So, you are in agreement that you are less than natural.
Bad answer.
Yes, it would be more accurate to say that you claim to be a less-than-natural human. But why do you say so?
It's not clear if nature means anything. Literacy is as natural as illiteracy if nature is not contrasted with the omega of a supposed teleology linked to reason or civilization. Besides, does one discover true spellings? As one does the nucleus of the so-called atom. Did you notice that Bertrand Russell claimed that mathematical principles are "discovered." As, was, continues Russell, America. Yet, he regarded, in 1933, psycology as identical to condtioned response. The concepts are drifting over the decades.
TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 4:37 pm
...is one people "more natural?" If so, the less natural people spell falsly.
You misspelled “falsely”. Ironic, or just a way to identify yourself as a less natural person?
Is the more primative more natural? Doesn't spelling come later, after the infant natural life of the non-speller? What is the "more natural?" Only what comes first like a wild forest is more natural than a cultivated orchard
This could mean that a non-speller is naturally infantile.
commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:54 pm
You misspelled “falsely”. Ironic, or just a way to identify yourself as a less natural person?
Is the more primative more natural? Doesn't spelling come later, after the infant natural life of the non-speller? What is the "more natural?" Only what comes first like a wild forest is more natural than a cultivated orchard
This could mean that a non-speller is naturally infantile.
It's rather like the question of the "developing" countries in the standard discourse. Development implies a telolological omega which may not be valid.