Meno: Peter, by now we can perhaps talk in a manner which befits friends. And that is, our conversation. Includes certain things we may have learned from ea h other. At one point in time when we were both going to Europe , we exchanged some items relating to our families , that of our relationship ships with our respective daughters, the substance of which escapes me, thank god perhaps because my recent memory has always been very deficient in terms of instant recall.
At any rate , the reason for this mention , is that I recall principles and not particulars, and as it happens to relate to our particular discussion here.
K: ok…
M: So it struck me , that the question. of recall may effectively block existential and teleological problems, in particular the recall of fetuses and ordinary experienced people , here in this context.
K: ummm, not sure exactly what you mean?
M: The big issue here, has to do with inherited and experienced types of mindsets, and this puts am entirely different spin on our conversation .
How can we assert without doubt that the genetic inheritance does not include large general neuron pathways, which pre form functions have to do with major decisions in later life, whether and irrespective to the stage of a human finds, or, is found to be determinate in his later development?
K: these question of “inherited or experienced mindset” as of right now, lies outside
of our knowledge… we cannot assume for or against…
M: Must the standard of Darwinian supposition preclude the mind as opposed to the brain function?
Darwin was shown to have undermined a very credible showing,neural adaptation as the primal function of.coding , as opposed to biological natural selection? : causing that particular Viennese biologist’s suicide.
K: not sure again what you mean?
M: So, what the fetus possesses in scripted neural pathways is not to say what the fetus ‘knows’ . but what he may come to know, if it is allowed to develop. If knowledge is qualified by what is signified as.conscious knowledge, then the objection has been properly summed into acceptable definition
Until then, we really do not know, even the minimum issue worth examining. that pertains to minimal understanding of a newborn child. There is no way as of yet to techno-interfere with living fetuses, although along the way,medical ethics objectively may overcome even that threshold.
K: You at least acknowledge the number of assumptions made in these two paragraphs…
I try to avoid assumptions… often failing…….
M: I’m glad You brought in Trumpism, for.there’s no way any one could guess the high degree of a higher sense of public acceptance to his ideas: easily showing a new higher collusion between the general public with Congress and the Judiciary.
A year ago , this could not be even imaginable
K: I try to connect my thoughts with current events/experiences…
M: The point taken fits Lambigous’ higher subjective notions, based on guesses that limits of tolerance to understanding may entail
These issues interface, and why not? They are philosophy, one’s perception perches on the high ground, another’s in the low, teleological AND/OR QM ( it primaryl logic)
K: once again, I admit to failing to understand what you are saying…
M: A sensible middle has not yet developed, although by the same token, they have perhaps been already neuro scripted.
K: this is not clear to me…
M: I want to answer Your next blog but since my blog and and Yours came through almost a.split minute apart, I’d rather edit my version rather than set up a faulty implication.
The Authority is suspect, because it can be scripted genetically, in many cases, and cannot be altered even with the aid of whatever: psychoanalysis, past life regression, or levels of experiencial gain of knowledge. It is not an either or logical acquisition, but an undifferentiated primal script, which can go either way.
[/quote]
K: people like to follow authority because it is far easier to follow someone else
then to take control over one’s life… it is easier to follow someone else because
then blame can be shifted to the authority instead of where it belongs, at one’s
doorstep…this is the battle of the Enlightenment all the way through
existentialism…taking responsibility for one’s life…often begins with
denying authority and seaching for oneself as what is the correct path to
follow…in part, in part, is why I reject god and the bible and any
religious authority… because to follow the authority of god or the bible
or of religion is to abdicate my own personal responsibility for my actions…
to follow god or the bible or the koran or any religion is to give that authority
the right of judgment over me…now, I am not going to even accept the
authority of biology to determine my actions… be it the programming I
have within me… be it mental or be it DNA…I am more then my programming…
to become fully human… one must rise above DNA or the genetic programming
we have… we must become more then our base lower level of behavior
that is let loose by IQ45… we are more then that… much more…
following authority is to follow the previously written script by others…
I will not do that…I would rather fail on my own terms then
succeed on other’s/authority terms…
that is why I am not a fan of programming or genetic DNA or
following authority… my success or failure lies with me…
not the authority…………
I view success far differently then other people…
I have never pursued money… I haven’t pursued titles or fame
or even love… love just sort of found me…….
my success and failure comes from my search for understanding
of the world and of understanding myself… which for Kierkegaard
and Nietzsche and Socrates was the same thing.
I record my findings and I post them here…
and that for me is success… I ask for nothing more…
just let me live long enough to understand who I am and
to understand the problem of existence…
Kropotkin