The first thing to sort out is the thought disorder. The thought disorder is the, “my way is best,” approach to socialization. The person is distinguishing traits of the governing-self. Some people get it and some don’t. Those that don’t get it are inferior. There are a number of ways to approach this thought disorder. The reason I am calling this method of socialization a thought disorder is by the outcome – fear that a person could change their self governing disposition. But, there are no possible changes because it is a genetic trait.
This sounds like the other disposition. A person’s aptitude to be famous hinges on their freedom and truth about the world and not so much about their family. Assume that you can prevent a thought disorder simply by acknowledging the distinguishing person recognizes two traits of the governing-self; one by the “dictates of conscience” and another by conditions of fitness and marketability. So, let’s say diversity exists.
I hope there is something more than, “my way is best.” Recognition of diversity brings the essential distinguishing judgment as to Conscience to plurality. I must concede that there are social conditions like, “my way is best.” I hope to avoid anyone, in a sort of thought disorder, where there is fear that something could be broken. I don’t know how to explain this to such a person, because to sort it out it requires a familiar relation. If I were to trust my feelings, I must tell the story of the birds and the bees. Personally I do not want to have a familiar relationship with anyone on this criteria. Along these lines however, there is Conception. The disposition was set at conception, the genetic make-up is Dominant or Recessive, and the disposition is permanent. There will be no changes in the conscience; it is the inherited genetic information that is established from the beginning as a large Gene or a smaller Gene. From understanding the plurality of possible traits of the governing-self, it is my hope to prevent a thought disorder.
Later in this page, I will be discussing Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean Paul Sarte. I will not speculate as to the self-governing dispositions of these Philosophers. But this discussion about the conscience continues, and it is important that this possible thought disorder be discussed first. I will get more and more specific about which gene is doing this, so have patience.
The reader of David Hume (I’m choosing not to site him because my opinion of him is nothing more than a reason to teach him in school; the reason, it turns out, is that there is a higher reading) might do more then dismiss his musings as self absorbed in determination. Though it is most commonly an issue of determination; where determination is to be understood as a general term of a certain type, Hume’s discussion gets interesting in support for the weaker self-governing disposition – if we are still distinguishing. This could be a reason Hume is still taught in school. Hume’s Philosophy is supportive for those people whose governing-self are free spirited. He seems to have been in support for the distinguishing disposition of those who are not limited to Existential constraints.
Sartre criticized Maurice Merleau-Ponty on the grounds that he did not take enough care to establish this genetic compositional account as a matter of technicality. And so now there is an entire class of people who have rejected Maurice Merleau-Ponty philosophy on the grounds that his philosophy is a danger. The point that Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy need not ever fully exist does nothing because he built the most amazing little engine “see.” I guess people were either scared out of their wit’s or else developed a thought Disorder. The advanced reader of Maurice Merleau-Ponty with or without correct thinking will resolve with his work on rare occasions when there really is something to see!
I do not know for certain if Sartre ever really became comfortable with Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. Sartre’s approach is almost categorically all together the same as Maurice Merleau-Ponty, where the emphasis is on see. Seeing for them was in need of philosophical attention. These Guy’s were doing philosophy in the sixties. Sartre lived until 1984. They were co-editors for Les Temps Modernes. They probably talked to each other every day. While Maurice Merleau-Ponty pours over a huge breath of historical philosophy with the outcome literally “to see,” he establishes an authoritative and familial relation as Philosophical. Sartre was making the see an incremental matter of iterations and due to exposure corrective revisions and on and on; I’m guessing to become a secret.
‘Eye and Mind’ trans. by Carleton Dallery in The Primacy of Perception. by James Edie (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1964), 159-190. Revised translation by Michael Smith in The Merleau-Ponty Aesthetics Reader (1993), 121-149.
Sartre’s approach was of a general nature in dealing with see, there were lots of iterations which were sufficient. He would have been satisfied for a scene to have a characteristic. And with more practice he would be especially happy for the see to have become an expression. I have to point out that in so far as in a case of the natural law the scene could be indemnified with a thickness of thought, that these transformational characteristics have an expiration date.
Time being the part which without common knowledge of a general nature a scene would not come into fullness. All this means is that Sartre was working with lighter pieces of matter. There was an instance of something that Sartre would have accepted. A metaphor eventually falls from it’s popularity. Lets build it again. Imagine a debit for some reason see would have a richness and thickness of thought. This seeing as an instance of the existence of knowledge; for Sartre would be taken as truth; surely one could discuss this– but with who? I think Sartre would appreciate an occasional Pop-sicle or a little too much candy mountain. There are the many instances that Sartre’s ideas were acceptable. I ask that you recall the Unsecured Credit Offers you received in the mail in the late nineties. The most marvelous piece to those unsecured credit offers was the expiration date! Are people still getting those?
At a great cost to the reader the essentials of Maurice Merleau-Ponty will be overlooked. Maurice Merleau-Ponty surveyed a great breath in the historical perspective of Philosophy in order to secure just and satisfactorily “see” I hope with good intentions that Maurice Merleau-Ponty will remain that exclusive group of people who are authoritative and adept at learning. In so far as getting identified from some sort of appeal, a person will have at their disposal some relevant context quick so as to not notice the many changes people make in thoughts; see in this elusive way is the rank and file. Maurice Merleau-Ponty probably has a long list of people whose needs include the stuff of the most amazing proceeding of see, and in Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s context those who want to see in his philosophical way. Does Sartre accept an occasional resolve in spite of the many celebrations of see; the pointer, the art, the politics, the procedure, the emotion. Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s engine “see” never expires.
I have attempted to show the similarities and differences of Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. I hope this has been helpful. I do not know where you can get the supposition on genetics. But, I would never discuss these guys without having mentioned it. Assuming you’ve got something to think about I can’t leave my discussion without saying that Philosophy has been long undisturbed since it’s official ending of “Philosophy” with Spinoza. So, it is pretty much slim pickens for getting underneath the surface of things without stumbling onto someone from Philosophy’s rich history. That just about covers it. God willing is there nothing that hasn’t been looked at philosophically. It would have to be something really specific. I hate the idea of jesting that there is a hole somewhere. Well, since China will have the reigns before long, leave me off at photography.
My reader should consider this permalink to a posting on Gevluef: Phenomenology. I argue that Maurice Merleau-Ponty was using the Jeff Genetics issue on the basis that it was controversial. He did not know that it leads to confusion about his priorities. I conclude that the only thing that Maurice Merleau-Ponty cared about was the particular matter of see. That would be a distinct idea of the mind and it’s relation to Spinoza. Did you think that Spinoza would have liked to have had a container for those who have seen the sign of fortress?
45 PERCENT 