Basically the wanking that I did 5 years back, except without a solution
Quoting from Appy's regurgitation poast:
Disenchanted reason and mythology are both forms of identity thinking: subsumption of sensuous particulars under explanatory, coherent, unifying universals, whether those universals be myths, gods, natural laws, or concepts. Rationalization is the increasing comprehension of individuals by means of their participation in conceptual schemes whose elements are invariant and unchanging. Where the grammatical structure of moral insight entails the performative realization of the good, the grammatical structure of rationalization is one of subsumption.
From my now-defunct wank site:
(this might look familiar to some long-regulars of philosophy
Resolving the Dilemma of Hegelian Synthesis
While Hegelian Principle sees fundamental contradictions and attempts to reconcile them, it meant the forced transformation of the original ideas. Counterconstruction recognizes differentiation amid fundamental commonality and attempts to show how different ideologies are only opposed to each other in appearance. In Counterconstruction, opposition is viewed as arbitrary- what is real is the commonality and the differences that lay within. There are only different ideas and no truly opposing ones. There is no need for a forced transformation, only mutual recognition. The Hegelian Principle treats differentiation as opposition, thus the forced combining. Counterconstruction advocates the co-operation of different ideologies instead of the co-optation of supposedly opposing ones. Concentration upon identification of existing commonalities does not have to involve the elimination of differences. Change should be a choice, not an obligation.
Destructive/Synthetic ideological collision (left)
===========================================
One ideology (A) invalidates another (B)
OR
Both ideologies forced to abandon itself in compromising to a new ideology (C)
A new reconciliation is created.
"You have to agree with me", "I'll agree with you", "We must compromise"
"We find one way of doing things and stick with it, preferably mine"
Process: thesis/antithesis/synthesis
Result: "Making" new meaning through attrition
Constructing arbitrary meaning through compromise
Nondestructive/Analytic ideological collision (right)
=============================================
Two ideologies find common grounds within one another (D) without having to
compromise themselves to another ideology. (A) and (B) remain unaltered. (They
are free to be influenced instead of actively trying to convert another to
match itself or convert itself to match another.)
Note: (D) indicates an area of passive overlap, not an area of active merging.
An existing area of commonality is discovered.
"We have a common understanding in the following areas" "We recognize each other"
"There are common goals amid executional differences" "We agree to disagree on details"
Process: thesis/cothesis/integration
Result: Finding existing meaning through reception
Discovering shared meaning through comparable knowledge
One process focuses upon eliminating difference and creating unilateral
commonality, while the other focuses upon finding localized commonality without
eliminating difference.
It took efforts from both travellingzinda (may God have mercy upon his soul) and sisyphus to snap me out of that wankery. I wonder who or what's it gonna take to snap Appy out of his (in the above case it's not even his to begin with...)?
Disenchanted reason and mythology are both forms of identity thinking: subsumption of sensuous particulars under explanatory, coherent, unifying universals, whether those universals be myths, gods, natural laws, or concepts. Rationalization is the increasing comprehension of individuals by means of their participation in conceptual schemes whose elements are invariant and unchanging. Where the grammatical structure of moral insight entails the performative realization of the good, the grammatical structure of rationalization is one of subsumption.
From my now-defunct wank site:
(this might look familiar to some long-regulars of philosophy
Resolving the Dilemma of Hegelian Synthesis
While Hegelian Principle sees fundamental contradictions and attempts to reconcile them, it meant the forced transformation of the original ideas. Counterconstruction recognizes differentiation amid fundamental commonality and attempts to show how different ideologies are only opposed to each other in appearance. In Counterconstruction, opposition is viewed as arbitrary- what is real is the commonality and the differences that lay within. There are only different ideas and no truly opposing ones. There is no need for a forced transformation, only mutual recognition. The Hegelian Principle treats differentiation as opposition, thus the forced combining. Counterconstruction advocates the co-operation of different ideologies instead of the co-optation of supposedly opposing ones. Concentration upon identification of existing commonalities does not have to involve the elimination of differences. Change should be a choice, not an obligation.
Destructive/Synthetic ideological collision (left)
===========================================
One ideology (A) invalidates another (B)
OR
Both ideologies forced to abandon itself in compromising to a new ideology (C)
A new reconciliation is created.
"You have to agree with me", "I'll agree with you", "We must compromise"
"We find one way of doing things and stick with it, preferably mine"
Process: thesis/antithesis/synthesis
Result: "Making" new meaning through attrition
Constructing arbitrary meaning through compromise
Nondestructive/Analytic ideological collision (right)
=============================================
Two ideologies find common grounds within one another (D) without having to
compromise themselves to another ideology. (A) and (B) remain unaltered. (They
are free to be influenced instead of actively trying to convert another to
match itself or convert itself to match another.)
Note: (D) indicates an area of passive overlap, not an area of active merging.
An existing area of commonality is discovered.
"We have a common understanding in the following areas" "We recognize each other"
"There are common goals amid executional differences" "We agree to disagree on details"
Process: thesis/cothesis/integration
Result: Finding existing meaning through reception
Discovering shared meaning through comparable knowledge
One process focuses upon eliminating difference and creating unilateral
commonality, while the other focuses upon finding localized commonality without
eliminating difference.
It took efforts from both travellingzinda (may God have mercy upon his soul) and sisyphus to snap me out of that wankery. I wonder who or what's it gonna take to snap Appy out of his (in the above case it's not even his to begin with...)?