Reciprocality

A civilized but brutal fighter. A comic. An activist. Someone wiser, atleast someone to look up to for primarily her/his wisdom. An unintentional rebel in their genuine artistry, some poet so potent as to be blind to their own brilliancy.

I don't believe in real deaths, i actually find those oxymoronic. I believe death is unreal, or rather absurd. But only absurd as far as phenomena/experience goes. Which i anyway find myself contingent upon, so therefore death is an absurdity. To think about it is an absurd act, as to think about it is nothing like it, and at the same time the thought about it is (presumably) its only essence. Which may even give rise to its only existence, which again is absurd. Seeing that it then exist as the opposite of what it "were to be".

"Inclusiveness, everyone gets an opportunity Don’t exclude anyone Tolerance" Green actually takes a far stronger stance against inclusivity (as such) then the stage before it, rightfully, thankfully, neccesarily. 'Far from everyone gets an oppertunity' would be a more like it. Interestingly enough that is but an outcome in the orange societies, and never an axiom as it is in the green.

So to answer what i think you ask: Write down your rationale, your reason regarding a certain topic and analyse over time how your emotions diverge from the set structure, and how your reason will be subject to an absurd mutation or alternation, the nature of which forms in the commence of the former, the emotion. That emotion is likely functioning as a desire, ideal or identity.

It is impossbile yo lie to yourself, if the self of the lies are to be considered the same. As what constituates a lie is the divergency between ones belief/knowledge and what one COMMUNICATES those to be. I will grant you that a part of the self indeed does communicate with a same part, but it can not possbily communicate to itself that which negates its belief. It is however: possible to deny one's better judgement, in that the judgement is seperated from YOU.

Norway, north-west Europe

The survival of our kind depend upon the stupidity of our time. Does not mean we will survive, but it means that it aint us who are surviving if without the stupidity we survive.

The early Greek philosophers were neccesarily non-yellow, the sd-paradgm functions only insofar as the world it tries to reflect has the sets of attributes with which the paradigm were assigned to model. Most of academic philosophy even today is below yellow, in that much of it is a semantic game IN that it contextualize like phenomena fundametaly different, never understanding the isomorpich nature with which context emerge, out of neccesity. The "absurdity" ofcourse, is that as soon as you disagree with more then half of another's propositions you'll behind the curtains agree just the more; the less axioms you have in common. And that is the integral discovery. It is not that those supersets are perfectly negatively proportionate so to constituate an isomorpic agreement, but that particular subsets therein has that effect. Presumaby, this is why the importance of linguisitcs as John Searle pointed out: became the philosophical discourse. I am yet to read much Postmodern thought, but it surely must have been the discovery of Derrida aswell

@Lyn119455 forgot to tag

Is it that groups of people serves you a bad mode trough which to relate? I will assume that to be the case, for to be approachable in a setting which have 10 ears in one direction and one mouth in 5 is to act accidental to those passions and drives you can understand and share with but two of those ears. It is to make generalisations, a superset of shared commonalities, which again surves as a divergency in contrast to other sets of groups. If you have lived this far without a skill as such, then chances are you have no real desire for it today, only as a means to other ends. Myself i would question those ends, but for you (given that you can develop these skills) i'll advice for a trial and error scheme, in which failure is the only route to success. That is, cringe and awkwardness to be commended.

@Captain_Diabetes Indeed it is cringe, but from what else than cringeness would you find meaning in despising opposites? Is not cringe an essence of you in that you so wholeheartedly needs avoiding it? Is it unlikely that in the divergence between youre ideals and that which constituates societie's you undermine that of the former to fit within that of the latter? I believe that (if to be the case) is quite cringe.

Out of a hundred progressive policies one may commit oneself to believing, free speech is that which secures the potential of all the rest. Thus, one may say: it is the most important progressive one. : ) It is the power of the people, the masses. The singular most important one against tyranny, one which you Americans should be very wary of tossing in the bin, be you anywhere on a progressive spectrum.

All speech ought be protected on public ground, except within cetain institutions and situations however narrow those exeptions may be. : )

Two lamps, both of which lights inadequatly for one to focus on that which they presumably both ought iluminate? Interesting problem, find a job.

You say you feel like the emotions have you in their grip, and not by your choice? Where thereby you by some other emotion desire that not to be the case? Will it not be emotions which have you controlled even if your desire were to be fulfilled? Now that absurdity/double negation makes me question the premesis themselves, i for one have many times been sceptical towards my emotions, but in their quality, not their nature. What is an ideal emotion, which you aspire towards having? Is it possible that the guitar is not something you yourself desire mastering, and that you have undermined the "instrument" you actually would've?

They've made him a living martyr now, as though subject to opressive kings he is banished from his first ammendment, they believe. It is dangerous what they've done. As in dangerous on themselves.

@Danioover9000 It is, i believe. But if i were to concede that corporate socialism is right wing it would follow, due to their extreme divergencies that free-market capitalism is not. It is not obvious that there is a bigger difference between Corporate Socialism as enacted in the U. S. and lets say Scandic Social Democracy, than there is between a free-market model and the U. S today. If we ought be, i claim: rational in our argumentation we neccesarily needs give such a free market model some moderation on its own, as is given to the premise regarding the left as a Nordic Model. Where to strike the boundraries of such 'moderation' is surely not a simple task, but i hope it serves the conversation more then a mere begging of questions.

Psychic like in communicating by means *external to the body, the message of which is accidental to immidiate timeframe? I disbelieve the validity of the latter, and are somewhat less scpetical about the former. *external to the body as in by physics the attributes of which is beyond our current understanding. I think it as it is believed by people to be real is delusional, but beyond those "established" delusions i am rather qurious about it.

I believe their economic policy were within a socialist framwork, just like that of the US today, socialism for the rich ofcourse. But the immidiate power-structure is quite alike, only the ends are hardly justified, aswell as impossibly sustainable. (that one serving the wealthy that is) If however one is to argue that indeed it is right wing, then i for one will have a hard time arguing that free-market capitalism is aswell, seeing their structural divergencies.

@Joel3102 | Most of his positions are only left wing insofar as they within his mind is believed as of utility today, It is ambigous therefore to call him left wing in conversations which transcends also those of contemporary utility. If i were a nazi to the core and believed that today we needed republicans over democrats for such a long-term change it would by the same token be ambigous to name me a republican.

It aint a Coup, its a child with its tantrum. The tantrum is even justified, only not for the premesies by which the babies reason. Its a reaction which will only further strengthen the evildoing of U. S. political institutions, in that they become object for solidarity which by extention heightens their approval all around. In a few years when those whose tantrums can be justified also by those having them is storming the capitol you'd see they'd be equated with those of these times, thus having a harder time reaching out and reaching their goals.

You are not god, you live in god, I believe; for we are the mode to its perfection. But if you can live such to experience first hand perfection then reason needs not justify it. Also it can't given the nature of 'perfection', though presumably we are here back at the startingpoint regarding your question of imperfect perfection. Whereby i can not use English to help. Would you be interested however, i could try another time.

Cam / Ry X / XXX / Joji / labrinth / Foushee You'll find the good despairing stuff pretty fast, but here is a favorite from ry x:

@K Ghoul I may be, not by externalities though.

If being the case - the body can be such a fragile little thing.