Dear Albuquerque, I really don't know what Fresco's purpose is, in a web forum at all.
Now, in my own case I am after learning from others who do think better than I think; the way I see Fresco, from direct exchange of thoughts with him, the man is incoherent with his ideas and words altogether.
He appears to me to be into regurgitating words from other people's thinking, with devotion to them as to authorities, and never doing any serious self thinking at all, with grounding himself on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.
I notice that he puts a lot on having read this or that author already long dead, and perhaps modern ones still living but not participating in a2k: but he does not think for himself at all.
Consider his definition of the word existence, and mine, namely:
'Existence' is a word which we apply to useful concepts in particular social contexts. Since 'utility' is sometimes negotiable, so is 'existence' (22 words)."
"Existence is anything at all we know to be real from our conscious experience and reason, for example: the nose, the sun, babies, roses, etc." (25 words)
Honestly, I can't find anything coherent and consistent insofar as definition from Fresco of the word existence is concerned.
The vague idea from him in his definition of the word existence seems to be that of negotiation among parties in a conversation on the usefulness or utility of the word, in the present context, existence.
So I ask him to give examples which his definition of the word existence covers in its embrace, and he runs away, at the same time insulting me with my socalled lack of reading things in a college library.
Dear Alb, you mention something of an X from him, I like very much - since I have not dealt with him before, what is that X all about with him?
You see, dear Alb, and all readers here, first and foremost before anything else, we must parties in a conversation work as to concur on meanings of the words we are using in our exchange of thoughts; otherwise we are conducting ourselves irrationally, by in effect talking past each other's head.
That is the however sad to say the common ill practice of writers, never to present their definitions of words which are the most crucially important on an issue.
Why do people behave that way?
Simple, so that they can talk without any precision, and therefore for them talking is not to communicate, but to guard oneself from knowing what others think, and how to learn from them, and also of course see if they might see and accept also what we have to offer: so that both or all parties in a conversation benefit from the exercise of the conversation.
Tell me, what is this X, coming from Fresco?
Addressing Fresco, please come back and let us all continue with our exchange in re the control of one subatomic particle, in regard to the matter of what kind of existence is a subatomic particle into, from the experts of quantum mechanics, in most particular centering ourselves on the weirdness features of quantum mechanics.
Dear Fresco, as you seem to me to act to this pattern of behavior, namely, to run away when you see that you have to concur with me on a question, I tell you that is very unhealthy for your intellectual life.
How can you ever if at all get to know as to think better in the way of better knowledge of reality and life and our contact and control of, yes, existence, when you always run away when you see that you have to concur with other people, like for example, with me.
Dear Alb, please tell me what is this X you know about with the thinking style of Fresco.