| |
|
My comment at an excellent opinion article
by NYTimes’ Charles M. Blow against The Donald won me a “NYT Picks” label:
On target column. But the ugly truth is an echo of old Ma Bell: "I'm the president. I don't have to care." No, it's uglier: They're marketing people. They know they can buy the ratings they need for the 2018 election. In the meantime, they can live with low ratings, because marketing can always plump up the short memories of the suckered voter. The "voters" are consumers, honey, not citizens. So, why should Trump care? He'll be unforgettable in the real estate market after he gets impeached. What's it to him? Now is his swan song, America last.
July 22: I don’t use WordPress anymore. But I see that the link to my abandoned blogging via WordPress is a perpetual
“Error” message, due to “down” server link. That doesn’t matter to me, but it’s worth noting that all of that earlier blogging was transferred to
“blog blog blog,” above right.
July 1: Want: balancing desire (ideality) and
----------need (“reality”)
I’m facing a backlog of “home work” (life management chores) that causes this update
to be brief—though such “facing” is
an interesting theme.
Pragmatically speaking—in a sense of balancing ideal (creative) interests and real (life mana-gerial) interests—a conception of “balancing” is always at least implicit for actually living well (really); and is appealing as a topic for thinking (ideally).
That particular expression of the notion of balance—creative appeal vs. real imposition— might be exemplary for a notion of pragmatics as the balancing of one’s relation to an ideality and a reality—together a challenge of appropriativity
(the balancing itself).
One wants the balance to be “good,” which is what? fruitful? satisfactory? efficacious?—for what?
Let’s say: for being, where ‘being’ is emblematic of the heuristic range of interest in a life worth living, from “being well” to “being in Time” (proximally articulated at the right, for each Area there, as if each is heuristically regarded
as a mode of being—facet, kind, whatever).
So, pragmaticness (pragmatic being) expresses, reflects, exemplifies... being—more than only “being well,” but less than exemplifying one’s global era (“being in Time”), which is likely a delusional hope anyway.
Call the cohering of all that what? just being? wholly flourishing of one Self showing as exemplarity of virtue?
(Is virtue itself just admirable exemplarity?)
Why do we make the choices that we make,
in the terms that we prefer (my neologistic loves), in terms of values,
interests, commit-ments, and so on?
Certainly that’s a question of “being,” without pretense, belonging to any life.
So, that might be suggestive of interest in an integrated sense of “being,” relative to the six-fold heuristic range indicated at the upper right.
Prospecting that integrated sense is so appealing to me that I deliberately resist it sometimes for the sake of my home work.
I recall, just now, the preschoolers in the famous marshmallow experiment, which is reportedly indicative of long-term life success. (If you don’t know about the experiment—unlikely—you’ll get a treat here).
So this update posting isn’t brief after all.
Next update: July 29 |
|
