Pagan morality

[iambiguous]

You were worried that mountains and mountains of copy-pasted 'stuff' that others have written would disappear?
FFS. No words...

Let's just pretend she's not even here, okay?


Actually, I was concerned only that my own reaction to the articles would be gone forever. And, in fact, over the years that has happened time and again...the MSN and yahoo philosophy groups, ephilosopher, the dc philo cafe etc, etc, etc.

Only my posts from the Ponderer's Guild forum -- https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/pondere ... arlour-f9/ -- are still within reach.

And I'm not even sure it's the same forum. For example, where's the quote from Cicero at the top: “There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it."

In fact, let's include that here.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, the only real problem would be linking yourself to your Facebook at a philosophy forum. One asks why... what's more dangerous about giving personal info on a forum than on Facebook. Facebook is populated by relatively normal people. A philosophy forum, on the other hand, will have a higher number of nuts on account of the nature of the forum and philosophy in general. Now add to this the scarcity of attractive females at that forum; the ones that are attractive now stick out. If Veg, Veg, and Veg weren't so ugly, the forum hotties wouldn't cause such a stir in the male members. It's all simple anthropology, mates.

It's great you can admit that you are stirred. Poor Iamb cannot manage to admit this.

[Iwannaplato]

Seemingly [to me] to have imploded into another whole other frame of mind.

Imploded?
At most, without reading the whole context, it seems like a person changing their mind about something.

And, sure, if that's enough for some here to dismiss my own concern that this turn-around might be something a bit more than that, fine.

Concern? Why talk about someone you are supposedly concerned about to a third party and call it an implosion. Someone makes a decision and you give it a dramatic and negative label in gossip in front of the person you are concerned about. You may well have been concerned, but it's a terrible way to show it.

I hope that's all it is myself. Again, however, it struck "me" as rather abrupt...strange.

Yeah, more supportive gossip about someone you are concerned about.

Besides, we're philosophers. And it's not our job to just shrug off minds being changed but, from time to time, to probe more deeply into what might have precipitated that decision.

Gossipy speculation to third parties isn't probing. You labelled and now are calling her decision strange.

Consider that speculating that she imploded and is acting strangely might not be the best way to show concern for someone, let alone to probe as a philosopher. Pejorative labelling isn't exploring or trying to understand.

[Iwannaplato]

Come on, when any number of posters here insist that others miss their point, what they often really mean is that others refuse to agree with their own point.

Objectivists I call them.

What they often really mean? So, you get to mind read while calling other people objectivists. You know what they really mean.

At least with Maia, she is more than willing to acknowledge that, although she believes what she does about nature and Pagans and morality, it's embodied in an Intrinsic Self that "I" myself no longer have access to.

But which you are convinced persists until death.

As for accelafine and her ilk here, I'm sticking with this particular rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion:

Indeed, what, in my opinion, is always most intriguing about these at times "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators is not what they argue but the way they bully those who dare not to share their own insufferable dogmas.

Accelefine can certainly be utterly bluntly judgmental and harsh and is certainly objectivist. On the other hand, there is nothing slimy about it. It is direct blunt.

Implying, expressing incredulity in 'questions' and other passive-aggressive approaches to judging people morally and psychologically - your approach, is just a different style.

Like, for example, if accelafine is vegetarian taxidermy, she did with Maia on another thread.

Wouldn't shock me, but that doesn't mean she's off about what's happening around Maia.

So, perhaps, someday she might finally confront whatever or whoever turned her into this Satyrean caricature. Something has clearly pissed her off in life. Something that brings her into places like this in order to vent. And to accumulate scapegoats.

Her style is not your style, but in the end we know from both of you who you consider the enemy and who you consider the main problems. She's blunt and harsh, your indirect mostly, imply your judgments, make dislaimers, sometimes, not always, and despite your belief in the affects of dasein and the biases this creates are happy to assert what you think is really going on in other minds, when even a cursory mulling on your part would lead to considering how well your sense of what is going on in other minds is convenient for you.

Accelefine: you're an asshole.
Iambiguous: [implies or states the other person is an asshole in some meandering text, then at the end, often, though not always, adds, but I might be wrong. A weird get out of jail free card in Iamb's mind] This indirectness and passive-agressive approach couple with the disclaimer is supposed to somehow negate that you are doing the same thing without being honest about it.

And yeah, back on point. I thought is was creepy you're concerned negative speculations about Maia. Could be just social clumsiness. Could be other things.

[accelafine]

Imploded?
At most, without reading the whole context, it seems like a person changing their mind about something.

And, sure, if that's enough for some here to dismiss my own concern that this turn-around might be something a bit more than that, fine.

Concern? Why talk about someone you are supposedly concerned about to a third party and call it an implosion. Someone makes a decision and you give it a dramatic and negative label in gossip in front of the person you are concerned about. You may well have been concerned, but it's a terrible way to show it.

I hope that's all it is myself. Again, however, it struck "me" as rather abrupt...strange.

Yeah, more supportive gossip about someone you are concerned about.

Besides, we're philosophers. And it's not our job to just shrug off minds being changed but, from time to time, to probe more deeply into what might have precipitated that decision.

Gossipy speculation to third parties isn't probing. You labelled and now are calling her decision strange.

Consider that speculating that she imploded and is acting strangely might not be the best way to show concern for someone, let alone to probe as a philosopher. Pejorative labelling isn't exploring or trying to understand.

Could you correct your 'quote'? You keep 'quoting' me for something that the loon iambiguous wrote. It's really not hard to fix. All you have to do is replace my user name with his. It makes a nonsense of all of these interactions regarding his ridiculous 'imploding' claim regarding Maia.

[Iwannaplato]

Could you correct your 'quote'? You keep 'quoting' me for something that the loon iambiguous wrote. It's really not hard to fix. All you have to do is replace my user name with his. It makes a nonsense of all of these interactions regarding his ridiculous 'imploding' claim regarding Maia.

Apologies. I corrected it in the first post. I don't see me quoting you in this last one. If there are others let me know. EDIT: found it in another post of mine, fixed.

[iambiguous]

Well, the only real problem would be linking yourself to your Facebook at a philosophy forum. One asks why... what's more dangerous about giving personal info on a forum than on Facebook. Facebook is populated by relatively normal people. A philosophy forum, on the other hand, will have a higher number of nuts on account of the nature of the forum and philosophy in general. Now add to this the scarcity of attractive females at that forum; the ones that are attractive now stick out. If Veg, Veg, and Veg weren't so ugly, the forum hotties wouldn't cause such a stir in the male members. It's all simple anthropology, mates.

It's great you can admit that you are stirred. Poor Iamb cannot manage to admit this.

Actually, what stirs -- fascinates, intrigues -- me most about Maia is the fact that this is the first time I have ever exchanged posts with someone who is not only blind but was born blind. How on Earth does someone who comes into the world born blind come to understand the world around her...a world she has never seen? How might that [existentially] give her a frame of mind I can only perhaps come closer to understanding.

Then the part where she seems to accept my argument regarding dasein in the is/ought world but is in possession of an Intrinsic Self that enables her to transcend my own fractured and fragmented assessment of conflicting goods.

Finally, the part where she is committed to Paganism and then makes a 7-year commitment to celibacy. And she brought this up in our exchange, not me. Now, admittedly, I don't know all that can possibly be known about Pagans. But I have always connected the dots here between them [and Wiccans] to Dionysus, myself

Now, I have my own conjectures regarding why this might be the case. And maybe Maia will go there one day or maybe not. Or maybe she will post something here tomorrow to the effect that I am completely full of shit and have completely missed her point.

But then given the manner in which I construe human interaction in the is/ought world, "failures to communicate" are something that i expect to unfold in regard to things such as this.



But, sure, if, once again, on yet another thread, you feel compelled to go after me -- to expose me, to make me the issue itself -- fine, it's a free country

At least until Monday, January 20th, 2025.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, the only real problem would be linking yourself to your Facebook at a philosophy forum. One asks why... what's more dangerous about giving personal info on a forum than on Facebook. Facebook is populated by relatively normal people. A philosophy forum, on the other hand, will have a higher number of nuts on account of the nature of the forum and philosophy in general. Now add to this the scarcity of attractive females at that forum; the ones that are attractive now stick out. If Veg, Veg, and Veg weren't so ugly, the forum hotties wouldn't cause such a stir in the male members. It's all simple anthropology, mates.

It's great you can admit that you are stirred. Poor Iamb cannot manage to admit this.

Actually, what stirs -- fascinates, intrigues

I don't feel any attachment to what your motives are. And what you explain as your interest, what draws you to the interaction, may well be it. My comment to prometheus and much earlier in the thread about him to you, is actually to point out that the quasi alliance you have with each other at times doesn't really fit your positions. So, I probe that. You have issues with people making an issue of you, rather than the issues you raise. But when P makes and issue of Maia and in pretty sexist ways, if potentially in part tongue in cheek, this doesn't bother you. Sometimes people don't want to rock the boat of quasi-alliances, so they ignore behavior they are very critical of in others they do not have an alliance with. So, I pushed on that.

In a previous post you spoke about how fascinating it would be to focus on why accelefine is the way she is and interacts as she does here. You seem to miss that suggesting that is more interesting topic, is suggesting that focusing on accelefine and a person, rather than her positions would be interesting. And then also your thoughts about Maia's behavior being a sign of implosion and strange is also a focus on her as a person, not on her positions. In fact you entire enterprise in relation to objectivists has always included a focus on their psychology and what you think is really going on for them. And if people are critical of the way you interact, this also leads to you focusing on their psychology as you see it. You don't seem aware that you focus on the person also and make them the issue and not just as an exception.

-- me most about Maia is the fact that this is the first time I have ever exchanged posts with someone who is not only blind but was born blind. How on Earth does was someone who comes into the world born blind come to understand the world around her...a world she has never seen? How might that [existentially] give her a frame of mind I can only perhaps come closer to understanding.

Yes, that's a fascinating topic.

Then the part where she seems to accept my argument regarding dasein in the is/ought world but is in possession of an Intrinsic Self that enables her to transcend my own fractured and fragmented assessment of conflicting goods.

Well, I've explained my reaction to this over the years: you tend to treat your position as the default. This is how one should (not morally but constituionally) be fractured and fragmented if one acknowledges dasein. It is putting the onus on the other, explain why you are not like me, when perhaps your way of dealing and reactions are unique to you as a person or depend on a particular set of experiences combined with any innate temperment.

It is as if when one is not like you one must be in denial, when your own belief system should allow for a wider range of possible reasons for diversity. Someone with neglectful parenting, for example, would be much more likely to experience being fractured and fragmented for a variety of reasons. (by the way that was not a shot at you or a guess, I have no reason to believe that was your experience. I am just mentioning that dasein itself can lead to very different reactions to the same understandings or beliefs).

Now, I have my own conjectures regarding why this might be the case. And maybe Maia will go there one day or maybe not. Or maybe she will post something here tomorrow to the effect that I am completely full of shit and have completely missed her point.

It sounds like a lot of focus on the person and why they are the way they are.

But then given the manner in which I construe human interaction in the is/ought world, "failures to communicate" are something that i expect to

But, sure, if, once again, on yet another thread, you feel compelled to go after me -- to expose me, to make me the issue itself -- fine, it's a free country

It sure seems that you are not quite aware of how you are interacting with others and how the focus on the person is fundamental in your approach to discussion. It often starts out general, aimed, say at objectivists, but once a specific interaction starts, the focus on the person comes in. But, heck, this has been pointed out before. But the irony of it in this post of yours is on the extreme end.

[iambiguous]

As for accelafine and her ilk here, I'm sticking with this particular rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion:

Indeed, what, in my opinion, is always most intriguing about these at times "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators is not what they argue but the way they bully those who dare not to share their own insufferable dogmas.

Accelefine can certainly be utterly bluntly judgmental and harsh and is certainly objectivist. On the other hand, there is nothing slimy about it. It is direct blunt.

Please note instances where in your view I am being "slimy" here.

And there are lots and lots of moral, political and spiritual objectivists here who specialize in being particularly blunt. In other words, they make it quite clear that if you don't share their own dogmas [slimy or otherwise] you disserve whatever caustic, callous, cutting and corrosive calumnies they spew out at you like so many gobs of spit.

Or, rather, so it seems here and now to me.

Like, for example, if accelafine is vegetarian taxidermy, she did with Maia on another thread.

Wouldn't shock me, but that doesn't mean she's off about what's happening around Maia.

Really? And what might that be?

[promethean75]

"It's great you can admit that you are stirred. Poor Iamb cannot manage to admit this."

My philosophy is that when a philosophy hottie is at a forum, the male philosophers should immediately begin flirting with her so they can all get that out of the way. If they don't, all exchanges with the philosophy hottie will be baised with overly courteous behavior designed to win her affections, and philosophers can't afford to do that. We have to remain objective and resist the lure of the sirens lest we crash into a fuckin rock or bottom the boat out. That being the case, male philosophers should step forward and announce in no uncertain terms that, indeed, they are taken by the beauty and grace of the philosophy hottie and that if there is going to be any serious discourse, this must be known in advance. The philosophy hottie then establishes her boundaries. Everybody shakes hands, and the company proceeds from there.

Imagine debating with Astro Cat while she's staring at you in that pic like she's about to rip off her shirt, break out a leather whip, and put some Norwegian djent on. If you think there is even the slightest chance you could be attractive to this... machine, everything you say to her is going to have an ulterior purpose of either impressing her or complimenting her. Only after you've discovered you have no chance can you let her have it in debate and go ham on her if you need to.

[iambiguous]

Well, the only real problem would be linking yourself to your Facebook at a philosophy forum. One asks why... what's more dangerous about giving personal info on a forum than on Facebook. Facebook is populated by relatively normal people. A philosophy forum, on the other hand, will have a higher number of nuts on account of the nature of the forum and philosophy in general. Now add to this the scarcity of attractive females at that forum; the ones that are attractive now stick out. If Veg, Veg, and Veg weren't so ugly, the forum hotties wouldn't cause such a stir in the male members. It's all simple anthropology, mates.

It's great you can admit that you are stirred. Poor Iamb cannot manage to admit this.

Actually, what stirs -- fascinates, intrigues

I don't feel any attachment to what your motives are.

Whatever that means? Because I don't have a clue myself regarding what this has to do with my posts on this thread.

And the irony is the only reason our exchange is now unfolding is because out of the blue you revivied this thread yourself. Why? Are there things about Maia that stir you?

Even here, however, I have my own suspicions regarding why you did that.

And what you explain as your interest, what draws you to the interaction, may well be it.

No, it is it. On the other hand, don't give up on me, okay? Maybe someday I will finally begin to grasp that you actually do know me better here than I know myself.

My comment to prometheus and much earlier in the thread about him to you, is actually to point out that the quasi alliance you have with each other at times doesn't really fit your positions. So, I probe that.

To the best of my knowledge, I don't have a quasi-alliance with anyone here. Well, whatever that actually means, of course. And I am only interested in exploring with Maia the things we have discussed above and elsewhere. All the rest is your own agenda, not mine.

Just out of curiosity, what is your agenda with Maia? Do you have one?

You have issues with people making an issue of you, rather than the issues you raise. But when P makes and issue of Maia and in pretty sexist ways, if potentially in part tongue in cheek, this doesn't bother you.

That's him, not me. So take it up with him, okay?

Sometimes people don't want to rock the boat of quasi-alliances, so they ignore behavior they are very critical of in others they do not have an alliance with. So, I pushed on that.

This is just more of the same. You "get me" in a way you feel is important to convey to others. Hell, for all I know, you might actually believe it yourself.

It's been years since I sustained personas with others in order to explore issues in a more "scripted" manner. And even then, it was the philosophy that motivated me, not making fools of others. Besides, in my view, any number of objectivists among us are far, far more adept at making fools out of themselves.

In a previous post you spoke about how fascinating it would be to focus on why accelefine is the way she is and interacts as she does here. You seem to miss that suggesting that is more interesting topic, is suggesting that focusing on accelefine and a person, rather than her positions would be interesting.

Again, if this is what you need to convince yourself is true about me, that's your agenda not mine.

The rest [to me] is just more of the same. In fact, by and large, my main interest here is still in exploring why you react to me as you do. After all, you're no accelefine, right? But the more you do so the more it just reinforces my suspicion that this all revolves around your own concern that my point of view here is beginning to sink in more and more. It's the "fractured and fragmented" self that most perturbs folks, of course.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

As for this...

And then also your thoughts about Maia's behavior being a sign of implosion and strange is also a focus on her as a person, not on her positions. In fact you entire enterprise in relation to objectivists has always included a focus on their psychology and what you think is really going on for them. And if people are critical of the way you interact, this also leads to you focusing on their psychology as you see it. You don't seem aware that you focus on the person also and make them the issue and not just as an exception.

...it's basically just more obscure psychobabble to me.

[promethean75]

Oh also the psychologist in me has developed rescue fantasies in case study 'Maia'. Two things especially perturb me. That dickhead she was dating who cracked jokes about her to his pals when he thought she couldn't hear him, and that godforsaken daily grind of hers. The drudgery of waiting on old people all day in a dayroom that smells like moth balls and Bengay while the same Barry Manilow track list plays over and over and over again. Then, after this soft nightmare is finally over, she's off to her flat to sit alone and listen to audio books until bedtime.

In fact, I'm happy she's got guys like Biggs and Turd (the golden one) and Urwrong talking to her. The attention is good, and it occupies her.

[accelafine]

Oh also the psychologist in me has developed rescue fantasies in case study 'Maia'. Two things especially perturb me. That dickhead she was dating who cracked jokes about her to his pals when he thought she couldn't hear him, and that godforsaken daily grind of hers. The drudgery of waiting on old people all day in a dayroom that smells like moth balls and Bengay while the same Barry Manilow track list plays over and over and over again. Then, after this soft nightmare is finally over, she's off to her flat to sit alone and listen to audio books until bedtime.

In fact, I'm happy she's got guys like Biggs and Turd (the golden one) and Urwrong talking to her. The attention is good, and it occupies her.

That's so unbelievably patronising. From what I've gathered she has an amazing full life. Travelling the world and doing all kinds of interesting things. And a lot of people love care work. I'm sure her life is a lot more stimulating and interesting than yours, sitting in your basement playing digital drums.
It won't be long before you are changing your own mother's nappies. I hear that aged care costs a fortune in the US. You never know, you might find that you actually enjoy it

[accelafine]

Well, the only real problem would be linking yourself to your Facebook at a philosophy forum. One asks why... what's more dangerous about giving personal info on a forum than on Facebook. Facebook is populated by relatively normal people. A philosophy forum, on the other hand, will have a higher number of nuts on account of the nature of the forum and philosophy in general. Now add to this the scarcity of attractive females at that forum; the ones that are attractive now stick out. If Veg, Veg, and Veg weren't so ugly, the forum hotties wouldn't cause such a stir in the male members. It's all simple anthropology, mates.

It's great you can admit that you are stirred. Poor Iamb cannot manage to admit this.

Actually, what stirs -- fascinates, intrigues

I don't feel any attachment to what your motives are.

Whatever that means? Because I don't have a clue myself regarding what this has to do with my posts on this thread.

And the irony is the only reason our exchange is now unfolding is because out of the blue you revivied this thread yourself. Why? Are there things about Maia that stir you?

Even here, however, I have my own suspicions regarding why you did that.

And what you explain as your interest, what draws you to the interaction, may well be it.

No, it is it. On the other hand, don't give up on me, okay? Maybe someday I will finally begin to grasp that you actually do know me better here than I know myself.

My comment to prometheus and much earlier in the thread about him to you, is actually to point out that the quasi alliance you have with each other at times doesn't really fit your positions. So, I probe that.

To the best of my knowledge, I don't have a quasi-alliance with anyone here. Well, whatever that actually means, of course. And I am only interested in exploring with Maia the things we have discussed above and elsewhere. All the rest is your own agenda, not mine.

Just out of curiosity, what is your agenda with Maia? Do you have one?

You have issues with people making an issue of you, rather than the issues you raise. But when P makes and issue of Maia and in pretty sexist ways, if potentially in part tongue in cheek, this doesn't bother you.

That's him, not me. So take it up with him, okay?

Sometimes people don't want to rock the boat of quasi-alliances, so they ignore behavior they are very critical of in others they do not have an alliance with. So, I pushed on that.

This is just more of the same. You "get me" in a way you feel is important to convey to others. Hell, for all I know, you might actually believe it yourself.

It's been years since I sustained personas with others in order to explore issues in a more "scripted" manner. And even then, it was the philosophy that motivated me, not making fools of others. Besides, in my view, any number of objectivists among us are far, far more adept at making fools out of themselves.

In a previous post you spoke about how fascinating it would be to focus on why accelefine is the way she is and interacts as she does here. You seem to miss that suggesting that is more interesting topic, is suggesting that focusing on accelefine and a person, rather than her positions would be interesting.

Again, if this is what you need to convince yourself is true about me, that's your agenda not mine.

The rest [to me] is just more of the same. In fact, by and large, my main interest here is still in exploring why you react to me as you do. After all, you're no accelefine, right? But the more you do so the more it just reinforces my suspicion that this all revolves around your own concern that my point of view here is beginning to sink in more and more. It's the "fractured and fragmented" self that most perturbs folks, of course.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

As for this...

And then also your thoughts about Maia's behavior being a sign of implosion and strange is also a focus on her as a person, not on her positions. In fact you entire enterprise in relation to objectivists has always included a focus on their psychology and what you think is really going on for them. And if people are critical of the way you interact, this also leads to you focusing on their psychology as you see it. You don't seem aware that you focus on the person also and make them the issue and not just as an exception.

...it's basically just more obscure psychobabble to me.

Actually he's spot on. You are just too clueless and lacking in self-awareness to see it (or you choose not to). 'Pig-headed' is what my dear grandmother used to call people like that.

[Walker]

And let's not forget the farce I've made of walker's quote thread.

You know, I had forgotten. How could I forget such a use of energy and private-tenacity that you displayed!

Kings allowed Jesters for this very reason of amusement. Noticing the avalanche prompted no need to stand under the debris. What your view of your defined farcical clown-show revealed was that, while quotations may prompt philosophical thought, this is not their proper use, given our limited time as we are.

Quotations should not be laid out there cold and isolate, out of context, in a thread all by themselves. That is so … pedestrian, or perhaps one could say, elementary. The proper use of a quotation’s meaning is to incorporate that meaning into an insight that correlates with what one notices.

For example, I recently noticed an affinity with Ayn Rand in the world and on the forum, so I took the bother to quote a whole page of her insights, as a commentary on both what’s happening now, and also the Spirit of Individualism which is becoming more of an ideal in corporate-think. However, Individualism is a fundamental value in the fabric of the United States, seeing as how it was woven during frontier times when self-reliance was a virtue.

There now. You have been noticed, Farcicalist.