The other way to look at this is through the concept of time. This is front and center in phenomenology, for apprehensions of the world are temporal events, which is why pragmatism is good way account for things: there are no "things", just events, with beginnings, middles and ends, and so the "real" is sought in the reductive "eternal present". — Constance

Truth Is Not Truth Until Truth Is Eternal.

All roads lead to phenomenology. And the quest for truth in phenomenology leads, I claim, to one place: meditation, an existential destruction of the world whereby language as a dogmatic perceptual determination is annihilated. This sounds very weird, I know. But did we really think the world was not a weird place at the level of basic assumptions? — Constance

Big claims! I like the last sentence! G'day!

I feel they they lacked the knowledge of the cosmos of the modern day. I doubt that if they were alive today would maintain there philosophical convictions if they knew then what we know now about the Universe — SteveMinjares

Struck a chord in me, that. I'm going to go Aristotle on you and say a being's purpose is defined by what that being excels in. So, a lion, built-for-the-kill, must kill, that's the lion's purpose :fear: Likewise, as Aristotle thought humans are good, not the best of course, thinkers - they seek knowledge and do so rationally and, once upon a time, via revelation. The meat and potatoes of man's quest seems to be, if all goes well, understand the cosmos itself.

Thus, our (humanity's) purpose is to comprehend the universe in all its magnificent splendor however that might be interpreted - that's the meaning of life, of human life.

Existentialist philosophers were top-notch intellectuals in their own right and though their weltanschauungs were as limited as the prevailing paradigms and accumulated knowledge database were, it wasn't the case that this had escaped their notice. They did then what we do now - assume dominant ways of looking at the world and refer to what is known and come up with a coherent snapshot of what can be inferred and from that the ramifications, all this knowing full well that a time might come when they'll be ridiculed for their beliefs. Sometimes, ancient sages are the imbeciles of the present - an effect of gathering information, something we seem to be good at, just as Aristotle thought. Sometimes, past fools are modern visionaries - imagination, luck, and insight playing key roles.

Your gratuitous proliferation of pointless videos reminds me of graffiti. — Wayfarer

A thousand apologies! I'll do my best to restrain myself.

I'm grateful that you thought my views were worth pursuing further but I'm not sure whether your objective was to make me realize that,
— TheMadFool

I’m sure an insult is buried in there somewhere. But you asked surely I could see there was no discernible grammar in your answer. And yet I seemed able to discern some grammar in your answer.

Was I mistaken or do you accept that and now withdraw your claim? Ball is in your court, sir. — apokrisis

No insults I assure you. I thought you were being snide. No point discussing this. Let's pick up where we left off.

I'm not even sure if what I say makes sense but Claude Shannon's information theory seems to treat messages (carriers of information) as the final answer to a series of yes/no questions aimed at narrowing down the possibiilites that the message could be from an arbitrary n to 1.

For instance, if there are 4 possibilities A, B, C, and D, the message A is the answer to 2 yes/no questions [1. Is it among the first two letters of the alphabet? 2. Is it the first letter of the alphabet?] and thus carries 2 bits of information.

Given this is the case, the message "a poodle entered the room" can be reframed as the following:

Question: What entered the room?
a) A poodle OR b) An elephant OR c) A cow

Answer: a) A poodle

As you can see the syntactical aspects of the answer are covered for by the question itself. In fact, it seems possible to remove the phrase "a poodle" completely and just say a).

When you go to the hardware store, do you have to ask the nice man to open the cabinet to sell you the spray paint? — Wayfarer

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If there's a point, I didn't get it.

Morality is based on the recognition of the value/sacredness of life. — EnPassant

To be honest, when I read this I felt the same way as a famished homeless person would have felt when fae finds a half-eaten 2-day-old hotdog at the end of a desperate hour of going through the trash. Mayhaps it's just an illusion but still, I quite like that feeling. :smile:

DUI
1. You do something: Drink alcohol.
2. 3. Rights: You don't have the right to drink drive.
3. Consequences: Menace to society.


Anti-vaccination
1. You don't do something: Refuse vaccine.
2. Rights: You have the right to refuse vaccination.
3. Consequences: Menace to society.

If you look at whether you're doing something/not doing something, the analogy breaks down as action means you caused something (bad) to happen and inaction simply means you allowed something (bad) to happen. People will hold it against you that you committed murder but will let it slide that you didn't raise a finger to stop a murder. I'm not as sure as I'd like to be on this.

If you consider rights, DUI is an offense but refusing vaccines isn't. Should we make vaccines mandatory? I dunno!

In terms of consequences, DUI and anti-vaccination are indistinguishable. Anti-vaxxers and drunk drivers both put the lives of other people at (high) risk.

I wouldn't feel too grateful at 10k posts the argument is more self-enforced than otherwise. :razz: — Outlander

:smile:

What entered the room?

A: A poodle.
A: The poodle.
A: Some poodle.
A: Poodle.
A: Can you repeat the question in a way that takes up more of the grammatical load so I can pretend my reply has no grammatical structure? — apokrisis

I'm grateful that you thought my views were worth pursuing further but I'm not sure whether your objective was to make me realize that,

What about the grammatical structure? Subject-verb-object was lurking as the generating constraint on your collection of informational units.

Meanings can’t just be composed. They must be subsumed to a holistic pattern, a top-down structure, a semiotic habit of interpretance.

Information theory is particularly silent on this. — apokrisis

The way I see it, Claude Shannon treats information as answers to questions which from a certain perspective dissociates the grammar/syntax from semantics.

So, "a poodle entered the room"is rephrased as the answer to a question like so:

Q. What entered the room?
A. A poodle.

There's no discernible grammar/syntax in the answer (the message) as you will have already noticed.

I dunno!

Ok, but why does the person’s wants the narcissist encounters trump his own? The narcissist demands X (ass kissing), the other person demands Y (respect), but only Y is honored. — Pinprick

Good question. X wants ass-kissing and Y wants no ass-kissing. So, what happens when the two of them meet? X would think, I can't let Y kiss my ass. Y would think, I have to kiss X's ass. This'll happen: Y will try and kiss X's ass but X won't let Y kiss ass. Both are happy!

Yes. Because of the time sensitive nature. Like, take all the time you want waiting on the japanese encephalitis vaccine to get a golden review; I'm not headed to Tokyo. If we wait to meet unreasonable standards then the benefits of a vaccine aren't realized. I think we shouldn't defeat our own purpose. — Cheshire

I'm not implying that we should wait for the perfect vaccine, just like we don't wait for the perfect smartphone. What I do want to see with vaccines is something like what's happening with Apple smartphones: iPhone 4, 5, 6, 7,..., a tangible progression in the features of the vaccine as the years go by, including but not limited to improved safety (minimal or zero risk).

Our difference would be that I think a vaccine is a novel product category. And I don't think it is dangerous. I think we should adopt this argument in regards to the actual product quality. People shop on price too much. — Cheshire

I feel you shouldn't ignore risks like that. True, the risks are negligible, near-zero, but someone always wins the lottery and it might just be your "lucky" day when you get your jab if you know what I mean.

The problem is in thinking that a groups reaction correlates 1 for 1 with the actual quality. Perhaps people are idiots and not fit to judge the quality of a vaccine. But, suppose they don't know it and instead say whatever their little minds produce. — Cheshire

Anti-vaxxers are right on the money as far as I can tell.

Indeed, statisically speaking, given how extremely unlikely serious side effects to vaccines are, anti-vaxxers are loco.

However, anti-vaxxers have a hidden benefit that seems to have escaped our notice. What they do or should do is galvanize vaccine developers into paying attention to reducing the risks, minor & major. Until now, vaccine developers have gotten away with it in a manner of speaking by constantly harping on the positives of vaccination and how the negatives are so negligible. Anti-vaxxers are having none of that - their demand, unrealistic perhaps but definitely describes an ideal, is all or none i.e. zero side effects or no to any and all vaccinations. This should put vaccine developers into combat mode, get those cogs turning in their heads, and quite possibly, they can design perfect vaccines, side effects: NIL.

Tibees! Allow me to introduce you to a gorgeous girl who knows math. Beauty with Brains! Double Treat!

A message = information + redundancy + noise

Message = A poodle dog entered the room xptlmz

Redundancy = dog
Noise = xptlmz
Information = A poodle entered the room

I am convinced that the epistemic distance between me and my cat is infinite — Constance

You have a point and I detect pragmatic undertones in your approach. Why bother about noumena at all; after all we can never know them (epistemic distance is for all intents and purposes infinite).

However, ontologically, we're not warranted to dismiss noumena - we may doubt it à la Descartes & Harman but we may not assert that noumena don't exist.

Don't people generally warn each other of danger? Why is this the exception? Out of everyone taking it and yet not one person has told me; I regret it. — Cheshire

Now I see where you're coming from - you think vaccineas hould be accepted in spite of causing more common minor discomfort (minor side-effects, MiSE) and the rare death/disability (major side-effects MaSE). The benefits (disease immunity) , as has be shoved down our throats, outweigh the risks (MiSE/MaSE).

What I'm advocating for is people to adopt an approach similar to if not identical to the approach we have towards good/products sold to us by businesses big and small; after all we do have to buy vaccines. What's this approach? A demand for quality - improve or we won't make the purchase. This simple rule has companies spending billions in R&D with the express purpose of correcting imperfections in their products. In vaccine terms, imperfections are the risks (MiSE and MaSE) and had we been as quality-savvy with vaccines as we are with smartphones, TVs, and gadgets, we would've provided the impetus for vaccine manufacturers to make their vaccines better i.e. vaccines with fewer/no MiSE and MaSE should've been a reality by now.

That this didn't happen indicates that vaccine manufactures don't care about quality (less/no MiSE and MaSE) as much as they do about money - it's more profitable to sell vaccines as they are (with risks) because people are more worried about not dying than dipping into their savings.

With anti-vaxxers, the situation has hopefully changed for the better - a clear message has been sent to vaccine manufacturers that people won't tolerate a compromise on quality, they want vaccine manufacturers to adopt the exact same policy towards their customers as Samsung & Apple have towards their clients - extra emphasis on quality which for vaccines must include, among other positive features, a reduction or elimination of negatives (risks), another name for safety.

I understand that all we have to work on are phenomena but that doesn't mean noumena don't exist. That's like saying the only philosopher I can understand is Wittgenstein; ergo, the only philosopher there was/is is Wittgenstein.

How many vaccinated people have told you to avoid it? — Cheshire

Zero! Your point?

You give baby aspirin to enough people and someone will choke to death. It is an unreasonable expectation on the part of the anti-vaxer that supports their position. — Cheshire

Oral medication can be improved e.g. powder forms that'll prevent choking . A similar logic should apply to vaccines. The medical/pharmacological communities are asleep at the wheel.

What's good about anti-vaxxers is they give a clear signal to the medical & scientific establishment that people won't tolerate substandard work/products.
— TheMadFool

Rigorous industry standards have nothing to do with anti-vaxxers. Vaccines are only one class of regulated pharmaceutical products. — Fooloso4

What I meant was scientists/doctors developed vaccines, a heroic feat no doubt, but they didn't make the follow-up move which is to make vaccines better in the sense reduce the number and severity of their side-effects. Had they done that, anti-vaxxers would have never been able to do what they're doing right now - undermine decades of medical progress.

we don't have effective treatment modalities against viruses.
— TheMadFool

Shingrix and Gardasil are effective viral vaccines. But you are right, more work products need to be brought to market. — Fooloso4

I was referring to treatment (cures/medicine). Vaccines don't treat, they prevent. Bacterial infections can be treated (antibiotics) and prevented (vaccines) but viral ones have either no or only a few drugs available and that too of less than optimum efficacy.

Terror, it's claimed, is a demand for justice, a not so gentle reminder to redress a wrong done. War, though apparently a solution, actually adds one more item to the list of perceived unforgivable offenses. A vicious cycle of violence is inevitable: Terror -> War -> Terror -> War...and so on.

nihilist — niki wonoto

Broadly, nihilism is the negation or denial of objective truths; I suppose all other specific types of nihilism (moral nihilism, logical nihilism, etc.) branch out from this.

philosophical pessimism — niki wonoto

The worldview that centers around the dark side of nature and humans and thus, recommends lowering one's expectations to match the world's modus operandi - indifference bordering on malice.

Prima facie, philosophical pessimism appears to follow directly from nihilism at least when it comes to matters human; after all if nihilism is true, moral nihilism follows and that should, in the rational person, elicit extreme pessimism.

Dig a little deeper though and this causal connection vanishes because nihilism rejects those very ideas that underpin pessimism - ideas like good & evil, happiness & suffering, to name a few.

Nothing whatever can be affirmed outside phenomena, — Constance

Agreed but that doesn't seem to negate the existence of noumena. The point of BiV gedanken experiment is only to show that our total dependence on phenomena raises the possibility but not certainty of the absence of the noumenal world.

As I mentioned in my previous posts, neither Descartes' nor Harman's thought experiments prove the nonexistence of a physical world out there. All they do is cast doubt on it. You need a good reason to go from possible that noumen not there to certain that noumena not there and you don't have one.

The sticking point of the BiV thought experiment is that we can stimulate specific combination of neurons in ways that mimic to a T actual experiences. For instance, I could apply an electrical current to the pressure & temperature sensors in your hand and give you the feeling that you're holding a hot cup of tea. There is no hot cuppa! A little extrapolation and you can now think yourself as a nothing more than a brain in vat whose entire reality is simply a supercomputer causing specific combinations of neurons to fire. Like the cuppa isn't real, neither is the world the brain perceives.

I recall pointing out once in another thread roughly half a year ago that there's only one thing we can be absolutely certain about - mental experience. The so-called physical world could be an illusion/ a simulation. Compare that to how there's no plausible way we could cast doubt of a similar nature regarding the mind. To doubt the mind is to admit there's mind; how else can you doubt it?

Morality is based on the recognition of the value/sacredness of life. — EnPassant

:up: You should've told me this about 20 years ago! I wouldn't have made as many mistakes as I have. :sad:

This doesn’t seem to jive with the Diamond Rule though, at least as you’ve described it, or perhaps as I’ve (mis)understood it.

If we’re to let others define our actions, that holds us accountable for treating them the way they want to be treated independent of how we actually want to treat them. I don’t see where the obligation of the narcissist to consider others wants when he decides how he wants to be treated is derived from. — Pinprick

Perhaps we can compare the golden rule with the diamond rule to see how they stack up against each other.

First off, understand rules are meant for everyone.

1. The golden rule is formulated on the preferences of the person who wants to know how fae should act towards another person. Put simply, your personal idiosyncracies and peculiarities will manifest in your actions i.e. if you're of unsound mind (sick) you might hurt people e.g. a masochist might go around inflicting pain (most people avoid pain).

2. The diamond rule is crafted to circumvent the problem of the golden rule - your personal quirks won't be something other people have to deal with. This rule essentially treats people the way they wanted to be treated. So, yes a narcissist may want you to treat faer in odd ways but he can't demand it of you because fae has to act in ways that you want and you want to be treated with respect, the normal kind, and so won't want to constantly bow and kiss ass.

If there's anything bad about anti-vaxxers it's that they fail to recognize vaccines are the most natural way to immunize people against disease. They more or less go through the proper channels - stimulating our in-built immune system by inducing a milder, sometimes totally asymptomatic, infection so that when the real bug find its way into our body, we're ready to fend it off. Given current science & medicine, you won't find anything better in the market.

What's good about anti-vaxxers is they give a clear signal to the medical & scientific establishment that people won't tolerate substandard work/products. Vaccines, as they rightly complain, do have side-effects ranging from life-threatening anaphylaxis to long-term neurological complications. These are rare of course, so rare in fact that they the benefits overshadow the risks therein. However, such adverse outcomes of vaccinations indicate there's plenty of room for improvement. It appears the medical, pharmacological and scientific communities were caught with their pants down, they were resting on their laurels and didn't even notice the chink in our armor against bugs viz. we don't have effective treatment modalities against viruses.

Good point. Not all information is true. You have tapped on to the emotional/social reason for seeking information. That is really something to ponder.

I think you guys have won me back from another forum that is just beginning. I wanted to be in on the beginning of a forum, but it does not have near the depth of thinking that happens here. You all are awesome! — Athena

Sensationalism sells! I dunno!

the change that occurs in each element of a set of interacting objects is information, — Daniel

Quite close to Claude Shannon's - father of information theory - own thoughts but with one small difference: not just change but also the degree of change as in more extreme the change, the greater the information content in a message that relates that change. C'mon, mathematize information and this is bound to happen. We need to quantify something. Why not measure the extent of the change (from the baseline)? A rough marker that this is how ordinary people actually view information is the sales figures of so-called tabloid news. I believe they sell like hot cakes.

Just because most people are hypocrites doesn't mean this doesn't hold true for those whose practices are authentic. — Pantagruel

One good argument I suppose that God exists is the existence of the Devil. It's the same thing with hypocrisy - bad people can get some idea of what good is and even if they don't practice, they at least preach. The point here is not to compare those who don't practice what they preach with those who practice what they preach but with those who don't even preach.

If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him. — Pantagruel

I think someone must've already mentioned this before but I believe there's a fundamental distinction between the epistemic methodology religion and philosophy practice. The former is, excepting Buddhism of course (more on this later), revelatory while the latter is rational.

What this means is religions (the Abrahamic big 3) rely almost exclusively on truths handed down from, literally dictated by, a higher power - God - through a chosen person - the prophet/messenger. In most cases, criticism of revealed truths is forbidden on pain of torture and death.

Philosophy's lifeblood is reason, rational criticism of truth-claims, in fact philosophers are trained, to use a martial analogy, to attack rather than defend, the latter being either a skill less worthy of a genuine thinker or a skill that's pointless given how rare it is to find a belief system immune to a full frontal assault, cunning flanking maneuvers and taking out the rearguard. The bottom line is fault-finding to philosophers is as annoying as it is to religious establishments but, the difference is, in philosophy it's a valuable asset to be cultivated and mastered to the point where you can pick out imperfections in perfection itself.

Buddhism, it appears, took a philosophical path and attempts to, as best as it can, eschew revelatory modes of truth-seeking and truth-finding. The Four Noble Truths - the axioms as it were of Gautama's system of beliefs - are clearly discernible to anyone willing to analyze them in the reality everyone shares. 0f course, there'll be disagreements but the point is not whether Siddhartha's right/wrong but Buddhism's epistemic approach to truths which sets it apart from other religions.

Another point worth noting is the Buddha was reluctant to discuss metaphysical issues and avoided discussing such matters, instead adopting a noncommital stance on all such questions - Noble Silence.

All I will say is that I know some believers who do manage mostly to practice what's been preached to them. Being a secular absurdist freethinker, my ethical struggles just don't include hypocrisy as par for course the way it is practiced, sometimes ethusiastically, by so-called "religious" folks. Yeah, I fail occasionally to live-up to being better than I was yesterday but that's the (any) discipline – striving to overcome myself (which, you're right, is difficult as hell to do daily) – and not a profession of "grace" or "faith" in some messiah / prophet / guru. Anyway, the only advice I'd take from a "hypocrite", if I was interested, is 'how to be one and make it work for me somehow'. :smirk: — 180 Proof

It's odd that when people are bad, we immediately conclude they're really bad but when someone is being good, we're on guard, highly suspicious of their (hidden) intentions, the possibility that we're dealing with two-faced sons/daughters of jackals taken seriously, very seriously in fact.

I suppose we all know, deep down in our hearts, how people really are - bad - but at the same time we hope that there are exceptions - good folks. Thus, knowledge & hope come together to weave a rather incoherent tale of hard facts (people generally care only about themselves) and cautious expectations (we keep our eyes peeled for the good Samaritan). Most of the time people fall short of the mark but on rare occasions we're treated to a pleasant surprise and might I add, this is one of only a handful of situations where we're more than happy to be proven wrong.

I'm rambling. Just ignore me!

First off, a confession - I haven't had time to watch the video so what I'm about to say might change after.

Starting at 16:41

"Arguments can be good in all kinds of ways even when they are not logically valid". — Banno

What's Gillian Russell's citeria of a good argument? Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be about validity and if not, how does she know the conclusion is true given some premises are?

Her issue seems to be with deductive logic (validity above) but then she isn't saying anything we already don't know - there are cogent inductive arguments that aren't deductively valid - the conclusion is probable but not necessary.

1. 99.99% of Indians are mathematcian = M
2. Y is an Indian = I
Ergo,
3. Y is a mathematician = Y

In modus ponens (the sticking point insofar as the OP is concerned) form the inductive argument looks like:

4. If (M & I) then Y
5. M & I
Ergo,
6. Y

As you can see, statement 4 even if it isn't completely true, it's truer than false. Let's just say you would bet big on it.

However, 6 doesn't follow deductively from 4 and 5 i.e. it's invalid but still, and notably, the argument is good.

If taken to extremes this creates problems as well. What if I would like you to have sex with me? Are you duty bound to do so? Or perhaps I’m narcissistic and think you should greet me by bowing when I enter the room, and bid me farewell by kissing my ass on the way out. Is that acceptable?

As an alternative, let’s try the Platinum Rule: Treat others however you want, but adjust your behavior when asked to do so (trial and error). — Pinprick

:lol:

Rules are meant for everyone. The narcissist who wants people to bow before faer and kiss faer ass must consider the fact that other people don't want to bow to faer or kiss faer ass. Thus, a narcissist shouldn't demand such things.

Religion as such makes far more hypocrites than it "makes us better" people. Read Dante. Read Erasmus. Read Spinoza. Read Paine. Read Nietzsche. It's an archaic, though somewhat still effective, system of control. Nothing more. It's intelligible content is mostly nil. "WWJD" is merely a punchline or tattoo. No longer even "Platonism of the masses" ... — 180 Proof

Truth is I'm one of those who don't practice religion in the way it's prescribed. Why? Plain and simple - it's just too damn hard. Naturally, since as I said, it goes against our nature (we're not good) or if that's not to your taste, it seeks to tap into a part of our nature (the good in us) that's not so easy to get to, overshadowed as it is by self-concern, let alone cultivate in any meaningful way.

As for hypocrisy,

Hypocrisy is the best we can hope for. In hypocrisy people acknowledge something is nice and pretend to be that. — Joe Wong (comedian)

I know this Buddhist monk who's broken his vow of chastity and now has a partner :lol: . He told me something very interesting around a decade or so ago. According to him, all good begins as hypocrisy - it's an uphill task to practice what one preaches and many end up as janus-faced double-dealers - BUT, as he put it, the outward show of goodwill though dissonant with one's own selfishness will, in good time, be internalized i.e. there will come a point when one can/will be truly good; the image of goodness one habitually projects will finally match one's real self. Hypocrisy then a stepping stone and not a stumbling block as regards becoming a good person à la Jesus/Buddha.

Coming from a hypocrite, I don't know what to make of this piece of Buddhist advice? What sayest thou?

Are religious folk renown for practicing what they preach? :lol:

So the question becomes, what is the cornerstone of religion? — praxis

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. Religion is like boot camp. Extreme training, recruits physically and mentally stressed to breaking point - many apply, few qualify. True, most fail but what about the success stories? To focus only on those who fail to match words with deeds is like thinking the army is a myth because of a large number of those who don't make the cut in a manner of speaking. Yet, the army exists and has proven its worth on more than one occasion.

If "praxis is the cornerstone", then why many, actually most, e.g. Christians do not 'act Christ-like' very often (i.e. live Christ-like lives) and haven't done so throughout history? — 180 Proof

Read my reply to praxis above. To reiterate, being good is tough, both physically and mentally taxing because it goes against the grain - we're selfish, we've evolved to be so, nothing pays dividends as much as being self-serving. Given this obvious fact, expect many/most to drop out of religious training programs. Too, many self-proclaimed religious people turn out to be hypocrites.

However, there are a few who do manage to make the grade and that's what I feel authentic practice does - makes us better people.

Religion's are at the core of many cultures, so are vital if you want to develop a more expansive understanding of the human experience. — Pantagruel

I second that but I have a sneaking suspicion that people might take that in a way identical to Richard Dawkins' views on the matter - study religion (theology) but, he says, don't practice religion. @Wayfarer would disagree most forcefully and I too because praxis is the cornerstone of religions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating!

problem of evil — Jack Cummins

Can you see what's happening Jack?

The Abrahamic triad attempts to explain evil by chalking it up to free will (necessary for the idea of the good) and divine retribution (punishment for evil acts we're culpable of because we have free will) - the bottom line is according to these religions, let's not mince words here, evil is good in disguise.

Now, Buddhism. In this religion too, evil, as I mentioned in my previous post, is karmic retribution i.e. again, evil is good in disguise.

This is what I meant by jumping through hoops and bending over backwards. The problem of evil? Huh? You mean good (free will, repercussions for evil done in accord with your own free will)? In other words, there's no evil - it's either a minor and yet generally detested accompaniment to the melodic splendor of the good (free will) or simply the echo of your deeds bouncing back at you i.e. either evil has something good in it or is good itself in a form that one can't recognize. Geez!

I'd found I didn't get anywhere, or progress in my understandings, until I gave up seeking "clear answers" (mythos) and switched to reasoning toward better, more probitive, questions (logos vs mythos (i.e. meta-mythos)). After all, an "answer" is nothing but a question's way of generating new questions. — 180 Proof

Deal with a few minutes into the video. — Banno

Roger!