These women all Canadian?

The people won't sit still for almost 4 minutes of a dull commercial message. Four minutes of an intriguing message, however, is quite possible.

What are they doing to you up there in MN? 4 minute commercials?! Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment. :)

Mannequins literally freak me out, my skin crawls. I am walking through a store and turn almost bumping into a mannequin, it takes me less than a second to realize it is unreal, and it takes me moments longer to regain my equilibrium.

The live models & the mannequins that participate in this commercial (its facile irony aside) are all young, wearing casual apparel. The models are all different shades of color and shapes, but none of them, neither model nor mannequin, are old & grey.

Message: If you want to look young, active and thereby be perceived as young attractive and vital, use Dove... its purification will enable you to appear young attractive and vital. You too can win the challenge of a having a clean desirable appearance.

No

The Salem cigarette commercials. It is a mentholated cigarette, and the ad went along the lines that it took just one puff to take you out of your moment and put you into Salem country, with all its clear fresh air and beautiful setting & company.

The process of creating an ideal out of an object, trying to confer transcendental status upon the object, giving it power by making its presupposition necessary for the achievement of an ideal (we all want to be in Salem Country, but you can't unless you puff a Salem ;) ). This is what fetish ( 'compelling') is about, in my opinion. Ads strive to work in ways similar to the way stilettos, undergarments, black leather and the rest do the trick for some. Gratification is contingent upon purchase (and of course proper use) of the advertisers product. Get your rocks off ...take a puff.
(not saying 'compelling' is always sexually driven, but...)

Do you think sense datum can be classified as becomings, in the genesis (the genealogical relationship between causes and effects)of a perception, the process whereby something non-conceptual and unintelligible becomes conceptual, intelligible. How the substantial becomes intelligible.

. Yin sounds feminine and yang masculine.

Weakness and strength are part of the same continuum, but they apply variously depending on the topic. Is the creative strength of the feminine superior to the physical force of the masculine? Perhaps this not a well formed question, since both are conjoined in us and may or may not be in balance.

Perhaps strength lies in the balancing of strength/weakness, the masculine/feminine, yang/yin.

Like the idea about music genera supporting such notions. Could be interesting way to characterize music, I'm not sure, but worth thinking about.

First, pleasure vs suffering is a false dichotomy.

I agree. If there is a true dichotomy it is between pleasure versus pain, which I don't think is isomorphic with happiness versus suffering.

Also, there is a medical condition:

Anhedonia (/ˌænhiˈdoʊniə/ an-hee-doh-nee-ə; Greek: ἀν- an-, "without" and ἡδονή hēdonē, "pleasure") is the inability to experience pleasure from activities usually found enjoyable, e.g. exercise, hobbies, music, sexual activities or social interactions.

Wikipedia

Apparently a form of depression according to Wikipedia.

It's about the limits of what can be known/derived.

Shouldn't your sentence read:
It's about the limits of what can be known/derived at this point in time.

Can't point of view make a difference, 'from my point of view" it appears predictable, but not from "your point of view"....

A is unpredictable if we can't use past or present information to predict it.

So unpredictability/predictability is normative? A point of view perhaps?

A is spontaneous if it isn't caused by some B.

Do you think this is true, A comes out of nothing?. Can you point out any such B?

I don't believe in pure spontaneity, any uncaused b. It seems to me that what we describe as spontaneity is really a rearrangement of what already exists.

"I was petting my sweet little feline
As she purred in my lap near my zip line
Her paws kneeded in
So I pushed down her chin"

Much to my chagrin as she unsheathed
her claws and tightened her grip
I let a big one rip
Scardy cat fled to the mat.

I think what is unpredictable ("behaving or occurring in a way that is not expected") is not the same as what is random, even though their usage is frequently interchangeable. I can't predict when the next volcano will erupt, but this phenomena is localized to volcanoes. The idea randomness ("made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision") does not seem to have any specificity beyond its unpredictability.

Perhaps 'unpredictability' contains a bit of anthropomorphism of experience, while randomness suggests a state of affairs?

Doesn't unpredictability suggest an unsuccessful attempt to predict, while random seems to have no such implication.

Should we take drugs?

I think in so far as in 'taking a drug' and at the same time not putting yourself or anyone else in jeopardy, it is neither right nor wrong. It probably can be argued that by taking just about any drug long term you risk possibly harming yourself or others (as a result of an addiction say), but I think how I treat my self is my own affair, between me and my conscience.

I like coffee, beer, wine, grass. I've tried others, not real interested, except the infrequently like if I have to go by jet to Europe.

I have not followed the case very closely, the sad situation of these thoughtless deaths, one of many such situations, depresses me.

I do wonder how our justice system allows a person whose competency is questioned to call the shots in a trial like this. From what I can gather, Roof at the beginning the initial trial dismissed his attorneys because they wanted to present expert testamentary that he is insane. So the Judge took Roof into his chamber, he has a conversation with Roof and he determines that Roof understand the seriousness of the charge and lets him act in his own defense.

Can that be fair?

When it came time for sentencing Roof again could have brought attorneys in to submit evidence of the mentally deficient state of his mind as a mitigating factor but Roof refused attorney's defense, offered no defense.

No, that is not what I am saying. You asked for a specific cause for #3's actions, of course there are a variety of factors, but the norms that drive these actions are those of a righteous sort of violence. The norms he assumes are there to be assumed, and he and others assume them. It is human nature to react to violence is some manner, but the range of these reactions are already available for adoption in culture and for the most part people do what other people do, they make it their own.

Say one of the siblings had a friend whose home was invaded and parents killed, he starts a defense course, and starts reading about guns, he buys a handgun for protection because that is what you do, don't you when you fear such things. Watches Dirty Harry reruns. Your #3.

how would you explain this: we have a family with four siblings, who were all raised by the same parents, went to the same schools, the same churches, there was some overlap of friends, they mostly saw the same movies, none of them read many books, etc., and the issue of how it's ethically acceptable to deal with the perpetrators of a home invasion comes up, and one is a pacifist who says that under no circumstances is it okay to react with violence, and another says that it's okay to react only with sufficient force to subdue the perpetrators until the authorities can apprehend them (after you've called 911, of course), and the third says that it's okay to incapacitate them or even kill them so long as they're threatening you in any manner, and the fourth says that it's okay to shoot and kill them even prior to them even entering your home--as long as they're on your property you can shoot and kill them, just you should them drag them into your house and make them appear armed.

I think that the circumstance as you have described it, does not allow for much in the way of rational decision, rather I think that each one of the siblings reactions are based on their particular history. So any explanation of their action, which might be insightful, would have to delve into the particular history for each.

Tell me do you think that similar options would arise if the household were in Syria. The 911 call might not be one of them.

You seem to be looking for reasons, but I don't think that is the way we react in circumstances such as you have outlined. The decision is more likely a reaction, and what I am saying is that however they react it will be based on a number of limited, socially accepted or rejected norms. Genealogical studies and arguments help disentangle reasons from causes. One reason why Nietzsche did a Genealogy of Morals, I think.

Do you mean the following paper, if yes, then yes.

http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsEmpPhilMind.pdf

Each has their own history, which provides direction and basis for the actions taken, what they do.

Sibling 1 is a pacifist. Sibling 4 is in favor of killing people just because they're on your property without permission.

In your view their different stances on this issue are suggested by the herd.

How are their different views determined however? Why is sibling 1 a pacifist while sibling 4 is in favor of killing someone just because they're on your property without permission? You're saying that those differences between siblings in the example I explained are determined "historically/genealogically as previously suggested in the judge example"? What different history/genealogy are we talking about?

I am suggesting that societal norms drive herd behavior, which is not to suggest that there are not outliers, but that vast majority don't actively consider their actions or goals for that matter they simply follow the herd, its accepted behavior. On a deeper level I think norms limit what we think about, even how we think. Kant didn't prove morality, he assumed its normative existence, he then distilled through his analytic regressive analysis the presumptive norms that drive moral actions.

You ask how an individual determines what to do. A person has many experiences and builds on these experiences all the time. To the extent that a new experience requires a response which may be beyond the range of prior experiences, I think we try to do as close to what we have done in the past as we can get, incorporation what we have read, seen or imagined (in a word what we know). Each new decision we make, changes our basis for making the next decision. There is a genealogy in such decisions, a history of behavior. This is why I gave the example of a Common Law judge. Common Law is built on precedents, not statute and each decision forms the basis for judicial consideration for the next case.

My point is that options for action (your 1-4 example) are limited by the normative environment where we have developed. We are limited by what we know and what we know we learn from what is taught to us in society. These limitations keep us going in the same direction as the rest of the herd.

Speculation:
How about a new form of Braille? ...a way to combine, to build a language on more than just the sense of vision. Not more meaning but perhaps a fuller more felt sense of meaning: Touch + Vision . Not as a third dimension but as a different sense modality.

Historically/genealogically as previously suggested in the judge example.

I mean that what they choose do has already been suggested by the herd as a possibility for their action, they assume normative rule patterns.

I said that all of the siblings in your example act normativley, I said the general population acts normatively, and their acts are not outside the normal distribution for such actions.

It's similar to voting. You have an individual vote to cast but a limited slate of candidates. You are no more responsible for the slate candidates then you are for the moral alternatives you have to choose from, which I think are provided by the dominant normative practices of your society (the herd).

An individual delusion?

No I think we all act in or out of accordance with norms. The relationship of norms and our actions is one of authority/universal and responsibility/particular. All four of your siblings work from normative positions, while each has a difference stance, these stances in how you explained them all seem normative. If you measure up the actions of any group of individuals you will typically see a bell shaped distribution...the normal distribution.

How we act is a lot like how we fill in the conceptual rules we use to act. Similar to how a judge in common law decides a case by existing presidents and what he believes fits as a conclusion that falls in line with existing case law. We make a lot of these judgments every day and as I I have suggested most moral decisions require very little decision.

How we decided what to do changes our outlook, it changes our concepts in the same way a truly new work of art can instantly change the art world, a whole constellation of concepts. View points are critical. Hegel said:

“No man is a hero to his valet, not because the former is no hero, but because the latter is a valet.”

If you're going to claim that not only was every human being who ever existed rational, but that it's a metaphysical necessity that they're rational, I would say yes, because the notion is implausible. There are human beings who existed who weren't rational--because they were born with severe brain abnormalities so that they were effective vegetables, for example. The same goes for the golden rule. There are clearly humans who don't or haven't subscribed to it.

This sounds like a stale polemic response.

Existential universality must be proven by exception. To say the person who has brain damage or other issues is less a person only proves the status of man as a rational being, because the exception here proves the rule. It is not a disproof, it is proof in my estimation.

I have to take off, but reference is from Wikipedia.

Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

It's the latter part that I have a problem with.

Even under the view that what morality is relative to is individual disposition?

The "individual disposition" is to a large extent a delusion, we are all part of a tribe, a city, a state, a nation; what and how we think are structured by these roots, whether we are aware of it or not. Again, its the 'Good' life that become the goal in a capitalistic society, and those who achieved it societal icons.

Why wouldn't that be a contingent matter in that case? It would be that humans have happened to believe/act that way, but not be that it's a metaphysical necessity for them to act that way. It would be metaphysically possible for there to be a human who does

The ancient Egyptians had a version of the 'Golden Rule' according to Wikipedia. Do you think that certain behaviors speak to what man is. What is "metaphysical necessity"? Does metaphysical necessity mean every act is contingent, or are there causes. The idea that things that are a certain way, tend to act a certain way, which does not preclude the contingency of each act.

Of course, that we'd be able to show that every human who has ever lived has believed in or acted per the golden rule is completely dubious, but assuming we could do that somehow

Do we have to show that every human being is rational? Or do you accept that reason is part of the accepted definition of what it means to be human. I an suggesting that if reason is part of 'human nature', then perhaps a non-variant objective morality may also be part of it.

The truths that religions tell are not always easy to take. "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.", it takes faith.

I really don't know. I am an agnostic, but I grow up in a Faith which I practiced, until I no longer believed in it, but who knows, it certainly seems to propel some people through life. I read & think about it but I have no commitment at this point.

What about you Heister?

Do you think there is something beyond 'herd' morality? Or is this precluded in capitalistic societies where flourishing is conflated with economic success: ideal marriage, college education, perfect job, nice house and reasonable mortgage... the 'good' life rules.

It seems to me that relativism is the morality of the herd. If man has a human nature then I suspect that morality might be a salient characteristic in his nature. Kant choose reason, since it common to all men but he left the position/role of desire as only viable as part of our absolute duty to do good. If rules, like the Golden Rule, can be anthropologically supported, as the way humans in general have acted throughout time, regardless of context, then perhaps they can serve as basis for objective non-variant rules in morality.

I think for the religious, truth needs faith

Religious 'truth' I think is existential truth or troth, in the sense of fidelity to what one believes.

My core point to take away, is that novelty is a complete myth in such a universe, and the future has to be contained within the past in its entirety, or at least to the extent that it is predictable. It isn't actually new or different, as it was always perceivable, or discernible from any point in the past before its occurrence.

Not sure I follow. Do you mean that novelty is excluded from a determinate universe or that novelty

isn't actually new or different, as it was always perceivable, or discernible from any point in the past before its occurrence.

I think all novelty rests on the past, that nothing is new under the sun, that what is new is a rearrangement of existing concepts. I doubt novelty in the sense of a novel series, something with no antecedent.

Not so sure about determinism, I think it is pretty much unsolvable problem due to its causal nature, the universe has no reason to be reasonable.

Well, it's not my belief that revelation is the only way to have truths revealed about life. God is another narrative, it's a story I can appreciate, but that I don't believe in.

It reveals truths about God and life, why and how to live a life of faith. It adds something material, substantial to their lives. [to best of my understanding]

Philosophy makes no substantive contribution to what we know, it analyzes how we know what we know.
— Cavacava

This my opinion about Philosophy role's , and it was presented to differentiate between Philosophy and what Religion says and does.

I am not sure what you are asking. Can you rephrase.

The faithful say its revelation, and they believe it's true. I don't doubt their belief, do you?

Doesn't our experience of what is apparent, leads us, with the assistance of others, to normatively construct a coherent world for ourselves, the world we live in. We wonder why and how this world is so? Our awareness of the phenomenal leads us to epistemological analysis, which then may lead to ontological claims, which may or may not be resemble our phenomenal experience. Ontological commitment suggests necessity, but it is subject to continued empirical verification, every thing that is, is contingent . What is experienced is not necessarily circumscribed by our logical analysis.