As someone who lives in NZ, I don't think you have that right. Can you provide the blog?

The semantics are. That's all. Extremely obviously.

So when the current American-style racism — ssu

I can't conceive of what you're talking about. The current claims about any kind of widespread racism in the US seem, factually, ridiculous. The tenuous connection you're making between Nazism and US policy is unserious, sorry to say. I can't really engage it.

we shouldn't forget all the positive aspects that people get from religion and their faith. — ssu

I disagree, but understand what you're saying - we should be able to extract them, not have to prop up the rest on their behalf. The aspects of tribalism that I think are good seem to me only 'good' in a naiive analysis. They necessarily lead to the types of out-group negativity which reduces social cohesion when taken beyond their immediate and tangible effect of, lets say easing the overall burden of children care and rearing. But that also means necessarily restricting children to certain social, political and moral precepts. That seems to be why places like the Mid East are how they are.

I think suggesting there's anything remotely close to this anywhere in the USA is tantamount to a lie. I understand we're probably going to have just wave and walk on by on this one, but the premise being that the US "is a racist country" is risible to me.

how religions contradict each other and how secularism offers a way out. In contrast, you spent no time at all reviewing the ways in which secular ideologies contradict each other. — Esse Quam Videri

Because its utterly irrelevant. Secular world views do not claim metaphysical primacy. Religions do. Their inconsistency is damning to them all. Not so with secular views.

Light is of the mind-independent world; it is absorbed by the eyes; and therefore each of us has direct contact with the “mind-independent world”. Since this contact is direct, so is access to the “mind-independent world”, and there is zero room in space and time for any intermediary. That’s my whole point, basically. — NOS4A2

But this appears to be an incorrect analysis of how that works.

Light does not appear to you. It enters your eyes and, after some other intermediary activity mental images appear to you. Light stops being light at your eyes. Your brain literally constructs images from the data which your eyes derived from that light, as electrical signals, within your brain. This is why you can get after images, because your brain is still constructing an image due to an excess of light enter the eye and distorting the objects its reflected off. This should be sufficient to at least give you pause. You cannot see an object witout light - light is a medium which is not in or of the objects it reflects off of. There is no possible room to call mental images direct, unless you do the thing of saying "direct representations" which is a misnomer because representation already infers intermediacy.

I definitely misspoke in one regard earlier: We are in direct contact with the mind-independent world. I am not an idealist. I apologise for any confusion that caused. But that does not mean that our perception of it is direct. They are two different things. It may be that you and others do not see the distinction, which was why I said it's sound to reject this. If that's your model, then your take will result in a 'direct' description. I think this is empirically incorrect and misleading myself.

My understanding of the problem of perception is whether I can directly perceive the mind-independent world, or if I directly perceive some mind-dependent intermediary, like representations or sense-data — NOS4A2

This is correct. I hope the above clarifies that I'm addressing this specific, and imo, entirely erroneous concept that we do in fact 'directly' perceive.

as it became more and more obvious that he’s senile. — Punshhh

Is this genuinely something you want to stand behind? Be very careful.

Don’t we deserve to understand what we are supposed to call “direct” when described as well. — Richard B

No. Not at all on my view. (I think this is a really weird thing to ask though - what does 'deserve' mean here?) It may not be something available to the human mind. I suggest this is the case, and attempts to get around it into DR-ist theories are simply a reaction to that discomfort. Most response amount to hand-waving, anyhow so that seems relatively simple to understand, even if it's not accepted in your view.

Funnily enough, potentially the best, most well-described system which tried to do this was Kant's CPR in response (fear, really) to Hume's problems of perception and identity - and that resulted in an IR position properly understood.

Perception is biological relation to the environment just like other bodily processes. The fact that errors, like illusion and hallucination, occur does not imply mediation by mental objects. — Richard B

No, but hte well-understood facts do support that. This is why its so hard to understand DR arguments. They seem to fail at the first, empirical, hurdle.

I agree with the premise there, but I think your conclusion just falls into the Haters line (this is speculative - I'm not charging you with being a hater). Time will tell, and I have an extremely hard time thinking this is bruise on the US or Trump. That seems an emotional reading. We'll see. Really apprecaite this exchange so far.

If you believe your statement you should go to speakers corner perhaps and voice this concern and see what happens? — I like sushi

Are you not seeing that this is the exact problem? "See what happens" when you use your right to speak 'freely'? It's hard to understand what could support such an attitude, unless I've misunderstood.

True. But in-group bias is a Human standard. Racism is a somewhat direct consequence of tribal values. In modern times, we've had the privilege to construct tribes of multiple ethnicities. It wasn't so in the past.

I also think it's largely a cultural resistance, not an ethnic/racial one. But that will always mask actual racism.

I certainly do not trust the government or some legion of self righteous twats to decide. Freedom of speech is about protecting your other rights, throughout history oppression always comes for speech first. — DingoJones

Yep. Something the current strand of "Trump's a fascist' don't seem to understand, as compared to the swathes of undemocratic, 'liberal' protesters preventing many from speaking, even those on their own side.

Morning guys (my time) - I have to say, I am disappointed in my response earlier. Not conceptually, but I was rushing to leave work and I did not take the time I shoul dhave to respond to , specifically, Metaphysician's comments and it's come off extremely badly, even by my lights.

My overall take is the same, but it was a lazy, unsupported response. I'll get to a more substantive response today but i apologise for what appears to be an essentially useless response.

The only thing I want to add here is that the number of "lies" swirling around ICE, Trump, the overall situation and about Good, her wife, ICE, Trump and the overall situation from what would be termed 'the other side' are pretty clear.

It's hard to know what to do in those situations. Anyway, I apologise for that repsonse. I'll fix it up later today.

With this, I fully agree. But the videos are clear. I can't understand why you'd need one. Its clear.

Odd that you don't trust MSM, but you repeat a Trumpist version of the events, one that ignores established law and policy- and that is inconsistent with video evidence. — Relativist

I cannot have a discussion with someone who is this incapable of watching a video.

Those 2 shots could not possibly be self-defense, and his attitude suggests anger. — Relativist

False, and this is the exact kind of emotional over-reaction that is going to have all of you crying into your soup while the law does its thing. I shouldn't really care, but I like talking to you guys. This is absolute nonsense. As someone who reads case law for a living, I am just stumped as to the ignorance shown toward this event. Its astounding.

The agent actually leaned in toward the vehicle — Relativist

I cannot fathom being so beyond rational assessment as to say something like this, having seen the videos. I'll see myself out.

Its a description of the events which were filmed from multiple angles Mikie.

Can you at least see that you're not approaching this in good faith, given the sarcasm and dismissal? That's not meant to be combative - but I would expect a reduction in sarcasm and dismissiveness if you're not into Twitter-type exchanges, which is good.

I'm saying the facts are as described, but doesn't make it any "better" of an event - just, clearly not murder. The legalities are fairly clear given the multiple videos.

For those of us trying their best to stay outside the "I hate Trump and "I hate Europe/liberals/opposition" circles, tihs just seems like the exact intended outcome.

If, however, he's doing it as leverage to dominate the international landscape with a view to securing American interests - i don't quite know what I think anymore. — AmadeusD

I don’t see how absorbing light into the eyeballs counts as indirect. Maybe you can explain it. — NOS4A2

Yes, this is the crux, I think between Banno's approach (which is sound, i don't want to sounds dismissive. I just htink its wrong and Mine (and i presume Michael's) is that absorbing light into the eyes is not, at all, contact with the object which the light reflected off. There is nothing of the object in the light which enters the eyes. For Banno's approach, that's a red herring. For mine, it's the whole point.

It’s hard to grasp for me. Experience is the medium? Is it anything like traditional mediums like light, clay, air, or paint, where some sort of tangible substance is required? — NOS4A2

Totally understandable. I think the key here is that the felt presence of immediate experience is not an object. It is not a "something" in the sense of your examples. Its certainly far cleaner and easier to just sort of say "I see clay" and in a sense (Banno's) that's true. But trivially, and possibly ideally (as in "i see" is idealized). To me, there is no direct contact with objects. That doesn't seem possible by virtue of any hypothetical involving perception as a fundamental element of the relation between object and perceiver (tautological? Recursive? That's sort of the point). We'd have to posit a hypothetical where there is no difference between the object and the perception. But that's simply not available on the information we ahve about how light and perception work and we do not know of any speculative biology which could 'see' in any other way.

So you’ve gone too far in pretending the images on that screen is the “distal object” you’re perceiving. — NOS4A2

I think we just go one step further - you've gone too far in pretending the distal objects are in the images you receive, whether CCTV or through your eyes. Bare rejection of this is sound.

No real need - not offended. Just figure if we're to get on better than we have previously this would be good :)

Something I'll throw out: I spent about 11 years deeply interested in, and in the study of, Amazonian tribal myth making. I was my country's foremost expect on their Shamanism and related anthropologic considerations. All is not lost on me my friend :)

Not jaded at all. I just live in the real world now. I am a very happy, spiritual person. I would refrain from such assumptions.

You're wrong. All MSM is absolute nonsense to me. Entertaining sometimes, but otherwise useless.

I don't understand how you can make unfounded assumptions, and then propose them without any founding, but say someone else is being partisan man.

THe officer was hit with a lethal weapon subsequent to a citizen illegally obstructing him, refusing lawful orders, he suffered internal injuries and had recently been attacked in a similar scneario.

I don't quite think you're seeing hte forest for the trees. I understand the emotional response - It's tough to watch and super tragic, shitty thing to have happened. No serious person would argue otherwise (note here: If you come back at me with "well, so so and said x" yeah - not a serious person. Whatever bullet needs biting, I'm hungry - plenty of responses to this event pretending it's anything other than tragic, and as if Goode was an inherently bad person or lied about hte child abuse thing have caused me to realize that person is a knobend when perhaps I previously didn't).

But the footage and the law is clear. This is absolute bullshit for that reason. Also, the President didn't shoot her. LOL.

Yes ma'am, years ago. More poetry/lyrics since then (to the present day) but certainly a few short stories and what not previously when I was younger and had a more whimsical outlook on things.

Lol. The only thing he is looking at is the midterms. — ssu

Yeah, that's why the short term part is relevant there. He clearly can't think past his nose (or, at the very least, thinks it's a good idea to appear that way).

So, I think gold might be going still up, even if the fears of military annexation of Iceland Greenland by USA from Denmark isn't on the table. — ssu

hahaha, i see what you did there.

Regarding the Kevin's, those outlines are clearly bent in a certain direction. I forego making comment cause I'm not informed, but again, from Trump's perspective, or those who trust his intuitions (lets say... clearly an inapt description of what motivates his actions) would just say "great!". Could be a bit more bollocks there. I just don't know - from what I've seen on the economic side its pretty bland and uninteresting, except for what things look like.

No, it’s clear from what I wrote that we interact with the environment around us directly, not indirectly. For instance your eyes are in direct contact with the light from that generated image.

This does not dovetail into an indirect perceptual account at all because we do not have anything like computer generated images or telescopes in the brain. In my opinion the indirect realist ought to stop leaning on metaphors and analogies using “mind-independent” examples and finally tell us what medium they are interacting with directly in their brain. What is the telescope or computer screen supposed to represent in your analogy — NOS4A2

Its not clear at all, which is why i asked LMAO.

What you're claiming doesn't make any sense. Your account is literally indirect. You are claiming that mediated perception is direct. You aren't even making Banno's argument.

I don't know what you mean by the bold. There are no metaphors or analogies in hte basic description of the perceptual system. A car does not have "redness" as a property. To suggest so is totally unwarranted. Redness exists solely in minds. If you want to claim that the red you want to exist in the object is the same red that exists in your mind, you are essentially claiming that every object in the world is interconnected physically. But our internal images are not objects, nor are they physically connected to anything but maybe hte brain.

The "medium" you want is a total red herring. We have experience as the medium. What we experience is data. Data comes from somewhere. This is not hard to grasp.

I aware that this is an entirely inaccurate description of what goes on with ICE.

As for Renee Goode, it was an horrific event. 100% Granted. However, It was warranted for the officer who in the course of duty was hit with a lethal weapon by a woman who refused lawful commands. There is absolutely no question about this whatsoever. it is tragic, it shouldn't have happened - but she shouldn't have made a job of impeding lawful federal activities and refusing lawful commands. Those are the results of the incredibly risky behaviour she undertook. They always are. There is no surprise or controversy unless you're dead set on "us v them". Due process is an absolutely ridiculous concept to bring in for this specific situation. Assaults on ICE Agents are soaring. You do not get to pretend one side is allowed to be violent, aggresive, rights-violating wankers, and ICE has to just put up with it. They are mandated to enforce the law and they do not deserve to deal with the horrific, unwarranted crap they're getting from emotionally unstable children who can't keep a job down.

Not letting feelies take over is probably the best move right now. And unfortunately, emotional, inaccurate crap is usually what's driving responses to these things. Being detained for not being able to provide ID, for instance, is routine even for local law enforcement.

Well aware how this will sound to those partial to the types of thinking I've outlined.

Is it an accurate depiction? Of course not, but its fierceness and its exquisite imagery connects me the sensibilities of another section of humanity, makes them come alive. And of course, this is what all good art does - makes the receiver of the art feel what the artist felt. — Questioner

It is certainly true that Art does that.

I think mixing historical interest with Art, without delineating adequately isn't great. Myth-making seems to be a semi-delusional state of being. Not you, enjoying it. But that process is one which obscures the reality and may present a false impression of those people. In fact, given that history is written, rewritten, and often a victor of some kind - that seems unavoidable. But yeah, as a curiosity myth and legend are ace.

Thanks for elucidating!

Why alienate countries that had good relations with you? It's all just the US shooting itself in the foot, which is hugely benefitting Russia and China. — ssu

Because from an America first perspective, these are untenable bases for making geopolitical decisions. I can't really say much more than that. It's an observation. I wouldn't get into bed with those I don't want to get into bed with. That's kind of where that reasoning ends.

You think that changing tariffs less than in one year is rational? — ssu

I don't quite understand the question. It's not a matter of rationality. They are instrumental tariffs, not aimed at normalizing trade relations in the normal sense. They have largely achieved what Trump wanted (and that may be irrational!).

then you simply avoid doing anything and stay on the sidelines. — ssu

I understand the problem, but Trump has brought in billions of investment since this term started. Not the $21 trillion claimed, obviously, and that's at Trump's feet for being a buffoon publicly. I just think you're looking at goals that administration is not. It's hard to "come to terms" in that way. Its all theater to me.

Is he really dominating the international landscape? — ssu

I don't think this is a serious question. There may be too much daylight in how we're seeing things (or, what information we have access to day-to-day) to come to terms, as above. Trump is obviously dominating the geopolitical landscape. You call it a spotlight and that's fair - but his movements are hte talk of the globe, in most facets of geopolitical life. People are having to do what he wants, or do something relatively radical to not do what he wants. That is dominance to me. That doesn't mean its good.

Just look at how gold is doing. — ssu

Given the tariff situation, that's probably good in the short term. But its definitely not good across 24 months or more. It indicates a collapse is coming. But Trump, being hte mover he is, is probably aware of this.

Is the suggestion that whatever the case, countries need to stick to their agreements? I understand i need to divest of talking about Trump here, but it almost seems liek you're saying we must remain party to agreements which don't benefit us. I don't really see that working.

I was watching some panels from the current WEF session early today (its about 2pm here). The tact that America takes there, compared with say Rachel Reeves contributions, seems common-sense national security considerations.

You're right, though. If Trump is (I can't quite see what you're seeing, but that's not surprising to me) renegging on several agreements, particularly on trade, then yeah thats bollocks and geopolitically unstable.

If, however, he's doing it as leverage to dominate the international landscape with a view to securing American interests - i don't quite know what I think anymore.

It’s not inconsistent because the rest of the world is full of mediums through which to view, hear, and smell distant objects. Dealing with those mediums counts as direct perception of the world because our senses are in direct contact with those mediums — NOS4A2

Just a clarifying point: Are you saying that the astronomer looking through a scope (or, lets go further: having generated an image from mathematical data) is in direct contact with the objects lets say lightyears away? Can you explain that? It seems to be the key example of indirect contact to me (and so dovetails into a perceptual account more generally). Just want to be sure that's what you're saying..

Hmm. A couple of things to sort out there...The first seems the strongest to me, but is also, you should note, a clarification on the example - not really an argument against you.

A shadow is arguably not a physical object ( i would say it isn't, but a realise that's not all there is to say). In either case, this leapfrogs the crux of the issue. I may be seeing something different to the object which stimulated my sense organs. I'm not claiming that's the case, but it is absolutely open.

Yes, you can launch an investigation into the cause. But that is because (you do go into this, so bear with me teaching you suck eggs) we are already aware that the cause (to the best of our knowledge) must be restricted to something we can access through our senses. That's fine. The example was one where we have no hope of finding the cause - it's an analogy only.

I think the God one is a bad example (despite my agreeing with you!!) because plenty of people claim to have sensory perception of God constantly. That, in fact, seems to be the basis for on-a-dime conversions. Suffice to say I reject those claims :P

When I ask "what is the ship" my very point was to avoid the conversation you just had about how metaphyics gets us no where. — Hanover

Which, as should have been clear, doesn't seem to me to be a move open to anyone playing this game. It's a form of setting aside the issue. Which i'm not saying is necessarily hte wrong approach, but it quite clearly (to me) just ignores the issue - you use the term avoid, which is fine.

I am saying that we don't have to reach any metaphysical conclusion as to whether Banno's wife's voice is the vibration in her larynx, the sound waves as they leave her mouth, the electronic goings on in the phone, the vibration of the ear drum, the nerves doing whatever they do in the brain, or the magical presentation of phenomenal state. It's all good stuff, but it has nothing to do with what "voice" means. — Hanover

I know. IT should be clear I think this is giving up and retreating into Banno's world. It isn't one i, or many, recognize. It is setting aside the problem.

There are things we do, and then there are the actual things. Calling the voice on the phone "my wife's voice" is what's known as an **idealization (ironically). You are hearing something different to your wife's voice. You can just shift this to be listening to a recording of your wife's voice. There isn't even a tenuous connection, at the time, to your wife uttering anything. Your wife's voice is the vibrations in the surrounding air upon her larynx engaging and producing sounds.

The recording cannot be your wife's voice. It can be a recording of it. But that's unweildy, so we idealize to get through conversations more efficiently.

This is why philosophers routinely use different meanings for words - to make them more consistent and accurate. You don't have to accept my position, I'm just explaining why the move to forego sorting this out isn't attractive to me.

** it is possible heuristic, in an awkward use, fits slightly better.

No, i mean quite explicitly falsities.

I understand the pull to dress the past up with a bit more aplomb than it actually contained - ancient people's believed ridiculous shit. And fair enough. But they wrote this down as if it were the case. That is false.

I understand the same stories to be taken as fictional now though - and in that, i agree! Stories are a great way to press on important thoughts. But it is highly, highly unlikely we're getting anything particularly historically interesting, other than the (incredibly important) aspect of discussing why/how/when those thoughts were held to be true.

Yes quite true. These are just particularly both pernicious and unreasonable.

Oh, I agree. The concept of mass delusion was just a point in space. It's not hte crux. The point was just that these believers will understand a concept which makes it highly unlikely their beliefs are sound (we can think here of the many episodes of mass delusion the Catholic church harps on about) and sitll refuse to apply it to their belief about Christ. It's bizarre.

I treat the beliefs with disdain, not the people. They are ridiculous, culturally destructive and intellectually antithetical to truth, progress and reason. Anyone who actively choose to reject those notions probably wont be someone I could be friends with.

NB: The only other comic geniuses who get me as high as Richard Pryor does are (middle) George Carlin and (early) Dave Chappelle. — 180 Proof

My man.

Dick Gregory is another great name, doing similar things at the time.

Currently listening to so much Country stuff. Sad bois talking about trauma, really. It's good stuff, particularly in a milieu that tends to be thought of as overly masculine and restrictive. This number is particularly poignant, imo. It's a story about two sisters coming face-to-face after years of estrangement due to their family farm being sold in a pinch after their grandfather died.



"Sarah quoted some scripture. She said "the prophet is the only way
To find peace in this life - put a knife in the strife. Cause anything else, will lead you astray
I know you never liked it; doing what you're told"
Denise snapped back at Sarah "when did you get so damn old??
I'm all about some Jesus, but he died on the cross
And I need someone who's living to help me cope
With what I've lost"

Good. Fucking. God.

is the testimonial evidence strong enough to justify belief in a bodily resurrection as knowledge, rather than as conviction? — Sam26

No. Not even close to being in the realm of the same vicinity as being strong enough. William Lane Craig is probably the best example for why: It rests on incredulity about people's reportage which is, itself, derived from a bare acceptance of hte testimonies, despite their contradictions, time-lapses and what not.

I don't even think it rises to the level of a serious claim, let alone supporting supernatural side-lines.

It is bewildering to me that anyone who can understand, for instance, mass delusion, could neverhteless rest their entire cosmic, moral and practical life on such utterly thin and empty reasoning. I have no problem coming across harsh and judgmental. I have absolutely no respect for these positions (religious ones, generally, in lieu of anything sensible in support)

Things in themselves sounds like contradiction. If we don't anything about it, we couldn't even name it or talk about it. — Corvus

At risk of us running into a circular arena again, that does seem to be the case. We don't. And we can't (on that view, anyway. I'm at least partially skeptical, but lean toward it being unavoidable) talk about objects beyond our sensory perception. I don't think anything is missing from that account - but as with a situation where you see a shadow, but have no access to its causal object, we can say not much. Perhaps speculation is allowable as a matter of curiosity..

Good post.
I think one slight spanner here is that not only do governments change (thinking long term) somewhat radically (in context - not radical in its normal use) this seems to be due to changing times- i.e the voter base also goes through similar (although, not necessarily aligned) changes. This seems to me a quite clear long-term aspect of the US which will (and seems to have, as you and ssu note) continue to cause those in power to adjust - cynically, i would think.

So, applying this reasoning, the sensory data of the shipis the ship and what we see is just our interpretation, modified in various ways to make it perceivable by us. — Hanover

That doesn't follow. The sensory data of the ship is (repeat oneself). Entering a new form into a straight descriptor doesn't really work. If you're talking about the sensory data derived from "an object, we know not what, but call a ship" then that's what you're talking about. Not the ship. This is the key problem for any version of this game which supposes we have access to the ship itself. We simply label our representations. This doesn't seem amenable to disagreement, really. The disagreement comes in when you try to get around this by just shifting the epistemic benchmark. I'd prefer not to. The assumption is there's an actual object out there. Our perceptual system surely puts us in direct contact with the objects in order to derive stimulus (and, I take it, to avoid Idealism) - but that does not carry through to the images we receive. Nor could it. Banno makes this mistake talking about his wife on the phone.
That you hear your wife through the phone (and are directly in touch with that voice you know to be your wife's voice) does not mean that hte audible sensation you receive is her voice. Nor could it.

I'm saying that some of our words (e.g. "red") are referring to phenomenal states and some of our words (e.g. "bird") are referring to the mind-independent object that is causally responsible for phenomenal states. — Michael

Exactly this is in play.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Would probably still reject that.

Yes ma'am; I studied this in Cambridge AS English in like 2007 lmao.

Man, dude had a harsh life. He also had a second son (also named after himself) die several years after the first son died. Rough.

That's lovely - truly whimsical. Very much a Celtic vibe going on there.

I'll post my all-time favourite poem, which comes somewhat out of left field. It is Jim Morrison, essentiall eulogizing Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones, who drowned in 1969.

An Ode to LA, while thinking of Brian Jones; Deceased
I’m a resident of a city
They’ve just picked me to play
the Prince of Denmark

Poor Ophelia

All those ghosts he never saw
Floating to doom
On an iron candle

Come back, brave warrior
Do the dive
On another channel

Hot buttered pool
Where’s Marrakesh
Under the falls
the wild storm
where savages fell out
in late afternoon
monsters of rhythm

You’ve left your
Nothing
to compete w/
Silence

I hope you went out
Smiling
Like a child
Into the cool remnant
of a dream

The angel man
w/ Serpents competing
for his palms
& fingers
Finally claimed
This benevolent
Soul

Ophelia

Leaves, sodden
in silk

Chlorine
dream
mad stifled
Witness

The diving board, the plunge
The pool

You were a fighter
a damask musky muse

You were the bleached
Sun
for TV afternoon

horned-toads
maverick of a yellow spot

Look now to where it’s got
You

in meat heaven
w/ the cannibals
& jews

The gardener
Found
The body, rampant, Floating

Lucky Stiff
What is this green pale stuff
You’re made of

Poke holes in the goddess
Skin

Will he Stink
Carried heavenward
Thru the halls
of music

No Chance.

Requiem for a heavy
That smile
That porky satyr’s
leer
has leaped upward

into the loam

I've been reading this poem a few times a year since I was 17. I still don't grasp all of its depth and complexity. Particularly, as at the time, I was going through a sort of existential cycle of understanding Morrison's place in music and what his untimely death meant for not only those around him, but the wider culture. It hits me like a Mack truck every time.

'The shout of triumph after victory,
Praise after wages,
A lady's invitation to her pillow.' — Questioner

THis is incredibly masculine - unsurprising, but an interestingly direct illustration.

"Man" is used here as a catch all - woman also contains it. Thanks for te clarification, either wya.

That's semi-fair, but I don't think that's a particularly rational way of approaching history. Not to say there's nothing in it - but it does, in this way, get extremely close to the bad parts of Peterson's thinking :P

What did they tell stories about? What was important to them.

Like we still do now. — Questioner

I don't think this is fair, in any aspect. They told what they thought were truths, borne of falsities. We try our best not to, or at least say when that's happening. That' said, plenty of people think myths are serious re-tellings. Fairly religious thinking.

Fair enough man - it's all super interesting stuff regardless of veracity (well, at least accuracy - obviously these are real myths!).

To continue my trend:

On my First Son by Ben Johnson, 1616

Farewell, thou child of my right hand, and joy;
My sin was too much hope of thee, lov'd boy.
Seven years tho' wert lent to me, and I thee pay,
Exacted by thy fate, on the just day.
O, could I lose all father now! For why
Will man lament the state he should envy?
To have so soon 'scap'd world's and flesh's rage,
And if no other misery, yet age?
Rest in soft peace, and, ask'd, say, "Here doth lie
Ben Jonson his best piece of poetry."
For whose sake henceforth all his vows be such,
As what he loves may never like too much.