How simple are people?
-
-
That's the spirit.
-
-
@Rah1woot "Objectivity" is potentially an idea used as a scheme to make people believe that there are things truer than their feelings, experiences, and instincts, so that they are more inclined to ignore or act against them, so that they are more docile and willing to do things they don't like. Such as in certain religious texts
-
@random said in How simple are people?:
Objectivity is potentially an idea used as a scheme to make people believe that there are things truer than their feelings, experiences, and instincts, so that they are more inclined to ignore or act against them, so that they are more docile and willing to do things they don't like. Such as in certain religious texts
Discernment has an e-motional component. It's not meant to be pleasant by default.
-
This post is deleted! -
@NoeticJuice if you dont perceive something, the thing is not. Lol
-
This post is deleted! -
@random I suppose that's fair. I square the circle by just considering "how good I feel" to be an objective force in itself. The downstream result of properly functioning cells. Which I think is fine if we consider the pain of a hand on a hot stove to also be an objective force, as I do.
Ironically enough. I tend to think that of the Medical Ideology stuff as being exactly "subjectivity". Their problems are the result of them not considering the objective pain that they cause, being too narrowly focused on, to your credit, a perverted and warped authoritarian objectivity used to sell drugs. "Because I don't actually feel the pain of the patient in front of me, it doesn't exist, so I can do whatever I want to them".
-
@NoeticJuice No, there's nothing that "is" beyond or other than what we are conscious of, until we perceive it, and then the New thing aint beyond or other, it is part of our conciousness
-
This post is deleted! -
@random said in How simple are people?:
No, there's nothing that "is" beyond or other than what we are conscious of, until we perceive it, and then the New thing aint beyond or other, it is part of our conciousness
We. Our. The Collie I'm sitting rn may have something to say about this.
-
@NoeticJuice said in How simple are people?:
@random I'll just leave these here then. I don't think there's anything else for me to do here anymore.
@NoeticJuice said in just3another3normal3person:
@Nomanarch said in just3another3normal3person:
Consciousness is the only given.Consciousness changes all the time . . . for something to change, there must be something else to make that change possible.
The something else to make that change possible "is" once you perceived it, you can have thoughts that the thing was before you perceived it, that thought is an assumption, nothing wrong in it self with assumptions.
@NoeticJuice said in just3another3normal3person:
But if everything changes, then what does? Assuming that nothing stays the same, that there's no unchanging foundation, then change would just be something disappearing and another thing appearing out of nothing. And, of course, nothing comes from nothing.
I dont assume there is an unchanging foundation. Yes it would be. From our perception, we didnt perceive before we were born, from what we remember we went from nothing(no perception) to conciousness.
@NoeticJuice said in How simple are people?:
If there was nothing real to perceive, how could you perceive it?
-
BTW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agential_realism
For Barad, phenomena or objects do not precede their interaction, rather, 'objects' emerge through particular intra-actions. Thus, apparatuses, which produce phenomena, are not assemblages of humans and nonhumans (as in actor-network theory). Rather, they are the condition of possibility of 'humans' and 'non-humans', not merely as ideational concepts, but in their materiality. Apparatuses are 'material-discursive' in that they produce determinate meanings and material beings while simultaneously excluding the production of others.
