“My outlook comes from my certainty that some minds are susceptible to the seeking of such compulsions, and my certainty that some other minds are susceptible to a need to supply such compulsions, sometimes as themselves as the authority, and sometimes as representatives of higher authority.”
This sentence is wordy indeed, but it seems to express a specific thought that is not expressed with as much clarity in your version. Prior to that sentence she/he is first admitting that his/her own certainty is the only foundation the reader shall receive, and she admits that the following shall denote no more or less than the limits of his/her imagination. Then she/he references the previous sentence as example of a type of compulsion that may or may not have a religious component, though I understand why you combined the given examples into religion. .
[EDIT: It appears that thre3e created several accounts to promote eir own post. I’m leaving this here, but I won’t be engaging further since it doesn’t appear Tamara is a unique user.]
Fair enough. Perhaps a better summary of thre3e’s sentence would be:
I feel that some people depend on religious laws and expectations for behavior, and some people feel compelled to spread religious memes (either to bolster their own authority or that of a higher power).
(I would later develop the specific examples of “sex-related, murder-related, and god-worship related behaviors.)
You’re probably right that thre3e’s declaration of “certainty” was intended to signal the basis for eir assertions, but declarations of “certainty” set off alarm bells in my head, especially when they are presented without evidence.
But my intent isn’t to put words into thre3e’s mouth; if I’m not expressing eir ideas properly, I hope ey will correct me. I’m just trying to express what stylistic issues with the original may have detracted from clarity.
“My outlook comes from my certainty that some minds are susceptible to the seeking of such compulsions, and my certainty that some other minds are susceptible to a need to supply such compulsions, sometimes as themselves as the authority, and sometimes as representatives of higher authority.”
This sentence is wordy indeed, but it seems to express a specific thought that is not expressed with as much clarity in your version. Prior to that sentence she/he is first admitting that his/her own certainty is the only foundation the reader shall receive, and she admits that the following shall denote no more or less than the limits of his/her imagination. Then she/he references the previous sentence as example of a type of compulsion that may or may not have a religious component, though I understand why you combined the given examples into religion. .
[EDIT: It appears that thre3e created several accounts to promote eir own post. I’m leaving this here, but I won’t be engaging further since it doesn’t appear Tamara is a unique user.]
Fair enough. Perhaps a better summary of thre3e’s sentence would be:
I feel that some people depend on religious laws and expectations for behavior, and some people feel compelled to spread religious memes (either to bolster their own authority or that of a higher power).
(I would later develop the specific examples of “sex-related, murder-related, and god-worship related behaviors.)
You’re probably right that thre3e’s declaration of “certainty” was intended to signal the basis for eir assertions, but declarations of “certainty” set off alarm bells in my head, especially when they are presented without evidence.
But my intent isn’t to put words into thre3e’s mouth; if I’m not expressing eir ideas properly, I hope ey will correct me. I’m just trying to express what stylistic issues with the original may have detracted from clarity.
By the way, Welcome to Less Wrong!. You should introduce yourself; it’s free karma.