Again, we need a context.
How about individual reactions to Agenda 21?
We collect 100 people who are familiar with it. People who have formed an opinion about it. But their opinions fall all along the political spectrum. Based on their belief in God, their philosophical assessment of good and evil, their political ideology, their assessment of rational thinking, their conviction that some things are natural and some things are not.
The part I attribute to dasein.
A transcending font [which most call God] would be the person or thing all of these individuals could go to in order to determine definitively and once and for all what all reasonable and ethical men and women are obligated to think and feel about it.
Again, for religious folks, this is because God is almost always said to be both omniscient and omnipotent. For the secular objectivists, it is because they insist that only if you share their own philosophical, ideological, natural etc., value judgments can you be “one of us”. In other words, they reconfigure themselves into that font that all others must accept. Then it’s just a matter of where the lines are drawn: around race? around gender" around ethnicity? around sexual preference? around Trump? around abortion? around Agenda 21?
Right, like there aren’t any number folks on the other end of the political spectrum who can’t rip these points to shreds.
Note to you Biggie, that saying the above is not the equivalent of the reality of it which has yet to happen. So, the possibility is not the reality even though you state it as if it is a fact. You are theorizing only and offer nothing of substance.
What reality? What context? What interpretation of Agenda 21?
What particular set of political prejudices?
In other words, why your rendition of “substance” here and not the liberals?
My point is only to suggest that this substance of yours is the embodiment of dasein as an existential contraption rooted in my signature thread arguments. No more or no less than my own. Only my “I” is considerably more fractured than yours is. And, in particular, I explain why on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
For me, the bottom line in regard to objectivists of your ilk is not what you believe about Agenda 21, but that what you have thought yourself into believing about it has come to embody the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.
This part by and large: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296