Page 27 of 53

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 2:14 pm
by Alexis Jacobi
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 1:50 pm But we need to look at this more completely. Objectivism would not just include Nazis, but also most of the people who fought them. It would include most pacifists. Most people running charities for the poor or literacy programs. And, really, it's probably best if I don't try to guess what most readers would consider the most ironic example, they can find their own.
Good point. It is true.

(In Ortega y Gasset's book The Revolt of the Masses, his position is that Liberal society is, perhaps, one of the most exalted but also difficult to maintain and fragile creations. He regards it as a supreme attainment.

(But 'mass man' through Fascism and Communism militates against this 'subtle creation'.

(Nazism, Fascism and Bolshevism are examples of degraded objectivism, according to O y G and, of course, to those more stable voices who wish to uphold a liberalism and a Liberal culture.

(And how else could we see and interpret the Vietnam War except as a degraded objectivism in a giant geo-political power-game? And what about the recent *forever wars*? And now a general resistance to what is taking shape in Ukraine?)

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 2:15 pm
by henry quirk
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 1:35 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 12:33 pm *You use the term in a far more reduced way. Upbringing, social training, what we are introduced to and what we are not, social rules, ideas about right & wrong behavior that derive from our *context* (Christian and now post-Christian Europe). [/i]).


Which could easily be replaced by *'experience' ....or, *'nurture' in the sense it is contrasted with 'nature.' Simple, common English words.
*It seems to me, dasein, to iam, means far more: he believes the individual is nuthin' more than the product of experience. Swap out experiences: you'd have a new man. He's said as much, multiple times, across multiple threads.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 2:25 pm
by Iwannaplato
Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 2:03 pm Really good points here, if I do say so myself in my existentially rooted in dasein opinion, or in other words in my opinion.
I don't see why we should take it as objective that you have that opinion and not another. I myself am fractured and fragmented about which opinions I have on all issues. Are you sure you're not misrepresenting yourself? I think you are in denial about how confused you are about knowing what your own opinions are.

(Edit: this of course was playing but also, I think it is important to notice what people are skeptical of and what they are not. There are all sorts of good reasons one could easily become torn with doubt about if one could know one's own opinions. Much cognitive science research and I am sure we've seen people who didn't know themselves particularly well as far as we could tell.)

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 2:26 pm
by Flannel Jesus
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 2:15 pm
*It seems to me, dasein, to iam, means far more: he believes the individual is nuthin' more than the product of experience. Swap out experiences: you'd have a new man. He's said as much, multiple times, across multiple threads.
Which is reasonable to think and, occasionally, say, but

* Not in every single post and comment you make lol, and

* Applying the word "dasein" to that concept is just torturing your perspective readers, because I have not seen any evidence that that's how the term has been used, ever, by anybody other that iam.

In fact as far as I can tell, not too many people not named Heidegger seem to have a complete grasp on what he meant by it. And the people who do seem to understand what Heidegger meant seem to believe that what he meant shifted, drastically, multiple times throughout his philosophical career.

It is a term which inherently confuses more than clarifies. As far as I can tell.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 2:30 pm
by Iwannaplato
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 2:15 pm *It seems to me, dasein, to iam, means far more: he believes the individual is nuthin' more than the product of experience. Swap out experiences: you'd have a new man. He's said as much, multiple times, across multiple threads.
Well, if you press the issue, he will admit that nature plays and issue: he often, then, mentions genes. And yes, he does think that experience can remake any of us. But that's his position on the power of experience which he calls dasein. He does tend to emphasize those parts of experience that fall under culture. But it would be bizzarre to think that getting shot, or being disrespected for years for being overweight, and so on, wouldn't affect many people's politics, sense of what humans are like, views on crimes, positions on empathy in ethics and so on.

So, again: yes he has a very strong position on what experience can do. But that's what he's referring to when he uses dasein.

He also tends to emphasize the formal types of experience, like indoctrination (a pejorative term). But again, we learn from all experiences and not just where people are consciously and in words sending ideas at us.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 4:21 pm
by iambiguous
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:44 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:19 pm Now you're talking!
But oddly, not once did you address the main point of that post: that the focus on this thread is beliefs. Objectivists are people who think their political, philosophical or spiritual beliefs are correct and are not fractured and fragmented about them. Beliefs.

The main point of my post was that actions are an even better sense of objectivism and the effects of dasein.
Well of course they are!

After all, only in acting on what you believe is morally objective are there actual consequences. Remember Adolph Hitler?

Now his own "general description intellectual contraption" example:
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:44 pmFor example, if someone repeatedly from a diverse set of people over long periods of time in different contexts was criticized for the same things, that person might consider him or herself an objectivist about they way they behave. Upon realizing how impervious to another perspective on their behavior they are.

When they notice that their behavior cannot be accurately questioned in their own mind.

That instead the produce some mindreading countertheory and no serious self-questioning takes place.

An objectivist about their own behavior can't be fractured and fragmented about their own behavior, for example, online.

And the really odd thing is behavior based on dasein influenced objectivism is not seen as problematic as long as beliefs are presented as possibly wrong.

But, you'd know some of this if you...well, you did read my post. Or you responded to it anyway.
What particular behaviors in what particular contexts producing what particular consequences. Generating what particular reactions from others?

How are philosophers to assess either the behaviors themselves or the reactions by others to them? How is this not a manifestation...the embodiment...of dasein as I construe it above?

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 4:35 pm
by iambiguous
Right on cue, Satyr posted these long, long, long screeds about me and his precious "my way or the highway"...definitions.

Only he can't contain his contempt for someone [me] who has made a fool out of him over and over again:
Satyr wrote:To consider having a conversation - debate - with a coward, hypocrite, ****, like Karen Mary Land, one would have to begin with definitions of terminology. Then with justifications for these definitions.
Then ask the bitch which ethical laws will be the standard and why them and not others?
If, for example, the **** claims that morals are manmade, then let her define what morals mean, and who invented them.
Now, again, what would intrigue me are those like AJ who generally share his reactionary political prejudices, going there, becoming a "user" and exchanging posts with him. The part where someone refuses to agree with everything he says in regard to the things most important to him. How long before they too are "disappeared".

**** is the C word. Here if you use it in a post it becomes ****.


Edit:

Now, as for defining morals, the dictionary works for me:

1] a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
"the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"
2] a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

And of course human berings invented morality. After all, unlike with all of the other animal species that interact entirely as a result of biological imperatives, our species are inundated with historical and cultural and experiential memes embedded in all of the different and conflicting ways that it can be deemed rational to interact socially, politically and economically.

Now all we need is a particular context in which to explore our own respective moral philosophies. Satyr there. Me here.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 4:48 pm
by iambiguous
Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 3:23 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 8:23 pm
Agent Smith wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 5:54 pm Dasein is basically

1. Nazism
2. Marxism
3. Pyrrhonism
4. Augstunianism
Note to Neo:

He did take the blue pill, right?
:mrgreen:

It really didn't matter now did it?
Or he could be colorblind.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 5:31 pm
by iambiguous
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 6:34 am
iambiguous wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 12:18 am Call it that if it works for you but from my point of view it simply revolves around extrapolating from all of the many, many, many experiences I have had with objectivists over the years. And a few of them who have PMd or emailed me in noting how my own rooted existentially in dasein arguments had begun to disturb them. This and recalling my own past. My own crumbling objectivist Self.
What you are doing here is explaining why you believe you can mindread on this issue. I already knew you had your own reasons. That's missing the point.
There you go again. I don't believe that I can read minds. I merely extrapolate from past experiences. But, no, my explanation is not good enough. I'm still a mind reader.

Then straight back up into the intellectual clouds...
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 6:34 amYou're not fractured and fragmented when it comes to some issues, such as here when you could just as easily have other interpretations and be fractured in relation to those and the one you focus on. You don't doubt yourself when it comes to the issues I raised. Suddenly there is no fracturing and fragmenting. And I am sure you are aware of confirmation bias and how this could be skewing the way you interpret things, especially about those people who didn't send you PMs that others may or may not have sent you.

But no, around mindreading, not fractured and fragmented. About your behavior here, not fractured and fragmented. And the choice between really a rather lot of smart people saying the same things in different forums in different decades and what your mindreading tells you, leaves you, yes, unfractured and unfragmented.
What I did above was to focus in on a particular context. The WHCD. The distinction I make here in regard to being fractured and fragmented.

Well, how about you? I asked if you were or were not fractured and fragmented regarding both...the existence of the dinner itself and your own political reaction to it.
If my speculations here don't apply to you, fine. And then, perhaps, given a particular context, you will kindly explain to me how, if you are an atheist yourself, you have managed to avoid being fractured and fragmented in the is/ought world. Any particular secular Ism do it for you?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 6:34 amNo, that's not how this works.
1) my point was not that you SHOULDN'T be fractured and fragmented. My point was that on certain topics, ones that could easily be interpreted a few ways, you are not fractured and fragmented at all.
2) Had I asserted something else, it's still not my onus to demonstrate why I lack a certain trait just because you have it. And frankly this is yet another area you are not fractured and fragmented, for some reason.
Note to others:

You tell me why he refuses to take his own moral philosophy to the WHCD? Or to any other context in which there are conflicting goods. What is he not fractured and fragmented regarding and what prompts him to be more ambivalent, drawn and quartered, uncertain regarding.

Again, the difference between the fact of abortion as a medical procedure and in regard to a particular abortion where the objective truth is applicable to all of us, and the fiercely contentious reactions to it as a moral issue.

Instead, up onto the skyhooks...
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 6:34 amThere could by personal and psychological issues involved in why you feel fractured and fragmented. There could be dasein-related issues involved of other kinds. There could be experiences related issues that make you confident, if not certain, that other people ought to be (in either moral or causal terms) fractured and fragmented. You don't seem to practically consider that possible. You are fractured and fragmented about that.
Then in Stooge mode...
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 6:34 amSo, occasionally you take credit for driving people to mental states that you mindread them as having. Yes, you qualify this with phrases like 'in my opinion', but you are clealy not fractured and fragmented about your mind reading. Even though you know that there could be psychological benefits for you. IOW it is a way of presenting yourself - ad hom - as superior to them/their arguments.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 8:56 pmWhich 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.
All I can do is to note again the distinction I make between not being fractured and fragmented regarding the existence of the White House Correspondence Dinner and being so in regard to my political reaction to it.
Nope, forget about that. Forget about Mary aborting Jane. Forget about henry and his bazookas...

The "serious philosopher" returns...
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 6:34 amYes, I understand that that is something you are not fractured and fragmented around. That's clear from, I don't know how many posts.

What I am pointing out is that you have another area you have other areas you are not fractured and fragmented about:

1) your mindreading conclusions - even when you have skin in the game regarding those conclusions
2) your sense that if anyone is not fractured and fragmented, you have faced the truth or the inablity we have to answer certain questions, better than they have.

Actions show objectivism even better than what people say are their beliefs.

This post, like most of yours, treats any post as if it somehow requires justification related to and was actually directly about what you want to ask everyone.

Again, you've gotten very similar feedback, including from people who you consider intelligent for over a decade now. And yet, never have I seen you express the slightest sign of being fractured and fragmented in relation to your interpretation of what is happening.

You always put forward the idea that this is about their psychology. No wrestling. No being torn.

What does that behavior remind you of in the category of people you are always criticizing?
Complete hogwash from my frame of mind. I'm even fractured and fragmented regarding whether this exchange itself is but an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

But the fact remains that if we do have free will there are things in our lives we can all agree are true. That, in fact, can be demonstrated to be true for all of us. And then the things we are always arguing about. Some embrace the WHCD and look forward to it, others scoff at it for various reasons. Some embrace the right to choose an abortion or own a bazooka and others do not.

I contend that in a No God world these value judgments are rooted existentially in dasein more so than in anything that ethicists are able to "think up" using the tools of philosophy.

Given a particular set of circumstances.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 6:34 amBut I'm backing away, again. Because I just don't see any open consideration of what I write actually being taken seriously. If it's so clear to you that me and all the others who have raised similar criticisms about you must be wrong and you most like can read their minds about what is 'really' going on. Well, fine. Live like that.
Right, the plain English speaking serious philosopher is backing away from me...again.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 5:52 pm
by iambiguous
Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 8:33 am
iambiguous wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 2:19 am
Magnus Stooge wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 2:05 am You might be physically old, but mentally, you're a child. Seriously, what kind of response is that? Are you a teletubby? Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Lala, Biggy.
Note to others:

I challenge him to note an issue relating to his own sense of identity pertaining to a conflicting good that most here will be familiar with.

Then in either a straight up civil and intelligent discussion or huffing and puffing [or, as with gib, both] we can explore our respective moral philosophies.


In fact, I challenge FJ, AJ and iwanna to the same thing.
You think you're capable of maintaining a civil and intelligent discussion? Well, let's agree on a dispute resolution officer then and begin. The dispute resolution officer will be able to determine if and when one of us has broken civility. He'll do so with a quote and an explanation so it's perfectly clear where it happened.

I put forth iwaanaplato as the dispute resolution officer, if he wishes to be. Is that okay with you or do you have someone else in mind? (Edit) Plato is out. I'm not sure who else could do it. I'm not doing it without a mediator because I'm not doing it without someone keeping you accountable.
Come on, just choose the issue and the set of circumstances surrounding it. Then we can compare and contrast our respective moral philosophies. As they pertain to our respective understanding of acquiring a "sense of self" in the is/ought world.

Others here following the exchange can then note instances of uncivil points being posted.

Or you keep me accountable.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 6:05 pm
by iambiguous
Magnus Anderson wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 2:56 am
iambiguous wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 2:39 amI'm nothing at all like another ecmandu
Sort of. Both of you fail to understand that noone takes anything you say seriously. Everytone knows that the two of you are incapable of having a proper conversation. And yet, both of you continue "challenging" people to a debate. The only difference is that Ecmandu is a bit more honorable in that he asks for a formal debate whereas you don't. It doesn't work, Biggy. Noone is on your side. Noone will be on your side. Everyone knows you're a clown. And those who don't will see it for themselves in no time.
This is all in your head. Anyone who follows ecmandu over at ILP knows that he is always making these fantastic claims that are nothing short of preposterous. He has personally spoken to God and the Devil and the Buddha for example.

Again, choose an issue and a set of circumstances. Agree to sustain a civil exchange. Then you and I can explore each other's moral philosophies. On this thread as they pertain to our own understanding of identity in turn. The Self in the either/or world and in the world of conflicting moral and political value judgments. In either a God or a No God world.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 7:07 pm
by iambiguous
iambiguous wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 10:36 pmYou 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.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 12:33 pmWe have, I believe, determined that this term Dasein is not very helpful in your discourse.
We? You and Satyr? And not very helpful [and in what way] to who?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 12:33 pmMy view is Heidegger refers to something more fundamental to our being that we do not notice unless it is pointed out. And once we see *it* we can then begin to think about ourselves (literally our *being* our *existenz*) in a different way.
Look, over and over and over again, I note that, in my view, our individual value judgments regarding things like race and gender and sexual orientation and Jews are rooted existentially in dasein...given the manner in which I understand the meaning of it in the OPs in the two threads above.

I ask those like you to explain why given a particular context my assessment is not applicable to them.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 12:33 pmYou use the term in a far more reduced way. Upbringing, social training, what we are introduced to and what we are not, social rules, ideas about right & wrong behavior that derive from our *context* (Christian and now post-Christian Europe). You reveal your own central conflict quite clearly: you were raised up in a specific Americanism (we can easily gain a picture of the *you* you refer to if we refer to the film Born on the Fourth of July).
Reduced way? Quite the contrary. I would demand of Heidegger that he take his own philosophical assessment of Dasein and note how it is applicable existentially regarding his assessment of and alleged commitment to Hitler and the Nazis. Same with you and your views. What are you able to demonstrate is true objectively about things that others insist you have in fact gotten objectively wrong. And what personal experiences, relationships, information and knowledge predisposed you to one set of prejudices rather than another? Your own rendition of the trajectory I noted in regard to abortion on the thread above.

As for Vietnam, the crucial point there is that because I was born on March 23rd I was drafted. Had I been born the day before or after I might not have been. And that completely beyond my control reality resulted in me being "thrown" over there and meeting soldiers who were able to reconfigure me from a devout Christian conservative to an atheist who embraced Marxism. Oliver Stone's life predisposed him existentially to film Platoon and Born. Both deemed by many to be a criticism of US involvement there.

But, okay Mr. Serious Philosopher, Mr. Ethicist, Mr. Political Scientist, was the US involvement in Vietnam objectively rational or irrational, objectively moral or immoral? Leaving aside the fact that the US military botched it and couldn't get the job done, was the war itself justified?

Was the Holocaust justified? Well, ask the Nazis. Is raping and killing a child justified? Well, ask the sociopath.

But in a No God world, where are the definitive deontological arguments able to establish definitively given any context what is in fact rational and virtuous.

Are in fact white Northern European men and women "on average" intellectually superior to black, brown and red people? And if existentially you believe this, what is to be done about that in the best of all possible communities. How close to or far away from the Nazis are your views here? Or Satyr's?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 12:33 pmBut back to Heidegger:
In other words, back up into the "serious philosopher's" intellectual clouds.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 12:33 pmSo, as 'the world worlds (to world as verb) so we too *us-es* (as in *to do ourselves*: I us, you us, we us, they us, he us-es). We are stuck in thisAdditionally, the issue of existenz being so much the problem that it is for us. And within the problem of 'being' (having this existence, having been thrust into it) we are problematic to ourselves. I might refer to a saying from another tradition: We are like fish trying to ride bicycles. And to pretend that this is 'normal'. We try to carry it off but, if we really examine it, we are uniquely unqualified.
Given what particular context construed existentially from what particular point of view out in what particular world?

Oh, though, right...
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 12:33 pmYou’re on Earth. There’s no cure for that.
That's seems to be objectively true for all of us.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 7:28 pm
by iambiguous
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 1:35 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 12:33 pm You use the term in a far more reduced way. Upbringing, social training, what we are introduced to and what we are not, social rules, ideas about right & wrong behavior that derive from our *context* (Christian and now post-Christian Europe). [/i]).


Which could easily be replaced by 'experience' ....or, 'nurture' in the sense it is contrasted with 'nature.' Simple, common English words.
Right, like the simple common German words Heidegger used in Being and Time.

Again, I use the word dasein because I liked the way Heidegger used it to describe the manner in which we are thrown fortuitously at birth out into a particular world. Beyond our control. Being there and not someplace else. Being here or there now and not at some other point in time historically.

So, how does that universal fact impact us in terms of the lives we live? Well, it results in our being indoctrinated as children to understand the world around us in at times very, very different ways. And it results in particular personal experiences as adults that are also profoundly -- problematically -- predicated on what can be the very, very different worlds we are thrown into.

Then we invented philosophy. That way we could take all of this into account and still come up deontologically with obligatory behaviors if we wished to be thought of as rational and virtuous.

So, how's that working out for you?

Given a particular context, for example.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 7:46 pm
by iambiguous
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 1:41 pm Master Satyr, the Seer who, like the Oracle of Delphi, sees to the core, has sent forth some things, let's examine them:
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.
This makes sense to me. And it is clear that it must be seen in a much larger context and certainly not just referring to Iambiguous. It is true that the constructs of our 'cultural certainties' get shattered, have gotten shattered, but the postmodern strategy, though it seems coherent, though it seems a 'proper response', can do nothing for us. And thus, and I have said this, Iambiguous not only constructs a 'pit' but describes the pit that he is in. (See Kafka The Burrow). He describes what happened to him and where he resides.

A sustaining value system, indeed an *interpretive model* about Nation, about self, certainly about God and the false-idea of God standing behind a nation's objectives -- all of this crashed and burned. Like castles made of sand.

In no sense am I unsympathetic, in no sense do I dismiss these processes (the breakdown of belief) as invalid. But they must all be brought out into the open.

That is if we are really interested in understanding Our Present.
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.
This is a fair assessment. No countervailing argument, offered by anyone, can get far enough down into the depth of that *pit*. All discourse, all alternative views, but especially any specific decisiveness, any personal value-decisions, are rendered essentially false. One is stuck. One is immobilized. All one can do is scream histrionically about the condition one finds oneself in.

"Show me how it is not so!" and all recommendations, all possibilities are shot down. They were all shot down from the start, before the *conversation* began.
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.
There is some truth in this. It is inevitable that some people, after strongly affecting circumstances, create an personality or an existential position that is immutable. Their *argument*, then, is one designed to cause other people to see in the same way.

The line Resentiment masked as altruistic benevolence I would modify, or in any case elaborate on. If we are talking about war and its effects, in the Ameerican context, we are dealing with a very serious thing. In Vietnam the public saw the war. Thereafter *they* deliberately hide the visuals so people do not know what actually happens.

I would not dismiss Iambiguous' concerns for black, brown, and yellow people (he often returns to this) if only because the Civul Rights Movement has been so central to the experience of a couple of generations. I have no reason not to take his 'benevolence' seriously.

Iambiguous has never really asked me to comment on these things, and because I made mention that race and ethnicity have relevance to all people in the entire world, I rubbed a nerve which is a particularly painful one for him. "How should black brown and red people feel about what you think?" he has said. But he does not want to hear what I might say (and also what people are saying -- like Renaud Camus in France).
Chaos is what she worships.
Chaos is where Iambiguous is situated. His existential position. There, nothing can be constructed because it is the place where everything has fallen down. It is a place of ruin. And so the metaphor of Men Among the Ruins becomes relevant. What happened? How did these things come about? (I mean in the Nation certainly but then in our own souls, apparently).
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.
'Chaos' as a will to attack and take down hierarchy has been an important consideration for me. This attack on established hierarchy (Robert Bork deals on it in his book) is a sort of 'mood' that infected the mind and heart of a generation. They had some good reasons though! The hierarchies of power who 'determine a world' and the way it is run. Unfortunately, there are hierarchies that took centuries to construct. Along comes the 'angry child' and 'the spoiled child' and starts ripping things to shreds.

But what interests me is the psychology of empowered ressentiment. When one turns, in essence, against one's very self. Isn't this what happened, at least in some sense, after WW2? Isn't this what Jonathan Bowden refers to?

The European Grammar of Self-Intolerance?
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.
A pithy comment not without a few barbs! These are contentious ideas given the Culture Wars and 'attacks on masculinity' and 'the patriarchy'. I tie these trends back to self-destructive. self-hating, self-undermining moods and activism. Marxian critique easily becomes an intense militant praxis. Indeed it has. But it literally takes decompression sessions and deprogramming to be able to see what has happened.

In my own little world the entire question of Masculine Authority came to the fore in my family, but I have a more *traditional* wife who can more easily understand these issues. How men define themselves as men, though, is crucial.

The gender dysphoria is not health, not 'good', and reveals a core annihilation of identification in 'real' and 'tangible' categories. See Camille Paglia and her ideas about sexual decadence.
She is a divine bride birthing the coming no-thingness - 'healing the world from its multiplicity and diversity. All must become a social construct....humanity = god....humanity creator of reality.
This points to the inner, psychological domain that has become so powerful in our present. It is like a cresting wave. The self is undermined. One's own culture and nation are undermined. What can one identify with then? Or to whom does one fall victim? Because surely Power will take advantage of the absent self.
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.'
I hear some James Lindsay notes (references to Gnosticism). He goes a bit too far here, in my option. I see the point though. And it is one that could be talked about a good deal.

What Master Satyr is referring to here is much larger than mere Iambiguous though. He is referring to those with power to mold and reform the world and larger structures. There is an intellectually-based movement opposed to these machinations.
'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."
It sure does look like that! So any decision, and value-choice, any exercise of power to take decisions, to make choices as to how children will be educated, in what values, and importantly how men (i.e. in the sense of the masculine) has the rôle of thinking, pondering, discussing, but also choosing -- doing this one is naturally associated with Nazism/slash/Hitler.
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.
There is good material here, topical material.
We'll need a context of course.

Let them mull that over, agree on one and get back to us.

Otherwise, they could not possibly be more alike in projecting to the world as the quintessential Serious Philosopher. I can easily imagine both of them sitting back and imagining others reading what they post and simply marveling at how "erudite" they are.

Still, why won't AJ post there? Again, I suspect, he notes a few things that he would challenge Satyr regarding. And this would risk breaking up their tag team assault on me.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 8:06 pm
by iambiguous
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 2:15 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 1:35 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 12:33 pm *You use the term in a far more reduced way. Upbringing, social training, what we are introduced to and what we are not, social rules, ideas about right & wrong behavior that derive from our *context* (Christian and now post-Christian Europe). [/i]).


Which could easily be replaced by *'experience' ....or, *'nurture' in the sense it is contrasted with 'nature.' Simple, common English words.
*It seems to me, dasein, to iam, means far more: he believes the individual is nuthin' more than the product of experience. Swap out experiences: you'd have a new man. He's said as much, multiple times, across multiple threads.
No, it revolves around the points I make on these two threads:

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

And what I then do is to ask the moral objectivists/political idealists among us, given a moral conflagration that is important to them, to explain how the points I raise there is not applicable to them.

And to those who are not religious, I ask them to note how, in a No God world, they manage to keep from becoming fractured and fragmented.

Usually by embracing one or another deontological philosophy or one or another political ideology or one or another assessment of Nature.

And then I note how many folks out there...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...also believe in what is analogous to a One True Path.

Just not the one that you are on.

So, what seems reasonable to me...that people embrace One True Paths given the psychology of objectivism...never seems that way at all to them.

To a Path finder, they all insist that, "no, mine really is the one true path."