Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

[Sculptor1]

Well that is fine to point out as long as you also completely abandon ideas such as objectivity and absolute.

Not at all. Those words have meaning, and (limited) use. But they have no practical, real-world, applicability or relevance.

So if they are useless, how can they have meaning?

[Pattern-chaser]

Well that is fine to point out as long as you also completely abandon ideas such as objectivity and absolute.

Not at all. Those words have meaning, and (limited) use. But they have no practical, real-world, applicability or relevance.

So if they are useless, how can they have meaning?

I think this could be an interesting exchange, that I would like to follow for a while — but it won't go well if we begin with straw men. If you glance up, you can confirm for yourself that I did not write "useless", I wrote "(limited) use", which carries quite a different meaning, as you are well aware.

So shall we proceed, and see where this leads, or shall we just indulge in deliberate misquotings and misapprehensions?

[Sculptor1]

Well that is fine to point out as long as you also completely abandon ideas such as objectivity and absolute.

Not at all. Those words have meaning, and (limited) use. But they have no practical, real-world, applicability or relevance.

So if they are useless, how can they have meaning?

I think this could be an interesting exchange, that I would like to follow for a while — but it won't go well if we begin with straw men. If you glance up, you can confirm for yourself that I did not write "useless", I wrote "(limited) use", which carries quite a different meaning, as you are well aware.

So shall we proceed, and see where this leads, or shall we just indulge in deliberate misquotings and misapprehensions?

No I do not think I have misrepresented you. I did not quote you, so I could not have misquoted you.
But my response in using the word useless was accurate because you said the following.

But they have no practical, real-world, applicability or relevance.

This, as well as being completely wrong, is accurately summed up by "useless", because things that have no practical real owrld applicability or relevance are useless.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well that is fine to point out as long as you also completely abandon ideas such as objectivity and absolute.

Not at all. Those words have meaning, and (limited) use. But they have no practical, real-world, applicability or relevance.

So if they are useless, how can they have meaning?

I think this could be an interesting exchange, that I would like to follow for a while — but it won't go well if we begin with straw men. If you glance up, you can confirm for yourself that I did not write "useless", I wrote "(limited) use", which carries quite a different meaning, as you are well aware.

So shall we proceed, and see where this leads, or shall we just indulge in deliberate misquotings and misapprehensions?

No I do not think I have misrepresented you. I did not quote you, so I could not have misquoted you.
But my response in using the word useless was accurate because you said the following.

But they have no practical, real-world, applicability or relevance.

This, as well as being completely wrong, is accurately summed up by "useless", because things that have no practical real owrld applicability or relevance are useless.

Then I withdraw from this potentially interesting exchange. I find discussion difficult when I am told what my words *must* mean, in the face of my clarifications to the contrary. There is no inquiry here, only the wish to negate or contradict. I retire; if you wish, you may consider me 'defeated'.

[Sculptor1]

Well that is fine to point out as long as you also completely abandon ideas such as objectivity and absolute.

Not at all. Those words have meaning, and (limited) use. But they have no practical, real-world, applicability or relevance.

So if they are useless, how can they have meaning?

I think this could be an interesting exchange, that I would like to follow for a while — but it won't go well if we begin with straw men. If you glance up, you can confirm for yourself that I did not write "useless", I wrote "(limited) use", which carries quite a different meaning, as you are well aware.

So shall we proceed, and see where this leads, or shall we just indulge in deliberate misquotings and misapprehensions?

No I do not think I have misrepresented you. I did not quote you, so I could not have misquoted you.
But my response in using the word useless was accurate because you said the following.

But they have no practical, real-world, applicability or relevance.

This, as well as being completely wrong, is accurately summed up by "useless", because things that have no practical real owrld applicability or relevance are useless.

Then I withdraw from this potentially interesting exchange. I find discussion difficult when I am told what my words *must* mean, in the face of my clarifications to the contrary. There is no inquiry here, only the wish to negate or contradict. I retire; if you wish, you may consider me 'defeated'.

I think you are shooting yourself in the foot by rejecting these two words. What discussion do you think you can build on with "But they have no practical, real-world, applicability or relevance."?

I could give you an example?

A 12" ruler is a simple enough eample, and a very practical one, which demonstrates the idea of "objective".

[Pattern-chaser]

Then I withdraw from this potentially interesting exchange. I find discussion difficult when I am told what my words *must* mean, in the face of my clarifications to the contrary. There is no inquiry here, only the wish to negate or contradict. I retire; if you wish, you may consider me 'defeated'.

I think you are shooting yourself in the foot by rejecting these two words.

I withdraw from this potentially interesting exchange. I find discussion difficult when I am told what my words *must* mean, in the face of my clarifications to the contrary. There is no spirit of inquiry here, only the wish to dispute, negate or contradict. I retire; if you wish, you may consider me 'defeated'.

[Sculptor1]

Then I withdraw from this potentially interesting exchange. I find discussion difficult when I am told what my words *must* mean, in the face of my clarifications to the contrary. There is no inquiry here, only the wish to negate or contradict. I retire; if you wish, you may consider me 'defeated'.

I think you are shooting yourself in the foot by rejecting these two words.

I withdraw from this potentially interesting exchange. I find discussion difficult when I am told what my words *must* mean, in the face of my clarifications to the contrary. There is no spirit of inquiry here, only the wish to dispute, negate or contradict. I retire; if you wish, you may consider me 'defeated'.

Or you could just be honest and admit you overreached, made a mistake, mis-spoke, didn't think it through, or similar.
DId you want an example for absolute or are you still reeling from the devastinag shock that a 12" ruler might be an example of "objectivity"?

[Sculptor1]

I find discussion difficult when I am told what my words *must* mean, in the face of my clarifications to the contrary.

PS
I've not even said what they mean, actually. And if I have not done that then I can hardly have said what they "must" mean.

[Pattern-chaser]

...are you still reeling from the devastinag shock that a 12" ruler might be an example of "objectivity"?

A king that small would be an interesting sight...



I have expressed clearly my intention not to become involved in a disputational verbal conflict with you. It is destructive, and it achieves nothing. There is no learning, no growth in understanding. No point. Let it go.

[Barkun]

The pineal gland works using direction NOT feeling. The being conscious is directional and receives no stimulus without brain reception.

You will experience a leftward-ness or such in your conscious mind, but without feeling, it's not even notable, that's what we're working with. It seems to be so concerned with action there is no capacity for analysis.

Such as you know something's call or gesture which results in a specific combination of intention and expression founded by the pineal gland which either directs or misdirects you.

Thus, the objective left and right are constantly painted for us even though polarity would suggest either can be viewed as either, we must agree on one predominantly, even temporarily with switching.

[Barkun]

But OP had suggested was that there is no objective left and right ultimately, which confirms he is still rational about the capacity to switch...

[Sculptor1]

...are you still reeling from the devastinag shock that a 12" ruler might be an example of "objectivity"?

A king that small would be an interesting sight...



I have expressed clearly my intention not to become involved in a disputational verbal conflict with you. It is destructive, and it achieves nothing. There is no learning, no growth in understanding. No point. Let it go.

Or as the knight of Arthur would say; "run away... run away...

[Sculptor1]

But OP had suggested was that there is no objective left and right ultimately, which confirms he is still rational about the capacity to switch...

He's wrong and his visual demonstration does not work.
The only thing that is not objective about chirality is the fact that there is always and arbitrary relationship between the signifier and the signified.
However you could call right eskubidea, and left, ezker but they would still represent the objective reality of the notion.

[Barkun]

I don't think so. There comes a time where it's objectively important to signify what each means, but that collapses under pointlessness and neutrality just to be propped up once more under the most efficient prolapse.