Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 29th, 2021, 4:49 amYes which is your usual attitude. You take a topic with a fairly well-established vocabulary, redefine most of the key concepts for yourself, to the point where you don't even understand what the issues were all about, and dismiss the issues. And then you lament how it's other people's shortcomings for not doing the work of trying to figure out what you mean. And when they do put in the effort, it usually turns out that what you meant was some banal misunderstanding, which wasted everyone's time.Atla wrote: ↑April 29th, 2021, 4:46 amIf you can't understand what I'm saying (it seems like "word salad" to you), we'd need to clarify it for you/figure out how to put it in words that you would understand for the same content. I'm willing to do that work, but it can't be done if you're not interested in participating. <shrug>Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 29th, 2021, 4:41 amOkay word salad and nonsensical accusations from you as usual. I'm not interested in this.Atla wrote: ↑April 29th, 2021, 4:37 amI'm defining the terms I'm using. Synonymous terms, as I'm defining them are spatiotemporal situatedness or spatiotemporal orientation.
A location in spacetime is a location in spacetime. A reference point maps the rest of spacetime viewed from that location, and so it also has to have an orientation.
What does quibbling about how you'd like me to define terms I'm using have to do with whether the relations in question are subjective or objective? (By the way, I thought that subjective/objective wasn't even a distinction you accepted.)
I don't know why you get off on this, but most people come to philosophy forums to actually improve, learn something new, or at least get a better understandings of the views they already hold. Not to play such games, it gets old real quick.