XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, uk.legal, can.politics   
   XPost: soc.culture.israel   
   From: dolfboek@hotmail.com   
      
   But all this creative activity--while indubitably mostly a good   
   thing--has to reach a certain point of mass meaningless (ie. we note   
   with 3 days of public mourning that the far-right and populist PRESIDENT   
   JAIR BOLSONARO has only until 31 DECEMBER 2022 for propagandist   
   opportunism); it has to, doesn't it?   
      
   FUEHRER: I WANT TO SEE MY *GOATS* {GREATEST OF ALL TIME} VERY SOON.   
      
   I WANT TO HAVE A BIT OF FUN.   
      
   I LIKE THEIR FRISKY SCENT. (ie. *FROWZY*: ill-smelling, musty; dirty and   
   untidy; slovenly)   
      
   GRAB THE HIND LEGS, AND UP IT!!   
      
   *FAR* *RIGHTER*   
      
   FOR ME TO HAVE MY FUN WITH SOCK-PUPPETS AND *GOATS* THAN WITH REAL HUMANS!!!   
      
   FEMALE: (CRYING)   
      
   2ND FEMALE: IT'S OKAY ANNA NO *GOATS* WERE HARMED [IN] MAKING THIS PARODY.   
      
   Even the apparently limitless flexibility that a digitally enhanced   
   every person enjoys (ie. Television may have been introduced into   
   Australia by SEPTEMBER 1956 but only THEORETICALLY just in time for the   
   world-cup of 1958) in the creation of whatever they want--there has to   
   be a limit, doesn't there?" [page 263]   
      
   It is too early to draw any adverse conclusions on DE ZENGOTITA's   
   motivations for his post-modernity summation of "CLOSURE FOR YOU" as   
   "JEDERMENSCH (every person) EIN (a) ÃœBERMENSCH (superman)" that   
   constructs a cloning analogy [page 261] in being a futurist forecast of   
   procreational technology advances which as academic conduct is the   
   equivalent of pumping "junk into the environment" and polluting the mind   
   in being a strident contradiction to his earlier prohibitions: "this   
   genre [of passive expectation or visionary bogus] requirement is a   
   vestige of modernity's faith in a technological fix." [page 255]   
      
   The "premise upon which modernity's faith in the fix is based is   
   logically flawed: "If people cause X, people can cure X" just isn't   
   true. A man who jumps off a bridge can't arrest his descent midair"   
   [page 256]   
      
   Whether he is disingenuous in only being possessed by a fictional   
   disposition of careless indifference, or intentionally engaging in   
   calumny as a fifth columnist, recklessly hypocritical as symptomatic of   
   an existential crisis or just making a blasé social critique which is   
   otherwise unimpressed with or indifferent to the ontological reality and   
   simply because one has experienced or seen it so often before.  How does   
   one compensate for not ever having a clue about the anthropological   
   consequences, to name but a few, that might manifest by the emergence of   
   SMART PHONE technologies, semantics of programming languages, document   
   and content representation, cloud computing and 4G / 5G with 6G now in   
   development is then the cause for an early onset of misanthropy as its   
   pathos.   
      
   Is it a straw man (ie. a form of argument and an informal fallacy of   
   having the impression of refuting an argument) to postulate: "What would   
   FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE ([#369 - wànwù (è�¬ç‰©): *ALL* *LIVING* *THINGS* / #416   
   - ʼâchaz (H270): *SEIZE*] 15 OCTOBER 1844 to [#449 - yâlad (H3205):   
   *BRING* *FORTH* *OF* *CHILD* *BIRTH* *OR* *WICKED* *BEHAVIOUR* / #350 -   
   yâsam (H3455): *SET*, *APPOINT*, *MAKE*] 25 AUGUST 1900) have to say   
   about cloning if he were still alive today?   
      
   IMMANUEL KANT'S (1785) METAPHYSICS OF MORALS IDEA #416: "It may be   
   expounded not simply as necessary to a purpose which can be presumed a   
   priori and with certainty as being present in *EVERYONE* because it   
   belongs to his *ESSENCE*.  Now skill in the choice of means to one's own   
   greatest well-being can be called prudence in the narrowest sense.  And   
   thus the imperative that refers to the choice of means to one's own   
   happiness, ie. the precept of prudence, still remains hypothetical; the   
   action is commanded not absolutely but only as a means to a further purpose.   
      
   Finally, there is one imperative which immediately commands a certain   
   conduct without having as its condition any other purpose to be attained   
   by it.  This imperative is *CATEGORICAL*. It is not concerned *MATTER*   
   of the action and its intended result, but rather with the FORM OF THE   
   ACTION and the principle from which it follows; what is essentially GOOD   
   in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences   
   be what they may.  This imperative may be called that of morality.   
      
   CATEGORICAL (#YOD, #MEM, #TAU, #ALEPH) #451 - METALOGIC IMPERATIVE   
   CONSISTS OF 23 ELEMENTS   
      
   #YOD: #10 / #418 - ménÅ   
    (G3306): reference to state or condition / ONTIC   
   #451 - MORALITY PRAXIS GROUNDING +   
   #MEM: #40 / #415 - méros (G3313): constituent parts of a whole / #YOD   
   --> #MEM as a totality / infinity conception +   
   #TAU: #400 [#76] / #273 - SYNCRETIC PROGRESSION  / 22 homologous   
   chromosomes +   
   #ALEPH: #1 / #264 - periágÅ   
    (G4013): I turn round; πεÏ�ίακτος (períaktos,   
   â€œrevolving, pivotingâ€�) / female (XX) and male (XY) sex chromosome   
      
   Willing according to these three kinds of principles is also clearly   
   distinguished by dissimilarity in the necessitation of the will.  To   
   make this dissimilarity clear I think that they are most suitably named   
   in their order when they are said to be either RULES OF SKILL, COUNSELS   
   OF PRUDENCE, or COMMANDS (LAWS) OF MORALITY.  For law alone involves the   
   concept of a necessity that is unconditioned and indeed objective and   
   hence universally valid, and commands are laws which must be obeyed, ie.   
   must be followed even in opposition to inclination.   
      
   Counsel does indeed involve necessity, but involves such necessity as is   
   valid only under a subjectively contingent condition, viz., whether this   
   or that man counts this or that as belonging to his happiness.  On the   
   other hand, the CATEGORICAL imperative is limited by no condition, and   
   can quite properly be called a command since it is absolutely, though   
   practically, necessary. The first kind of imperatives might also be   
   called technical (BELONGING TO *ART*), the second kind pragmatic   
   (belonging to welfare), the third kind moral (belonging to free conduct   
   as such, ie. to morals)?   
      
   The question now arises: how are all of these imperatives possible?"   
   [pages 26, 27]   
      
   Without quantifying any substantial basis of reasonable cause, DE   
   ZENGOTITA speculates, "He would not allow the experts to reduce this   
   fabulous eventuality to mere policy [such as rule based according to   
   #902 - RULE OF LAW as its #410 - OBLIGATING NORM]. He would #416 -   
   *PLUNGE* *STRAIGHT* to the METAPHYSICAL heart of the *MATTER* [ie.   
   whether the essence as hypostasis is either TRIPARTITE as being a   
   determination towards gender progression or BIPARTITE as determination   
   upon the autonomy of gender?], to the delicious and terrible dilemmas   
   the possibility of self-replication." [page 265]   
      
   TO BE CONTINUED ...   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)