I’m reacting negatively to your comments because you are saying “One of them seems to be the recognition that, as written, the statement is obviously false.”. Which seems false, so, I don’t get the rest of your argument that seems based on a false thing.
I didn’t claim you should do impossible things. I said “you can do impossible-seeming things”. That seems obviously true. I agree you should be clear with people on “I mean viscerally impossible seeming things, not literally impossible things and your sense-of-what-is-impossible is miscalibrated.”
After doing that, what remaining problem you are anticipating? I am misunderstanding your initial sentence? Do you disagree that “you can do impossible-seeming things and your sense-of-what-is-impossible is miscalibrated” will be true for at least many people?
It seemed like your whole first paragraph was filled with mundane falsehood and I want to get that sorted out before worrying about the rest of your frame.
Actually, maybe more useful to say:
I’m reacting negatively to your comments because you are saying “One of them seems to be the recognition that, as written, the statement is obviously false.”. Which seems false, so, I don’t get the rest of your argument that seems based on a false thing.
I didn’t claim you should do impossible things. I said “you can do impossible-seeming things”. That seems obviously true. I agree you should be clear with people on “I mean viscerally impossible seeming things, not literally impossible things and your sense-of-what-is-impossible is miscalibrated.”
After doing that, what remaining problem you are anticipating? I am misunderstanding your initial sentence? Do you disagree that “you can do impossible-seeming things and your sense-of-what-is-impossible is miscalibrated” will be true for at least many people?
It seemed like your whole first paragraph was filled with mundane falsehood and I want to get that sorted out before worrying about the rest of your frame.