The ingénue (UK: /ˈæ̃ʒənjuː, -ʒeɪn-/, US: /ˈæn(d)ʒənjuː, ˈɑːn-/, French: [ɛ̃ʒeny]) is a stock character in literature, film and a role type in the theater, generally a girl or a young woman, who is endearingly innocent.
So, I a man, but nowedays that, OK for bplaying an authentic role
Imagine learning things like that. Imagine training your mind in scripts, not even being authentic to exiztenze.
Couldnt be me
It may not be, or may in your dreams, but whoever said that the awakened state is as easily attainable as all that
The say, if that is claimed prematurely, & pls.do not get me wrong here, then the light that exposes the opened box yet again, may not wake the cat up in time before the kid closes to reveal some motion on the cat’s part.
Being awake is as easy as existing.
Not even apologisyng for the uncertainty of that, maybe partly flying on way to a partition, a ground, some ground of(for) being.
Tell me about if for a noe chronic insomniac.
You’re close, but you are still thinking in terms of being.
You are not yet being.
OK will think about that
Lol
“Don’t think about it, do about it.” - A wise man I heard once
The verbiage of correctly thought through being needs to amass and assemble in and as your own being, to merge with exiztensze. Then you are what you are, and you are are what you are are. Being being being. Get it?
No more need for fancy words and pretty thought structures. You are not having thought structures, you are now the structure upon which everything else persists. You are free.
Dancing with Absurdity
Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.
Unless, of course, it’s not. In any event, what else is there here but our ever evolving [historical and cultural] attempts to close the gap between what you believe is true “in your head” and what you are actually able to demonstrate is in fact true.
Which, clearly, Plato utterly failed to do. Instead, he “thought up” – philosophically – a “formal” reality. An ultimate reality said to exist a priori. A Reality that is “somehow” connected to a God, the God?
You tell me. Only discuss it in regard to an actual context in which there are clear disagreements regarding not only what is said to be unfolding on the cave walls but can also vary considerably among “philosophical realists” regarding the “thing in itself” part. Or, for moral nihilists such as myself, the “thing for itself” part in turn?
Says who? About what?
What those like Plato succeeded in doing in my view is to imprison themselves in a “world of words”.
That’s how it works, alright. Some things we can be almost certain regarding while other things only considerably less so. The either/or world is no less subsumed in the “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”. We just don’t grasp the existence of existence itself. So, whatever we might ourselves be entirely certain of is still embedded in all that we do not – cannot? – know about the reality of reality itself. On the other hand, the objectivists among us not only delude themselves about the either/or world but even go so far as to convince themselves that the is/ought world is no less accessible if you happen to be on the One True Path.
Right, like they actually go about the business of interacting with others from day to day believing this. Okay, we don’t grasp the ontological nature of existence, and we’re not sure if there is a teleological component at all. But, come on, there are any number of things and relationships in our lives that few will doubt the objective truth regarding.
Then those [like me] who suggests further that even the reality of me typing these words and you reading them exist only because they were never able not to exist other than as they must exist.
So, it’s not how radical your own skepticism is but, even in regard to the either/or world, what little you can do to demonstrate to others that they are obligated to be skeptical as well.
About what?
Dancing with Absurdity
Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.
There must be many, many more renditions of this. Pick a denomination and you’ll find one. Only the number of pillars changes. Or those here who speak of their own rendition of the Intrinsic Self. The intuitive “I just know” font that renders arguments like mine moot.
As for Reason and Sense perception, when has there ever been a community in which everyone was all in agreement regarding which behaviors were the most rational…made the most sense?
I’ll tell you: in those communities where right makes might prevail. Then it just comes down to how those who own and operate it tolerate those who refuse to toe the line. Just go back to the history books in order to explore this.
Perhaps because they are everywhere? Only those like David Hume made the distinction between what appear to be endless correlations in the lives that we live, and our being able to insist this amounts to a one size fits all cause and effect.
I merely make a further distinction here between them in the either/or world and in the is/ought world. It seems certain that biologically if John and Mary [both fertile] have sex an unwanted pregnancy may be the result. But where is the same certainty when it it comes to establishing that aborting the unborn baby is either rational or irrational, moral or immoral?
What is the philosophical equivalent of this in regard to the ethics of abortion? A moral assessment that precedes all of our vast and varied individual experiences?
In other words, not many moral nihilists among cockroaches, are there? Deontology for them is entirely embedded in biological imperatives. Whereas any number of moral objectivists among our own species insist that morality must be subsumed in their own political prejudices. Here for example: knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora
Me, I attempt to connect the dots between value judgments and their origins. Out in particular worlds understood in particular ways historically, culturally and in terms of your own accumulation of personal experiences.
We’re not ducklings. We don’t just follow the first thing that moves. Instead, we are thoroughly indoctrinated to follow our parents and our families out in a particular community out in a particular culture out in a particular historical context.
Only unlike ants who are hard-wired biologically to do only what they were programmed genetically to do [from birth to death] our own species may have “somehow” acquired autonomy such that as adults we may well be able to actually reject all of that and acquire our own entirely different value judgments.
The part I then root in dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome.
Iambiguous says:
“Only unlike ants who are hard-wired biologically to do only what they were programmed genetically to do [from birth to death] our own species may have “somehow” acquired autonomy such that as adults we may well be able to actually reject all of that and acquire our own entirely different value judgments.”
meno responds,
“are you sure?”
The point does not excercise intellectual skyhooks, that ducklings think computers are their mom, but the could of such experiment was set up, but then, could they mimick an advanced programmer ready to quack his stuff?
They would still measure their comprehension as before, and would mostly be reduced to someone’s duck de’la orange, even if quacking mom for help.
Their personal territory would define their own das ein, that is why Dasein had to be turned into others’ experience.
Dancing with Absurdity
Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.
Yeah, what about that?!
Actually, this is just another rendition of me bringing up these guys: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … traditions
Then asking, “why your God”?
On the other hand, there are those like Kierkegaard and Pascal who I suspect struggled with this deeply. And were either able to take that existential leap of faith to the Christian God or place a bet on Him “in the end”.
Faith is clearly a tricky thing when immortality and salvation themselves are on the line. Who really knows [in a free will world] how human psychology evolved to deal with death itself. There aren’t lots and lot of “psychological defense mechanisms” for nothing. Religion, however, being [by far] the most effective.
Besides, just reflect on all of the truly ridiculous things that some argue here. Again, in my view, as long as everything revolves around dueling definitions and deductions, hell, you can believe almost anything.
Though I can’t help but suspect that we are also dealing with “conditions”. The Ecmandu Syndrome let’s call it.
Okay, probably. But the first thing I would want to know is how on her planet they go about grappling with morality and mortality. If nothing else, we might be able to pin down hundreds or thousands or millions of additional One True Paths spread out across the Cosmos. And one of them really may have absolute proof that a God, the God, their God is the Real Deal.
Well, unless there is more than one of them.
Dasein!
Only in the modern world, thanks to some truly extraordinary communications technology, millions upon millions of men and women have access to things like smart phones and the internet. Suddenly, they are exposed to many very, very different spiritual and moral and political narratives.
After all, not many of us reside in North Korea. Or China? Or, down the road, if MAGA prevails, America?
[/quote]
Dancing with Absurdity
Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.
On the other hand, if you presume that some aspects of the human condition are in sync with reasoning while others are not, we can then focus in on particular circumstances and try to pin down this distinction. After all, do mathematicians and physicists and chemists and biologists etc., “dance with absurdity” in their fields?
In the other words, the parts that I suggest revolve around “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”. The parts we grapple to understand given the staggering mystery embedded in coming to grips with the existence of existence itself.
In other words, the part I focus in on in differentiating the either/or world from the is/ought world. Though even here we make the assumption that we are in possession of free will.
And, if we do possess it, the part where I argue that believing something is true “in your head” is one thing, while being able to demonstrate that it is true for all rational men and women is often another thing all together. There is a cat that is black purring in my lap or there isn’t. On the other hand, what about killing, cooking and then eating a black cat?
The classic circular argument that I often come back to this one:
1] God does exist because it says so in the Bible
2] the Bible is true because it is the word of God
That constitutes a “coherent” frame of mind for many.
Dancing with Absurdity
Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.
Nihilism and mathematics? Probably not, right? Unless, in going all the way back to grasping the existence of existence itself, we find out that it is no less excluded. Especially pertaining to teleology, I suspect. Unless of course there is the equivalent of a mathematical proof in regard to meaning and purpose.
Your own perhaps?
Exactly.
I recall how, as a kid living in the belly of the virulently racist white working-class beast, my family and friends believed that black folks were inferior to whites. So, I believed it as well. And, indeed, all I had to do was look around me. The garbagemen were black, the school janitor was black, the bag boys in the supermarket were black. All the blacks on television were either doing menial tasks or were extras way, way in the background.
It just never occurred to me that racism itself was what brought it all about and perpetuated it.
If self=other describes the sort of love that fully satisfies (it does), I have my moral truth litmus (have you seen it? want to?… it’s for all truth, not just in Ethics… though… there is something very ethical about truth…), and this guy has this logical proof:
facebook.com/media/set/?set … tid=ncKXMA
Good word.
Sic 'em, Lorikeet!!
