meno and iambiguous discuss...

[iambiguous]

...what this means:

Ambig:

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

This is why most of us, including You and me, safe as fractured as can be

Given a particular set of circumstances.

How about this: Should the Democrats pack the Supreme Court to thwart what some call, "minority rule for a generation"?

In which he also explains why You [me] is always capitalized.

[MagsJ]

My, aren’t you in demand. ; )

[Meno_]

...what this means:

Ambig:

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

This is why most of us, including You and me, safe as fractured as can be

Given a particular set of circumstances.

How about this: Should the Democrats pack the Supreme Court to thwart what some call, "minority rule for a generation"?

In which he also explains why You [me] is always capitalized.

Good one, fits Your criteria of a deductive-down to earth conversation


Hope You can estimate that inducements spell open ended variability and conjecture
We could take a tripartate stance of arguability, , right, left, and non comityaly neutral, with such distinctions changing persona.

This proposal not conditional as to convey the impression that persona or party affiliation may not changed midcourse and so far exactly 3 people- MagsJ. You and me appear primafily, initially fill such bill okay then if you agree to these terms say aye

Format, open ended discussion not within bounds of moral. or immortal considerations

[Meno_]

meno- understood says aye

[iambiguous]

...what this means:

Ambig:

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

This is why most of us, including You and me, safe as fractured as can be

Given a particular set of circumstances.

How about this: Should the Democrats pack the Supreme Court to thwart what some call, "minority rule for a generation"?

In which he also explains why You [me] is always capitalized.

Good one, fits Your criteria of a deductive-down to earth conversation


Hope You can estimate that inducements spell open ended variability and conjecture
We could take a tripartate stance of arguability, , right, left, and non comityaly neutral, with such distinctions changing persona.

This proposal not conditional as to convey the impression that persona or party affiliation may not changed midcourse and so far exactly 3 people- MagsJ. You and me appear primafily, initially fill such bill okay then if you agree to these terms say aye

Format, open ended discussion not within bounds of moral. or immortal considerations

Nope, still don't know what it means. Try again. Or choose your own context.

[Meno_]

To begin with just a general format on no time restrictions between postings as right now I'm pressed for time thanks

But as an after thought, this nterchange appears to have promise to come to terms on the level ascribed to .by all three of us, if, MargsJ is interested, or any one else


This context will do well:


"How about this: Should the Democrats pack the Supreme Court to thwart what some call, "minority rule for a generation"?"

peripheral level forging ahead toward inward, found some time to begin discussion, .

whether what packing the court of not, rising to some assumed level of understanding, in a famous Reganesque ' trickle down manner' is a question of the level of mudslinging either padty wants to engaged in, well knowing that so much mud is an invitation to retort on a like manner.

Subterfuge, such as inviting public belief of more clean fights at the expense of seeing relative dirt on the othdr, may of may not work out in the current vogue.

Testing the waters that will bring out dirt in the wash, can only proceed until a certain cycled or recycled wash has been amptly been analyzed, and put into some practical organized pattern.

The question of a well weathered and dried constituant group benefits in what You would call a contextual effectant, simulates that detsrgent's practical use, by images laud down and branded by such biggies in advertising as ' Mr Clean'

The image of a , virginally colored man, spotless and morally
beyond reproach, is a symbol of purity only the disadvantaged colorblind could not fathom.

How else but politically advantageous manners of control through stereotipical naiveté not get.

The moralistic majority need not wordy about an immortal afterlife, because they are having so much fun gaining power over the minority with such minimum of investment in terms of other than the production, marketing and sales of the human soul.

To befit the question as to which party do such productions and reproductions benifit, that is as ambiguous as any other cross cultural narrative.

[MagsJ]

This proposal not conditional as to convey the impression that persona or party affiliation may not changed midcourse and so far exactly 3 people- MagsJ. You and me appear primafily, initially fill such bill okay then if you agree to these terms say aye

Aye?

I’ll just participate, as and when mood dictates..

[iambiguous]

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

This is why most of us, including You and me, safe as fractured as can be

Here's the context I choose for you to explain what you mean by that:

Should the Democrats pack the Supreme Court to thwart what some call, "minority rule for a generation"?

To which you responded:

This context will do well:


"How about this: Should the Democrats pack the Supreme Court to thwart what some call, "minority rule for a generation"?"

peripheral level forging ahead toward inward, found some time to begin discussion, .

whether what packing the court of not, rising to some assumed level of understanding, in a famous Reganesque ' trickle down manner' is a question of the level of mudslinging either padty wants to engaged in, well knowing that so much mud is an invitation to retort on a like manner.

Subterfuge, such as inviting public belief of more clean fights at the expense of seeing relative dirt on the othdr, may of may not work out in the current vogue.

Testing the waters that will bring out dirt in the wash, can only proceed until a certain cycled or recycled wash has been amptly been analyzed, and put into some practical organized pattern.

The question of a well weathered and dried constituant group benefits in what You would call a contextual effectant, simulates that detsrgent's practical use, by images laud down and branded by such biggies in advertising as ' Mr Clean'

The image of a , virginally colored man, spotless and morally
beyond reproach, is a symbol of purity only the disadvantaged colorblind could not fathom.

How else but politically advantageous manners of control through stereotipical naiveté not get.

I'm still entirely uncertain regarding what that has to do with this:

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

This is why most of us, including You and me, safe as fractured as can be

Note to others:

If his points are clearer to you in regard to liberals packing the Supreme Court, please attempt to reconfigure what you think he is saying such that if you were in a room filled with both liberals and conservatives, they would grasp the extent to which his point is more favorable to one rather than another set of political prejudices. Or, for the objectivists among us, axiomatic truths.

[Ecmandu]

As an objectivist...

People calling themselves liberal or conservatives are too stupid to vote and too stupid to sit on that bench.

Even if you call yourself an independent ... you’re still to stupid to sit on that bench.

There are a lot of things we haven’t solved axiomatically ... but at a basic minimum, we should uphold and defend the stuff that we have solved already.

[Meno_]

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

This is why most of us, including You and me, safe as fractured as can be

Here's the context I choose for you to explain what you mean by that:

Should the Democrats pack the Supreme Court to thwart what some call, "minority rule for a generation"?

To which you responded:

This context will do well:


"How about this: Should the Democrats pack the Supreme Court to thwart what some call, "minority rule for a generation"?"

peripheral level forging ahead toward inward, found some time to begin discussion, .

whether what packing the court of not, rising to some assumed level of understanding, in a famous Reganesque ' trickle down manner' is a question of the level of mudslinging either padty wants to engaged in, well knowing that so much mud is an invitation to retort on a like manner.

Subterfuge, such as inviting public belief of more clean fights at the expense of seeing relative dirt on the othdr, may of may not work out in the current vogue.

Testing the waters that will bring out dirt in the wash, can only proceed until a certain cycled or recycled wash has been amptly been analyzed, and put into some practical organized pattern.

The question of a well weathered and dried constituant group benefits in what You would call a contextual effectant, simulates that detsrgent's practical use, by images laud down and branded by such biggies in advertising as ' Mr Clean'

The image of a , virginally colored man, spotless and morally
beyond reproach, is a symbol of purity only the disadvantaged colorblind could not fathom.

How else but politically advantageous manners of control through stereotipical naiveté not get.

I'm still entirely uncertain regarding what that has to do with this:

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

This is why most of us, including You and me, safe as fractured as can be

Note to others:

If his points are clearer to you in regard to liberals packing the Supreme Court, please attempt to reconfigure what you think he is saying such that if you were in a room filled with both liberals and conservatives, they would grasp the extent to which his point is more favorable to one rather than another set of political prejudices. Or, for the objectivists among us, axiomatic truths.

Surprised that a reductive process of alliteration of substextual deduction brings to You and me, both fractured, a compelling choice between the one or another.Doesent Surprise You, especially , as it seems like , we both sit on the same side of the bench.

But You know this by now, since I expressed this. at multifold, numerous times.

[Meno_]

Biggy said ,


"If his points are clearer to you in regard to liberals packing the Supreme Court, please attempt to reconfigure what you think he is saying such that if you were in a room filled with both liberals and conservatives, they would grasp the extent to which his point is more favorable to one rather than another set of political prejudices. Or, for the objectivists among us, axiomatic truths."


Biggy, obviously the others You are calling upon to give their opinion , are not rushing in. Instead, can I ask You what don't You get from what I said?

I know I promised You to come across in a more straightforward manner, and am assuring You my constant attention to my promised .


So Biggie, and by lets try to work out our differences in communication, as they relate to this admittedly interesting issue. I am ready to go.

[Meno_]

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

This is why most of us, including You and me, safe as fractured as can be

Here's the context I choose for you to explain what you mean by that:

Should the Democrats pack the Supreme Court to thwart what some call, "minority rule for a generation"?

To which you responded:

This context will do well:


"How about this: Should the Democrats pack the Supreme Court to thwart what some call, "minority rule for a generation"?"

peripheral level forging ahead toward inward, found some time to begin discussion, .

whether what packing the court of not, rising to some assumed level of understanding, in a famous Reganesque ' trickle down manner' is a question of the level of mudslinging either padty wants to engaged in, well knowing that so much mud is an invitation to retort on a like manner.

Subterfuge, such as inviting public belief of more clean fights at the expense of seeing relative dirt on the othdr, may of may not work out in the current vogue.

Testing the waters that will bring out dirt in the wash, can only proceed until a certain cycled or recycled wash has been amptly been analyzed, and put into some practical organized pattern.

The question of a well weathered and dried constituant group benefits in what You would call a contextual effectant, simulates that detsrgent's practical use, by images laud down and branded by such biggies in advertising as ' Mr Clean'

The image of a , virginally colored man, spotless and morally
beyond reproach, is a symbol of purity only the disadvantaged colorblind could not fathom.

How else but politically advantageous manners of control through stereotipical naiveté not get.

I'm still entirely uncertain regarding what that has to do with this:

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

This is why most of us, including You and me, safe as fractured as can be

Note to others:

If his points are clearer to you in regard to liberals packing the Supreme Court, please attempt to reconfigure what you think he is saying such that if you were in a room filled with both liberals and conservatives, they would grasp the extent to which his point is more favorable to one rather than another set of political prejudices. Or, for the objectivists among us, axiomatic truths.

Surprised that a reductive process of alliteration of substextual deduction brings to You and me, both fractured, a compelling choice between the one or another.Doesent Surprise You, especially , as it seems like , we both sit on the same side of the bench.

But You know this by now, since I expressed this. at multifold, numerous times.

So here is another way to put what I said
-


Bringing down . to grass roots, where most , constituants do think in terms of black and white, ( literally and otherwise ( go figure) .......

these constituants- demand a rigorous correspondence between what they consider to be their bedrock reality ( the. reality guaranteed by the constitution, and it's priported varience.

This variability can not be brought down, to earth of anywhere else, because , and this is the thing, the constitutive make up of society. in an increasingly diverse society on a shrinking empire, is economically not feasable .


The judicial is becoming less black letter, tending to have gone more liberal these last 40 or so years, so the conservatives naturally up at arms.

This is one interpretation of showing the. fracture being primarily a moral one, not that there are other axes to grind.


A more figurative mode of looking at ow political grass roots return would and could not jive with the real-politik of today, is that such a process would return to a Reagan type truckle down, in both senses.

To configure that, as Your charge indicates is devoid if common sensed analysis, in terms of both traditional / conventional & liberal -freudian economic. Interpretations.

Both.


The subtextual reduction, justifies the conditions set above, that MarsJ' sparticipation would involve a tripartate approach, especially since the objection was a matter of context.

[iambiguous]

Sudpdisd that a reductive process of alliteration of substextual deduction brings to You and me, both fractured, to compelling to choiss between the one or another, doesent Sudpdisd You, especially , as it seems like , we both sit on the same side of the bench.

But You , of coursed know this by now, since I expressed this multifold numerous times.

Anyone else willing to take a stab at it?

Again, you're confronting those who want to pack the court with liberals and those who will be quite content to attain and then sustain a 6 to 3 conservative majority.

You argue that...

"But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception."

And...

"...peripheral level forging ahead toward inward, found some time to begin discussion, .

"whether what packing the court of not, rising to some assumed level of understanding, in a famous Reganesque ' trickle down manner' is a question of the level of mudslinging either padty wants to engaged in, well knowing that so much mud is an invitation to retort on a like manner.

"Subterfuge, such as inviting public belief of more clean fights at the expense of seeing relative dirt on the othdr, may of may not work out in the current vogue.

"Testing the waters that will bring out dirt in the wash, can only proceed until a certain cycled or recycled wash has been amptly been analyzed, and put into some practical organized pattern.

"The question of a well weathered and dried constituant group benefits in what You would call a contextual effectant, simulates that detsrgent's practical use, by images laud down and branded by such biggies in advertising as ' Mr Clean'

"The image of a , virginally colored man, spotless and morally
beyond reproach, is a symbol of purity only the disadvantaged colorblind could not fathom.

"How else but politically advantageous manners of control through stereotipical naiveté not get."

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.

But, again, I still have no idea what your own point of view is here if you were confronting those on both sides here curious to know what side you are on. Or, if on neither side or both sides [like me] what your "for all practical purposes" reasoning is.

In fact, I'm still not convinced that your contributions to philosophical exchanges here are not all just tongue in cheek. Intellectual gibberish to expose the pedants among us.

[Meno_]

Sudpdisd that a reductive process of alliteration of substextual deduction brings to You and me, both fractured, to compelling to choiss between the one or another, doesent Sudpdisd You, especially , as it seems like , we both sit on the same side of the bench.

But You , of coursed know this by now, since I expressed this multifold numerous times.

Anyone else willing to take a stab at it?

Again, you're confronting those who want to pack the court with liberals and those who will be quite content to attain and then sustain a 6 to 3 conservative majority.

You argue that...

"But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception."

And...

"...peripheral level forging ahead toward inward, found some time to begin discussion, .

"whether what packing the court of not, rising to some assumed level of understanding, in a famous Reganesque ' trickle down manner' is a question of the level of mudslinging either padty wants to engaged in, well knowing that so much mud is an invitation to retort on a like manner.

"Subterfuge, such as inviting public belief of more clean fights at the expense of seeing relative dirt on the othdr, may of may not work out in the current vogue.

"Testing the waters that will bring out dirt in the wash, can only proceed until a certain cycled or recycled wash has been amptly been analyzed, and put into some practical organized pattern.

"The question of a well weathered and dried constituant group benefits in what You would call a contextual effectant, simulates that detsrgent's practical use, by images laud down and branded by such biggies in advertising as ' Mr Clean'

"The image of a , virginally colored man, spotless and morally
beyond reproach, is a symbol of purity only the disadvantaged colorblind could not fathom.

"How else but politically advantageous manners of control through stereotipical naiveté not get."

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.

But, again, I still have no idea what your own point of view is here if you were confronting those on both sides here curious to know what side you are on. Or, if on neither side or both sides [like me] what your "for all practical purposes" reasoning is.

In fact, I'm still not convinced that your contributions to philosophical exchanges here are not all just tongue in cheek. Intellectual gibberish to expose the pedants among us.

You may have overlooked this;



"So here is another way to put what I said
-


Bringing down . to grass roots, where most , constituants do think in terms of black and white, ( literally and otherwise ( go figure) .......

these constituants- demand a rigorous correspondence between what they consider to be their bedrock reality ( the. reality guaranteed by the constitution, and it's priported varience.

This variability can not be brought down, to earth of anywhere else, because , and this is the thing, the constitutive make up of society. in an increasingly diverse society on a shrinking empire, is economically not feasable .


The judicial is becoming less black letter, tending to have gone more liberal these last 40 or so years, so the conservatives naturally up at arms.

This is one interpretation of showing the. fracture being primarily a moral one, not that there are other axes to grind.


A more figurative mode of looking at ow political grass roots return would and could not jive with the real-politik of today, is that such a process would return to a Reagan type truckle down, in both senses.

To configure that, as Your charge indicates is devoid if common sensed analysis, in terms of both traditional / conventional & liberal -freudian economic. Interpretations.

Both.


The subtextual reduction, justifies the conditions set above, that MarsJ' sparticipation would involve a tripartate approach, especially since the objection was a matter of context.
Reply with quote
Re: meno "

[Meno_]

Sudpdisd that a reductive process of alliteration of substextual deduction brings to You and me, both fractured, to compelling to choiss between the one or another, doesent Sudpdisd You, especially , as it seems like , we both sit on the same side of the bench.

But You , of coursed know this by now, since I expressed this multifold numerous times.

Anyone else willing to take a stab at it?

Again, you're confronting those who want to pack the court with liberals and those who will be quite content to attain and then sustain a 6 to 3 conservative majority.

You argue that...

"But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception."

And...

"...peripheral level forging ahead toward inward, found some time to begin discussion, .

"whether what packing the court of not, rising to some assumed level of understanding, in a famous Reganesque ' trickle down manner' is a question of the level of mudslinging either padty wants to engaged in, well knowing that so much mud is an invitation to retort on a like manner.

"Subterfuge, such as inviting public belief of more clean fights at the expense of seeing relative dirt on the othdr, may of may not work out in the current vogue.

"Testing the waters that will bring out dirt in the wash, can only proceed until a certain cycled or recycled wash has been amptly been analyzed, and put into some practical organized pattern.

"The question of a well weathered and dried constituant group benefits in what You would call a contextual effectant, simulates that detsrgent's practical use, by images laud down and branded by such biggies in advertising as ' Mr Clean'

"The image of a , virginally colored man, spotless and morally
beyond reproach, is a symbol of purity only the disadvantaged colorblind could not fathom.

"How else but politically advantageous manners of control through stereotipical naiveté not get."

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.

But, again, I still have no idea what your own point of view is here if you were confronting those on both sides here curious to know what side you are on. Or, if on neither side or both sides [like me] what your "for all practical purposes" reasoning is.

In fact, I'm still not convinced that your contributions to philosophical exchanges here are not all just tongue in cheek. Intellectual gibberish to expose the pedants among us.

You may have overlooked this;



"So here is another way to put what I said
-


Bringing down . to grass roots, where most , constituants do think in terms of black and white, ( literally and otherwise ( go figure) .......

these constituants- demand a rigorous correspondence between what they consider to be their bedrock reality ( the. reality guaranteed by the constitution, and it's priported varience.

This variability can not be brought down, to earth of anywhere else, because , and this is the thing, the constitutive make up of society. in an increasingly diverse society on a shrinking empire, is economically not feasable .


The judicial is becoming less black letter, tending to have gone more liberal these last 40 or so years, so the conservatives naturally up at arms.

This is one interpretation of showing the. fracture being primarily a moral one, not that there are other axes to grind.


A more figurative mode of looking at ow political grass roots return would and could not jive with the real-politik of today, is that such a process would return to a Reagan type truckle down, in both senses.

To configure that, as Your charge indicates is devoid if common sensed analysis, in terms of both traditional / conventional & liberal -freudian economic. Interpretations.

Both.


The subtextual reduction, justifies the conditions set above, that MagsJ' participation would involve a tripartate approach, esecially since the objection was a matter of context.
Reply with quote
Re: meno "



I think Your analysis is correct in terms of the peripherally defined onto-logical observation suggests. However, from the point of view, of designated das-sein is concerned there appears the fragmentive conjectural problem surrounding the definitive, or definitional subset,

In a relational sense rather then the topicality of a fragmented self as inscribed rather then circumscribed

That implies a kind of self fragmented process that demands a sustained interpretation , involving the modus of relating such within it's own self valuing

[iambiguous]

In conclusion...

I think Your analysis is correct in terms of the peripherally defined onto-logical observation suggests. However, from the point of view, of designated das-sein is concerned there appears the fragmentive conjectural problem surrounding the definitive, or definitional subset,

In a relational sense rather then the topicality of a fragmented self as inscribed rather then circumscribed

That implies a kind of self fragmented process that demands a sustained interpretation , involving the modus of relating such within it's own self valuing

I can only leave it to others to translate this into an argument that they feel addresses my points above.

At least make the attempt to explain why in your own opinion this is not a self-conscious attempt on his part to expose the intellectual gibberish that does pass for "serious philosophy" among some here.

Sure, I'll be the first to admit it all revolves instead around my own lack of sophistication in grasping the technical foundations of philosophy.

So, by all means, let's go there in regard to packing the Supreme Court.

[Meno_]

In conclusion...

I think Your analysis is correct in terms of the peripherally defined onto-logical observation suggests. However, from the point of view, of designated das-sein is concerned there appears the fragmentive conjectural problem surrounding the definitive, or definitional subset,

In a relational sense rather then the topicality of a fragmented self as inscribed rather then circumscribed

That implies a kind of self fragmented process that demands a sustained interpretation , involving the modus of relating such within it's own self valuing

I can only leave it to others to translate this into an argument that they feel addresses my points above.

At least make the attempt to explain why in your own opinion this is not a self-conscious attempt on his part to expose the intellectual gibberish that does pass for "serious philosophy" among some here.

Sure, I'll be the first to admit it all revolves instead around my own lack of sophistication in grasping the technical foundations of philosophy.

So, by all means, let's go there in regard to packing the Supreme Court.

Biggy,



The very sign of fragmentation on the very lowest peripheral understand in is to disassociate ' serious' and 'disconcerted or not serious " philosophy.

Why not just say, philosophy is pholosophy,apart but a part of. inquiry in general.

That would IN It's Self, be a venereal description of Das Sein


Then instead appearing to go along without a deconstructed state that individually reduces the symbolic structure into a collection , at tries to elevate said state into the intentionality which supports itself through increasing subtlety and through works in progress.

I m with You not against, for instance in demonstrating that tribalism and colonialism move in opposite ways, but they are similar in ways that appear to defy logic.

The problem with the seeming irreconcilability is inter Al to structural significance which can only be utilized but not denied.
.In a new world order situation , relying upon the onslought of rapid process made in communication and information technology, shortcuts are constantly generated to take up the slacks which bubble within the would be generated mass.

The mass is, of course the mass of people who gain understanding of the many information. gaps which have taken thousand year gaps, time passages that could digest a natural menu of fed political, , psychological and social regimen.

But that diet has been enriched by a reduced and shallower out method of information acquisition, which entail reductive methods of thining out symbolic-neural- linguistic levels of communication.

That was the gest of the argument presented in a significant new left work" 'The One Dimensional Man'

What happened to liberalism of today? You can comment on Your theais, without considering the connect between the substance of today's liberalism and the dynamism with which the New Left reacted to the expansion of political central conventional aythirity; essentiality with the moral imperives You inscribe. ..

out symbolic levels, the charge of definitional spoonfeeding may become a credible charge, as within the realms of nominal understanding, a child has to abide with facing the increasingly complex world.

On the level of tribalism, participation mystique plays a clear role in determening the sharing of power earned by the more priximally related factors that enter into related conceptual levels of understanding , and the quick fix general understanding that Western man's more individualistic orientation -initially presents a stark contrast to the more dispersing e understanding of what relevance consists of.

The consistency of Constitutional matters, matter distingualky to these divisive ways if interpretation without
a das ein,, toward a designed, intended socially integrated whole, that invariably and schematically takes on an affronting posture against the bubbly mass of topical , yet undeniably lacking social terrain.


The polemics of dictators fail that test, and that test failing presents a goulish spectacle of decolonizing verbatum, methodically in accord with the hope that such shallownes, as described above, can be overcomy by the mass dealization, that time remains ING does not accord the lead inv , except by this fragmented, rote imitative learning using optical facilitation to best advantage.

The Supreme Court packing which advances of disad Andes one vies over the other, the question arises, pits authority loved human rights.

Should people be awarded more or less moral latitude, of should they be squeezed back into oriod formative control models?

Do the even have power to overcome the economic hurdles beset today , over in the classic sense that Heidegger's tried to formulate after Kant left him/ then in the lurch?

An TAOISM, of the more cruel Zen,- according to some here, take up the slack?

[iambiguous]

Biggy,



The very sign of fragmentation on the very lowest peripheral understand in is to disassociate ' serious' and 'disconcerted or not serious " philosophy.

Why not just say, philosophy is pholosophy,apart but a part of. inquiry in general.

That would IN It's Self, be a venereal description of Das Sein

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..

[Meno_]

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 .

[iambiguous]

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.

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:

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

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.

I noted above why "I" am fractured and fragmented here:

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.

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

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 .

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.

[Meno_]

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.

[iambiguous]

"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.

Okay, let's focus in on this.

How is that applicable to this:

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

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:

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.

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:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

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

[Meno_]

"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.

Okay, let's focus in on this.

How is that applicable to this:

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

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:

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.

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:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

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.

[iambiguous]

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

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's decision , when and if she feels like joining in, need not be rushed.

That's the sorry stats that i can accommodates my own, particular situation, I find myself in my daily routines.

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...

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.

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

Back to square one and then some.

[Meno_]

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.