Hi!!
The Fact I'm not addict anymore to serotonine and endorfines for the Loving. This is it.
It's Actually Much More on the Loving than on the Wanting.
And, from psycological point of view, and philosophical too, and even medical (too long time on "the Wanting in Love" is bad for anybody's Health); this is Key.
I Know that Expression is from those times, and not Actual. You've Matured, as anybody growing on the time. But, anyway, I Think if, given the "right circumstances", Something quite Similar to that can Still Appear and Shine on Your Beloved and Admired Face, from the Heart.
A Calming Pill ("a falta de otra" -YES, I'd LIKE Sex
). Nothing Tragic, Actually and for the Future. Fixed!!
I think I'm ending the reading fast. I did start this last Book, and as it's so near to my style, more Concentrated Ideas and not so much "turning around" (not saying this is a natural advantage, just my actual way of making, that it's very probably going to change for a little more "roller" on time), and subjects explained, Key Concepts, are Making the Book so Attractive to me.
In my point of view, there's a problem in the deep of Habermas and Rorty Discussion, about the Need or not of Truth, and the Possibility of Fixing it, or the ways for it, at the very least.
Problem is Focusing All in the Discourse, folllowing big Charles S. Pierce, for the going away from the "problem" of conscience, developed well after all historical discussion about Descartes Meditations and its Mentalist concepts.
A rebuilding of situation can erase that human made contradiction, and give a chance to acknowledge how Important are both spheres: Conscience and Discourse. None of them can be forgotten. It's the old metaphore about the "egg and the hen". It's the door to some holism that Needs to Be Well Explained. The Sense from some new kind of Reason is the Real key for that.
Obviously, I Do Totally Agree with Inclusivistic and Democratic Discourses of Rorty and Habermas. But Habermas Want to make an specifical kind of reason directly upon the same rules of the discourse, and that's malfunctioning, and Rorty knows, because it's just a methodological "trick". There's a Need for Foundament, the same Foundament Habermas is Searching for. But he's doing it from the too inconsistent process of the collective agreement, made up as idealistic and infinite public, searching for some kind of platonic sense that's, at the same time, taking place in an antifoundationalist philosophy; and, also, he's doing from a Naturalism that's too "soft" and out of reality as it is, because of a prejudice: Nature can not take place of Reason, because Reason is Normative (the rules he's fixing for his Theory of Communication, as Big Try for some Fixed Normative System for the Collective Agreement), and Nature is not.
At the same time, Rorty is agreeing with the Naturalistic point of view, and this makes he rejects any normativity of reason, mistakenly from the moment he's following some fixed rules when he's making his explanations.
These last lines are showing, in both Authors, some lack of knowledge from a larger perspective about bonds between naturality and reason, and its normativity.
The Mentalist Problem is Lying Still There (the closing the eyes before True Structure of Nature and of Human, Deeply and Reciprocally Involved!: I mean, the way it makes us up and the way we can catch this), not erasing at all Descartes Features of "Inaugural" Rationalism. One time we can pass over it, and Know All the rest I've described, it's much Easier to Understand the Consciencious (and unconsciencious too) Need for Sense (Including Truth as Universal thing) and the Sociological and Democratical Need for and Inclusive and Free -protected by some formal rules (those bringed by Habermas are so Good!) Global Discourse. Health of both perspectivistical finds (here's the Holism I'm talking about, and not exactly as relativism) Need each other. You can not heal conscience of anybody out of democratic bases (I leave appart problems from difference between formal and real democracy: that's a problem of Developing and Education of us All), because this person will not be Morally Contextualized as Human he/she is; and you can not heal any public discourse from consciences ignoring that.
I think it's just a problem of fixing terms of discussion.
Keep Sharing!
ps: Loving Brooke, don't need either the abstract thinking to handle the Wills for Touch anymore. I Love, I Do Just Love True!!
You're Very Amazing. And if we were Perfect we would not be Human.
Loving Well and Good!!