…continued:
Should: This has one, and only one implication, which refers entirely to “health.” I think “health” is entirely what “should” describes, when we really get down to it.
From what I know, I think Socrates was one of the first to become famous for his constant philosophical implications on “how is that good for us?” (Or somethig like that)
And when I say “health,” I’m not limiting myself to the health of existing beings. (Though of course, I believe all
non-living things exist
only for living beings’ health, but in anycase
“Should” describes as well,
objects and so forth. ("
Objective goals")
Please let me give two examples for the two: living beings (i.e. us), and non-living objects (i.e. “goals”):
- **“If you wish to not exist eternally in a state of depression and misery, you should seek the counsel and accord of others.” **(health of living beings: us)
- **“If you wish the circle block to fit into the hole, then please, you really should try the circle hole, instead of the square hole.” **(“health” of non-living objects: “goals”)
Now I suppose I’ll need to difine “health.” Whew boy… this is good, “Exporter.” lol.
hmm… okay, I’ll use only one definition,
per each of the two listed above, since I don’t suppose a blanket statement could cover two differing matters:
- (For us) Health of living beings, would be related to happiness. Now when it comes to “happiness,” I find myself entering a blind abyss where I can no longer speak. “It is what it is,” would apply here. This is where I would rely on something I truly believe exists among and in anyone who may be reading this: I think there are certain concepts which are innate, and need no explanation–thank God, because they can’t be explained!
- (For “goals”) Now when it comes to “health” of non-living objects: a concept comes to my mind, and I hope others will see it with me: FLOW. Also, another concept: MATCHING. Additionally:* AGREEMENT.* And: FUNCTIONING. This all is based on what I consider to be the concept of *logic, *or, “that which is, and is “recognized” as such.” (In other words, “nature undisturbed.”) Imagine a river flowing: then someone damns it up. To do so wasn’t “healthy” for the non-living object, in terms of “original purposes” (i.e original purposes = original states of being) The same could be true with the block, and the hole: let’s say originally there was already a circle block in a circle hole, and then someone took out this circle block, and tried putting it into a square hole. Well, there again: such isn’t “healthy” for the non-living object, in terms of “original purposes.” It doesn’t flow; 'tis an illogical “goal.”
I hope I’m not babbling here… this is actually pretty difficult.
So I guess that’s it. Supposing I could take the “healthy” and
logical stand off from my fence, then I should successfully complete my given task, fit in, and be happy.
God bless you Bill. And again, thank you for accepting my apology. Call me crazy but I’m not relieved you accepted my apology for reasons of perhaps “getting kicked off of the forums,” for I really don’t care too much about that prospect. I could always make it back. But I’m simply glad that I have made peace with another soul.
Maybe I should find a wife to calm me down a bit… lol.
But could I?
Peace, and God bless you, good soul.
jason
)
