Philosophy Now Forum

::: yawn :::

zzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz

The last two posts are the best ones on the thread.

Oh, thanks a MILLION Greta ...

• “Whence, being an amalgam of many and varied elements, we find our life difficult to order. For every other creature is guided by one principle: but we are pulled in different directions by our different faculties. For instance at one time we are drawn towards the better by the god-like element, at another time towards the worse by the domination of the bestial element within us."
  
  ---Pythagorean doctrine

_____________________________________________

Henry wrote:My turn: we live in an absurd world...I fault not a one for trying to make his or her way through it, as best as he or she can, sussing out whatever he or she can in the process. No need for me to condemn since the world does that well enough in its own. By 'world' I mean reality, blind and independent of what folks think of it.

As always, I am trying to locate and separate out the 'predicates' that determine perception. I am somewhat sure that people do not do this much in general, and by not understanding 'what informs them' (and the other) they more often than not only lock horns, get caught in polarities. Not only is it a boring rehearsal but it does one's own position no good since one is not really sure in fact what one is arguing for. This is often just as true for the unreflecting Religionite as it is for the Rejectionite. The Religionite sees but also represents in many ways a fading shadow, or the shadow of a 'terrible figure', sort of a Scrooge of history, an old monument, an overlording paternal figure with glaring eyes who is brought back to life, into life, by the eternal seance of the religionists. The Rejectionite - I'd place you Henry along with numerous others here in that camp - is sick of the whole struggle and so instead of asserting *value* and *meaning* and also authority and decisiveness, finds it easier ('it makes more sense' they might say) to abandon the whole field, which could be summed up as a totalising position of 'Judge Not'.

This rejectionite has seen a *vision* of Reality that is no longer determined by *meaning* nor the insertion of interpretation into human affairs - (I have often for example noted that Lacewing's little essays are essentially jeremiads against *interpretation*) - and the New Position is to refer to a naturalistic vision of reality which reduces, when you think about it, to an interpretation of the Cosmos as just a chaos of swirling atoms. What is happening is happening for no good reason, indeed for no reason at all. And when we discover ourselves in that world the only position we have and can have is: 'We live in an absurd world'. Although a great deal hinges on what 'absurd' is taken to mean here, it is a general feature of the Rejectionite position that the 'human imposition' is no longer viable ... or trustworthy. In fact, it seems to me, this is not a minor determining predicate. Because once one has, shall we say, surrendered to the Absurd, one will have to carry it forth to its logical end: it is a giving up of decisiveness, or the capacity (or the responsibility) of decision. This is really a major event in history. And so again, to examine predicates yields fruit.

The homosexual obviously is dis-ordered and dis-eased in his or her thinking. This is obvious to any one considering what sex is for. I don't fault gay folks for wanting to normalize their dis-order ...not gonna participate in their insanity, however. The world, not caring, will not normalze buggery, will not accept a cancer, and cares not a whit for gay self- or collective-esteem. The gay man and woman is marginalized by his and her dis-ease. The world in its workings condemns them.

I can't help but thinking 'Poor little bugger' but it is an obsession of mine to refer to the movie medium for comic references.

Unfortunately for the entirety of your (apparent) position (or is this all a reading into it?), you have now made a Declaration and it is not the Swirling Atoms of Random Events which is making the determinations, but it arises from an ethical and moral platform, from patterns of ideas, and from thought. To make these declarations you have to base it on something, and there are predicates operative here, too. My own view is that in the Judeo-Christian school of thought one would locate the anti-homosexual position in the same discomfort and rejection of 'luxury' that one notes in Amos:

• Hear this word, you cows of Bashan,
  who are on the mountain of Samaria,
  who oppress the poor, who crush the needy,
  who say to your husbands, ‘Bring, that we may drink!’
  The Lord God has sworn by his holiness
  that, behold, the days are coming upon you,
  when they shall take you away with hooks,
  even the last of you with fishhooks.
  And you shall go out through the breaches,
  each one straight ahead;
  and you shall be cast out into Harmon,”
  declares the Lord.

When one gets to the bottom of it (no punning impositions allowed here boys and girls), and as the pornography culture takes shape, it is a culture that is given over to a 'naturalistic' sensuality that is what is actually being resisted. And when corporate and mercantile interests get behind 'perverse sensuality' the movement becomes 'socially evil'. Then you will see the Presidential Palace lit up with 'pride' colours when the gays win a round in the culture wars.

The communitarian is yet another head dis-ordered and dis-eased in his or her thinking [...] but such folks will not just go about their collected business...all must comply, all must contribute, all must submit.

This is a rather twisted view of things. Adolescent I suppose is the word. The first organisation is found in the family, then the tribe, then the community, then the region, the state, etc.

But as far as my own interest lies: I think we have to turn back to the question of Metaphysical Order. We know there is a natural order, and there are in this sense 'metaphysics of nature' (things flow into certain forms as if determined to do so and the Form determines), but what can we say anything about, and how shall we speak about a metaphysics of human community? Is there a determining force in the Universe to which we have to link ourselves? Or are we 'just inventing it all as we go along' (and doing it badly, haphazardly, spuriously)?

The metaphysical question is still the most important one. And it also has to be said that we discover metaphysics of this sort uniquely within our own persons. They are found in thought, in rationality, in intellection, and in the 'upper reaches' of idea. The one who cannot or won't enter that world remains locked out of the possibility of deciding anything, except that he can become a total refusenik. But his refusal will always be illogical, partial, lopsided ... because it takes ideas of some form or another to resist ideas.

"The last two posts are the best ones on the thread."

HA!

I agree.

"I'd place you Henry along with numerous others...in that camp"

Nope...wrong...I assess and judge plenty....I have a distinctive set of values (mine, sussed out by me in apprehending and assessing the world and me in the world)...what I don't have is the inclination to crow about it all (cuz talk is cheap...any one can say anything...'it is by action alone that character is displayed')...again (as example): if Bruce wants to play at being a woman, that's his business, but he's not a woman and, should we ever have a conversation, he and me, he'll understand quickly that I'm not participating in his dis-ease.

Simply: I mind my own business, I keep my hands to myself, and I expect other folks to do the same. This is the ideal. The reality is there's always gonna be folks who think they know better than me how my living should be ordered; there's always gonna be folks who wanna use me as a resource; there's always gonna be folks who can't or won't leave well enough alone.

Navigate through most of them, self-defend against the rest, get on with things.

Again: a shotgun (along with a god-awful number of shells) goes a long way to safeguarding a body and his head.

#

"To make these declarations you have to base it on something"

Yeah, I thought I was clear in that...the world works in certain, apprehendable, describable, ways...I work hard to see the world 'as is' and then to respond accordingly. If sanity is, as I see it, aligning one's self with the workings of the world; then insanity is not aligning. Bruce, as I see it, is a friggin' nutjob while I am not.

Seems to me the bulk of the seven billion are stark, raving, nutso...it's always been this way and always will be...you lament this while I just accept (and defend againt) it.

There's little I can do about the craziness itself except - again - defend (my head) against it (and help my kid build his own defenses).

#

'communitarians'

Addressed this already, in the post that made you yawn.

My question is: Why the heck do you participate in a philosophy forum if it is all private, personal, distinctive, and if 'talk is cheap'? The purpose of philosophy and philosophising is to hammer things out, to propose thus-and-such and then see how it flies.

The exact same thing as is proposed with religious, ethical and moral reasoning, and the origin of philosophy is in religion.

So, the statement 'I mind my own business', in this light, is silly. If you mind your own business you have no business voicing an opinion on this forum.

Additionally, you imply that the efforts to bring these questions forward is evidence of some sort of 'communitarian' power-trip.

Simply: I mind my own business, I keep my hands to myself, and I expect other folks to do the same.

I see this as a 'false-platform'. When you speak of giving your kid defensive tools you have negated your own position. To have a defensive tool means to have recognised an offence, and to defend against it means to toss up some sort of idea-defense. Today, in our world, there are all manner of different invasions by all manner of different entities (powers & principalities), and why in the heck do you feel that should not be talked about?

It is not your post that caused me to yawn. I was (and still am) coming down off of 48 hours of jungle drugs and profound shamanic initiations into the mysteries of the multiverse so - excuse me - I am still a bit sleepy. For those interested: here. Sing along. You'll feel better.

I'm probably the exception in this crowd, but I'd like to hear about the experience.

"Why the heck do you participate in a philosophy forum if it is all private, personal, distinctive, and if 'talk is cheap'?"

In my younger, more stupid days: I was all about being Grendel in the meadhall...pages and pages and pages of debate and argument.

As an older, less stupid man: I do 'this' out of habit (and cuz I'm a jackass), not cuz I think any of it makes a damned bit of difference.

#

"If you mind your own business you have no business voicing an opinion on this forum."

Sometimes 'no' must be voiced...really, that's all I do 'here' and elsewhere...say 'no'.

#

"Additionally, you imply that the efforts to bring these questions forward is evidence of some sort of 'communitarian' power-trip."

Yep...admit it: you wanna rule rule the world and make every one walk your line...I don't fault you for it...it's a feature of the human psyche...I have the same impulse, but have learned there's no real profit in it...I channel my 'tyrant's' impulse into other things.

#

"why in the heck do you feel that should not be talked about?"

I didn't say that...I said 'I don't have is the inclination to crow about it all'. You, you can discharge yourself as you like...makes me no nevermind. If I pipe up, it's only to say 'no'.

#

"I was (and still am) coming down off of 48 hours of jungle drugs and profound shamanic initiations into the mysteries of the multiverse"

Really? No shit? Peyote and whatnot?

"To have a defensive tool means to have recognised an offence, and to defend against it means to toss up some sort of idea-defense."

Thought I said the same thing up-thread...not seeing how I negated myself.

Henry wrote:In my younger, more stupid days: I was all about being Grendel in the meadhall...pages and pages and pages of debate and argument.
As an older, less stupid man: I do 'this' out of habit (and cuz I'm a jackass), not cuz I think any of it makes a damned bit of difference.

I find these sorts of 'confessions' hard to deal with. Because it is a confession of sorts one feels some restraint in going hard against it, yet because this is a 'philosophy forum' where - supposedly - 'the most important ideas are discussed' (*laughs*), one is duty bound to say all that one can. So here goes ...

As I have said I am interested in 'driving predicates'. Generally, on this forum, I encounter - to put it bluntly - ignorant ding-dongs who have severe problems ordering their thoughts. I could say the same thing in 10 different ways and I could turn it into an enjoyable activity. But I am frankly ashamed for the stupidity, the lack of maturity, the viciousness of the lack of intelligence and the lack of concern for ideas one encounters here. For those responsible for this I have only contempt. I have said it before: Y'all have failed philosophy and y'all are failed and miserable philosophers. If this is philosophy, and if y'all are the representatives of it, we are in a sorry condition at a cultural, social and intellectual level.

And of course this has been my thrust, generally: To speak about how it is that this has come about. To write out in clear prose just what has happened within our own traditions - some of the best that have ever been developed in the world's history - and why it is that a bunch of ignorant, destructive and nay-saying baboons have interposed themselves where they do not belong and carry on their destructive, undermining projects. This is less a personal attack and more a simple requirement to clear the ground, and the air, for the possibility of developing clear and poignant ideas that function personally, familiarly, socially, and culturally. To say that none of this matters or 'makes no difference' is a disgusting and a vile statement from a dis-eased mind. I would attack this product (of the mind) in a dozen different ways and I would ask it to make a careful reanalysis of the disease of thinking that allows for it to pass the moral and ethical censor and to exteriorise itself. I find that this is an easy task, in fact, and does not require that one breathe hard intellectually. It is so basic and such kid stuff that I am surprised you and others don't do it yourselves.

I have a strong sense that you don't really understand what you are saying. Or, the ideas you present are confused and because they are confused they are open to multiple interpretations. You might be saying that as a younger man you had something to say, that you related to things as if they had value and importance. Then, you grew up. Now, you realise that you have no importance in this endeavour. OTOH, you seem to say that as a young man you spouted off too much. You had insufficient platform for your ideas and so it turned out to be a vain affair. Now, grown up, you realise this and so have not much to contribute. But then with the 'it makes [no] damned bit of difference' you reject the possibility of influence, and in a strong sense negate your own effectiveness as a person. But this simply does not wash in this nor in any other category or situation. It is logically untenable. So, with all this murk, you seem (to me) only to reveal a sort of moral and ethical morass.

So again, the purpose - my purpose - is to locate and display the 'driving predicates'. If what I say is true (if my analysis is true or has elements of truth), how is it that this has come about? How is it that you have come to think this way? I do not hold you responsible. Or to put it another way 'you' are just one of hundreds, thousand and millions (possibly billions) of people who have come under the sway of ideas which capture and direct you. These are 'lying narratives' and they are deeply erroneous, tremendously impacting, and expressive of nihilism in action. How has this come about? That is the Million Dollar Question! Ideas Have Consequences. And when you open your mouth and spout out some half-baked 'ideas' out of the swamp of 'thinking' you - and this is so common - reveal exactly and precisely that you are lost.

So much else of what I have been saying on this miserable and infected little forum has - pretty clearly - fallen on deaf ears. So be it. I don't mind. Yet I am strongly convinced that what we see *here* is an outcome of many levels of previous choice. This is the result of abandoning the solidity of ground that had been painstakingly claimed by previous generations. And with this we have to be willing to consider what it means when The Child of the present comes on the scene - the wilful, imposing, naughty child - who seeks to undermine like a termite the structures (and here I mean in thought) that have been established through incredible hard work. This child though feels that he has a right to topple it all, to eat away at those foundations like a termite. And when the structure collapses what then?

The 'structure' is actually The Person and the personality. The individual. In our traditions this is the supreme accomplishment. In order for there to be moral action and ethical choice there must have been established and constructed (if you will) an individual who is capacitated for action in these areas. The mind, the sentiments, the emotions, in awareness, in consciousness. The ignorant shitty child of modernity (for this is exactly what we are speaking about) has no conception about how his own individuality, his own person, has been carved out of chaos and nature and the degree to which he is a creation of Idea. Taking it to the extreme, and putting it in this way has a purpose, the Idea is rather like the Hebrew god. I myself prefer the Greekish philosophical symbolisms, but the point is that Idea enters mans world anaturally. Idea is itself a knife, a poison in a sense, an imposition into the life of nature and also natural man. One comes under the sway of ideas, and in the best case one serves ideas in this world.

But what do you fuckers do?! You become Nay-Sayers. You oppose. You block. You ridicule. You fail dialectic. You fail the whole process. You fail history. You fail 'your fathers'. You fail philosophy. And in the end - of course - you fail what is the most important and valuable in man's religiousness: that is: the total platform of existential relationship to life which is and should be of course one's existential worship. None of this do you understand. Stuff that is so basic, so elemental. This in a nutshell describes most of what happens here on PN, at least in my experience. And the reasons why this has happened can be discovered, clarified, and explained.

On one hand I surprise myself with the intensity of my 'complaint'. I think at times I should edit out the 'offensive' stuff and tone things down. Then I think that, no, that is exactly what I should not do. So there you have it ...

Jeez, but you post so much and say so little.

You'd coulda saved yourself the time and just said 'Henry, you're a moron'.

See how simple, direct, clarfied that is?

You could take lessons from Inglorious...he's much better at it than you.

*shrug*

A 2x4 across the side of the head is neither more or less effective than well put-together thoughts.

I learned from watching a PBS program how the brain works and why atheism works the way it does: there is a disconnect between the rational and emotional or 'feeling' aspects of the brain--the brain simply cannot function properly without the emotions. The decision-making process is impaired without the feelings and suppressing the feelings weakens the will. The rational mind can train the emotional mind, but it cannot dominate it. But for hundreds of years, we in the West have taught that the rationalizing mind should be the the superior or dominant force and that we have to suppress our feelings to reason properly. It's a lie.