meno and iambiguous discuss...

I stopped reading his post here.

So, was that a mistake?

If yes, please explain to me why you believe this to be the case…

B-Biggy said,

"stopped reading his post here.

So, was that a mistake?

If yes, please explain to me why you believe this to be the case…"

I don’t support the view that to stop reading This, or Anything else is a mistake. Life is full of things: suprises, unknowns, unheard if things, novelties, pranksters, you name it they’re.out there.

It is a conservative who is most prone to filter out what they rather not see, whereas liberals tend to look at most anything there is to read and experience.

That is why You and I are fragmented, just like all the other folks out there, they really cant make up their minds without pigeonholing themselves into party affiliation.

Switch gears, I personally would like to You try to read it, for I am always on the lookout for people with whom I can construct a progressive relationship more than just propaganda .

Okay, something I can actually grasp and grapple with in imagining both liberals and conservatives reacting to an attempt to pack the court. And from either end of the political spectrum. After all, no doubt there were many conservatives who might have embraced it in regard to Douglas/Brennan and company on the Warren Court.

In other words, it works in both directions. But: any number of conservatives will insist you’ve got it wrong…it is the liberals who are most prone to do this.

Still, what does any of that have to do with this:

I noted above why “I” am fractured and fragmented here:

How about you? In what sense here are you fragmented?

Again, if you were fragmented in the manner in which I construe it, then a “progressive relationship” would be no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein, revolving around a set of political prejudices that are in turn rooted in dasein.

Propaganda as well is but another essentially meaningless component of the arguments I make in my signature threads.

Lambiguous says,

“How about you? In what sense here are you fragmented?”

N pretty much the same way most anyone is.

Missing connections between what I purport to be able to assess as my estimation of what ‘truth’ is, and what I have to shift into a Grey zone, that is inestimable.

Inestimable truths are those that are beyond my, of, anyone’s a lit to figured out , ithey are those things that always revert back to the kind of ideas that relate to what ID call 'certainty, the kind that tries to figures out whether the cat is alive or dead.

I obsessionally ruminate whether trying to ads the swamp and what is in it , in it’s hidden depth, and to what extent mg particular existential contraption is past of the bigger problem of a deconstructed ddmocracg, and even torn by the decline of a general aesthetic in the west.

And if civilization and its discontents can reverse coursebg a shift in D as Eim, where the rich significance of existential guilt can be overcome, simply sexually motivated methods that certain yoga practices bear upon Catholic. guilt, than maybe the psych-philisophical reversal can again attain some prior balance.

The major point, which really is a tedious but necessary intellectual excerpt iss, a contraption began with the misunderstood tenets of Christian ity, could not now, of then , spell out this cognitive bases of fdeayuent seminal ideas to the masses.

An esoteric subtlety is nit present in the passions of averige folk, that really want to understand the energy within higher abstracted , unearthly matters, that went into the constructed aims of civilized man, and that is where fragmentation got it’s start.

But my rambling must bird You bag now, and I ask You to abstract only this relevant stuff, coudss I will devise probably by the time reading it.

Okay, let’s focus in on this.

How is that applicable to this:

And how do both pertain to your own assessment of those who argue for and against packing the supreme court?

I’m curious to note how close to or far away from your own value judgment here is from mine:

So, if I were addressing a room filled with those who want this court packed with more liberals, and an equal number quite content to sustain their own 6 to 3 conservative majority, I would likely satisfy no one. Why? Because to the extent there are liberal and conservative objectivists in the audience I am challenging – philosophically – the very idea that one can be in sync with the “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do” here.

And in regard to all other moral and political value judgments that I construe to be just particular political prejudices derived from the existential contraption that is “I” as the embodiment of dasein.

In other words, going back to our childhood indoctrination, we are all bombarded with countless factors and variables that we neither fully control nor fully understand.

From this my own “I” is now “fractured and fragmented”. How then are the selves of others not given their reaction to this:

Given a discussion that revolves around something like packing the court.

As a nod to substantive raise , can not but accede to the points, of needing to dismiss bluff as an intention on both of our positions, still needing some cover. or gesturing with poker faces.

Nevertheless, time stretches and constricts , as oscillative and /or in concert, simultaniously, as if time It’s self constricts or extends it’s possible interpretative in signifying ,
Thanks in becoming more receptive to points raised, in detailing them.

What time has in relating to our, and MagsJ’ participation becomes decisive when. fully aware of other things pop up that time imposes.

Not to imply that it is of less significance , or becomes less pressing.

Instead, it’s straight back to what I construe to be intellectual gibberish:

Would anyone here care to take a crack at this?

He seems to steer his thoughts in a direction that I am able to find intelligible. In fact, up to a point, to agree with. But then when I ask him to explain more substantively how his own sense of identity is more or less in alignment with my own here…

…all he can give me is whatever the hell he thinks he means above.

Back to square one and then some.

Biggy says:

“Now my point of course is that packing or not packing the court is merely part and parcel of a political prejudice that liberals and conservatives acquire existentially as the embodiment of dasein. So I can no longer embrace either point of view as “the right thing to do”. At least not philosophically or ethically.”

Simpler: political prejudice underlies the presumptive opinions of those who’s opinions finally make The Difference .

Now, such packing into a constitutive set up of a kind of final judgement, cannot be proved, essentially because such opinions are tainted by further underlying, regressive, prejudicial contexts, that have other underlying black letter kind of precedential rulings. These deconstructions infect the original Das Sein with irrevocable and challenging obsticles, defacto, de-jure rulings.

The level of irregular and disconnected epochs, holes, creates systematic but nearly imperceptible error, if woven into a grossly assembled narrative.

We, those engaged in less then Machiavelli typed abstraction, do it by means of the most traveled procedure by which we could, hypothesized the object of the pain-ful send of what the founding fathers intended to write about foreseeable occurrences that may reach the level of hard rock reality here , and now.

We, as obliging good citizens cannot bad expected to see these intentions , we can only glimpse them in a simulated representational way, only lawyers and legislators , within their own sense of them.

Did the founding fathers meant us, folks to bad deceived, or did they see particularization and lawyerly rhetoric to be part and partial to such descriptions?

If so, then there would be less prejuducially partiality, less party division.

Of course back then , honesty meant this epitome of shows of which party affiliation mattered , and what party stood for what

The psychologisms get built into a more specific social psychological uber-set, and black letter law dilutes the positive meanings of jurists.

Our fractures are demonstratibly built into practice by the most obvious example: that of the unfair racial treatment that can never reveal the sources of such prejeducial ejudication.

Now, in our devolved state, that is dependent on international investment, we cannot but set an epoche-or context , within which . not merely the economic welfare of that nation prevails, but that of it’s own survival.

So the old game played of who is on second of third deceives no one.

It is a game of Russian Roulette using a gun with 2 instead of 1 bullet played . twice
That is the context that our ’ devolution’ caused in the certainty of our survival

This could not possibly be further removed from the assessment that I am looking for here.

Though, sure, that may well be a reflection more of my failure than yours.

You can try again or not.

Biggy says:

"Though, sure, that may well be a reflection more of my failure than yours.

You can try again or not.

Failure or not, my fault or Yours, try again or not, beg the inductive question to a reductive process, of questions.

Inducing some projective goal, should entail some objective progress toward settling these unsettling, irresolute quasi determinations.

My answer could or would be, yes, yes, yes, and then a combined and yet not combative answer or a restart: would You want to continue?

You don’ t even conditionally give an answer or, an explanation, and I will not draw inferences, from a definitive point of view.

This is not about a game ’ winners take all as far as I am concerned which I am., is not my necessary. game.

Which am i? In the same boat.

I think we’re done here. :sunglasses:

Ok You may be done, but certainly i can’t afford that luxury.
Certainly, a bonding agreement shows an unaffordable lack of commitment at the very least, at least from my existential frame of referential values.

Brother iambigious, we probably on the same side, nevertheless, as far as our fractures are considered.

youtu.be/QJ1LCrf4NYA

=D>

Fantastic commentary… spiffing, infact.

But seriously Biggy, do You ever stopped to think of ANY connections possible between the effected lack of a compensate trace between the ideologycal. vacuum left bereft after the fall of the USSR & what is happen ING today?

Irrespective of viral infection?

Can the dots be connected in any case?

As noted, until I get a clearer understanding from you of how your own sense of bring “fragmented” is or is not in sync with my own in regard to an issue like packing the court, I’m just not interested in what I construe to be intellectual gibberish of this sort. You began to seem coherent to me above [as I noted] but you did not sustain it.

Here again in regard to conflicting goods rooted in dasein and in political economy is how I encompass my own existential sense of being, of feeling “fractured and fragmented”:

And:

And you?

Of course, including me as well , in the set of those fractured.

But the main point can be expanded in the possible search between those fractured points that need to be enumerated, before they can be qualified as valid points.

And the examples, in fact Your primary one , of searching for the convective which belabors to fill. -the idea of the abortion issue- now become the central issue surrounding the hurried nomination of a conservative justice, shows an imperative,an essential point irrespective of the loss of ideological pre-eminence.

I hold to a position , that such a loss, may not be considered as futile and summarily irrevocable.

There remains,at least, a trace of hope.

More intellectual drivel. Unless of course it’s not.

In any event, I am out of here. No, really this time. #-o

Of course well noted, due to invariable loss of levels understood and connected.

As far as I am concerned , that loss, is acknowledged, and sustained. After all, whose forum is this, at any rate?

Nevertheless, there is no loss , presumed or otherwise, that a true scooter that can say of:

‘That which can not kill me, can make me stronger’