Iamgious says,
"On the other hand, in grappling with an understanding of your own life and death, is this the place that you would start? Or would you concede that biologically, chemically, physically, “I” is ever and always embedded in the parameters of the either/or world. In nature. But what of nurture? What of the social, political and economic parameters of “I” in the is/ought world of conflicting goods.
How might “I” here be profoundly more problematic?"
I can not begin by a literal descriptive difference between the sift and the hard sources.
Tangentionally a critique could be leveled to a particularly Western tradition, since such as an either/ or starting point is not really emphasized in the East.
So this possible critique aside, which can be generalized by a/ the critique of pure reason, a flung out tangency relates emphatically to moralistic sources, and that You may confirm.
The basic difference in the personality of the phenomenology of Christ is subsumed under and not over that of the ontology of the Yahweh, as the Father subsumes the Son
Top
This is important the concern with the “i”, as a transposutional object/subject.
Are this point I concur with Your description of the insufficiency of the above quoted references, for they are closed categorically in the usual Kantian method to inquire about the substantiallly that was likewise categorically foreclosed.
However, like all great thinkers, what they thought privately , may not have coincided with their descriptions, and what they have symptomologically guarded, was a hidden intentionality, which , may have upset real-politic6 in dime immeasurable manner.
That goes for Jesus, for Kang, Nietzsche Darwin …
The basic tribalism does rule, at least in the heyday of philosophical investigations, and it is no irony or coincidence that the intuitive progression of variables was realized as measurable only by a probabilistic route of a reduction which may have missed coils of extra traveled routed-through mazes of least resistant simplest, most readily accessibly channels.
So here, the art of philosophical venue. was made to conform to the basic mirrored stage of tribal apotheosis, gained by superintelligent. dominance over the supra intelligent transpersonal objective.
This hidden intention took time to mature, as do fruit, and the timeliness of the forbidden one, fell far from it’s source.
The metaphor, which grew out of what has essentially been reduced to myth, suffers the same fate, it has to find it’s least dimensional representation through the either/ or, mot coincidental Wittgenstein sourced: philosophical investigations: with reliance on mass literacy on the most phenomenal level.
But Russell/Wittgenstein had their optimistic days in the sun, overshadowed by returns which have diminished considerably.
So I totally agree, with Your patent description, and it is with apprehension that such uncovering may bring to light that represents a coiling snake consuming it’s own tale, which is extremely concerning