So trying to walk it back then, huh. Smart move.
Let’s hope your daddy falls for it.
before your bespeckled eyes I am uniformly transparent. You Platonic idealist…
Correct.
And?
Never mind…
Carry on… :-"
The Good Baseline
From here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 1#p2897521
I agree with Peacegirl on this (using loose definition of preference) because, in order to know you’re wrong (factually, whether about moral facts, or otherwise) you have to have an established baseline/mean from which to depart.
After you depart, you either regret it or appreciate it, and then you start evaluating the baseline and how you departed in order to see if there is some standard by which to judge one baseline better (more truthful, good, or beautiful) than the other. Departing is good if it is departing to the best baseline. Always departing to the best baseline… it’s a thing… in a world of so many crappy baselines 
Only someone who is free to depart from the best baseline, but always chooses it, is truly defined by/as the best baseline.
My C Theory of time makes good sense of coeternal crappy baselines subsumed (concurred—not affirmed) under the greatest baseline. Js.
In “the humanism of existentialism” Sartre says both, “we can never choose evil. We always choose the good…” (p. 293).
and:
301, 351 352, 355
“he has made himself a coward by his acts” (301)
“my shame is a confession” (351)
“Shame—like pride—is the apprehension of myself as a nature although that very nature escapes me…“ (352)
“I am ashamed of being born or I am astonished at it or I rejoice over it, or in attempting to get rid of my life I affirm that I live and I assume this life is bad. Thus in a certain sense I choose being born,” (355).
Ref: Existentialism/ Basic Writings” 2nd Ed., ed. Guignon/Pereboom, Hackett, 2001.
eenie meanie miney moe, catch a tiger by his toe, if he hollers:
a) let him go
b) make him pay $50 every day
My mama said to pick the very best one, and you are it,
but
I want to make my own choices
but
I don’t want to choose out of reactance against authority
but
I don’t want to be forced into choosing, but not choosing is a choice, so how am I free, if I’m not free to not choose?
but
how am I free if I’m NOT free to choose?
but
flies off into space on a de-liberation rocket
Some people are more satisfied with less satisfaction… more satisfaction feels like a set up for disappointment.
But that equivocates on satisfaction.
Regret… when you know you’re feeding the easy version of satisfaction… it starts before you even act.
Unless it’s the unavoidable regret born in hindsight when you learn of opportunities you didn’t see at the time.
But the opposite reaction can also occur at seeing missed opportunities in hindsight. Appreciation.
So if you know this is the greatest possible forum, why did you earlier express regret as if you weren’t choosing in accordance with your preferences? (Same reason God expresses regret.)
Answered my own question. Thanks.
All is well, unless Peacegirl’s own anathemic query is solved, where the baseline can ultimately recognize and reconcile the problem of it’s source, and whether such is the product of a transparent - transcendent , analyzable certainty, upon which a growing positive actualization- corresponds to more and more self determination.
Sans that, the negatively deconstructed , most probable outcome may or may not have resulted in more negatively determined, hit and miss type structural validity.
In- between states add an extra dimension of uncertainty to guess the overbearing source’s aim, and so, the learned-innate question will always factor in multiple levels of certainty. So to say all is learned is the l latent outline of what appears, with the substantial question remaining that implies a relative authentic imminent experience. One never knows for certain, since their sources define their variance, and can not express both, without the very fractured state into which such quiery further mystifies the search.
We don’t need to be fractured in order to know the whole (good, beautiful, true) (being fractured is an illusion if there is no whole), but unless we were allowed to fracture (choose other than whole), the whole would be other-than-whole, because a) self=other love, or wholeness, is not love without demonstration, b) self=other love, or wholeness, must be chosen freely (could have chosen otherwise, but doesn’t), therefore, self=other love, or wholeness, gives space for the other to choose either wholeness or other-than-wholeness. The choice had to be there in order for self=other to be a viable option, but choosing or knowing other-than-wholeness is impossible without prior wholeness—unfragmentable. Unbreakable. In the end… the fractures we think we know are all mended.
Of course the wholeness we think we know now is nothing compared to the wholeness we will see when all the fractures are repaired. I imagine God in his immanence suffers with us, but in his transtemporality sees the joy already (always).
I get it but, a simpler demonstration could be referential to eschatological past narratives, and ask that question, which has been oft repeated: why did God allow the serpent into the tree of knowledge, where the wholeness being fractured was a foreseeable event?
In other words, it is, as if Wholeness was denigrated to a lower, sub-conscious realm, where the serpent has east access, and God gave that choice to Mab, knowing well the incredible difficulty to realize the connection to reasonable mining of that realm.
That it is pre-existent is not the point here, but is Nan, as a created being, it seems is given no choice to excercuse his power through his will, to believe that, which for the most part he has to believe by eyes , which can not really see the whole chain of events , which entail every part of it, to understand it?
Again the price of becoming whole seem to be the engagement, a thoroughly king and difficult process, as defining existence; appears to imply, one can not reach preverbial wholeness until you can accept it, as the price to pay for it, without which it remains non existent.
That is a beguiling, as a proof of God’s love, where He will sacrifice His only purely firmed creation, to prove the point.
Carry that further, since His Sun, the Sin of both man and Gid, implies a Sekf Sacrufuce, where Hus Being is sacrificed, so that His Creation can eternally exist, with the hope of regaining the wholeness that he years for.
Sounds almost Teutonic with Rhinegold, that caused the rift between Wagner and Nietzche.
Coming to my point, that the optics of verse are no match to the calculated harmonics of tonality, underlying it.
The calculus of harmonic form, coincides with Kierkegaard’s hope of it becoming a tonal tonic to recapture the essence of redemption, than the search for an intermittent eschokigical succession that is expected to move man into a pure and simple understanding of the content of God’s Love.
So all the past narratives throughout all the cultures are attempting to explain how everything got so messed up. There is a first time for everything. As in Peacegirl’s thread: first blows.
It assumes everything was in homeostasis and harmony, which was broken. Just like our “green” policies want to restore that harmony and stop adding to the discord (dissonance).
But if the harmony in us originated from an original harmony we are tuning out… our music is still gonna suck.
Kierkegaard was like… if you dance as if you stopped tuning out the harmony… the harmony will return. Which is fricken scary. Maybe (def) why things are the way they are still—and getting worse. But Jesus said the same when he said “Keep asking. Keep seeking. Keep knocking.”
Thanks.
However, the later Wagner, magically healed that awful power, by introducing Parcipal a fool, who can unlock the power that the will can excecise, and dies a double take on the original motif.
This again proves that the power of the mystery of Christian sacrifice should not extend and reverse of that formula to that awesome power to will, since it’s reciprocate reaction is axiomatic and without bounds.
This extension of moralistically limited, specific motifs, delineates the hidden reversal of self/sacrifice and thus self hate through that subterranean complexity that defies Sartre’s authenticism.
God exists his essence most on the cross, though. Those who die to self, find it. Free of interest. End in itself.
Is there a difference between rationalizing as you said, thought/thinking (???) — and reasoning?
Rationalizing to me might come more from our emotions and what appeals to us and make us desperate to believe — and not so much based on a high IQ. I may be wrong here. I am not so sure that low-IQ people have a monopoly on what you state above.
gizmodo.com/10-famous-scientist … 1689425142
I am not so sure that dissonance is so much a matter of innate as it is a matter of negative, unresolved learned patterns stemming from our own individual backgrounds waiting for something to “trigger” the dissonance.
Alienation from modes of production has been substituted by an alienation from the modes of consumption.
Hedonism overcompensates, leading to degeneracies of all kinds.
A desire to experience existence permeates the masses, who have lost the constitution to endure it in its raw form.
Hyperbole is preferable.
If you & Ec & others are the same person, you have to switch masks as we look for seashells & let me figure out which one you’re wearing.
It’s amazing how simple a task to slip back into a linear manifestation, using expired masks, the affordability by which to repeat the tragedy of futile rebirth.
Such masks covering the bleeding gaps that partake to deflate overcompensated imagery.
Deniers of which with possible catastrophic consequences…The price of freedom?
#openmicnight
#momalwayssaiditwouldstickthatway
Ok, but who is momal.
or worse yet, what is it.
Or lastly, ignore or alienate such, muse-ings
You know Mom al Ways. He’s Arab.
It’s it.
Dissonance is the basis of humour.
Schopenhauer’s Got Jokes
Incongruity between subjective interpretation of reality, and objective reality.
Contradiction of the real but the ideal.
_
That’d make for a good chatup-line… in a cute kinda way, in an attempt/an excuse, to see someone again…