How is smashing false temples/idols with hammers not negation?
How is replacing them with more false temples/idols … without living it… affirmation?
Joy is a yes/affirmation to which you can eternally return and never regret. How is that negation?
Negation of negaiton.
idols are not reality. They are representation.
Who is replacing idols?
Idols represent natural forces, or they try to nullify them.
Pagan idols represent nature.
Nature cannot be negated, except ni the mind…and at a cost - sacrifice.
Hedonism is joy.
Drugs offer chemical joy.
Joy founded on lies, is easy.
Joy is not a measure of truth.
The joy/shalom that stays after and is before fading moments is not accessed with drugs or indulging passing passions. Like being alone in a crowded room, you can be low when you’re “high”. Joy is genuine.
Genuine is honest…you lie to yourself.
how can anything be genuine to you?
Narcotics.
All relationships depend on a level of lies and concealment, otherwise they deteriorate.
Relativity.
Intimacy is about how much of yourself the other can endure…and how much of them you can endure.
It’s so cute when you contradict yourself like that.
Do I contradict myself, or your understanding of me?
Man is himself only when he is alone.
Any time another is involved…a mask is put on.
We prefer thin masks, not big thick ones.
Life’s a play…and we actors on stage.
Some performers never know who they are, outside the peformance…some come to confuse the role for the self they concealed and forgot existed.
What is the point of some convoluted discussion of the subjective/objective when basic scientific facts are ignored? Even after explaining to someone that black holes are not going to regurgitate the universe, and that likewise superstring membranes are unlikely to either, since there is zero evidence for this, they refuse to recalibrate their viewpoint since it depends so heavily on a cyclic cosmos. They are left with no alternative but ignore the messenger, or cast him as a degenerate, or worse still, apparently… a Jew. One has now encountered the fanatic.
Ummmm…I believe it’s because of Dasein.
Dicein with danger?
One day one might come unstuck.
No it is not.
Objective cannot be anything more than a body of agreed knowledge whereby the current language community has acord with agreed parameters comes to a consensus.
It is non existent without the collective wishes of subjects who are the bearers of the knowledge upon which the statements of objectivity may be made.
Thus the objective is nothing more than intersubjective knowledge and cannot exists without subjects.
“omnipotence” and “omniscience” are effectively meaningless words having no examples in reality.
No, agreed knowledge can be wrong or based on an error - superstitious.
Objective is subjectivity minus personal interest, emotion, corrupting understanding.
Complete objectivity is as impossible as is omnipotence and omniscience.
Consensus is intersubjectivity…which may be ruled by group interest or shared individual interests and/or emotions.
Belief in omnipotence is an example.
Objectivity can be corroborated since it is independent from all subjectivity, and so all subjective minds, if clear of motive, uncorrupted by emotions and self-interest, can validate it.
So, it leads to consensus, since we all share the same world.
All subjective evaluations of the objective world are not equal.
The degree to which they are accurate - within range of specific space/time - determines the consequences relative to the subject’s intentions, expectations, objectives…
‘Negative’ consequences indicate inaccuracy - an error in the evaluations, i.e., judgements.
‘Positive’ consequences indicate a sufficient degree of accuracy.
Moral/Ethical judgements - evaluations havi to do with moral/ethical issues - are estimations of individual options relative to a group’s welfare.
An individual must estimate the group’s tolerance of contradicting its established shared interests.
Tolerance may prove detrimental to a group’s welfare when imitation multiplies the negative consequences over time.
Usually a group’s tolerance increases in accordance with its power and wealth, and decreases in times of declining power and wealth.
gotta be real with you bro this sort of sounds like you are describing a sociopath
plus s/he has the uncircumcised panty-clad gonads to use the word “we”
Personae = inherited organ symmetries/proportionality, determining impulses - needs/desires and their hierarchies - private self, pur self to be discovered, reaffirmed ([size=80]know thyself[/size]).
Character = adopter social identity determined by socioeconomic, peer, pressures, imposing limits on personae - social caricature/character, performance.
Most people never develop their personae, but adopt a character believing this is their true self.
Usually individuals with a weak, or unsatisfactory personae, tend to adopt or create - depending on their power - a character to compensate for their innate, inherited, true personae.
The social performance - character - is preferable because it is fabricated, malleable, adjustable, updatable…and always adopt social norms, beliefs, morals…it is always current ([size=80]modern[/size]); it is also a buffer protecting the ego - a lie protects a liar from the truth.
you can’t just change the meaning of words, lorikeet. character is developed innate capacity…. either towards virtue or vice.
I use words to expose reality - to clarify.
So I use personae and character to differentiate and discriminate between private/genuine self, and public/performance self.
See how many words I used when I could have only said persona/character?
Like I use morality/ethics to differentiate between naturally evolving behaviours that make social strategies possible, and manmade addendums that make more complex systems, i.e., civilizations, possible.
And I use natural/artificial in reference to environments to differentiate the ambiguous point when human interventions upon natural environments begin to affect man more than the environments intervened upon - the point of social engineering or when human domestication, human husbandry, reached a tipping point.
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.