In trying to keep this text as unbiased from myself as posible there will be very little pausing to type or back spacing so apologies in advance for anything that seems non-senseical, going it kerouac style heh. Anyway this question has to do with how well we really all know ourselves or more specifically i suppose the way i dont know myself all that well and positing the the question to all of these thinking people to see what they have to say concerning themselves and myself. Which is how much of your behaviour is affected by your unconcious self which I believe in a sense to be a 'true' self or the self as it is or the changes and decisions that we make conciously towards ourselves attempting to control our own fates through the decisions we make. For example the title of my username i picked when i was asked to give one when signing up for this forum, i turned over the CD case of a doo-wop cd i am listening to and at that instant the chorus to the song 'maybe' came on. It has a degree of irony i think, because of the philosophical discussions to be had and yet it was entirely coincidence....this has very little to do with the self...er better example, with everything I type I am projected how I want to be percieved to everyone who is going to read this, and it is because of this that I am typing constantly because say if I wanted to be percieved as intelligent i would stop and backspace alot and make sure all my points were soundly reasoned etc. And there it is, action motivated be an egoistic desire to be seen as intelligent, as opposed to simply being unconciously and people seeing you as intelligent though there is no concious effort to be so. Either way hopefully this rambling makes some kind of sense and can be responded to in some way, thanks for letting me take minutes of your lives.
Cult heroic values can do it. Obama had in mind his selected VP all along. This may be blind trust too, but that would presume that that really mattered either way to me. What really mattered is that I vindicate him of his political art. The truth is that He (Barock) wanted his likeable friends. So is it that we always do what we do for "friends"? That, yes, is not very accultured.
Isn't it more why don't you do what you don't do? Don't we just end up picking the least shitty option of the ones that we aren't disqualified from? I mean, we don't ride planes because we like planes, we ride them because we don't have the option to fly?
Every existentialist has easy explanations for these phenomena (or, if you like, states of mind)? The world of material events are unimportant to the matter of Doing. Instead, the explanation can or can't be avoided for the doctor. Hey, you'd be concided to how fast and good the explanation:'it's society's fault is for being at the wrong place at the right time'; the right time had you doing the fake for the trained self-conscious: money maker; or was it fatalist of survival. (something beyond good and evil).
An easy explanation does not mean it is about an easy experience in Reality. We are at the state of asking the question Why? Every why question is in reference to the caring virtue held dearly to the Fact of the World. But the statement of "why" having been questioned may change to the ontologically unfulfilled Caring of the unaccomplished merely Mental state. This refers to facticity, and this per that World is not to be ignored for the moralism it reminds Just people like the looking upon individual (openess to infinite possibility) For the reality, the unKnown unconscious Possible for all involved, the moralist is justly looking upon (he is not involved: how come Heiddegger always can mean the uninvolved forlorn Being? We, actually, the common bores of the issue are the absolutely involved). The immoralist in a way says this is so not beyond good and evil that we the two of us balk and become acquainted to knowing a situation that is dear or is not dear, to be or not to be. ____________________________ That's all folks: badeat, badeat.
So doing what's good for your own friends = bad, doing what someone else thinks you should do, regardless of whether you think it's a good idea = good? What's unaccultured about selecting colleagues that you think you will work well with, if the job in question requires a close working relationship? I know that that probably has nothing to do with the larger philosophical question, but then, what use is a philosophy that has no practical application?
Unacultured; ....yes, that is the greater mode of creative (against certain pro-creative, uncertain synergetic commited by memory, and realistically faithful trust) gound for choices in life. Is this trust too personal to be real? We realize the ground of the ground in Them. You know I've just reviewed the popular scheme of World Bank debt which has been overtook successfully in the last three or so years by the political advantage of the indifference to the government of wealth distribution, especially in Asia. People just use their Ego and pretend it was at a Culture. In fact it was at a popularism, or in historical denial.
Can't expect elected officials to be perfect. People elected Bush because he wasn't perfect. He even played it up for them. The people of America didn't want a lama, they wanted a cowboy. I wish I had any idea what this had to do with the thread topic.
