Search Results
6/19/2025, 1:54:27 AM
>>81536501
>You're trying to warp Jung's words into something they don't mean
Jung talked about synchronicities, of psychoid, slapping the rationalists' lives as how _there's a lot to life outside of the consensus sensibilities._
>And I'm saying you're misrepresenting Jung's ideas
The words you're looking for is "disagreeing with their lazy-spirited micro and macro presentations."
>If everyone is pampered
A premise that's against the points I've expressed.
>>I'll do that as hard as needed
>Do you not see the problem with that?
I'm conscious of the limited employment I give to it.
>It reeks of the Marxist notion that "everything is just a power struggle."
That's also the stench of: _subscription to suffering-centered thought;_ of rational pragmatism in suffering-pleasure dichotomy; of hedonism, et cetera.
>You're conflating language with the experience here.
I'm pointing at the missing link of _"interpretation"._
>reality of suffering
I could agree on reality of pain, for they're signals that can be confirmed empirically. But the inherently abstract suffering? The devil's word to claim experience of pain despite its absence? Twilight of the Idols, anyone?
>>81536666
>It's the projected meaning from your own psyche onto the Rorschach blot that you've decided is a painting of a [Hellscape] titled [Suffering]
Hmm.
>Absolute peak post-modern Marxist ideology.
Marx's issues are inheritance of Hegel's belief that any word represents real epistemological ties to the meaning's target that definitely should always exist. Such as "suffering."
>That doesn't really refute what I'm saying.
My bad. I missed that suffering would only ever exist as qualia content made from fictional hypostasis. Oh my, we don't even have suffering standards, do we? I'm sure a billionaire peacefully playing golf with own family can be trusted over claims of experiencing suffering as much as anyone else at any point. We wouldn't want to intrude and be skeptical of others' experiencing, right?
>You're trying to warp Jung's words into something they don't mean
Jung talked about synchronicities, of psychoid, slapping the rationalists' lives as how _there's a lot to life outside of the consensus sensibilities._
>And I'm saying you're misrepresenting Jung's ideas
The words you're looking for is "disagreeing with their lazy-spirited micro and macro presentations."
>If everyone is pampered
A premise that's against the points I've expressed.
>>I'll do that as hard as needed
>Do you not see the problem with that?
I'm conscious of the limited employment I give to it.
>It reeks of the Marxist notion that "everything is just a power struggle."
That's also the stench of: _subscription to suffering-centered thought;_ of rational pragmatism in suffering-pleasure dichotomy; of hedonism, et cetera.
>You're conflating language with the experience here.
I'm pointing at the missing link of _"interpretation"._
>reality of suffering
I could agree on reality of pain, for they're signals that can be confirmed empirically. But the inherently abstract suffering? The devil's word to claim experience of pain despite its absence? Twilight of the Idols, anyone?
>>81536666
>It's the projected meaning from your own psyche onto the Rorschach blot that you've decided is a painting of a [Hellscape] titled [Suffering]
Hmm.
>Absolute peak post-modern Marxist ideology.
Marx's issues are inheritance of Hegel's belief that any word represents real epistemological ties to the meaning's target that definitely should always exist. Such as "suffering."
>That doesn't really refute what I'm saying.
My bad. I missed that suffering would only ever exist as qualia content made from fictional hypostasis. Oh my, we don't even have suffering standards, do we? I'm sure a billionaire peacefully playing golf with own family can be trusted over claims of experiencing suffering as much as anyone else at any point. We wouldn't want to intrude and be skeptical of others' experiencing, right?
Page 1