Flo Zizou on theology. @tohno.whatsoever

[00:00:01]Yo, tell. So, this debate will be held at discord.tgg.

[00:00:07]You know, this is where we host tournaments and all types of things.

[00:00:09]Yes. Yes. Yes. The debate will be between Flo and his dog [ __ ] loser Zel who lost to Mario just a couple minutes ago. The [clears throat] will be on theism and we will see Zel get his head ripped off part two.

[00:00:21]>> Ironic like that.

[00:00:22]>> All right. Beautiful. So now that we got that amazing introduction, it was like pure pulkitude. So to get back to my point, it seems that I'm going to be taking an atheist view that believes in God. Oh my god, woman, he could see it.

[00:00:36]He could see it. No. So when you're believing in God, obviously believing in God is going to be distinct from believing in the existence of God. Just like how you can believe in a teological end point such that well Luffy might become you might say Luffy will become the king of the pirates, but Luffy is a fictional character for which it's going to be non-existent in itself. But it could be subsistant and inherent. So in this sense, I would just say that God is that for which subsist inheres, but he's not going to be that for which exists.

[00:00:58]So I'm an atheist in that sense, but I believe in God.

[00:01:02]>> Obviously.

[00:01:03]>> Okay. So when you talk about um Okay.

[00:01:07]>> Yeah. So when we're talking about God for an example, we have these like primary productive force in this sense.

[00:01:12]Yes, I do watch one priest by the way.

[00:01:14]But when you talk about God which is going to be primary productive force and so for for which he's going to be preceded of that for which is going to be the identity which is going to be the determinations in these are going to be like his most simplicity assemblages etc to say that he's going to be this overarching gerrymandering force in this sense in this sense it's going to be the individuation that is going to be relying upon that of the identity for which cannot actually be there without that of the individuation that's going to light it. So in that sense you might just say that um the scarcity upon identity seems to silhouette the underlying force for which puts it in movement for which is infinitely eluded by both >> Go ahead.

[00:01:56]>> Uh you're done.

[00:01:57]>> Go ahead.

[00:01:58]>> Okay. So you talked about a few things.

[00:02:00]So the first part you really talked about in your definition of um >> atheism that affirms God is you talked about teolog or whatever the [ __ ] how you pronounce it which implies some form of outcome or end goal like like how you talked about goof Luffy um becoming the king of the pirates or something like that even though it hasn't happened now you're still affirming it in some form of future and you talked about how God is some form of primary productive mover and um you talked about his individuation and stuff like that. So usually when we talk about certain definitions right obviously definitions are not like truth app like nobody agrees that a definition is truth app but what we do agree upon is definitions are used by consensus and obvious >> and obviously like for example if me and um I don't know like bey are talking and chilling and then he says that's a tree and points to a chair and I say that's not a tree I'm not saying that his definition is objectively false but what I am saying is that's not how we define those terms more the reason why this is important here is Because when we talk about theology, a important entailment of theology is one that this God is personal. Nowhere in your definition that you provided, it implies some form of a personal creator that caters to us and interferes with the world for us.

[00:03:11]That's the first part of the thing that you miss completely and utterly. So that's that's number one.

[00:03:17]>> Two, when you talk about teology and you're talking about end goal, you're saying that there's an end goal for God to exist. And if that is the case, that is the summit of what you're saying, right? This is the first thing you brought up. You brought up tilos. The fir if that's the first thing that you brought up, that implies to us that there's some form of state affairs. I mean, my bad, a state of affairs or some form of cause that would imply this God would exist. The issue with that is when we look at all those definitions of God that you provided, it implies that God is some form of weird causal being that doesn't exist, which doesn't >> really one abide by any standard definition of theism and also just doesn't adhere to um what people define it just in general.

[00:03:58]>> So yeah.

[00:03:59]>> Yeah. So to go against one of the claims that you just made to claim it. Yeah.

[00:04:03]No, I don't believe that definitions have to come from a consensus. Obviously it could be within itself or that very multiplicity. In that self the definitions or the definants can come from the environmental conditions under which the agents can be independent of.

[00:04:16]Hence it doesn't need no aental power.

[00:04:18]It could just be coming from that thing for which is going to be naturalistically construed or in this sense constructive. Now in this sense I would probably say that yeah it's not going to be a classical theistic god. I never said I was going to be positing a type of theistic god. Let alone I'm never going to say that I'm going to be positing any type of traditional god.

[00:04:34]Obviously, those are going to be characteristics of an individual subject in this sense. But we're going before that. We're going to go pre-personal or pre-individual in this sense. In this sense for which is going to be differentiation in itself for which we're going to have the productive process by which reality is going to be continually generating differences and God is no longer going to be one of the being among of this type of supreme subject for which that's going to be the identity which just going to be stratified in some sort of way but rather it is going to have or be in this sense the very activity of becoming itself which can be eluding those of the types of stratifications of the present for which that's going to be the realm of the bodies.

[00:05:12]So it's not going to deliberate. It's not going to choose between the alternatives and it's not going to be an eye. Obviously we're going be actually before that of the kita. Actually you can even bring up the laral subjects which even then produces that of the subjectivity. But when speaking about my view the god in this sense would have that imminent power for which is going to be continually emerging from then or in the sense the transformation for which is going to have a distinction. So in this sense I don't want to use it as functioning as this metaphysical principle um or in this sense I would probably just say that it differentiates for which is going to be in itself form its multiplicity and its intensity in so far to giving this quasi cost because the causes are just going to be caporeal. Obviously you can have the actual and the virtual being that for which is going to be co-constitutive of one another. So when you talk about the virtual in this sense it's going to be quasi cause for which inherits and just produces and subsist within that of the actual but the causes are going to be at the caporeal level for which then actually produces that of the event for which the event is going to actually be that which is going to actually be incaporeal. Hopefully you got that. I just made that simple for you. Now understanding that no it's not going to be a personal god. No it's not going to have a consensus amongst the agents. And two I just said Luffy for the teological endpoint. I never said that God was a teological point. I never even bring up teiology in so far to God. I was just saying that obviously you can have these instances under which Luffy would be teologically um having this end goal such that he will become um the king of the pirates and then he would be this. Obviously I'm going against that whole entire setup because I don't believe anything is like teological and so far to an end point because I believe everything is going to be rumatically constrained. But when I'm speaking about it in this sense, I'm saying that you can have these instances that seem coherent under which you can have these non-existent goals such that Luffy, you may typically agree, would not be existent, but he is still going to be that for which you can believe in in so far to his activity towards a goal, which is totally fine. Yeah, Gro, the guy MZ, he's too >> catch your breath, bro. Catch your breath.

[00:07:25]>> Get back to what I was trying to say.

[00:07:26]No, I was talking to Gyro in the chat.

[00:07:27]>> I know. I'm just telling you to catch your breath in general, but it sound like you're out of breath.

[00:07:30]>> No, I think I'm pretty okay right now.

[00:07:33]But you can just Yeah, I'm I'm pretty sure you can.

[00:07:35]>> All right. Are you ready for me to respond or you still like have a few more?

[00:07:38]>> No, I'm still going to keep on going because I feel like you're going to not track me again for like the 60th time.

[00:07:44]>> Yeah, definitely, bro.

[00:07:46]>> Yeah. Okay. No, be quiet. Indonesian [ __ ] bullfrog. Now, look, the main point is this. The main point is this.

[00:07:51]When you're speaking >> Yeah. The main point is this. So when you're speaking about the god obviously it's going to be incompatible for what you are going to be saying because it's going to be a primary productive power for which is going to underly it. We're going to be taking like a sadist view for which the sadism here under my philosophy is not going to be the typical sadism. So stop thinking that.

[00:08:10]But it's going to be a novel sadism for which is just going to actually be up in this upheaval sense. So if you ever actually went into like the angle of depression within geometry because I know you never like read any type of philosophical literature or any [ __ ] mathematics. um when you're going into it, it seems that above the horizon scaling or that of the horizon scaling seems to have this upheaval such that the upheaval is actually going to give rise towards that of something that's going to be stratified on the downward heal. So in this sense you would probably just say that it's going to be incompatible with your classical norms, your normativity and everything that you're going to be taking. I want you to go ahead and just justify all those normativities under your view. But I'm not going to hold to any type of justification that's going to be that aberent model of thought or in this way the dogmatic imagery of thoughts in this sense for which I'm not going to be saying that justification is going to actually be required of me but you're probably going to be inquiring in those types of representational primacies for which it's not going to be my view because if you do hold to my view then that would be a concession automatically to my God but obviously you don't. So I'm just going to be saying that's going to be a dogmatic image of thought for which is going to be under the light from the thought for which is going to go into encounter. So I don't like to hold that the tooth is just going to be that for which is going go towards that of the thought or the thought is going to go that on to the truth like how it was stated in like I think page 25 1991 what is philosophy but I am going to say that it's going to be the false that liberates that of the true such that the false is just going to break the rigid structure so the false liberates the form of the true for which is just going to be derritorializing your type of view into a destructed reality. into a more constructive novel in movement and in progression type of reality such that it's going to be preceded. So it's not that your view is going to be there for which is going to be false prescriptively speaking but it's going to be saying that your view is just going to be confused from an underlying prime which is going to be preceded by what I am saying. So in this sense your view is just a fragment dynamic fold of an underlying thing. So it's like you're making a silhouetting point. So in that sense that's just going to be the view.

[00:10:15]You can go against it now.

[00:10:17]>> Okay. Sure. So you made a lot of claims.

[00:10:19]>> You're done. Or is there anything else?

[00:10:21]Sorry. Okay. So the first thing you talked about was that your definition doesn't adhere to consensus. This is the first part. And one that isn't really clear and doesn't explain what you're trying to say. Because what I explained explicitly at the beginning was that when people communicate or a language that implies consensus in general because in order to have a society to function, that society needs a manner or a way to communicate. That's how we're all talking. That implies that we all have definitions that we adhere to. And that's why the example that I gave where I'm sitting with someone and we're looking at trees and he says, "Look, that's cheese." We obviously say, "No, that's not cheese. that's the tree and the justification for that isn't that his definition is objectively false but rather that's not the society's function he uses as the definition and that's what I meant by that so when you say that you're not using it um adhering to the consensus that doesn't mean anything two you started talking about how it comes from environmental conditions and that's what definitions come from but when we look at that what are environmental conditions are they not the society that we're in are they not the humans that create those languages is is it not those things. You said that you don't hold to classical definitions.

[00:11:29]So, if that's true, then you're clearly agreeing with what I said earlier.

[00:11:33]You're just not holding to a classical definition of theology. You're not holding to a classical definition of theism. And then you proceed to talk about things that just completely contradict what you said earlier. You talked about God being supreme. You talked about God who's going to be an imminent power that's going to be emerging. You talked about all those things. But if you already granted earlier that the entment of what you said that if God doesn't exist yet but is going to exist then it is clearly the case that obviously then there has to be some cause. It's not some quasi cause.

[00:12:01]It can't be a metaphorical cause like oh um God being guilty or something like that. And what I mean by guilty is obviously like that's the example of quasi um um causality where obviously if you say someone's guilty, it's not actually guilt that's putting them in jail, but um it's like some form of metaphorical cause. Obviously that is not what we're talking about here because God needs something physically to make him exist. And that's kind of the point here. So you bringing up quasi causality, all this [ __ ] doesn't really matter. So just moreover to follow up with everything I was really talking about um you said later that oh you weren't actually using teolog for God you're using it for Luffy. I was under the impression that you were using it for God because why else would he bring something so irrelevant and so arbitrary I don't get the relevance of Luffy. I thought you were just trying to use an example with Luffy to apply it to God. You try to explain how an atheist position can hold to God and that was the intellment of what you said where you said God doesn't exist but later on he can exist. And the entailer of that is what I said. You can't bring up quas forms of causation. That doesn't work.

[00:13:02]So, right off the bat, a lot of the yap that you said is just clearly false and just not true. And then a lot of the stuff that you brought about how me I'm presupposing normativity. I'm presupposing certain accounts of reality. Those things don't really matter. And the reason why they don't matter is because there's such fundamental presuppositions that don't affect the conclusion of this debate.

[00:13:21]Obviously, when we're debating on any topic, every debate, no matter what, has fundamental presuppositions. Not only can presuppositions be good for debates, sometimes they're downright necessary.

[00:13:30]And I'll give you guys examples. For example, the presupposition that we should speak in English, the dialectical structure that we're debating, why should we debate in this VC? Why should we debate in >> with the recording? All those things are obviously presuppositions. We didn't debate about those things, but in order to have a conversation, we had to um presuppose those things. And that's what I mean by it. So when you talk about normativity and you talk about all these things that don't affect the conclusion about theology, it doesn't actually affect or progress our conversation. I don't really care to talk about them and I'm not interested in talking about them. If you say that I'm quote unquote dodging, sure, I'm dodging the irrelevant stuff. So respond to all the other stuff. You made a few mistakes and you made a few contradictions. Yeah. And then [laughter] WE CAN PROGRESS.

[00:14:12]>> OH, BLESS ME. THIS [ __ ] IS A [ __ ] [laughter] >> YEAH. SO I COULD GO ahead and just explain this to you. So yeah, the norm, you said the normativity commitments don't matter. I'm going to go into that in a second. I'm gonna show you why that's a blender, too. But let's get back into the main point. Holy [ __ ] [ __ ] You said it's not clear. Your definition appeals to the consensus. So you're trying to say that in this sense we have this sensicality which seems to be I guess in this sense not as fun or clear in so far to the point it gets to the designation that you want. It's not a designation by the way, but it's more of so a risomatic emulation. So when you're speaking about it in this sense, I'd probably just say the communication is not going to be implying a consensus under which we do have these aential means because obviously before the manifestation which is going to be the I for which is going to be the coke till you have the laral subjects which you didn't go against because you're a [ __ ] [ __ ] But we're going to also have that for which is going to have the denotation which gives the rise towards that in this going to be this underlying signification from the language which is just going to be the theoretical construct. You [ __ ] [ __ ] So that's how I know you don't know anything that you're talking about because you're a [ __ ] Now the society functions is your view in so far to the society having these socioeconomic types. Well, it doesn't have to be socioeconomic, but if we're going into a socioeconomic type of realm, you're probably going to be saying that obviously there's going to be these societies for which it's going to have a communion amongst the others for which that might actually be um in so far to um this speech act theory. Um maybe if you wanted to audit this type of argumentation theory under which you're going to be saying a pragma dialecticalist would appeal that we need to have a social communion amongst the other. But you can monologic you can monologically exemplify it through the environmental conditions. But not only just that you can actually have it through the encounters and the forces that underly it for which is going to actually be productive of it co-constitutively. So no you don't know what you're talking about. You're a [ __ ] So in in this sense when you're talking about those environmental conditions and you ask oh what are these environmental conditions they're going to be from the encounter of the sense for which the thigh is going to actually be propagated. So in this sense when you're talking about for the definition definition is going to be coming from this underlying sense that's going to be in movement obviously actually I'm going to explain that in a second since we're going to be like doing talking sick I guess since you want to do that. Um but before I do that I mean >> so classical definition of theism I I never said that God is going to be supreme and I never took a classical attempt like you just agreed one. Two I would like to also say I never said God is not existent yet is going to exist. I never even said that. I never even actually put on an eventually temporal operator within my syntax. You [ __ ] [ __ ] So nobody said he's going to eventually exist. Okay. Nobody's going to say he's going to exist. This thing gets [ __ ] Okay. And it's not going to have to be a cause because I think the cause is going to be caporeal.

[00:17:02]Obviously, I take the existence to be product actually produced in this sense because you're going to be sacri existence. You're going to be saying it's going to be affectuous. But by like a spinosian account um and you're talking about metaphysical I mean metaphorical causes is not what we're talking about. No, I never said it's going to be what we're talking about.

[00:17:19]Let alone it's not going to ever be what we're talking about. I said it's going to be a quasi cause. Quasi. Hold on.

[00:17:25]Just for you to actually understand usually and typically under your literature would mean something that functions in such a way but it's not that for which is real. It is going to be fake but functioning in such a way.

[00:17:37]Okay. So understanding that you might say that these fictional verses that seem very very very complacent with our type of physics are working in such a way where we might actually say that there is not going to be some type of supernaturalistic phenomena. It seems that now you can start saying that these verses are actually relative to our type of realities and our laws and our physics etc. So it's functioning in such a way in so far to its fictional um its fictional domain but it's not actually and I'll say this again it's not actually being our real life domains. Okay, in this sense it's going to be virtually inherent and also you said it's false and not true. You're still treating false as a negation. You're still treating false as a negation and not a primary productive force, which I said is going to be the power of the false that liberates the form of the two because you don't actually understand that because you're philosophically incompetent again. But look, if you listen, you're going to know that the false is going to actually break those rigid structures because it shows that it's not going to be one way, but it's going to actually of ways for which we are going to have a new we can have the incomposible presence given the [ __ ] labyrinth, right? We have these li these labyrinates within time which is going to go through the form of time that's going to elude that of the present for which is going to be constantly transformative in motion. That's why we have segmentaries. You dumb [ __ ] Now the normativity commitments you just said that doesn't matter actually does matter. It's going to be the underlying points for which you believe social communions to actually function. You [ __ ] [ __ ] So it does matter in so far to the point in which you have these types of discourses for which is going to be presupposing these underlying generative consensus under which we can find each other intelligible. But that's still putting the sense either one produced or two as a static um immature type of function that's going to always be underlying in this sense for which is going to always be of the same. But I'm not giving a homogeneous critique. I'm giving a heterogeneous critique and so far to the point I'm showing that that actual staticness was just a metastability of something that was always in movement. So when you're speaking about it, we actually criticize this on multiple of levels. You [ __ ] [ __ ] Now to get back to what I was trying to say thought or through the process of individuation the did this causal structure that you're trying to speak about in the social community emerge and what interventions within that structure generated the observed outcomes in so far to the point for which it's going to be processually generative.

[00:20:23]Now getting back to the sense because I don't think you actually got this so I'm going to have to like educate you on this. Let's go into the circle of the proposition. So the circle of the proposition is usually having this one way of the sense which is endowed in an inefficacious and passive and sterile slender for which is given from the circle. But given the circle, you're going to have the parole for which that manifestation comes first. But you can have the points for which the discussion is not going to have the life speaker.

[00:20:53]That's why you can have a grounding in such a way for the language. It's going to be a theoret a theoretical construct.

[00:20:58]So that's why I'm telling you, you just don't know what you're talking about.

[00:21:01]Hey Ali, yo, can you pass me that? Yo, can you pass me that? Yeah. But anyway, like I was trying to say, you can have um the signification which comes first, which are the conditions by which the proposition can be ranked as truth in this sense. That's why you have the relations that's going to be contained within the language which precedes the matter in which the language is spoken.

[00:21:18]You [ __ ] [ __ ] You're dumb as [ __ ] You dumb little [ __ ] I don't I know you don't know anything. This is bad for you. But hold on. So when I was speaking about it, you have the signification which never succeeds in the grounding denotation without already be u made this type of ready-made denotation for which is going to be impossible to produce the signification without the denotation. But the denotation can't come first either because you have the literal pointer for which there is going to be a chair for which is going to be by the which is the speaking subject by which the proposition is submitted in the first place. But finally you have the manifestation which can't come first neither as the speaking subject presupposes the language and its relations. So none before or between the manifestation, signification and denotation comes first. In that aspect, we find ourselves in the loop of proposition. And yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I have a cousin right here in the [ __ ] background that I'm watching.

[00:22:06]Holy [ __ ] [ __ ] Anyway, getting back to what I was trying to say, um, we can't explain the sense or the sense making by any three of the types of propositions. Therefore, we need to postulate this for the fourth term or this fourth dimension for which is the express of the proposition which must be imminent to the language produced theoretically. We don't need an aposterei model as deloo would say corresponding to the previous dimensions like the three types but rather the model itself which must have the altitude to a function of a priori from within and forced to produce the supplementary type of dimension which is because of its ev um its inevescence or its evidences in this sense which could have not been recognized from the experience of the outside because the fourth dimension is the proposition found by the showix along with the findings of the event for which the sense is the express of event for which it's going to be incaporeal, complex and irreducible entity towards that of the surface of the things at the pure event for which inherent proposition. You [ __ ] [ __ ] That's why you have the paradox of the future contingent for which you have the expressibility upon the fourth dimension to fix the problem for which is going to examine the paradox of the future contingent for which you're going to have the paradox which someone namely myself can make a statement like of a future event for which we're going to have um there will be an avalanche um approaching your car tomorrow. But the statement raises the paradox because at the moment it's stated is the moment it is a possibility or may or may not be realized. But if we consider the case where the avalanche does not approach the car on Tuesday after saying the same thing then the following day Wednesday saying that we do or there will be an avalanche approaching your car tomorrow the statement would be retrospectively in your sense in your sense false meaning that's impossible at all that day which was Tuesday but for the statement it's going to be both possible and impossible at the same time simultaneously which is going to be producing that contradiction That's where you have the quality, the quantity, the relation, the modality.

[00:24:09]>> Bro, are you [ __ ] done yet?

[00:24:11]>> Are you done?

[00:24:12]>> Different denotations. No, I'm not.

[00:24:14]>> Let him keep going. Let him keep going.

[00:24:17]>> No, no, I'm not done.

[00:24:21][laughter] >> Yeah, >> Mario, bro, you can't track for your life.

[00:24:27]>> Using the mathematical example. God would be equal plus to beat God. To say God is not that would have to be equal minus to be God for which it's just going to be the same sense but different denotations under which the designation >> Wait God has to be equal minus. Can you repeat that? Can you repeat that? God >> so hold on me. Can you put this guy on me?

[00:24:46]>> Yeah. You said God has to be >> say that God would have to have hold on would have to equal plus to be God. To say God is not that would have to equal minus to be God in the mathematical example sense. Now you cannot mathematically apply a minus to nothing.

[00:24:58]or minus must be applied to the presupposed value which is to be got which has to be fully formed and present to be negated obviously that's going to be a determination hence the identity so understanding that you can go into like a Louis carol snark example it's the port manu which is the combination of the both of the words which is the snake plus the shark which is to show how the language works independent of the objects hence >> are you done >> we can go into the no I'm not we can go into the series hence We're going to be saying that the serial form is necessarily realized by the simultaneity of at least two series for which we're going to be having the series which is just going to be produced by an infinite regression that takes place by which the sense of a name must be designated by another name which then gives away to a new sense because every name which denotes an object may itself become the object of a new name which denotes its sense for which the nomenclature one refers to the nomenclature two which denotes the sense of the nomenclature one and the nomenclature two refers to the nomenclature three etc. for one of its names which the language must contain a name for the sense of this name. So for each one of the name languages in this sense needs the to contain in this sense the name for the sense of the name for which has the name for which everything is going to be at infinitive. Hence the fundamental rhythm is going to be derivative from a name which must refer to another name to reveal the originary in this sense name sense for which the pauses and rests are going to be produced by the adjectives and the substances as opposed to the speeds of the verbs and the becomings by which the rhythm is going to actually be in movement for which this rhythm oh my lord.

[00:26:41]So time becomes a factor in a variable in the production sense. This why temporality [laughter] of this rhythm is due to these dynamic conclusions.

[00:26:50][laughter] Don't don't get him. Like I'm not that [ __ ] was going for 5 minutes.

[00:26:56]>> All right, bro. It does. I'm I don't mind it. It's fine. Okay, I I'll respond like since you guys >> No, I'm not done. Like I'm trying to say the separation.

[00:27:05]>> I can I can I can respond if you guys want me to.

[00:27:08]>> I'm not done. I'm not done. I I I get that you're not done, but clearly the >> Yo, can we let people finish the arguments, bro?

[00:27:14]>> Can we let people finish the arguments, bro?

[00:27:16]>> Exactly. Please, I'm not done.

[00:27:18]>> Like, what the [ __ ] Anyway, the series makes a separation conceptually speaking like the things and the propositions and the expressions, the names, which is going to be the nomenclatures, the verbs, etc. In this sense, we're going to have the series which are never going to be equilibrium in this sense, right?

[00:27:31]Because obviously, we have these heterogeneous taxonomical types of assimilations. But when you're talking about the signifier and the signifies, the signifier is primarily the event of the ideological attribute as the state of the affairs. And the signified is the state of affairs together with the qualities in the relations. That's why you can say what are the characteristics of the paradoxical entity. It circulates without an end in both the series and for this reason it assures their communication. It is the two-sided entity which equally is going to be presenting in the signifying and the signified series. It is the mirror.

[00:28:06]Thus, we're going to have once word and thing and name and object and sense and denotation and expression and designation etc. It's going to have the guaranteeing factor. Therefore, the convergence of the two series which transverses or traverses >> flow flow flow flow. You got to respond soon. You're not done. I'm not done. Please shut up.

[00:28:30]>> Yeah. So of the condition for which makes endlessly divergent properties upon the property of being always displaced in relation to itself. So it failed to observe its own identity resemblance and in this sense like I said the equilibrium and origin which is a paradoxical instance over which or of these theories which are in relation to the divergence. So it's self- different.

[00:28:53][laughter] So going back to the snark what the snark is which is the paradoxical entity and what it does is put the two series in relation namely the material series and the linguistical series that's why um he speaks about this in logical sense he speaks about this in what is philosophy he speaks about this in difference and repetition he speaks about this in cinema cinema one cinema 2 and actually we actually speak about this a little bit in nian books when we go into good um beyond good and bad and we actually go into this in like a hideagarian book actually 1927 being in time when we speaking about it we of the best [clears throat] example of the paradoxical entity which was the word snot. Snork I meant the same. It circulates through the two series of the elementary and the semiological orality or throughout the two dimensions of propositions for which denotate the expressive >> for no to be is not >> hold on I'm still not done because I have to also show that aliquid is going to be that for which has the transcendental and logical priority to the existence and the non-existence for which are going to be determinations of something but we're not going to get into that yet. Like I said, the snark is going to be interminate. It's going to be similar to the words like the aloquid aka something which is going to be the thing or the gadget or the rich call it in this sense because you want to say the wimacoly as this type of thing for which is not going to have a sensicality but it's going to be a nomenclature for which is going to be a demo denotation in this sense which is just going to point towards something. So there's a name before a name for which actually points to that of the name for which the name actually is going to go right back onto itself as an imminent fold. That's why when you say wish you are using the term to refer to another term which is to refer to an object which is one step further than the normal designation.

[00:30:34]Therefore you are relating the divergent series whose difference is signaled in relation.

[00:30:40]That's why the series that are noted ARE NOT ABSTRACT BUT CONCRETE. So the abstract object put into relation is the specific particular elements or the points of the series. You [ __ ] [ __ ] That's why we have these singularities. That's what we call them, right? That's why we said that the set of the singularities correspond to each one of the series to each one of the series of a structure. Conversely, each singularity is a source of a series extending in a determined direction right up to the vicinity of another singularity in the sense. That's why these singularities um create these network or this underground web of heterogeneity strands of these like I guess series. That's why we have the riseome in each node in the network is going to be that for which is going to be the events and it communicates with every other event to make an um I guess in this an amalgamated correlary I guess the formation of one big event with a capital E which is the event itself right so that's what I was speaking about when we went back into sense you [ __ ] [ __ ] we're talking about intelligibility we're talking about mean we're talking about definition construction it's all through the sense obviously you couldn't get that but you have to cut for is going to be the cause that causes to bleed which is going to be in return to the quas that cause to the hurt to which um quas that cause us to rest or to seek a which quasi causes to heal.

[00:32:00]Now we got two more things to go. Now to keep on going back into what I was trying to talk about in the physical world snakes and sharks are both biologically and spatially incompatible.

[00:32:10]We have cannot have a creature which cannot be both at the same time the snake which is going to be the reptile.

[00:32:16]>> Yeah. I know. I'm done. I'm done. Okay.

[00:32:18]Can I respond?

[00:32:21][laughter] >> Because that nigga's easy was >> Yo, what the fine just like everyone wants. It's for the for the sake of progress. It's for the sake of I can respond.

[00:32:41]>> Finish his argument, bro. Can we let him finish his argument? Exactly. Twin. That was an argument.

[00:32:47]>> Yo, this server is biased. Yo, >> well, you're killing the VT. I [laughter] will tell you that.

[00:32:54]>> Just to be clear for the recording, I'm taking a unified organization for qualification preference Facebook and you have to say it. You have to say you have to say it while I didn't catch what you said. I I didn't hear. Nobody heard what you said. SAY IT AGAIN. SAY REPEAT YOURSELF. Nobody heard what you said. Repeat yourself. You cut out.

[00:33:11]Repeat yourself.

[00:33:14]You cut out. You cut out.

[00:33:16]Put a muzzle. Mute them. Mute them. Mute them. I want moderation. Thank you. All right. So, I'm going to do the extore method. Put the question I'm asked. Why do I have to um repeat what I just said?

[00:33:26]Um or anything I just said. Now, [screaming] yo, did he cut out just for me?

[00:33:38]something of the conditions of the intelligibility which is going to be the highest term for which subsumes being and the non-being for the minimal transcendental category of sense. So before you say it it sense is already provided which it is something before you can ask that X exists and determinately answer yes or no there must be something prior something itself to that very question under which the question and the answer emerges.

[00:34:02]So something is the condition of applying existential predicates while existence and non-existence are the determinations of that something or to be more frank is the operative to audit that something is transcendentally prior as for any be cannot be act said or thought about without something aliquid is primary second sense in this sense there's a logical priority to that of the existence which shows that existence is more produced it's going to be you know not the most primitive primordial thing that you're trying to put up there.

[00:34:33]>> So that's what you have different existential status. Are they unified under something?

[00:34:40]>> Now the only recognizable dispute is to make LA court universal which states everything shares the property P. But [laughter] you can avoid this problem by saying you can have an empty positive content. So anything that can be expressed or referred to is something that's going to be object level. Now I'm still not done cuz I got to get into my onlogical engineering.

[00:35:00]>> What? Now when you're going toological engineering because I know you never read it on [ __ ] ontological engineering [ __ ] we're going to go into the participation of those the descriptive ontology for linguistics and cognitive engineering for which you're going to have the foundational ontology designed to represent the categories humans for which naturally you're going to be employing in cognition and language but you're going to be taking a do model that's going to be restrictive I'm going to be taking a dose model that actually extends towards the differential dimensions for which is going to be not in this sense very descriptive.

[00:35:31]But it's going to also be in this sense emulating some type of novel primacy.

[00:35:39]This novelty for which are going to be distinctions for which humans are going to be consistently making reasons is going to be formatted from which the entity towards the indirect towards the pderant for which those is going to be treating these type of qualities as the entities. So when I'm trying to onlogically engineer my type of language given the serialization you might have a OWL which is the web ontology language for which is going to be the standardized language for which is going to be representing the ontologies in a machine processible um form for which is going to be serializing these type of ontological applications in such a way where we can have the computers read it but in this sense I might just actually put it more in the sense for which is going to go through a frequency that's going to come towards this type of I guess and you can go back into predicate logic if you want if you want to constrain it. But you can also deny that types of routes, right? Um you can deny the existential quantifier um in some sense um just like how Haidiger did. Um but how you do it, how you're going to underly those existential quantifiers for which is going to actually produce in this sense it's not going to be actually the main quantification like Alwan was trying to actually show it in formal logic. So you might take like a pragmatist account for which the encounter is going to actually become psychological dispositions. You might also say that you have these knowledge base points for which you're going to have the qualia but not the quality on your sense. Don't think about the philosophy of the mind. It's the or it's going to be the ideological value or region occupied by the quantity or the quality in the sense actually to be more specific not quantity because your quality may be the height but the ideological value is going to be probably determinately assigned as value for which is just going to be six feet but those determinations are just going to be metastable. Obviously, this is just going to be like from a black Simon account. Now, understanding that you're going have this participation for which is going to be the relation and the indent for which it's going to be part for which goes right back to my point of God for which it's just going to go right back into the point of the relation that's going to be primary in this sense for which is going to be mainly producing this type of indurance or this predant.

[00:37:40]Now, [snorts] >> I have a question.

[00:37:43]>> Hold on. We're not taking Wait, can you repeat what you said?

[00:37:48]>> Um, I can, but I'm not going to. And also, when we're talking about the possible worlds, um, I am going to take this type of view. So, I'm not going to be saying prescriptively we are the possible worlds directly, but it's going to be the face of the other for which expresses a type of form of terrification, excitement, etc. That's what we're going to be speaking about it. Um, this was also in what is philosophy, by the way. Actually, I should go into that. Actually, I'll just go find paper.

[00:38:11]>> Wait, so I got ask you a question. Um, could you get into like your argumentation theory more in depth than your conceptual schema more in depth, please?

[00:38:19]>> Uh, no. You want to know why?

[00:38:21]>> Why?

[00:38:22]>> Cuz a question I'm asked. Why do I have to do that?

[00:38:26]Also, it's not a conceptual scheme I'm auditing because obviously sellers was taking the conceptual schemes to be primary. Um, but the unified argumentation framework for you guys obviously going to be going into this type of preference based argumentation framework. I think I've already said this actually which actually goes into the object level knowledge. We're going to be domain designers, right? We're going to be have the object level reasoning, the object level knowledge.

[00:38:47]We're going to have these patterns levels or these types of ways for which are going to be constituent for that of the arguments. We can have these exogeneous arguments. We can have these endogenous arguments for which sit at the pinnacle under which then produces the type of construction of an adaptation and so far to the determination actually intensifies. So it's extra, it's a multiplicity. But not only is a is it like a multiplicity but it's going to be this assemblage which is not going to be crucified but rather raified in such a way which it actually has this liberty.

[00:39:21]So um back to what I was trying to talk about on what is philosophy because um I was just about to get into that. We have China actually we're going to use the China example. So China well when you're talking about the meaning of the I as a linguistic index you might say that's the only meaning but it is not indispensable because China is not a part of the world but it takes on a reality as soon as Chinese is spoken or Chinese or China is spoken about within a given field of experience. This is very different from the situation in which China is realized by becoming the field of experience itself. Here then we have the concept of the other for which presupposes no more than the determination of a sensory world as the condition and under which you're going to have this condition that appears of the other for which it's going to be of a possible. So the other is a possible world as it exists in a phase that expresses it and takes shapes in the language that gives it a reality.

[00:40:18]Now that's why you have these subject that presents itself as an object which is the spatial in relation to the self which are going to be the two components. Now everyone went into endocy and exocistency but no longer either the subject or the field of exper or object in the field uh the other p person in the sense will um become the condition under which not only the subject and object are going to be red I'm not sure if it's going to be redistributed no it's going to be yeah yeah it's going to be actually redistributed because only also the figure of the ground for which the margins and the center is going to be the moving object in the reference for which the point is going to be transitive and it's going to be having the substantial and length of the depth for which the other person is always going to be perceived as another.

[00:41:06]So I was right I'm not actually [ __ ] tweaking. Okay. Yes. Now okay let's get back into my main point.

[00:41:14]So when you're talking about the other person which makes the world go by and the eye is now going to be designated only a past world. But the I was peaceful in this sense. You're going to have like this type of ion. You're going to get back into these thrones and these zones, these thresholds of becoming this inseparability which define their internal consistency of the concept. But the concept also has the exocistency with the other concepts with their respective creation which implies the construction of a bridge on the same plane for which the zones and the bridges are the joints of the concept for which in this sense each concept will therefore be considered as the point of coincidence. condensation or accumulation of its own components for which it's a conceptual point constantly traverses its components rising and falling within them in the sense of each component is going to be the intensive feature of the and it's going to be the intensive ordinance which must be understood not as the general or the particular but as the pure and the simple of the singularity for which is going to be zoning not um so yeah Um last point and then I got you.

[00:42:26]>> Okay, last point.

[00:42:27]>> The concept is going to be the heterogeneiuses for which in the concept there's these ordinates or these only ordinate relationships nor north nor the [ __ ] relationships or the comprehension cuz you're going to probably say this or the extension of the concepts components are going to be neither constants or the variables but the pair and the simple variations for which is going to be ordered according to their [ __ ] neighborhood for which is going to be a processual modulization. That's why we're going to be speaking about it in that sense. So in that sense kito is going to be under light. Object the presupposition is going to be under light and you're going to have these points for which is going to be um the modifiable and the effective point for which I'm going to be denying everything you're going to be saying in that sense because you're going to be having eye for which has a stable reference that goes right back onto itself which can have the denying disposition for which is going to actually be you know teologically assembled in such a way but it's not going to actually get towards that of the end goal but it's going to actually have a risomatic construction for which is going to always be movement towards another point upon the diagram.

[00:43:23]So given a direct cyclic graph, you're going to have a confounding variable that's going to only derritorialize your point from within. There you go.

[00:43:30]>> Okay, there you go. Okay, so can I actually respond? So after this response, um I feel like I'm going to bring up very strong points and then I I just want to get to conclusions. So the first thing you asked me to talk about was to just >> I I don't care if you don't agree like um just just for to be clear, let's talk about it. You said to justify the language and to ask me about um the fundamentals of it because you talked about um society's functions. that that was your view and um you talked about environmental conditions. You keep bringing up environmental conditions over and over and over but you're not explify it. You can say that it's in an underlying I'm I'm not done. You can say it's in an underlying sense. It could be movement.

[00:44:11]>> Yes, you did. You said it verbatim. It's on recording. You said it could be underlying sense in terms of movement.

[00:44:15]That's what you're referring to with underlying conditions. And then you said that it was never you never said it was temporal. denied the claim of saying that um your definitions of God or God existing in the future were temporal or emerging. I never made the claim that you said that. But what I said was that that's the implication of the tilos that you brought up because tilos by definition is end goal. That's what tilos means verbatim. That's what it end goal. End is obviously a temporal term. Just by definition when you look at end, that's what it means. End means conclusion. End implies some form of time. It's some form of temporal place.

[00:44:48]And then again, you tried to explain um the quasi causality again by talking about it being virtual and not actually like physically in reality. And you were trying to use the Luffy example to make a quasi connection to um explain how God exists um in virtue of Luffy and stuff like that. For one, I already denied this claim verbatim. there's no way that um this can happen because for um causality and the definition of God that like we entailed through Tilos um your quasi conditions of Luffy for one Luffy you've never established the connection between Luffy and um >> oh my god >> you never established any connection between Luffy and God you never explained why um Luffy and any virtue would entail God's existence I'll give you guys an example of some quasi um causation so for example someone is guilty and they get thrown in jail it's not the guilt that throws them in jail it's obviously like the laws or something like I I mean not even the loss that's also quasi but um it would be the judge the people who grab and throw in prison that's the actual concrete cause but the quasi that is virtual is them being guilty the laws the things that don't really interact with them similarly it's Flo's burden to um give me a connection between Luffy and God he just doesn't do that and then he says um these verses are relative again he never proves that he never established that at all and then he says um growing it was a growing language um with signification and a theoretical con constituent. That's the term that he used. Again, that just isn't established anywhere. I already gave him my justification for why language operates in the way it works. I explained to him the necessity on why society needs to agree upon it and why there needs to be a consensus. I explained to him that if it wasn't the case for um society having a consensus, it would be the fact that we wouldn't be able to speak languages.

[00:46:31]That's what I said verbatim. I think I'm being very straightforward here. Sorry for the long response, guys. He said a lot of stuff. Um he started talking about God, about how um the manifestation can't come first. Um and then he said it's a loop of propositions and then we're going in a circle of propositions. He brought up the term circles of propositions and stuff like that. And he said that the model isn't a posterior. I never once made the claim that it was a posterior. I never even made a claim about it being a priority either. I don't know why he brought that up. It just seems to be very irrelevant.

[00:47:01]Um, I also um explained to him for one that kind of self-defeats his own position because if he's talking about regresses and um things going backwards and stuff like that, that one implies movement that he denied earlier. It also implies that there is some form of temporality when he talks about new things can become newer things. One, if that's the case, then I could also apply that to your initial definition of atheism. I can explain that if you're an atheist who defines it um an atheist who believes in God, that's your definition of an atheist. I can also now explain that we can move any of those terms. I can also retract a lot of um my old claims. I can retract a lot of my definitions of theism and stuff like that and we can get into a lot more problems and a lot more blunders. And that's that's um just another problem for you because I can also just reject everything you said and say that it applies to a different definition if you're affirming that things can become new things which you also defeat later on because you talk about um sharks and snakes and you talk about how sharks and snakes are can't be the same thing at the same time because they're two distinct things completely. Um you're talking about how like a shark can't exist in the physical space as a snake.

[00:48:08]But if we know that they can shift in definitions and they can shift in names and they can shift in movements, then it is the case that I can define a shark as a snake and vice versa. So clearly there's some form of contradiction there. So um just to keep going, you talk about a liquid case that um I'm going to have to um calculate and um invoke and then you said that the series is not virtual. It's um it's not by it's it's virtual and not concrete. And um you're talking about its position is virtual, which again just debunks the [ __ ] that you said because then you're kind of affirming um the the Luffy stuff earlier, which is um God is like doesn't actually exist concretely at all. And then you're trying to say that um he exists virtually, which I don't think even any theist would disagree with anyways. Like you're not invoking anything that is contentious at all. And then um you cut out multiple times so I didn't catch a lot of your points, but you were trying to talk about um just the um what was it? Let me think for a second. Oh yeah, it was about something being conditional, but you couldn't really talk about it. And then you started talking about ontological engineering. And I know you guys remember him like saying ontological engineering and talking about ontological engineering. And then he started talking about the web ontology of language. And then he started talking about it. I feel like he kind of misconfused what the web ontology of language because those things regard um super complex designs and I mean not design sorry like super complex concepts and they kind of grade them. He did bring that up. He talked about ideological values but um all those things one don't really have to do what we were talking about earlier because the concepts that we were talking about wouldn't be categorized as complex under the web ontology of language and um I don't really like see how he got from there. So right back to what we were talking about um he tried to get it tried to connect all that back to God because it says it goes back to the prior but again prior implies some form of time some form of temporality. So that's a third concession right there for our opponent. And then he started talking about um homogeneous and heterogeneous stuff. And he said that um concepts are all heterogeneous and it's going to be a heterogeneous thing. And then he couldn't for one justify why there are I mean just looking at what heterogeneous means heterero implies like a complex language. Obviously certain concepts can be simple like there's there's a lot of forms of simple ontology or things for example like divine simplicity talks about homogeneous ontology that is something that is the case like and then he started talking about the thresholds and the zones of the qualification of I he doesn't elaborate further on what those thresholds are he doesn't explain what they are at all so I don't really care to talk about them and then he said that um he started talking about what philosophy is and he started talking about China and then he started talking about how the meaning of I in China um isn't really like not a possible world.

[00:50:53]I don't know why we even categorize China with a possible world that also um presupposes some form of modal realism and um he said it talks about an other possible world which just kind of defeats itself in the same sentence. How can you say that it's not a possible world yet it is a possible world? So clearly like we just see that um this isn't the case. Like um he just simply defeats himself and all of that just in conjunction he kind of shits on himself like five times and he debunks himself multiple times. You can see he's on his position and that's what I really wanted him to do. He literally explains something and then debunks it just by talking further and further and further.

[00:51:29]So clearly he just shouted on his own position. Unfortunately he has been talking for a while. So um I will want to conclude after this. Um, I don't really care to respond to anything after he says because I feel like he's already conceded his own position and unless he doesn't justifi um how he didn't concede and I just think I won very clearly here, very fundamentally. He tried to rat out but he just couldn't because I'm the track god and like yeah that's the end. So yeah um I did track everything guys. Everyone said I wouldn't track it.

[00:51:58]I did track it. He did bring up the web of ontology. He did bring up China. He did bring up history of philosophy. He did try to talk about teology. He talks about Luffy. I did track all those things. I literally told you guys that I did respond um to everything that was relevant a lot of the stuff. And then they said that um the hideiger was like something I didn't respond. So I did literally save herb. I also talked about it's irrelevant again. Um he didn't address the meta points. He didn't really address anything. So yeah. Um easy win. Thank you guys. Yeah. Um he can talk however he wants. I'm done. GG guys.

[00:52:28]>> Yeah. Yeah. You can shut the [ __ ] up now. I'm going to say this for the recording now to keep on going. This is how you know this guy's a [ __ ] and he's actually not to track God, my [ __ ] He's a track loser right now. So, it seems to be the fact that he's just shown to everybody. He can't track and people had to help him in the chat by saying that, "Oh, you didn't respond to the Haidiger point." Yo, guys, stop helping this [ __ ] in the chat. It's going to be bad when everybody looks at the recording. You're going to see all the points that he actually missed. But look, the society functions is your view. That's not my [ __ ] view. That is your view. Okay? You made the communion upon the points for which the social the socialism would have to come through a consensus of the aential figures. You [ __ ] [ __ ] Now he can leave. I don't give a [ __ ] This is for the recording. The recording is still here. So when you guys end this [ __ ] I'm going to want y'all to actually upload this. I want you guys to upload this, please. Now >> leave.

[00:53:18]>> Yeah. Just let me just let me finish my point. I'm not going to actually take forever. Don't worry. I promise you. Now you keep bringing up temporal. I never said that's an I never said that and that's an implication that's what he said for one I bring up temporal talk to the points under which the temporality is going to be produced by differentiation so this [ __ ] is [ __ ] and he said and is a temporal term that's not a disagreement that's trivial and then you said you try to explain quasi causality and use Luffy example to make quasi connection in virtue of God's existence No, I DID NOT. I literally said that the Luffy point can show why it is coherent to say that there is a being that does not exist or there is a thing that does not exist, but it is that for which can still be believed within. This thing is [ __ ] and you never establish the connection between Luffy and God. He said I did establish a connection but the connection was resoluted more in this sense as the very thing that actually produced that Luffy and God example which is stratified. Now God or the quasi cause is to judge the people etc. No the quasi cause in the virtual which he didn't know is actually an infinitive verb right? So to cause, to judge, to um enunciate, these are infinitive verbs. That's how you know he didn't track. The virtual is things that don't connect, he said. Um is the things that don't connect. Yeah, that's [ __ ] [ __ ] Um the virtual is not a thing.

[00:54:56]One, a thing is multiplicity, which actually is produced by that of the virtual. And the virtual is a primary productive field in this sense. Okay.

[00:55:07]Um he says that these verses are relative. No, I'm going to be saying that's not going to be relative. We're not going to be speaking that of the relative. Obviously, that's how you know he hasn't actually read NZA. We're taking a perspectivism of the um so it is not that of the relative, but it's going to be or the relative of that.

[00:55:24]You're not going to be saying that X is relative to Y. You're going to be talking about the Y and the X for which are the relatives for which is going to be a perspectivism. I'm going to inverse that. And he says that it's a growing language theoretical constituent. I never said theoretical constituent like theoretical construct or a construction.

[00:55:42]It's [ __ ] Explain. He said I explained the necessity and why there needs to be a necessity. No, you haven't explained any necessity. And also I showed that necessities are going to be secondary. I think it's [ __ ] Circle the proposition. You said that the model isn't a proster, but I never said the um that it I never said that. That's what he said. It's not that I ever said that.

[00:56:01]He said that. I told him that was a quotation from the book logic of sense.

[00:56:05]He's a [ __ ] [ __ ] He said it implies temporality if new things can come from I mean come um from these new things. It's that new things come from a novel differential force.

[00:56:17]He's [ __ ] It's not that new things come from new things. And yes, there is going to be the ionic in the chronological time. And the chronological time is time that he's [ __ ] referring to which is produced.

[00:56:28]He's [ __ ] He says if you're an atheist, you can also explain you move these um those claims and I can reject all what you just said. Then it's [ __ ] Yeah. So if I'm an atheist, it's that in this sense I am showing that I could believe in God while saying that God does not exist, but he subsist and hears, right? And he said he could reject all what I said, but it's not that he can reject all what I just said.

[00:56:50]Right? Because I said the eye is going to be denied given the kokito for which you do have the disposition for which stable does deny what I just said. So I I been said this.

[00:57:00]>> Yo, you have you have the wreck for you versus >> I'm Yeah. Wait, it's right here. But hold on. I'm about to end this up. He said shark can't exist in the space that says snakes and can't be snake. I never said this, but since we can move that, I can move it to be that. Yeah. No, that's not a good point from this [ __ ] [ __ ] Just to explain for everybody that's going to be watching this recording. Yeah. To explain back on a snark example. I was trying to show that snarks I mean the the snor in this sense the sharks and the snakes are going to be both spatially incompatible and biologically incompatible right but I was just showing that obviously in this sense a creature cannot be both these things which is going to be the reptile slithering land-based creature and a shark which is a predatory fish that's marine but I said if language requires realworld object for meaning then the poor man to such as Snark or Hangry would be meaningless. But it's not in Louis Carol's [ __ ] paper. Despite having zero denotation, Snark has a sense in so far as it enlightens the characters of the story of Louisis Carol's poem, the hunting of the snoric to spend their lives hunting this creature in the midst which causes the sperious excitement or experience like excitement, terror, or frantic desire which is going to be a placeholder. So he's not going against um I I I never said that God doesn't exist concretely. And he said, "But it's spiritual." The virtual is concrete, you [ __ ] [ __ ] But it's not concrete in the way that you believe that is what we define concrete. You [ __ ] He's so dumb. He said, "You misconfuse the web of this." This this was like not even a properly [ __ ] grammatical phrase. He said, "You misconfuse the web of ontology of language or the web ontology of language." He said ideological values. I never said ideological values.

[00:58:55]I said axiological values and I did not confuse it in any type of way possible.

[00:58:59]Um he said I tried to connect this all back to God. Um I think he's [ __ ] as [ __ ] and he just didn't understand anything I said. It's not that I'm connecting it all back to God. I'm showing that God is that for which is going to be the primary productive force for which is going to be co-constitutive with that of the actualizations for which is going to actually give these causes for which is going to actually lead to that of the event for which cause that causes another [ __ ] event differentiation is primary force for which is just going to be putting everything in movement he said prior implies time you cannot um but you can have non chronological priority or onlogical sense I mean play the Plato um actually the platonist in this sense actually speak about this right you can have this type of rational um ordering or this rationaliz I forgot what it's called but it's this rational process I think that's what they call it and you can have it where it's nonchronological and I'm speaking about it when I say prior I mean onlogically prior in so far to the ionic mode which is going to be the past and the future for which it's going to always elude that of the pre the present which is going to be infinitely subdivided both back into the as and to that of the future. So you have the simple ontologies like divine simplicities he said. Um yeah I know you can have those under your view but I just deny those types of things. Um cuz I said that it's never going to be simple but it's going to always be under light and produced by differential complexity for which makes it complex in itself. I believe that the complexities are going to be that for which are going to actually be within or not even within. Yeah actually imminent within and it's going to be constructive of that thing in itself. So I don't hold to those views and everything that you're going to be saying for an alternative is going to be different imminent not different between and you can say I isn't a possible world. I never said I is not a possible world.

[01:00:50]This is where it started. [laughter] I never said I is not a possible world. So I know he doesn't know anything that I was just talking about. I said the only meaning of the eye is the linguistic index but it is only in not dis um it is not indispensable and China is a possible world but it takes on a reality. This is not moto realism. Is he [ __ ] What the [ __ ] This is not moto realism.

[01:01:14]This is not trying to say that there's these real mind independent types of possible worlds, right? Nobody's trying to posit that. And yes, I do believe that possible worlds are real, but it doesn't mean that I am positing a modal realism because I'm speaking about the possible worlds in the face of the expression of the other, which the motor realist would not commit themselves to.

[01:01:35]So he doesn't even know what he's talking about and it's realized of becoming realization of becoming. And then um he also for the last thing he said justify how he didn't concede. I don't need to justify that. I just said I'm not taking a dogmatic image of thought. Um I'm not taking that those types of representational primacies under which I do have to actually get a justification towards that of the truth because the false is going to be liberating that of the truth. So with that being said, I think I can wrap up my point. I don't need a justification because I have a genetic imminent power.

[01:02:04]I have all these things for which are going to actually be considerative. He didn't go against a lot of my points. He didn't go against engineering. He didn't go against any of my points actually in the dialogue. With that being said, we can like end it.