You are asserting, in the negative terms that serve your assertion and confirm it, that the larger truths, or Truths for purposes of highlighting a larger truth from a mere correspondence of fact with perception, do not exist.uwot wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 2:27 pm You are pushing against an open door. There are some right headbangers who insist they know The Truth. They are without exception insufferable bumpkins who, having stitched together some loosely coherent story, lack the philosophical sophistication to appreciate the difference between validity and soundness: a story that makes sense isn't necessarily true.
Yet the truths that are alluded to -- and here I will say within Christin philosophy and ethics -- have existed and continue to exist with or without your confirmation of them and with or without your recognition of them.
However, to better understand what you are really doing, and what your intentions really are, one has to examine your language : headbangers, insufferable bumpkins, idiots, halfwits are the terms that accompany your destructive discourse. This is, really, ad hominem of the first order, isn't it? I am not bothered by that necessarily, but what I want to point out is the depth of your violent hatred and condemnation of those who recognize, and desire to hold to, the Truths that have been recognized as eternal and perennial. So who really is your enemy? Is it those who make the effort to hold to those truths? or is it Truth itself? And if it is Truth, why such intense animus? Why such violence and what looks like contemptuous hatred?
But I do not wish to conceal what I think is actually true: you are involved in a project the purpose of which is highly destructive and that therefore must be understood and also condemned. Your undermining has to be confronted.
It think there is more to be gained from examining you at a psychic level, perhaps I can say at a psychological level (more or less the same), and try to suss out how it is that you *appeared on the scene*. What is your function? What are you trying to achieve? And what are you achieving? (Again this is a wide you-plural that describes operatives and agents working in our present).
In fact I might suggest to you that it is you who have "stitched together some loosely coherent story" and that story is the narrative that you yourself wield. And to those who believe this story, and those who use this story as a tool, my question is What do you end up achieving both for yourself and in yourself but also in the larger picture?
My observation is that you have converted yourself into an *acid* whose purpose is to eat away, to undermine, not just the sustaining truths (Truths if you wish) that have built great and important things -- some of the best things it is possible to build! -- but the acids you work with, which in a sense have a mind of their own (or an anti-mind) actually seek to undermine the person, the individual. Your efforts are in de-structuring, metaphysically, a ground that is not physical but is spiritual. What results when you succeed -- and you can and do succeed -- in removing that grounding? What happens to the individual?
You must imagine that you have a creative purpose, mustn't you? You must see what you do as positive and constructively contributory, mustn't you? But do you present yourself as an example of the New Man? Are you the *desired outcome* of the shift in consciousness or the restructuring of definitions? What does one, what can one, build with the ideas that are most foundational to your methods?
Obviously, I am suggesting that you are no example at all. And that I do not see how what you offer can be or is a platform for construction. This is why the word *destruction* and *destructive* keeps coming up in what I write.
What I encourage you to do is to examine 1) the core animus that moves in you-plural (Uwot, Lacewing, Promethean and others) and 2) to see clearly that you are engaged in a battle to excavate under the spiritual ground which is admittedly tremendously weakened in our present time. You pretend that you have *solid reasons* for engaging as you do in this activism, and yes you do employ various forms of argumentation that are effective, but yet it seems to me that you work a ground that has already been established. That is to say you work on individuals whose 'relationship' to those truths (or Truths) has been greatly weakened. Their sustaining ground is weakened and they are ready to fall (as it were).
What I find interesting here is your declaration about what is, and what is not, delusion! Naturally, within the terms of argument, discourse and essentially within the *terms of perception* that you admit, all those who think, see, believe, perceive and live in accord with the truths they perceive, are deluded. But the question I always ask is: Who really is deluded here?So you have a straightforward correspondence theory of truth. The problem is that halfwits peddling Truth, with a capital T, invariably have some religious delusion, or some gripe with well established scientific theory. It is always possible in such cases to create more than one hypothesis consistent with observation. In such cases, commitment to any of the alternatives cannot be based on rational considerations; people who choose do so because they like the idea.
Because in my way of seeing -- and here again I will paraphrase Gloucester -- it is possible to see absolutely clearly within one interpretive model, but not to see really at all. "I stumbled when I saw". So if you follow my metaphor we can understand, and I believe we all do understand, that the will that operates in us that insists to us "You are seeing rightly" sometimes deceives us. And then we might say: "When I was so certain I saw correctly I deluded myself!"tr.v. de·lud·ed, de·lud·ing, de·ludes
1. To cause to hold a false belief; deceive thoroughly: unscrupulous brokers who deluded their clients about the underlying value of the stocks they were touting. See Synonyms at deceive.
2. Obsolete To elude or evade.
3. Obsolete To frustrate the hopes or plans of.
So, no, I do not think the issue is aesthetic! though I certainly understand why you must force this view (and aesthetics definitely have a role). I guess you would have to say that it is *epistemic* but even that word does not hit the mark. It really seems to have to do with higher forms of seeing, of perception, that are bound up in other dimensions of awareness.
