Because no human language is spoken from birth.  All must be taught and learned.  There are no exceptions, unless you count the grunts, squeals, and cries of infants as language.  For clarity's sake, I'm referring to structured languages, like English and Dutch.

You're seriously asking that as a question?  I think we can safely establish that inventions don't invent themselves.  Somebody has to think them up.  Case in point:  "Fo shizzle my nizzle, word?  You down wit' da bling-bling?"

And that's two questions you asked me.[/color]  

One does not have to have to observe things through a disparate frame of reference to understand that other frames of reference exist.  You do not have to go to China to know China exists, all you are required to do is to believe the account of those who claim to have been there.  This then is your "yea-nay" situation, if you must see it as thus.  A person either believes them, or does not, unless and until he journeys there himself.  I fail to see any logic in denying the validity of other frames of reference simply because one cannot relate to or comprehend them.


Then what is the point of any philosophy, or subscribing to any school of thought?  Are not all philosophies other than intrinsic ones a matter of trying to see things from someone else's point of view?  Bollocks that you cannot take an externalist point of view.  I do it all the time.  You simply choose to reject the results of the exercise, whereas I do not.  The same holds true if you accept the words of Descartes as true, and if I reject them.  You are accepting his point of view as providing valid information, whereas I do not.  Yea-nay indeed, but then, understanding is a three-edged sword.


I do not put Descartes on a pedastal, nor any man.  I am not afraid to say he was wrong.  I do not invalidate my own knowledge simply because one man or another is held in higher or lower esteem by other men.  The esteem of men is irrelevent to me.  One man says this, one man says that, but the truth is always something else.


Now you are introducing artificial constraints and extra variables into the situation that were not part of the original discussion in an attempt to invalidate what I brought up by extending it to irrelevency and absurdity.  A nice try, but it does not address what I stated nor does it solve the problem of thought where spoken word is absent.  You are simply moving the goal posts off the playing field and widening your point of reference beyond the bounds of the previous discussion.  You either accept that thought can occur without spoken human language, or you do not.  If you do not, I would ask why?  Historically such discussions are uncomfortable to humanist thinkers because they profit by keeping man's self-appointed elevation above other creatures intact and unthreatened.  Pride demands it, and also it absolves man, in his own mind, of the moral implications of how he abuses the other forms of life on his world.  I do not know what your thoughts on this are, so I would ask you for a direct and clear answer instead of an evasive one.  It is not my intent to indict you, merely to get a straight answer and know what you think.


Actually you've jumped past the basis of what I suggested.  Linguistically you have a limit to the applicability of a word based on the context in which the word was invented, and also the context in which it is commonly used.  A good example of the latter is your dislike of the word "criminal" when applied to someone who has committed what to you are very petty crimes.  The word itself has a literal definition according to a dictionary, but its applicability is filtered by your thinking.  That then limits the scope of the usefulness of the word when brought into this new context.  Thus the frame of reference, as I referred to it, is this window in which the word is then relevent.  All frames of reference are relative, as Einstein pointed out.  Your frame of reference does not change the definition of the word criminal;  someone who has committed a crime;   but it does alter the scope of where and how that word can be applied.  But, without digressing too far or going too much into linguistic concerns, when I originally spoke of frame of reference I was referring to a temporal frame of reference for example.

Coming circle to your first statement in your reply, that you have only one frame of reference - your own - even that is subject to a larger frame of reference.  You speak, in this discussion, of your present perception as your frame of reference.  But if you think back on your life, you can see how your thinking has changed, and how your views and perceptions and thoughts have changed as well.  Thus, your frame of reference, when thinking of the past, is different than if you reflect on the now.  So it would be different if you were to see your whole life, from beginning to end, at one time as one event.  If you are familiar with String Theory, you might imagine this as seeing yourself from the "fourth dimension" point of view.  This was my original point, that frames of reference are mutable and depending on how one chooses to see things, that determines greatly how he will think about them.

Thus, when I speak of frames of reference, it is not my intent to confuse, but rather it is as simple as looking through a lens.  If the lens is focused wide, you can see a lot of everything, but not necessarily any one thing with precision.  If it is focused narrow, you can see one thing with precision, but not the pattern of the whole.  Where this lens is pointed, and how wide it is focused, or for how long it is aimed at any one thing is analagous to thought, and introspection, and examination.  Simply put, I am alluding to how you think about something as opposed to what it is you are thinking about.  Perhaps my alluding to time in a fourth-dimensional sense in my once removed previous post caused some confusion.  If so, I apologize.  I perceive time a bit differently than most creatures and for me at least the future and past are merely parts of the same thing.[/color]

--------------------------------------
Phoenix:


I think he was a genius, but I didn't use him as an authority, or to show that you were wrong. I was doing exactly what I've been focusing on, namely: to stress the fact that what seems an elaborate and deep argument boils down to a groundless opinion. A makes an a priori claim, B makes one, and neither can do more than explicate the bias they have. I do not think Descartes was right, especially not in his views on man as a rational animal. Even so,  his mechanistic view was a very important step in the history of thought, in my view.


Thought
Let me be more specific on another point aswell, since you have also explained my bringing in of 'irrelevancies' (the dismissal of which is tied to your frame of reference, if you will) as absurd and besides the point.
And I'd like to keep this human-pride factor out for once, since I don't ascribe to it. In this respect, I have no difficulty removing all kinds hierarchies. Humans at the level of apes, ants, plants and rocks (without this being absurd).

That also explains why they are not extra variables in my view. I'm willing to drop them, though, if that helps. We limit ourselves to all animals, then?


Frames of reference
To me, a definition is a matter of practical categorization. It is no longer the genus plus differentia specifica that was to be considered universal (and thus defeating frames of reference as meaningful) in ancient times. In that sense, I do subscribe to your F.o.R.
But I am not drawing a line between taxonomy and F.o.R.
Using the 'criminal' example, I can perhaps clarify. What you call taxonomy, is what I in that conversation called 'strict, or technical use of the word'. Everyone that matches up to the dictionary definition for 'criminal' is a criminal. Then there was the political and manipulative use of the word, which categorizes and stigmatizes a situation by usage of connotations. My focus was on pragmatics and manipulation.

Here we strike on something that has very much to do with the discussion indeed, and I admit that I was wrong to dismiss the point straight away.
Here, we disagree. I do not think the applicability of a word is static. Its usage (pragmatics) evolves through time. Connotations and demographics (for instance) all have their effects on the usage of words. I don't subscribe to explaining all the different uses of a word by an F.o.R.-theory though. The context is variable, as is the 'official' reading, the only thing to remain constant for longer times, is the actual word itself.

That being said, if we might put our differences on that aside, I will address the point you are making with use of F.o.R. For I am very willing to say that--if we define thought to include any kind of communicative process between living creatures--animals think too, regardless of F.o.R. What I think it boils down to, is what is included in the accepted definition (call it F.o.R., if that helps) for this discussion. Can we replace thought here with 'feeling of pain'? Can we replace it by 'having an image of fish'? If so, then we have a defined usage within this context. That is no problem for me at all.

I have no idea how we can know anything about the presence or absense

That, however, is taking it one step further. This no longer is simply speaking of contexts and the usage of words in actuality, but a hypothetical 'higher level'. How do you roll all of your life into one? What would be your method of abstracting from the context, the F.o.R. of the present moment? This is what I cannot accept, but I don't think it has to do with F.o.R. as you used it earlier (differing uses for words in differing contexts), but that it has to do with points of view.

Point of view
My intention was not to jump over your stance on P.o.V., but to reject it. You choose to believe taking an externalist point of view is helpful and valid in argumentation. That is fine. I can use it, my charged dismissal of it aside, just like I can use multiple-worlds logic or the like. The point here was that I don't have any basis for assuming such thought experiments do anything to aid my arguments at all. Language being central to this thread, it is a great example of something I cannot shake off when describing the world (or a possible world, for that matter), from a different perspective or point of view. If I take 'a step back' and imagine myself to be observing the course of my life and the ways my thought changes (or in all the ways the thought of parrots works, and suchlike), I am allowing myself insights that are grounded in speculation. That is fine, and when applied in coherentist logical consistency you might give a logical proof for the validity of an argument. But the language, logics (and with it the results of that) are bound to an internalist position.
Ofcourse I can take an externalist view. Ofcourse I can take a view in which I am Mickey Mouse flying through the storms of Jupiter. If you can tell me what your method is in using them, and what your demarcation is to accept a God's eye view, and reject a Mickey-Mouse eye view (assuming you do, and consider me to be dragging in absurdities ), please explain.

Let me, by the way, clear up another tangle that I seem to have placed myself into. I did not intend to say that I cannot take differend F.o.R's in the sense I've accepted above, for obviously, I can use words in many different ways. I was talking about P.o.V., so I hope we can somehow work out a distinction and keep the two separated. ;] If the two are inextracably  tied up, we're dealing with a remarkable problem indeed, but I don't think that's the case.

So if I understand your last paragraph as an explanation of F.o.R. in this sense, it is like .. say, discussing 'games', then zooming out and finding that we weren't talking about computer games, but that we were including all sorts of games of life. The usage of the word, and the context in which it is used has changed (I hesitate to say 'broadened', but it might be applicable here).
If, however, I understand it as an explanation of P.o.V., it is like we can change our actual position from internalist close-up to internalist overview to externalist, just like zooming with a lens.
In the first case, something is actually happening, namely the usage of a word changes, which has effects on the success of your communication, among other things. In the second case, I don't see how any connection with actuality and reality is managed, without falling back to admitting that one does not take an externalist position, but that one, while imagining to zoom out, is stuck to the same old internalist position while imagining it to be externalist.


Philosophy

Actually, no. A lot of them incorporate it, but the most interesting and provoking philosophy addresses the very problem of externalism, holism, idealism.

Take Kant's Kritik der Reine Vernunft for instance. The title is begging the question, and in that sense it is indicative of trying to look at the 'eye' of reason, with the 'eye' of reason. This, however, does not mean he takes on some point of view that he thinks he can somehow assume. He does the opposite: he indicates that the world as it would be, if seen from an externalist position, is not accessible to us. So, instead of accepting this and trying to see if he could have a little fun with imagining to be able to do it anyway (as indeed a few other philosophers have done), Kant takes a different approach and investigates the prerequisites for saying anything about the world (he compares this change of approaching a problem with Copernicus' earth-centered approach). In so doing, he is attempting to give philosophy the sicheren Gang einen Wissenschaft, and make it, like science, investigate nature on its own terms.  It doesn't work, ofcourse, but it is a cool attempt nonetheless.
(I'm not using Kant as some kind of authority (I don't agree with Kant either ), it's just an example of philosophy trying to save itself -- but not by taking an externalist viewpoint)

Another example can be found in Hilary Putnam, who has flipflopped more than Kerry in his opinions of reality. He's at one point given some very interesting arguments against the possibility of an externalist position (for instance, his well known brains-in-a-vat article -- which, interestingly, is tied up with language as deliciously as our discussion here).


--------------------------------------
Kruzader:

The argument

The first sentence is crucial: that is my very point. Humans are not humans if they lack human nature (as I said, tautological by definition).

(a) My initial claim: I know people (humans) who are, for all intents and purposes, unable to reason succesfully.*

(b) My further claim: Not all humans are able to study and practise philosophy.

? Your claim was: the ability to study and practise philosophy (or ask philosophical questions, if you will), is part of the human nature. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

(d) Furthermore, humans cannot be humans without human nature. (You agreed with this in your previous post, if I'm not mistaken)**

Where (b) follows from (a). If ? is true, then it is, by (d), in direct contradiction with (b). My point is to dismiss ?.

*I can't look inside of their skulls to see if their instinctive 'knowledge' is sitting there (and neither can you), but they aren't making any signs that indicate so. I consider them to be humans, but I don't consider them to be able to ask any question whatsoever.

**Human nature is not something you can shed and take up at random: it goes together with being human. So, if it were possible that one were born with a complete nature, then lose it at some point, the subject would cease to be human by definition, at that point. That is fine, but it means that if the ability to philosophize is part of human nature, it does not matter whether one was born with it, if things have in this respect changed since. Nor do I think that all humans born with that ability, but that is another matter.

Intelligence


So, we have (a limited, specific selection of) knowledge when we are born, if I understand you correctly.

Now we come to my initial point again. I do not know, nor can I in any way other than assuming in speculation, what is inside the head of a new-born baby in terms of knowledge. If I open the skull, I see some goo, and I can probably experiment on the reflexes. But until the very moment that the baby utters his first comprehensible sentences, I have no access whatsoever to his thought. You say that babies are capable of philosophy, in a sense--they already have the only requisites that they'll ever need for it, for they are human. I could accept this, but I don't have a method to verify this. If I research the instincts of a human baby, I do not find any difference with the instincts of a kitten. The sounds babies make until they speak full sentences, are not really different from those of many (young) animals. I may well assume that most or all animals are capable of asking philosophical questions, or.. perhaps even that they are human too..


Human nature

I don't know if it's off-topic, but it is interesting. I have a feeling that these creatures will still call themselves humans, as they evolve. If it is a gradual process, it also becomes very interesting when the actual shift occurs. It doesn't make much difference for the initial argument though. I personally don't see controversy in it, but it's fun stuff to incorporate.

--------------------------------------

Aside from the interesting question if anyone could make sense of hieroglyphs without the evolution of their communicative (and in that sense, (omni)linguistic) history, I'm not sure what the status of the question of words as symbols is. This would indicate some kind of bond between object and word, and I do subscribe to there being a metaphysical bond between the two. Interesting though this statement, and my unquestionably doubtful reaction to it, are, I think what follows is more central to the problem.


Externalism vs Internalism
I never stated that internalism (in the sense of projection) is a road to certainty. The point I was trying to make is that it is the only road. You cannot escape it. In trying to erase yourself or taking a 'broader' view, you attempt to look at the backside of your own eyeballs. Or, at least far enough back to see what's happening behind them.

Maybe I should best compare it with a basic, everyday 'empirical' approach to a problem, versus the example that you provide: projection. In the former, you accept only what you can detect from your P.o.V. as valid and verifyable. Statements such as "Person X has a contorted look on his face" or even, while remaining careful, "Person X appears to be in pain". It is easy to see that to achieve the second phrasing by projection, but in remaining careful you can also see that this is still factual from your P.o.V.. Projection would go one step further and allow "Person X is in pain".
My claim is that trying to take an externalist position is the same as trying to pass of this last description as a factual observation, and not as speculation.

Opinion
This brings me to opinion. Ofcourse I agree that it has its origins in every instance. My qualm with it lies in the fact that, origins or no, opinion lacks argumentative power. I am of the opinion that killing infidels is a bad thing, while a mr. M. Alamajihad is of the opinion that the opposite is the case. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion ends there. I am not saying that I am not interested in the origins of his opinion, but only if he is willing to upgrade his opinion to an admittedly and openly grounded claim can we have a discussion (and vice versa). In short, the moment when opinion is shown to be (well) grounded, it loses the predicate 'opinion', in my view.
Discussion that is in part the seeking of grounds (mutual or no) has my interest, in the context of this thread. If you are not interested in arguing and argumentation (without wanting to accept the negative connotations these terms have adopted throughout time), then discussion ends at that point.

That said, I am always interested in observation, hypothesis, thought-experiment and --whatever it may be, if anything--enlightenment. But I can work on that while listening to beautiful buddhist zen-inspired music, while I feel that discussions add a certain something to the process, if argumentative force is considered to play role. (For now, leaving aside the question whether such force is ever to escape and repel significant sceptic attack.)

Metaphysics
Let me also clarify another word I use frequently. 'Metaphysics' does not generally carry spiritual or religious connotations for me (Just as the word 'God' does not, when I read Spinoza's Ethica). Metaphysics is, very bluntly and generally put, the inference to that which lies over and beyond the realm of experience. Experience here should be read in light of the 'basic empirical approach to every day life' that I introduced earlier in this post. For instance, I would call it a metaphysical assumption to state that, because Mr. X's face is contorted, that he is in pain. Here, it is important to add that I only consider this to be case iff by "X is in pain" we don't simply mean that he appears to be in pain, or that it is simply a way to describe face-contortion, or that it is only pragmatics, to make people go out and assist Mr. X, or the like. More examples pop up when one uses the phrasing "There must be such-and-such...", such as in "There must be properties of objects that exist independent of our observation", or "It can only be that there is a redness that all red objects share", and so on.
I do not dislike spirituality outside of philosophical discussion if it focuses on, or reserves a role for, argumentation. I don't mind it at all in daily conversation at the mall, for instance, nor in a discussion of Eriugena's or Eckhart's mysticism.


I sure hope so, otherwise I don't know why I started all this in the first place. :]

My view in regards to this problem is as follows. It is possible to have a purposeful argumentative discussion if there is sufficient common ground. Such a common ground that I often accept a basic standing point in situations that require critical analysis, but not utter nihilism (lack of any ori?ntation, as I have talked with you about some time ago--not 'nihilism' in the folk-sense of the word, for instance like in The Big Lebowski ;]). This basic standing point is the basic empirical limited view, in combination with critical and honest use of language, falling back on etymology where this helps for matters of definition. A radical sceptic can easily question the grounds for this view, and in discussing those, we would end in aporia. Another possible view, but one which does not work for me, is a more 'simplicity'-oriented view, wherein all is as it seems, or in which intuition overrules all else, for instance (here, the intuition that "Mr. X really is in pain" is verified and true, would overrule the empirical "We cannot see inside his mind"-stance).

Since we have appeared to have reached precisely such a point where further exploration results in insolubility, this is where it ends.



This might also be a good time for me to make explicit what has been implicit, namely:
that I, if forced to make an intuitive guess, would allow that thought is possible without structural language. In my reasoning, thought, I cannot escape the fact that 'thought' is a word that is part of prosodical history and language, and that it is logically bound with language and its limits, as well as with the possibility to verify its veridicality.

I thought it would be clear by now that such apparant absolutisms, coming from me, in this thread, are to be read from the standpoint I have (while remaining, on a meta-level, agnostic and aware of uncertainty). I guess I will have to, again, tread carefully, as apparently I allow doubts about my doubtful nature.

Logic only works for me (and the above counts for this) when working within a framework (not an externalist viewpoint) of accepted basic assumptions. This framework I have explained. I can imagine a world in which A is not-A. I can imagine intuition being a direct connection with a transcendent truth. And so on and so forth. But not within the chosen framework.

In connection with my treatment of internalism and externalism, this means that there is a coherent attack on externalism that avoids metaphysics (in my definition), that as a whole cannot be further grounded. That is all. What, in return, I find surprising, is (aside from the fact that you still try to read absolutism and certainty in any of my posts :]) that, while refering to my inability to grasp paradox, you seem to fail to grasp it in my message. :]

For the second quotation is one that stands in context to a focus on intuition, and throwing out pretty much all else. The point of which is: from a practical (not a certain, not an absolutist) stance, allowing for minimal metaphysics and focusing on empirical grounds, I have made claims (This is the every day approach that allows me to answer "yes." to the question "want some coffee?", instead of "how would I know? what is coffee? how much of it? etc.)

The alternative is to say "anything goes" (which, as I have stressed many times, is fine by me). All options are open. Logic can be anything from a darwinistic epiphenomenon to a higher message from Zeus. Externalism can be coherent with logic, there can be mind-body dualism, we might all be no more than matter condensed to a slow vibration, radical elipsism might be the only valid outlook, and so on. That, like any other form of philosophical nihilism, is impractical. I can hold true to my efforts to experience that to the fullest, but I cannot combine it with typing 'about' something. If anything, an apparant contradiction or a paradox would assist my position, as well as in inability to express it understandably.


In that light, if your question is whether I accept the possibility of the framework being invalid, ofcourse I do. Can you see the same possibilty, reversed, for the coherentist argument against externalism as well as the nihilist position?

I think we have many times agreed to disagree on exactly the account that pops up here, so maybe it should  be familiar. On that note, I have to again stress that I've never intended to claim certainty, just to deny certainty (in a self-aware paradoxical position of appearing to be certain about uncertainty -- perhaps a bit like being tolerant seems like intolerance of intolerance).



I shall try again, as I don't agree with your claims about me contradicting myself, and see no other way to work it out than by painting a whole and better picture. Here's another attempt to sketch the general picture that I've been working up to.


I take a basic position in every day life, for pragmatic reasons. This is the basic outlook that I use to stay alive, to remain able to converse with others, and so on. It is ofcourse not the same kind of 'using' as wearing a pair of trousers, since I cannot control it fully (it may well be that it controls me, for the most part). I can, however, allow myself to use it to be able to reason, in the following sense:
I cannot give grounds for allowing the principle of non-contradiction to be true. It even seems to be incorrectly expressible, as "a or ^a" shows two different "a"'s, and the supposed shared identity of those I cannot express or understand. However, I allow myself to accept it, and along with it a minimal set of logical laws and uses of language, and so forth. If I would not, I would go (more) insane, could not keep myself alive and could not communicate succesfully with anyone.

The choice to accept, limit or uphold such a position is itself not a matter of absolute conviction: it could happen to me that at some point, I lose my true agnostic outlook, and refuse to question it. I'm not claiming infallibility here, but I strive to keep my choice in this as clear as I can keep it, to and for myself.

Underneath it, metaphorically speaking, lies groundlessness. Endless regress, inability to provide proofs, inability to express (or at least communicate) the limits of language, and so on. This is what I referred to as the 'lack of orientation'. There is no up or down, no 'up' or 'down'. Without all orientation, there is no meaning, no rules of logic (no possibility of consistency or contradiction), no means of communication, no sense of judgement, and so forth. Obviously, a big part of the paradox (or the collection of paradoxes related to it, and I have a hunch we are both at least on some occasions confused about which one the other (tries to) speak(s) of..). This goes, for lack of ways to describe it, beyond .. well, anything. I cannot believe in it, because belief is meaningless in it, I cannot put it at the same level, or compare it with the basic position I describe above, for it does not have any point of direction or orientation to allow for comparison.
I don't mind calling that 'simple' or 'complex', to be honest, since neither word applies. That said, I have no idea if that is the unexpressible thing that you refer to, and obviously I'm fairly sure I have failed utterly to refer (succesfully) to it.

Hopefully it will now be clear that when I make a claim, I do it from this basic position. Within the position it has 'relative absolutism', perhaps somewhat like a house firmly planted on the soil of an island floating in a chaotic sea. If I contradict myself in the logic that I accept from this basic position, I admit fault (and I do regularly slip up, and, where pragmatic, accept the consequences--In court I would not be found refuting laws of logic).
When it comes to matters that I have no pragmatical reason for accepting (such as the truth or falsehood of any religion, the existence or inexistence of immaterial mind(s) or qualia, and so forth), I suspend judgement and keep it purposedly out of the basic position, as best I can. I should also stress here that with 'pragmatical' I do not accept the connotations of 'cold calculation' or 'heartlessness' and the like. Emotions, love, and the like still play a role in what I currently call my basic position.

That said, it is unusual for me to be caught making a claim too boldy, even in light of this. I admit it annoys me when that happens, but I guess it can't be escaped; every drunkard is sober once in a while.


Now, to apply all this to the matter of externalism vs. interalism: when trying to express whatever the equivalent of 'possibility' is in nihilistic lack of orientation, I hazard to say that sure, anything is possible. It may also be that there is no time, and that all there 'is', is an externalist position for us, that is mistaken to be internalist and spatio-temporal. Ofcourse I'm allowing for the possibility (and paradoxically, for the inexistence of such possibilities).

The above is all bollocks ofcourse, since it is an attempt to express something I don't think it can express -- but enough about that. From the basic position, matters are different. Allowing logic and basic empirical 'factuals', I come to the conclusion that the validity of externalism (or more precisely, the possibility of proving externalism to be a means of valid inference) is incoherent with the logic that I accept, and thus false.


Am I now contradicting myself? I would allow that, if I am going in against the laws that I have accepted in the basic position, when reasoning within it. Don't get me wrong, I don't simply hop 'out' of the basic position when it suits me, or change (insofar as I am actually able to) the laws of logic that lead to contradictory conclusions. I don't think I even stray from any of the commonly accepted 'canons of logic', for instance. Not ever intentionally, anyway. So, if you can point out the contradiction in the sense of there being an incoherent claim as part of the basic position that I'm trying to keep coherent, point it out. It would help me very much indeed, since I would probably (try to) adjust the whole to be more coherent, and thus, more practical and perhaps less prone to other inconsistencies.

If, however, you detect contradiction between my admittedly flawed expressions of the 'nihilism' I've described and my 'basic-position' claims, then wonder no further. There are bound to be. In fact, there cannot be and there must be, .. etc.


I don't think I've ever fully attempted to put this in words. Perhaps I should not have allowed it to be put up so rashly, ill-worded and vulnerable. But hey, there it stands. If this does not convey adequately what it tells me when I read it back, I will hold off on further attempts, until perhaps I have learned more, or found better words or metaphors.

Hehe, I have seen it before. My only alternative right now is not to have any house at all. To build it is to build it without knowing whether rock is not sand and/or the other way around. Ehr, I guess that is about as far as the metaphor went..


I am interested. By all means, present your perspective.