Who talks for us?

source: Seth Russell on Facebook

"I hold this truth to be self evident ...
i can easily write true sentences about my own experience,
but it very difficult for me to write them about other people's experience ...
and i presume that is the same for all of you too.
"


I talk for myself ... there is no force external from myself which moves my mouth and animates my fingers on a keyboard ... no, those actions i more or less intentionally from my be-ing ... and it is I who feel the truth of those actions ... it is I ... and, er *only* I ... who can feel how well my verbal behavior comports with what-is-so. 

I take that as self evident based upon my experience and as calculated by my reason. You, of course, may think quite differently.  


All of that may or may not be provable beyond myself ... but that is not really where i am going with this.   I know how i talk for myself and how i feel about the truth of my words.  What is of interest here .. is er, ... hmmm ...

...  how do *we* talk is that same manner?






Tags

  1. mental topography
  2. leviathan
  3. truth
  4. talking
  5. first person
  6. matrix possibilities
  7. mind map

Comments


MeE says
seth 2013-12-26 09:14:49 16986
source: mark suggests
Well, I'm certainly no expert on what you are thinking, but there are lots of clues to such connectedness here ->  [item 3346]

... i don't think GW was dealing with combining labeled directed arrows and ven diagrams in "Grammar of Changes", or even "Combinatorial Arithmetic".  "Barbara Cubed" did use the common way to do Ven diagrams in a tabular form ... and yes, that is there implied by the graphics of diagram.  However, if you know of some specific thing in those books that directly relates, please let me know. 
Since you may not want to understand GW's stuff & I don't know what you are basically talking about I will wait for you to reinvent semantics & epistemology or you are finished with this phase of whatever it is.


Seth says
incidentally ... and this is very important ... and, me thinks should be sufficient motivation for both of us to stick with your idea here of a "matrix of possibilities":   the map should be capable of expressing both you conceptions of truth as well as mine ... the map system should be capable of representing both of our world views ... we should be able to see how changing the modifiable parameters in a particular map wold represent your way or my way.

MeE says
seth 2013-12-24 09:28:18 16986
MeE 2013-12-24 07:04:49 16986
Actually my experience is everything that involves me & yours is everything that involves you.

hmmm ... i'm drawing the distinction in a slightly different place.   i don't think that something that merely involves me is neceaarily something that i experience ... at least not necessarily during the involvement.   a snipper who is aiming his rifel at my body with the intention of shooting me certainly can be said to be "involveing me" ... yet it is not my experience until the bullet enters my body.  there is no way that i can honestly speak about his actions which are involving me untill i .. er, actually personally experience them.
The experience then begins when you hear the sound of the gun or perhaps see someone pointing a gun at you etc.

MeE says
seth 2013-12-24 10:24:15 16986
incidentally ... and this is very important ... and, me thinks should be sufficient motivation for both of us to stick with your idea here of a "matrix of possibilities":   the map should be capable of expressing both you conceptions of truth as well as mine ... the map system should be capable of representing both of our world views ... we should be able to see how changing the modifiable parameters in a particular map wold represent your way or my way.
Lots of luck. Let's see if you can get that they are essentially monism vs dualism in the diagram.

I'll wait until you have your final matrix since this is fast getting into nested confusion.


Seth says
MeE 2013-12-24 07:04:49 16986
Actually my experience is everything that involves me & yours is everything that involves you.

hmmm ... i'm drawing the distinction in a slightly different place.   i don't think that something that merely involves me is neceaarily something that i experience ... at least not necessarily during the involvement.   a snipper who is aiming his rifel at my body with the intention of shooting me certainly can be said to be "involveing me" ... yet it is not my experience until the bullet enters my body.  there is no way that i can honestly speak about his actions which are involving me untill i .. er, actually personally experience them.

Seth says
ME 2013-12-23 12:18:08 16986
Something depends upon what the meaning of the word experience is. Some think of it as an almost infinite cause-effect loop & train of which no two humans have the same one. Others relate it to what a single person like you or I have & do with the input from our senses & mind.
I do not hold truth as just another sense or particularly a sense at all. Truth can be both cognitive & directly experienced through a metamorphosis of attention in such states as imagination, inspiration & intuition &/or logic & rational processes. Feeling, imho, is a poor indicator of truth - political pointers to that are obvious.

We may be nose to nose talking about the same subject & yet our experiences seem to be separate, eh?  This makes me suspicious of your Venn diagram.


there is a lot of good stuff here that helps to refine the map.  i'd rather deal with it when i first have the system in place. 

Currently i am working with a new mentographic object to draw the map ...


where the tail of the relation (arrow) is some language statement ... or any other kind of sign mechinism or media representing some experience ... the head of the arrow points to the actual experience ... and the yellow symbol in the middle is the persons experience of truth about how well the sign matches the experience. 

Seth says
MeE 2013-12-24 09:46:19 16986
seth 2013-12-24 09:28:18 16986
MeE 2013-12-24 07:04:49 16986
Actually my experience is everything that involves me & yours is everything that involves you.

hmmm ... i'm drawing the distinction in a slightly different place.   i don't think that something that merely involves me is neceaarily something that i experience ... at least not necessarily during the involvement.   a snipper who is aiming his rifel at my body with the intention of shooting me certainly can be said to be "involveing me" ... yet it is not my experience until the bullet enters my body.  there is no way that i can honestly speak about his actions which are involving me untill i .. er, actually personally experience them.
So this is going to be a long chain of definition refinement .... experience -> involve -> conscious involvement?


well experience, and how conscious some one is of that expereience certainly needs to inform our map of it.  

"involvement" for me is the odd man out which, i have no idea how it could possibly inform our map ... i mean arguagly everything that happens in the universe involves me,  or did  involve me at some time, or might involve me in the future.   it is so much of a all inclusive thing that for me it just hazes out in any analysis.

MeE says
seth 2013-12-24 09:28:18 16986
MeE 2013-12-24 07:04:49 16986
Actually my experience is everything that involves me & yours is everything that involves you.

hmmm ... i'm drawing the distinction in a slightly different place.   i don't think that something that merely involves me is neceaarily something that i experience ... at least not necessarily during the involvement.   a snipper who is aiming his rifel at my body with the intention of shooting me certainly can be said to be "involveing me" ... yet it is not my experience until the bullet enters my body.  there is no way that i can honestly speak about his actions which are involving me untill i .. er, actually personally experience them.
So this is going to be a long chain of definition refinement .... experience -> involve -> conscious involvement?


Seth says
ME 2013-12-22 11:37:04 16986
Question is murky, unclear, unanswerable.  Dad used to say "got a turd in your back pocket when you use the word WE?"



well certainly it is one of those questions which is hard if not impossible to answer.  there are lots of those going around.  this particular one i have not really heard asked before.

the problem is not with the word "we" ... all mirth aside ... it just refers to a group of people ... not just one.  the group can be as small and two people, say you and i, or a government committee, or a whole country of people, or all of us humans.   i think it may be pretty much the same question no matter of how big the group ... though the dynamics of the situation will dramatically vary from different group to different group.

based on my conceptions of truth ... how can a group feel something is true?  what would be a process that would make that kind of feeling work and happen ... and be actually felt by the group?

I mean if everybody in the group feels a thing is true, then it is easy for us to say that also the group feels it is true.  But what is the process by which that happens?  What about groups that, because of their size, it is impossible for everybody in the group to believe the same thing is true.

iow ... how does humanity speak truth?  Does it speak through Christ's words or the Leviathan's ... notwithstanding that i can hear neither.

Seth says
seth 2013-12-22 19:30:50 16986
ME 2013-12-22 15:56:14 16986
Yep, the answer is murky too.

FYI ... i never know what you mean with these kinds of terse comments ... in this case, there is no answer known or given ... it feels like you saying "the answer is murkey" is like saying "that  unicorn is fluffy" ... so ... er ...  since that would make no sense at all to say ... it just ends up meaning to me that you have a negative attitude towards me  asking any such kind of question.  i said that to tell you what your comment actually means to me ... that *is* its effect upon me.
That's what your question meant to me.  A gigantic speculation & open question in the face of no truth to behold (outside yourself) leaves me with nothing to say. I suspect you are just entertaining yourself.  Maybe get a book on epistemology or something. What would happen if you could not even find any way to really know anything? That's what it sounds like to me.


Seth says
ME 2013-12-22 15:56:14 16986
Yep, the answer is murky too.

FYI ... i never know what you mean with these kinds of terse comments ... in this case, there is no answer known or given ... it feels like you saying "the answer is murkey" is like saying "that  unicorn is fluffy" ... so ... er ...  since that would make no sense at all to say ... it just ends up meaning to me that you have a negative attitude towards me  asking any such kind of question.  i said that to tell you what your comment actually means to me ... that *is* its effect upon me.

Seth says
Why not build yourself a matrix of possibilities?  There is/is not truth, private truth, some private/some public truth, with all the other mixtures & combinations & see what you have? You in the topic start to claim some kind of self-evident truth so right away there seems to be the possibility of contradiction.  LOA & d'A have their own truth with a crowd that wants to believe it joining up. We all seem to think that truth has being when language & what's so are congruent, but that requires S'th's definition (& presumably every single otherness's) definition of the terms which may be different. Then too there is haggling about all these terms. I think there is some substance to LOA & d'A brand but in my mind that is a closed & walled garden where the Universe runs around satisfying other people's wants - what that all about, eh? What does the other side look like? What does d'A & the Oprah crowd give in return? Why? God-noGod ?



Seth says
... & then there's this idea:


Seth says
source: mark above
Why not build yourself a matrix of possibilities?  There is/is not truth, private truth, some private/some public truth, with all the other mixtures & combinations & see what you have?
good idea .   i can see a ven/menotgraph diagram of sorts might help both of us see the same thing.  i'm working on that.   but i don't think it would be a matrix of "possibliities" ... but rather a matrix of experiences ... though perhaps possibilities might add an extra dimension ... i think i'd try the simpler diagram first.

Seth says
seth 2013-12-23 09:32:19 16986
source: mark above
Why not build yourself a matrix of possibilities?  There is/is not truth, private truth, some private/some public truth, with all the other mixtures & combinations & see what you have?
good idea .   i can see a ven/menotgraph diagram of sorts might help both of us see the same thing.  i'm working on that.   but i don't think it would be a matrix of "possibliities" ... but rather a matrix of experiences ... though perhaps possibilities might add an extra dimension ... i think i'd try the simpler diagram first.

it might be similar to the otherness one but the distinction would be who's experience and it would put truth experiences explicitly into the diagram. 

Seth says
For extra credit see if you can put imagination, inspiration & intuition somewhere in the matrix;
the Latin word esse = be .. the root of the word essence; being - both noun & verb; self, I, & the six question words who, what, when, where, why, how & is .
...
just background noise for music.

Seth says
ME 2013-12-23 10:14:36 16986
For extra credit see if you can put imagination, inspiration & intuition somewhere in the matrix;
the Latin word esse = be .. the root of the word essence; being - both noun & verb; self, I, & the six question words who, what, when, where, why, how & is .
...
just background noise for music.
well i'm just starting with a simple ven diagram of experience ... the left distinction is my experience ... the right one is your experience ... the intersection is our common experience.  since "imagination, inspiration & intuition" are just experiences they are in the diagram but need not be explicitly separated for it to say what i am saying.  the trick is going to be putting truth in the diagram as, using your words, "truth has being when language & what's so are congruent".

 thing is:  (1) language statements, (2) one's feeling of truth about them, and (3) the experiences which those statemenst are about ... are all points that belong in the plane of experiences.  i think i will just draw them as an arrow between points within experience where the tail is the language statement, the head is the experience it is about, and the label on the arrow is the feeling of truth.  That would give us our matrix of ... er "possibilities".   Now, i have to say this ... i suspect the "possibility" your are looking for cannot even be drawn within the confines of the assumptions burned into the ven diagram ...



Seth says
Something depends upon what the meaning of the word experience is. Some think of it as an almost infinite cause-effect loop & train of which no two humans have the same one. Others relate it to what a single person like you or I have & do with the input from our senses & mind.
I do not hold truth as just another sense or particularly a sense at all. Truth can be both cognitive & directly experienced through a metamorphosis of attention in such states as imagination, inspiration & intuition &/or logic & rational processes. Feeling, imho, is a poor indicator of truth - political pointers to that are obvious.

We may be nose to nose talking about the same subject & yet our experiences seem to be separate, eh?  This makes me suspicious of your Venn diagram.


Seth says
MeE 2013-12-24 11:01:58 16986
seth 2013-12-24 09:28:18 16986
MeE 2013-12-24 07:04:49 16986
Actually my experience is everything that involves me & yours is everything that involves you.

hmmm ... i'm drawing the distinction in a slightly different place.   i don't think that something that merely involves me is neceaarily something that i experience ... at least not necessarily during the involvement.   a snipper who is aiming his rifel at my body with the intention of shooting me certainly can be said to be "involveing me" ... yet it is not my experience until the bullet enters my body.  there is no way that i can honestly speak about his actions which are involving me untill i .. er, actually personally experience them.
The experience then begins when you hear the sound of the gun or perhaps see someone pointing a gun at you etc.

yep experience is ... er, actual experience ... me, i cannot haggle over it ... i know what it is and what it is not.  it hankers back to the idea behind Kant's, "I think, therefore i am" which needs of no explanation or analysis.  and all people are  such experiences ... they can be publicly shared.  to me, all experience, of whatever nature could be descibed as "direct expereince" ... in the sense that my awareness is directly involved ... not indirectly as vicariously via signs and language and media-world.  to me, it seems so basic, undeniable, or un-haggable to the human perdicament that it is the best phenomena to base our epistomology.

MeE says
MeE 2013-12-26 09:33:59 16986
MeE 2013-12-26 09:33:15 16986
I also like this one: http://bit.ly/JfhCUs - so one has to go outside language for other ontology to grok.




Seth says
MeE 2013-12-26 09:15:39 16986
FYI, using something from the Semantic Web on Facebook here is an analysis of your statement
.. & another one of your basic premise: http://bit.ly/1fJYhFN


very kewl indeed!    It did manage to pick up on the context in which i used one of my terms, "verbal behavior", i did get that term from my readings in
      "categories": [
        "Empiricism",
        "Philosophy books",
        "Psychology books",
        "Linguistics books",
        "1957 books",
        "Behaviorism",
        "Cognitive science literature",
        "Works by B. F. Skinner",
        "History of psychology"
      ] 

Seth says
MeE 2013-12-25 00:24:48 16986
seth 2013-12-24 22:03:51 16986
and now here is a strange thing.   i had started to read your errhard paper and got about a third down it and he was still talking about *his* empire ... all true sentences i am sure but just interesting from a historicl perspective about erhard so i got boored and put it aside to take up later.  instead i started writing this item itself.  then now, since my time has opened up a bit for me, season's over don't ya know, i went back to see if i could get to his point ... so i scanned down to The Epistemology of est ... and, just reading the pictures mind you, but, wow , wasn't i surprised to see that his first 2 figures were essentialy identical with mine ... now i did not expect that.  the only distinction was that i added not just one person's experience in the diagram, but rather two.
I think that is why I invited you to read it.  The lack of a 2nd person in his diagram is correct. He is not talking about shared experience.

oh ok ... i didn't know that you knew his was based upon experience.   mine obviously requires (see title) at least another person and that will make a different matrix of possibilities.  in a way, thought, stufying just one person at a time is ... er, kind of solipsistic ... eh?

Seth says
source: mark
Let's see if you can get that they are essentially monism vs dualism in the diagram.
... hmmm .... this is me thinking about this in real time ... er, out loud ... (subsequently edited) ...

thing to notice in this framework is that monism vs dualism may well dissapear.   instead of that we have simply subject vs object.  the ven diagram encloses the subject ... the arrow points to the object.  note i am saying that i am the subject of my experience ... you are the subject of your expedrience.  that may well seem a strange way to associate this word "subject" and perhaps not the way you have learned to use it ... nevertheless it has been frequently used as such by many ... for example: the word "subjective" itself ... "the subject said she was raped" ... many others.  experiences has one subject at a time ... unless of course we are talking about group experience.  the object of the experience is the experience itself. 



now we can ask what is the head of the arrow ...  well that resides in the language ... or the media ... it is that which reflects or represents the experience.




in all of that we need to ask where is dualism or monism.  me, i would need to reread RS on that and see where he actually puts it.

Seth says
MeE 2013-12-26 09:36:34 16986
MeE 2013-12-26 09:33:59 16986

... hmmm ... so this is getting close to your need to extract event facts like who, what, where, etc from text?

Seth says
MeE 2013-12-26 08:13:27 16986
seth 2013-12-26 07:07:12 16986
MeE 2013-12-25 15:57:38 16986
I will still wait until your thesis is finished! It was either this AM or the previous that I wondered why I should even consideryour thesis in the sense that I operate in an entirely different ontology & it works for me like yours works for you.  I have no motivation to move in your direction, not because of disagreement, but because it confines & restricts whatever Worlds I wish to explore epistemology wise.  I am complete that you believe & want to believe that which you do.  Truth or otherwise.


actually the map was not intended to presume any particular ontology ... rather it was intended to be a mapping system capable of visualizing any ontology ... er, yours included.   note also that the presumption of the primary distinction being called "experience" could be switched to something else.
Yep, I will wait till it is finished.


well, , not sure it will ever be finished. 

i was thinking this morning about starting out presenting just the simple mathematics of this kind of mapping ... meaning what showing a relational arrow over a Ven diagram implies ... as far as that goes, me thinks, it is just Category theory ... not much more than that. 

The matrix itself is rather large, even with the natural simplification that i started with.  You have 4 areas X 3 parts of each relational arrow ... so, er ... how many possibilities do you count?

MeE says
FYI, using something from the Semantic Web on Facebook here is an analysis of your statement
.. & another one of your basic premise: http://bit.ly/1fJYhFN


Seth says
source: mark suggests
Well, I'm certainly no expert on what you are thinking, but there are lots of clues to such connectedness here ->  [item 3346]

... i don't think GW was dealing with combining labeled directed arrows and ven diagrams in "Grammar of Changes", or even "Combinatorial Arithmetic".  "Barbara Cubed" did use the common way to do Ven diagrams in a tabular form ... and yes, that is there implied by the graphics of diagram.  However, if you know of some specific thing in those books that directly relates, please let me know. 

MeE says
MeE 2013-12-26 09:36:34 16986
MeE 2013-12-26 09:33:59 16986

Apparently the links no longer show input & get lost.  Try this sentence in the api & see what you get:
"Natural language is a walled garden so one has to go outside language to grok meaning or penetrate the ontology of it all."


Seth says
how, from this, do you conclude that "one has to go outside language for other ontology to grok" ??

Seth says
anyway, good stuff, but needs to be moved to its own item.  this may well be a useful tool.

Seth says
MeE 2013-12-26 09:53:28 16986
seth 2013-12-26 09:48:50 16986
That was my own sentence. I went outside the walled garden of the language that the API was serving up to my own conclusion.  I kept re-pasting new sentences & finally the sentences didn't get reflected in the url.


well to really start using it as intended, perhaps we need to get a free api key. 

MeE says
seth 2013-12-26 09:48:50 16986
That was my own sentence. I went outside the walled garden of the language that the API was serving up to my own conclusion.  I kept re-pasting new sentences & finally the sentences didn't get reflected in the url.


Seth says
seth 2013-12-26 09:51:10 16986
seth 2013-12-26 09:48:50 16986

hmmm ... perhaps i did not copy the URL correctly ... er, try this one [?]

ok ok ... it does not work that way ... the url does not contain the input string.  

MeE says
seth 2013-12-26 10:02:03 16986
MeE 2013-12-26 09:53:28 16986
seth 2013-12-26 09:48:50 16986
That was my own sentence. I went outside the walled garden of the language that the API was serving up to my own conclusion.  I kept re-pasting new sentences & finally the sentences didn't get reflected in the url.


well to really start using it as intended, perhaps we need to get a free api key. 
Probably.  It may be as interesting as the Wikipedia in some senses.


Seth says
MeE 2013-12-26 11:04:58 16986
seth 2013-12-26 10:52:31 16986
MeE 2013-12-26 10:41:19 16986
seth 2013-12-26 10:31:39 16986
MeE 2013-12-26 10:11:30 16986
seth 2013-12-26 10:09:56 16986
source: mark
Natural language is a walled garden so one has to go outside language to grok meaning or penetrate the ontology of it all
... Yes it is

The signs withing language must be bound to a world of interpretation for language to work.  That was why AI research kind of turned to "immersion experience" (sorry am not sure of that term) to get automatic language comprehension to work better ... i don't think they got very far.  Google is obviously going in a different direction ... as is the Semantic Web.  I think they just say, hey, let's let humans do that for us ... after all they do it so well ... lol  .
Your use of signs is yours. Interpretation is still back to the walled garden - if it ever left.


well, as far as i know, most investigators in the field of semantics use the word "signs" to mean just exactly the way i use it ... er, especially since i got that usage from them.  And, yes , if i am interpreting you correctly ... interpretation is a walled garden in pretty much the way i have always talked about it ... that, er ... only effective communication can breach. 


I guess you missed the part where communication uses language .  Some extend language to include drawings & communication of any kind.
Still in the garden!


Well i don't know what i missed.  Your statement above is true ... language is a walled garden ... a closed system ... you do need to go outside of that to "grock meaning" ... so i didn't miss that at all ... but rather felt like " " about it (see above).  Communication uses language ... well ok ... not surprising.   So what did i miss ??
source: ... The signs withing language must be bound to a world of interpretation for language to work.  That was why AI research kind of turned to "immersion experience" (sorry am not sure of that term) to get automatic language comprehension to work better ... i don't think they got very far.  Google is obviously going in a different direction ... as is the Semantic Web.  I think they just say, hey, let's let humans do that for us ... after all they do it so well ... lol
... anyway language here is apparently not working.  Am ignoring anything following.
Zzz..

Well i still don't see what you informing me about.  Language (which is kind of a close system of symbols) is bound to a world-of-interpretation (also a closed system - or walled garden) ... every person gets their own such garden.   These gardens use language to communicate between them.  Where the communication is effective, and actually takes place, then the garden walls are breached.  That is the beauty of it.  That's why we do it, notwithstanding how hard it is.  So we try hard ... we keep at it until the walls get breached.   But, yes, it does kind of require the good intention of letting it work.   Do you really see it differently?

See Also

  1. Thought Events underdetermine Truth with 407 viewings related by tag "truth".
  2. Thought Socrates Cafe Question: Should presidents tweet? with 312 viewings related by tag "talking".
  3. Thought Consciousness as "transactional relative relivance" reares it's ugly head for the first time here with 90 viewings related by tag "truth".
  4. Thought The Oath of Truth with 66 viewings related by tag "truth".
  5. Thought Fox Guarding the Hen House with 54 viewings related by tag "truth".
  6. Thought Truth with 40 viewings related by tag "truth".
  7. Thought Generalizing what "a lie" means to me with 39 viewings related by tag "truth".
  8. Thought about: Special Counsel Collusion - comment 82936 with 34 viewings related by tag "truth".
  9. Thought Oath of Truth with 33 viewings related by tag "truth".
  10. Thought Yet another FoHammer siteing at the FBI today with 33 viewings related by tag "truth".
  11. Thought Up Your Ass with Aphorisms with 31 viewings related by tag "truth".
  12. Thought What if there were no stars? with 26 viewings related by tag "leviathan".
  13. Thought Tetrahedron with 22 viewings related by tag "mind map".
  14. Thought The World As Person with 15 viewings related by tag "leviathan".
  15. Thought about: The Illiative Sense with 14 viewings related by tag "truth".
  16. Thought Where does memory come from? with 13 viewings related by tag "mind map".
  17. Thought Decentralizing Truth with 13 viewings related by tag "truth".
  18. Thought Tree Of Life with 11 viewings related by tag "mental topography".
  19. Thought about: Polly the Insulting Parrot from Speak To Me Catalog with 10 viewings related by tag "talking".
  20. Thought The Leviathan (Chapter 1) with 9 viewings related by tag "leviathan".
  21. Thought How to see an elephant with multi-person binocular vision. with 9 viewings related by tag "truth".
  22. Thought Energy? What is it? with 8 viewings related by tag "truth".
  23. Thought Truth with 7 viewings related by tag "truth".
  24. Thought A drawing of NOWs in my life with 6 viewings related by tag "mental topography".
  25. Thought Ancient Metaphysical Mind Map with 6 viewings related by tag "mind map".
  26. Thought President Trump's Interview With TIME on Truth and Falsehoods with 6 viewings related by tag "truth".
  27. Thought BARBARA CUBED - I. DEFINITIONS with 5 viewings related by tag "truth".
  28. Thought Privacy is antithetical to the semantic web with 5 viewings related by tag "leviathan".
  29. Thought Loui Jover: Interesting Art Style .... with 4 viewings related by tag "mental topography".
  30. Thought identity crisis with 3 viewings related by tag "leviathan".
  31. Thought ... why The Leviathan is real ... ? with 3 viewings related by tag "leviathan".
  32. Thought Humanity with 3 viewings related by tag "leviathan".
  33. Thought A Better Truth with 3 viewings related by tag "truth".
  34. Thought Chinese Brush and ink supplies with 3 viewings related by tag "mental topography".
  35. Thought Illative Force - A Lament with 3 viewings related by tag "truth".
  36. Thought about: Top 10 Sources with 2 viewings related by tag "leviathan".
  37. Thought edges with 2 viewings related by tag "truth".
  38. Thought I go with what happens with 2 viewings related by tag "truth".
  39. Thought The Conversation About Truth & Context with 2 viewings related by tag "truth".
  40. Thought I* once had a wallabu ... with 2 viewings related by tag "talking".
  41. Thought Seth's ideas about a world where truth is not binary with 1 viewings related by tag "truth".
  42. Thought Belief with 1 viewings related by tag "truth".
  43. Thought Why I am Losing Heart on this Project with 1 viewings related by tag "truth".
  44. Thought about: paper.li - read Twitter as a daily newspaper with 1 viewings related by tag "leviathan".
  45. Thought Truth with 1 viewings related by tag "truth".
  46. Thought The Abyss with 1 viewings related by tag "truth".
  47. Thought Electioneering vs Truth & Substance with 0 viewings related by tag "truth".
  48. Thought governments are about 100... times smaller than a leviathan with 0 viewings related by tag "leviathan".
  49. Thought Talking Bible at wholesale prices with 0 viewings related by tag "talking".
  50. Thought For those with children! with 0 viewings related by tag "truth".