My accusation is this: – one can speak descriptively of the existential; one can

My accusation is this:

– one can speak descriptively of the existential; one can speak of a general rule as an ideal to obscure ignorance of causality, one can claim authority over the ideal by supernatural.

– Man can speak testimonial by math, science, witness; man can speak honestly by memory or history; man can speak allegorically with literature, and illustratively (hyperbolically) through myth(supernormal but not supernatural). Man can also speak falsely by ideal (rationalism), by supernaturalism, by pseudoscience – the name for this is called ‘fictionalism’.

– That man must have an incentive to speak by other than descriptively and demonstrable. What incentive is there to do so?

The answer is to justify immoral, unethical, and anti-social argument, action, and strategy.