Iambigious said,
"True enough [perhaps] but you know me. My interest lies less in the fact that liberals see one version and conservatives another, and more in the manner in which both come to acquire these political prejudices given the unique sequence of experiences, relationships and access to information in the lives that they lived. The part that revolves around dasein. The part that many here avoid like the plague.
Then the objectivists among them who insist that not only is their own version the right one, but that anyone who doesn’t think exactly like they do in sharing it is, well, for some here, scum."
Even more reductively, what underlines such manner in which people find themselves in?
It’s not merely a descriptive set of tie-ins, that revolve around Dasein, a set of opinionated inscriptions, of objectifying the subsets of behaviors and opinions, but a proscripted sequance.
The inscriptions are reductive, just as Your follow up comments, they are reactionary based on prior marked up impressions, rather than productively insightful on pre-existing major premises.
Dont get me wrong, I share with everybody the notion of the receding significance of reified succession of recorded data,
and contemporaniously accept the latest recently revised opinionated sentiment about which everyone weighs their alleigence with.
In other words , not one among us can claim to be outside the box, nor completely inside it either.
The just of it is , or has become the categorical leff/ right difference dies not reflect a clear cut conservative/ liberal equinimity.
That is why, with all the hoopla surrounding the ominous approach of a new , complete lockdown, Biden can truthfully say that he is never going to, in spite of Trump’s forecast to the contrary.
The process of rates of infection tied to the political whirlwind going on, is a mistake, because it gives the impression that political outcomes will determine the rate of infection.
The dervish of the movements around Dasein will determine the reactive forces that lie under all the propaganda, and not the other way around.
It goes to the very innards of existential reduction, Being, unopiniated, has outworn the mantra, “esse est percipii” the preeminence of existence can not be justified by 'the death of history/memory.
Labeling a reactionary point of view, will automatically splice that label to objective questions as to what that represents.
What greatness of America is it , that can accurately define what that greatness represents to most people? Is it anything but a reference to the type of wealth, promise, and
general well being that was prevelant in the first half of the 20th century?
Was existentialism a prostration to the American success with eliminating the signs and symbols , and the architecture if pre-modern times?
Reductionism was a salve to heal the wounds of sudden ad-hoc planning, discounting major archetypes of remembered nuances?
Dasein’s relevance to a new , modern architecture is not as relevant to , for instance, then to the integral architecture of simulated memory circuitry, for instance. That distinction is noted, and the Continental architecture does not demolish the vestiges of the old , but reintegrates it with constantly rehabilitated old versions.
The aesthetic priority is subtextually grounded by Kierkegaard as the next step down from a Theistic support.
As such, what should happen, & what needs to be done are do for an inversion.
But 'real’philisophy cannot be designated outside the box, so I am merely pointing to a deficit