, if you, or anyone else -- on any side in politics -- were able to channel your fundamental human ability to approximate 'thinking realistically' about reality, then you or whoever would arrive at the same understanding about your OP that I would -- if this is once again one of those 'personally striking a mother load' moments that I so frequently have had all my life.
I need to pause here, Left Coast, on account of my tender, deeply human, in-group filtered compassion for your physical well-being.
Were you or anyone else on RF so unwise as to even attempt to achieve an accurate, researched understanding of what 'personally striking a mother load' moment' would say about
my own core, fundamental ability to arrive a the truth about something -- anything -- and it were to accidentally happen that you had randomly guessed at a conclusion that might emotionally come across to me as familiar in the way of my of being familiar that you had been talking with my two ex-wives about me ------ that might be seen by me as confirmation that you and they were engaged in yet another one of their lethal conspiracies against my body, flesh, and gold mine of intelligence.
Those always fail, you know, because they never once have had the simple luck to choose an emotionally stable fall guy. All their fall guys so far have skipped out of town on them and run off who knows where.
Typical flighty drama queen behavior, in my opinion. Male version of it, subcategory 'too tough to notice their own mortal vulnerabilities when opening their own mail.' I'm mainly thinking about how paper cuts were a Chinese form of torturing conspirators to death. "Death by a Thousand Cuts'. I think that was by paper cuts. Such as can commonly be encountered when opening one's mail.
"Seen" in the sense you might first see my curiosity in your whereabouts empirically expressed in the form of you noticing any one of the flock of private detectives I had hired to find your home mailing address. The flock that I had instantly leveraged my intimate knowledge of my own two brothers in order to keg-tap them for one month of their combined monthly cash flow.
Aided by their brotherly generosity --- as viewed by how likely they might panic to short someone's stocks -- in order to help me out with understanding how my best, most honest guess at what their monthly cash flow would sum was a real and accurate, gold mine standard true take on their joint monthly household cash flow.
'Household' in the sense that the bros got my nephews portfolios for Christmas before they were into their teens. As the best way to give my nephews a practical hands-on knowledge of how markets work. That kind of 'household'. The kind that would make any genuinely doting uncle optimistically proud of his nephews.
A family tradition when hiring detectives to sic on someone's tracks.
"Seen" next and quite possibly the final time in anyone of the passionately emotive Valentine boxes that would soon begin arriving for you in your mailbox in order to most passionate express to you my fondness for my own rightful privacy.
I have tragically too often found that I had failed to communicate with someone how my ex-wives were trying to fool him into doing their bidding -- failed in time to compassionately save those fool's lives. Hence, the above outpouring of sincere emotions urging you to take an existentially informed notice of them -- and how they state an important
reality that is now suddenly available for you to examine, should you be wanting a bit of fascinating reality to examine. 'Examine' according to The Pragmatic Theory of Truth's understanding of 'examine'.
Hint. Hint.
Dear me! The lengths I will go to to colorfully and entertainingly express my epistemology in the most understandable ways I can think of expressing it for the people I have suddenly come to love in a way that siblings sometimes learn is a convenient way to pointedly love their own brothers and sisters.
There can be no honest doubt that I am the Martin Luther King, jr of epistemology.
I absolutely cannot disbelieve that I am my wannabe field's foremost wannabe activist at activating the truth -- in a way common for epistemologists to activate the facts so they are then easy to understand as facts that are evidence for a truth that would be vitally and pragmatically useful for them to grasp. I
In short, I am a fundamentally human kind of compassionate and decent human.
Meaning that all agenda driven responses to reality that we have in us humans -- including 'compassion, understanding, and honesty' -- are best keg-tapped by those fellow humans we see as the most legitimate members of our own in-groups. A law of universal human nature. And a law of universal social animal nature.
Socialism, as one might see it in terms of how 'socialism' is always some form of normal 'social animal nature' that is universally rooted in our DNA as a raw blueprint for some kind of human behavior.
The DNA-based Lorentzian instinct for egalitarianism, basically. That instinct is born in us as an instinct to suppress any in-group opposition to our learning how to best assert our own individuality.
It triggers at the right time to best start learning those behaviors.
And it launches us into a swirling ying-yang dynamic only a couple years after birth.
The toddler stage. The 'terrible twos'.
That's the egalitairan/individualism dynamic' in us all. Our ying-yang take on what it most means to us personally to be evolved as individualists living in groups as social animals.
A unique kind of social animal.
You won't find enough about our universal human nature to make full sense of us in the news. You will only be in one way or another relying too much on the lowest common denominator when understanding anything. That's always the most popular outlets for the news.
RF, considered as a news outlet, would be an average popular outlet for lowest common denominator facts, ideas, and commentary. We're mostly here looking for entertainment.
You will only find enough about your own "NATURALLY HUMAN" human nature from the unpopular, but higher quality and more truthful sources. The best popular science authors, for most us. Such as the world's fastest rising star at making science meaningful to any human with an average ability to grasp science.
Personally endorsed by David Attenborough, and so many others, as his own most likely successor.
Remember please: This 'rising star' is one of our world's truth-bearers. There are always and ever humans who want to see those people discredited. Be careful who you trust to tell you about this young man.
Stalking someone because someone seems them as an out-group truth-bearer (i.e. liar) is everywhere common in the media outlets and common on the net. I get stalked now and then too. It's routine for anyone in any position of authority for someone to somehow see them as a 'hostile truth-bearer'.
I've got one right now who's been lazily stalking me for months, possibly a year or more. I don't pay those folks much attention. Too dishonest. This one (and almost all of the stalkers in the media and on the net) always attacks my posts, when he does, according to his favorite pattern of attack. That's always identifiable. Sticks out like a sore thumb, if you have eyes to see it, and ears to hear it. A hostile agenda. Why do you think we seem to have evolved some kind of radar for recognizing threatening patterns in anything, given that we evolved as a social species?
Ed Yong.
Considered in the poetic manner most of us are familiar with 'thinking realistically about reality'', then there's something about the core question
of your OP that would stick out in a kind of 'atheist in a foxhole' way to anyone so stressed that they were standing to attention and on high alert to see reality as close as humans can usually come to seeing reality, as reality.
