Dasein/dasein

[Belinda]

That's because you have nothing to be guilty or ashamed of. Heidegger was a fucking unrepentant, unapologetic Nazi. And great philosopher. It's like Caravaggio, a man of severely disordered, dangerous passions who produced the greatest art of his generation.

This does not quite follow. Caravaggio was (as you say) severely disordered and with dangerous passions. I.e. “sick” and unwell.

Heidegger was not ever described in this way to my knowledge.

What do you make of the fact that he (seemed to) remain a Nazi? Or that he never recanted or repented?

Heidegger's Dasein concept was a little incomplete in that H did not take account of the other person as a person, see Levinas

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That's because you have nothing to be guilty or ashamed of. Heidegger was a fucking unrepentant, unapologetic Nazi. And great philosopher. It's like Caravaggio, a man of severely disordered, dangerous passions who produced the greatest art of his generation.

This does not quite follow. Caravaggio was (as you say) severely disordered and with dangerous passions. I.e. “sick” and unwell.

Heidegger was not ever described in this way to my knowledge.

What do you make of the fact that he (seemed to) remain a Nazi? Or that he never recanted or repented?

Caravaggio is just an extreme example of the conflict between beauty and passion, aesthetics and ethics. Many great writers, poets were Fascists. It's all very human.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Made me think of Robinson Jeffers:

He wrote: “While this America settles in the mould of its vulgarity, heavily thickening to empire And protest, only a bubble in the molten mass, pops and sighs out, and the mass hardens, I sadly smiling remember that the flower fades to make fruit, the fruit rots to make earth. Out of the mother; and through the spring exultances, ripeness and decadence; and home to the mother.

From a poetry site:

Jeffers termed his philosophy “inhumanism,” which he explained was “a shifting of emphasis from man to not man; the rejection of human solipsism and recognition of the transhuman magnificence. ... It offers a reasonable detachment as a rule of conduct, instead of love, hate, and envy.” Humanity had been spurned by an uncaring God, Jeffers believed, so each individual should rid himself of emotion and embrace an indifferent, nonhuman god. To develop his philosophy of inhumanism, Jeffers drew on his extensive reading in philosophy, religion, mythology, and science. Critics have connected Jeffers’s ideas to those of Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Lucretius, and cyclical historians such as Giambattista Vico, Oswald Spengler, and Flinders Petrie.

There is an interesting book out now: The Return of the Strong Gods. The premise is that postwar Liberalism turned people soft. Now, the Strong Gods (idealizations I suppose of what existence demands of man) are returning to beat down the soft, the sentimental and the weak.

I was thinking I should learn to make bread from acorns. You know, like the Indians. Maybe it would toughen me up?

(I suggested to a friend that she have a deviant at Drag Queen Story Hour read a chapter of Strong Gods out loud, not for the kids but to send a message to the moms. She got very angry at me! Has no one a sense of humor anymore?!)

I am seriously of taking up a very personalized form of fascism. Not for political conviction you understand but out of boredom. I am seeing myself as perhaps a breatharian yogi, a radical vegetarian and Earth First! type environmentalist.

[Alexis Jacobi]

He was a card-carrying Nazi until the end. What can be said of that?

Some Yiddish invective comes to mind …

[Martin Peter Clarke]

We are maimed in the wood, in the gene and its expression. But love abides. Philp Meyer's The Son, American Primeval, 1883 show that the soft, the sentimental, the weak is the only redeeming quality of the strong.

Liberalism is the sound of one hand clapping when it fails to embrace the strong, the selfish. Fascism, the carving out of meaning.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Are taking responsibility and forgiving oneself mutually incompatible?

I mean I can take responsibility without feeling guilty or ashamed.

That's because you have nothing to be guilty or ashamed of. Heidegger was a fucking unrepentant, unapologetic Nazi. And great philosopher. It's like Caravaggio, a man of severely disordered, dangerous passions who produced the greatest art of his generation.

I have to agree. But you did not answer me "Are taking responsibility and forgiving oneself mutually incompatible?" I suppose it boils down to what 'taking responsibility' means.

Can it be possible to take responsibility without feeling ordinary human sympathy?

For instance when a violent criminal is taken to justice, the judge looks for signs of remorse ( not guilt or shame). For instance when reportage of a war zone contains 'human interest' that's when the reportage influences people.

I would never take remorse positively in to account in sentencing. You pay your dues, and know it's right. Remorselessness just automatically gets a whole life tariff.

And self forgiveness is irrelevant. Start with clinical honesty. Understand why you did what you did. Atone.

Even psychopaths (that's 30% of us) can reason proportional to their lack of empathy. Compensated for by intelligence a little.

[Belinda]

That's because you have nothing to be guilty or ashamed of. Heidegger was a fucking unrepentant, unapologetic Nazi. And great philosopher. It's like Caravaggio, a man of severely disordered, dangerous passions who produced the greatest art of his generation.

I have to agree. But you did not answer me "Are taking responsibility and forgiving oneself mutually incompatible?" I suppose it boils down to what 'taking responsibility' means.

Can it be possible to take responsibility without feeling ordinary human sympathy?

For instance when a violent criminal is taken to justice, the judge looks for signs of remorse ( not guilt or shame). For instance when reportage of a war zone contains 'human interest' that's when the reportage influences people.

I would never take remorse positively in to account in sentencing. You pay your dues, and know it's right. Remorselessness just automatically gets a whole life tariff.

And self forgiveness is irrelevant. Start with clinical honesty. Understand why you did what you did. Atone.

Even psychopaths (that's 30% of us) can reason proportional to their lack of empathy. Compensated for by intelligence a little.

But psychopaths don't lack empathy psychopaths lack sympathy . Empathy can be learned as it's cognitive.
Sympathy is a gut feeling and a biological inheritance; to name it sentimentality is a subjective evaluation that may be motivated by self interest and ultimately fear of the other.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I have to agree. But you did not answer me "Are taking responsibility and forgiving oneself mutually incompatible?" I suppose it boils down to what 'taking responsibility' means.

Can it be possible to take responsibility without feeling ordinary human sympathy?

For instance when a violent criminal is taken to justice, the judge looks for signs of remorse ( not guilt or shame). For instance when reportage of a war zone contains 'human interest' that's when the reportage influences people.

I would never take remorse positively in to account in sentencing. You pay your dues, and know it's right. Remorselessness just automatically gets a whole life tariff.

And self forgiveness is irrelevant. Start with clinical honesty. Understand why you did what you did. Atone.

Even psychopaths (that's 30% of us) can reason proportional to their lack of empathy. Compensated for by intelligence a little.

But psychopaths don't lack empathy psychopaths lack sympathy . Empathy can be learned as it's cognitive.
Sympathy is a gut feeling and a biological inheritance; to name it sentimentality is a subjective evaluation that may be motivated by self interest and ultimately fear of the other.

They can mimic it. Use it as a predatory tool. They abnormally feel less personal fear and distress: they therefore lack spontaneous empathy. And ours can be turned off easily.

[Belinda]

I would never take remorse positively in to account in sentencing. You pay your dues, and know it's right. Remorselessness just automatically gets a whole life tariff.

And self forgiveness is irrelevant. Start with clinical honesty. Understand why you did what you did. Atone.

Even psychopaths (that's 30% of us) can reason proportional to their lack of empathy. Compensated for by intelligence a little.

But psychopaths don't lack empathy psychopaths lack sympathy . Empathy can be learned as it's cognitive.
Sympathy is a gut feeling and a biological inheritance; to name it sentimentality is a subjective evaluation that may be motivated by self interest and ultimately fear of the other.

They can mimic it. Use it as a predatory tool. They abnormally feel less personal fear and distress: they therefore lack spontaneous empathy. And ours can be turned off easily.

True. A conspicuous example is predatory grooming like what sex gangs, or Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell did.

I make no apology for the medical model of right and wrong ,as health and unhealth. it's a more efficient model than the Free Will model.( 'Psychopath' is a medical term.)

And at this juncture, Martin. the old Jehovah wins over Plato. Jehovah is clearly a person with a full complement of passions including sympathy.

Jesus, Jehovah's spokesman, too was passionate and so avoids the ivory tower effect of Platonism.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

But psychopaths don't lack empathy psychopaths lack sympathy . Empathy can be learned as it's cognitive.
Sympathy is a gut feeling and a biological inheritance; to name it sentimentality is a subjective evaluation that may be motivated by self interest and ultimately fear of the other.

They can mimic it. Use it as a predatory tool. They abnormally feel less personal fear and distress: they therefore lack spontaneous empathy. And ours can be turned off easily.

True. A conspicuous example is predatory grooming like what sex gangs, or Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell did.

I make no apology for the medical model of right and wrong ,as health and unhealth. it's a more efficient model than the Free Will model.( 'Psychopath' is a medical term.)

And at this juncture, Martin. the old Jehovah wins over Plato. Jehovah is clearly a person with a full complement of passions including sympathy.

Jesus, Jehovah's spokesman, too was passionate and so avoids the ivory tower effect of Platonism.

Well yeah, another false dichotomy. I was always in awe of my evolving God. Never lost the awe for the early versions. The God of Abraham under the Terebinth Tress of Mamre is still awesome. The God of Jonah. If I watched Ben Hur again I would be deeply moved. The God of disordered passions on steroids from alpha to omega. The God of the Heresy of Peor and the rest of the Exodus shows no compassion at all however. I still apologized for Him as being 'pragmatic'.

He became Zen, waiting to upgrade us in death.

And then I lost the Pericope Adulterae, the most beautiful, divinely emotionally intelligent story in the Bible.

I miss Them.

[Alexis Jacobi]

“I am here. I don’t know any more than that. There’s nothing more I can do. My boat is without a helm—it journeys with the wind which blows in the deepest regions of death.”

_________________

A local Prophetess wrote:

Jesus, Jehovah's spokesman, too was passionate and so avoids the ivory tower effect of Platonism.

Wait. Jesus could not have been Jehovah’s spokesman, but rather the Prophetic correction to a Titanic figure that is overcome in Jesus. Curious though, isn’t it? that a father-son relationship is pictured insofar as Jesus is Jehovah’s progeny. Jesus turned against Jehovah and shafted Jehovah’s genuine spokesmen. In that, Jesus transformed the godly Jew into Satan’s child. And again the son-father motif presents itself.

[When I finally made it up into the Ivory Tower I found there a Magic Carpet on which I travel intellectually into all spaces and spheres. What I cannot conclude is if that carpet (and the actions resulting from such far-reaching, soaring intellectual capability) is “of God” or “of the Devil”. Frankly, I feel like The Hunter Gracchus at times…]

[Belinda]

“I am here. I don’t know any more than that. There’s nothing more I can do. My boat is without a helm—it journeys with the wind which blows in the deepest regions of death.”

_________________

A local Prophetess wrote:

Jesus, Jehovah's spokesman, too was passionate and so avoids the ivory tower effect of Platonism.

Wait. Jesus could not have been Jehovah’s spokesman, but rather the Prophetic correction to a Titanic figure that is overcome in Jesus. Curious though, isn’t it? that a father-son relationship is pictured insofar as Jesus is Jehovah’s progeny. Jesus turned against Jehovah and shafted Jehovah’s genuine spokesmen. In that, Jesus transformed the godly Jew into Satan’s child. And again the son-father motif presents itself.

[When I finally made it up into the Ivory Tower I found there a Magic Carpet on which I travel intellectually into all spaces and spheres. What I cannot conclude is if that carpet (and the actions resulting from such far-reaching, soaring intellectual capability) is “of God” or “of the Devil”. Frankly, I feel like The Hunter Gracchus at times…]

Not a Trinitarian then.

[Belinda]

They can mimic it. Use it as a predatory tool. They abnormally feel less personal fear and distress: they therefore lack spontaneous empathy. And ours can be turned off easily.

True. A conspicuous example is predatory grooming like what sex gangs, or Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell did.

I make no apology for the medical model of right and wrong ,as health and unhealth. it's a more efficient model than the Free Will model.( 'Psychopath' is a medical term.)

And at this juncture, Martin. the old Jehovah wins over Plato. Jehovah is clearly a person with a full complement of passions including sympathy.

Jesus, Jehovah's spokesman, too was passionate and so avoids the ivory tower effect of Platonism.

Well yeah, another false dichotomy. I was always in awe of my evolving God. Never lost the awe for the early versions. The God of Abraham under the Terebinth Tress of Mamre is still awesome. The God of Jonah. If I watched Ben Hur again I would be deeply moved. The God of disordered passions on steroids from alpha to omega. The God of the Heresy of Peor and the rest of the Exodus shows no compassion at all however. I still apologized for Him as being 'pragmatic'.

He became Zen, waiting to upgrade us in death.

And then I lost the Pericope Adulterae, the most beautiful, divinely emotionally intelligent story in the Bible.

I miss Them.

Can not just keep the stories that fit your quest for how how to live a good life, and put the others on the top shelf? It's all , after all, just stories.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not a Trinitarian then.

Think of me as one of Odin’s ravens (Huggín). I fly between all the levels.

[Belinda]

Not a Trinitarian then.

Think of me as one of Odin’s ravens (Huggín). I fly between all the levels.

You can't be an Odin's raven in an existential crisis