These posts aren't off topic because they explore the individual psychology of a 21st century shipwreck. They are off-topic because they are about "Circling". We don't know what "Circling" is, we don't want to know; we hear the name, we know it's gay. If a chick is a flaming 10 and says she's into "Circling", you have a moral/physiological dilemma; you do not have a relationship dilemma. You are not going to date this chick. If we know that and you don't, then you need relationship advice from us, not the other way round. Keep this up and you can turn this whole Substack into a gay-marriage advice column, because that will be your readership.
I'm of agreement with Pedro. Social commentary of all aspects of society, from the smallest and least connected constituent piece (the inner self), to how people connect with social groups in all scales, or build communities, or find meaning (or don't) with their fellow human - every piece of that unexhaustive list is relevant to rule.
Sound policy prescription demands as near to true perception of reality as possible. That starts with perception of the self and moves outward. If the objective is to build a functional system using what we have now, what is broken must be understood. Where the broken piece is, why it is broken, what is it supposed to look like, and how do we take these broken pieces and transform them into a functioning part of a functional human society - to say one has arrived at a solution, one must be able to answer each of those questions.
Besides that, I simply find it interesting to peer into Curtis' mind from a different angle. I like seeing if the model I made is right.
Hmm. This strikes me as lunar (sub-solar) thinking. Sure, that may be right for many people, but it is not right for everyone. Conditional on "set on your plate" meaning bare material circumstances. I think Alexander the Great, for example, ate what was set on his plate, but only if you're taking a broad view of "set on your plate". Alexander certainly saw many more plates to eat from than ordinary men do.
But really you couldn't not mention her, could you? The power play of the woman trying to seduce the man into her cult is as ancient as the mankind. As old as the Serpent.
By the way, the last couple of poasts on the topic are pretty much standard Western trad fare. People familiar with it would immediately recognize the animal metaphor for what you call sub-cortical impulses and emotions. Which is of course not to say that it's not true.
awwww, ily uncle yarv
These posts aren't off topic because they explore the individual psychology of a 21st century shipwreck. They are off-topic because they are about "Circling". We don't know what "Circling" is, we don't want to know; we hear the name, we know it's gay. If a chick is a flaming 10 and says she's into "Circling", you have a moral/physiological dilemma; you do not have a relationship dilemma. You are not going to date this chick. If we know that and you don't, then you need relationship advice from us, not the other way round. Keep this up and you can turn this whole Substack into a gay-marriage advice column, because that will be your readership.
I'm of agreement with Pedro. Social commentary of all aspects of society, from the smallest and least connected constituent piece (the inner self), to how people connect with social groups in all scales, or build communities, or find meaning (or don't) with their fellow human - every piece of that unexhaustive list is relevant to rule.
Sound policy prescription demands as near to true perception of reality as possible. That starts with perception of the self and moves outward. If the objective is to build a functional system using what we have now, what is broken must be understood. Where the broken piece is, why it is broken, what is it supposed to look like, and how do we take these broken pieces and transform them into a functioning part of a functional human society - to say one has arrived at a solution, one must be able to answer each of those questions.
Besides that, I simply find it interesting to peer into Curtis' mind from a different angle. I like seeing if the model I made is right.
> to eat what is set on your plate
Hmm. This strikes me as lunar (sub-solar) thinking. Sure, that may be right for many people, but it is not right for everyone. Conditional on "set on your plate" meaning bare material circumstances. I think Alexander the Great, for example, ate what was set on his plate, but only if you're taking a broad view of "set on your plate". Alexander certainly saw many more plates to eat from than ordinary men do.
You are extremely appreciated.
No problem, Curtis. We're all working it out until we get too lazy or too dead. Still reading. I guess the check cleared...
>I shouldn’t have even mentioned my ex-girlfriend
But really you couldn't not mention her, could you? The power play of the woman trying to seduce the man into her cult is as ancient as the mankind. As old as the Serpent.
By the way, the last couple of poasts on the topic are pretty much standard Western trad fare. People familiar with it would immediately recognize the animal metaphor for what you call sub-cortical impulses and emotions. Which is of course not to say that it's not true.