…
Y: Would you mind if I said that we are the continuation of the Prophet’s ummah?
D: Good joke, let’s get back to the truth, shall we?
Y: You’re not going to start evolutionist nonsense again, are you?
D: Evolution is a biological theory that describes what naturally persists. I am giving it a new name in terms of humanity, referential analysis. In other words, I analyze the references and differences of not only biological creatures, but all beings.
A: You are making up new terms.
D: One day everyone will use terms like these, even if they aren’t mine.
Y: Why is that?
D: Because, like every word, evolution has become loaded and contaminated. You rhetors have exploited the term.
Y: Well, that’s what I say, if it were a scientific theory anyway. It’s more of a theory used for political purposes. You remember the tales of the master race, right? How dangerous such statements are. I don’t care if it is the ultimate truth!
D: It is about the moral dimension. Among two of us, we should focus on knowledge and method, not the moral dimension. You are right about the abuse of theories. We made the same mistake again. Are we arguing for the common people or for our own sincerity?
Y: Let’s proceed in both dimensions. In practice, there are people who cannot handle these discourses, though ideally everything can be discussed.
D: Agreed, in practice we live in a referrodiffrential structure that cannot be explained to people.
Y: So we are not the people
S: In some ways we are the people, in some ways we are not.
Y: Is your non-people side saying this?
S: In some ways it’s the people, in some ways it’s not. Language is the product of the people, but I am the one who stretches it. For a politician, I am the people within the state, but in ideal discussions, the politician is the people for me.
A: So ideally you are the nobleman of the debate, but in practice you are a slave.
D: Which of us isn’t? Which of us is not a child in most of the information? Which of us isn’t disgusting, in some ways. Perspective and purpose are important. Why and who is looking at?
A: Since we cannot distinguish this, most discussions remain inconclusive.
D: In order to realize language games collectively, related terms must enter daily language and a tradition must be formed for this purpose. So it takes another hundred years.
Y: Let’s go back to what you said at the beginning, what are we a continuation of? So what is our reference?
D: Many things, we are the continuation of those who breathe with lungs, those who work with chemical energy and those who use a complex language system, thousands more are our substructure.
A: The ummah of the Prophet is also our substructure.
D: No, that is rearstructure, I know it is complicated, but the Prophet’s ummah has not stabilized yet. In other words, it depends a lot on time, consensus, and being an updated structure as every information system should be.
A: From my point of view, it’s substructure.
D: Objective reality is important, not from where you see it. You may be looking at it from the wrong side or having a perception problem.
Y: But in your understanding, when the rearstructures are stabilized, doesn’t it become an substructure?
D: Look, you’re right about that, but man is a new species, a new game. Even the structures that make it up are not stabilized.
A: What does it take to stabilize?
S: Much more time.
Y: Isn’t there a stabilized human structure?
S: Yes, language. But what is language, what is language in?
Y: Are you reducing humanity to language?
D: I don’t know what the language is, I expressed it incompletely. A structure that appears on the surface as a language.
Y: Well, now I guess we will discuss what language is. Language again, I wish you’ve said religion at least once.
