Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

the phenomenon of goodness

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    The problem is no matter what we think we do, we construct our lives according to what we believe is truthfully good. Whatever things we actually impart a
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 1, 2006
      The problem is no matter what we think we do, we construct our lives
      according to what we believe is truthfully good. Whatever things we
      actually impart a truthful goodness to, can only bring conflict into
      our life. There is no way to avoid it. Unfortunately a lot of what is
      commonly characterized as belief is reaction. This is because it
      cannot be dialectically exposed what it is anybody believes in by
      anybody. Causal or constitutive belief is only experientially
      intuited, and emotional reaction is an actual obstacle to that. It is
      a two world thing, or in Satrean terms: a negation/constitutive
      paradigm inevitably present in consciousness. "The being by which
      nothingness comes to the world must be its own nothingness." As much
      as I have illustrated previously that existentialism is a way of
      thinking based on outcome (what is lacking, what is had); it is not
      result (a form of positivist construction), but outcome I am speaking
      of: (a form of damage control) a way of thinking to avoid being less
      than human. It is necessarily neither edificial nor de-constructive,
      thus the most dialectically suited to the premise from which it has
      arisen. So it is that the same onus is on phenomenology; that it be
      taken as an utilitarian form of illustration; but neither to the
      purpose of edification or de-construction in advance. If philosophy
      and dialectical argument are ever to go on into actual life
      connotation (which is all that can ever be usefully achieved by such
      activities) they must be drawn back from the reactionary vanity of
      metaphysics toward some new form; a form that avoids the stationary
      premise. This flexibility must shape itself after the same
      constitutive/nihilating shape of consciousness itself, or it cannot
      impart even the simplest nuance of meaning to the actual
      meaningfulness of the human condition.

      Consider: you get in your car to drive somewhere, for some important
      reason you're supposed to go there, but you don't really believe you
      ought to be there, and yet are not really dialectically aware of it,
      so you find yourself making a few stops along the way, missing a turn
      here or there, turning around a couple of times, with a sick feeling
      in your stomach; and worse yet maybe even tears in your eyes and new
      found hatred for yourself if you get there, or for some person there
      if you don't. We exercise hatred one way or the other precisely when
      we attempt to do things we don't really believe in. There's no
      escaping our good beliefs. Without trauma there is no way to really
      recognize what it is we believe in. What we actually believe, the
      truth we live by and react to, is too constitutive of our being, too
      ordinary to us; ordinary to the degree that it is literally
      dialectically forgotten, and we can only be reminded of it emotionally
      in the face of conflicting beliefs. Realization is all reactionary,
      like lightening striking. We jump up like dead bodies to remind
      ourselves. We can stay dead or live; but life is in discovering what
      it is we actually believe; and after that, dialectically all we can do
      is decide what seems to be good, not what really is, and go on in the
      inevitable conflict of our individual truth resolution. The majority
      of what we act out as good is formed in us as children, and not
      dialectically or even culturally. If you disagree with this; I suggest
      Robert Trivers behavioral data. Family is the first former of
      goodness. Dialectically based prejudices are inconsequential. (unless
      of course they lead to the destruction of the planet and the species)
      That a child is fed, held with affection, in its first few years of
      life imparts more natural beliefs in goodness than any other actions,
      than even fifty years of a philosophical education. We are quick to
      blame community, ethnicity, education, and so forth, in this age for
      societal problems; when in fact all that is occurring is individuals
      coming face to face with their own beliefs in what is truthfully good.
      Goodness once assimilated is relentlessly drawing the individual
      toward realization. In the case of any dialectically formed "beliefs"
      (and they are really only nuanced contexts of entirely individual
      conflict) co-existence and patience are the best policy. Food, secure
      sleep, and regular sex, would do wonders for the state of mind of even
      the most radical human projections of dialectically formed hatred.
      Certain conflicts are unavoidable. Clearly, beyond any questioning,
      the actual existentialist is ethically bound to promote rules of
      engagement. As I am ever sure he would, so do I.

      Trinidad Cruz
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.