Comments on: Racism Response Pt 1 – America as an Entity, End of Liberty, Are All Men Equal? http://www.flawedspecies.com/thoughts/racism-response-pt-1-america-as-an-entity-end-of-liberty-are-all-men-equal/ Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:17:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Buck68 http://www.flawedspecies.com/thoughts/racism-response-pt-1-america-as-an-entity-end-of-liberty-are-all-men-equal/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Buck68 Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:15:38 +0000 http://www.flawedspecies.com/?p=17#comment-8 Q1C2. Or do individuals feel, think, do? Inasmuch as imperfect beings can establish themselves in concept [philosophy] and sensing [empiricism/science], the answer is ‘yes, yes, and ‘yes’. However, there’s a minor problem for us all. It is this perfectly imperfect universal human problem of differentiating between how I perceive anything, and how it is in reality [ie objectively, actually]. Adding this universal human cognitive problem to our animal nature, produces inherent, continuing conflicts within and between every human being. Inasmuch as this adequately defines our common situation, our lives depend on how we keep coping with it for life. We cannot in reality escape this, but via perception any digression is possible. Practically, this means the cognitive gifts we have been given enable us to delude ourselves and others to X degree. Rationally, we have been given sufficient power to strive for an individual or common good…if we only knew what those things …are. In other words, if Ultimate Authority [ie perfectly Right and Good and Authoritative] told us. But the telling is insufficient unless this Teller perfectly imposes on each person, because unless it does, we each retain the gift of “choice” inherent in cognition. So even if we knew what was good, that does not mean we would choose to feel, think, or do what was good. So, have we [er…I?] digressed to some obtuse, irreconcilable philosophizing of use to no one? Or, tried to describe our common situation? Well, a di-gression does not pro-gress. Human communication* [defined here as where the sender and receiver reach common understanding of the content and intent via sensory & cognitive means] is ever a work in progress, not some arrival or possession. So, rationally, where are we if ‘we’ choose to find fundamentally common ground from which to ‘start’…anything? There is one proposal for a premise at the beginning of this response. If we all refine until we choose an inclusive premise, that enables and binds us [the group] to use the rational power of deduction [ie syllogism] to apply any minor premise and arrive at a rationally authoritative…conclusion. Conclusion meaning [a] what is accurate, which informs about [b] what to do. This, could be significant for those choosing to strive together for the common good when it comes time to consider sacrificing our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. Perhaps we have no liberty or legacy or America, unless we do. Q1C2. Or do individuals feel, think, do?
Inasmuch as imperfect beings can establish themselves in concept [philosophy] and sensing [empiricism/science], the answer is ‘yes, yes, and ‘yes’. However, there’s a minor problem for us all. It is this perfectly imperfect universal human problem of differentiating between how I perceive anything, and how it is in reality [ie objectively, actually].

Adding this universal human cognitive problem to our animal nature, produces inherent, continuing conflicts within and between every human being. Inasmuch as this adequately defines our common situation, our lives depend on how we keep coping with it for life. We cannot in reality escape this, but via perception any digression is possible. Practically, this means the cognitive gifts we have been given enable us to delude ourselves and others to X degree. Rationally, we have been given sufficient power to strive for an individual or common good…if we only knew what those things …are. In other words, if Ultimate Authority [ie perfectly Right and Good and Authoritative] told us. But the telling is insufficient unless this Teller perfectly imposes on each person, because unless it does, we each retain the gift of “choice” inherent in cognition. So even if we knew what was good, that does not mean we would choose to feel, think, or do what
was good.

So, have we [er…I?] digressed to some obtuse, irreconcilable philosophizing of use to no one? Or, tried to describe our common situation? Well, a di-gression does not pro-gress. Human communication* [defined here as where the sender and receiver reach common understanding of the content and intent via sensory & cognitive means] is ever a work in progress, not some arrival or possession.

So, rationally, where are we if ‘we’ choose to find fundamentally common ground from which to ‘start’…anything? There is one proposal for a premise at the beginning of this response. If we all refine until we choose an inclusive premise, that enables and binds us [the group] to use the rational power of deduction [ie syllogism] to apply any minor premise and arrive at a rationally authoritative…conclusion. Conclusion meaning [a] what is accurate, which informs about [b] what to do.

This, could be significant for those choosing to strive together for the common good when it comes time to consider sacrificing our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. Perhaps we have no liberty or legacy or America, unless we do.

]]> By: Buck68 http://www.flawedspecies.com/thoughts/racism-response-pt-1-america-as-an-entity-end-of-liberty-are-all-men-equal/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Buck68 Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:15:23 +0000 http://www.flawedspecies.com/?p=17#comment-7 Zach has amply and aptly illustrated that the original question was neither simple; nor one question; nor simply or knowingly answered; nor are responses simple but rather increasingly complex. Picturing: we opened Pandora’s Box, and many things are flying about. But I propose but one presumption before responding to Zach’s commentary. Proposal: this question, now become a sort of “Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall”, represents a challenge to e pluribus unum for any person who [a] values learning and [b] holds that the antiquated term “citizen” embodies a responsibility and accountability to actively participate in, as Ben Franklin put it, “keeping our Republic”. Q1C1. Does "America" the nation, the group, the thing...live, act, do, think as one entity? Response: Rationally, no. Rationally, America is a group, a place, an idea, a complex set of relationships; a political entity. America is not a single living being given the gifts of cognition [an innate sense of self in surroundings]. However, inasmuch as any person in fact represents…or asserts he represents…or is perceived by other individuals or groups that he in some way represents – “America” we habitually feel and say the answer to this question is “yes”. Suggestion: in everyday circumstances this distinction gets in the way of ordinary seeing, talking, and doing. However, in the context of important values and responsibilities, this distinction becomes…essential to recognizing and coping with issues. Let’s use a grammatical comparison between an active and a passive sentence to reveal the naked significance of this distinction. We construct an active sentence by Subject – Verb – Object [SVO]: “Bob ate the canary”. The Subject is the actor, the verb is the action, and the Object is who or what is acted upon. We construct a passive sentence OV[s]: “The canary was eaten”. The distinction is only who is responsible for the action. Zach has amply and aptly illustrated that the original question was neither simple; nor one question; nor simply or knowingly answered; nor are responses simple but rather increasingly complex. Picturing: we opened Pandora’s Box, and many things are flying about. But I propose but one presumption before responding to Zach’s commentary. Proposal: this question, now become a sort of “Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall”, represents a challenge to e pluribus unum for any person who [a] values learning and [b] holds that the antiquated term “citizen” embodies a responsibility and accountability to actively participate in, as Ben Franklin put it, “keeping our Republic”.

Q1C1. Does “America” the nation, the group, the thing…live, act, do, think as one entity?
Response: Rationally, no. Rationally, America is a group, a place, an idea, a complex set of relationships; a political entity. America is not a single living being given the gifts of cognition [an innate sense of self in surroundings]. However, inasmuch as any person in fact represents…or asserts he represents…or is perceived by other individuals or groups that he in some way represents – “America” we habitually feel and say the answer to this question is “yes”. Suggestion: in everyday circumstances this distinction gets in the way of ordinary seeing, talking, and doing. However, in the context of important values and responsibilities, this distinction becomes…essential to recognizing and coping with issues.

Let’s use a grammatical comparison between an active and a passive sentence to reveal the naked significance of this distinction. We construct an active sentence by Subject – Verb – Object [SVO]: “Bob ate the canary”. The Subject is the actor, the verb is the action, and the Object is who or what is acted upon. We construct a passive sentence OV[s]: “The canary was eaten”. The distinction is only who is responsible for the action.

]]>