Matthew Ed Moran

The main theme I get from this post is that you're doing everything you can to avoid your emotions. The fact that you can't be constantly stimulated, I don't think (what do I know, this is just my opinion) is the issue. The issue is that you need to feel constantly stimulated. You need to have your adrenaline pumping in a fight, or escaping into another reality via a video game. I find this "changing the world" thing curious. Given that your world is bleak and despairing when you're not being stimulated, what worth is it to change the world? What's the worth in doing something if you can't enjoy doing it? To me, it seems this "change the world" thing is just another outlet for you to find stimulation and avoid the real hard stuff.. And the real hard stuff is what's underlying the addictions and afflictions. It's what happens when the stimulation isn't there. You said yourself, your world feels empty. I'm sure that's just the surface of it. And I'm very sorry and empathetic that's the way it is. So in my completely humble opinion, I say fuck all the other stuff, it's not going to get you what you want - it's just going to delay the inevitable creeping of despair that you're trying to escape. There is no easy road to dealing with childhood trauma. I can't preach - I do a lot to avoid what I think is an inevitable challenge of mine, too. But I would suggest you find a way, the most comfortable way for you possible, to begin engaging these scary feelings you're running away from. I've began journaling and have had many confrontations with those feelings, and can honestly say I am better off for it. I'm scared to think where I would be if I ran away from them to a greater extent than I already have. Just some ideas: you could watch 3 hours of Stef videos a day, you could meditate, you could do yoga, you could spend time reading and responding on the forums, you could spend even just a little time journaling - anything which will marginally ease you into coping with those emotions without going for the all-out stimulation, would be great steps towards healing from your trauma. And man, when you're healing from trauma, I think that's where the really great and creative philosophy comes out - because that's when you're living philosophy instead of just thinking about it. You're truly surmounting difficulty, you're truly engaging the world with free will (which I think video games try to replicate but can never light a candle to), you're truly becoming an example of an individual who stood tall against the gusts of a stormy anti-rational culture. And man, to become the person who lives against the grain, whether forgotten by history or not, I think that's something to die truly proud of. At least, that's how I try to motivate myself. I used to want to change the world, too - I still do and place no limits on what I will do in the future. But I also understand I had an extremely bad childhood, that all the odds were stacked against me, and that just by dealing with this and doing what 99.99% of the culture won't do (especially if I have children and raise them peacefully) makes me a hero in the making, and I don't think the day when I can honestly call myself a hero is that far off. So I just thought I'd offer you that perspective, knowing how easy it is to say compared to do.. because childhood trauma is the toughest stuff to overcome.. but if you want a challenge like you said, there it is, right in front of you. And by the way, I thought it was really brave of you to present your habits for us to critique, rather than be silent about them and not have to deal with input that may make you think about enacting difficult changes to your life.

I definitely thought the same thing about loneliness in his eyes. Especially when he was first asked the question about "becoming crazy." He didn't look like he was excited about having to relive and make a show of his traumatic experience - which he inevitably ended up doing. He didn't make much eye contact either. Meanwhile, Jimmy is beside him like a brainless laughing zombie - why would he want to make eye contact with him? I haven't seen that tour, but I think he talked about it in that Ellen video? Like, inviting people to punish him. So abusive towards himself. He said he was a "child of abandonment" looking to "fill a void." I connected to him more when he said that, because I could imagine how confusing and disruptive the hurt from those experiences could be, especially if you're dealing with them in completely unhealthy ways. Maybe he thought after achieving fame that those things were for the past, but it seems like whenever people think they can escape the pains of childhood trauma, it will only come back twice as hard, like a rising tide in a flood, only to leave you tumbling chest high in water without anything to hold on to.

You said: "Intelligence as causal to morality is a rediculous claim." If low IQ people can't or have a harder time abstracting to understand a universal morality (or even to empathize), wouldn't that make them less likely to be moral? And then wouldn't IQ be a causal factor in determining morality? Whether I'm wrong or not, this has nothing to do with how many low IQ people they are. You used rulers as your example of high IQ people who are immoral, when they make up a tiny fraction of all high IQ people. But you're pulling the bell-curve card on me? And the correlation is that lower IQ people tend to be more violent, criminal, more likely to abuse their children. Within the US blacks and hispanics are far more criminal than their higher IQ white and asian counterparts. Worldwide, on average, Arabs and Africans are some of the most violent and barbaric peoples and also are of the lowest IQ populations. I know Asians don't treat kids very well, but I feel confident that blacks and hispanics treat their kids worse. I know whites treat their kids better than blacks and hispanics. I'm not saying that this proves there is a causal connection, but to dismiss his theory so quickly as "rediculous" when higher IQ populations are responsible for most of the world's empathy, philosophy, and universal morality seems unreasonably quick to judge, at least to me. I mean, really, find me a person that watches FDR with an IQ below 100, below 110, below 115, and then tell me IQ is not causally connected to virtue. Find me someone who doesn't take FDR very seriously who doesn't have an IQ above 120. Or at least, do you not think people who watch FDR tend to be more moral and more intelligent than the rest of the population? Is this a coincidence or does IQ have SOME causal role to play with regards to virtue? I'm interested to hear what you think What makes you think they haven't figured out the "underlying immorality" (and maybe they're "under lying" in the most literal sense, but I don't think the idea that taxation is theft and that politicians are deceitful scumbags is a hidden truth or anything) in these programs? Why couldn't it be that they accept evil because they hang around evil people, because their parents were evil people, because it's a lot of effort (and presumably would be even more effort for a stupid person) to do research about evil things. Why couldn't they accept evil because, to them, the costs are just way too high to be moral?

Why wouldn't intelligence be a causal factor in determining morality and virtue? Very low IQ people can't even abstract enough to contemplate abstract universals. It may not be the only factor, but the statistical correlation is evidence that it is a factor; probably an important one. jpahmad, are you saying that because there are exceptions to an observed statistical correlation, that this refutes the correlation?

OP, it sure didn't read like you were just curious about some physical law. You literally asked the question TO atheists. Why didn't you ask: "how do physicists explain this?"

OP, I find your post annoying and disingenuous. I wish, rather than slyly shift the burden of proof, you would have just argued how this proves the existence of a deity; Allah, or whatever God you think it proves. You said you "generally" don't believe in god, whatever that means. But you said you cannot see how "this" (numerical anomalies I guess? I'm not even sure what "this" is) could be without some kind of intelligent design. What does that even mean? I don't mean this to be impolite, but who cares what you can see or cannot see? Either you think there is a valid argument for God's existence and you are willing to put it up to the test of science and Occam's Razor, or you're not being rational and are not interested in rational inquiry. The presentation style you have about how this question is so innocent and genuine really rubs me the wrong way, and I'm betting it rubbed a few others the wrong way, too. So if you have an argument which proves the existence of God, by all means, provide it Or at least be honest if this is your argument.

What's relevant is your definition of "monopoly" and what it entails. The Austrians (specifically Rothbard) have gone to great lengths to show that to the extent a monopoly can be defined as existing on a free market, according to the information conveyed through the price system, it is not in contradiction to the preferences of consumers. And to say any REAL WORLD situation on a free-market in which there is a single provider is not ideal for consumers is to claim knowledge that is unknowable and un-provable. It's been a while since I've given attention to this topic, but I would check out Rothbard's chapter(s) on monopoly in "Man, Economy, and State." Free pdf on Mises.org

This is fantastic, excellent, wonderful analysis. Of course it is also tragic. I'm sorry to hear about your personal experiences with your sister - it was truly heartbreaking to read. Thank you for sharing it, because it really helped me connect with your analysis. I think my personal experiences may also provide empirical evidence which aligns with your theory. I think it is sign of a good explanation when upon considering it I am almost immediately drawn to think about a very particular time in my life which may have proved to save my authentic self. For many years of my childhood I was extremely peer-bonded. How much I relied on my friends to feel worthy, to find pleasure in life, to seek an escape and distract myself from the truly terrible things that were going on in my household seems evident from at least age 8. I did consistently horribly in my academics, but I was constantly motivated to go to school to make people laugh. If I was sick, home from school, or for any other reasons removed from my friends for a few days, I would be confronted with very powerful feelings of dread, of unworthiness, of non-existence. It was like when I wasn't around my peers for just a small amount of time, there was no me at all remaining (at least nothing I liked). I had nothing inside which I could turn to to feel proud of. I remember vividly the feeling, and I remember most how it was so, so different from the constant high I could get from being around my friends, making them laugh. It was definitely scary when I experienced it, so I tried to avoid it at all costs. One constancy I experienced during these times of peer-bonding was a disruption on the part of my mother to separate me from my friends. I won't go into details, but I would basically have to fight every single day with her to stay outside playing for as long as I could, rather than be isolated at home. This went on for years. Probably from age 8 to age 16. But something changed around age 16. I didn't want to be around my friends anymore. And I also didn't want to be at school. I remember being absent about 1/3 a semester of high school. And rather than play with my friends when they came home from school, I'd play video games. I would still hang with them a lot, but perhaps 20% of my time I now spent playing video games instead of being with them. And then, when my mom offered to move to North Carolina, I said "yes, I want to do that." I wanted to leave all my friends. I remember the feeling was so different from before. Instead of wanting to be around them as much as I could, now I wanted to escape them. They felt like a burden to me. So we moved to NC, and long story short, I could not adjust to make friends. And importantly, I almost didn't want to. I had an unwillingness to. I dropped out of school, became the most isolated I had been in my life compared to my peer-bonded past, and.. I think without coincide, I found philosophy/economics soon after. And I think it was this isolation which I felt I had to confront which provoked a permanent change in my life. And my turn to isolation was definitely, at least in a very significant way, a "Protective Factor." I had to "protect" (not sure if I'm framing this correctly) my mom's insistence on ripping me away from my friends, and relentlessly verbally abusing me when I hung out with them. I think it was this pressure from her which made me think I shouldn't even have friends. Instead, I played a lot of video games, and watched a lot of Ron Paul videos, learned some economics and philosophy, and forever was changed. It was the most brutal period of my life. But from that brutal isolation the real me was birthed and discovered after being hidden in a protective womb for years and years and years. Also, as my mom used me for a surrogate friend and husband, from a very early age I was often forced to deal with abstract topics; to help her with relationships, to help her avoid conflict, to help her achieve happiness and fulfillment. This may have been some of my first contact with "philosophy" and "psychology" albeit for twisted, wrong reasons. So I think my "story" very much testifies to the validity of your theory. Thanks very much for your analysis, Joel, as painful of thoughts it did bring up. Edit: I think I may have actually misunderstood your explanation in some ways, but I will keep my post as is since I think it highlights some of the reasons I think my true self is here now.

I agree. Since my dive into self-knowledge, nothing has been the same. This is especially true with humor. I used to be that guy who would "hide" his deepest insecurities by offering them on a platter, lavished with humor. If I can make a joke of myself before you can, maybe it will hurt less - I guess that was my thinking. Now when I see others doing that, it sticks out like a sore thumb.. and it hurts just to see. Do you have any experiences with this? Was there something particular about this story that hit you especially hard? Unfortunately, Hollywood seems to live off this stuff, and popular culture is enamored with it.

I would find such a list very helpful. Just wanted to give my +1 to the idea.

Ask yourself, "who do these gimmicks appeal to?" Wouldn't it be funny in a pathetic kind of way if these gimmicks were primarily for appeasing upper-class socialistic snobs ("progressives"), who tend to be slimmer and more attractive than obese, uglier women? I think it's interesting what kind of cognitive double-think has taken the void of "God". In the past you had this idea of a "perfect" deity, which we can know by "faith"; in other words, which we can make true simply by *thinking* it to be true. We can create reality with our minds. Of course, religious people don't hold this rule consistently. When they are hungry, they don't simply think of a hamburger to feel satiated; if they do, it will not be long before they will see their "solution" is inviable. But they think they can with God, without any addendum. They simply make an exception, not one where is justified in accordance with a sound and scientific formation of concepts, but simply where it is convenient to appease oneself emotionally, in the moment. As man developed empathy and a sense of ethics, gods became "God," and religion went from "explanation of creation" to explanation of creation and moral perfection. God was the physical representation of moral perfection, but since Humans were fundamentally and permanently inferior to God, this moral perfection could never be seen on Earth. We are all born sinners, and we will die sinners. True virtue is for God. We can only muck in his example; but some will do better than others. Some will go to Heaven; others will suffer Hell. But then God was dealt a serious blow, and his credibility was questioned. But religion remained. Atheism began to emerge cunningly in the cultural intelligentsia, led by Marx and others. The new religion was "egalitarianism": humans perfected. And ethics was no longer dictated by "god." Now, ethics was for humans to dictate. And I use the phrase "to dictate" purposefully, rather than, say, "to discover." I would say we discover laws of physics or mathematics. We do not dictate them. If we tried to dictate them, nature and the physical world would paint us an unaltering reflection of our error, which we could not practically chose to ignore. But now as humans, given the power to "dictate" ethics, the idea of "perfection" here on earth became a boundless oasis for many to paint their utopias, which, when experimented with in reality, revealed their true contents to be filled with hellish scorn, jealousy, and tribalism. Fundamentally, they were revealed to be born from the same trauma and innate tribalism of primitive humans, which has yet to leave our species to be replaced by philosophy and rational ethics, despite years of corollary scientific advancement. So basically, it's an ancient habit in collision with the greatly improved reasoning skills of the 21st century's men and women. That's my opinion at least; hopefully it's somewhat sound.

Fantastic! Loved it!

The principle of diminishing returns is relevant here.

"it is frustrating but... eh.... It's a good arguing exercise I guess I'm taking what I learned from various podcasters, authors, throughout the years and seeing how well I fair on the social medias." Yea, I've done that before. But I think social media is usually the bottom of the barrel in terms of logic and reasoning. Still, can be useful to hone the debate skills.

You did great, but OMG what in the hell are you arguing with, chimps?

"Are the logical laws (law of identity, law of the excluded third) true independent of the senses or not? When you say they are, you put them on a pedestal, they cannot falsified nor tested." The laws of logic define the validity of a proposition, not the truth of a proposition. But any true proposition must be valid. Therefore, the laws of logic do tell us something about the real world, but in terms of a standard of "truth." It doesn't make sense to "test" a law of logic, because the idea that you'd even need to "test" something must be in comparison to a standard of "truth," and for anything to be true, it must also be valid. "There is an apple on your table. You leave your room for a minute and find the apple still at your desk. You conclude from the law of identity that it is the same apple. But is this a factual correct statement? I would argue it is not, since the properties of this apple changed." Once again, the law of identity would only judge the validity of your proposition. And notice even in the opinion you gave, you referred to it as if it were still the same apple. You said "the properties of this apple have changed," which seems reasonable and does not seem to indicate it is another apple. If you switched the apple with another apple, then I think it would be valid to say the apple is not the same - because it is another apple. But if you think running water over an apple somehow makes it another apple or not an apple, then I fail to see how your concept of an apple is a discrete, identifiable entity.

"Ah, you're right, of course! Anything true by definition must be true. I was only considering the question of "what can we know for certain?" in terms of empiricism." It sure didn't seem like you were only asking the question "in terms of empiricism." At least, you surely didn't make that clear. If you were only asking in terms of empiricism, why did you say this: "Would you agree that we can't know anything, (literally anything) at all for absolutely certain? Or are first principles actually certain, not in a relative sense (as certain as anything can be) but in an absolute sense?" I'm not trying to say "gotcha," but it really, really seems like you just moved the goal posts once Kevin pointed out how you were incorrect. So before moving onto how reality is just an "assumption," and how we can't really know "ultimate reality" which could be "inside the mind of a demon" or whatever; how about you confront the fact that there are things we can know for certain pertaining to what a valid methodology for truth is, compared to, say, a self-contradictory methodology, such as skepticism?

Great question. I'm not sure I know the answer. My best bat at it would be to say that metaphysics is necessary to make a distinction between the perceptible. There is the objectively perceptible, and then there is the subjectively perceptible. The objectively perceptible includes the physical world of matter and energy, while the subjectively perceptible includes concepts, feelings, preferences, values, numbers, the scientific method, etc. Subjective consciousness is the "observer" of the physical world, and it is part of the physical world, but it cannot be examined using methods reserved for the physical world.

Edit: Deleted off-topic post.

Dysfunctional compared to what? For instance, what exactly is a "dysfunctional" relationship? If we define that the function of a relationship is to foster virtue and happiness in each member, then clearly relationships which perpetuate narcissism, helplessness, and any other number of nasty traits are not functional. And more broadly, if the definition of a "functional personality" is one which pursues happiness through the vessel of virtuous acts, then I think we have an answer to your question: a person is virtuous to the extent they are functional, and evil to the extent they are dysfunctional. But this conclusion comes directly from how I've defined what the function of a personality is. What is your definition of "dysfunctional" in the context you're using it? So in my opinion, someone can be virtuous and dysfunctional, but their virtue and their dysfunction are at odds. And I actually strongly disagree that "dysfunction" opens a gate to virtue. I think you are correct, Rainbow, in noting that it is the self-awareness, courage, and integrity which open the gate to virtue - in other words, virtuous acts open the gate towards becoming a virtuous person. The dysfunction however is completely antithetical to the virtue, at least as I've defined the terms.

Thanks for responding, Nero. I actually went back to re-read your original post, so excuse me if I quote that first. "The thing I am has made all these bad decisions, if I let it pick a career path or commit to a hobby that would just transfer this horrible current self into the future." How is this true? Why would committing to doing something new sustain the old? It seems the exact opposite is the case; only through doing new things do we really change. If we do the same things over and over, then it would seem more reasonable to think we are dragging the present self into the future. If I am an alcoholic and I am think the part of me which feasts on poison is terrible, how reasonable is it to think doing something new will only proliferate this old self. Surely there are things we can do which will change us (perhaps not fundamentally, but maybe we deal with a part of us in a radically different way - similar to how drug abuse can be substituted for therapy, self-knowledge, and goal-driven activities.) And surely if we are to change we *must* do something different. And surely, to stay the same, we must keep doing what we have been doing. If this sounds basically correct, then my question for you is... are you procrastinating change based on faulty reasoning? "It's like making decisions when you're in a bad mood; you transfer that mindstate into the future. The solution is to not make decisions until you feel better. And that has worked really well for me. But I don't see this mistrust ending and at some time I need to start doing shit." I kinda get that. But is this just a "bad mood?" Like we seem to have been saying, this is a "part of you." Now parts of you can manifest in bad moods, but I think there is a distinction. And it's important, because what it seems you have said to me is, "I can't make decisions until this part of me is not part of my anymore." Once again, the idea of procrastination rings in my mind, because it is literally what you'd have to tell yourself to ensure you don't do anything. Because this part of you will not change until you do something to change it - which requires you to make important decisions. To the tone of procrastination, I think the best question you can ask yourself to begin this inquiry is: "who benefits most from my procrastination?" "True. But the mistrust doesn't just come from failure. I was being brief. In many ways I'm doing way better than most people." My impression is that you basically deflected here. I didn't say your mistrust comes from past failure. It was you who began your OP with that connection. And I quote: "Let's just say there's been a lot of failure in my history. Both personally and professionally. Now I have an immense mistrust of my own decision-making faculties. I don't trust myself to make decisions at all, because I expect them to be bad." I'm not saying anything you've said is correct or incorrect about where your mistrust comes from, but it's probably important you become aware of how your conclusions have (seemingly) changed. After that, you say you're "doing better than most people," but once again, I'm not sure how this relates to this mistrust you have in yourself. So I wonder why you decided to include that statement and all the ways in which you are "doing better" than most people. Could you be procrastinating again? (Not saying it definitely is, just comes to mind once again) "The solution is to not make decisions until you feel better. And that has worked really well for me." If it has worked well for you, why are you here asking us for help? That was all from your first post. Now to your most recent post. "I thought I was being vague for privacy reasons. But you might be right that I am hiding my story to avoid responsibility." I just think it makes a lot of sense to include your history (childhood and adult history). Instead you used the phrase "lots of failure in my history," which is uninformative. It makes your problem incomprehensible, and it blocks input. I think dsayers made a great post about the lack of understanding of your problem. And what I am not concerned about is how you are not engaging the fact that this has been pointed out. You say "I just don't trust myself at all." Once again, it's like you're trying to get input on a problem by communicating it in a phrase which literally makes it impossible to communicate back. What do you think any of us can offer you when you say "my childhood wasn't that bad - it's just like this and that's the way it is." I'm not saying you did that the entire post, but you sure did with that statement. Is this procrastination? "I personally judge that my issues have relatively recent origins. It's habits and conditioning I built in my late teens and early twenties. I just got pushed into a corner where I couldn't perform, and now I have no expectation of being capable of making anything happen. But it's not about my childhood so much." I would sincerely love to hear more about this. Open up. Tell me what you're thinking about in your 20s. Tell me, when you think of this entire thread, what emotions do you feel? What memories does it provoke? Even if you don't think your childhood is relevant (spoiler: it is), give use your best shot at bringing up some experiences that have had an impact on this person you are now. Right now you're passing off your childhood as "relatively normal" compared to the treacherous childhoods which people have on this site, but relatively normal is unimportant. No childhood is good today, and all child-hoods lead lasting impressions, habits, ways of thinking, ways of transforming out motivations, and much more. Your childhood is extremely important, so I think it would do you well to share some of it with us. I would appreciate it and would be very empathetic towards it. I know the other posters here would as well, so I invite you to share. I understand it can be very difficult to do that if you don't have positive experiences related to talking about your childhood, though. I empathize with the rest of your post, and I empathize with how difficult it is to feel informed by your emotions. I would say that thinking of things in a new way will likely, though maybe not instantly, bring about emotion. And I think if you engage Stef's call-in shows, resources, the chat, the forum, your understanding of yourself will increase and you will understand your emotions better, and perhaps unleash a wider variety of emotions. ""The self" is this thing inside me that I have to deal with. It's not me, it's a problem, a nuisance. I keep having to deal with this self-thing that needs to be made sane, get a job and girlfriends. But I don't want to. My self is like a broken leg; a problem I want to heal with as little time and effort as possible. Something I wish I didn't have to deal with." Right.. maybe it's an uninvited part of you? Something you want to get rid of? Can you tell me more about this part of you? Can you tell me, when this part of you is present in your conscious, who does it most sound like? Who might be saying it? Why might they be saying it? What are they telling you? Internal dialogues reveal a lot about what people in our lives expect from us, and what we expect from ourselves. I've criticized myself for smoking weed. I got anxious and frustrated with myself for being unreasonably critical. I would not negotiate with myself, nor would I try to understand why I was upset at myself for smoking weed - those questions were crippled by anxiety and thus could not "swim to the surface." Then I thought, this sounds a lot like my mom (she actually explicitly criticizes me for smoking weed, calls me names; so has my dad, so has an ex-gf). The anxiety, I think, was because thinking of my mom as being my internal criticizer threatened her. Throughout my life, when my mom felt threatened, she would dump her anxiety on me. So this anxiety was very necessary for me as a child to best maintain the security of the relationship with my mom - as children, we basically have no choice but to internalize these voices. But when we are older and more cognizant of them, we should begin to question them unrelentingly (though of course it is easier said than done). Let me know what you think about that. Let me know if anything is unclear or can be expanded on. I am just offering my opinions. Also, I think learning more about your childhood is key, and developing a sort of continuum from the you as a child to the you as an adult, to the you now. See if you can find the cause and effect and look for the unconscious motives or patterns.

I usually mean it to say "I wish that didn't happen to you." It's not a statement about reality; it's a statement about my feelings." When people turn and say "but it wasn't your fault," I think they are blocking your invitation to empathize ("hmm, this person feels bad because I feel bad?") and are attempting to make you feel disconnected, making it more difficult to free them (or for them to free themselves) from the interests of villains who inhabit their mind (unempathetic friends, parents, mentors, etc.). Edit: And "sorry to hear that" is literally like saying "I feel sorrow hearing that". Because people have had so little experience with a genuine, true "I'm sorry I did that to you; I feel sorrow for doing that to you," and so much more experience with being manipulated by those words, they perhaps disconnect and manipulate you in return. I think it's always important to look at the emotions your feeling as the result of another's action. If you feel anxious when they respond in that way, it's almost like they're attempting to unload the anxiety they associate with "sorry to hear that" by manipulating it unto you. In this sense they are re-creating a situation of trauma and normalizing it, because the possibility of having a "new" reaction to this same situation would shine a bright light of truth on their relationships. And it's quite sad and tragic, in my opinion.

Do you plan on responding, EmperorNero? Was anything we said helpful or illuminating?

"My assertion is that comedy and quantum mechanics have a common basis. " If this is your thesis, it would help if you could define exactly what you mean by "common basis." I feel like I've been forgotten when you readily plow through your arguments without any elaboration or context after making such an unusual, grandiose, and unclear claim. I feel like I was not thought of as you were writing this (or at least was not the focus), and I feel completely disconnected from your thought process. Empathy for the reader is the most important part of an argument, and it feels completely lost here. "There is always a hidden element to our actions and feelings, and Stefan works to discover it - always relying on first principles. " There is always causality to our actions and feelings - and Stefan works to discover it, relying on first principles. Sorry to nitpick, but after reading the opening claim, phrases like "hidden element" make me wonder what I'm getting into. "I need to show that there is a definable relationship between mathematical symbols and those of language." Why? Tell me why before you begin to prove this claim. "Example: money is fungible since it is used for anything. Equally, numbers and mathematical symbols, in general, are "fungible" or "universal" for what they refer to." I don't think the comparison makes sense. Money is physical thing while numbers are concepts. Mathematical symbols communicate (in conjunction with syntax, I guess) number concepts. So what do you mean when you say numbers are fungible? Because it would seem numbers are not fungible in the sense that I can't substitute any one number for another in an equation and get the same result. But I would like to more understand what you mean. Just for reference: "Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution." - Wikipedia "able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable" - Google definition "On the contrary, linguistic symbols are "not fungible". For example the noun "dog" refers only to dog, and is not a universal symbol for anything else (other animals, etc)." Dog is not a linguistic symbol. Was that a mistake? Linguistic symbols (like the letters I'm using) refer to the sounds we make when we say them. I don't know what else to say because I am still troubled by your use of the word "fungible." It is true that a number can be used in regard to describing all different types of physical things (dogs, cars, cantaloupes), but that's because it's describing quantities, not qualities. The noun "dog" can't be used to describe turkeys because it excludes things which do not consistent of specific criteria, with few if any exceptions. But this is a matter of how we use concepts to relate to reality, not a matter of fungibility. "Example, each photon (of light) has two forms - "particle" and "wave", and they are paradoxical in their forms. No one has ever been able to define the relationship between them, even though they refer to the same phenomenon." How are they paradoxical? No one has been able to define what kind of relationship between them? What is the same phenomenon they refer to? What are they describing about that phenomenon? (laymen questions a person like me may have) Sorry to stop here, but the rest is even harder for me to understand, and I think I've given you enough to elaborate on. I admire your willingness to think outside the box and attempt to make interesting connections where others haven't even if this attempt isn't successful (which I am not the ultimate judge of)

Awesome. Dare I say.. heroic! Is there any chance of convincing the mother to stop spanking altogether?