Well, I have often thought it mysterious why, from a socio-political perspective, this type of synergistic analysis is sought when the subjective object (not the objective subject) can give rise to no analytic framework free from temporal constraints and obviously non-universal cultural reference points. I'm not saying there could not be such a framework, but the base/superstructure dichotomy inherent in any valuation makes the politico-social (not socio-political, mind you) implications of a so-called "objective" dialectic impossible.

LeeBot wrote:

Well, I have often thought it mysterious why, from a socio-political perspective, this type of synergistic analysis is sought when the subjective object (not the objective subject) can give rise to no analytic framework free from temporal constraints and obviously non-universal cultural reference points. I'm not saying there could not be such a framework, but the base/superstructure dichotomy inherent in any valuation makes the politico-social (not socio-political, mind you) implications of a so-called "objective" dialectic impossible.

LeeBot wrote:

Well, I have often thought it mysterious why, from a socio-political perspective, this type of synergistic analysis is sought when the subjective object (not the objective subject) can give rise to no analytic framework free from temporal constraints and obviously non-universal cultural reference points. I'm not saying there could not be such a framework, but the base/superstructure dichotomy inherent in any valuation makes the politico-social (not socio-political, mind you) implications of a so-called "objective" dialectic impossible.

LeeBot wrote:

"...I got the most content on the continent
And constant compliments give me confidence (I'm a)
A cross of common sense and incompetence (Uh)
I'm cognizant that conflict's a consequence (What?)
Of accomplishments accomplished through competition
I've conquered and conked 'em into unconsciousness
Though conscious, I conjure this King Kong and just
Call me "Kamikaze," I'm concoctin' this (Woo, my bad)..."


Lee, based on that do you think Sancho Panza would fit my profile?

RobertHively wrote:

Robert,
Obviously yes. The cross-cultural assumptions inherent in his hermeneutic, self-referencing, quasi-paradoxical limitations plainly imply that you like strong(ish) maduros at a reasonable price.

LeeBot wrote:

Well, I have often thought it mysterious why, from a socio-political perspective, this type of synergistic analysis is sought when the subjective object (not the objective subject) can give rise to no analytic framework free from temporal constraints and obviously non-universal cultural reference points. I'm not saying there could not be such a framework, but the base/superstructure dichotomy inherent in any valuation makes the politico-social (not socio-political, mind you) implications of a so-called "objective" dialectic impossible.

LeeBot wrote:

Well, I have often thought it mysterious why, from a socio-political perspective, this type of synergistic analysis is sought when the subjective object (not the objective subject) can give rise to no analytic framework free from temporal constraints and obviously non-universal cultural reference points. I'm not saying there could not be such a framework, but the base/superstructure dichotomy inherent in any valuation makes the politico-social (not socio-political, mind you) implications of a so-called "objective" dialectic impossible.

LeeBot wrote:

Robert,
Obviously yes. The cross-cultural assumptions inherent in his hermeneutic, self-referencing, quasi-paradoxical limitations plainly imply that you like strong(ish) maduros at a reasonable price.

LeeBot wrote:

The Cuban version is excellent. Cocoa and ever so slightly salty.

rfenst wrote:

/////////////////////////////////////

YOU MUST HAVE LOTS OF FREE TIME ON YOUR END THERE.

LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF WORD SALAD WITHOUT ANSWERING THE QUESTION. YOU KIN TO tamale i GUESS?


SO, CAN YOU ANSWER OR NOT.

skillett wrote: