Would you choose moral restraints upon the dynamic leader of the people over unrestrained vitality as their motive force? — ucarr

Frankly I’m amazed at how lacking our leaders are in both moral character and ‘unrestrained vitality’. I like to think that if one emerged glistening with both they would be unstoppable.

Is there a parallel in science with Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation vís-a-vís Einstein's Denounciation? — ucarr

Sure, but I still don’t see war.

(There is a proffered escape clause, but nowadays that business is too controversial, so I’m leaving it out.) — ucarr

Very interesting post but you should've left this out if you don't want us to ask what this controversial escape clause is. — Nils Loc

I believe I’ve narrowed it down to one of two possibilities: The escape clause is either receiving a free ticket to The Louvre, or being granted a confession at the Vatican. :cool:

The escape clause is either receiving a free ticket to The Louvre, or being granted a confession at the Vatican. — ucarr

Your option (b) is getting close.

Death is the human tragedy forestalled by the necessary oscillation between the two poles before finally succumbing. (There is a proffered escape clause, but nowadays that business is too controversial, so I’m leaving it out.)[/quote]

Above I've underlined a word that serves as a clue to the answer. When you realize what it is, the moment will be anti-climactic, as this escape clause is the most heralded news on earth.

Pain (war) is another instrument of revelation. — ucarr

...I still don’t see war. — praxis

Some see life on earth as a time of tribulation before one's appointment with their final reckoning. Pain management, during the time of tribulation, holds center position in the determination of the final reckoning.

Does earthly life and its outcome boil down to each person's time management and pain management?

Did you find and attack the serious goals of your life in a timely fashion?

Did you make the world a better place by decreasing the pain of others when you were able?

No, no, and no (in that I haven’t acted in order to better the world).

Still missing the point.

Still missing the point. — praxis

Art and morality within the context of this thread reduce to four elements:

Love | War

Love -- Marriage, home, family, community

War -- Power & Money in service to Partisan: Marriage, home, family, community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we love we build: marriage, home, family, community.

When we war we partition marriage, home, family, community into segregated modules.

Love in practice is love on earth.

Love in theory is moral guidance on paper.

As we know, there is no perfect agreement between theory and practice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Existential | The Social

The Existential -- Flesh & blood humans walking the earth

The Social -- Flesh & blood humans self-constrained to a social contract whose memorized contents are made existential by prescription.

When we act existentially, we are creatures of the natural world.

When we act socially, we are creatures of our own minds.

Well said. We're agreeing interest arises when human life within an existing world passes time with adventures — ucarr

We're not. The term 'adventure' here is nothing to do with what I've said, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. Interests exist in non-humans, in both senses we might need, so I don't agree with that either. Life, generally, coinciding with existence creates an interest. That's all I'm happy to agree with.

how much humans can get away with in their behavior. — ucarr

What do you mean 'get away with'? How 'much' of what? What do you mean by 'much' even here?

Love and war are the two big adventures. — ucarr

This seems to be so obviously false It's hard to respond to politely. Suffice to say: No, they aren't.

Everyone who lives pushes against moral boundaries in their effort at living. — ucarr

No. Morality is within each person who lives. It isn't something that can be pushed up against. Your attitudes guide your behaviour. That's all that can be said.

out of moral boundaries in life, — ucarr

are nothing but our personal attitudes. There are no boundaries you could possibly point me toward that could fill that spot, for your utterances. Do feel free to try!

And thus the church shows its wisdom when it declares human nature corrupt from the git-go. — ucarr

No, it doesn't, in any way that could be conceived by a rational thinker. The church makes this claim based on an ideological Doctrine designed to restrict people's behaviour to that which can be taken advantage of by hte village idiot.

When the slithering demon comes on stage, that's when the interest begins. — ucarr

This, now, seems to be you devolving into a religious recitation of some kind? Nothing in this or hte previous part of your reply has any bearing on the concepts you're trying to discuss.

You say we humans aren't sinful by our natures and that our art likewise -- though sourced from us -- is not sinful. Have you not found that a movie depicting a beautiful sun setting its glow over a vuluptuous woman with soul-stirring music on the soundtrack puts you to sleep after ten minutes if something doesn't go wrong, thus threatening the woman's happiness? — ucarr

I have to say, this sounds somewhat unhinged, in terms of trying to make any kind of point. Schizophrenic, perhaps.

There is no 'sinful' in nature. It doesn't exist. There is nothing which could be symbolized by the claim "humans are sinful by nature". No such possibility arises in reality.
I have no idea what movie you're talking about, or why it's relevant here. But, soul-stirring music does not put me to sleep, almost by definition. Literally no f-ing clue what hte rest of this passage is for/about/meant to evoke.

This is one of my best forward passes with the lance of my wit. It is another one of my central points of focus: the artist wants to threaten the beautiful woman with something of interest menacing her composure. If a man doesn't take delight in this rousing of the feminine will to survive, that man belongs in the vestry with the robes and the sashes. — ucarr

This fails, entirely, to answer the questions I put to you in clarifying what it is you're talking about. As with the previous three replies, I literally have no clue what you are trying to speak about.

The term 'adventure' here is nothing to do with what I've said, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. — AmadeusD

By "adventure" I mean taking action in the world towards a goal and gaining experience as a result.

What do you mean 'get away with'? How 'much' of what? What do you mean by 'much' even here? — AmadeusD

I mean how far can I go outside the established boundaries of acceptable behavior without incurring punishment from the state.

Love and war are the two big adventures. — ucarr

This seems to be so obviously false It's hard to respond to politely. Suffice to say: No, they aren't. — AmadeusD

I mean love is building marriage, home, family and community; I mean war is taking a partisan stance on behalf of one society of marriages, homes, families and communities in opposition to the same interests held by people in another society.

Don't be polite. Tell it to me straight why building marriage, home, family and community as the important experiences of your life is a claim obviously false.

Everyone who lives pushes against moral boundaries in their effort at living. — ucarr

No. Morality is within each person who lives. It isn't something that can be pushed up against. Your attitudes guide your behaviour. That's all that can be said. — AmadeusD

We've already agreed morality resides within the mind. So it's obvious I don't mean a literal pushing up against like pushing up against a stone blocking my path. Yes, my attitudes guide my behavior, and that's internal conflict that I, and you, sometimes push up against (speaking figuratively). We don't always want to do the right thing.

This attempt to lie, cheat, slip and slide our way out of moral boundaries in life, by my observation, is necessary, and that's what I'm trying to focus on here. — ucarr

...are nothing but our personal attitudes. There are no boundaries you could possibly point me toward that could fill that spot, for your utterances. Do feel free to try! — AmadeusD

Are you claiming never to have gone back on your commitment to do the right thing?

And thus the church shows its wisdom when it declares human nature corrupt from the git-go. — ucarr

No, it doesn't, in any way that could be conceived by a rational thinker. — AmadeusD

I mean to say that the moral guardians of the church are right in their expectation that humans will sometimes fail to faithfully carry out all of their moral commitments. Do you know any individuals who are perfectly faithful to their own moral commitments?

When the slithering demon comes on stage, that's when the interest begins. — ucarr

Nothing in this or hte previous part of your reply has any bearing on the concepts you're trying to discuss. — AmadeusD

Part of my effort in this conversation is defining "interest" as a kind of bias, or partiality towards one particular choice over another choice. So, when I say the slithering snake arouses interest, I'm talking about how the presumed evil of the snake is a type of bias away from the peace of equilibrium towards excitement and, unfortunately, murder.

Have you not found that a movie depicting a beautiful sun setting its glow over a vuluptuous woman with soul-stirring music on the soundtrack puts you to sleep after ten minutes if something doesn't go wrong, thus threatening the woman's — ucarr

I have to say, this sounds somewhat unhinged, in terms of trying to make any kind of point. — AmadeusD

I'm trying to say that either jeopardy or joy are necessary to interest because either state is far from the equilibrium - and dullness - of peace and stability too prolonged.

There is no 'sinful' in nature. — AmadeusD

Are you saying you believe crimes such as rape and murder have nothing to do with sinful perpetrators? What do you suppose motivates rape and murder if not being sinful?

If a man doesn't take delight in this rousing of the feminine will to survive, that man belongs in the vestry with the robes and the sashes. — ucarr

This fails, entirely, to answer the questions I put to you in clarifying what it is you're talking about. — AmadeusD

I'm herein trying to talk about the big experiences in life; they are the ones that promise great pain or great joy.

By "adventure" I mean taking action in the world towards a goal and gaining experience as a result. — ucarr

So, this couldn't possibly be restricted to love and war. Are you able to somehow make those two claims work together?

from the state. — ucarr

This is counter to all else you've put forward here. Makes it quite hard to comment on..

I mean love is building marriage, home, family and community; I mean war is taking a partisan stance on behalf of one society of marriages, homes, families and communities in opposition to the same interests held by people in another society. — ucarr

They are not.

Don't be polite. — ucarr

Are you sure?

why building marriage, home, family and community as the important experiences of your life is a claim obviously false. — ucarr

Imagine you did none of these things. You can still experience immense adventure, or war. They have no logical connection to one another. THe claim is both faulty (in that you're not being consistent in what you're claiming) and utterly absurd, in that you are claiming there are two motivations for all behaviour. Patently ridiculous.

We don't always want to do the right thing. — ucarr

This makes much, much clearer what you're getting at; thank you. I find it very hard to say one 'pushes up against a boundary' when internally conflicted. If there were a moral 'boundary' rather than a moral attitude, we would want to say these are not the same thing.

Are you claiming never to have gone back on your commitment to do the right thing? — ucarr

This question is not relevant to my objection, but on it's face, no. I have either continued in one mind, or changed my mind. I have never committed to doing 'the right thing', and then chosen to do the 'wrong' thing, noting that only I could possibly make those claims about my own attitudes. That move (i.e committing to the 'right' thing, and then doing the 'wrong' thing, seems a violation of the nature of behaviour)

I mean to say that the moral guardians of the church are right in their expectation that humans will sometimes fail to faithfully carry out all of their moral commitments — ucarr

Again, this has nothing to do with what you claimed, or I objected to. The church claims humans are 'corrupt' against an ideologically divine doctrine. You are not talking about that, and so your comments have nothing to do with what you're trying to talk about. If all you intend to say is that humans, generally, change their minds and are subject to desire that is correct. It has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with 'corruption' or 'the church'.

Part of my effort in this conversation is defining "interest" as a kind of bias, or partiality towards one particular choice over another choice. So, when I say the slithering snake arouses interest, I'm talking about how the presumed evil of the snake is a type of bias away from the peace of equilibrium towards excitement and, unfortunately, murder. — ucarr

Same as above. This has extremely little to do with what you seem to want to discuss. It's, firstly, ridiculous anyway, but secondly there is no connection between this use of 'interest' and the way you've used it elsewhere. Interest essentially has two senses: "preference", and "right". Neither are objective(other than within law) or derived from ought but, in the first personal, and the second collective attitudes to objects and events (i.e my interests derive from my preferences, and my rights derive from the collective agreements around ownership, protections etc..). I take it what you mean to say is that conflict invokes preferences for one or other side of the conflict. Trivially true, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Snake, the Garden of Eden or morality. The presumed 'evil of hte snake' is a religious nonsense about a fiction. Perhaps it would be better to stop talking in deep, confused metaphors.

I'm trying to say that either jeopardy or joy are necessary to interest because either state is far from the equilibrium - and dullness - of peace and stability too prolonged. — ucarr

Can't understand what you could be trying to say, despite this. The scene you painted is joyous. Peace can be found anywhere along the spectrum you're invoking. There's also no reason to think that they can't coexist. In any case, it still doesn't touch the claims you've made that I've objected to.

Are you saying you believe crimes such as rape and murder have nothing to do with sinful perpetrators? What do you suppose motivates rape and murder if not being sinful? — ucarr

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your claim or my objection. There is no such thing as 'sinful nature'. Crimes are committed for all kinds of reasons. Sin is not one of them.

Love in theory is moral guidance on paper. — ucarr

Moral guidance on paper is merely a fictional story designed to align the wills of those charmed by it.

:ok:

why building marriage, home, family and community as the important experiences of your life is a claim obviously false.
— ucarr

Imagine you did none of these things. You can still experience immense adventure, or war. They have no logical connection to one another. THe claim is both faulty (in that you're not being consistent in what you're claiming) and utterly absurd, in that you are claiming there are two motivations for all behaviour. Patently ridiculous. — AmadeusD

Totally agree. You saved me the trouble of saying this. Problematic assumptions are not good for philosophical enquiry.

Don't be polite. Tell it to me straight why building marriage, home, family and community as the important experiences of your life is a claim obviously false. — ucarr

Imagine you did none of these things. You can still experience immense adventure, or war. They have no logical connection to one another. THe claim is both faulty (in that you're not being consistent in what you're claiming) and utterly absurd, in that you are claiming there are two motivations for all behaviour. Patently ridiculous. — AmadeusD

I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have. Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences.

Regarding the singular humans, such as priests, nuns, monks, old bachelors, spinsters, elderly shut-ins and even hermits, they oftentimes attach themselves to the four named categories: they attach to their parents, so that's their attachment to marriage, or, they're married to the higher power that frames the church; they attach to their nuclear family of parents and siblings, so that's their attachment to family; they attach to their extended family of cousins, uncles and aunts and also to friends and neighbors, so that's their attachment to community.

Some hermits attach to a spiritual higher power, so that's their attachment to marriage, to the family of believers, and to the world community.

Love in theory is moral guidance on paper. — ucarr

Moral guidance on paper is merely a fictional story designed to align the wills of those charmed by it. — praxis

Are you charmed and deceived by the ten commandments?

Imagine you did none of these things. You can still experience immense adventure, or war... — AmadeusD

A singular person who enlists in the armed services during wartime finds home and family within his platoon; he finds marriage through his belief in his country for which he jeopardizes his life; he finds community within the fellowship of related armed services divisions, and he finds community within the localities he protects as a soldier.

Are you charmed and deceived by the ten commandments? — ucarr

Having just reviewed them, I’m not crazy about 1-4 but the rest are okay.

In Church the service is sometimes spiritless, rote, depressing, restrictive. You skip out and go to the movies to watch Euripedes', The Bacchae, to watch in indignant horror, Pentheus, get ripped apart by his own deluded mother, who is possessed by the madness of a cruel god. All for what, the poor guy (though he was a king) didn't believe in a foreign deity of some pantheon. So turns the wheel of Samsara.

Pentheus, as they guy who transgresses good taste or law, by impiety, is here to be considered in the guise of an evil artist as a sacrificial victim, much like Jesus (perceived to be impious by whatever transgression got him killed). Oh the virtue of piety! What impious artist makes a Christian run back to church?

If ucarr is transgressing the bounds of implicit/explicit virtue/etiquette as an artist contra the philosopher, maybe he is the evil artist.

He must run back to church to give what that unanimous crowd demands, in an alignment of the sensible wills of such a peer group: good, clear, hygienic, rigorous and rational sense in selfless service.

Chatgpt may give us a lecture on piety:

"Piety" refers to a deep respect for and devotion to religious practices, beliefs, or duties. It often involves a reverence for the divine, as well as a commitment to moral and ethical principles associated with one’s faith. People who exhibit piety typically demonstrate their religious devotion through regular worship, prayer, rituals, and adherence to religious teachings.

In a broader sense, piety can also encompass loyalty, respect, and duty toward one’s family, community, or country, reflecting a sense of duty and honor in relationships and responsibilities. The concept is commonly associated with virtues such as humility, reverence, and obedience to higher moral or spiritual authority. — ChatGPT on Piety

I asked Chatgpt to list a few famous songs from history that promote war.

––––––––
Several songs throughout history have promoted war, either explicitly or by glorifying military conflict. These songs often reflect the political or cultural environment of the time, and they can serve as rallying cries or propaganda tools. Here are a few notable examples:

1. "Over There" (1917) – George M. Cohan

• Context: Written during World War I, this song became an anthem for American soldiers heading to Europe.
• Message: It promotes patriotism and encourages young men to enlist and fight in the war. The lyrics "Send the word, send the word over there, that the Yanks are coming" highlight its martial spirit.

2. "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" (1861) – Julia Ward Howe

• Context: Popular during the American Civil War, this song became associated with the Union Army.
• Message: Its lyrics evoke a sense of divine justice and righteousness in war. It glorifies the idea of fighting for freedom, equating the Union's cause to the will of God.

3. "Rule, Britannia!" (1740) – James Thomson and Thomas Arne

• Context: An iconic British patriotic song that became associated with the British Empire and its military power.
• Message: It celebrates British naval dominance, stating "Britons never, never, never shall be slaves," promoting a militaristic and expansionist national identity.

4. "The Horst Wessel Song" (1930s) – Nazi Party

• Context: This was the anthem of the Nazi Party in Germany.
• Message: It promoted Nazi ideology and the militarization of German society, often played at rallies and public events to encourage loyalty to the regime and its war efforts.

5. "The British Grenadiers" (17th century) – Traditional

• Context: A traditional British military march, commonly associated with the British Army.
• Message: The song praises the bravery of British soldiers, specifically grenadiers, glorifying their role in battle.

6. "Katyusha" (1938) – Matvei Blanter and Mikhail Isakovsky

• Context: A Soviet wartime song, popularized during World War II.
• Message: Though not overtly about combat, it romanticizes the image of soldiers going off to fight for their homeland and the support they receive from those left behind.

7. "Yankee Doodle" (18th century) – Traditional

• Context: Initially a British mockery of American soldiers during the Revolutionary War, it was later adopted by the American colonists as a patriotic anthem.
• Message: Over time, the song has been used to boost morale and encourage soldiers to fight.

8. "Marseillaise" (1792) – Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle

• Context: The French national anthem, written during the French Revolution.
• Message: It calls for citizens to take up arms and fight against tyranny, with vivid imagery of battle and bloodshed.

These songs often aim to stir patriotic feelings and rally public support for war, making them historically significant as part of wartime propaganda or national identity-building efforts.
––––––––

Art can be a weapon, an olive branch, a medicine, whatever, or merely aesthetic.

I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have. Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr

This is directly contradictory. If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former. Can you choose one? Is it love and war, or the series of personal opinions on marriage, home , family and community? Honestly, though, it doesn't matter. This does nothing for hte fact that this does not, at all cover the range of human experience, or interest. Not in any way, whatsoever.

oftentimes — ucarr

And why would this inform you of anything but those individual people's proclivities? It says nothing about 'humanity'. This is so dumb. Nothing you have said supports your inconsistent claims.

A singular person who enlists in the armed services during wartime finds home and family within his platoon; he finds marriage through his belief in his country for which he jeopardizes his life; he finds community within the fellowship of related armed services divisions, and he finds community within the localities he protects as a soldier. — ucarr

To put it a little more politely than perhaps htis demands: No, that's an extreme over-reach in usage of those terms, probably purposefully, to increase the vagueries of your claims. THe claims are bizarre, counter to reality and you've provided nothing to support them.

I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have. Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr

This is directly contradictory. If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former. Can you choose one? Is it love and war, or the series of personal opinions on marriage, home , family and community? — AmadeusD

As I've already stated, love and war are both about marriage, home, family and community. They share a large region of common ground. They stand apart on the issue of their approach to fellowship; love does not partition fellowship; war partitions fellowship into good and evil, with both sides demonizing the other.

Example: When America went to war with Germany in 1942, both countries were fighting for the best quality of life for its citizens, and both sets of citizens consisted of married couples, their homes, their families and their communities. Both sets of citizens did similar things in the four categories. However, unlike during peacetime, which in our context here can be likened to love, during wartime, the similar ways of life of the two countries were partitioned off from each other as each side tried to slaughter the other side.

So, love and war and the quartet (marriage, home, family, community) cannot be in a relationship of: If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former because they have much in common and thus there is no mutual exclusion. On the contrary, there is mutual inclusion because both sides have scarcely any important distinctions between them at all: American marriages_German marriages; American homes_German homes; American families_German families; American communities_German communities. The bone of contention creating the war consists in each side wanting to destroy the other side, and that too is something they have in common!

As I've already stated, love and war are both about marriage, home, family and community. They share a large region of common ground — ucarr

No they don't. I've been explicitly clear that this is simply not hte case, and so none of your arguments, supposing this, can go through.

There is, sorry to say, not a lot of substance in anything you're saying here. For instance:

They stand apart on the issue of their approach to fellowship; love does nog partition fellowship; war partitions fellowship into good and evil, with both sides demonizing the other. — ucarr

This is muddled, nonsensical, rambling attempts at bringing yourself into some kind of focus after failing to make any consistent claim. I am sorry uCarr, but there is nothing to be responded to, other than pointing out the massive inconsistencies, inaccuracies and parochial claims being made.

I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have. Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr

This is directly contradictory. If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former. — AmadeusD

In the above quote you make a claim about my statement. Can you show that my statement is a contradiction? I'm asking you to take the words in my statement and arrange them into a configuration that shows it is a contradiction. This would be an argument supporting your claim.

Backing up claims with supporting arguments is the proper way of doing things here at TPF:

Here's my claim:

I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have. Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr

Here's my example; it takes what's abstractly expressed in my claim and fleshes it out with practical things configured according to the abstract pattern :

Example: When America went to war with Germany in 1942, both countries were fighting for the best quality of life for its citizens, and both sets of citizens consisted of married couples, their homes, their families and their communities. Both sets of citizens did similar things in the four categories. However, unlike during peacetime, which in our context here can be likened to love, during wartime, the similar ways of life of the two countries were partitioned off from each other as each side tried to slaughter the other side. — ucarr

Here's my argument; it invalidates your logic with an alternative interpretation establishing my example as a counter-example:

So, love and war and the quartet (marriage, home, family, community) cannot be in a relationship of: If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former because they have much in common and thus there is no mutual exclusion. On the contrary, there is mutual inclusion because both sides have scarcely any important distinctions between them at all: American marriages_German marriages; American homes_German homes; American families_German families; American communities_German communities. The bone of contention creating the war consists in each side wanting to destroy the other side, and that too is something they have in common! — ucarr

If ucarr is transgressing the bounds of implicit/explicit virtue/etiquette as an artist contra the philosopher, maybe he is the evil artist.

He must run back to church to give what that unanimous crowd demands, in an alignment of the sensible wills of such a peer group: good, clear, hygienic, rigorous and rational sense in selfless service. — Nils Loc

If God consciousness is a sub-division of human psychology (the savior was fully human), then I can advance an argument claiming that what the divine looks like to humanity needs continual fine tuning and updating, and that this work is the work of the artist.

Now, I've declared art being at risk of blasphemy as a natural part of the territory enclosing the artistic raison d'etre.

Are the masses of people entertained? If so, perhaps their pleasure can defuse my condemnation by the state.

2. "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" (1861) – Julia Ward Howe
Context: Popular during the American Civil War, this song became associated with the Union Army.
Message: Its lyrics evoke a sense of divine justice and righteousness in war. It glorifies the idea of fighting for freedom, equating the Union's cause to the will of God. — Chatgpt

"With God on our side" mentality running high, battalions enter battlefields. Can a song be musical art and propaganda simultaneously?

Art can be a weapon, an olive branch, a medicine, whatever, or merely aesthetic. — praxis

Is there an aesthetics of human manipulation of context?

Yes and yes.

In the above quote you make a claim about my statement. Can you show that my statement is a contradiction? — ucarr

It is self evident. See:

I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have — ucarr

Is in contradiction to the very next phrase:

Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr

You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role. They are contradictory (though, admittedly, indirectly so).

This would be an argument supporting your claim. — ucarr

It wouldn't. But this has become relatively par-for-course in this exchange. The above is not an argument. Its literally highlighting what you've said. There is no further being imparted than your own words. You seem to misunderstand a lot of words you're using...

it invalidates your logic with an alternative interpretation establishing my example as a counter-example: — ucarr

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even brush up against an attempt to do so. It's waffle. Sorry to say. My position (in that regard) does not involve counter-examples of anything. There was no example to begin with. Again, totally misunderstanding words you're using. UNless you're suggesting you have provided a counter-example to your own example? I can't see how that helps though, as the example was irrelevant and did nothing to support your cliam. I see you've now simply turned that onus on me. Extremely poor form. All i need is your own words, so I can meet the challenge, but this is backward.

I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have — ucarr

Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr

You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role. They are contradictory (though, admittedly, indirectly so). — AmadeusD

I've underlined the first sentence in your quote directly above. It's the gist of your argument for refuting my two quoted statements at the top. Your refutation is false because, apparently, you've forgotten something. What you seem to have forgotten is reposted directly below:

Art and morality within the context of this thread reduce to four elements:

Love | War

Love -- Marriage, home, family, community

War -- Power & Money in service to Partisan: Marriage, home, family, community — ucarr

As you can see, by my definition of Love and War, marriage, home, family and community are directly linked to Love and War. Therefore, making the same claim about each statement, namely that they are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences is not a contradiction because the two claims, in actuality, are about the same thing, albeit, the thing in question here is a unit articulated into two parts: concentric circles. The outer circle houses the two big parts: Love | War; the inner circle houses the smaller parts that fill in the big parts with pertinent details: marriage, home, family, community.

If I say a Swiss watch runs like a precision mechanism, and likewise, its sweep second hand runs like a precision mechanism, there's no contradiction because the two statements are talking about the attributes of two parts of one unit.

I'm asking you to take the words in my statement and arrange them into a configuration that shows it is a contradiction. This would be an argument supporting your claim. — ucarr

You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role. They are contradictory (though, admittedly, indirectly so). — AmadeusD

in your quote directly above, you make an approach to arranging my words into a configuration that shows it is a contradiction: "You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role." But I counter-argue that statement by showing that two parts that combine to make a unified whole are not contradictory. Its the combination of the two parts that refutes your ascription of contradiction because contradictions cannot combine.

Here's my argument; it invalidates your logic with an alternative interpretation establishing my example as a counter-example: — ucarr

So, love and war and the quartet (marriage, home, family, community) cannot be in a relationship of: If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former because they have much in common and thus there is no mutual exclusion. On the contrary, there is mutual inclusion because both sides have scarcely any important distinctions between them at all: American marriages_German marriages; American homes_German homes; American families_German families; American communities_German communities. The bone of contention creating the war consists in each side wanting to destroy the other side, and that too is something they have in common! — ucarr

By my definition, Love and War both include: marriage, home, family, community. If this is true, then they can't be contradictory when defined as I've defined them.

Can you show that, during WW2, it was not the case that there were married couples, homes, families and communities in both America and Germany? An example supporting your argument would have to show that in one country there were marriages, homes, families and communities whereas in the other country there were anti-marriages, anti-homes, anti-families and anti-communities.