Simple Philosophy for Man's Philosophy

Of course...that´s why I prefer speaking in "Information"...

...what would actually "Physical" end up to mean ?
Only that some "info-objects" have some specific rules to them...on how they manifest in relation to us...algorithm again !

...the point being "experience" is relative and none the less true !
Functions and systems of functions relating in successive layers with more or less "containment"...more or less "field of action"...more or less "length" or "size"...if to use binary code...zeros and ones...the simplest, an info bit and its shadow, the zero, which is also a "thing"...
...the form of its absence created by whatever else exists around it !
( Just like the absence of sound between the notes in music...the tempo and the rhythm...)

...ABOVE EDITED in green should finally read as:
if to use binary code...zeros and ones...the simplest, an info bit and its shadow, the zero, which is also a "thing" in context, a function...
...the form of an absence created by whatever else exists around it !
(in the around of a certain length or form of emptiness goes the function of it)
( Just like the absence of sound between the notes in music...the tempo and the rhythm...)

You honestly admitted ( "Understanding Kant" , http://able2know.org/topic/167851-3#post-4513697 ) that you can't write in English, so I'm at a loss to explain why you bother producing such a large volume of paragraphs you know to be nonsensical. Please refrain from addressing them to me in future.

Oh I WILL refrain myself most certainly out of self respect !!!
I can see just straight through you and your kind !

Thanks for magical incantation; it's the missing "2nd Step" in the cartoon I posted for Fresco http://able2know.org/topic/167128-2#post-4512396

I will just tell you this and then live you to yourself...
Do you really think your kind of approach will prevent people from reading the posts and judging for themselves ? Even honestly admitting that some of the content may at times be put forward in a less then optimal manner ?
...what matters in those is the consistency of its central arguments, and obviously the capacity to decode what some times might be less explicit in them...on that regard I am largely confident on what I have posted...no matter if you did or did not get it, or even if you were willing to even look at it...people like you easily stuck in any hypothetical fault and are utterly incapable of filling in the gaps thus dismissing the entire argument with the best of its content...I am convinced that you do so precisely because your genotype which represents 25% of human population, the so called "technicians", although with the merit of a high capacity memory, I´ll give you that, is nevertheless utterly incapable of solving problems...no imagination whatsoever !
No wonder the exact kind of visceral response you give when things don´t go according to plan or when you simply can´t figure the idea behind someone else´s words...

You're running around in circles and should take this as a hint to step off that 'ground' you're on.

You are the worst possible example to even try go down that path...you simply lack the most basics tools for any kind of comprehension...get real you don´t fill up the requirements even to be a "technician" !

I think your ignorance speaks for itself(In 'public') - LMAOOO

Oh but I am ignorant on many issues, in there consists my advantage to fresh thinking...I am aware that others certainty is nothing but self deception...that said you don´t have a tenth of my knowledge in any field ! Most of my free time is spend on reading and watching specialized documentaries on a large spectrum of areas...as for you, one can see immediately that you don´t have even the basics to argue !

Everyone is ignorant... It it the single most common characteristic of all of humanity... Some beliefs simply have more rational justification than others... So ignorance as an insult is all blade and no handle..

Note that epistemologically speaking I agree with you to the full...nevertheless that in turn does not say anything about the existence of Truth...although of course that much admitted makes it beyond the point to speak of it, just like Rorty suggested...I guess my point all along is about accessing the need for its existence but never to describe in what it consists objectively...

Aside that, coming from the person it came from, the insult is not only naive but meaningless...

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

You will like a poem (also title of an excellent book) - sorry have no time to link it now but it contains the verse "Around the Cragged Hill...."

...When you find yourself the time post the link.

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

This is the poem:

Yep, I agree, I'm not sure where the OP got the impression that all poetry was clear and concise. In any case, what may not be "clear and concise" to one person, may be perfectly clear to someone else. Moreover, what are we to do when someone fails to understand a philosophical idea? Instantly dismiss it as being "overly complicated"?-of course not, philosophical thinking takes practice, and, for some, initially requires a lot of effort in order to learn how to think in unusual ways.

If someone rarely or never engages in philosophical thought, then they will come across ideas that appear alien to them, and they initially struggle to grasp new ideas. Contrast this with someone who engages in philosophy regularly, they will have become familiar with the process of getting to grips with new ideas, questioning their own ideas, and forming their own new ideas-that’s why philosophy is "difficult" for some people, because they simply do not engage in the processes of philosophy.

And then again, there are just some people who do not appear to be able to familiarise themselves with this process, and always struggle.

It's part of a much longer poem; here is the link: http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/satire3.htm (my quoted text is about 3/4 down the page).

This is a longer excerpt making clear what Donne had in mind about truth: