Are We Reaching Our Limits?

[kosnirr dragoven]

I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...

-snip-

Of course if I had in fact initially said something along the lines of your interpretation there would have been no misunderstanding. In that case, Treesin's description of my article as "Open mouth, insert foot" would make no sense, since no apology would be necessary. All this to say that perhaps, to be generous, Treesin, in saying that I "decided to use as many big, technical words as possible," meant "it may have been a good thing." If so, you presented it in the most obfuscated way possible.

I disagree completely. If you would've said that the initialism of my response had been the source of the error, than I could have disproved the general conclusion that you just posited. However, you seem to be hinging on the fact that the interest is derived from the mere premise of the lack of proof. Well, to that I say that the response is entirely justified, in that if you can relate the redstone theory presented in the aforementioned text, then the text would read that the missing link between our views would be found when the views were connected by the ambition to create agreement. Now if you told me that the reason for this malice was bad, then I might decide to agree with your argument, but not abandon my own, that is, if obfuscation is presented as a complicating agent, then this is inherently unfaithful to the truth, as obfuscation is in fact a simplification in other ways.

There is a great divide in redstone design between the engineers who stress philosophy and values and those who stress history and originalism. It is a split that cannot be bridged, much like the division between farmers and cowboys in “Oklahoma.” My purpose here is not to revisit that controversy and to argue that history and originalism reflect the superior approach, although that is my belief. In my article, I simply assume that the goal of interpretation should be to recapture original meaning because original meaning accords with the decision to ratify the Constitution. If one takes that goal seriously, obfuscating intent is not the way to go.

I would not take that statement granted, in that, in many opinions, "originalism" can actually be the crux of the argument between our two ideas. While I do agree with the existence of "Oklahoma", I would strongly believe that the formation of its existence is one of the more influential topics to study. Also, recapturing meaning is not possible, in my opinion, as the capturing of meaning in the first place is often said to be a modification itself, also it changes the original thought itself. In this way, obfuscation can be said to be the purest form of a thought, even if it is in fact a difference in the thought itself, as the act of change creates change in other places, equating the two ideas. The seriousness of a goal is always in account, mostly taken, when obfuscating, as the time spent to nurture an idea is again a form of obfuscation. In this sense, neither obfuscation nor originalism, nor indeed intent can be said to truly exist, as no processes are truly indeed static, so anything done will be said to obfuscate by one or another or me, taking away original meaning of the true purpose of intent.

I am not entirely sure I understand what you are talking about...
EDIT: I am not entirely sure you understand what you are talking about...