Dasein/dasein

[Iwannaplato]

"We" being those of us who have an interest in philosophy. Who explore and assess things like identity given what philosophers in the past have delved into regarding it themselves. As opposed to those who are indoctrinated as children to accept the reality imposed on them by others and then more or less live out their lives never really questioning it at all.

Dang, for someone who loves to bill themselves as 'fractured and fragmented', you sure sound pretty sure that these so-called "objectivists" are the ones who are indoctrinated to accept the reality imposed on them, never questioning it. If anything, your words here sound... dare I say... very objectivist of you.

How about you be just a little bit more fractured and fragmented, it makes more sense here.

Sigh...

Unlike with iwannaplato and AJ, who, in my view, often post things that I can sink my teeth into [philosophically or otherwise] reading your own declamatory Stooge posts -- much like phyllo's "retorts" -- is becoming less and less worth my time.

True, in my own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective assessment, you're not a "pinhead" or suffering from a "condition" as some are here.

But, come on, where's the beef?!

What a non-response.
Edit: Ah, while I was posting Fj has a similar reaction.

[iambiguous]

As opposed to those who are indoctrinated as children to accept the reality imposed on them by others and then more or less live out their lives never really questioning it at all.

Some Wild Children are raised by wolves. In my case I was raised by a tribe of Foxes and really had no human formation until I got into NYU.

That by the way …

No, seriously.

[iambiguous]

ME:

I'm also like 80% sure that the way biggy uses the word dasein is also entirely unique to him, and not what Heidegger was talking about.

Again:

I first encountered the word Dasein from Heidegger. I was struck by how he used it to explore the idea that each of us is "thrown" adventitiously -- "beyond our control" -- out into a particular world at birth historically, culturally and in terms of our own uniquely personal experiences.

In these discussions, dasein [from my end existentially] is just a particular take on Heidegger's philosophical conjectures. We exist "in time" and "in place". In other words, in particular times and particular places. And that can often have a profound impact on how we come to see ourselves and the world around us.

Now, straight back up into the intellectual contraption clouds he goes...

Factually, Iambiguous cannot be said to use the term except as an obfuscating tool. The term Dasein in Iam’s discourse, has perhaps 1% of relatedness to Heidegger’s meaning, and the sense or ‘utility’ if you will of his pioneering existential/philosophical thought.

And, again, in regard to moral and political value judgments, it is the objectivists like him who "clear things up". Simple. You either think as they do about folks of color and women and homosexuals and Jews and liberals or you are flat out wrong. It's just that some like Satyr prefer to describe you in more colorful language.

Then the part where he makes this all abvout me:

But we could hash this out until the cow finally jumped over the moon and we’d get nowhere. So, what is the point? I mean, what am I driving at?

Here, in this context, this forum, we see time and again refusals to actually engage in bona fide exchange. If this is so, what then is the purpose? What benefit, let’s ask, accrues to Iambiguous (since he seems the subject here) to post unendingly the same stuff but to get no result, no agreement, nothing returned on the investment? Ah ha! It is just that. It is, then, to externalize a ossified internal frustration and have it rehearsed and played back eternally.

Again, I'd ask him to note a particular context but even if he did I would be commanded to go up into the "philosophical clouds" with him.

He absolutely loves posting things like this:

It’s like a Sisyphean compounded nightmare. The tragedy of sheer inutility multiplied by postmodern impasse.

If The medium is the message then, I propose, Iambiguous has a veritable, and realized purpose: the opportunity to wallow in the deliciousness of total, frustrating immobility.

The really, really clever pedant!!!

Then the Stooge again:

As I have pointed out: Iambiguous is stuck. He cannot make any decisions. The left hand snatches what the right hand offers in a neurotic loop! This is like a skit out of Waiting for Godot.

I can’t go on | I’ll go on

Its actually robotic. Man turned into a mechanism of futile indecision tarted up to mimic thoughtful profundity.

Though, yes, I do believe that, given free will, human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless. That being "drawn and quartered" in the is/ought world is a reasonable frame of mind in a No God world. That death = oblivion.

You don't believe this? Fine, let's discuss it...existentially. Given the lives that we actually live down here on the ground. Given conflicting goods. Given contingency, chance and change. Given the Benjamin Button Syndrome. Given particular sets of circumstances.

As for the Brady assessment, I explored that above: search.php?keywords=John+C.+Brady

HIM:

Now, straight back up into the intellectual contraption clouds he goes...

Hoisted, you always forget to say, by a choreographed array of high-level intellectual sky-hooks; passed from one to another, ascending upward, ever higher, and then Icarus-like skimming close to hordes of beckoning angels and the very intellectual orb of blinding wisdom!

… before descending again for my next post.

Why do you leave out the most important details?!?

That's all he can come up with!!!!

[Flannel Jesus]

If you want to talk to me, talk to me in plain English without walls of text. Ask me a question in plain English. We'll start there.

Do I believe in God? No. That's a nice plain English question. We can progress from there

I did above...

And, if not, do you believe it is possible using the tools of philosophy to "think up" a deontological moral conviction? Kant and other philosophers who embraced one or another rendition of objective/universal morality always included one or another rendition of God in the picture.

I wonder why?

Or, using the tools of philosophy in a No God world, what would the argument be to those like Hitler who rationalized the Holocaust? Or to sociopaths who rationalize raping and killing children?

That's not plain English

[iambiguous]

Just for the record, here is Satyr's take on all this:

PN request...from Alexis Jacobi...
We are Legion...

And so, the linguistic trap has been sprung...using the 'damsel in distress' ploy, to expose 'Karen' Mary Land's learned postmodern semiotic cage - postmodern tropes, her proverbial pit.
She is the bait....and there is no desire to exit the "hole" she has placed herself within - the whole, as it were: complete, absolute, indivisible, immutable.
She has returned to the metaphysical womb....waiting for her fate to be determined.
She wants to pull the world into it, with her. Resentiment masked as altruistic benevolence.
Her "fractured fragmentation" is her mind/body dissonance crying out - a state of utterly comforting confusion.
A "rabbit screaming in distress"....a victim calling out to victims - (see Thomas Harris quote, as the only rational reaction).
Chaos is what she worships.
Chaos - properly defined - is where all becomes uniformly the same; all becomes equally and simultaneously possible - metaphysical parity.
She, like those who trained her, worship this theoretical nil.
She is a self-castrated - self-circumcized, self-lobotomized - no-thing who has willfully swallowed her own severed testicles, and they've now settled in her lower stomach/womb, like two ovaries.....from where Tikkun Olam will be re-born.
She is a divine bride birthing the coming no-thingness - 'healing the world from tis multiplicity and diversity.
All must become a social construct....humanity = god....humanity creator of reality.
Gnosticism - Queerness. No difference exists...all is the same....or ought to become so when the world is 'healed' and 'saved' from its 'fallen state.'
She is but one of the 'chosen' to know how unfree her will is - a minion, an agency of divinity, 'chosen' to serve THE divine will as it re-emerges and all is made one....in the nil.
One/Nil being the two opposites sides of the singularity: one-god.

The end of philosophy - as all language is rendered meaningless - referring to nothing but more words - cosmic solipsism.
She has no 'choice'...she was chosen to know this and to do this. She is innocent.
She is divine bait....her Kabbalistic burden is to serve her master.

Ideology contradicting experienced reality - dissonance of mind/body, of the ideological and the sensorial, perceptible, i.e., apparent.
First comes the word - logos - so words usurp sensory input....the perceived; rather than represent them they negate them.
She acknowledges nothing perceptible....all words must be disconnected from their referents in the world.
See Nihilism
See Nihilism: Signs & Symptoms

She is but one of many....especially in the American dominion.
Emasculation is a symptom: The Feminization of Man.
The degeneracy of a declining Empire of Lies.

******
'Objectivist' is the proverbial 'evil', Satan....Nazis....nature.
Anything that contradicts this oneness - this final uniform nothingness of her projected dreams - including herself: we are all "sinners".....we are all "fallen."
Any resistance to this oneness, in nil, identifies you as her nemesis - as Satanic, as an evil Nazi - negation of her negation; anyone that affirms life and existence is her enemy.
As contradictory and paradoxical as any of the Abrahamic scriptures defining good/evil.
Controlled opposition. Divinity uses us all to manufacture its creation - demiurgeous.

******
Her mission is not to define words like morality, god, freedom, will, but to maintain them as undefinable - entirely subjective and ideological - representations of abreactions with no referents.
Her mission - and she's been chosen to accept it - is to disconnect from the world, from existence, and to take the world down with her.
She tells herself, like all neo-Marxist opportunists, that she cares about the non-chosen - the objectivists - but in secret she knows her motive is vengeance against a world that failed to be what she wanted it to be.
Moving across multiple versions of nihilism, form spiritual to secular....she was disillusioned by Abrahamism - her childhood Christian faith; tuning to Marxism in her youth she quickly lost confidence in its lies; now she turns to postmodernism as her final hope, her retribution, her salvation in the nil.
Her mission is to undermine and to destroy.
She is the anti-failosopher subverting philosophy, to increase desperation and degeneracy: where vermin flourish

I'm "her" here. I'm 'Karen' Mary Land'.

He's no doubt tickled pink that I copied and pasted this here. Expect a veritable deluge of additional posts on his Desperate Degenerates thread.

Here he is clearly in his "serious philosopher" mode. Little or no declamatory going ape-shit outbursts. He wants you to see just how insightful he can be.

[iambiguous]

Dang, for someone who loves to bill themselves as 'fractured and fragmented', you sure sound pretty sure that these so-called "objectivists" are the ones who are indoctrinated to accept the reality imposed on them, never questioning it. If anything, your words here sound... dare I say... very objectivist of you.

How about you be just a little bit more fractured and fragmented, it makes more sense here.

Sigh...

Unlike with iwannaplato and AJ, who, in my view, often post things that I can sink my teeth into [philosophically or otherwise] reading your own declamatory Stooge posts -- much like phyllo's "retorts" -- is becoming less and less worth my time.

True, in my own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective assessment, you're not a "pinhead" or suffering from a "condition" as some are here.

But, come on, where's the beef?!

What a non-response.
Edit: Ah, while I was posting Fj has a similar reaction.

iwannaplato either emulating or mocking Flannel Stooge.

Let's decide.

[iambiguous]

If you want to talk to me, talk to me in plain English without walls of text. Ask me a question in plain English. We'll start there.

Do I believe in God? No. That's a nice plain English question. We can progress from there

I did above...

And, if not, do you believe it is possible using the tools of philosophy to "think up" a deontological moral conviction? Kant and other philosophers who embraced one or another rendition of objective/universal morality always included one or another rendition of God in the picture.

I wonder why?

Or, using the tools of philosophy in a No God world, what would the argument be to those like Hitler who rationalized the Holocaust? Or to sociopaths who rationalize raping and killing children?

That's not plain English

No, seriously.

[Flannel Jesus]

Nobody cares what he thinks but you. I don't know why you feel the need to post other people's insults of you here. Pretty masochistic of you, to roll around in a mud pit of reflective contempt

[Flannel Jesus]

I did above...

That's not plain English

No, seriously.

Yes, seriously, it's not.

Also, nobody else knows what this laughing no seriously thing is about. Whatever it is, I'll hazard a guess that it's one of the rhetorical techniques from iwannaplatos thread. I thought you were going to attempt to get over that tripe. You're not even trying

[Flannel Jesus]

You came into the rhetorical techniques thread paranoid that they were all about you. They weren't, but you're rapidly proving that they might as well have been.

[Iwannaplato]

Dasein, or cultural, society, media, parenting influences, etc.,
does not just affect beliefs
it would affect how one interacts with others.
Not just how one thinks everyone should interact with others,
but one's interpersonal habits, self-awareness or its lack, blind spots,
and one's ability to notice them oneself
or even to consider, potentially, that others are noticing real patterns.

Dasien doesn't just contribute to objectivism, but to fixed patterns of behavior, style of living, style of interacting.

And of course our natures contribute to this also.

It's easy to imagine a Christian, say, who believes in God and the Bible but whose actions seem, well, not very Christian. We can focus on the beliefs or we can focus on the actions.

And we all act, period. And in many ways actions speak louder than words.

One can believe racism is bad, but unconsciously treat one race worse.

One can present oneself as sure that X is true, and act like it is not.

Actions are beliefs. Or perhaps beliefs are shadows of actions. Certainly they can contribute to actions, but actions seem to me to be a better test of what one actually believes.

So, in a certain sense everyone is an objectivist. Why? We must choose to live a certain way and by those choices we show our beliefs. Or actually something more concrete than a belief.

More down to earth.

You can hesitate, put off things - though these also show beliefs - you can bemoan the lack of certainty. But probably when you buy things in the store you treat the clerks in a certain way. You treat people a certain way online. You show trust, curiosity in life around people, or at least try to form close bonds. Or you don't. Or something in between. These all show beliefs, or something more concrete.

We can't avoid that. Yes, we can doubt our actions: their practicality, their moral correctness, whether we like them.

But if we've got a habit in relation to others, for example, that habit might has well be objectivist. It's a much louder claim than saying 'I believe X'.

And that habit is likely a combination of what we've experienced and those tendencies we have as this specific organism.

[Iwannaplato]

iwannaplato either emulating or mocking Flannel Stooge.
Let's decide.

Yes, it has to be one of those two. It's not possible that we reacted the same way.

[iambiguous]

That's not plain English

No, seriously.

Yes, seriously, it's not.

Also, nobody else knows what this laughing no seriously thing is about. Whatever it is, I'll hazard a guess that it's one of the rhetorical techniques from iwannaplatos thread. I thought you were going to attempt to get over that tripe. You're not even trying

No, seriously.








And this time I really mean it.

[iambiguous]

iwannaplato either emulating or mocking Flannel Stooge.
Let's decide.

Yes, it has to be one of those two. It's not possible that we reacted the same way.

emulating him it is then.

[Flannel Jesus]

No, seriously.

Yes, seriously, it's not.

Also, nobody else knows what this laughing no seriously thing is about. Whatever it is, I'll hazard a guess that it's one of the rhetorical techniques from iwannaplatos thread. I thought you were going to attempt to get over that tripe. You're not even trying

No, seriously.








And this time I really mean it.

Seems, to the contrary, like you've quite quickly given up on the seriousness you implied you were going to try in the rhetorical devices thread. This is the context. This is your chance. Why spoil it so soon?