Well there’s your problem right there. Human husbandry aside (yes, privacy is good character there… and there IS an expectation OF it… even in the age of tech in BFE)… there should be no distinction between public & private character/action. A point of disagreement with Kant.
If there were no distinction we would kill each other.
Naïve woman.
Nobody can ever fully be themselves…only manimals come close, because like dogs, they don’t have much to hide…but even they must be trained to be tolerated.
Training imposes self-rperession, self-control.
A dog wants to shit on the carpet, but it dares not…so it holds it in, until you let it out of the house.
I prefer manimals.
You know your own kind.
=D>
Ecmandu is all yours, then.
Enjoy…saving him from his insanity.
I don’t share your perspective, or the one you seem to assume I have. I’m not sure which is happening here. For example, the word “your” in “consider the ears of your audience” does not imply that when you read the room, you consider the room “yours”.
In a sense, we do each have a share in the room—and we can choose to surrender our time or take more than our share (perhaps everyone else has surrendered theirs—or we failed to read the room—or it is only an illusion that we have taken more than our share… as when we are silenced from having a share).
The room has become an echo chamber.
Some folks are permanently silenced—even to the point of death.
That’s when the <>< comes out. Because we are not obligated to tell the truth to a would-be murderer. But, at the same time, a part of you dies when suppressed (unexpressed). Ultimately this begets a Bonhoeffer — those willing to die getting caught in the underground, though… for the sake of “their people” (who actually do need their protection)… they try to remain underground as long as possible.
The two kinds of hiding are very differently motivated.
He?
How old are you, dear?
To whom are you replying? Wrong thread?
Lorikeet. I feel sorry for you. You know why? Because you wasted your good mind.
An individual is taught/trained in successful ways/methods of dealing with the world; integrating him/her into an intersubjective methodology of coping with an objective world. Ideas/ideals are representations of these coping methods, tried and tested over centuries of practice. They become a lens through which the world is perceived; a glass wall either opaque or transparent placed between an individual and reality. This proverbial glass/lens is what a meme is, e.g., ideology, dogma, spirituality. Culture is the method of polishing, shaping, the glass and the desired final shape it will take; civilization is the final product, viz., selectively fabricated to be concave or convex, translucent or tinted, thick or thin, hard and inflexible or soft and pliable.
None of this changes the world itself, alters nothing about the light beyond the glass wall/lens, it only changes an individual’s subjective – intersubjective – perspectives/perceptions, and subsequent judgements and choices, i.e., determining the individual’s fate.
Objectivity is the antidote to fanaticism. A zealot is never characterized by an objectivity, but is entirely immersed in subjectivity.
Subjectivity is where fanaticism flourishes, surrendering to self-interests, self-serving prejudices, and emotions.
Encased within the skull’s protective shell; contained within the brain’s sensory input reinterpretations; immersed within the mind’s unsubstantiated creations.
Brain asymmetry is a forced compromise made to necessity – functionality, reflecting the absence of absolute order – in an existence characterized by the interplay of order & chaos. What appeals to it, as higher potential, is not perfection – symmetry – but proportionality, indicating utility in responding to the unpredictable.
Objectivity, properly defined and understood, has nothing to do with absolute truths and social engineering, it’s about placing the standard outside of all subjectivity, using it to hold oneself accountable.
An approach towards an indifferent, cold, inhuman, mostly lifeless cosmos, in the pursuit of higher levels of objectivity, demands a mind that can mirror this in itself.
Contrary to this pursuit the subjective mind is trapped in its self-serving, emotional distancing, demanding that the cosmos accommodate its needs.
Ideal = Subjective = noumenon = abstraction, interpretation, simplification/generalization, representation, static, symbol (number/word)…
Real = Objective = phenomenon = apparent, interpreted, (inter)action, flux (dynamic)…
Objectivity is qualified by the mind’s ability to disengage from personal needs, without disconnecting from the world in Flux: evaluating (judging) world without the effect of the experience of interactivity, experienced as need/suffering, and therefore relatively unconcerned with the pleasure/pain principle.
A typical modern mind will think this is so impossible a prospect that it can only be accomplished by a monster or a god; the either/or rule will be applied: “if no absolute objectivity is possible then absolute subjectivity is the only thing left.”
World is a constant source of anxiety for the subject because it is a part of the world it perceives, and if it cares for itself it must care about the world it belongs to; subjectivity participates in the world it objectifies.
Subjectivity as imitation, reflection, of the Objective
Mental processes attempt to replicate external processes – noumena reflecting/imitating phenomena, constructing simplified/generalized representations (abstraction), mirroring, as precisely as possible, what is perceived as being present, interpreting it as apparent.
Subjective consciousness imitating the objective by reducing it to a manageable level, encoding it after it has reduced it to a simplified/generalized level.
Bonini’s Paradox sets a limit to how sophisticated this simplified/generalized mirroring can become. Man has always tried to find patterns within the patterns it perceives, to simplify/generalize without compromising accuracy. These he calls “Natural Laws,” and his attempt to imitate them become “Laws of Logic.”
The subjective relates to the objective through its senses. Words, symbols, are representations of this sensory relationship.
When there is little to no significant relationships between them symbols refer back to their origins, or to a collectivity of mutually supportive subjective minds, i.e., intersubjectivity; a collectivity that substitutes and compensates for the lack of objective references with a cognitive looping-back upon itself.
The intersubjective collective is converted to the concept of a greater Self; individuation immersed within and losing itself in otherness.
The subjective/objective divide is at the core of the reality & ideality rift, making nihilism a cognitive possibility. It is also at the core of the nature/nurture debate. If we take the nervous system as point of contact – an ambiguous Cartesian separation between mind & body – and recalling that that brain, through the senses, collects data from external sources, and that cellular and organic data are continuously being transmitted to the brain through the nervous system, then we can conceptualize subjectivism as the intentional ‘closing of the mind’ to external sources of stimulation – reducing them to illusory contraptions and unnecessary distractions from esoteric pursuits, methodically dismissing them as bearing little importance within esoteric schemes pursuing subjective goals – introverting the mind to the point where internal, organic data (cellular data influx) dominates over external, sensory data (empirical data influx) in the construction of interpretations.
An inversion that can only survive when there is a protective agency, with sufficient force, preventing the indifferent external world from intruding upon the subjective mind’s private ‘world.’
Choice is how subjectivity relates and engages with objectivity; consequences are the product of this continuous engagement, viz., an ensuing cost/benefit causality confronting the subject. [size=50][ MANifesto: Nature – Free-Will – Choice][/size]
If the subjective/objective relationship is harmonious – is true – then the consequences are ‘positive’ towards it, if not the consequences are ‘negative.’
When there is a protective shield of collectivity intervening between subjective mind and objective world the ensuing consequences are shared and reduced in severity, producing a false sense of empowerment within those participating in the collective; a sense of entitlement, of parity with other subjective minds, is the long-term reward, i.e., benefit.
In nature every subjectively based action, every choice, is followed by success and/or failure, exposing its accuracy and the quality of the subjective mind’s relationship with the objective world, contrariwise within a collectivized intersubjective paradigm the only success that matters is incorporation within these intersubjective reciprocal multiplicities that will share and divide the costs of individual bad judgement calls; each subjectivity associating this parceling and sharing of costs as a personal enlargement – reaching the degree of a false sense of indestructibility and/or immortality. A participating individual’s sense of identity will also be parcelled and shared with the intersubjective collective, as part of the cost for an expected benefit.