Your prior posts are faulty; the faults have been pointed out;
Not at all.
For example, in your last post you write:
"I must take an aside to lay my foundation so we are all on the same page."
(
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3637338&postcount=777 )
I must say that I completely agree with you, because without a common basis no two thoughts are gathered into a one definition that can be used as a part of our research.
The difference between you and me is this:
You do not provide the common basis that enables two thoughts to be gathered into a one definition, as an explicit essence of your reasoning.
In that case your reasoning is based on the hidden assumption of the common basis.
On the contrary, my reasoning is aware of this common basis as the naturally undefined state of any given definition.
This common basis is naturally undefined because any thought cannot be but a particular aspect of the common basis, where the common basis at its self state is naturally free of any limitation (and a definition is -without a doubt- some categorical limitation).
Since Simplicity itself (the common basis of any given definition) is naturally undefined, we cannot use a definition in order to understand it.
In this case we have no choice but to use an analogy, but we must not mix between simplicity itself (which is naturally undefined) and some analogy of it (which is limited like any other definition).
Here is the analogy, but this time please try no to mix between the naturally undefined (simplicity at its self state) and this particular analogy, which is naturally limited like any other definition:
Simplicity at its self state is like a straight line that has no beginning, no end, and it is an atom (it is not made of any sub elements).
Any definition is like a fold along the straight line.
1. The fold is not a sub-element of the line, but it is a limited thing along the atomic line, where the atomic line is actually the basis of the fold and not vise versa.
2. The fold has no influence on the simplicity of the line as an atomic state, and on its naturally unlimited self state.
At the moment that 1 and 2 are directly understood (without any need of some fold (analogy, definition, thought, etc. ) as the simplest and naturally undefined basis of your consciousness, then and only then you are able to understand my framework.
Another analogy (which is, again, a naturally limited thing):
I try to show you a way to get a direct experience of a sea without waves, and you try to get it by making waves. By making waves, you will never get it because any wave is exactly not a sea without waves.
At the moments that you get the sea without waves, you are enable to get any wave right from the common state of any other wave, which is the sea without waves (the naturally non-limited atomic (and naturally undefined) state of any limited (and naturally defined) thing).
