Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidsun
I submit as a logical proposition that ...
|
Even if your logic turns out to be correct, that doesn't mean it applies to anything actual.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidsun
... since both Intelligence and the Imperative to Create are innate attributes of any and all aspects of Life (Spirit, Soul, Being, That Which Is, whatever you call IT), ...
|
Since this is a 'logical propostition' you get to assert anything you wish. However, I hardly see either 'Intelligence' or 'Imperative to Create' as 'innate attributes of any and all aspects of life'. Some aspects of life perhaps but hardly 'all'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidsun
... both discernment (i.e. intelligent perception) of what is and/or isn't and/or potentially may be 'the case' in any givenn instance and judgment as to whether not this or that is more or less likely to serve Life's Creative Purpose ...
|
Again in a logical assertion you can define terms anyway you wish. Yet I hardly see judgment as related to 'serv[ing] life's creative purpose'
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidsun
... are ( always!) ever present aspects of Existence...
... though anyone may of course refuse to 'own' their own  perceptions and judgments and so 'dissociate' themselves from them by, in effect, pretending and/or pretentiously claiming to not be personally 'defining' what's what or 'judging' its utility on the basis of the values which they personally 'regard' or 'feel' to be paramount in any given case ... |
Yet more unsupported assertions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidsun
... maybe because they themselves can't fully believe in their personal validity or because they think others will 'reject' it as just being 'arbitrary'. Many therefore want to believe and claim that they can eliminate their personal subjectivity and so be non-dualistically objectively 'one' with absolute Reality. This, even though the fact really is that their (everyones!) subjectivity is really an undeniably integral aspect of absolute 'Reality' (no matter what!). |
This in no way follows from the previously given statements. It's mostly speculation and unsupported by previous statements.
So, IMO this totally fails a logical construct (proposition).
Further it doesn't make much sense to me as a classic argument either, as the conclusion does not follow from the earlier assertions.