Constrast and comparison are wonderful things, humans gifted with a range of faculties put such a thing to good use with the combinatorial force of an impressive mental toolbox, which includes the free light-hearted wanderings of imagination, through to hard-nosed determination to tasks. Emotive force and the force of desire/s are in there somewhere, that involved in summoning combinatorial resources.

Switching off or regulating the application of contrast and comparion though must too be a part of the application of resources, involved in prioritizing and more I suppose.

Elsewwhere, a way back, I ran a thread to do with the proposition that contrast , comparison and relative perspectives could be the basis of an ideology, that an ideology (or the force of) could be somewhat founded in such a thing, and further went on to consider the extent relative perspective might lend themselves to or incline absolutist perspectives. While that on the face of it seems like a contradiction, it is my experience unrestrained hypercomparative tendencies do tend toward absolutist views (in the social field).

I am wondering of awareness of the wandering activity of or projections of comparison, at what point does its activity exceed the awareness and perhaps needed self-regulatory abilities of the mechanisms involved, and at what point its activity might be seen as ‘ideotrojan’.

I don’t know what you are talking about

Where “ideas” can become obscure?

>Where “ideas” can become obscure?

Of what common ideas, notions, views etc embed themselves, of the mechanisms of minds, how they diffusely integrate, become central perhaps to the lense through which we view much, in ways that are unknown or unlikely to reveal themselves with ease. The core mechanisms performing the functions. That the mechanisms might be no more open to introspection and mediation by will than say the qualia that tend colour perception. That these processing tendencies common across the species are a vector for mind virii, or ideological trojans if you will.

transition said:

>Where “ideas” can become obscure?

Of what common ideas, notions, views etc embed themselves, of the mechanisms of minds, how they diffusely integrate, become central perhaps to the lense through which we view much, in ways that are unknown or unlikely to reveal themselves with ease. The core mechanisms performing the functions. That the mechanisms might be no more open to introspection and mediation by will than say the qualia that tend colour perception. That these processing tendencies common across the species are a vector for mind virii, or ideological trojans if you will.

transition, you apparently think deeply about many subjects and email your conclusions, but the trouble is you leave out the pathways you took to reach your conclusions, which makes understanding you very difficult.

I really have no idea what you’re looking for. But maybe the idea the economic considerations are natural and necessary.