The Golden Synthesis between character (virtue), conduct (duty), and consequences (teleology):
Turn the blue and red vices into “never” rules, and turn the yellow virtues into “always” rules, and pick whichever virtue in play in a situation is the greater virtue/rule when pivoting around the Golden Rule (treat self as other and vice versa), which is descriptive of the Virtuoso, or original Neighbor.
Kant’s categorical imperative (& self=other) already contains consequences/utility/end because that’s what you’re considering when you universalize junk. Prolly needs stating outright… but ultimately you gotta trust the One that sees all the way down the road.
Maybe that generalization is too broad.i always have had masochistic defensive tendencies against pain, pain that did not delimit self imposed and extrinsically imposed pain, but my empathy did not require others to experience my pain.
So to me, at least, that is a derivation which can not refer to me.
Though self reference is common in isolation, but even that need not develop into omniscience.
Everyone who read me in these few years knows about self descriptive linkage between narcissism and masochism.
Unknown it can grow into unfounded view points.
Never be ashamed to relate on basis of exposing what has been public knowledge coming from a guiltless , honest self appraisal
The opposite of that indeed leads to what is less common and despicable.
I just want to clear the air, in case a fallacious allusion give a misguided impression.
There is certainly a lot of inferences made where lack of disclosure leads to the wrong kind of suspicion with those who are reluctant in ways that feed self containment for it’s own sake.
To bring this conversation into a philosophical perspective, someone in another forum suggested that the dialectical relation between Shopenhauer and Kant entailed a relationship in which Kant focused on epistemology, while Schopenhauer was moralistically inclined,. The intuitive force leaked through that crack, where Kant did not yet feel the pressures associated with the twilit Romantic period’s critical need of salvaging. That is what lead Nietzche to turn about face, for he clearly saw the futility of the sadness intrinsic in Goethe’s treatment.
How the masochistic power of the cut up source of vanity comes in, Schopenhauer’s treatment makes absolutely clear, , however his ingenious try at laying an orientalistt tapestry under his rebuff to Spengler’s german pessimism…He thought of the retreat in terms of a changed direction , rather then of a complete reevaluation, as suggested by a change in the format out of structural reorientation, which would do the trick
I really think he had a good point, but as can be witnessed even today with a lot of westerners stuck by the 'Chinese syndrome’s philosophical moralism,one does not always follow the other.
A neat trajectory , a vector that can follow through Christian ideal transcendence, can not occur without dragging the body in tow. One can have both and often must by even a logical certainty, but simultenuity can not travel an ill passage like that. One stays behind, not because it’s not welcomed to trespass, but simply, because the other can not manage to , without a change of evaluation from a vantage point primacy to a secondary position.
It’s never a case of I’m right therefore you’re wrong, Nietzche made that clear, and for the same token , masochism and sadism are ill connected dialectically.
77 don’t leave and of course that goes for Ec as well, sex IS the original sin true but makes for lousy conversation.
However it’s the tree of knowledge from which it was plucked more of a concern.
What if each apple plucked from the abysmally large number of universal trees that they were plucked from , and delivered to snow white out-of vanity. The hyperreflexive mirror must lie because … well because if the delusional queen, enamored by her own beauty, smashes it and goes to a flea market to fetch another to do a better Jon
Poor sleeper beauty is condemned to woke up and find happiness with the prince, nothing wrong with that.
But, she must consumate her relationship after she marries , and start bringing princes into reality.
I’m surprised but this is what’s happening unless her mom shuts her up in a tower and sheers her hair so that she will stay pure.
And so it goes, and they should live for ever and ever
3 things: Never go shopping hungry. Window shopping is self-deception. There is only one who is omniscient. Everyone else is prone to buyer’s remorse unless they shop with the omniscient one — for the priceless stuff.
A bell is ringing, but… so far… I have no idea why.
I think both of your concerns are addressed in scanning for the words “not in spite of it” (pleasure) and “reverence/awe” (pain)… aim higher… get best of both without the… vultures, shall we say.
It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.
I used omniscience as short hand for pan telepathy.
Omniscience is actually impossible.
People can have different personalities with pan telepathy.
Omniscience means that a being knows everything I know about neurology (which is squat)… to know exactly what it’s like to be me… it also has to know squat about neurology. But because it knows everything, it has to know everything about neurology.
That’s an irreconcilable contradiction.
Pan telepaths can lie about being omniscient because they always know what everyone is thinking.
I’m looking at a sidewalk right now…
Pan telepaths know what I’m thinking. Pan telepaths even know my interpretation of how I feel about looking at a sidewalk… my interpretation of it is a thought.
Then you have a different category…
Co-mingling of spirits. But if a spirit blends with your spirit, it’s impossible for it to know what your spirit is by itself. These are called possessions. The being is still not omniscient.
