the queen is dead

[Iwannaplato]

Oh ye of little sight, and insight.

I knew it would not take long for the bugs to crawl out from under their rocks.
Grats you are the first moron.

If only you knew when 1 calls 1 moron..and the the catch 22 is that 1 is more_on - pertaining to God.

..nevertheless. Let's have a country without valour, without faith, without anything that "Sculptor" would ascribe to...and how boring...in the least, may as well reincarnate in the Middle East, well then so be it.

I think we can manage to have valor and faith without the Windsors as a kind of docusopa royal family that isn't at all like royal families were anyway.

[Sculptor]

Oh ye of little sight, and insight.

I knew it would not take long for the bugs to crawl out from under their rocks.
Grats you are the first moron.

If only you knew when 1 calls 1 moron..and the the catch 22 is that 1 is more_on - pertaining to God.

..nevertheless. Let's have a country without valour, without faith, without anything that "Sculptor" would ascribe to...and how boring...in the least, may as well reincarnate in the Middle East, well then so be it.

What is a "cuntry"?

[attofishpi]

I knew it would not take long for the bugs to crawl out from under their rocks.
Grats you are the first moron.

If only you knew when 1 calls 1 moron..and the the catch 22 is that 1 is more_on - pertaining to God.

..nevertheless. Let's have a country without valour, without faith, without anything that "Sculptor" would ascribe to...and how boring...in the least, may as well reincarnate in the Middle East, well then so be it.

I think we can manage to have valor and faith without the Windsors as a kind of docusopa royal family that isn't at all like royal families were anyway.

Sure.

..and R U certain of it?

Indeed R U certain such that U would take me on against a KNIGHT of the REALM...?

We have 1 week for a weak and an entire fortnight of a fought-night...FOUGHT-KNIGHT.




..claim MERCY when U R done.





Do U take the challenge?

[Iwannaplato]

Wasted on someone.

[attofishpi]

bla bla............

Do U take the challenge or not?

[Iwannaplato]

bla bla............

Do U take the challenge or not?

Indeed R U certain such that U would take me on against a KNIGHT of the REALM...?

Make a coherent challenge. Maybe that sentence is coherent, but, perhaps you could flesh it out because it doesn't seem to be.
Am I certain I would take you on against a Knight of the REALM. I am taking you on, as what...a teamate and we fight a KNIGHT of the REALM? Are you the knight of the realm? What is the sport/challenge/activity? And that was the most coherent sentence.

And what does it have to do with me saying there can be valor and faith without the Windsors? This will be demonstrated as true or false if I accept this challenge and win otherwise it is false?

[attofishpi]

bla bla............

Do U take the challenge or not?

Indeed R U certain such that U would take me on against a KNIGHT of the REALM...?

Make a coherent challenge.
Am I certain I would take you on against a Knight of the REALM. I am taking you on, as what...a teamate and we fight a KNIGHT of the REALM? Are you the knight of the realm? What is the sport/challenge/activity?

And what does it have to do with me saying there can be valor and faith without the Windsors?

U take the challenge or not? It is a binary position.

[Iwannaplato]

Do U take the challenge or not?

Indeed R U certain such that U would take me on against a KNIGHT of the REALM...?

Make a coherent challenge.
Am I certain I would take you on against a Knight of the REALM. I am taking you on, as what...a teamate and we fight a KNIGHT of the REALM? Are you the knight of the realm? What is the sport/challenge/activity?

And what does it have to do with me saying there can be valor and faith without the Windsors?

U take the challenge or not? It is a binary position.

Without knowing what it is?
That would hardly be honorable. Maybe you want me to compete with you with plastic swords in Brighton. I have obligations that would keep me from Brighton. It takes a certain minimal valor and faith in oneself to make one's challenges clear. Let alone faith in something someone else.

[attofishpi]

Make a coherent challenge.
Am I certain I would take you on against a Knight of the REALM. I am taking you on, as what...a teamate and we fight a KNIGHT of the REALM? Are you the knight of the realm? What is the sport/challenge/activity?

And what does it have to do with me saying there can be valor and faith without the Windsors?

U take the challenge or not? It is a binary position.

Without knowing what it is?

Well now, I am certain of your lack of FAITH in ATHEISM.

Take me on..a FOUGHT KNIGHT.

or?

[Iwannaplato]

U take the challenge or not? It is a binary position.

Without knowing what it is?

Well now, I am certain of your lack of FAITH in ATHEISM.

Take me on..a FOUGHT KNIGHT.

or?

My faith in atheism? I'm not an atheist. Though I have to say you are communicating so incoherently, I don't know what you are getting at, at all. Were/Are the Windsors your deities?

I think we can manage to have valor and faith without the Windsors

Please demonstrate this is not the case.

[attofishpi]

Without knowing what it is?

Well now, I am certain of your lack of FAITH in ATHEISM.

Take me on..a FOUGHT KNIGHT.

or?

My faith in atheism? I'm not an atheist. Though I have to say you are communicating so incoherently, I don't know what you are getting at, at all. Were the Windsors your deities?

The day I speak incoherently is the day U wish..

It's simple take the challenge or not?

[Belinda]

Monarchs are no more and no less grasping than other social elites. The special benefit of modern constitutional monarchy is that tradition hand in hand with established,liberal religion exert a calming centring influence on agitators and the very greedy. Primogeniture within reason is as good a system as most others for selecting a constitutional monarch.
The Windsors as a family seem to have a tradition of education and service rather in the old chivalric way. which is nice for an elite family to have. One can think of other elites that are undesirable in these respects.

At least other elites have to pay tax within the law.

The Windsors have never done an honest days work in their fucking lives. The only service they have done is self-service.

Anyone who has to be observed admiring many floral tributes, and shaking hundreds of hands on the sad occasion of their mother's death deserves to be paid for that service.

The late Queen spent hours reading and understanding the parliamentary papers in her daily red box, a quite large attache case. She gave up her right to publicly expressing opinions and personal feelings when she became queen. She was a public servant who was worth her weight in gold for seventy years.

If she's to be criticised for being hugely rich then it's huge personal wealth we need to criticise, not one of the most worthy rich personages in history.

[Iwannaplato]

Well now, I am certain of your lack of FAITH in ATHEISM.

Take me on..a FOUGHT KNIGHT.

or?

My faith in atheism? I'm not an atheist. Though I have to say you are communicating so incoherently, I don't know what you are getting at, at all. Were the Windsors your deities?

The day I speak incoherently is the day U wish..

It's simple take the challenge or not?

OK, I do not take the challenge to demonstrate my faith in atheism, since I do not have faith in atheism. I am a theist.
EDIT: I loved this sentence managing to be an example of what it seems to be trying to deny.

The day I speak incoherently is the day U wish..

[Iwannaplato]

The late Queen spent hours reading and understanding the parliamentary papers in her daily red box, a quite large attache case. She gave up her right to publicly expressing opinions and personal feelings when she became queen.

Sort of. She certainly expressed opinions on occasion. But the main point is she doesn't need to do this publically. The system took care of her needs and the needs of her family. She also had private access to express her opinions to almost anyone, but in many ways lacking a need to express her opinion, given that she was taken care of, I don't think this is much of a loss. She also had many ways to use her money and representatives, some of whom we likely don't know the names of, to express her opinions.

She was a public servant who was worth her weight in gold for seventy years.

I do think she worked. I think she had tempermental and diplomatic skills. Of course, these could have been put to use in the kinds of jobs non-royal people get. A diplomatic position might have worked well. And, yes, I realize her role included this.

[iambiguous]

Well, one either reacts positively or negatively to her life and death. Or one reacts with ambivalence. Or one couldn't care less about it either way.

But: since there are any number of objectivists among us who insist that there is in fact a rational manner in which to react -- the way they do -- no reaction from others is not political to them.

Well, not for me. Yes, some might see my reactions as political, and I see some reactions as political. But others don't seem political to me. I don't see indifference as political, for example. Or some of the amused reactions.

Okay, but what all of this is for you [not political] doesn't make what it is for others ["my way or the highway" political] go away. There is only so much control we have over how others react to our points of view. After all, particular Jews back in Nazi Germany may have insisted that being a Jew wasn't political to them.

In my view, Heidegger's Dasein is largely an intellectual contraption. That's why it it always capitalized. Like Being.

OK, I appreciate the explanation of your version. I find it incredibly hard to imagine

But it's everywhere regarding reactions to Queen Elizabeth. People react to her in my view not because philosophers have provided us with the most rational manner in which to react to her, but because existentially their individual lives predispose them subjectively to react as they do. But, I believe, many objectivists don't want to go there because if they do their own precious "my way of the highway" Self may begin to crumble: "what if what I do believe about the queen is only an existential contraption rooted in dasein?"

Me, I take da-sein to mean "existing there" out in a particular world and not "existing here" out in differing particular world? Now and not then or in the future. How does that impact existentially on how you come to view your "self" out in that world? And what is instead true for all of us?

as anything other than an intellectual contraption. In a neutral use of that term. A somewhat complicated very abstract concept.

In the either/or world, however, there are any number of actual, factual components of a human Self that are true for all of us. The day you were born, where you were born, when you were born, your family, community, experiences.

Thus...

From him I took the idea of each individual being "thrown" adventitiously at birth into a particular time and place. And because they are born and bred in one particular historical, cultural and experiential juncture rather than another, this can have a profound impact on how they come to construe "reality" in terms of both their identity and their value judgments.

I don't see any problem with using intellectual contraptions, but it seems you use the term perjoratively, including regarding Heidegger's Dasein.

Our reaction to others here who do use intellectual contraptions to describe their own reaction to queens and monarchies [alive or dead] become basically a battle over definitions and deductions. Where pejorative comments tend to fly is when the discussions revolve instead around particular royalty and particular monarchies.

See below...

What difference does it really make what you call it

All I said was that it was not political for me. If that isn't important, it would have been easy to simply concede the point.

Here, again, it always depends on being around those who insist that it is important to have a political opinion about it...and that it damn well better be the same as their own.

when the most important point is that our reaction to it is a profoundly problematic reflection of the existential parameters of the life we lived rather than something that can be pinned down with any precision philosophically.

It's important to me to not see everything as political. I'd prefer it if people stopped labelling everything political, when not all of it is. This is part of the current zeitgeist, seeing everything as a political issue, then determining rapidly if your taste or preference or reaction puts you on 'my team' or 'the other team' and then trying to smash the person or consider yourself one with them. I realize conflicts and conflicts around values, morals and preferences are, so far, inevitable. But I see no reason to view all reactions as political.

Okay, but in regard to Queen Elizabeth and King Charles, it's much easier to avoid making it about politics. Why? Because the monarchy in England is largely ceremonial. It has no substantial political power. But what if it wasn't and it did?

And that still doesn't stop the objectivists among us from acting as though how they react to this politically toothless monarchy wasn't but one more One True Path.

Look at the idiotic online war going on about the new Lord of the Ring series. Not everything is so damn important, some things are tastes and preferences, even for objectivists. Or, well, they used to be
Now if I don't like that series I must be a homophobics racist who votes for Trump to many. Now, I know you didn't weigh in this way and are interested in the issue at a meta-level.

I know nothing about the series myself. Other than that Astro Cat seems to be something of a fanatic about it.

On her thread I posted this:

I am not really familiar with The Lord of the Rings books. But it strikes me as a world akin to The Game of Thrones series. It's made up of characters that explore familiar philosophical themes -- power and domination, good and evil, living and dying, war and peace, free will and fate -- but there are things like giants and dragons and hobbits and rings and supernatural elements that seem to be something of a cross between adventure and science fiction and fantasy.

But since the books/films do focus on political themes familiar to all of us, some will still get riled by those who don't share their own reaction to it. Like the Matrix: red pill, blue pill.

But, for me it is important not to label things that are not political, political.

Again: not political to you. Politics, after all, revolves basically around having the power to enforce of version of reality rather than another. And that might revolve around practically anything.

the most important point FOR ME is that our reaction to it is a profoundly problematic reflection of the existential parameters of the life we lived rather than something that can be pinned down with any precision philosophical

but ironically in a post part of a criticism of objectivism you framed it in objectivist terms. How could I focus on some trivia instead of the most important thing?

Not sure what you mean by this. I note from time to time that I do not exclude myself from my own point of view. Whether in regard to the queen or to LOR or to any other value judgment, "I" is derived for me from dasein. But I certainly don't argue that all rational men and women are obligated to think this as well.

Perhaps I focused on something important to me.

And just to be clear. I am not saying that her death are NOT political. Not am I saying that for many others it is not political. It's just not for me and not necessarily so for others. And my reaction, here, was not political. Further, I wouldn't even be able to guess what political difference her death will make. Some may be able to but not me. So, how her death will affect any political prefereces I have, I have no idea.

Note to the objectivists among us:

Please take this up with him -- her? -- yourself.