meno and iambiguous discuss...

[Meno_]

Now, in our devolved state, that is dependent on international investment, we cannot but set an epoche-or context , within which . not merely the economic welfare of that nation prevails, but that of it's own survival.

So the old game played of who is on second of third deceives no one.


It is a game of Russian Roulette using a gun with 2 instead of 1 bullet played . twice
That is the context that our ' devolution' caused in the certainty of our survival

[iambiguous]

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.

This could not possibly be further removed from the assessment that I am looking for here.

Though, sure, that may well be a reflection more of my failure than yours.

You can try again or not.

[Meno_]

Biggy says:


"Though, sure, that may well be a reflection more of my failure than yours.

You can try again or not.


Failure or not, my fault or Yours, try again or not, beg the inductive question to a reductive process, of questions.

Inducing some projective goal, should entail some objective progress toward settling these unsettling, irresolute quasi determinations.


My answer could or would be, yes, yes, yes, and then a combined and yet not combative answer or a restart: would You want to continue?

You don' t even conditionally give an answer or, an explanation, and I will not draw inferences, from a definitive point of view.

This is not about a game ' winners take all as far as I am concerned which I am., is not my necessary. game.

Which am i? In the same boat.

[iambiguous]

Biggy says:


"Though, sure, that may well be a reflection more of my failure than yours.

You can try again or not.


Failure or not, my fault or Yours, try again or not, beg the inductive question to a reductive process, of questions.

Inducing some projective goal, should entail some objective progress toward settling these unsettling, irresolute quasi determinations.


My answer could or would be, yes, yes, yes, and then a combined and yet not combative answer or a restart: would You want to continue?

You don' t even conditionally give an answer or, an explanation, and I will not draw inferences, from a definitive point of view.

This is not about a game ' winners take all as far as I am concerned which I am., is not my necessary. game.

Which am i? In the same boat.

I think we're done here.

[Meno_]

Ok You may be done, but certainly i can't afford that luxury.
Certainly, a bonding agreement shows an unaffordable lack of commitment at the very least, at least from my existential frame of referential values.

Brother iambigious, we probably on the same side, nevertheless, as far as our fractures are considered.

[Meno_]

Ok You may be done, but certainly i can't afford that luxury.
Certainly, a bonding agreement shows an unaffordable lack of commitment at the very least, at least from my existential frame of referential values.

Brother iambigious, we probably on the same side, nevertheless, as far as our fractures are considered.

https://youtu.be/QJ1LCrf4NYA

[MagsJ]

Ok You may be done, but certainly i can't afford that luxury.
Certainly, a bonding agreement shows an unaffordable lack of commitment at the very least, at least from my existential frame of referential values.

Brother iambigious, we probably on the same side, nevertheless, as far as our fractures are considered.

https://youtu.be/QJ1LCrf4NYA

Fantastic commentary.. spiffing, infact.

[Meno_]

But seriously Biggy, do You ever stopped to think of ANY connections possible between the effected lack of a compensate trace between the ideologycal. vacuum left bereft after the fall of the USSR & what is happen ING today?


Irrespective of viral infection?


Can the dots be connected in any case?

[iambiguous]

But seriously Biggy, do You ever stopped to think of ANY connections possible between the effected lack of a compensate trace between the ideologycal. vacuum left bereft after the fall of the USSR & what is happen ING today?


Irrespective of viral infection?


Can the dots be connected in any case?

As noted, until I get a clearer understanding from you of how your own sense of bring "fragmented" is or is not in sync with my own in regard to an issue like packing the court, I'm just not interested in what I construe to be intellectual gibberish of this sort. You began to seem coherent to me above [as I noted] but you did not sustain it.

Here again in regard to conflicting goods rooted in dasein and in political economy is how I encompass my own existential sense of being, of feeling "fractured and fragmented":

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.

And:

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.

And you?

[Meno_]

But seriously Biggy, do You ever stopped to think of ANY connections possible between the effected lack of a compensate trace between the ideologycal. vacuum left bereft after the fall of the USSR & what is happen ING today?


Irrespective of viral infection?


Can the dots be connected in any case?

As noted, until I get a clearer understanding from you of how your own sense of bring "fragmented" is or is not in sync with my own in regard to an issue like packing the court, I'm just not interested in what I construe to be intellectual gibberish of this sort. You began to seem coherent to me above [as I noted] but you did not sustain it.

Here again in regard to conflicting goods rooted in dasein and in political economy is how I encompass my own existential sense of being, of feeling "fractured and fragmented":

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.

And:

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.

And you?

Of course, including me as well , in the set of those fractured.


But the main point can be expanded in the possible search between those fractured points that need to be enumerated, before they can be qualified as valid points.

And the examples, in fact Your primary one , of searching for the convective which belabors to fill. -the idea of the abortion issue- now become the central issue surrounding the hurried nomination of a conservative justice, shows an imperative,an essential point irrespective of the loss of ideological pre-eminence.


I hold to a position , that such a loss, may not be considered as futile and summarily irrevocable.

There remains,at least, a trace of hope.

[iambiguous]

More intellectual drivel. Unless of course it's not.

In any event, I am out of here. No, really this time.

[Meno_]

Of course well noted, due to invariable loss of levels understood and connected.

As far as I am concerned , that loss, is acknowledged, and sustained. After all, whose forum is this, at any rate?

Nevertheless, there is no loss , presumed or otherwise, that a true scooter that can say of:

'That which can not kill me, can make me stronger'