One problem with this lil limrick is that it begins with a false dichotomy. But anyway, both something and nothing exist (e.g. 99.9% of each atom is empty space). :scream: — 180 Proof

Empty space ≠ nothing.

One problem with this lil limrick is that it begins with a false dichotomy. — 180 Proof

If it's a false dichotomy, then nothing, being an existing thing, is something, not nothing. Therefore, empty space, likewise being an existing thing (whose existence you cite), by your own argument, is not nothing.

I choose to attack the challenge to answer this question by looking upon it as raising an issue of perspective.

When someone asks the question, "Why is there not nothing?" I respond by saying, "Because you asked the question."

The instance of a question being asked -- any question, including this one -- presupposes the existence of a something (sentient being or person, I suppose) asking the question.

In the instance of nothingness (including instance and nothingness), neither the question nor the issue could be raised. Speaking labyrinthically, existence/not existence is not an issue for nothingness.

If we assume an existing thing cannot exist outside its own existence -- this sounds to me like an absolute boundary -- then existence/not existence only has existence & meaning in the instance of existence.

All of this adds up to say, "No existing thing can explore (even the possibility) of non-existence.

Most of most people's time is consumed in more fruitful activities. — baker

Both of course and of convention, you're right. How many, for example, spend quality time pondering what it means, logically speaking, to ask a question? "Oh, gee, darling. You're such a peach you are. Might I have your name?" Trying to examine this, the Merlins of philosophy advise us, leads to a dead end word game of circular reasoning. Paradox. Questioning questioning is impossible, received wisdom assures us. The circle cannot be broken.

What level-headed bloke pursues this path when, instead, he could be sipping a cold beer and making time at the local bar? What right-thinking acer fancies word puzzles over collecting a few bucks at the race track? Even the puttering gardener who raises a few championship blooms has a leg up on would-be pundits entangled in thought puzzles.

No astute person can ignore the curse extending from Socrates to Nietzsche and, presumably, beyond.

I won't quibble with the obvious. The hardest thing for us to do, albeit the most natural thing for us to do, is be ourselves. Personal integrity - Darn it! - entails thinking your own thoughts and pursuing them into action as far as time and circumstances allow. But that's adventure. Well! Who's up for that? I ask, why strike out on personal adventure when, living in civil society, the only popular wisdom is that of the conventional variety?

How do you perceive the metaphysical?
— ucarr
Categorically. — 180 Proof

If you can elaborate, please do so.

What is the metaphysical status of a question?
— ucarr
This question still doesn't make sense to me after two thread pages. — 180 Proof

Have any thoughts about the geometry inhering within a 4-space environment?

How do you perceive the metaphysical?

Metaphysical, as I'm using it here = essential, invariant identity.

If you know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is unnecessary. — Agent Smith

If you don't know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is impossible. — Agent Smith

As you again attack with Occam's Razor, I'll make bold & declare that logic_math_science operate meticulously, expansively & successfully between the above two razor's edges.

A quick review of humanity's empirical experience shows that inquiry starts with partial information about what's to be discovered. This is clearly demonstrated in my example. The abundance of partial information experimentation, the axiomatic starting point for logic_math_science discoveries, being something common you fail to register here, suggests you fundamentally misunderstand inquiry.

Ergo,

Inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible. — Agent Smith

The above razor cut reads dramatically on paper, however, within the empirical world, it excludes only an extremely acute angle: cases at the polar extremes. These amount to nothing more than straw man arguments that misrepresent real inquiry_discovery.

Premise --

A question, if it's pertinent to the answer it seeks, shares a link with said answer that is a variant of the transitive property.

Question is a platform that makes known/unknown work together to isolate an equivalence (identity).


Let’s look at an example that articulates the details of my premise.

3+x=5

3 & 5 = known (underlined)

x = unknown (no underline)

Question - What do 3 & 5 have in common?

Answer – 3

Question, shuttling sequentially, discovers what 3 & 5 have in common, 3, thus linking them.

Question – What do 3 & 5 have not in common?

Answer – 2

We can say that these two questions, taken together, demonstrate known & unknown, each expressing one in terms of the other.

After 3 & 5 each express in terms of the other, both as known & unknown, x, the unknown, becomes isolated, thus x = 2.

Once the common ground between 3 & 5 i.e. 3 is established (transitive property) the disjunction separating 3 & 5 , the separator, 2, becomes isolated.

Now, x = unknown, becomes 2 = known.

So, 3 + 2 = 5

All of the terms are now known & equation of identity, linking two different expressions of one position on the number line, gets expressed.

We see here that Question, in its essence, functions as the messenger RNA, or shuttle diplomat, establishing, via the transitive property, the common ground linking both sides of the equation, thus isolating the unknown, who now, become known, enables the equation to express an identity across known values.

:up: :grin:

We can certainly do so, if we choose to, but I think we should recognize that in that case we don't consider how questions are used in our ordinary discourse. It would be like trying to understand or define language without considering irony, sarcasm, exaggeration, nuance, etc. — Ciceronianus

I have no intention to ignore, ultimately, the many applications of question in context, with multiple grammatical_syntactical variations etc. Lawyers, rhetorical actors, couldn't thrive (or even function) in the courtroom without these accoutrements, nor could dramatic actors upon the stage.

For explanation, let me say that here I'm trying to deconstruct the complex & great edifice of English in order to examine closely its foundation & frame through the lens of epistemology's greatest messenger, Lord Question.

King Language & Lord Question have a diplomatic relationship of exquisite protocols outfitted with lavish filigree (to which you are wed).

What are some essential features & functions of the platform (question) that transfers information intra-linguistically? (You provide a telling example of the messenger role of Lord Question by stressing how he conveys meaning (including equivalence) even when stripped clean of his diplomatic credentials.)

The upshot is just what I said at the beginning; What's the metaphysical status of a question?

I like my focus here because you, and many others, are completely focused on the application of question, whereas I wish to focus on the innate form & behavior of question.

↪ucarr You asked for me "reconfigure" my previous expression of "a question" into a "paradox" – thus, the question-mark. Paradoxical, no? — 180 Proof

So, you think question-of-question is, metaphysically speaking, paradoxical.

1. What is gravity? (interrogative) — Agent Smith

equation template v1, where to be ⇒ =

2. Define gravity. (command) — Agent Smith

implied equation

3. Gravity is a _________ (fill in the blank) — Agent Smith

equation template v2

4. Gravity is (MCQ)
a. A type of apple
b. Einstein's cat
c. A force
d. All of the above
e. None of the above — Agent Smith

conjunctive proposition ⇒ equation, with variables X₁, X₂, X₃, X₄, X₅

What have the five above instances in common? They juxtapose the known & the unknown within a field wherein the two states cohere as an interactive couplet.

From here I see that question is a platform that makes known/unknown work together to isolate an equivalence (identity).

Generically, a question is an expression that consists of a variable. — 180 Proof

A question is an expression that consists of
a variable? :eyes: — 180 Proof

I'm puzzled by your skepticism toward a statement you originally quoted as a general description of question.

I think it's a good definition. It makes clear how question is rooted in a curious juxtaposition of the known & the unknown.

Ignorance is the parent of knowledge
Knowledge is the parent of ignorance

Lord Question, I suspect, plays a key role in the shuttle diplomacy between knowledge & ignorance.

I'm not sure whether you're saying...that rhetorical questions are, or are not, questions for your purposes... — Ciceronianus

I'm trying to get sharp focus on whether question plays a principal role in information transfer -- rather like Messenger RNA. If so, might this be an underlying principle & core function of question? Moreover, as we have it from one of our great pillars,

“…we are obliged to inquire how it is possible for there
to be no philosophy; and in inquiring we philosophize, for inquiry is
the cause of Philosophy.”
-Aristotle

Through the lens of this quote, we can surmise such a core function being the lynchpin of philosophy as a whole. Let us, then, recede context, with all of its hubristic self-importance, including sub-textual intentions, into the background for the moment.

...unless you maintain that purpose has nothing to do with whether or not there is a question--because there is only one true question or form of question... — Ciceronianus

The word denotes something. If someone maintains this denotation is completely plastic within the ecosystem of context, then question has no essential function & meaning. I doubt Aristotle would sanction such a conclusion, as it posits the philosophical center of gravity amidst the swirling currents of atmospheric word play. Not a suitable instrument for examining the good life.

Nor am I sure whether you're addressing grammar, or metaphysics, or if they're one and the same. — Ciceronianus

I believe grammar & syntax are probative material for mounting a metaphysical premise with supporting argument but, no, I don't think they're equivalent to metaphysics. The relationship is more like grammar & syntax as the foot soldiers, preparing the battlefield for a great cataclysm wherein King meets King in contest.

then a categorical examination of the grammar of question is possible
— ucarr

So, it's grammar we're concerned with? — Ciceronianus

Grammar & syntax are, at present, town criers who can best tell us important things we'd like to know about our newly burnished noble, Lord Question.

A question, if it's pertinent to the answer it seeks, shares a link with said answer that is a variant of the transitive property.

I think I want to put this forward as the premise of my conversation here.

What you say is true. On the other hand, can you cite legions of family, friends and acquaintances who frequent this website, ready to spout alternatives to the cultural conventions that guide our everyday lives?

Reinventing the wheel works up a sweat!

What is the metaphysical status of a question?
— ucarr

Which question is that? — Ciceronianus

Casual answer - any question
— ucarr

Rhetorical questions? — Ciceronianus

↪Ciceronianus

Yes. — ucarr

If that's the case, then questions which aren't questions are questions. — Ciceronianus

The grammar that syntaxes question denotes form & function that operates independent of the sub-textual intentions of the speaker/writer.

Placing a filter over the grammar of question, such that we read it as a formal question that, in actuality, intends to make a statement, i.e. a rhetorical question, is a contextual maneuver that converts query into statement by social agreement. If this socially constructed reading of question as statement supports paradoxical word play, the grammarian of question can read it as would-be paradoxical piffle.

...I question whether all questions are alike, and think they vary in purpose and according to context. — Ciceronianus

If question, as signifier, possesses coherence, then a categorical examination of the grammar of question is possible & issues of speaker/writer intentions, sub-text & context are non-fatal to it.

As a test of this claim, I ask you to parse the following definition of question so as to configure it as a definition that supports characterization of same as paradox.

What is a question?
Generically, a question is an expression that consists of a variable. — 180 Proof

I think the logic supporting the general grammar of question, as defined above is
What Xa? ⇒ Xb, if Xa & Xb = Xab

Yes.

What is the metaphysical status of a question? — ucarr

Which question is that? — Ciceronianus

Casual answer - any question
Formal answer - Socratic Method > Elenchus

:grin: Thank-you!

A question is the difference between two or more simultaneously occurring mental states! — karl stone

Since I don't know if this refers to the volition choosing a single focus, or the differential in vertical stacking of prioritized activities i.e. multi-tasking, I need an elaboration.

I guess the paradox I mentioned in my previous posts can be "resolved" by changing the question (what is a question?) into a command (define "question"). It's kinda a cheat code to avoid/escape what is a mind-boggling loop. — Agent Smith

I believe, as you suggest, the differentiation of What is a question? and Define question is false. When I define something, I answer the question, What is it? Thus What is a question? equals Define question.

That you acknowledge existence of a resolution of the paradox shows you believe examination of question in general is possible.

I don't, however, rush to conclude your paradox is self-enclosed word play.

Premises

Undecidable ≠ meaningless

Ambiguous ≠ unintellibible

Generically, a question is an expression that consists of a variable. — 180 Proof

Can you reconfigure this statement as a paradox?

I, questioner = X, and I, questioner ≠ X — ucarr

This "question" makes no sense. — 180 Proof

Firstly, the statement normally appears to be nonsense, a point Agent Smith emphasizes. So, of course, in my translation of his paradox into my own paraphrase, the apparent nonsense is preserved. I express the paraphrase in route to examining whether Agent Smith's point is true.

In trying to write with the economy of symbolic logic, I find no symbol denoting examines, which is how I wish my statement quoted above to be read. Thus

I, questioner examine X, and I, questioner not examine X.

Instead of examine as the verb, is superset (in the sense of "encompass") better?

I, questioner ⊃ X, and I, questioner ⊅ X.

What is a question? is an impossible question - to ask it, one must know what a question is but it also indicates the questioner doesn't know what a question is. This is the paradox. — Agent Smith

Can we generalize the above thus, What is an X?

Must we parse it likewise? To ask it, one must know what an X is, but it also indicates the questioner doesn't know what an X is.

I, questioner = X, and I, questioner ≠ X

(These links are questions, no?) — 180 Proof

Serious questions. In light of QM, does the cognitive non-locality of word games signify something empirical?

You can't define "question" without knowing what a question is but you can't know what a question is without defining "question". — Agent Smith

The question of question, as it expresses in your language above, appears as paradox. With this claim I'm asserting that question of question, a two-tiered construction, defines as a curious singleton that occupies two places at once.

In our everyday experience of discrete singletons, paradox is seeming anomaly that science, with its grounding in cause_effect continuity & its emergent property, inference, works around via Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomatic set theory.

Take note that avoidable paradox & unavoidable paradox are two very different situations.

There is a conundrum, of ancient vintage, that examines the endless divisibility of the number line WRT walking about in the real world. If space is endlessly divisible, thus suggesting an endless journey across any interval of space, no matter how small, then how does a walking person ever get anywhere?

The conundrum, obviously, is not about the impossibility of walking over distance. It's about the difficulty of explaining foot travel in light of the observation about the number line.

In your Chicken-and-Egg Problem, you address defining/knowing a question.

You don't address asking a question. Just as I can walk progressively through space, infinite number line notwithstanding, I can think progressively through question of question, circularity of reasoning notwithstanding.

Although, at present, I can't explain the permeability of your circular reasoning conundrum, nonetheless I can observe said permeability, and thus proceed to examine fruitfully the role of question of question within logic.

And you didn't answer my question:

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways? — Baker

Powerful, shaping influences upon our lives are not always blatant.

The short answer to your question is propaganda.

My reasoning proceeds from the premise that all professional governments maintain an aggressive propaganda machine. Propaganda + (the science of) polling_statistics combine to form the bedrock of technique for winning the hearts & minds of the people.

Ingenious propaganda closely interweaves with culture to make a seamless combination so seemingly natural as to prevent native members from even questioning the legitimacy -- both existential & moral -- of the state-sanctioned, core values of the culture. The minority of citizens who actively oppose core values are then easily shunned as radicals, malcontents, degenerates etc.

For example, consider a child born into a small village, geographically isolated. Everyone in the village professes to be a Christian. From day one, the child is casually indoctrinated with Christian ideology. They get it from their parents & extended family, from the school teacher, policeman, fireman, merchant and minister. In this situation, we have religious ideology shaking hands with the culture so tightly as to make the two indistinguishable & therefore inseparable.

But they are separate. Religion is spiritual_moral. Culture is social_political. When all of these potent forces are combined into a tight interweave, how likely is it that a child, nurtured up therein, will turn away from the family & society that fed, clothed, sheltered, educated, inspired & protected them?

Not very likely.

And you didn't answer my question:

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger... — Baker

Your metaphor above is taken from a crime drama. In real life, the gun placed to the head (and within the head) of the average citizen is ingenious propaganda, not a firearm.

What is the counter to ingenious propaganda? A firearm? No. The counter is critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking is taught in the public skills. However, when students are encouraged to apply such skills to core cultural values, their teachers, being radicals, soon face termination.*

*For an example, examine numerous articles pertaining to CRT.

One of the important responsibilities of philosophy is cultivation of a critical thinking mindset that plays no favorites.

Well! I must say, you're whacking me arse pretty good with your answers.

And you didn't answer my question:

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways? — baker

Is it my fault the public schools give short shrift to critical thinking? The public needn't be herded together as livestock if they choose to resist. You can't deny, however, that rabbler-rousers travel the fast lane to prison. Most people are so numb with misery they've gotta be reminded of their discontent.

On the other hand, state-sanctioned rabble-rousers score pots of gold for their sage pronouncements, as we've been seeing with the many tongue-waggers hawking that Replacement Theory bosh.

Going by my experience, me saying anything to her or the cashier or the store manager would only result in things getting worse for me. Why is that? Because bosiness, aggressiveness, competitiveness always win, always prevail. — baker

I must say, Mr. Tweedle-Dumdee Baker, you're over-civilized to a fault, considering your experience at the greengrocer. I see you're a man who shelters by blending with the crowd. "What? I should publicize myself by opposing a shrew?! Messy affair."

Why, I say, someone's got to get you seeing yourself. You're deeply ensconced within a cage bound by gold bars, but a cage just the same.

It's beyond time you got that old rascal Complacency up on his feet and shakin' a leg.

(1) I don't know your meaning of 'homological' applied to relationships between a mathematical theory and empirical observation. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm trying to use homological in a parallel with onomatopoeia as it's used pertaining to verbal language.

Onomatopoeia - a word that sounds like the noise it describes. Examples - boing, gargle, clap, zap, and pitter-patter

Thus a math expression homological to a state-of-affairs, as specified in our example here, expresses contradictory conclusions that are both valid.

If we must use the word 'signifier' here, I would say that the signifier is not a model but rather a theory. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You're telling me that a math expression that asserts a claim is nonetheless considered theoretical?

I put it this way: There is no model of a contradictory theory. (That's for classical logic. We may find other things pertain in other kinds of logic.) — TonesInDeepFreeze

You're telling me that all legal permutations of classical logic expressions are devoid of contradictions?

If so, it must be the case that classical logic parameters categorically exclude contradiction.

If so, this is an example of a mathematician modulating axioms to fit a metaphysical principle (LNC).

If so, then, in the wake of QM, a mathematician can re-jigger axioms to admit contradictions, which action, you suggest, has already been taken.

...there are brilliant and wise thinkers in the past who have come up with entire fields of study, such as mathematical logic, in which we find rigorous and brilliant solutions — TonesInDeepFreeze

What say you to math language holding a homological relationship to the empirical-material world it's modeling? Looking through the lens of a homological relationship between a signifier (math model) & its referent ( material object), can the math model successfully model a self-contradictory material object without containing within itself any contradictory math expressions?

I'm speculating that, if the answer to the above is "yes," then the foundational logic of math need not be overhauled in light of the experimental evidence of QM, but rather should expand its scope to include QM paradoxes.

If the answer is "no," then the foundational logic of math either needs models that, beyond exclusion, preclude the reality of QM paradoxes. If no such models can be fabricated, then foundational logic of math needs reexamination.

A feedback loop is a physical-material memory structure of the brain. At the first order level of feedback looping, you get the behaviorism that Chalmers uses as evidence that neuro-science hasn't created a material model for the self.

I'm theorizing that the self, by definition self-referential (please bear with the circularity here, as circularity lies at the heart of memory functions), doesn't appear in a materialist-objectivist model until the second order of feedback looping that, in a vertical structure, rides atop first order feedback looping. In short, the self is the reflection of the first order behaviorist automaton, and thus this automaton individualizes over time as it examines ever more thoroughly the reflections of its automaton self.

This tells us that philosophy, which promotes self-examination, culminates in the individual, the apotheosis of human identity, according to western-hemispheric culture.

Here's my conjecture,

One of the pillars of the objective assessment of subjectivity is self-reference & self-referentiality.

If cognitive science has ascended to the level of analyzing the second-order feedback looping that substrates a self regarding first-order baseline feedback looping, then self-referentiality is now in the crosshairs of scientific objectivism. — ucarr

That is the problem. Where is the physical evidence for consciousness?
What does ‘consciousness’ do? This is in light of understanding that it is perfectly [sic] for a philosophical zombie to exist (without disrupting our understanding of nature). — I like sushi

I've already stated my response to your questions above. Here they are again.

One of the pillars of the objective assessment of subjectivity is self-reference & self-referentiality.

If cognitive science has ascended to the level of analyzing the second-order feedback looping that substrates a self regarding first-order baseline feedback looping, then self-referentiality is now in the crosshairs of scientific objectivism. — ucarr

Subjectivity can not be ‘given’ to another as someone else cannot be someone different. — I like sushi

We're on the same page here, as I've also said something similar,

What about the consciousness that comprises the inner, emotional life of the experiencing self?

Can that consciousness be objectified without it turning its observer-receiver into a clone of itself? — ucarr

Piecing together the intersubjectivity does allow us to shed some light — I like sushi

Our fellow member Joshs is pushing hard along this line of attack upon The Hard Problem.

My personal view is that it is more likely a problem of definitions and/or category errors. — I like sushi

Yes. The intersubjectivity of the subjective/objective divide sounds to me like a gnarly paradox. However, ascension to a 4D selfhood might enable the effecting of some type of Vulcan mind meld (don't laugh too loudly!)

He [Chalmers] merely states that it is not hard to imagine creatures on another world living as we do today and doing what we do yet having no consciousness whatsoever... — I like sushi

Regarding Quote 01 above, do I correctly characterize it as a description of the behaviorism resultant of high-level, automatic, chemical-mechanical processes?

From there it is then a question of asking what is the difference between us and them. — I like sushi

Regarding Quote 02 above, I answer by declaring we humans, unlike the automatons, possess a self who, described functionally, maintains a personal POV of events as reported via the senses & the cogitating mind.

This leads me to my approach to The Hard Problem.

How does our scientific process, based mainly within objectivism, render an objective profile of subjectivity? In facing The Hard Problem, have we arrived at the limit of scientific objectivism?

Speaking traditionally, is not the academically objective rendering of subjective experience normally handled by denizens of the literary components of English Departments i.e. by the novelist?

The novel, however, does not normally delve into the how of rendering subjective experience objectively, or does it?

Disciplines such as structuralism & semiotics, derided by many as false scientification of the humanites, as I'm seeing them just now in context of this discussion, lean towards an objective assessment of subjectivity.

One of the pillars of the objective assessment of subjectivity is self-reference & self-referentiality.

If cognitive science has ascended to the level of analyzing the second-order feedback looping that substrates a self regarding first-order baseline feedback looping, then self-referentiality is now in the crosshairs of scientific objectivism.

What about the consciousness that comprises the inner, emotional life of the experiencing self?

Can that consciousness be objectified without it turning its observer-receiver into a clone of itself?

Must the individualized self soldier on through life in its unique & solitary bubble of selfhood?

However, methinks this is misguided because the mathematical descriptions seem not to exhibit any inconsistencies whatsoever. — Agent Smith

If I present a proof that a certain claim is false, would you say my proof is invalid because it's not also false?

"[T]he superposition of amplitudes ... is only valid if there is no way to know, even in principle, which path the particle took. It is important to realize that this does not imply that an observer actually takes note of what happens. It is sufficient to destroy the interference pattern, if the path information is accessible in principle from the experiment or even if it is dispersed in the environment and beyond any technical possibility to be recovered, but in principle still ‘‘out there.’’ -- The Apple Dictionary — ucarr

Is not the above statement telling us that no existential paradox can be experienced empirically (i.e. isolated) because even the linguistic concept of paradox collapses the existential expression of paradox?

The question of all questions is "is the imprecision a bug in language or a feature of reality?" — Agent Smith

Is not the superposition of an elementary particle within quantum mechanics an existential paradox?

Is not quantum computing already underway?

Is not Schrödinger's Cat a thought experiment in paradox at the human scale of sensory experience?

Does Schrödinger's Cat have no impact upon the LNC?


Anton Zeilinger, referring to the prototypical example of the double-slit experiment, has elaborated regarding the creation and destruction of quantum superposition:

"[T]he superposition of amplitudes ... is only valid if there is no way to know, even in principle, which path the particle took. It is important to realize that this does not imply that an observer actually takes note of what happens. It is sufficient to destroy the interference pattern, if the path information is accessible in principle from the experiment or even if it is dispersed in the environment and beyond any technical possibility to be recovered, but in principle still ‘‘out there.’’ -- The Apple Dictionary

The absence of any such information is the essential criterion for quantum interference to appear.

Does not quantum mechanics declare the imprecision is a feature of reality?

The classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically..., — ucarr

Do you believe class division & the established social order, like human inequality, occur naturally, and thus no need for any type of social engineering?

Do you believe the law, like class division & the established social order, are natural?

In your sentence above, you use the passive voice with reference to (see bold words above) the fact of classism. If you rewrite the sentence with the verb in the active voice, who will you posit as the actor bringing classism into effect? You can answer by giving an example of the sentence rewritten with the verb in the active voice.

And then the revolution eats its children and soon enough, things go back to the way they used to be, just the faces in positions of power are new. — baker

Do you believe revolts & revolutions are, more often than not, merely superficial makeovers of short duration?

Do you believe revolutions are always the undoing of their authors?

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways? — baker

Do you acknowledge two systems of justice, one for the rich & powerful, another for the commonality?

What is needed is a way to get beyond the split, by making creative differentiation and transformation intrinsic to matter, and by understanding subjective feeling as having a kind of causality or logic. — Joshs

What you describe sounds to me like partial deconstruction of enlightenment scientific method back to modulated animism & also reinvigorated belief in instinct & intuition. Together these cultural currents appear to be slanting towards a mild version of postmodernism.

The new unifying dualism. Presented her on Tee-Pee-Fee...eeehh.... Tee-Pee-eeF! — Hillary

:up:

Both Ying and Yang would be hopelessly lost. — Hillary

In each other? Cosmic romance.

We have rightly posited two monisms to be the basis of nature, but wrongly put them together as separate. If we consider them simply as belonging to the same elements, we see the Sun breaking through and a rainbow appear. — Hillary

Yin and Yang dualism!