weird game, and it's   
   > played with re-presentation atoms usually referred to as   
   > "words".   
      
   Tsss.... game?! This is deadly reality!   
      
   > In other words, "I" have no idea why "you" insisted we go   
   > back to the topic of transcendence again.... ;-)   
      
   I'm a masochist! That must be the answer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)