Premcast Prem Lee Barbosa

People believe because they find qualities of truth in their beliefs, however we often confuse something similar to truth with truth itself.
I pull from different belief systems those qualities of truth and reject their arbitrary paradigms.
This results in a disjointed philosophy, but frees me to uphold my first principals using the rhetoric of modern public discourse.
How do I relay this in a manner less contrived than the beliefs themselves?
I chose a small clip from a three and a half hour conversation that end-caps a series of discussions with philosophers and scientists in 1993. I knew some of them, but not all. I had put it off a while, having watched the first episode then left the rest in pile of tabs of videos I expect to watch eventually.
I am glad I finally got to it! A Glorious Accident presents six academics with varying, often contradictory world views and first allows them to discuss what they like in a 1-on-1 conversation with the host, and finally an intellectual free-for-all.
While I struggle to decide on the content of Premcast 3, this served as a fantastic catalyst for thought to that end. I find something reassuring in the ability of such hard-headed individuals to engage in cordial, but intellectually stimulating discussion. I find a trend in public discourse  of members on either side of the bipartisan divide refusing to engage the other side in anything resembling police debate. I see it mirrored in the discourse between politicians, but I don't view it in the same way for them. Politicians misrepresent their antipathy towards members of the other party as much as they do their own beliefs. I will save that discussion for another time, but in case you come to this a thousand years in the future this information helps you understand how I see things.
Like in the podcast even here I tend towards tangent, but to the topic at hand...WAIT! I didn't really pick a topic, or did it? I think the sentences introducing this post explain in brief what I imagine I'll lecture on at length in the podcast itself.
As I inch my way towards expanding the scope and intent of my podcasts, I want to lay the extent to which by beliefs, advocacy, or interests may not adhere to any seemingly coherent ideology. I explored ideologies with more interest in my adolescence, but at some point gave up searching for the ideology upon which to base my life. I struggled greatly for meaning and purpose, but eventually questioned the basis for needing such things in the first place.
Experiences reveal that meaning and purpose exist in the act of living itself.
 
Cogito, ergo sum. - Rene Descartes  
I don't remember the first time I heard the English translation of Descartes' famous phrase, "I think, therefore I am," but I always thought it profound. As I tend, however, I came up with my own corollary for it--the original language of which I forgot long ago. It may have gone something like
I must exist because I experience existence, but this explains nothing else about the nature of my existence. - Prem Lee Barbosa
However, I don't want to go into my thoughts on the nature of existence because I don't know the extent to which that has any relevance on my social life, or the extent to which I want that. In the interest of brevity I tell you I reserve conclusion about many things because I find myself very consciously unable to feel strongly about any opinion. I went through many belief systems in my youth and adolescence. Whether I invented them in my own mind, or came across them in my experiences, whenever I attempted to reach what one might call the logical conclusion I found myself lost and without resolution.
I want to tell about when I moved from Florida to California at 19 to escape my past, but at the moment it strikes me as too cliché to write down. I might save it for the podcast or I might save it for another day, when I feel proficient at weaving clichés without seeming coarse.
Instead let me

Human Hypocrite Addendum
Every human is a hypocrite to the extent they have not addressed inconsistencies in personal belief systems which affect behavior.
 
Inherently Incoherent
Natural language, used by humans, suffers from a necessary incoherence, augmented by the unique understanding of the words used in communication.
Despite thinking or claiming otherwise, humans regularly do not understand what someone else said, wrote, or depicted.
Humans can use this misunderstanding to manipulate defraud or otherwise perpetuate harm onto other people. This also applies to human hypocrisy in that influential and powerful people systemically perpetuate double standards in society in contradiction of their stated beliefs.
What is a disingenuous person?
 
Prem recorded this Premcast unscripted. Audio Ghost provided music. For more information visit Premcast.net

 
Prem Lee Barbosa recorded this podcast unscripted, with music provided by Audio Ghost, cover art by Prem.
For more information please visit Premcast.net