It's the same thing. It's not about the word you use. There's no separable entity that cares. Care is produced by the machinic unconscious. It's not the property of an absolute individual actor.
You said something like: "Care cares about separation of concerns." What I'm saying is, even if that's true (though I think my own "cares" provide a counterexample), something isn't desirable from the universe's point of view just because humans care about it.
-
-
e.g. very human can't help but care about their own animal pleasure. But anyone but a degenerate hedonist will admit that pleasure isn't the point of life. It may be necessary to fight against our own cares if we want to be anything more noble than a gluttonous sex pervert.
-
>It may be necessary to fight against our own cares Fighting against our "cares" is a form of Care you silly.
-
So what? I'm not denying its existence as an abstraction.
-
So then you accept it as a first axiom that enframes things we can talk about.
-
"Abstraction" and "first axiom" are incompatible
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The universe PoV is *unknowable* to humans. We can only know different versions of human PoV.
-
And when something is unknowable, it's absurd to care about it.
-
I disagree. I care about the unknowable. More or less everything we know is sordid in itself. The biosphere is a seething cauldron of pain and torture, only ennobled by the possibility of newness and change.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.