What is "Reality" but a failure of English as a language of philosophy, at least. "Real" in English encompasses everything from physics to metaphysics. It's honestly not a very useful term without a lot of supportive details into what one means by "real".
Fables speak of hyper-realities, metaphysical truths that have no direct material basis but are talking about very "real" things. The Goose that Laid Golden Eggs speaks about short-sighted greed in people, a very real phenomena that nonetheless has as a vehicle a total imaginative fiction - there never has been, nor ever will be, a goose that lays eggs of gold. To throw out the fable on its physically "unreal" basis alone is the mark of the unimaginative Midwit out there.
But there are all manner of falsehoods that people construct that are not Truthful. Truth is the fundamental substrate that expresses itself into Reality, but is not Reality itself. Your list here is mainly a distinction between Artificialities and Nature, two modes of Reality-formation.
Artificial means human-created things, while Natural are non-human creations. Both are "Real" in the sense that they can come to express things in the material world and change how things "are", but here is the difference: Materialists point at that and conclude there is no difference between Artificialities and Nature, they're all just "Real" in a material sense and therefore infinitely malleable if only you know the correct configurations. Metaphysicists point out that Artificialities differ in whether they abide by fundamental Truth or not, whereas Nature is a manifestation of unmediated, objective Truth - therefore Artificialities that stray too far from Truth fall apart by their very nature of being oppositional and ignorant of the powers ultimately governing Reality.
When colloquially English-speaking Whites say this or that Artificiality isn't "Real", they are getting more at the dichotomy above, that Nature is a more reliable and provable expression of Truth than Artificialities that routinely express non-Truthful absurdities. Cultural constructs are "Real" in the material sense that they express in reality, but as far as Truth is concerned they are not necessarily reflecting the metaphysical "Reality" that would actually produce harmonized physical "Reality".
The consequences of Artificialities that ignore or defy Truth is breakdowns and malfunctions throughout the corrupted Reality. The dysfunctions of individuals and entire civilizations are due to varieties of disharmonies between Artificialities and Truth, and Nature provides one excellent point of observation and experimentation to discover the Truth and apply it in new ways. Some peoples respect Nature so fundamentally that it is instinct for them to short-circuit the thinking to simple expressions that non-Natural things are "not really real", and other peoples don't even recognize or respect what Truth even is enough to care about Nature as anything but an obstacle in the way of what they want.
I really need the audio imbed on your posts!!! They are too good not to have this option for people to listen to it! The long one I can't read but I would listen to easily.
Such a clever trick to get me to read that long ass post immediately. Do I like you now? I don't think I know enough about you. But I do think you killed some people on here intellectually.
I’ve literally been trying to figure out how to do that for so long but for some reason I can’t? I was under the impression that substack has a feature that does it automatically but I don’t seem to have that option. How do other people do it? Are they paying for an external software?
They aren't paying anyone. It's in the settings. You have to turn on the audio embed option in your settings for the publication and Substack will have AI do a pretty good job automatically. So it's a free tool but you do have to turn it on! Please do! Lots of people listen to substack going from post to post like radio.
Okay, i got sucked into a vortex from telling a couple of others to do this as well, since I enjoy listening to these posts more than reading so many of them. It does appear there is no way to make it happen automatically with your post. Something about range. At some point, it appears Substack does the AI generated audio embed on all your posts if you don't do it yourself. It does seem like I was wrong that you can just change your setting. But there are a bunch of free outside AI generating platforms you can use to generate the voiceover from the text and then adding it to the post is easy and explained here. I think its worth you doing even post publish for the two longer posts.
Yes, but the point in trying to make is that a lot of people will say things like “love isn’t real because it is just chemicals in our brain” even though that is precisely what makes it real, on top of the very real subjective experience of it.
Clever girl
What is "Reality" but a failure of English as a language of philosophy, at least. "Real" in English encompasses everything from physics to metaphysics. It's honestly not a very useful term without a lot of supportive details into what one means by "real".
Fables speak of hyper-realities, metaphysical truths that have no direct material basis but are talking about very "real" things. The Goose that Laid Golden Eggs speaks about short-sighted greed in people, a very real phenomena that nonetheless has as a vehicle a total imaginative fiction - there never has been, nor ever will be, a goose that lays eggs of gold. To throw out the fable on its physically "unreal" basis alone is the mark of the unimaginative Midwit out there.
But there are all manner of falsehoods that people construct that are not Truthful. Truth is the fundamental substrate that expresses itself into Reality, but is not Reality itself. Your list here is mainly a distinction between Artificialities and Nature, two modes of Reality-formation.
Artificial means human-created things, while Natural are non-human creations. Both are "Real" in the sense that they can come to express things in the material world and change how things "are", but here is the difference: Materialists point at that and conclude there is no difference between Artificialities and Nature, they're all just "Real" in a material sense and therefore infinitely malleable if only you know the correct configurations. Metaphysicists point out that Artificialities differ in whether they abide by fundamental Truth or not, whereas Nature is a manifestation of unmediated, objective Truth - therefore Artificialities that stray too far from Truth fall apart by their very nature of being oppositional and ignorant of the powers ultimately governing Reality.
When colloquially English-speaking Whites say this or that Artificiality isn't "Real", they are getting more at the dichotomy above, that Nature is a more reliable and provable expression of Truth than Artificialities that routinely express non-Truthful absurdities. Cultural constructs are "Real" in the material sense that they express in reality, but as far as Truth is concerned they are not necessarily reflecting the metaphysical "Reality" that would actually produce harmonized physical "Reality".
The consequences of Artificialities that ignore or defy Truth is breakdowns and malfunctions throughout the corrupted Reality. The dysfunctions of individuals and entire civilizations are due to varieties of disharmonies between Artificialities and Truth, and Nature provides one excellent point of observation and experimentation to discover the Truth and apply it in new ways. Some peoples respect Nature so fundamentally that it is instinct for them to short-circuit the thinking to simple expressions that non-Natural things are "not really real", and other peoples don't even recognize or respect what Truth even is enough to care about Nature as anything but an obstacle in the way of what they want.
You’re so smart
❤️🙏
I must honestly say I’m impressed. Guess I found another Genius.
I’m a very stable genius. Very very stable.
The sign of every honest genius.
I really need the audio imbed on your posts!!! They are too good not to have this option for people to listen to it! The long one I can't read but I would listen to easily.
also you might not like me after reading the long one, it pissed a lot of people off lol
Such a clever trick to get me to read that long ass post immediately. Do I like you now? I don't think I know enough about you. But I do think you killed some people on here intellectually.
I am very clever and conniving indeed 😏
im a fiction writer, no motivations get passed me.
You coming to this old ass conversation to insult me. lol. Go direct message her and leave me alone, buddy. You lame.
I’ve literally been trying to figure out how to do that for so long but for some reason I can’t? I was under the impression that substack has a feature that does it automatically but I don’t seem to have that option. How do other people do it? Are they paying for an external software?
They aren't paying anyone. It's in the settings. You have to turn on the audio embed option in your settings for the publication and Substack will have AI do a pretty good job automatically. So it's a free tool but you do have to turn it on! Please do! Lots of people listen to substack going from post to post like radio.
Omg thanks so much, I’ll see what I can do 🙏🙏🙏
Okay, i got sucked into a vortex from telling a couple of others to do this as well, since I enjoy listening to these posts more than reading so many of them. It does appear there is no way to make it happen automatically with your post. Something about range. At some point, it appears Substack does the AI generated audio embed on all your posts if you don't do it yourself. It does seem like I was wrong that you can just change your setting. But there are a bunch of free outside AI generating platforms you can use to generate the voiceover from the text and then adding it to the post is easy and explained here. I think its worth you doing even post publish for the two longer posts.
https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/7265654090900-How-do-I-embed-an-audio-file-in-my-Substack-post#:~:text=Sign%20in%20to%20your%20Substack,click%20on%20%22Audio%20embed%22.
The love exists part makes me suspicious. Love is chemistry in our brains but also a concept invented by people, it’s kind of a description.
Yes, but the point in trying to make is that a lot of people will say things like “love isn’t real because it is just chemicals in our brain” even though that is precisely what makes it real, on top of the very real subjective experience of it.
Despite that humans are robots love exist
Ape brain is just facts tho