What defines Priority?

[Holiday20310401]

What defines the priorities of political phenomenon? The state always acts in self interest to preserve and gain power. However, their potential for power is the ability to control the public. They will act in their self interest, and will only give power back to the public when their control over the public is threatened or compromised so as to regain the public's sway and stability; which invokes the control again.


What Defines the Priorities of our Perception? In particular, why is it that when seeing other people I realize that emotion always trumps logic. Why is this? I feel this is an inherent application of the mind which is inherently insane, but the opposing duality of such is also insane... So sanity is whichever in the middle...

___________________________________________


So, is "priority" a definitively empirical characteristic within phenomenon/nature, or is it non-existent?

Does the change from indifference of the physical to the emotional, subjective ? Is the conceptualization of "importance" within the mind therefore just a conceptualization?

We evolve so as to conceptualize patterns, but patterns... are they empirically provable via universal constants? Does the validity of the existence of patterns objectively support a possible empirical nature for the concept of "priorities" as inherent to patterns.... patterns which we evolved a brain in which we can grasp (inevitably).

So if there is this inherent inevitability of conceiving patterns, and priorities, then can we objectively define them as more than just subjective trifles? Especially seeing as it takes these "patterns" for us (human life) to be a deterministic outcome in the evolving of the universe.

Why does logic seem to have this theme of priorities? This proves that logic is not conveying objective reality in any way.

Also, (and this is just to ask your opinion), would you say it is empirically justifiable to parallel the patterns seen in the universe with patterns seen in society to figure out a missing piece in describing either one? As if this were cross multiplication; where one side of the equation is society, and the other side is universe. Perhaps there is a way to do this with two sides being actuality and reality?

Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

[Moderator edit: post moved to more appropriate forum.jgw]

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by Holiday

Also, (and this is just to ask your opinion), would you say it is empirically justifiable to parallel the patterns seen in the universe with patterns seen in society to figure out a missing piece in describing either one? As if this were cross multiplication; where one side of the equation is society, and the other side is universe. Perhaps there is a way to do this with two sides being actuality and reality?

It is interesting, that... I would place the 'actuality' as a verbal facet of society - as in 'to act', where speech is an action, and verbs become differentiated from all other linguistic forms. However, this concept of actuality/reality is a dichotomy I can't agree with - I'd prefer 'actual reality' (social normative 'reality') vs 'ultimate reality' (the 'existence is existing in existence by existing in existence through the means of existence existing as an existent property of/in/! existence').

Cosmology it might be called, kind of deals with transcendent/imperceptible/quasi-perceptible phenomenon - and I am in agreement. However, the essence of corruption in these 'cosmic' affections insinuates for me that this concept is present as some kind of distraction or reward, perhaps inherent or perhaps informed, in the cycles of interaction within 'life'.

[Holiday20310401]

Yes I agree. Actuality doesn't fit the meaning, but I doubt normative reality does either. Hard to express what I'm getting at in words, but you get it so, whatever...

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

The state always acts in self interest to preserve and gain power.

Always? The state isn't an actor that preserves itself autonomously. There are plenty of examples of government relinquishing power. Just look at the deregulation of the financial markets as a recent example. Look at civil rights legislation that extends suffrage to people who are not currently in power.

why is it that when seeing other people I realize that emotion always trumps logic. Why is this?

It's not just other people. It's you too. It's everyone. Emotion will always win out over reason when it's strong enough. It's just the way we're wired. Furthermore, many of the things we THINK are reasoned really aren't in the end. Pick an issue that you feel strongly about. If I put you on a witness stand in front of a marauding aggressive lawyer, someone who could rhetorically break down every single rational defense you had of the issue, you'd realize in the end that there are some things you just believe, whether or not you can ultimately justify it -- and you'll fight passionately for those beliefs.

So, is "priority" a definitively empirical characteristic within phenomenon/nature, or is it non-existent?

It's psychological. Why make it metaphysical when priorities only take shape within a single thinking mind?

[jgweed]

The many equivocations in the use of "priority" seems to be causing confusion by linking many disparate concepts together under one word. A word often has many different secondary, contextual meanings (often related through a historical process) that are better served by using a more specific and appropriate word.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by jgweed

The many equivocations in the use of "priority" seems to be causing confusion by linking many disparate concepts together under one word. A word often has many different secondary, contextual meanings (often related through a historical process) that are better served by using a more specific and appropriate word.

The problem might just be that I lack vocabulary.

But no, seriously, this comes as a challenge for me. Often times there are many words with an elaborate gradient on context, which makes the word big, but easier to grasp.

That's what makes the word "big", the contexts are greater. It's not the size of the word that defines "big" for the word..... See! I can't even stick to oe context of the word 'big'.

[jgweed]

I would argue just the opposite, that the bigger the word, the harder it is to grasp, and certainly the more problematic it is when applied to many different cases. It is similar, I suppose, to calling a portrait (e.g. "Blueboy" or the MonaLisa) a painting (which is true enough in a general sense) and then taking the step of thinking all paintings are portraits (Gernica, any of the German landscapes).

Consulting a thesaurus, or in some cases, Fowler's Modern English Usage can help. Somewhere I have a "Dictionary of Confusables" which distinguishes between often confused meanings of words. Partridge's Usage and Abusage (1963) is a wealth of informative articles about precise usage of words. Much the same kind of information is available on line (Roget is found in several places), but see this:
3. Word Choice. The American Heritage Book of English Usage. 1996

[Doobah47]

That's a useful link. I saw a similar sort of guide in the dictionary that comes in the recent Apple Mac software bundle...

To add to the debate: I'd say that political priority is a very fickle and superficial idea, and what undermines party politics even more so is that often the strict fundamental theories which parties depend/found upon are simply shuffled for the electorate each time any political opportunity occurs - this leads to the belief that political party priority is non-existent, that it is the electorate/media/corporations with the priorities (although often superficially very different, I think predominantly the expansion of personal wealth is the major underlying priority, however as far as I am concerned personal wealth does not cure societies ills - quite the opposite in fact).