What you are talking about is a responsibility for the world. Most outcomes of the 'worlding urge' only deal with this indirectly (Outcomes include : religion/morality~ethics/art). They deal with this responsibility for it indirectly because they highlight some contingent even more derivative outcome or "form" as Platonists might declare…
What you are talking about is a responsibility for the world. Most outcomes of the 'worlding urge' only deal with this indirectly (Outcomes include : religion/morality~ethics/art). They deal with this responsibility for it indirectly because they highlight some contingent even more derivative outcome or "form" as Platonists might declare, as a priority: (tribe/city/cult/culture/identity/sovereignty/temple/god/).
These doubled-down 'shouldy' practices become dogma and doctrinal "co-ordination dances" which lead to war. They are semi-conscious attempt to world, where the responsibility to world is occluded by outcomes of the (by-products? pollution? ) social process unaware of itself.
This is why you end up taking a moral stance on moralizing. And is the question I ask and discuss the implications of on my substack 'Why we should -- what is the ethical response to morality?"
The main factor in all of this tendency towards dogma and death cults (paranoid sick agency) run amuck, is our inability to police the narcissists on our side, who split us off against each other in self-fulfilling paranoid.
We are human because we have meetings and meals, not conflict and war. Narcissists unpoliced will always lead us into the death cult, because they confuse the self with the world as a _sweorld_. Thus their confusion of existential threat with their own person/status. Responsibility for the world is an act of empathy, we create this world when we step forth as children into childhood by way of the 'reality principle' that there are others in 'our' world.
Neither the self nor the world exist, but both are what we live. It is a Janus dance.
What you are talking about is a responsibility for the world. Most outcomes of the 'worlding urge' only deal with this indirectly (Outcomes include : religion/morality~ethics/art). They deal with this responsibility for it indirectly because they highlight some contingent even more derivative outcome or "form" as Platonists might declare, as a priority: (tribe/city/cult/culture/identity/sovereignty/temple/god/).
These doubled-down 'shouldy' practices become dogma and doctrinal "co-ordination dances" which lead to war. They are semi-conscious attempt to world, where the responsibility to world is occluded by outcomes of the (by-products? pollution? ) social process unaware of itself.
This is why you end up taking a moral stance on moralizing. And is the question I ask and discuss the implications of on my substack 'Why we should -- what is the ethical response to morality?"
The main factor in all of this tendency towards dogma and death cults (paranoid sick agency) run amuck, is our inability to police the narcissists on our side, who split us off against each other in self-fulfilling paranoid.
see also (crossposted to/from the substack https://whyweshould.substack.com/ : )
https://whyweshould.loofs-samorzewski.com/topics-and-projects.html
We are human because we have meetings and meals, not conflict and war. Narcissists unpoliced will always lead us into the death cult, because they confuse the self with the world as a _sweorld_. Thus their confusion of existential threat with their own person/status. Responsibility for the world is an act of empathy, we create this world when we step forth as children into childhood by way of the 'reality principle' that there are others in 'our' world.
Neither the self nor the world exist, but both are what we live. It is a Janus dance.