Graham doesn't need any help but I would just like to point out that he started the thread - he gets to decide what he's talking about.
Mr. Matthews, it isn't that I object to him talking about it. What I do object to is his refusal to address the points brought up by Mr. Little.
Furthermore, when one takes liberty with the meaning of words, especially with the added layer of complexity involved in translation, there is really nothing left to discuss. Graham's approach dramatically limits the possibility of rational discourse. What I see is self-serving definitions created to change the common meanings of words to support a point a view. And Mr. Little was pointing out a series of objections, none of which were addressed. It has little to do with "internal strength" discussions directly, but more about how he has redefined a number of concepts to make them fit more cleanly in to a conceptual framework he apparently already holds and to claim "I'm already doing this stuff I've never seen or experienced because I can redefine words to make it sound like it."
When I read Graham's posts here in this thread I'm reminded of a famous quote.
'There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.
Back in the old college days in logic we used to call this the shifting grounds problem. Another one to reference is a so-called "definitional retreat". These modes of argument make rational discourse impossible.