Has it ever occurred to you that the referent for “that” can be infinite?
And does not every that short of that that exist within a context with a background, and if we look at that background, and the background to that background, do we not in time wind up with infinity again?
I have no idea what I am saying, but that has never stopped me before.
My comment: I understand VERY well the comforts of abstraction in chaotic situations. If you can find that wavelength, stress actually makes you more effective.
What it also does, though, is split your persona into the emotional part and the logical part. Granting at the outset that no good answer is possible, it is tempting to wonder if Wittgenstein died prematurely due to unprocessed emotions, and the solitude they necessitated.
Corrolary: Goodness seeks relative stability in motion; evil absolute stability in stasis.
The point I wanted to make, though, is that America has succeeded in large measure because her people are mostly honest, which in turn is a result of generalized religiosity. It might be a funny way to put it, but particularly in the early days Americans put their religion front row and center, much like the Tibetans did until recently, and still do in their diaspora, apparently. We were founded FOR the free practice of religion. That was the point, that was the dominant life concern of a great many of our early settlers.
And that early piety put us in a much better place than, say, Mexico, which could be wealthy, but which is inhabited by Mexicans. Yes, I said that. Anyone who wants to compare and contrast their history with our own, please post a comment. Happy to do it.
Thus, the entire success of our experiment has rested, historically, on something which is fading. Certainly, religiosity fares much better here than overseas, but it is under determined assault by nihilists.
I have said in the past that our Constitution is the most perfect political document ever created, and nearly perfect, except that it failed to put checks on the Supreme Court.
But the civil basis of OPERATING the Constitution, of operating the wheels of government, is highly flawed in its premise. Here is my thought: Christianity is not universalizable. It is a parochial doctrine, which we cannot count on all people adhering to. Given this, the moral basis of our nation is on, and has always been on, shaky ground.
What we need is a “scientific” morality, by which I mean one which people will adopt willingly in large numbers, because it works for their parochial aims of personal and communal happiness. Socialism claims to be that doctrine, but obviously it is not, for many many reasons which I have repeatedly examined at length.
Something like my conception of Goodness would serve this purpose, though. What we need is a revival which can include not only Christians, but ALL Americans, which works to cultivate sincere tolerance, sincere civic engagement, and meaningful Goodness.
Rambling again. Just did a hard workout so I’m a bit punchy, but wanted to put this out there.
I was doing Lumosity just a few seconds ago, and it is funny that when I am really doing well, strong emotions come up, old blockages. There is something in me which all my life has put the brakes on, has prevented me from fully expressing myself, from working in a sober and diligent way for long term successes.
And that something is fading. I cannot describe how difficult some of these emotions are to process, but it is very much like a case of indigestion you know will pass.
It is not my intention to be a psychological exhibitionist, but it is my conviction that our society has become used to dealing in trifles, used to using the countless distractions mass society has made available to avoid processing deep feelings, so I want to be one person saying that it is both possible and NECESSARY.
And I did want to generalize this thing. I am of course well aware of projection, but do think that people are introspective and habitually honest can largely take it into account.
And I do think in some ways I look at Sartre as someone I could have been, with only a slightly different temperament. Perhaps atheism alone would have done it.
And I don’t mean to say I have his talent. Candidly, other than my knowledge that he was a rock star in his time, I have no way of assessing how intelligent his work was.
What I can say is it was not apparently USEFUL for substantially anyone, which is my own way of measuring actual talent. I will say that by my own criteria, an average carpenter is much more useful to the world–much more functionally intelligent, much more to be admired–than an intellectual who makes things WORSE. That is the equivalent of building a structure which falls over the first time it is used, and then blaming the lumber. It is mediocrity, nothing more, or less, no matter how apparently intelligent otherwise, no matter how effectively those masses of words sopped up the excess cerebrations of equally mediocre human beings.
I was thinking today about how different our world would be if in the middle of our culture, our elites were working hard at cultivating Goodness, at cultivating ACTUAL love, ACTUAL compassion, ACTUAL empathy, and ACTUAL correlation between stated goals and chosen means.
As I have said, Goodness in my view consists in large measure in learning how to see the world as it is, with a sincere desire both to learn how to be happy oneself, and to support other people in their own efforts to build their own happiness. It consists in wishing others well, sincerely.
How valued is sincere perception in our world? Not very, in my view.
In the case of Nausea, it is the recognition, on an emotional level, that something very wrong, very horrible was done, which cannot be integrated into any narrative which does not presuppose the inclusion of evil, which does not requite connecting with evil, with seeing the harm people are capable of doing to one another, on a deep emotional level.
With regard to Sartre, can we not assume his embrace of Stalinism, of mass death and torture, of slavery, and mass poverty, was not made necessary by his own failure to deal with his own psychological ghosts? By his encounter with Nausea, and decision to consider it a defining attribute of “authenticity”, and not a sort of illness, a relic of the past to be processed and disposed of?
Things to do. This came out differently than I intended, but the thing will circle around. I’ll continue later.
For my part, I decided after the San Francisco/Seahawks game that not only was I not going to watch the Superbowl, I’m giving up on the NFL. I may change my mind, but the refereeing in that game made, to my mind, only one conclusion possible: the system is corrupt.
My logic is simple. When you have BLATANTLY bad calls made, one after the other, when the referees are clearly not incompetent, clearly seasoned, clearly not blind, clearly capable of calling a game cleanly, and when there is no high level public censure for consistently favoring one team over another, then the SYSTEM–not those refs, but the SYSTEM, is corrupt.
I read the NFL is around a $10 BILLION business. Do you think there are not at times pressures placed on refs and even coaches and players to reach one outcome and not another?
Clearly, Kaepernick and his team played their hearts out, but somewhere in the 3rd Quarter, apparently before yet ANOTHER bad call, I gave up on the game. I left the bar I was watching it in.
I counted 2 Personal Foul penalties that were patent bullshit, a personal foul on a 49’s punt returner that was NOT called, in which he was clothes lined, and then facemasked ON THE GROUND, causing his helmet to come off, a reception and fumble caused by the ground (“the ground cannot cause a fumble”) that was called an incomplete pass, two BLATANT intentional grounding calls that were not made (Here is the rule), and one roughing the kicker penalty not called, that was so blatant HE TWISTED HIS DAMN ANKLE. Here is the verbiage on that.
And as I mentioned, there were apparently bad calls after that, all or substantially all favoring the Seahawks.
Again, I want to be clear: bad refereeing happens, but it does NOT happen in high level NFL games called by seasoned professionals. The ONLY conclusion possible, to my mind, is that the game was intentionally skewed to the Seahawks, which vaguely nauseates me, makes me feel yet more doubt about the future of our nation, and certainly causes me to doubt the integrity of the NFL as a whole. I’ve never seen anything like it, other than a couple blatantly bad calls against Green Bay in the Super Bowl where they played the Steelers.
The whole things reminds me this is a for-profit business, one that I henceforth will NOT support in any way.
What would prevent ANY law firm from providing the same service? Why not get the contract ratified by a priest–before God, if you will, according to your inclination–and then sign a contract that is spelled out in whatever form the partners agree too, and which only touches the State to the extent that it enforces the contract when one party or both balk.
This would eliminate COMPLETELY the debate over gay marriage. The whole thing, in any event, really revolves around government benefits for same-sex couples, and not over some alleged wrong being otherwise committed. They can get married NOW in all churches which allow it, and they can negotiate NOW any form of contractual commitment they want.
As far as government, it can simply recognize contracts as they are presented. Given that benefits are a part of compensation, the total package can be adjusted up or down such that people who are not married are not paid less, and people who are married are not paid more. My concern is not that gay spouses are placed on government benefits rolls, but rather that the rolls are expanded past their already bloated, indefensible, and unsustainable current size.
This is fair, which is an overused, but still occasionally useful word.
I’d be fine with this arrangement.