Cȯsꭑọ ∴ ọꭑƨȯƆ @cosmiccitizen@schelling.pt

Frankly I'm skeptical that these Bachelors and Bachelorettes are going to find true love.

The Pure Soul must be understood to be against authentic community and against the weak: the Pure Soul is committed most of all to complacency and its handmaiden, delusion. Delusion whitewashes everyone's intentions. Complacency wraps the moral sensibility in gauze so thick that you can't see through it.

This opens up a third point: the Pure Soul actually has to act out of a state of moral exception in order to preserve their belief in the reconciliation of all human intentions. They actually have to help the vicious prevail and let the weak suffer because opposing the vicious guarantees dissonance for the Pure Soul. By contrast, if the vicious quickly and efficiently prevail against weak, then the Pure Soul can re-interpret this in Girardian terms: the weak become sanctified by vicious violence

Second, on the basis of the first point, you have to recognize that the Pure Souls will never be able to form good-faith, committed alliances with other people who pursue rivalrous or positional goals. The Pure Souls can never commit to breaking the other team, body & soul, because the Pure Souls have to believe at some level that the other team's goals are equally valid. And this means that Pure Souls exclude themselves from many forms of sincere and spontaneous human community.

There are Pure Souls who want to imagine that all intentions are, at some level of abstraction, honorable, and so therefore they believe they can honor and support everyone's goals and wishes all the time. Such Pure Souls are lying to themselves.

First and most obviously, many people want things that are rivalrous (winning the game) or positional (being at the top of the list). And it's pure distortion for Pure Souls to characterize those desires as good-natured"may the best man win" liberality

Maybe I'm not one of the good ones, eh? Maybe I'm doing things for my own reasons that are beyond your power to intuit, and you simply have to deal with me based on my effects.

Silence does not speak. Nature does not speak. Even God is silent, except perhaps in the voice that humans find in themselves in the presence of God's silence.

People will argue against this. They will insist that silence bears meaning, and they will tell you what it means. People will say that nature speaks constantly in terms perfectly compatible with contemporary conversations. People will even say that their words are the words of God.
They are all liars and you do not have to respect them

"Thinking…consist[s] in the living inferential metaboly of symbols whose purport lies in conditional general resolutions to act. As for the ultimate purpose of thought, which must be the purpose of everything, it is beyond human comprehension…[But] by action, through thought, he grows an esthetic ideal, not for the behoof of his own poor noddle merely, but as the share which God permits him to have in the work of creation."
~ CS Peirce

The Logos, for a Peircean neoplatonist, is this property of the relationship patterns reviewed in emergent and dynamic behavior patterns. Logos from Nomos, and Nomos from Eros: Reason is built from the Law, and the Law is built on the Ends.

This exercises non-efficient "finious" (basically, final) causation throughout history: the lawlike alignments of all phenomena in phenomenon-space accumulate along emergent pathways.

The Logos writes itself from the absolute totality of those pathways.

CS Peirce described the universe as progressively evolving towards a state of perfect rational necessity, like a cthonic god of number manifesting itself from the ash-heap of history.

I think I'm a Ken Thompson hack truther.
I feel it's warranted by this analogous situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG

Once again, I am speaking objective, empirically verifiable truths.

On New Year's Eve in Prairie du Chienne, Wisconsin, officials inaugurate the New Year by ceremonially dropping a carp from a crane onto their main street.

Geheimrat: Technocracy or Professional Managerial Class?

If it weren't for Toyota, you know there would be thousands of young Americans firstnamed "Camry."

Disregard Flat Earth,
embrace (quincuncial) Tiled Earth:

Time to clock out. Sorry internet. More later.

Pragmatists are not necessarily interested in deconstructing experience: in most cases, pragmatist systems assume that the motivations that people bring to their environments are valid and suitable for constructive use.
If affect is a domain of learning, and if that learning is a process of adaptation that adds up to an intensification of significance, then a pragmatic education of affect would lead people into more and more meaningful adaptations that relate self-observation and environment.

All of that is simply to say that we can imagine a more accurate integrated account of how psychomotor skill-building (which involves putting the body through different energetic states) might sometimes lead to affective self-interpretation, and cognition can be handmaiden for this and more.