Again, note some specific examples. You thought one thing and then others come along able to persuade you to think something else instead.
Note particular instances of this: [b]Not the details so much as the ideas themselves — important ideas that were reconfigured.[/b]
As, for example, folks [and new experiences] came along reconfiguring my Christianity into Marxism into Leninism into Trotskyism into Democratic Socialism into Social Democracy into existentialism into nihilism.
Though [of course] once you acknowledge it, you are acknowledging in turn that it may well happen again. That there are other ideas you have here and now just waiting for someone to come along and reconfigure.
But let’s be clear…
Are you in fact acknowledging that RM/AO is not the optimal or the only rational manner in which to grasp human interactions out in a particular world?
That new experiences and new relationships and new sources of knowledge/information etc., may well come along in your life and change it?
Which is basically my own frame of mind here.
Also, as I note with Prism, is there or is there not a gap [large or small] between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the existence of Existence itself in order make that gap go away?
Is there even a small possiblity that RM/AO is just one more run of the mill psychological contraption that allows you to subsume “I” in but one more run of the mill rendition of Certainty.
Certainty on this side of the grave intertwined somehow in your head with the Real God on the other side of it.
And I have changed the words that I use on rare occasion. I realized that “RM” was not the ontology as much as the method for designing the ontology, thus it became “RM/AO” instead of just “RM”. FC helped me with the wording of “self-harmony” as being more to the point than just “harmony”. I don’t use “SAM corporation” now merely because people associate it with those evil money hogging imperialists, but rather “SAM Co-op”.
But this is still basically just an intellectual contraption. How is it actually relevant to the many, many moral and political conflicts that are engaged right here at ILP? Between, among others, the conservatives and the liberals.
How, for example, would you connect the dots between RM/AO and the policies of Donald Trump?
Are you ever really willing to bring the “definitional logic” embedded in these epistemological contraptions out into the world of our day to day interactions?
[b]Note to others:
Sure, maybe he has done so. I don’t read all of his posts. Note particular examples that he has conveyed regarding RM/AO’s pertinence to the is/ought world.[/b]
But of course what you and many don’t get is that once you have done that for quite a while, doubting yourself in constructive ways, you eventually find that there is hardly anything left to doubt. And that is what bothers you so very much. You want everyone to be as frightened with self-doubt as yourself.
Sure, given the sheer complexity of human psychology in a world bursting at the seams with all those equally complex interactions between genes and memes, it’s certainly possible that you have come closer to encompassing me than I have to encompassing you.
We can only allow others here to make up their own minds about that.
And, indeed, on this side of the grave, I am [here and now] still hopelessly entangled in my dilemma. And far, far, far removed from the comfort and the consolation that comes with Certainty. And, yes, it can be rather frightening when you have “succeeded” in thinking yourself into believing that we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends for all of eternity in the obliteration of “I”.
You got me there. That is what I have managed to think myself into believing is probably true regarding the “human condiditon”.
But I still speculate in turn that what “frightens” objectivists of your ilk is that before you manage to drag me up out of the hole that I have dug myself into, I will somehow manage to drag you down into it with me.
Still, that doesn’t make either one of our own contraptions here any less problematic. At least not until someone is able to actually demonstrate conclusively that what they think Reality is, is in fact what Reality is.
In other words, not just in their heads.