AVOIDANCE OF EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR AS COGNITIVE SOLIPSISM: INABILITY TO DISTINGUIS

AVOIDANCE OF EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR AS COGNITIVE SOLIPSISM: INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH EXPERIENCE FROM EXISTENCE.

The deceit is in failing to use EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR, the same way we use gender-grammar, or temporal grammar, or locational grammar.

Not sure why it’s so hard for people to grasp this concept.

Not quite sure why people want to rely on the pretense of ‘god mode’ to make their statements.

or rather, I think it is a form of cognitive solipsism: inability to separate the self from existence.

Actually, that’s what I”m going to call it: cognitive solipsism.

Just as so many women cannot distinquish between experience and consequence, some people cannot distinquish between experience and existence.

cognitive solipsism.

Not sure if it’s a developmental disorder, or a failure of maturity, or an uneven evolutionary distribution of intellectual capacity… hmmm…..

(edit: added)

Existential Grammar is only important once an individual makes claims to truth because of a premise or conclusion. Now, I’might argue that it’s necessary to ensure you’re not making a mistake, but then, meaning for the purpose of ideation and testimony for the purpose of warrantying due diligence prior to making a truth claim are different things. So I would hope that people would grasp that almost all philosophical arguments I run across are SOPHOMORIC because of nothing more than trickery accomplished by conflation by using the verb to-be to make existential and deducible claims, rather than simply using existential grammar and making the fraudulent claim to existential ‘authority’.