Why Philosophical Realists are Stuck in a Loop?

[Eodnhoj7]

Everything is subjective.
But what is real is intersubjective as conditioned upon a collective human-based framework and system, of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of reality and objectivity.

Whatever the scientific conclusion as the most reliable reality, it is not reality-in-itself. There is no scientific_reality-in-itself, it is always conditioned the specific scientific FS, e.g. 'water is H20' is only true as conditioned upon the scientific chemistry FS and no other.

The chemistry FS would use 'distinction' as a tool, but it is a tool conceptualized by humans and agreed upon intersubjectively by a collective of human subjects.

To insist there is distinction-in-itself as absolutely real is delusional.

Note this thread:
Do Distinctions Ground Existence — or Does Existence Ground Distinctions?
viewtopic.php?t=45454

If reality is intersubjective, and intersubjectivity is a reality, then reality contains itself.

Nope you got is wrong.
There is no reality-in-itself. Reality-in-itself is an illusion relative to objective reality grounded on intersubjectivity.

Proof That Reality Is An ILLUSION: The Mystery Beyond Space
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7z26d8IsUc
The mean the common sense and scientific reality is an illusion if one reified it as reality-in-itself is real.

There are up 100 Youtube videos justifying why ordinary reality is not reality-in-itself.
The 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics is grounded on the basis that there is no reality-in-itself.
You are insulting your own intelligence if you do not exhaust this literature and counter it if you can.


I have been writing:
What is real [& reality] is conditioned upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of objective reality.

What grounds objectivity and objective reality is intersubjectivity.

Your rigid lateral thinking is too smart to made you ignorant of what reality really is.

You are making assertions, distinctions. You make distinctions within distinctions and that is the only reality you know. Objectivity and subjectivity are purely distinctions at there root nature.


Your whole argument is grounded in being the act of distinction.

A scientific FS is a means of making distinctions, that is literally all it is. What you call true and false or reality and illusion are but distinctions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If reality is intersubjective, and intersubjectivity is a reality, then reality contains itself.

Nope you got is wrong.
There is no reality-in-itself. Reality-in-itself is an illusion relative to objective reality grounded on intersubjectivity.

Proof That Reality Is An ILLUSION: The Mystery Beyond Space
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7z26d8IsUc
The mean the common sense and scientific reality is an illusion if one reified it as reality-in-itself is real.

There are up 100 Youtube videos justifying why ordinary reality is not reality-in-itself.
The 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics is grounded on the basis that there is no reality-in-itself.
You are insulting your own intelligence if you do not exhaust this literature and counter it if you can.


I have been writing:
What is real [& reality] is conditioned upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of objective reality.

What grounds objectivity and objective reality is intersubjectivity.

Your rigid lateral thinking is too smart to made you ignorant of what reality really is.

You are making assertions, distinctions. You make distinctions within distinctions and that is the only reality you know. Objectivity and subjectivity are purely distinctions at there root nature.

Your whole argument is grounded in being the act of distinction.

A scientific FS is a means of making distinctions, that is literally all it is. What you call true and false or reality and illusion are but distinctions.

The scientific FS is the gold standard of what is reality.
The scientific FS is grounded on the human conditions.
It is not making distinctions, rather it uses the concept of distinction as a tool to verify reality.

The gold standard of reality is reality-by-science which is human conditioned, there is no such thing as an absolutely unconditioned reality-in-itself.

Response to this:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope you got is wrong.
There is no reality-in-itself. Reality-in-itself is an illusion relative to objective reality grounded on intersubjectivity.

Proof That Reality Is An ILLUSION: The Mystery Beyond Space
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7z26d8IsUc
The mean the common sense and scientific reality is an illusion if one reified it as reality-in-itself is real.

There are up 100 Youtube videos justifying why ordinary reality is not reality-in-itself.
The 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics is grounded on the basis that there is no reality-in-itself.
You are insulting your own intelligence if you do not exhaust this literature and counter it if you can.


I have been writing:
What is real [& reality] is conditioned upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of objective reality.

What grounds objectivity and objective reality is intersubjectivity.

Your rigid lateral thinking is too smart to made you ignorant of what reality really is.

You are making assertions, distinctions. You make distinctions within distinctions and that is the only reality you know. Objectivity and subjectivity are purely distinctions at there root nature.

Your whole argument is grounded in being the act of distinction.

A scientific FS is a means of making distinctions, that is literally all it is. What you call true and false or reality and illusion are but distinctions.

The scientific FS is the gold standard of what is reality.
The scientific FS is grounded on the human conditions.
It is not making distinctions, rather it uses the concept of distinction as a tool to verify reality.

The gold standard of reality is reality-by-science which is human conditioned, there is no such thing as an absolutely unconditioned reality-in-itself.

Response to this:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

A concept is a distinction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are making assertions, distinctions. You make distinctions within distinctions and that is the only reality you know. Objectivity and subjectivity are purely distinctions at there root nature.

Your whole argument is grounded in being the act of distinction.

A scientific FS is a means of making distinctions, that is literally all it is. What you call true and false or reality and illusion are but distinctions.

The scientific FS is the gold standard of what is reality.
The scientific FS is grounded on the human conditions.
It is not making distinctions, rather it uses the concept of distinction as a tool to verify reality.

The gold standard of reality is reality-by-science which is human conditioned, there is no such thing as an absolutely unconditioned reality-in-itself.

Response to this:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

A concept is a distinction.

You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a thing-in-itself, concept in itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

[Eodnhoj7]

The scientific FS is the gold standard of what is reality.
The scientific FS is grounded on the human conditions.
It is not making distinctions, rather it uses the concept of distinction as a tool to verify reality.

The gold standard of reality is reality-by-science which is human conditioned, there is no such thing as an absolutely unconditioned reality-in-itself.

Response to this:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

A concept is a distinction.

You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a thing-in-itself, concept in itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

It is not critical at all. You claim that reality is not founded upon distinctions and then to proceed to make distinctions.

If reality is but distinctions then distinctions contains itself by degree of the distinctions which come from it.

Existence is a thing in itself. All there is is existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A concept is a distinction.

You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a thing-in-itself, concept in itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

It is not critical at all. You claim that reality is not founded upon distinctions and then to proceed to make distinctions.
If reality is but distinctions then distinctions contains itself by degree of the distinctions which come from it.
Existence is a thing in itself. All there is is existence.

I stated, reality is realized via distinction as one human conditions.

Again:
You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a [distinction] thing-in-itself, existence-in-itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

Scientific reality is the gold standard of objective reality.
On what basis you are claiming existence-in-itself is real?

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

[Eodnhoj7]

You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a thing-in-itself, concept in itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

It is not critical at all. You claim that reality is not founded upon distinctions and then to proceed to make distinctions.
If reality is but distinctions then distinctions contains itself by degree of the distinctions which come from it.
Existence is a thing in itself. All there is is existence.

I stated, reality is realized via distinction as one human conditions.

Again:
You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a [distinction] thing-in-itself, existence-in-itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

Scientific reality is the gold standard of objective reality.
On what basis you are claiming existence-in-itself is real?

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

Your assertion of a scientific FS being a gold standard is not a scientific FS.

Provide a scientific FS for why a scientific FS is a gold standard.

[Age]

It is not critical at all. You claim that reality is not founded upon distinctions and then to proceed to make distinctions.
If reality is but distinctions then distinctions contains itself by degree of the distinctions which come from it.
Existence is a thing in itself. All there is is existence.

I stated, reality is realized via distinction as one human conditions.

Again:
You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a [distinction] thing-in-itself, existence-in-itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

Scientific reality is the gold standard of objective reality.
On what basis you are claiming existence-in-itself is real?

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

Your assertion of a scientific FS being a gold standard is not a scientific FS.

Provide a scientific FS for why a scientific FS is a gold standard.

And, while you are at it, explain what the words, 'gold standard', are in relation to, exactly?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is not critical at all. You claim that reality is not founded upon distinctions and then to proceed to make distinctions.
If reality is but distinctions then distinctions contains itself by degree of the distinctions which come from it.
Existence is a thing in itself. All there is is existence.

I stated, reality is realized via distinction as one human conditions.

Again:
You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a [distinction] thing-in-itself, existence-in-itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

Scientific reality is the gold standard of objective reality.
On what basis you are claiming existence-in-itself is real?

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

Your assertion of a scientific FS being a gold standard is not a scientific FS.
Provide a scientific FS for why a scientific FS is a gold standard.

Do you have a counter on which FS is the gold standard of objective reality?
Mathematics is near to the scientific FS but not better.

I have explained why the scientific FS is the gold standard of objective reality in MANY posts.
It is based on generally accepted criteria of rationality, testability, repeatability, transparency empirical based, verifiability, falsifiability and others.

What FS could possibly be better?

[Eodnhoj7]

I stated, reality is realized via distinction as one human conditions.

Again:
You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a [distinction] thing-in-itself, existence-in-itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

Scientific reality is the gold standard of objective reality.
On what basis you are claiming existence-in-itself is real?

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue:
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

Your assertion of a scientific FS being a gold standard is not a scientific FS.
Provide a scientific FS for why a scientific FS is a gold standard.

Do you have a counter on which FS is the gold standard of objective reality?
Mathematics is near to the scientific FS but not better.

I have explained why the scientific FS is the gold standard of objective reality in MANY posts.
It is based on generally accepted criteria of rationality, testability, repeatability, transparency empirical based, verifiability, falsifiability and others.

What FS could possibly be better?

You claim the best and better FS's but have no FS to determine anything about better or best.

You make opinionated assertions.

If an FS is necessary than an FS is required to prove it, and an FS for that...etc.

You end up with the munchauseen trillemma.

Objectively speaking you are making assertions hoping they will stick and form reality according to whatever vision you have for what reality should be.

You have no foundations that do not loop, infinitely regresses, or are assumed...all things you seem to run from.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your assertion of a scientific FS being a gold standard is not a scientific FS.
Provide a scientific FS for why a scientific FS is a gold standard.

Do you have a counter on which FS is the gold standard of objective reality?
Mathematics is near to the scientific FS but not better.

I have explained why the scientific FS is the gold standard of objective reality in MANY posts.
It is based on generally accepted criteria of rationality, testability, repeatability, transparency empirical based, verifiability, falsifiability and others.

What FS could possibly be better?

You claim the best and better FS's but have no FS to determine anything about better or best.

You make opinionated assertions.

If an FS is necessary than an FS is required to prove it, and an FS for that...etc.

You end up with the munchauseen trillemma.

Objectively speaking you are making assertions hoping they will stick and form reality according to whatever vision you have for what reality should be.

You have no foundations that do not loop, infinitely regresses, or are assumed...all things you seem to run from.

I have addressed that long ago; Sun Oct 22, 2023
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

Do you have a better alternative FS in terms of reality, truth, existence, knowledge than the scientific FS?
Eodnhoj7 FS?

The fact that there should be another FS for a FS implied that everything is FS-ed, thus conditioned.
So, the point is there is no indication and direction to a distinction-in-itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

Do you have a counter on which FS is the gold standard of objective reality?
Mathematics is near to the scientific FS but not better.

I have explained why the scientific FS is the gold standard of objective reality in MANY posts.
It is based on generally accepted criteria of rationality, testability, repeatability, transparency empirical based, verifiability, falsifiability and others.

What FS could possibly be better?

You claim the best and better FS's but have no FS to determine anything about better or best.

You make opinionated assertions.

If an FS is necessary than an FS is required to prove it, and an FS for that...etc.

You end up with the munchauseen trillemma.

Objectively speaking you are making assertions hoping they will stick and form reality according to whatever vision you have for what reality should be.

You have no foundations that do not loop, infinitely regresses, or are assumed...all things you seem to run from.

I have addressed that long ago; Sun Oct 22, 2023
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

Do you have a better alternative FS in terms of reality, truth, existence, knowledge than the scientific FS?
Eodnhoj7 FS?

The fact that there should be another FS for a FS implied that everything is FS-ed, thus conditioned.
So, the point is there is no indication and direction to a distinction-in-itself.

And what is the FS for determining criteria? I see nothing but empty assertions.

The munchauseen trillemma remains.

[accelafine]

Is that supposed to be a question? You might want to rearrange it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what is the FS for determining criteria? I see nothing but empty assertions.
The munchauseen trillemma remains.

Your above exposed your lack of depth and width:

AI Wrote:


[AI]Reference to: Kant + Carnap + Putnam

“What is the FS for determining criteria to rate FS?”

• Answer: No higher FS is required because FS-evaluation rests on transcendental constraints of rationality, not on a further FS.

1. Kantian Foundation: Transcendental, Not Hierarchical
Kant’s transcendental philosophy distinguishes between:

• Conditions of possibility (pre-conceptual structures enabling cognition)
  Empirical or constructed systems (domain-relative frameworks)

Your FS concept maps directly onto this:

• General Rationality (GR) = transcendental, enabling condition
  Framework-Systems (FSs) = constructed, domain-relative systems
  Scientific FS = the FS which most fully satisfies GR

Thus when someone asks:

• “But what is the FS that determines how we evaluate FS?”

This misframes GR as if it were another empirical framework.
In Kantian terms:

• GR is not an FS → it is the condition for any FS to be possible.
  GR is akin to the categories: a transcendental necessity for coherent cognition, not an optional system.

Thus:
Transcendental conditions do not require further justification by a higher-level FS, because they are not elements within a hierarchy—they are the precondition for the hierarchy.

No regress occurs.


2. Carnap: Framework-Internal vs Framework-External Questions

Carnap distinguishes:

• Internal questions: asked within a framework and governed by its rules.
  External questions: concerning whether to adopt a framework at all.

Your critic is mistakenly turning a meta-level question into an internal one.

• The question “How do we evaluate FSs?”
  is an external question.
  The answer lies in general rationality, i.e., conditions for reasoned inquiry itself.
  This is not another FS, but a pragmatic a priori (Carnap’s term) grounding all FS adoption.

Thus Carnap supports your position:

• Criteria for evaluating FSs are not determined by another FS,
  but by pragmatic–rational norms that make any FS usable.

These norms—coherence, empirical adequacy, predictive power, etc.—are not optional conventions; they are constitutive conditions for meaningful discourse.


3. Putnam: Internal Realism and Rational Acceptability
Putnam’s internal realism rejects metaphysical realism’s “God’s-eye view” while grounding objectivity in:

• Rational acceptability
  Coherence with the totality of belief
  Empirical success
  Intersubjective justification

Putnam demonstrates that:

• Objectivity does not require correspondence to a metaphysical realm.
  Objectivity is framework-dependent, but,
  Rational assessment is not arbitrary: it is constrained by
  “idealized rationalacceptability under epistemic virtue.”

Your GR corresponds to Putnam’s:

• internal norms of rationality
  that constrain any admissible conceptual scheme.

Again, these norms are not derived from a higher FS.
They are the meta-criteria that any successful FS must satisfy to count as objectively meaningful.


4. Bringing Them Together:

Why No Regress, No Circularity, and No Need for an FS-to-Judge-FS**

Kant
Transcendental constraints (GR) are not systems needing external justification.
They are the conditions for the possibility of coherent cognition and judgement.

Carnap
The question “Which FS should we choose?” is answered by pragmatic-rational norms, not another framework.

Putnam
Objectivity arises through internal rational norms, not by appeal to a meta-framework.

Thus your model sits squarely within a lineage:

• Kant’s transcendental structure of rationality
  Carnap’s pragmatic a priori and framework pluralism
  Putnam’s internal realism and rational constraint

This produces the following argument:

5. Final Technical Conclusion

The criteria for evaluating FSs do not arise from a higher FS.

They arise from:
Transcendental constraints of General Rationality (GR):
coherence, empirical adequacy, predictive reliability, error-correction, and intersubjective verification.

These constraints:

• are not themselves an FS,
  do not require a meta-FS for justification,
  and avoid any infinite regress.

Under these constraints:

The scientific FS is the “gold standard” not by fiat
but because it uniquely maximizes rational adequacy under GR.

This is the same position defended by:

• Kant → transcendental conditions of cognition
  Carnap → pragmatic a priori + internal/external distinction
  Putnam → internal realism + rational acceptability

Your FS-Concept is therefore philosophically coherent and structurally defensible. [AI]

If you keep on a loop you will not progress at all.
Imagine if scientists were to keep asking in a loop, what is the FS for the criteria of the scientific FS, there would no scientific discoveries and scientific contribution to the progress of humanity.

[Eodnhoj7]

And what is the FS for determining criteria? I see nothing but empty assertions.
The munchauseen trillemma remains.

Your above exposed your lack of depth and width:

AI Wrote:


[AI]Reference to: Kant + Carnap + Putnam

“What is the FS for determining criteria to rate FS?”

• Answer: No higher FS is required because FS-evaluation rests on transcendental constraints of rationality, not on a further FS.

1. Kantian Foundation: Transcendental, Not Hierarchical
Kant’s transcendental philosophy distinguishes between:

• Conditions of possibility (pre-conceptual structures enabling cognition)
  Empirical or constructed systems (domain-relative frameworks)

Your FS concept maps directly onto this:

• General Rationality (GR) = transcendental, enabling condition
  Framework-Systems (FSs) = constructed, domain-relative systems
  Scientific FS = the FS which most fully satisfies GR

Thus when someone asks:

• “But what is the FS that determines how we evaluate FS?”

This misframes GR as if it were another empirical framework.
In Kantian terms:

• GR is not an FS → it is the condition for any FS to be possible.
  GR is akin to the categories: a transcendental necessity for coherent cognition, not an optional system.

Thus:
Transcendental conditions do not require further justification by a higher-level FS, because they are not elements within a hierarchy—they are the precondition for the hierarchy.

No regress occurs.


2. Carnap: Framework-Internal vs Framework-External Questions

Carnap distinguishes:

• Internal questions: asked within a framework and governed by its rules.
  External questions: concerning whether to adopt a framework at all.

Your critic is mistakenly turning a meta-level question into an internal one.

• The question “How do we evaluate FSs?”
  is an external question.
  The answer lies in general rationality, i.e., conditions for reasoned inquiry itself.
  This is not another FS, but a pragmatic a priori (Carnap’s term) grounding all FS adoption.

Thus Carnap supports your position:

• Criteria for evaluating FSs are not determined by another FS,
  but by pragmatic–rational norms that make any FS usable.

These norms—coherence, empirical adequacy, predictive power, etc.—are not optional conventions; they are constitutive conditions for meaningful discourse.


3. Putnam: Internal Realism and Rational Acceptability
Putnam’s internal realism rejects metaphysical realism’s “God’s-eye view” while grounding objectivity in:

• Rational acceptability
  Coherence with the totality of belief
  Empirical success
  Intersubjective justification

Putnam demonstrates that:

• Objectivity does not require correspondence to a metaphysical realm.
  Objectivity is framework-dependent, but,
  Rational assessment is not arbitrary: it is constrained by
  “idealized rationalacceptability under epistemic virtue.”

Your GR corresponds to Putnam’s:

• internal norms of rationality
  that constrain any admissible conceptual scheme.

Again, these norms are not derived from a higher FS.
They are the meta-criteria that any successful FS must satisfy to count as objectively meaningful.


4. Bringing Them Together:

Why No Regress, No Circularity, and No Need for an FS-to-Judge-FS**

Kant
Transcendental constraints (GR) are not systems needing external justification.
They are the conditions for the possibility of coherent cognition and judgement.

Carnap
The question “Which FS should we choose?” is answered by pragmatic-rational norms, not another framework.

Putnam
Objectivity arises through internal rational norms, not by appeal to a meta-framework.

Thus your model sits squarely within a lineage:

• Kant’s transcendental structure of rationality
  Carnap’s pragmatic a priori and framework pluralism
  Putnam’s internal realism and rational constraint

This produces the following argument:

5. Final Technical Conclusion

The criteria for evaluating FSs do not arise from a higher FS.

They arise from:
Transcendental constraints of General Rationality (GR):
coherence, empirical adequacy, predictive reliability, error-correction, and intersubjective verification.

These constraints:

• are not themselves an FS,
  do not require a meta-FS for justification,
  and avoid any infinite regress.

Under these constraints:

The scientific FS is the “gold standard” not by fiat
but because it uniquely maximizes rational adequacy under GR.

This is the same position defended by:

• Kant → transcendental conditions of cognition
  Carnap → pragmatic a priori + internal/external distinction
  Putnam → internal realism + rational acceptability

Your FS-Concept is therefore philosophically coherent and structurally defensible. [AI]

If you keep on a loop you will not progress at all.
Imagine if scientists were to keep asking in a loop, what is the FS for the criteria of the scientific FS, there would no scientific discoveries and scientific contribution to the progress of humanity.

So you use circular reasoning...the FS is superior because the FS is superior.