+++Okay, we understand dasein in regard to the past differently. Fair enough. I’m certainly not arguing that the way “I” understand it is more reasonable than the way you do.
I recall any number of crucial instances from my past where I could have imagined my life changing dramatically had I not had this or that particular experience, had I not met this or that particular person, had I not come upon this or that particular piece of information and knowledge. At least in a world where it is asssumed that human autonomy does in fact exist in some measure.
But how about the future? Could you not in turn [down the road] have new experiences, meet new people, come upon new information and knowledge – maybe here? – that cause you to reject Paganism and the Goddess as you understand them “here and now”? To argue instead that they are an irrational…even a ridiculous…way to understand the world around us?+++
The main difference between the past and the future is that the past has already happened. What if the Roman Empire never fell, the Nazis had won, etc. etc. All well and good in works of fiction, but fiction is what they are. They don’t exist. Unless you believe the theories about infinite multiverses or whatever, which I don’t.
As for the future, again, you are absolutely right. At any point we might have an experience that completely changes our opinions. I might indeed reject Paganism one day. I seriously doubt it, but I can’t say for sure. I don’t think the future is set in stone, and it’s perfectly clear, indeed trivially obvious, that anything could happen. This, in fact, is what makes life interesting and exciting. We have agency, and can make of it what we will.
+++Or is there this intuitive, visceral, spiritual Maia that “somehow” transcends all that “existential” stuff?+++
No, not as far as I know. It would certainly be interesting to find out, though.
+++Back to how you remember our exchange unfolding and how I remember it. Back to what you think my intentions and motivations were and what I thought they were.
So, okay, scratch the virtual friendship. It’s just not to be. Fortunately, I still have a handful of others.+++
Our conversation last year was interesting because we covered lots of different things. When it started getting repetitive it reached a natural conclusion, as all things do. Since then you have only ever wanted to discuss one thing. If you have others to talk who are more interested in that particular topic, then I’m glad.
That, after our many exchanges on this thread to date, gib can actually assert something that ridiculous!!
This really is pinhead territory!!!
Over and over and over again, I differentiate my sense of identity – I – in the either/or world [it’s just like his and yours and Maia’s] and “i” as the existential embodiment of dasein in the is/ought world. Of course I believe that I am who I am demographically, circumstantially, materially, phenomenologically, empirically etc…
Well, presuming free will anyway.
Here [as always] you have to go all the way out on the metaphysical limb and broach solipsism or sim worlds or dream worlds or Matrix “realities” to deconstruct the objective Self.
Okay, let’s explore “just knowing” as I speculate that gib and Maia understand it in regard to how I speculate further that this is derived largely from dasein in regard to conflicting goods like the trucker protest or abortion.
Gib and Maia both seem to share my own assumption that in regard to what we know about them – think about them, believe about them – had our lives been different we might well be here knowing and thinking and believing just the opposite.
Maia then shrugs that part off as a “trivially banal truism”. Her life was what it was. End of story.
Now, I don’t think that Gib thinks that way himself. I think he is more inclined to accept my frame of mind here…but is able to shrug it off in turn by anchoring his Self in his emotions. How he embraces them in not acknowledging that human emotions themselves are largely subjective contraptions rooted existentially in dasein is something “I” still don’t grasp. And, no doubt, he is just as amazed himself why I can’t “get” that.
Maia is physically blind. From birth. And anyone who interacts with her and claims that she is not physically blind is blind to the actual reality of human blindness itself.
But when it comes to our moral and political and spiritual value judgments what then does it mean to be blind? That’s the part “I” explore in my signature threads. And on this thread in regard to the trucker protest. That’s the part where I broach dasein and ask the moral and political and spiritual objectivists among us to explain to me why they don’t construe their own value judgments as “I” do.
Then this part…
Note to others:
You tell me what on earth this has to do with, well, anything being discussed here.
More to the point [gib’s I presume] what he believes – thinks, knows – about being on the right path in regard to the truckers gets subsumed in what he feels about it. Right? And how is that not but another rendition of “a core self, a real me, a soul” that “somehow” “just knows” what it wants. In other words, the “self” revolves around the political arguments themselves – pro and con – while the Self resides in our emotional reaction to things.
Sigh…
Note to others:
Again, you tell me what that has to do with the point I’m making above it.
First of all, again, the preponderance of what we believe revolves around our interactions in the either/or world. Dasein here revolves entirely around demographics and circumstances and the laws of nature that are encompassed in an endless slew of objective empirical facts.
News about what? The trucker protest? Okay, strip away all of the political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein from those newspaper articles, editorials and opinion pieces and provide us with the optimal or the only rational account of it when we shift gears from the either/or to the is/ought world. That’s where I’m always heading here.
Bingo. Gib arguing [more or less] as I would to the objectivists among us. But then [from my frame pf mind] he subsumes a “for all practical purposes” “fractured and fragmented” moral narrative/political agenda in his – philosophical? – assessment of human emotions here.
That is what he anchors I too.
So, sure, good for him. He can derive his own comfort and consolation from that. Of course, it’s not likely to go over well with the truckers though, right? Most of them still believe that how they feel about the government policies revolves around the fact that they actually think and believe and know that they are on the side of justice…on the side of “the good”.
Well, not counting those who are interested only in their wallets.
Ah, another “general description intellectual contraption” about the “human condition”. My drive, his drive, your drive, their drive to seek the truth about the trucker protest.
How’s that working out for you? Brought everyone around to your own frame of mind yet?
Next up: another general description intellectual contraption of course…
More or less the point I am making in my signature thread:
Or as Michael Novak speculated in The Experience of Nothingness…
Mere mortals, “recognize that [they] put structure into [their] world…There is no ‘real’ world out there, given, intact, full of significance. Consciousness is constituted by random, virtually infinite barrages of experience; these experiences are indistinguishably ‘inner’ and ‘outer’…Structure is put into experience by culture and self, and may also be pulled out again…The experience of nothingness is an experience beyond the limits of reason…it is terrifying. It makes all attempts at speaking of purpose, goals, aims, meaning, importance, conformity, harmony, unity----it makes all such attempts seem doubtful and spurious.”
His solution? A leap of faith to Catholicism.
Really? Okay, let him note what he construes being a pinhead entails and explain why he construes my own “inner pinhead” to be shining through here.
What is Maia saying here? Basically [from my frame of mind] that “here and now” she is rigidly anchored to her own uniquely intuitive, visceral – emotional? – sense of Self. And this “Real Me” Maia is impervious to anything that I might say. Not only in the past, but in the future as well?
Okay, gib thinks as she does here. We will just have to agree to disagree that a description of human interactions encompassed here…
Sure, we can sustain really fascinating discussions and debates regarding just how much of our lives unfold beyond our control, but to call how they do…trivial?
I merely suggest that in regard to the is/ought world, “I” becomes all that much more problematic. Maia is a Pagan who believes in the Goddess. And even among Pagans there are many, many, many conflicting narratives. And then the countless additional “ists” – God and No God – who insist that it’s not Maia’s path but theirs that will get you further in life.
When anyone really, really thinks about the odds that how he or she thinks about their place [morally, politically, spiritually] in the “human condition” actually is the optimal frame of mind…?
How does that not revolve around the “psychology of objectivism”?
Then [of course] back to how the answers that any of us give to that question may or may not be rooted more in the manner in which “I” or gib or Maia construes the meaning of dasein in regard to their own life.
This indeed does sound like an intuitive take on the soul or the human “spirit”. You mentioned intuition and your knowledge of history to back up these thoughts, but not Paganism or your religious/ideological beliefs–which tells me your take on the human spirit is most likely the same as most other people. Unless they have some fortified religious/ideological convictions to which they are commit, most people (I think) simply examine their own “inner being” (i.e. they introspect) and draw certain intuitive conclusions from what they find there. And indeed, in my case just as with most people (I think), what I find is something like a soul or spirit (mind or consciousness are the terms I think suit it best) which seems fundamentally different in essence and substance to that of the body (hence the reason dualism seems most common sense to most people) but without giving any clue as to how it is tied to the body (though it obviously is). People are thus free to speculate on whether this inner life can survive without the body or must vanish when the body dies. Thought experiments in which one imagines one’s self floating freely through the world without a body would suggest it is possible to survive without one, at least conceptually, but then the brute facts of death (that any inner life the person once had seems to just disappear) would suggest the opposite. One only becomes convinced that one or the other possibility (or maybe a third option I haven’t listed here) is in fact necessarily true when one is commit to a religion or ideology that says so.
I agree that we all (or most of us) come “pre-packaged” so to speak with moral intuitions that are more or less the same across all of us–causing no harm to the innocent, as you said, taking care of children, not lying, not cheating, not stealing, etc.–basic rules for conducting one’s self in social settings that help us get along with each other. But I do think that what we’re taught by culture and upbringing can override this–such as the European anti-Semitism that was common before the second world war–and the way soldiers are trained to kill without batting an eye–but even these don’t go completely unchallenged by our innate moral intuitions (wartime PTSD is said to be more about the guilt of killing rather than the fear and stress of war).
Personally, I don’t think morality can be boiled down to a set of rules–like the Ten Commandments or a set of laws–I think the world is way too complicated, filled with too many variables, for a handful of rules to apply to everyone unconditionally all the time. That’s why I think the final arbiter of morality is the conscience; the conscience is very fickle and inconsistent, and differs from person to person, to be constrained by a set of rules–it is largely intuitive and emotional and is able to take in a massive plethora of variables determining whatever situation you happen to be in and draw out a feeling of what the right thing to do in that situation is. But the same situation the next day may illicit different feelings. And while your conscience may make you feel one way about the situation, another’s may make them feel a different, possibly opposite, way in the same situation. Thus we conflict and sometimes go to war. That’s just the nature of the beast called morality in my opinion. Far from perfect, but it is what it is in my relativistic mind.
But anyway, I think Biggy was in the ball park calling your conception of your “I” an “intrinsic self”–though I say this tongue in cheek since he hasn’t given a lot of detailed on what he means by that term. For one thing, I think he means something constant or unchanging and I didn’t gather that from your description of the self (though I didn’t gather that you didn’t think of the self as constant or unchanging either). I also gather he means a self that is in sync with your self-conception–that is, you know yourself directly, without distortion or illusion, that what you think you are is what you are–and of course, it wouldn’t be Biggy unless the self was somehow tied to your moral convictions such that you could say “I am a good person”–but I don’t see morality being directly or intrinsically tied to your conception of self. He might have to chime in here to clarify.
And as for your morality, I wouldn’t expect that you think you “just know” what the right thing to do is, but maybe “just intuit” or “just feel”–knowledge, in my mind, has a much more strict set of criteria–it isn’t just a state of mind but must relate to the world in such a way that you can definitively say “I’m right”. You can say “I feel” or “I intuit” simply when the feeling or intuition is there in your mind, but knowledge demands more than that.
Biggy, you were the first to bring up the “intrinsic self” that you presuppose Maia and Mags to believe in. From there, the discussion has flowed continuously to this point. The “intrinsic self” was clearly understood at that point to be the “is/ought” self. Nothing changed of that as the discussion unfolded to this point. I don’t believe I needed to make it clear with every sentence I uttered that we were talking about the “is/ought” self.
No, my argument about emotions had nothing to do with the self. I was explaining what drives me to take the side of the truckers. And we’ve been over this–I wrote you a quite lengthy and detailed account of what I anchor my self to when you inquired about it–I guess you weren’t nearly as interested as you made yourself out to be. Now I won’t repeat it because it’s your job to look back through our discussion and find it (not to mention listening in the first place), but I’ll give you a hint–it has to do with which world I identify my “self” with–the is/ought world or the either/or world (ring a bell?).
I don’t deny that emotions are rooted in dasein, though I think dasein is just one factor that determined our emotions. I think our emotions are, to some degree, hardwired and innate–the way a newborn might express the emotion of want and discomfort by crying–what lengthy history of life experiences did dasein put him through to instill that emotion? Now dasein plays a huge role in what we react emotionally to, but just the fact that we have emotions isn’t explained by dasein–that’s genetics and hardwired biology. What culture have you seen that says, “We don’t experience anger here; we don’t believe in it”?
It’s called disagreeing with your point. It’s sort of something we do here.
Same.
In fact, there’s a lot of proof that we throw in the towel with you more out of frustration that you don’t listen than anything to do with how scary your points are. To wit:
^ Don’t you think I sound a tad bit frustrated here? Wouldn’t you if it were you responding to me with lengthy and thoroughly thought out responses to my inquiries only to dismiss them as if I didn’t read them, as if I never even asked for them? You’re like a toddler who begs for a helping of some yummy dish only to take one bite and then throw the rest away.
Most of the examples of pinheads you site are the type to think of themselves as what Smears calls “Ubermensches”–you know, those who fancy themselves strong and courageous for acknowledging harsh and painful truths, thinking of themselves as having extraordinary vision to see what others can’t, what others are too afraid to see; while others are slaves to conformity, they are one of the few who truly think for themselves. It’s masturbatory self-flattery at its finest, the most convenient and pleasing explanation for why they see what they see and others don’t. When I read what you wrote above about Maia, and the many times you’ve written things just like it about other people–how everyone is too afraid to see the truth of the points you make–it reminds me of this–pinhead thinking indeed.
Do you remember when you asked me to site some examples how you, as Mags put it, shift the goal post, or as I put it, segue? ^ This is a great example, not only because you are shifting the goal post but because of how subtly you’re doing it.
No one is calling the way our lives unfold beyond our control trivial; we’re calling your statement trivial, the one that defines your entire philosophy–that dasein is almost wholly responsible for how our lives turn out, that had it driven our lives down a different path, we might be here now arguing the opposite points that we, in reality, are arguing. ← No one denies that–it’s trivial–I can’t think of a single person who honestly believes that had their lives turned out radically different–raised to believe different things, gone through different life changing experiences, exposed to different religious or cultural norms–they would still believe and be saying the same things they currently say (because, what, their consciousness would rise above all that fray and see the same ultimate truth that they currently think they see?). This was the point I was making earlier that your philosophy isn’t that insightful–I called it Nihilism 101 if I recall correctly–yet because no one here agrees with it (at least not fully), you, like a pinhead, think you must be the only one who can see it–you’re just that good.
But back to my point, you know that this is what we’re saying–yet you shift the goal post ever so slightly, put up a strawman that looks almost the same as what we’re arguing, and ask how we can call the way our lives unfold beyond our control trivial rather than the point you were making trivial.
Thank you Biggy for providing yet another wonderful example of how you segue. And this time demonstrating the larger pattern you follow–that of how you segue in response to a good point to which you don’t have a retort (not that you even need one). I make a point about where we feel the triviality lies and where it doesn’t lie–and an additional point to boot about how you might avoid miscommunication by adding a question to the end of this statement you so often use to make your point–only for you to switch topics, effectively setting up a new goal post. Instead of gracefully acknowledging that we addressed your question about why we find your point trivial, you now challenge us to explain how the answer to the question “How can one be sure one got it right?” is or isn’t rooted in dasein. I mean, it’s not that you can’t take the discussion in that direction, but an acknowledgement that we answered your original question, that we shot the ball directly between the goal posts you set up, would first be nice. In fact, it would earn you some respect and dignity. Instead, this just looks like you want to avoid conceding that I made a good point and in fact helped you out.
+++This indeed does sound like an intuitive take on the soul or the human “spirit”. You mentioned intuition and your knowledge of history to back up these thoughts, but not Paganism or your religious/ideological beliefs–which tells me your take on the human spirit is most likely the same as most other people. Unless they have some fortified religious/ideological convictions to which they are commit, most people (I think) simply examine their own “inner being” (i.e. they introspect) and draw certain intuitive conclusions from what they find there. And indeed, in my case just as with most people (I think), what I find is something like a soul or spirit (mind or consciousness are the terms I think suit it best) which seems fundamentally different in essence and substance to that of the body (hence the reason dualism seems most common sense to most people) but without giving any clue as to how it is tied to the body (though it obviously is). People are thus free to speculate on whether this inner life can survive without the body or must vanish when the body dies. Thought experiments in which one imagines one’s self floating freely through the world without a body would suggest it is possible to survive without one, at least conceptually, but then the brute facts of death (that any inner life the person once had seems to just disappear) would suggest the opposite. One only becomes convinced that one or the other possibility (or maybe a third option I haven’t listed here) is in fact necessarily true when one is commit to a religion or ideology that says so.+++
While there are as many definitions if what Paganism is as there are Pagans, in fact, probably far more, to me, Paganism tells me little or nothing about morality, but rather, is simply a way of interacting with the world. What morality I have, and I hope I have a strong sense of it, is independent of my Paganism, and, as you suggest, is common to all of us, and has no doubt been given to us by evolution, because no society could function, and survive, without it. In other words, it has been given us by nature.
+++But anyway, I think Biggy was in the ball park calling your conception of your “I” an “intrinsic self”–though I say this tongue in cheek since he hasn’t given a lot of detailed on what he means by that term. For one thing, I think he means something constant or unchanging and I didn’t gather that from your description of the self (though I didn’t gather that you didn’t think of the self as constant or unchanging either). I also gather he means a self that is in sync with your self-conception–that is, you know yourself directly, without distortion or illusion, that what you think you are is what you are–and of course, it wouldn’t be Biggy unless the self was somehow tied to your moral convictions such that you could say “I am a good person”–but I don’t see morality being directly or intrinsically tied to your conception of self. He might have to chime in here to clarify.+++
I don’t think anything in nature is constant or unchanging, so the idea that some intrinsic self might be seems wrong, to me. Nature is flux, and we are always changing, evolving, becoming something new. As for distortion and illusion, it is a simple fact that our senses give us a grossly limited idea of what the world around us is like, and what we actually get is a largely made up one at that, made up by the brain to fill in the gaps. This is now starting to stray into the sort of territory that I wanted to talk about when I first came here, but in terms of how this relates to any intrinsic self, I don’t think we are capable of knowing anything without distortion or illusion, including anything about an intrinsic self. And yes, my conception of morality has nothing to do with my awareness of self, or my opinions on a spiritual essence, or life-force. My intuition tells me that there is such a thing, and that it exists in all things, but this has nothing to do with the subject of morality, which is a purely human conception anyway.
+++And as for your morality, I wouldn’t expect that you think you “just know” what the right thing to do is, but maybe “just intuit” or “just feel”–knowledge, in my mind, has a much more strict set of criteria–it isn’t just a state of mind but must relate to the world in such a way that you can definitively say “I’m right”. You can say “I feel” or “I intuit” simply when the feeling or intuition is there in your mind, but knowledge demands more than that.+++
I’ve learnt to rely on my intuition in matters like this, and for tricky decisions in general, despite an often overwhelming desire to second guess myself. If something feels right, then that’s a pretty good reason for assuming that it is right. Nature, that is, evolution, has given us these feelings and emotions for a purpose. I am moral because, firstly, I’m human, and secondly, because I want to be.
Keepmyname, out of your fucking mouth [discussion].
Seriously though, Satyr and I do not have a checkered past whatsoever… I was simply the ‘Brown Cow’ to his ‘Lollypop King’… though I’ve never seen his lollypop, aha!
What is this all about Gib? Why the curiosity, or care and concern?
_ Satyr wrote: [i]“Oh, and one more thing…iamretarded and Marj are paranoid personalities.
I am…? or perhaps I’m just not stupid nor suffer things gladly.
It comes from being unable to read people - a rare thing among biological females - like Marj - but not so rare among emasculated males who adopt feminine methods - like iamretarded.
…it’s near-impossible to read those that lie or spin a yarn… I can’t go along with yarns & ruses.
They now suspect I am behind every moniker that makes them feel a certain way - their feminine intuitions.[/i]
They? do.”
I am not part of this ménage ā l’histoire Gib, but thanks for the mention. ; )
And neither am am i MagsJ, perhaps due to being here half the time others have : ex since 2012 versus 2000 or so for the others, or maybe my mistook identity for an unacceptable secfetiveness - which is really but a knack for reductionism near the absurd( just stopping short of) or bilingually apparent paradoxes : or combinations there of.
Nevertheless if i were to choose between collusive politically correct introspectively coded requirements or truth, and nothing but, then it would go down with the later.
But in all seriousness, we needn’t talk about you. I can’t control Satyr, however, and you can’t stop anyone from reading the threads.
Gwad, what a horrible image! I assume that was a racial slur on his part. While I disagree with the left on their hyperinflation of racial bigotry in the West, he certainly doesn’t help.
Well, I answered this exact question at the post you linked to above. Let me bring it over:
I’m not sure whether to take that sarcastically or not, but you’re welcome. Count you’re lucky stars you’re not a part of it. Though you’ve been mentioned a few times over at KT and you’ve mentioned Satyr a few times in the past, so you’ve had more of a taste than I and I’m jealous.
Meno, have you ever had the pleasure of galivanting in KT land? Ever come face to face with the Satyr himself? Maybe I should look you up at KT… unless you want to give me a link.
I really suspect ( kniw) that I’ve had the pleasure guided under a different mask, and from all the varied descriptions managed to assemble, have a pretty good idea.
That includes the women there, one particular fatale that kind of caught up here, ‘the spider woman’
Was warned about her a few times but her bite really felt like a kind of sting.
She thought me old fashioned and suggested seeing an alienist.Think her to be Satyrs Ma, and although I resisted to meet them on their own turf, the deal breaker was biggy sayin’ that they locked him into some kind of dungeon or another.
I really suspect ( kniw) that I’ve had the pleasure guided under a different mask, and from all the varied descriptions managed to assemble, have a pretty good idea.
That includes the women there, one particular fatale that kind of caught up here, ‘the spider woman’
Was warned about her a few times but her bite really felt like a kind of sting.
She thought me old fashioned and suggested seeing an alienist.Think her to be Satyrs Ma, and although I resisted to meet them on their own turf, the deal breaker was biggy sayin’ that they locked him into some kind of dungeon or another.
I really suspect ( kniw) that I’ve had the pleasure guided under a different mask, and from all the varied descriptions managed to assemble, have a pretty good idea.
That includes the women there, one particular fatale that kind of caught up here, ‘the spider woman’
Was warned about her a few times but her bite really felt like a kind of sting.
She thought me old fashioned and suggested seeing an alienist.Think her to be Satyrs Ma, and although I resisted to meet them on their own turf, the deal breaker was biggy sayin’ that they locked him into some kind of dungeon or another.
I really suspect ( knew) that I’ve had been guided under a different mask there, and from all the varied descriptions managed to assemble, have a pretty good idea of his identity.
That includes the women there, one particular fatale that kind of caught my fancie there, ‘the spider woman’
Was warned about her a few times but her bite really felt like a kind of sting.
She thought me old fashioned and suggested seeing an alienist.Think her to be Satyr’s Ma, and although I resisted to meet them on their own turf, the deal breaker was biggy saying that they locked him into some kind of dungeon or another because of unsympathetic sentiments.
That did it for me, never been back, though there is some allure in the spider. However weary of having been once bitten now unbecomingly twice shy.
or, maybe that’s not exactly how it went down, it’s been years, it may not even have been in KT, but i am sure it was Satyr telling me that he found my stuff dull or inadequate and may get rid of me.
Then I was under the impression that he may get rid of me.
But I am pretty certain it was him.
At the time I had no idea where i was what KT was even of how significant Satyr was. I heard a lot about him and I thought KT was a place if mind rather then an actuality. Truth is always a bare minimum for me, a possibility a latency. For attention? Maybe but why not ? As longer it is mot prearranged as based on general plan.
There is a minimal Creedence in holding to the relative notiin that one can go back in time and change the coursed of not what, but how it was described, for the affects matter more then what was effected.
Jumping to conclusions is a stranger hedge against doubt then considering the chance that doubt is structured in more then one level, and an apology nerved removes a stain caused by uncertainty.
If a slip of the tongue indicates a determination ine way or another, then some other more showing may be ignored fir the very political reasons hidden within the argument…
Yes I may have been unauthentic but no suggestion of other motives can be instilled.
I talked to him, face to faced I am convinced , but in a shroud of a novices domain , in which I still find myself to a degree. Once an alien, I suppose always a stranger in. Strange land…
Biggy is fractured. and Me no is alienated , and how this ties in to a political structure may speak more than what meets the eye, if you look to meet it.
_ Satyr wrote: “I have used an already registered moniker to get around my banishment but not more than once a year, between Christmas and New Year…
[size=85](my ILP banishment is of particular interest, given what is tolerated there…I can only suspect that my views were especially intolerable and undeniable, to those who own and run that shithole…one of which was Marj and was present when I was banned)”[/size]
Yea… but that account ain’t banned though it’s just under a different monicker, and that change was not of my volition.
Satyr wrote:“Marj is more complex…so is Parodites”
More often than not… sure, but sometimes not.
Satyr wrote:“Marj and I go back a long way.
She has issues with those who peer into her psyche and tell her who she is; she feels violated, ‘raped’…don’t know what in her past caused this or if this is genetic.
Not enough info.”
…too many people invading my space -space invaders, lol- so been claiming my personal space back.
I’m at a comfortable level of entourage now… that, of zero.
Satyr wrote: “Her physical state, making her averse to certain environmental toxins may be manifesting an aversion to certain ideas which are toxic to her mental/physical chemistry, i.e., intolerable, cannot be processed, causing her psychosomatic imbalances, and distress…”
…averse to the non-natural toxic world, yes… psychosomatic, no! How very dare you!
I think the current state of the human condition and the world at large, speaks volumes, in that regard.
Satyr wrote: “She ain’t for philosophy. Too fragile.”
…and is that your professional opinion regarding my constitution?
Can you come over and give me a second opinion? ; ) lol
Satyr wrote: “She loves banter, like most females.”
The only person that can bring me to task, is myself.
it’s just under a different monicker, and that change was 