Positivism and the how morals get demoralized.

It's just plainly evident that the use of language is not the same as the use of words to express a point of view thus determining the actuality of awareness for communicating. How we get to realizing I and also the other is moral for morality is some kind of metaphysical activity; but the positivist will not allow that. He will evade the nature of the very communicating and accuse immoral content, or discrepancy, for the known facts by the extra Fact that the communication is the very existence of the Experience. That evident Fact of experience is some kind of theory of knowledge we could not have communicated, and reduction is pleaded to avoid the way it is related to for the debate.

The positivist wishes to plead words are more important to Experience, and that language is not anything to fret for experiencing. I, on the other hand, mean to be moral for the metaphysical content of this form of discussion. The Fact of experience is not always typical, and we may regard Knowing and the nature of Knowing as both metaphysical and mystifying. We can help each other's points of view for morals that share Experience to be more than just the dryness of the lines represented on the screen.