gabby, the truth is I thought you were asking me direct questions. Other times when I didn't respond thinking them to be rhetorical, you criticised me too.
I won’t feign being stupid nor not-stupid. That isn’t the immediate issue. Perhaps to help communication you could be more clear with what you say/ask. On Aug 29, 6:43 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Orn, I resist the temptation to post a link to a definition of rhetorical > question, because I assume you don't need me to tell you what this is. It > would help communication if you you would stop pretending to be stupid. > Thank you. > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:59 PM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Gabby, one can take the stance that anything is ‘conceivable’, even > > that one can know for sure what another person’s meanings are > > including the projection of masterplans. Or, that it is necessary to > > point out that people have differing views because one is sure that > > others are not so aware. > > > Obviously someone has ‘conceived’ these beliefs and couched them as > > questions for others to answer. > > > On Aug 29, 3:07 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hm. I see. Would it somehow be conceivable to you that your masterplan is > > > what it is, namely your masterplan? Which then would allow for the option > > of > > > you not understanding paradox'es meaning/intention? But I agree with you > > > that he could have written that his response was a continuation of your > > > exchange of worldviews in order to make it absolutely clear that he is > > not > > > you. > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:18 AM, ornamentalmind > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > "...Why would you not accept this > > > > semantics? " - gabby > > > > > Because it was not what I had intended. I fully accepted that his > > > > interpretation was his interpretation. And, as appears to be the case, > > > > he didn't understand my meaning/intention. The use of the term > > > > 'semantics' here implied that we both were using words in apparently > > > > different ways. > > > > > On Aug 28, 2:40 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hm, Orn. I thought paradox'es thought was quite appropriate in its > > > > > formulation. The "well of disillusionment" can also be seen as a > > > > complexity > > > > > reduction to one point. No depth, no up, only flat constructedness. > > The > > > > > point "where one begins to see things as they actually are" would > > then > > > > mean > > > > > shutting your eyes to the complexity of life. Why would you not > > accept > > > > this > > > > > semantics? > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:54 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > “Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have > > > > > > thought... “ – paradox > > > > > > > IF you somehow interpreted my having said “Relativism and > > > > > > deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the well of > > > > > > disillusionment.” as a call for blindness, nothing could be further > > > > > > from the truth. > > > > > > > Perhaps it is the semantics involved with the term > > ‘disillusionment’. > > > > > > If so, in an attempt at clarification, this term to me is fairly > > high > > > > > > up the ladder of levels of consciousness. In fact, it is very close > > to > > > > > > where one begins to see things as they actually are. The term > > itself > > > > > > means that one is no longer held by the trance of illusions. And, > > in > > > > > > this context, such a realization compared to how most people > > apprehend > > > > > > the world before reaching being disillusioned, can be quite painful > > – > > > > > > thus the reference to depths of a well. Here, even though such pain > > > > > > has always been part of the psyche; at this level, one who is > > ‘waking > > > > > > up’ is no longer anesthetized to their ego (illusion) pain… it is > > > > > > being felt quite strongly consciously for the first time. > > > > > > > So here, with the awareness of pain, one actually is able to begin > > to > > > > > > open one’s eyes metaphorically. > > > > > > > As an aside, Sartre’s novel, “Nausea”, is an example of the psyche > > > > > > reaching this particular level of consciousness. And, as most are > > > > > > aware, Jean-Paul was opening his eyes rather than closing them. > > Thus > > > > > > it can be said that this level of transition is where the awareness > > of > > > > > > the emptiness of life is quite acute. > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 10:57 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have > > > > > > > thought... > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 3:13 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Relativism and deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of > > the > > > > > > > > well of disillusionment. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois > > > > morality > > > > > > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. > > I > > > > take > > > > > > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To > > > > abandon > > > > > > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in > > practical > > > > > > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and > > 'low > > > > and > > > > > > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality > > and > > > > > > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be > > generally > > > > > > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in > > considering > > > > a > > > > > > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and > > wonder > > > > what > > > > > > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have > > any > > > > > > 'right' > > > > > > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman > > concerned > > > > > > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - > > that > > > > is > > > > > > > > > help with her distress. > > > > > > > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to > > 'free > > > > > > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved > > > > > > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') > > - > > > > one > > > > > > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on > > to > > > > > > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an > > > > > > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the > > answer > > > > > > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could > > > > replace > > > > > > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us > > with > > > > some > > > > > > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or > > the > > > > > > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we > > can > > > > be > > > > > > > > > in this sense. > > > > > > > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful > > > > review > > > > > > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good > > example > > > > would > > > > > > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold > > this > > > > > > view > > > > > > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. > > Yet > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that > > > > > > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on > > debt - > > > > even > > > > > > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from > > debt' > > > > and > > > > > > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in > > the > > > > > > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition > > of > > > > debt > > > > > > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not > > be. > > > > We > > > > > > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical > > about > > > > > > debt > > > > > > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding > > > > history. > > > > > > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at > > least > > > > in > > > > > > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, > > we > > > > could > > > > > > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better > > > > > > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of > > > > 'return' - > > > > > > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things > > > > through - > > > > > > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much > > 'morality' > > > > in > > > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at > > all. > > > > > > Makes > > > > > > > > > > a change huh! > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to > > kick > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable > > when > > > > you > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, > > but > > > > then > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, > > > > religion, > > > > > > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and > > > > expectations > > > > > > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work > > out > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. > > Anybody > > > > who > > > > > > thinks > > > > > > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking > > straight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of > > > > deity, > > > > > > and the > > > > > > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course > > religious > > > > faith > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? > > > > > > Culture does, > > > > > > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
