[FRIAM] When are telic attributions appropriate in physical descriptions?

[glen]

It's reasonable to ask what proportion of profundity is a cover for something versus a marker for something. I still tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. So when I see either something that seems profound (to me) or others saying or acting as if something's profound, it's a marker for my or their confusion, respectively. While it may be true that there are grifters out there who sow profundity, purposefully, in order to mask their rational plans, that sounds conspiritorial to me. A good edge case might be Elizabeth Holmes. To what extent did she know her claims were bullshit? Or to what extent did she convince herself that her bullshit was true/useful?

Regardless of the proportions, the grifters don't breed bullshit so much. They prop it up artificially. Bullshit begetting more bullshit (i.e. breeding) has another home. I grant that it may not be profundity, directly. Maybe it's the confusion underlying the profundity. But the reason I think it's more the profundity is because the people I see who are most guilty of it are attracted by the "awe" or the "beauty" of some thing. They *want* to get stoned on some aesthetic, whatever it is ... carried away, ecstatic, blissful, etc. Like a paradox or sophism, there's a kind of orgasmic feeling to profound things ... "like. whoa, man."

And *that's* the breeding ground, where Angels become Demons.

On 8/8/24 11:03, steve smith wrote:
> 
>> Maybe. I'm not convinced. Profundity is THE breeding ground for bullshit. 
> I'm more inclined (in the context of my own profundity or perhaps more aptly prolificness or prolixity) to suggest that it is more of a mask (and therefore enabler?) of bullshit than a breeding ground. Could be a fine hair I suppose.

-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ