Posts by Ethan Johnson16

So, I’ve never really been the athletic type; mostly just lounging around and eating too much. 😁

Back in March, I decided enough was enough. I started with Insanity just to get my baseline health up, kickstart my metabolism, and prep for P90X. For both months, I stuck to an 1,800 calorie diet—roughly 30% carbs, 50% protein, and 20% fat.

I'm 6'0", started out somewhere between 190 and 195 lbs, and I'm 32.
Ended up at 172 lbs (currently down to 165).
In the middle of month two of P90X right now; I'll snap a photo once I'm finished. 🙂

lonegardener said:🤷 In a sense, sure.

But saying "everything boils down to negotiation" is about as logical as claiming stones and people are the same thing just because they both consist of electrons spinning around a nucleus.

There are different kinds of negotiations... and they differ as much as night and day. Just because we use the same word for them shouldn't "blur" the reality of those specific differences. Abstract terms aren't meant to erase the nuances of individual cases; they exist simply to make communication possible. But within that communication, there’s no point in ignoring the distinguishing details of the actual situation.

In other words, while saying everything boils down to negotiation might be technically true in one way, it completely misses the point in another.

On topic—I also feel like "honesty" is a practically unreachable ideal. On the flip side, just because an ideal is unattainable doesn't mean it doesn't matter how honest someone actually is. For instance, are we dealing with someone who is as honest as humanly possible, or a calculated manipulator? Does the fact that neither is "perfectly honest" mean they are the same? I wouldn't say so.🤷 I disagree.

For me personally, it all comes down to the nature of the motivation. Exactly why is someone being dishonest to that specific degree? Depending on what drives them, I judge their level of honesty. Granted, this assumes I know their motivation—which is rare, even for myself, let alone for anyone else.😬 But just because I don't always know the motive doesn't mean I should change my view that the motivation is precisely what matters most... maybe not the *only* thing, but certainly the most important thing. (At least for me).

Fine, I admit I overgeneralized and that things can be broken down into smaller layers. Still, chasing absolute honesty feels futile; it reminds me of Freud and his idea that we always speak the truth, just never the whole truth... whatever. But maybe being honest within the "language game" means embodying the rules—calling it "honesty within dishonesty" or "uncompromisingness within negotiation." A total linguistic paradox, isn't it?

brisktiger56 said:I’ve completely lost the thread here 😢—I can't tell which sentence we're actually talking about or what you're even trying to prove: is this pure contempt, some kind of dishonesty, or something else entirely?

Thanks for bearing with me.

this line. It’s all about context, isn't it? I'm trying to show how contempt, insincerity, selfishness, and greed—all those hallmarks of ego-driven discourse—crop up regardless of the setting. First off, there's always that unspoken demand for something in return. And second, there's this constant expectation that you owe something back. Both sides are inherently political. Or are they? 🤦
Ultimately, it all boils down to negotiation.

brisktiger56 said:I wrote: Can you give me an example of what you're actually talking about in your post?

Still waiting on that example, by the way...

And what about lovers? You know, when a guy or girl tells their partner... "I love you, you make me a better person, you bring out the absolute best in me... I just adore you..."

How much contempt is actually hiding inside those sentences ☕?

Fine. Imagine that exact same sentence used in different contexts:
1. You hold an opinion, someone counters it, and after a quick debate, you realize you're wrong and say it.

2. You walk through the door after a productive day feeling fulfilled and just say it.

3. Someone tells you something about yourself they struggle to accept, and you respond with it.

4. You just say it out of the blue while sitting at home, nothing even happening.

I see layers of subtext in every single one of these scenarios. Those meanings become even more obvious if you actually step into the shoes of the person receiving the message.

Could you clarify what you mean by the lover's speech? Are we talking about verbal or non-verbal communication? If it's verbal, Žižek offers such a charming take on the concept of love in his documentary and that "Reality of the Virtual" lecture. But if it's non-verbal... how can one even draw an analogy there?

Edward Flores4 said:The second you start talking... you’re being dishonest!

those who know—they’ll get it.

👍
The issue is grasping how language actually works. Once you realize what Certau meant by "Course," you see that honesty doesn't exist—not at least in the way people think is "natural."