By gum, you’ve zeroed onto something important, which is how weird is defined.
Quite simply, weird is what is inappropriate.
Appropriateness gets overlooked in a post-modern, relativistic world projected out onto phenomena and made popular with If It Feels Good, Do It.
Appropriateness gets overlooked because it necessitates an objective standard for gauging appropriateness.
As everyone knows, objective standards are considered to be an unsophisticated notion, perhaps even fundamentalist and thus suspiciously simplistic, but at the minimum objective standards are a tedious anchor to the flights of fancy required for the doublethink of wall-politics.
One can do anything if the situation is appropriate.
For instance, safe to say that sex on the front lawn at noontime is inappropriate behavior.
However as an element of an appropriate situation and time, sex is in fact appropriate behavior.
Does appropriateness impose arbitrary and thus artificial constraints upon natural behavior? Of course not, because natural behavior includes appropriateness, which always has its roots in the survival maxim that no man is an island.
The appropriate situation is always, without fail, defined as the proper dominant conditions that facilitate consciousness co-arising with form, considering that form is an ordered coalescence of energy into organized matter that requires the mystery of life to both order and maintain.
No consciousness is without form, which means that any apparent formless consciousness, if such is somehow detected by observation or inference, is not formless but in fact is of a form invisible due to limitations of perception due to incarnation, or due to corruption of incarnated capacity to perceive.
Anything you can imagine is appropriate under the right conditions, which should cause at least a moment’s pause to ponder before moving forward to consider that certainly you must agree, within the realm of rationality, that a forum dedicated to philosophy is a most appropriate place for ponderings and their reactions, and that appropriateness caused by conditions (one of which is you) in turn makes perceptions of weirdness oxymoronic at best, and contrary to any truth other than perhaps that conjured by the sophistry of words and the illusion of opposites.
Thus we can conclude that the only viciousness in the famous meme is self-referential ignorance, which is a common viciousness against oneself.
Meh. It doesn't matter. I think the world is for young people or else people with young'uns to worry about. I'm just a weird old dinosaur on his way to extinction. Best for me to just get out of the way of progress. Let the competent people run things. It is what it is.
I would never attempt to 'cheer up' anyone. Ugh. But you do write some very insightful posts (anyone who can do that is worth their salt IMO). Permanently 'happy chappies' are a boring pain in the a' 'Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:14 pmNo worries. I appreciate your attempt to cheer me up. You tried. That's a lot more than many do.
Some see stop signs where others see merge, and some actually think yield applies to the highway and not the ramp.
Some people are only happy when they got something to whine about. You deprived your correspondent of one subject to whine about... correspondent not happy.
Some people are only happy when they are unhappy.
Go ahead, repost your post. Let the other chase his blue bird of unhappiness.
If you're asking me, no complaints here. They are only there, in your noggin.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:36 am
What is your take on appropriateness? For example, have you pondered either hypothetical or enhanced-memory conditions that would make viciousness appropriate?
Self-referential ignorance is just fancy talk for self-sabotage.
It’s a common affliction so no need to feel all special about it.
It’s just common, that’s all. Anyone who starts a thousand mile journey begins with a single step every time they wake up and realize it all starts again every day, but with a little extra from the day before and a little less from what's forgotten, which is the same for a lot of folks, which puts the insight smack into the realm of objective truth.
As always the question is: stop, yield, or merge?
I'm seeing a stop sign but others waking up to a new day may see merge.
Two types of people. Those who self-sabotage, and those who are in denial about self-sabotage.
(a light and serious view from a humorous fellow)
"We are becoming like cats, slyly parasitic, enjoying an indifferent domesticity. Nice and snug in the social, with our historical passions withdrawn into the glow of an artificial coziness, our half-closed eyes now seek little other than the peaceful parade of television pictures." - Jean Baudrillard
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: gaffo and 2 guests