| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OldPapers" |
|---|
| | | A multiplicity of contents/meanings has seemed to me a positive fact of life, in some ways/extents at least, for instance I like music and have some personal taste/freedom, though there may be some issues. While favored contents/interpretations may be most advantageous for some people at some time and place, local truth can be mistaken for global truth to the detriment of freedom, creativity, and diversity and at the risk of overrelying on flawed or incomplete building blocks. William H. Simon suggested, "A society which treats all conflict as a threat sacrifices individual development to conformism and impoverishes both self-expression and social relations. In such a society, where officially sanctioned patterns of behavior are perceived as coercively imposed, they engender cynicism and frustration. Where they are spontaneously adopted, they narrow the individual's perception of the world and of his own possibilities." The freedom of content/interpretation/perspective/will keeps society in flux, content/sense/people, possibly with “no one in complete agreement with anyone else about any of it”, though there is substantial thoroughfare of reality/content/sense, which can be substantially actual/true/congenial/agreeable (good/right is a parallel for congenial/agreeable, though they are not synonyms, considerably), generally and/or individually/particularly/availably, etc. 2+2=4 is a pretty solid example piece of benign/good/right/true content that exists, that people have and are pretty much same/agreed about. I can do it right now with my fingers, two fingers, one, two, two other fingers, one, two, them together, one, two, three, four, variousness/doubt/other-possibility case aside. School makes sense in a good/right/reasonable/suited way, in first principles circumstance/idealism and in good faith assumedly honestly/earnestly intended/done, with some positive nature/facility/validation/accountability, e.g., one's experience and understandability/conscience. The distance of the pitcher's mound from home plate makes sense. Vehicles are for transportation in space. I'm an excellent driver. If I was forced not to wear boxers, like one of the other kinds, that would be a detriment to my freedom, but with reasonably flexibility to circumstances, and you don't have to be exactly the same in these details. About this one, can definitely have different things you health/taste need/like fine in flexible/congenial case/proportion some. Etc. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life", and I'm presently reading Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth. Some narrow/broad field/issues of good/right. Jesus says narrow is the way that leads to life, and in familiar-to-me normal situation/sense that is true and practiced significantly and does lead to life. I/people do things pretty specifically within conceivability/possibility in a sensible way, e.g., when I have to go to the grocery store I go to the grocery store and then return to my home and eat and drink water and stuff reasonably specifically to health/taste life maintenance - not sure if an apple a day'll keep the doctor away, or if motherhood and apple pie is truly wholesomely benign, amongst other things - though this is a sense/finding of that that is pretty common, not that rare. Some possibly further issues/specifics of whats/narrowness. Do you not do, like, armed robberies, cause that could be hazardous? God, no, not even if you asked me to. Heat is not my idea of a good time. I could, and might want to, wear plain white boxers, not that that specific detail's a big deal, and I don't want to set up rules that would be onerous or inappropriately/overly specific/consequential like if I step on a crack I break my mom's back, but I like good white, good/right/comfortable. Good/right content/lampstand, some circumstance/cinch of actual/true/good/right/fair/reasonable. | |
<
< | Goodness/fit, a particular/flexible level of content/fit... possibly cases that are difficult or with a sardonic level of circumstance/intention/misfit? If I were between a 36” and 38” size belt, perhaps around 37” with some specificity/case/use range, e.g., how much turkey have I eaten?, if I get a 36” or 38” because those are the available sizes, I might be notch 2 on the 36" or notch 4 on the 38" which are both ok to flexible level of fit, between notches 2 and 4 is a best-available fit correctness/validity level. Possibly “I’m actually between notches on the ideal level though it’s good/ok/fine level”. Regarding belts this is not commonly a big deal, can get an off-the-rack notch within a half-inch and the use case is good flexible enough for that, good valid range ok/workable, probably without too-substantial waves of content/aspect problem/consequence or putt trajectory offness/class/extrapolation/association in this way or that. Could custom make a belt, sell belts by each inch, do a continuous model (e.g., those braid-y ones), try to change my self/perspective/orientation in some way (some contents/questions are not just fitting the person, but the person being in line with the good/right content/way), not have it be that people are variable, or some other “where we’re going we don't need belts”. In examples other than belts, this could be more of an issue, and if something external is trying to force a bad content/notch upon y-o-u, or vice versa you are trying to force a bad content/notch upon them, perhaps in content existence/system/interpretation, that can be pretty uncomfortable/problematic. A carnival ring-toss game scam, for example, may be one in which none of the supposed good options are actually attainable/workable— in many cases of life and law something like this does not appear to be true, e.g., I am able to have a decent belt that fits/works well enough within sense/awareness of decency and well enough and I don't mean anything bad by that I just need a good reasonable belt, though possibly sometimes. | >
> | Goodness/fit, a particular/flexible level of content/fit... possibly cases that are difficult or with a sardonic level of circumstance/intention/misfit? If you/I were between a 36” and 38” size belt, perhaps around 37” with some specificity/case/use range, e.g., how much turkey have you/I eaten?, if you/I get a 36” or 38” because those are the available sizes, you/I might be notch 2 on the 36" or notch 4 on the 38" which are both ok to flexible level of fit, between notches 2 and 4 is a best-available fit correctness/validity level. Possibly “I’m actually between notches on the ideal level though it’s good/ok/fine level”. Regarding belts this is not commonly a big deal, can get an off-the-rack notch within a half-inch and the use case is good flexible enough for that, good valid range ok/workable, probably without too-substantial waves of content/aspect problem/consequence or putt trajectory offness/class/extrapolation/association in this way or that. Could custom make a belt, sell belts by each inch, do a continuous model (e.g., those braidy ones), change self/perspective/orientation in some way (some contents/questions are not just fitting the person, but the person being in line with good/right content/way), not have it be that people are variably plural, or some other “where we’re going we don't need belts”. In examples other than belts, this could be more of an issue, and if something external is trying to force a bad content/notch upon y-o-u, or vice versa you are trying to force a bad content/notch upon them, perhaps in content/system nature/performance generally or in further accident/assuming/interpreting/preventing/foisting/scheming/etc, that can be pretty uncomfortable/problematic. A carnival ring-toss game scam, for example, may be one in which none of the supposed good options are actually attainable/workable, though in many cases of life and law something like this does not appear to be true, e.g., I am able to have a decent belt that fits/works well enough within sense/awareness of decency and well enough and I don't mean anything bad by that I just need a good reasonable belt. |
|