@maenadraving To live in such a way AND to be loved in such a way requires a vulnerability that most are either incapable of or simply don’t want. I am maybe like you in the sense that I cannot imagine not wanting that. To be loved and not love then back and vice versa is icky
@maenadraving I think it’s extremely similar. The issue is that the people who want to be in love with someone who is also in love with them is astonishingly few
@majamediaco I want to live in a society/ community that optimizes for the same metrics that an alive maps route does (rather than brute efficiency... or something)
To this is obviously correct. But it's very epistemically lonely to hold this view, no? Wat is there to do when the world we live considers such ideas dangerous (rightfully because they pose a threat to secular liberalism). Feels like walking around and everyone else believes the sky is green
@theRWMillennial I’m not sure we disagree on as much as you seem to think we do.
But while I’m happy to argue about the prequels, you’re conducting yourself like this is a clip in a ‘Ben Shapiro owns the libs’ compilation, so I think I’m tapping out!
You are stuck viewing this from who’s the good guy who’s the bad guy. The point is that the rigid republic leads to evil. That’s the whole point! If the “good system” leads to the “evil empire” then the good system isn’t really so good! This is fiction! Neither of these are supposed to be realistic. Anakin was always going to turn in the way he did. If what you want to say is well Anakin did nothing wrong and the empire is only bad because woke, then you are satirizing yourself
An aside: I'm not so sure that's a great characterization of grrm. My takeaway is that heroism is at times met with "catastrophe" (the opposite of Tolkien's eucatastrophe), it is an reversal of Tolkien's structure, but it does not undermine what is good and heroism still unequivocally matters. Have you written about this elsewhere?
In what ways is the old 'supernatural perfection' different from the new 'disclosure of depths'?
If these depths are fully natural (rather than supernatural), then how is the disclosure of these depths any different from a reductive account of of reality that science continues to offer (which as you note makes no room for humanity/ meaning/ truth etc.)?
These depths being inexhaustible and participatory doesn't seem to resolve the problem. Maybe I am missing something, but this just seems a glass-half-full rehashing of the same problem. To put it in other words perhaps: what does participation add that makes the what is disclosed sacred and not just interpretation all the way down?