All things are permitted, but not all are beneficial. Limits stave off addictions and unhealthy attachments. The programmer warns against multiplying partners and neglecting proper function… not something to take lightly. Creativity within proper function is limitless…against such things there is no law.
Plenty of fish in the see, but also plenty to avoid, like this one:
But who knows readership that woyluld/could aspire to this, and maybe me the thought of such occurrence would delimit this flow to the reasonable level of conviction
Quite but that does not resonate with the absolure nature of what love and how it can cut through the immediacy of any resolute feeling, which at times reflexes one to the other as a veritable project, no one can imagine…
This is why love can’t be contracted, or tract to its source as separable from the absolutely considered, where miracles border the deal to a magical 0prepissession.
Can vouch for it cause it’s happening, even if the supposed, but conditionally unbreached terrain has come any closer to surface.
In that, Rousseau was supplicant, forwarnedky, cautious and guarded.
That is to say guardianship is not meant to any inference to any infectiously interpreted sign to judge transmission that some would balance and favor to man’s will, as some like sawtellious would have it, as a matter of fact, that kind of oronouncement could feed the doubt ascribed to it, rather then seeking balance the other way, but that that approach can lead to the insanity of feeling sorry for beasts of labor being insufferiblybpunished in the marketplace.
Just to be sure, this would make God even Him to place human and divine love be inseparably a directed and foreceful effort of reconciliation, irrispecyltive to any limits to the imagination.
Can you please quote Rousseau on this topic (in English) — preferably no longer than 10 choice sentences?
Now I find myself at the intersection of Titian & Vangogh, a place that is still to my ‘secret garden’s tree that I have numerous Lu described to arc, and as always thought to be similarly appreciated. I was wrong, and a past member of a Germanic ancestry could affirm. But no matter, unless otherwise responded to I will hold to the similar opinion.
His name was Arninius, and I may not necessarily draw conclusions.
I’m heading where in the closing of remembrance
Es of past things are made explicit, but will return for the answer
[quote=“Ichthus77”]
Can you please quote Rousseau on this topic (in English) — preferably no longer than 10 choice sentences?
Tried that didn’t work try again
[quote=“Ichthus77”]
Can you please quote Rousseau on this topic (in English) — preferably no longer than 10 choice sentences?
The Rousseau you mentioned directly above… is not this Rousseau?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau
looks at Meno_ very sternly
OK hope this will not turn me into an apologist of some
Try again the above source will not open
you just needed to insert a space after the word “kind” and before the link:
library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/30072
I think we can only fill in each other’s gaps in a good way if God is the first focus. We are whole/complete only in him. He’s like pipe/tire foam lol but srsly. We have to keep returning cuz apart from him we keep springing leaks. Sorry. Js.
We need all three, and one can’t replace an other:
For beings subject to time, esse is discovered (precedes existence) but must be chosen (existence precedes choice). We are the acorn that must choose to become a tree. Only one being (Time) exists essence (Sartre saw this).
Justified true purpose/esse is grounded (discovered) in God’s being. This resolves Euthyphro’s dilemma. God is the good - he doesn’t create himself.
The purpose/esse (beautiful) is (true) cocreative self=other (good) love.
Finished (perfect/merciful) “before” he started—but never ends (eternal).
Again thanks for the intermittent and in a timely fashion will revisit generally and weave into the preceding, proceeding flow.
But there is something I must share, and it may be the appearent growing uncertainty similar or identical which I denote here or try.
That is the connection of Levy Strauss to Rousseau is indubitably relevant in the kind of affinity that I have on previous occasions alluded to- in regards to the way the anthropology of magic or magical thinking relate to even the postmodern signs, akin to it.
Within participation mistique, the division with the idea it’s self forms a closed proto esoteric system of belief on the social level, and this appears as an unbroken continuum with the modern Lu accounted form of eidetic trduction, as parallel I believe to the phenomena represented.
Will take this up tomorrow with correction, to the aforementioned anomalous structural coherency existing on all belief systems reduced to a ‘scientific’ configuration.
But until then, no time but now to make use of the realm of Morpheus.
Post script:
Adding to this flow the pain of vanity, ( the inversion vanity of pain) to get an understandable mix of a necessary binding love.
I realize this dissertation may be lacking, but unaware of any connection, could only come up with this, with my eyes almost closed for the fortnight fall into the hopefully unconscious world. Hopefully fully more explored tomorrow, between duty called thingies.( your nomenclature)
The point being is that amor proper is inherently connectable.
