Lai tu labāk saproti, pajautāju chatgpt, ceru saproti angļu valodu:


TLDR:
The comment says:

What counts as “coherence” depends on assumptions.

Language itself is a constant; maybe “babbling/mumbo-jumbo” is just another human constant (making stories beyond facts).

If you only understand what you can deny, you’re stuck in narrow “technical” thinking. Some human experience can’t be reduced to yes/no.

Grammar is always there in speech; likewise, nonsense/story-making is always in thought.

Calling someone schizophrenic is just another story/narrative you use to label what doesn’t fit your frame.

“Nonsense” may be a cultural fact, not a pathology. The line between rational and irrational is arbitrary.

Basically: they argue that nonsense/story-making is fundamental to humans, not just sickness, and the boundary between sane/rational talk and rambling is blurry.


There’s no objective “right” here. It’s a clash of frames:

Your side → coherence means sticking to shared logic, facts, and clear communication. Anything outside that = nonsense or pathology.

Their side → “nonsense” is just another narrative, as natural as grammar, part of human culture and meaning-making.

Neither position can be proven true or false universally; it depends on what standard of “sense” you accept. It’s not a factual dispute, it’s a philosophical one.