Well being at “ill ease” is certainly a part of the human condition; we’ve all got our traumas and backgrounds, whether genetic, environmental, process, situational, etc – few of us have the upbringing that’s free and clear of being somewhat crippled out the gate. But yeah, over time it’s possible to settle into reasonable stances; and with variety as it’s the notion of a singular authoritative stance that’s rather diseased – and I suspect if someone cataloged a set of reasonable stances, including contradictory and non overlapping parts, I think a cohesive family of “common senses” could be laid out. Probably has already, just in different forms.

Well being at “ill
[read full article]

Greta has a supportive wealthy family background and was able to reach heights not attainable by most kids – or adults. With that foundation her tenacity found a successful outlet. I’m not taking away from her achievements; but can’t ignore the base. Contrast with your average 14 year old kid. It’s summertime, they’re playing Roblox, little brother does dances on tiktok, older boy does the dank memes, the girl’s roleplaying — and they hear about a right being taken away and, already in a position of limited power, here comes the SUPREME COURT decreeing yet another right gone. and hey look, here’s the credit card of the main guy who pushed it through. Better be quick and don’t get caught because they’ll shut it down in a day or two. Chaos for 24 hours or so. Card gets shut down a day or two later. Game over. For some of these kids, this may be the only time they get involved like this, for others, it might be ongoing or MAYBE it’s the first of MANY actions – which successively get more significant over time. It’s everybody’s first somewhere

Greta has a supportive
[read full article]

“I have stated the principle which I believe is entailed by the above analysis: what is real is inexhaustible and conversely. This is a fundamental principle of ontological realism, the basis of a metaphysical position that escapes the criticisms of metaphysics drawn from foundational epistemologies. Minds, universals, physical objects, even dreams and hallucinations are all real (see Dewey 1960, p. 59). The question of unreality is transformed into a question of nature and kind: what are minds, given their reality? What are universals, given their inexhaustibility? In neither case can an exhaustive, unqualified answer be given. Inexhaustibility is a complementarity of determinateness and indeterminateness. The determinateness inherent in every being makes it analyzable and knowable – under qualification – but it transcends any particular qualifications and conditions under which it can be known. Indeterminateness is the openness through inexhaustibility to new contexts, thereby new properties and conditions. INEXHAUSTIBILITY AND ONTOLOGICAL PLURALITY STEPHEN DAVID ROSS, 1984

“I have stated the … [read full article]

“Both poles of the tension, as Strawson defines it, are a consequence of prior conceptions of rationality: intelligibility demands generality, thereby universals; existence, to be intelligible, must be restricted to nature. The second pole is effectively equivalent to the position that only scientific explanation based on a realistic materialism is acceptable. However, since science requires both natural laws and general properties, it is not clear that it has anything decisive to offer on the subject of ontological pluralism” INEXHAUSTIBILITY AND ONTOLOGICAL PLURALITY, 1981

“Both poles of the
[read full article]