Dasein/dasein

[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.

emulating him it is then.

It's good that you aren't fragmented and fractured about some things, like your psychic abilities.
Perhaps there's hope for other areas where you are still fractured and fragmented.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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

It’s that I can’t take you fully seriously. It’s not that I would not have talked to you — were you serious about knowing what I think, why, and where I stand. It is that you make that impossible. So I gather that that is what you want. And facing that all I can offer you is irony. I think that you achieve what you are after. Day after day, post after post.

Myself, I think I have been clear about what I am after. That mostly had to do with resolving some conflicts with religious orthodoxies and my relationship with “Europe”. There had to have been a payoff resulting from the long interchanges on the Christianity thread.

You could just as well demand of yourself an accounting in relation to “And that’s all he can come up with!”

You repeat & repeat & repeat the same dense litany. You present a thousand times your particular problem. But honestly? I do not think you are much interested in a resolution. Resolution is a possibility you’ve ruled out.

[Flannel Jesus]

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

Why are you commenting this as if you're going to find agreement with some audience? As if you're going to use the power of the crowd to elicit shame in him?

The crowd isn't on your side. As said in the other thread, you're very apparently desperate to make a fool of every conversation partner you have. Unfortunately for you, to the crowd here, desperation reeks, and it's you that has come out smelling like the fool when you post like this.

Lay off the rhetorical devices and try to talk to someone like you're interested in what they think for a little bit. Do you need an example of what that looks like?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Just to clarify. This is what fabled Satyr wrote in some sort of response to something I said? Wee insignificant me?

(I ask for clarity because I see so much interesting material in what, I gather, Satyr wrote. I am interested in a great deal of it, though I must translate and interpret many of the references …

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

[iambiguous]

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

It’s that I can’t take you fully seriously. It’s not that I would not have talked to you — were you serious about knowing what I think, why, and where I stand. It is that you make that impossible. So I gather that that is what you want. And facing that all I can offer you is irony. I think that you achieve what you are after. Day after day, post after post.

Myself, I think I have been clear about what I am after. That mostly had to do with resolving some conflicts with religious orthodoxies and my relationship with “Europe”. There had to have been a payoff resulting from the long interchanges on the Christianity thread.

You could just as well demand of yourself an accounting in relation to “And that’s all he can come up with!”

You repeat & repeat & repeat the same dense litany. You present a thousand times your particular problem. But honestly? I do not think you are much interested in a resolution. Resolution is a possibility you’ve ruled out.

Just tell me this then...

Is Alexis Jacobi here Satyr there? You seem clearly to share many of the same rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices. But then Satyr has never ever been able to keep himself contained when others effectively challenge his own fulminating fanatic outbursts.

And, again, if you are not him, why are you not posting there?

I suspect it's because you recognize yourself that he won't tolerate anyone -- even you -- unless you were willing to become part of his clique/claque there.

The Ayn Rand Syndrome.

As with Rand, Satyr is all about embracing the individual as the center of the universe. Only every single individual there is obligated to back him up regarding, well, everything. If those like Kvasir and Æon and apaosha have ever challenged him regarding anything of significance, I missed it. Hell, he would even make up users like Lyssa to worship and adore him.


And, in turn, I will never take you seriously until you are willing to bring your own political prejudices down out of the clouds. And to note how in regard to dasein, your own value judgments are not derived from the manner in which I construe "I" in the is/ought world here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Given particular contexts of your own choosing.

[iambiguous]

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

Why are you commenting this as if you're going to find agreement with some audience? As if you're going to use the power of the crowd to elicit shame in him?

The crowd isn't on your side. As said in the other thread, you're very apparently desperate to make a fool of every conversation partner you have. Unfortunately for you, to the crowd here, desperation reeks, and it's you that has come out smelling like the fool when you post like this.

Lay off the rhetorical devices and try to talk to someone like you're interested in what they think for a little bit. Do you need an example of what that looks like?

That's not plain English.

[Flannel Jesus]

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

Why are you commenting this as if you're going to find agreement with some audience? As if you're going to use the power of the crowd to elicit shame in him?

The crowd isn't on your side. As said in the other thread, you're very apparently desperate to make a fool of every conversation partner you have. Unfortunately for you, to the crowd here, desperation reeks, and it's you that has come out smelling like the fool when you post like this.

Lay off the rhetorical devices and try to talk to someone like you're interested in what they think for a little bit. Do you need an example of what that looks like?

That's not plain English.

Ah, I see how I've hurt your feelings today. I didn't mean to strike a chord by telling you that, just meant to encourage you to reword it in plain English.

You're very sensitive

[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

Can anybody else weigh in? Is this plain English?

What does it mean to ask if it's possible "to "think up" a deontological moral conviction?"

And what argument is he talking about? "what would the argument be to those like Hitler" - there's no context for this question. What are we trying to convince Hitler of? To recycle?

And also, biggy, for the record, in addition to that post not being plain English, the first time you posted it it was absolutely in a wall of text. So the "I did above" comment is just literally untrue.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Just tell me this then...

Is Alexis Jacobi here Satyr there?

Your question is, what, prepositional?

Obviously, you have issues with the ideas Satyr is working with. And you are externalizing your inner conflict bizarrely.

Definitely: Alexis is here, Satyr there. Does that help?

You seem clearly to share many of the same rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices. But then Satyr has never ever been able to keep himself contained when others effectively challenge his own fulminating fanatic outbursts.

Do away that first sentence. That is your statement about things. Highly interpretive. I am familiar with the current of ideas he seems to be interested in. He has offered a sound interpretation of your peculiar situation it seems to me.

And he talks about *you* in a larger social/cultural context — and that is super interesting.

Am I to understand that you disagree with his analysis, or are you upset that he pegged you with a certain precision?

I am only interested in the ideas he has put forth in that interesting interpretive prose.

[iambiguous]

Now you're talking!

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.

Indeed. But now we need a particular context in which to explore the actually existential parameters of these things. Especially one where we can all agree that some things are true but not agree about other things.

We can all agree, for example, that yesterday the White House Correspondents' dinner unfolded in Washington. But can we all agree with the argument that this is a classic example of the media industrial complex, of crony capitalism in which the press shamelessly participates year after year in clowning around with those in power instead keeping their proper distance. Is this not a manifestation of the ruling class in a nutshell?

In regard to the fact of the event, dasein revolves around those who are personally aware of the dinner. Some in other countries or those here who simply do not follow politics or the news at all may be completely oblivious to it. So, one either is aware of it or not.

But what about our individual political reactions to it? What of dasein then? How is my own understanding of dasein here not reasonable?

And of course our natures contribute to this also.

Sure, if by that you are talking about genes and biological imperatives, we all come into the world hardwired the same regarding some things and differently regarding other things.

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.

Yes, but, in my view, dasein grappled with up in the intellectual clouds. But what about particular individuals interacting with other particular individuals in particular sets of circumstances. How is the manner in which I construe dasein in my signature threads not relevant at all in regard to your own value judgments? Why are other atheists not fractured and fragmented as I am?

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.

Yes, we can choose to live a certain way recognizing the "self" as I do above -- rooted existentially in dasein -- or recognizing the Self as the moral and political objectivists here do.

"Your right from your side and I'm right from mine" or "my way or the highway".

Only in being fractured and fragmented "I" don't have access to the right way morally or politically or spiritually.

And, in my opinion, some react to me as they do because at least a part of them is coming to recognize that this might someday be applicable to them too. Yes, they can get into heated debates with those who don't share their own values, but at least these folks agree with them that, morally and politically, there is the right way.


My own argument is very different.


Note to Flannel Jesus:

See how it works, beef wise?

[Flannel Jesus]

Note to Flannel Jesus:

See how it works, beef wise?

No, I have no idea what you mean by "beef" here. Plain English for me please.

[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

Above you seemed to indicate a willingness to pursue dasein given a No God world.

I then noted again...

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?

You claimed that this was not plain English. Huh? How was it not clearly stated?

Note to others:

Seriously, was it plain enough English for you regarding how one contemplates morality philosophically given the assumption that God does not exist?

Then this:

Ah, I see how I've hurt your feelings today. I didn't mean to strike a chord by telling you that, just meant to encourage you to reword it in plain English.

You're very sensitive

What on earth does that have to do with No God, the self and morality?

[Iwannaplato]

And, in my opinion, some react to me as they do because at least a part of them is coming to recognize that this might someday be applicable to them too. Yes, they can get into heated debates with those who don't share their own values, but at least these folks agree with them that, morally and politically, there is the right way.

And here's something else you don't seem fractured and fragmented about. It's a kind of mindreading. Sometimes like here you keep it vague. Sometimes you name names. You never seem split or tortured about this kind of thing. You may qualify it 'in my opinion' but it never seems like other parts of you have an opinion on your mindreading.

Which is great. What's going on in other minds, one of the classic philosophy issues, you are not fractured around. You'll occasionally make a psychic claim, as if no other reasonable interpretations of how people behave or react to you is possible.

Not fractured, not fragmented. Cool.

So, whatever you do to not feel fragmented or fractured around the problem of other minds and mindreading, see if you can transfer it to other issues.

[iambiguous]

Note to Flannel Jesus:

See how it works, beef wise?

No, I have no idea what you mean by "beef" here. Plain English for me please.

Above, iwannaplato made points regarding dasein as he understands it. Substantively, in my view. I responded to his points. Substantively, I believe.

So, were his points plain English while mine were not?

And, in plain English yourself, if my points were plain English enough for you respond to the points I made.

[Flannel Jesus]

No, "dasein" is not plain English. Not when you say it, not when iwannaplato says it.