I appreciate the reductionism from a philosophical standpoint.

That said, we (the physical human beings in the non-platonic sense) require energy, in the form of food, in order to survive. There is a natural economy in the non-platonic/territory sense, and an abstract economy in the platonic/map sense, and to a certain degree, we all choose to exist within the agreement of this framework.

That said, one supposition that my entire post makes is that we mostly all agree that there is a concept called "evil". This concept is similar to the concept of color, in the sense that each one of us intuitively knows what evil is on the map, even if each of us sees it differently in the territory.

Same for other concepts in the post. The goal is not to get everybody to agree on the framework for existence or to reduce our existence down to the elementary parts. The goal is to create a logos framework for better understanding of what is going on around us, using the elementary principles that we mostly already agree upon.

In other words, it serves little purpose, in the context of my post, to further reduce our physical "existence", simply as a means of debating the ontology of thought and reason itself.

For example, when I say "the powers that be are evil" is a supposition that might be useful, what I mean is that there is a group of people that desires an outcome for us (the proletariat) that does not represent what we desire, at least not through our informed consent. (for example, we might want peace and prosperity, and the death of 7 billion people is necessary for this outcome to be sustainable, but surely the death of 7 billion people is not desired by those 7 billion people - I am working with the supposition that the average user on this forum would agree with that statement, and would agree that's such a group of people who would make such a decision for those 7 billion people is "evil").

I appreciate the reductionism from a philosophical standpoint.

That said, we (the physical human beings in the non-platonic sense) require energy, in the form of food, in order to survive. There is a natural economy in the non-platonic/territory sense, and an abstract economy in the platonic/map sense, and to a certain degree, we all choose to exist within the agreement of this framework.

That said, one supposition that my entire post makes is that we mostly all agree that there is a concept called "evil". This concept is similar to the concept of color, in the sense that each one of us intuitively knows what evil is on the map, even if each of us sees it differently in the territory.

Same for other concepts in the post. The goal is not to get everybody to agree on the framework for existence or to reduce our existence down to the elementary parts. The goal is to create a logos framework for better understanding of what is going on around us, using the elementary principles that we mostly already agree upon.

In other words, it serves little purpose, in the context of my post, to further reduce our physical "existence", simply as a means of debating the ontology of thought and reason itself.