Called it.
Come back when you’re sober.
No
Fine.
Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it.” or “…and everyone is forcing their way into it.”
Our nests & webs we know without knowing is the hunger for Golden Rule (self=other, us=them) love interwoven in our hearts. Even if we are blind/unfeeling, it leaves its shadow in us. Some can do it by sight without feeling, some by feel without sight (Jer. 31:33, Rom. 2:15), some both. The fully conscious need neither, but can use both in its favor. Against such things there is no law. Outdo each other in love.
We mostly agree to the above,yet need the evil genius to extend the uncertainty, as if, that requires cybernetics to invalidate him.
This is why his simulation has to reflect it’s weakness; for his deal was really tricked by Faust the first time, and as memory is served better than that, he will fail again.
Well there are many layers to what you’ve said here, Meno_. Faust and Marguerite remind me of Adam and Eve trying to get back innocence, and Mephistopheles reminds me of the crafty, lying serpent. And the angels that declare innocence remind me of those who rejoice in heaven when the 1 returns to the 99. Descartes’ evil genius was merely a thought experiment. We are living proof not only that mind and matter interact, but that the harmony of interaction is broken, implying wholeness. Was it ever concrete for us, or will it ever be? No matter. It is implied. There is hope. For ALL persons, broken. Whole persons don’t need hope. That’s why “the greatest of these is love.” All else passes away…which does not necessarily mean they come to an end 
We will all be salted with fire. ALL.
If a mind game, then it necessitates reversal, as most simulated ‘games’ of battle are reversed, the war games are actual pro-formal objectives come to life. Maybe Descartes was to clever not to feign merely a thought experiment, he may not wanted to shock people, and in fact was seeking for a intervening variable, as he was adamant to save the church, he may have seen the schism coming between those who held to faith absolutely and those who didn’t.
That’s a mind game even now for some.
It’s even analogous to Heidegger’s’turn’ , let’s face it, there may be some hidden variable between the two really, like in today’s world of law, how ‘black letter law can be morphed by social reality, as is people were too busy paying attention to various tailored to made shades of grey.
Life often may imitate art but…
That may be hidden under veneers of regulated deception , that the art of ‘politics’ may hide. )public policy)
Just doodlin but with a purpose in mind, and am a little more realistic than some who claim that philosophies of mind are cyclical representations; for there is a lot of bleeding going on, and that is why our reflections have reduced us to the present uncertainty.
I really hope my intentions would not be taken other then what appears contradictory, but forma and pro-forma positions may be switched at any time, and that is a kind of bait and switch used as if as a requirement for so called progress. The progressive media appears to utilize such for various calculated reasons.
The fact is, divisions may be covered by far flung ideals, and yet these ideals must be shown to be protected by ideologically switched contents revolving around the idea of what is substantially material or, immaterial.
The seen and/or unseen phenomena appears to most as if it was of primal interest, hence the quickly articulated perceptions between admonition and demonition of paradigms, models of expression.
Impressions are quickly downplayed in one form and then admired within the pro(pre) Forma ,even of another. Marx , according to this view, never had to bother in getting to the bottom of it, as Freud did, for Freud some say, was able to realize his interior demons, to his credit, whereas Marx could not afford to do so.
So, everybody thought at the time, until Uncle Sam ran out of advantage, and the ideal took a sudden turn to overshadow the hidden substance of what came before it.
The reversal affected the impressionable, to an extent which germinated in pre war Hellenic circles, as the substance of love came under attack by an incredulous public.
Old myths came literally alive, and ideals presumed their pre - rational re-public an divisions, and angst of existence created the renewal of a Gothic(goethic) pain.
Everyone got to realize ladders from Plato to Kierkegaard as conditions of existence, and here is meno’s paradox.
Realize this is strictly mnemonic, almost obsessively with a method which tries to defy, even deny it’s self, and makes pleasure out of pain, almost masochistically, but not nearly
gentle reminder
Again not to use as fodder to stage (form) a compressed contention we find ourselves of arguing for it’s own sake,( to attain the will to believe by sufficient power) but to vitiate the function and utility of such propositions by “ Blessed are those who can believe without sight .
“
The double entendre of sigh of vision is missing rot say the 99 % of public sentiment.
“I believe in miracles” - Kathryn Kuhlman
Yeah. Jesus said, “they will know you are my disciples because you love one another”
… they’ll see it.
If you’re not seeing it, you’re not seeing a disciple.
But those who disagree with what God says about love will turn it into something ugly and only look for the ugly. They’ll be like the Pharisees who tacked a whole bunch of crap onto what God said. They won’t be able to see love even if they’re staring it in the face, even if it bleeds for them quietly and doesn’t hold it against them.
Instead of the wording “the soul-means” the wording “the spiritual-means”. Why?
You probably know that Heidegger as a young philosopher was Husserl’s assistant, thus a phenomenologist and opponent of psychologism. He maintained this position also as a fundamental ontologist and as a philosopher of the history of being, perhaps only in his later time, so from 1959 on, when he began to help the Swiss psychiatrist Medard Boss to establish an existential analysis from a psychiatric point of view and thus to support a little bit the psychologism that had regained some strength.
I am also an opponent of psychologism.
So You maintain the reality of objectively de-differentiate the boundaries as more useful in framing the content of it’s contention , even if, the process of it’s source entails a progression toward the pleasurable assertion (will) of it’s self it’s self?
Wish I could frame this better sub-textually.
Yes, psychologism is a derivative of empiricism and thus inauthentic. It is “outside” of being yet trying to understand/analyze being “from the inside” so is inevitably going to introduce and intrude errors. It would be possible to formulate a true psychology but only from operating first upon a properly developed phenomenological perspective. I don’t see why any empiricism would even be needed. The ancient Greeks derived things like atoms and evolution just by thinking about it, using logic. Psychology is “us” and we don’t need anything except for “us”, ourselves, our own experience plus sufficiently precise logic and phenomenological rigor to understand it.
I would tend to use soul and spiritual interchangeability although I realize that’s probably not a good thing to do. I suppose soul would be the spiritualized self, or that aspect of the self which is spiritual.
After Edmund G. A. Husserl (1859-1938) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), it was Hermann F.-H. Schmitz (1928-2021) who overcame psychologism. Schmitz’s philosophy differs a bit from that of Heidegger, whose philosophy in turn differs from that of Husserl.
Psychology is a lie for those who are spiritually ignorant.
psyche… you mean, like… spirit?