Conversation
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2026 4:49 am
Where does one find a person capable of an intelligent conversation?
A long, long time ago, I once realized that intelligence is relative, but no relative of mine.
One of the most basic concepts in logic, is the ability to compare two things.
Given any two things, they are either equal or not equal. If they are not equal one is greater than the other, and the other is less than the first.
But does this mean that i can compare apples and oranges? No, why not? In all of reasoning, the relative is a given, and the parsing limit is applied. The relative therefore has to always be equal. I have to be able to group apples and oranges as fruit.
What Plato taught, is that when we name any thing, we are creating a definitive sentence. Every definitive sentence names a noun as a limit, and a verb as the relative difference, for example, Tom is a cat. The noun Tom is equal to both a noun and a verb. This intelligible grouping is not perceptible, but intelligible, i.e., one's literacy is determined by their own intelligence.
So, there is no such thing as black people, white people, meaning that one is talking about people, but one is talking about color. People cannot generally even follow a topic. The relative in those constructs is color, which is the given, not people, people is now used as the parsing boundary, i.e. not the topic.
The same is true of gender, race, nationality, religion, etc.
So, it is not in anywise difficult to spot an idiot today.
Where does one go for an intelligent conversation?
Anyway, for a very long time, I have known that I have to produce Parmenides A. I. that is Parmenides annotated and illustrated. The one dialog scholars have never grasped, even ridiculed, is the dialog Plato was illustrating the science of dialectic, or the science of binary information processing.
Every time we name a thing, that name implies a definitive sentence. That has never been taught in any grammar other than Plato. One can either comply with their own definitions, or they cannot. One is either literate or they are not, one is either rational or not, based on one's own ability to use a convention of names.
As Plato noted, if one cannot master the mental exercise of Parmenides, one can never think, or act, in accordance with the truth of things.
It is a very simple concept. You can either agree with your own convention of names, or you are schizophrenic.
A long, long time ago, I once realized that intelligence is relative, but no relative of mine.
One of the most basic concepts in logic, is the ability to compare two things.
Given any two things, they are either equal or not equal. If they are not equal one is greater than the other, and the other is less than the first.
But does this mean that i can compare apples and oranges? No, why not? In all of reasoning, the relative is a given, and the parsing limit is applied. The relative therefore has to always be equal. I have to be able to group apples and oranges as fruit.
What Plato taught, is that when we name any thing, we are creating a definitive sentence. Every definitive sentence names a noun as a limit, and a verb as the relative difference, for example, Tom is a cat. The noun Tom is equal to both a noun and a verb. This intelligible grouping is not perceptible, but intelligible, i.e., one's literacy is determined by their own intelligence.
So, there is no such thing as black people, white people, meaning that one is talking about people, but one is talking about color. People cannot generally even follow a topic. The relative in those constructs is color, which is the given, not people, people is now used as the parsing boundary, i.e. not the topic.
The same is true of gender, race, nationality, religion, etc.
So, it is not in anywise difficult to spot an idiot today.
Where does one go for an intelligent conversation?
Anyway, for a very long time, I have known that I have to produce Parmenides A. I. that is Parmenides annotated and illustrated. The one dialog scholars have never grasped, even ridiculed, is the dialog Plato was illustrating the science of dialectic, or the science of binary information processing.
Every time we name a thing, that name implies a definitive sentence. That has never been taught in any grammar other than Plato. One can either comply with their own definitions, or they cannot. One is either literate or they are not, one is either rational or not, based on one's own ability to use a convention of names.
As Plato noted, if one cannot master the mental exercise of Parmenides, one can never think, or act, in accordance with the truth of things.
It is a very simple concept. You can either agree with your own convention of names, or you are schizophrenic.