t's ridiculous that's a that's an irrelevant similarity right so where do we look for the relevant similarities what i'm saying is you should do what you're doing i'm not i'm not i'm not trying to dismiss it i'm saying but you you need to justify why you're picking out this similarity as relevant or important and what you can say is well because it lines up with another way in which we look for universals which is what science is and that descriptive discovery of universals also comes with a prescriptive argument as to how it improves people's cognition in a universal manner so that's what i'm actually recommending yeah so yeah so so i think i think i think then we're in agreement here i'm not i'm not trying to make uh an exclusive claim and this is this is the only way to reach i think i think that there's uh there's many but but i but i do think that this is an important part of it and i think discounting the the metaphysics and the proposition simply because there's incongru incongruity um would be it would be the same reason to discount everything else and and i think i think it it needs to be part of the rest of the con of the congress i agree so what what i'm claiming is if you agree that there's that intersection between the cognitive scientific argument and this uh cross-historical argument cross-contextual argument then it it it tells me well where should we where where's the connection point i think it's where we we so i'm trying to justify why are we zeroing in on intelligibility the intelligibility and the at one minute why are we zeroing in on that is a that's an important similarity well again you can you can leap out of sort of a historical question begging by saying but look that at one minute and that intelligibility is can be given a completely independent explanation uh from the c from a cognitive scientific framework and so that's why uh i mean i i i you you know from the awakening for the media crisis i'm always trying to get an intersection between historical arguments and structural argumen