Al wrote:

Are our observed truths generalized truths or specific truths? Are
"general" and "specific" and "broad" and "narrow" not terms that are
relative? What thoughts would we think, if there was no imagined
visual/formative capacity in our neurological processes? Would words
exist or be communicable if there were no neruo-symmetric synergistic
links and formations being associated with the words?

Al wrote:

Are our observed truths generalized truths or specific truths? Are
"general" and "specific" and "broad" and "narrow" not terms that are
relative? What thoughts would we think, if there was no imagined
visual/formative capacity in our neurological processes? Would words
exist or be communicable if there were no neruo-symmetric synergistic
links and formations being associated with the words?

Because there is a dependence on imagined form,

Al wrote:

Are our observed truths generalized truths or specific truths? Are
"general" and "specific" and "broad" and "narrow" not terms that are
relative? What thoughts would we think, if there was no imagined
visual/formative capacity in our neurological processes? Would words
exist or be communicable if there were no neruo-symmetric synergistic
links and formations being associated with the words?

Because there is a dependence on imagined form, are the myriad forms
and sequential matrices of thought each one obtains from their own
pathways' interactions truely effectively communicable? Do we see an
actual universe or is it restricted to our own tinted, "contented"
realm?
Why do we expect accuracy as our organisms energies attempt to transmit
"information" to another entities "generally" similar system of
thought organization?

And do we expect anything universally "right-on" knowing that
these formations are probably not accurately transposed from largely
"energy- interplay" to an entirely archaic system of visually sensed
"letter and number symbols; frozen notations?"
Are these lines and dashes we have developed thoroughly depicting our
electric, fractionalized, dancing, inner interplay?
We sure seem to think so, and so, were ARE something special!

We are children of the universe in child's play. We are proud. We
know because we think we know. Our thoughts are OUR thoughts. BUT, they
may not be the thought or thoughts of another being in time-space with
substantially dissimilar interpretations of imaginary form.

There may well be, a being, able to communicate synergistically laden
words and concepts against other synergistically propelled concepts
easily, but it is not us.
Our colored ideas smear into grey quickly as we ascribe confidence to
them.

Tear off the lens of the eye and the forms we have labeled so
confidently cease to be perceived.

There is only bright light.

In such
a reality the stars were never there to discuss or measure if there was
no mechanism constructed to witness them.

The ideas of infinity, of
flight, of color would not exist; to us.

If there is purpose for our discussions, if there is sensible humane
benefit potential present in them, then we must continue with what
skills we have.

If there is no perceivable purpose then we might well
discuss, with our god-like skill, another venture.

Al wrote:

Are our observed truths generalized truths or specific truths? Are
"general" and "specific" and "broad" and "narrow" not terms that are
relative? What thoughts would we think, if there was no imagined
visual/formative capacity in our neurological processes? Would words
exist or be communicable if there were no neruo-symmetric synergistic
links and formations being associated with the words?

Because there is a dependence on imagined form, are the myriad forms
and sequential matrices of thought each one obtains from their own
pathways' interactions truely effectively communicable? Do we see an
actual universe or is it restricted to our own tinted, "contented"
realm?
Why do we expect accuracy as our organisms energies attempt to transmit
"information" to another entities "generally" similar system of
thought organization?

And do we expect anything universally "right-on" knowing that
these formations are probably not accurately transposed from largely
"energy- interplay" to an entirely archaic system of visually sensed
"letter and number symbols; frozen notations?"
Are these lines and dashes we have developed thoroughly depicting our
electric, fractionalized, dancing, inner interplay?
We sure seem to think so, and so, were ARE something special!

We are children of the universe in child's play. We are proud. We
know because we think we know. Our thoughts are OUR thoughts. BUT, they
may not be the thought or thoughts of another being in time-space with
substantially dissimilar interpretations of imaginary form.

There may well be, a being, able to communicate synergistically laden
words and concepts against other synergistically propelled concepts
easily, but it is not us.
Our colored ideas smear into grey quickly as we ascribe confidence to
them.

Tear off the lens of the eye and the forms we have labeled so
confidently cease to be perceived. There is only bright light. In such
a reality the stars were never there to discuss or measure if there was
no mechanism constructed to witness them. The ideas of infinity, of
flight, of color would not exist; to us.

If there is purpose for our discussions, if there is sensible humane
benefit potential present in them, then we must continue with what
skills we have. If there is no perceivable purpose then we might well
discuss, with our god-like skill, another venture.