Yes and No

27 Jun

In seeking a hopeful and assertive outlook, I find challenge in the curious mix of needed affirmation and rejection.  There are bad aspects of life, but life itself is not bad.  The present is what is real now, yet the ideal future is giving this present meaning it wouldn’t otherwise have.  Initiative is a necessary zealot, although it must be measured and limited from without.

The trick seems to be to liberate initiative from cramped bounds.  Rather than focusing on strict day-to-day realism or an airy idealism, a more complicated integration is suggested.  The present situation forms a relationship with the desired goals, and the primary object is this relation and not the goals in of themselves.

On one level it’s too obvious to state, but to explain how such a thing occurs is much more involved than only observing that it does occur.  The ability to point to a thing is very different from being able to design it and/or predict it.  It sounds plain enough, but in practice there is rampant confusion on the matter.

One challenge is in defining the partiality or self-concern of a sapient creature which is able to reject significant parts of its present state in favor of a new port of call; the creature maintains its partiality throughout this process.  Though there is some rejection of the present state, realism is maintained.  In spite of the idealistic component, ad hoc capabilities are not neglected.

While in practice one claims to be thinking for oneself, it’s a terribly common matter for an idea to have its thinker as much as the thinker has the idea.  When the idea has the thinker, it could be said that the thinker’s partiality includes this very idea.  The idea is not an object of study, then, but is part of the medium.

I believe that any idea or belief(to idealize these vague metaphysical terms) is available for analysis in principle, but in practice the ‘mental partiality’ can only commodify bits and pieces of itself at a time, but other significant parts of the mind/brain have to remain as the ‘all-seeing asymmetry’.  Put another way: there is irreducible dependence.  The form the dependence takes is key.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: