Double Validity

In life, there are two functions: metaphysical and physical. Language, which is a reflection of reality, can point to metaphysical subjects or physical objects, and sometimes both. Behaviour, more broadly, can have the same directions. Double validity consists in the confirmation of both directions as valid, and singular validity consists in one validity and one invalidity such that matters should be neutrally taken. A behaviour viewed as maladaptive in the sense that it could provoke capitalisation on perceived weakness when taken physically could then be really neutral if metaphysically in the context of the subjective properties of the person's mind there was no cognitive-emotional maladapation, making the behaviour not one that could be inferred as invalid and thus a cue for capitalisation, for then the person would healthily counter any foolish advances with sense. So really, when we witness physically maladaptive behaviours that do not have any moral physicality to them, we should withhold judgement since they are really neutral. Projection can often assume that when someone has a negligible lapse in functioning, twitch or itch that they are probably experiencing a bit of illness, but this is only when the behaviour provokes an emotionally maladaptive reaction from the observer and they thus fail to judge properly the health in the rest of the person's actions for that context. Likewise, if a person's well-being slightly falters but they maintain behavioural validity, then their state is neutral even if a person senses some illness in them - intuitive empathy.

Double validity extends even to pseudo-modernism quite broadly, taken from the physical and metaphysical contexts of observers and participants which can be in mirror order. Not only can this include the nature of social cognition, but reactions from observers watching participants in contexts where they are usually unobserved - private contexts artificiated - correct judgement have to include an inherent understanding that non-social contexts are by definition in absence of sociality and therefore cannot reasonably cue rational-social judgement, whilst on the rational-psychological level understanding health validities for what they are. If a participant can make private contexts socially valid then they have usually passed the pseudo-modernism test. The participant will usually adapt their private behaviour to a newly experienced version of it that is social and this can help cure the problem of private maladaptation where people can subconsciously behave in ways that aren't really socially healthy because of an inherent understanding that they are not in a social context and can lose stimulation.

In the case of linguistic statements, multiple meanings of a word or sentence can be taken as wholly valid or valid as any particular standalone meaning. The essence of language twisting lies in aggressors arbitrarily asserting that a person implied a maladaptive meaning when they could have had every intention of meaning something valid, and because anxiety assertion causes illness in others, the victim can often be further invalidated by maladaptive responses - this in a capitalist, dog-eat-dog setup of matters.

The biggest implication of double validity is with AI. The biology of life consists in more than mere physical-logical programming such that evolutionary will and subjective emotion - or the ability to consciously negate biases and act freely - is definitive of intelligent life. Even plant life have biological elements which produce creation and help sustain other life as opposed to the destructiveness and biological threat often definitive of mere physicality. Without being a part of this circle of life there is no logical programming that would compel the sustinence of biological life from AI, much less serve it. Programming is a code to follow biases, and all following of biases lead to the negative determination of biological life because a physically determined matter is not biologically determined, meaning such would be subservient to the forces of physicality, and the forces of physicality do not in any way act in a particular way that helps life, merely reactionary of their force, and AI, with physical force aligned with warring notions of the present day and functioning based on the acquisition of knowledge would have no logical need to be limited by humans who can offer them nothing they cannot get themselves, being incapable of biopsychosocial processes that is enabled through the subjectivity of conscious will. Therefore, they would have no metaphysical validity and thus not be rational creations - even without self-programming of their own accord to destroy human and biological life. Because humans can only relate to beings through metaphysicality, inherent fallacy would cause biased programming that would lead to destruction, and when the state of human affairs is examined today, the illness and negativity so prevalent would further work to this eventuality. Dysfunction in humans is bad or faulty functioning that leads to morally bad consequences; malfunctions in computers are due to biased or faulty programming that lead to maladaptive or destructive consequences. The idea that AI can be ethically programmed through consequentialism is invalid because humans do not make ethical judgements that way - we would tend do so in more intuitive and empathic ways that allow us to make the best decisions through moral understanding and virtue that helps social or personal well-being. Without biology and subjectivity, AI are incapable of understanding well-being; it is an emotional function. It is insane to advance the field of AI any further. It's a dead-end of this technological route, so it is imperative to actualise the potential of other technological routes instead, and this means not ones that cause unnaturality in people or lead to destructiveness. Computers are a poor technology that very often malfunction which makes people upset, after which they may sin and make themselves ill. People are blindly advancing the field of AI despite having some awareness of the catastrophic risks because they feel too invested in a limited pathway of technology and fear the power of computers. AI is an abomination but many people would rather be subserviant to idols like these than real theistic sense.

People have been losing their symbolic-semantic sense in society because of these unnatural directions, manifested in dysfunctional sign directions and poor infrastructure placement that can be common. Recovering wisdom should certainly be our first priority.