Group Leader
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 799
@gaigous
It's more like we're two dudes standing next to each other when you suddenly go: "There is something in the sky!" And I'm like: "Where?" Then you start wildly gesturing about without actually giving me directions accurate enough that I could decide whether there actually is something, or whether you've been smoking the cheap shit again. /o/
But yeah, past tense. I think this little exchange gave me more or less what I needed, already. Although it didn't really give me the where, I think I got the why.
Eh that would only really be the case if both of us had solidified viewpoints. You may do, but I actually don't. And I wasn't actually trying to agree on a specific meaning with you either. Rather, I was trying to figure out what exactly your observation is based on in the first place.My point was that once objective reality has been perceived by a person a lot of it will become subjective in their mind whether they like it or not, I mean obviously we can both agree that we saw what we saw, but when we try to agree on its meaning is where things tend to get muddy.
It's more like we're two dudes standing next to each other when you suddenly go: "There is something in the sky!" And I'm like: "Where?" Then you start wildly gesturing about without actually giving me directions accurate enough that I could decide whether there actually is something, or whether you've been smoking the cheap shit again. /o/
Not quite relevant in this context. The problem is that you were giving me images as a response, instead of a clearly phrased sentence.Fiction, in general, is art, so my best advice would be to get used to the clusterfuck of interpretations. I mean, If we were talking about something like engineering where objective reality was the name of the game then I would agree wholeheartedly.
Again, I wasn't really looking for the true true. To begin with, we'd need way more people than just the two of us to be able to design a definition that could be considered objective by any reasonable standards. No, what I've been trying to figure out is what precisely your individual observation is actually based on. And only after that would I have the theoretical means to, at least for myself, decide who is likely to be closer to the truth. \o\The only way we could achieve "the true true" would be if the author/artist told us, and even then the word of god is debatable with art. The truth is a very nebulous concept with things like art, unlike science.
But yeah, past tense. I think this little exchange gave me more or less what I needed, already. Although it didn't really give me the where, I think I got the why.