Praise God and pass the fried chicken. That was a *testimony*!

Hmmm. 

I reckon that if all Christians become aware of the political subtexts within many of the messages here, that we would all be in much better shape.

While it may seem mandatory to embed allusions to one’s value system into the message, or even clever to do so, all or at least most such attempts succeed only in muddying what ever topic is being discussed.

If one takes a stand for something while at the same time, literally disproving said assertion by means of what is being attempted by what is said (eg, political maneuvering), such stand is seen as on shifting sands, and indeed, perhaps quicksand.

This is the problem with amateurs, who attempt to take the moral high ground while at the same time, judge others (liberals etc) as being below them.

We have seen this ploy in action on a massive scale, during the last USA general election. Strangely, the more flames were directed, the quicker the flamer went up in a blaze of putrid smoke. But the reader may not identify the goings-on here, as being of the same sort as I describe above. 

A general question which may be asked by one, of oneself, is this: Am I really sure that what I am assuming, is in fact true?

But this question presupposes that there are any ‘facts’ in question. It is safe to assume that ‘facts’ are being foisted in a manner which resembles foot-holds being hacked into a steep hill; that the ‘proving of a point’ is being done in order to gain advantage, to gain leverage, to move along, to cover ground, and to arrive at a point different than the start.

But if I believe my own point, above; what then is the alternative, if ‘facts’ are not forthcoming, and in fact do not exist? Such is the dilemma of the Other McCainiac, who must tolerate an entirely subjective universe, as opposed to say, a computer tech forum, wherein ‘facts’ are the actual currency, with the subjective relegated only to issues of ‘taste’. 

So, we have to confront our tendency to convert issue of ‘taste’, into facts. It is certain that ‘we all’ do not have identical or even similar tastes. But to assert that one’s tastes translate to ‘accurate judgment’ is utter folly, and this is in fact the basis of most of the ‘discord’ we see here. (If in fact is ‘discord’ and not simply normal human interplay.) 

If frustrated, one sniffling blue-nose can do nothing but sniff louder. In a group, the sound of sniffling becomes the anthem of taste, no matter how stifling and retrogressive it is. I find it amusing to see how often it is that sound, which attracts the chronically obstructed and confused, to join such a group of losers, in the futile hope that feelings of powerlessness can be jettisoned in favor finding solidarity in numbers.

The inevitable outcome is what we had seen in 2008, in the form of the losing US ‘GOP’ tearing itself to shreds, because it has attached itself to non-sustainable ‘values’. So it is with sniffling blue-noses, or those who use them to gain leverage; what are represented as ‘facts’, are actually the ‘values/tastes’ of those whose awareness has not progressed beyond the basest mob-mentality, no matter how fancy the accruements.

So it is, and the patterns are well known, but apparently this ploy is still attractive to non-aware types. And yes, it is that profound lack of awareness, which enable such individuals to adopt that fractious strategy, which fractures inevitably lead to utter disintegration.

Given all of the above, how are we to ‘judge’ anything or anyone? Solely on the basis of law-breaking? Or should it be on some other basis? If that is to be the case, can it be more than subjective? And if not, how can such a ‘judgement’  be honored as being more than mere individual taste?

The GAAT factor (‘generally accepted as true’) can instantly degenerate into mob-mentality if not treated gently and with utter honesty. It should be remembered that resort to the GAAT, as basis for anything at all, is fraught with hazard, and can very quickly leave behind each and every individual who asserts it. This is the fatal flaw of attraction to the ‘popular’; it is a ghost whose disappearance leaves one utterly naked at just the wrong moment.

There is a clue here, as to what is most profitably left behind; dependence upon popularity, finding security in shared subjectivity, and the attempt to use for leverage, a fulcrum made of marshmallow.

This is the problem with amateurs, who attempt to take the moral high ground while at the same time, judge others (liberals etc) as being below them.

Right on.

A general question which may be asked by one, of oneself, is this: Am I really sure that what I am assuming, is in fact true?

It is safe to assume that ‘facts’ are being foisted in a manner which
resembles foot-holds being hacked into a steep hill; that the ‘proving
of a point’ is being done in order to gain advantage, to gain leverage,
to move along, to cover ground, and to arrive at a point different than
the start.

Nice metaphor.

Such is the dilemma of the Other McCainiac, who must tolerate an
entirely subjective universe, as opposed to say, a computer tech forum,
wherein ‘facts’ are the actual currency, with the subjective relegated
only to issues of ‘taste’.

So, we have to confront our tendency
to convert issue of ‘taste’, into facts. It is certain that ‘we all’ do
not have identical or even similar tastes. But to assert that one’s
tastes translate to ‘accurate judgment’ is utter folly, and this is in
fact the basis of most of the ‘discord’ we see here. (If in fact is
‘discord’ and not simply normal human interplay.)

Yes again.

Maybe there is a conundrum insofar as say:- I might believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is my personal Saviour and yours too and that He died to save all sinners. I believe this with all my heart and know this to be the absolute truth.

Yet I might also acknowledge that this absolute belief is my own preference and taste, and that others do not think this way but have their version of the absolute truth like “Everything is Consciousness” or some such.

So many absolutes, so little time.

As the Red Queen said:- “Everyone has won and all shall have prizes.”

It would behoove us to acknowledge the essentially subjective nature of ‘taste’, and to stop foisting it as fact. The only facts which pertain to taste, are those which indicate personal opinion regarding something, and must be “in fact” entirely subjective

The inevitable outcome is what we had seen in 2008, in the form of the
losing US ‘GOP’ tearing itself to shreds, because it has attached itself
to non-sustainable ‘values’. So it is with sniffling blue-noses, or
those who use them to gain leverage; what are represented as ‘facts’,
are actually the ‘values/tastes’ of those whose awareness has not
progressed beyond the basest mob-mentality, no matter how fancy the accruements.

Could you expand a bit?

There is a clue here, as to what is most profitably left behind;
dependence upon popularity, finding security in shared subjectivity, and
the attempt to use for leverage, a fulcrum made of marshmallow.

Ok. Then one maybe realizes that one is alone and has been all along and no amount of shared subjectivity, popularity, or agreement will make one iota of difference.

And why am I not surprised to read another bland predictable comment from you?

Thanks for taking interest in my comment, Tony. I liked what you said about Lord Jesus Christ.

Putting aside for the moment, the possibly futile search for ‘absolutes’, it is observed that ‘truth’ is true, only within ‘a given context’.

If you say ‘this is true, Anamika’, and I am thinking in a context which differs from the one you are ‘coming from’, then, what you say is true, is not true, for me.

So the actual factor of governance in the issue of ‘truth’, is not so much the stated ‘truth’ itself, but the (assumed) context in which that truth is actually embedded.

And the real wrestling-match around ‘truth’, is this; WHO controls the context? If I can masterfully wrangle all of the contexts which are ‘in play’, and make my context the one which portends, it will be MY ‘truth’ which obtains.

So, while the dweebs and amateurs argue over the specifics, the ‘master’ will simply impose the very context which must by effect, deliver a ‘chosen’ version of the ‘truth’.

Masterful argument needs only deliver a sequence of contexts, for the picture to eventually resolve into the one which will serve the ends determined by the ‘master’.

During episodes of cross-examination in Court, the real battle between defense and prosecution is to succeed in imposing a chosen context; it is the context which will qualify as ‘true’ or ‘false’, in any testimony. And quite predictably so; whose context maintains until the jury goes to deliberation, determines which side ‘wins’.

“This is the problem with amateurs, who attempt to take the moral high ground while at the same time, judge others (liberals etc) as being below them.”

I think this is what’s most loathsome about the Leftist mindset – how circular it is.  You conservative people can’t judge everyone because your beliefs are wrong. My Leftist beliefs (and judgments) are right because they’re my beliefs. If they were wrong then I wouldn’t believe them.  

Then the weird postmodern rambling about the subjectivity of facts (as applied to the troll’s opponents.  Opinions that happen to coincide with the troll’s personal biases are, of course,  beyond question). Hmmm…persuasive, eh?

“The inevitable outcome is what we had seen in 2008, in the form of the losing US ‘GOP’ tearing itself to shreds, because it has attached itself to non-sustainable ‘values’. ”

Such altruistic concern for the GOP! Perhaps our resident 0bamites might consider the sustainability of their own political coalition – hate filled minorities, deviants, and 60′s retreads all united by a yearning for Other People’s Money to solve their problems.

No irrevocable ‘truth’ out there that some have gotten and others have not, but rather different points of view that some may like and others do not according to taste, experience and preference.

If somebody does not like another s point of view, and then says they are ‘wrong’ it assumes they are playing the same enlightenment game and do not know the rules and you do.

Some bugger reckoned that all of us are in free fall between birth and death. We cling to each other because we reckon there is safety in numbers.

No such luck.

Indeed; but the numbers are here anyway. Closely packed like this, what choice do we have but to pass our time, ‘grooming’ each-other, like our hairy primate cousins?

Nit-picking, anyone?

Maybe by the sheer wonder and curiosity that another’s viewpoint stimulates can keep us going in this game. Yes, there is that. But to play the judging game, without an established disclaimer, would be to go down with the rest, when the rug of subjectivity is yanked out from under the feet of certainty. So to speak.

Do it again, do it right, and in about 20% of the space, and maybe I’ll leave it up this time. Not promising anything, mind you.

One reason that I will never be a Protestant: too much public whupping it up and testifyin’. 

The Catholics are much more civilized: go to confession in a nice quiet church and then head off for whiskey and cigars.