Curious for your thoughts:
Don’t expect me to understand what you’re saying or to articulate this argument. But feel free to discuss amongst yourselves and I’ll try to keep up.
Mind/Body Harmony - agreement.
Absence of nihilistic corruptions, i.e., inversions.
Man is a nexus connecting past with future…
A congruence of two different genetic continuums, merging - synthesizing - into one focused by will.
Two memory sources merging - is another way of thinking about it.
How these memories merge and interact determined the outcome as a range of probabilities. Inheritance of potentials ([size=85]nature[/size]) becomes their cultivation ([size=85]nurture[/size]).
Psychology = organ hierarchies.
Proportionality and organ dominance - strength - determines personae - character is how this personae is expressed outwardly.
Environments forces an individual to repress, or sublimate his personae -adapt it to fluctuating circumstances.
In humans this environmental pressure may be a socioeconomic, cultural system - with tis own principles, ideals, motives…cultivating ([size=85]nurturing[/size]) an ideal citizen.
The degree to which this memetic ideal clashes with an individual’s genetic inheritance - imposing upon him adaptive pressures - determines the degree to which the individual must self-repress, establishing his/her social character.
If the collective ideals are nihilistic - as in Americanism - this pressure creates a schism - the character is an inversion (partial or total) of the individual’s personae - he is living a lie and so must self-deceive, and compartmentalize to survive.
This may manifest psychosomatically as sexual fetishism, or addictions/obsessions, or disease.
One symptom is this Americanised Transsexuality where the mind/body dissonance is externalized as body dysphoria - an individuals schizophrenia resolved by nullifying the body, considering it a corporeal prison, or the wrong form to represent the mind’s nihilistic ideals.
All this is founded on Abrahamism’s mythology concerning the human spirit/soul.
Nihilism uses words to compartmentalize, setting up alternate realities that are governed by alternate standards…necessitating self-contradictinos as a matter of survival.
Tip of the iceberg.
I’ve been analyzing the gene/meme relationship for a long time.
I’ve written pages and pages on it - KTS.
Please answer me here:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 6#p2892236
What argument?
Are you asking me to articulate the argument? Or do you have a valid counter argument to offer against it?
What argument?
Don’t worry if you cannot reply… I’ll survive.
When sheeple link you to another 's theory…or to text, it usually means they have no clue, and are outsourcing their reasoning to an authority.
The authority becomes their proxy…they gain validation, power, through this icon/idol…god being one…Nietzschean being another…Marx another…Jesus another…
What is implied is that all arguments dispel all doubts…even if they cannot understand how or why.
I can’t, yet. But. I’m willing to hear your attempts. Doesn’t mean I’ll swallow ‘em.
Te fact is, sweetie, that no matter who or what you’ve read, you become the representation of what you’ve read, in the way you’ve understood it.
You become the author’s transference of data, determined by your understanding of it.
This data, in the way you’ve understood it and incorporated it into your world-view, is represented by you and your arguments - your attitude…your judgements…
I don’t need to read the book since you are its representative…and if it inspires or chalenges me then I may look into the original source to verify if your understanding/interpretation adherers to the author’s, to the best of my own understanding, of course.
But why debate over who understood another’s worldview the best?
This is not philosophy, this is academics - competing over whose perspective of another’s perspective of the world is more accurate.
It gets worse…because in these venues the debate is over whose perspective of another’s perspective, commenting on a third’s perspective, based on a fourth’s perspective of reality.
This is what you do when yo discuss the Bible, or when men-children - Nietzsche’s Bitches - debate over who got the master - icon/idol - correct.
They quote, replacing their own judgements with another’s.
One quotes to support their own views on reality…reality, the world we all experience, and is the standard of all these debates and conflicts.
This is why words must be connected to a shared experience.
Words must be defined not only in accordance to a linguistic norm but in relation to a shared world - otherwise we get these nihilists who use words to refer to other words…or to nothing at all.
Ask Mary to define dasein or morality - she’ll give you a reference to a book, or a quote…or evade the challenge.
Ask the other one to define free-will…‘free’ and then ‘will’ which she dismisses as non-existent. She’ll refer you to a book, or not bother to answer.
Oh, I see. So, you’re chicken.
_
Deflecting ^^^
“two” chickens pretending to be a magpie and a lorikeet…cuz why