Dasein/dasein

[iambiguous]

See, this part sounds a lot like dasein, to iam, means...the individual is nuthin' more than the product of experience. Swap out experiences: you'd have a new man

No, it means that given all of the different worlds that any particular individual might fortuitously be born and raised in historically, culturally and experientially, their experiences [as children and as adults] can be vastly different from others. Such that what they come to believe about things like abortion and guns and transgender folks can be widely divergent in turn. But then those who follow their own "dictates of Reason and Nature" ...

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


...convince themselves that only their own path is the One True Path.

In fact, in my view, that's what the God world folks and the deontological philosophers do...swap out the "rooted existentially in dasein" man for the man said to be "one of us". The good guys, the smart guys.

Now, taking that into account, henry, read the two OPs again.

I did. This...

Can I know objectively who I am?

No, I don't think so.

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

...still seems, to me, just an awfully wordy way of sayin' the individual is nuthin' more than the product of experience. Swap out experiences: you'd have a new man.

Then we're stuck. We can leave it to others to decide for themselves the extent to which you do have a clue regarding my points above.

And this...

given all of the different worlds that any particular individual might fortuitously be born and raised in historically, culturally and experientially, their experiences [as children and as adults] can be vastly different from others. Such that what they come to believe about things like abortion and guns and transgender folks can be widely divergent in turn.

...doesn't help to change my mind.

Right.

But at least we still agree that given new information and knowledge both of us might change our minds about what we do believe.

And maybe someday you will get around to noting all of the "important things" that others have managed already to convince you to change your mind about. Like I did. Acknowledging that if you were wrong about "important things" in the past you may well be wrong about them here and now.

Please think some more about that, okay, Mr. Wiggle?

No, henry, it's not a self-delusion. It's a recognition that in regard to things like abortion and guns and human sexuality, those on both sides are able to make arguments that the other side is not able to just make go away. Their points are reasonable given conflicting sets of assumptions regarding the "human condition":

...our own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective reactions to things like capitalism vs. socialism, big government vs. small government, I vs. we, genes vs. memes, religion vs. atheism, idealism vs pragmatism, might makes right vs. right makes might vs. democracy and the rules of law.

I'm sorry, i can't conclude that you see it otherwise.

Okay, whatever that means. All I know is it has nothing to do with a substantive response to the point I'm making. Though, sure, let's allow others to make up their own minds about that too.

Seems to me, you don't actually believe there is a real you to sync up with. And how would that work anyway? what would you be syncing up with your real you? Your false you?

in dozens and dozens of ways there is a real me: my age, my height, my weight, my residence, my past experiences, the people around me, the things I do from day to day, the world of nature. The either/or world.

In other words: I am a product, a kludge. These facts comprise me, these facts aren't about me.

Note to others:

Over and again: what does a "response" like this have to do with the points I am raising? Often times he will post my words without even making a reference to what he posted before that prompted them! He leaves himself entirely out of the exchange!!

But in regard to my value judgments what is the real me?

As I say: you don't actually believe there is a real you; the real you is just a construct. And how can you view yourself otherwise? You lean toward determinism, lean toward the idea man is a meat machine. It makes perfect sense you'd see yourself as a product and nuthin' more. Question is: why don't you just commit to the position you seem to find most plausible (determinism/materialism)?

Again, I note all of the many, many, many things about myself in the either/or world that are as objectively real to me as they are to you and to others. But still I "actually" don't believe it at all. At least in your head I don't. And even my assumptions regarding determinism are no less fractured and fragmented. The free will folks have their own set of reasonable arguments given their own sets of assumptions regarding the human condition. It's the compatibilists reconciling determinism with moral responsibility that escapes my grasp.

What I keep waiting for is you explaining to me how in regard to abortion and guns and transgender politics your own value judgments are not derived existentially from dasein but instead from "following the dictates of Reason and Nature" ultimately connected to God.

Given the points I raise in the OPs above? What is your real me there?

We did this already. My responses disappointed you. I kept rejectin' your assumptions (indoctrination, conformity, proselytization, jihad).

Note to others:

Think back to what you believe he has posted that comes the closest to him encompassing his own value judgments such that they have little or nothing to do with how I acquired mine given, in particular, the OP from this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

To wit:

I wish he would note his own existential trajectory over the years. As I did above. The personal experiences he had, the people he knew, the stuff he read, etc., contributing to his own set of political prejudices.

To the extent I found, find, it necessary: I've done, do, that. I'm not, however, fractured, so I suffer no compulsion to lay out for inspection my facts (which are about me, but are not me).

And, once again, let's both agree to let others here decide for themselves regarding that.

And, if there is one, and it happens to be yours, God.

After all, even you can't know for sure if He changed His mind and has come back to us.

[iambiguous]

Note to AJ:

An interesting development at ILP.

Flannel Jesus [our own I assume] is now a moderator over at ILP. And he seems intent on enforcing a ban against huffing and puffing, on ad hominems, and on posts that are little more than personal attacks against others.

He has already banned Satyr for a day or two for doing this.

So, it will be interesting to see how long Satyr can hold out here. On the one hand, ILP brings him a "bigger" audience. But in the past he has never been able to not be banned for going off the deep end against those who do dare not to finally come around to thinking exactly like he does. If only about everything.

Stay tuned.

[henry quirk]

Then we're stuck. We can leave it to others to decide for themselves the extent to which you do have a clue regarding my points above.

Okay. That's always the case, isn't it? I take it as a given others will decide for themselves. Stating it seems unnecessary, just a rhetorical flourish.

Right

Yes.

But at least we still agree that given new information and knowledge both of us might change our minds about what we do believe.

Yes with the proviso (that I assumed was understood) information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. So, not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. Also, that new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just cuz he or his wares are new.

And maybe someday you will get around to noting all of the "important things" that others have managed already to convince you to change your mind about. Like I did. Acknowledging that if you were wrong about "important things" in the past you may well be wrong about them here and now.

As I say: To the extent I found, find, it necessary: I've done, do, that. I'm not, however, fractured, so I suffer no compulsion to lay out for inspection my facts (which are about me, but are not me).

For example...

It's really starting to look to me like the type of free will you believe in isn't necessarily incompatible with determinism at all.

If I were a materialist, you'd be right. My problem then, of course, would be avoiding promissory materialism. But wait! I've already been down that road! I was a materialist and a compatibilist. It was confronting promissory materialism (among other things) that moved me from materialism, compatibilism, and atheism to a kind of dualism/hylomorphism, libertarian free will, and deism.

Please think some more about that, okay, Mr. Wiggle?

Don't call me Mr. Snippet or Mr. Wiggie again. You do: this conversation is over.

Okay, whatever that means.

It means you haven't convinced me you see your dasein as anything other than an individual is nuthin' but a product of experience. You say it doesn't mean that but you keep postin' stuff to the contrary.

All I know is it has nothing to do with a substantive response to the point I'm making.

It does. Your point, in context, is your dasein is sumthin' other than an individual is nuthin' but a product of experience. To that end, you offer passages and selections from the other place and here. Those passages and selections, though, don't, to me, seem to say anything other than an individual is nuthin' but a product of experience.

Over and again: what does a "response" like this have to do with the points I am raising?

Everything. Again: your point, in context, is your dasein is sumthin' other than an individual is nuthin' but a product of experience. To that end, you offer passages and selections from the other place and here. Those passages and selections, though, don't, to me, seem to say anything other than an individual is nuthin' but a product of experience.

Question: what exactly do you believe this conversation , between you and me, is about?

Again, I note all of the many, many, many things about myself in the either/or world that are as objectively real to me as they are to you and to others.

This is what you note: in dozens and dozens of ways there is a real me: my age, my height, my weight, my residence, my past experiences, the people around me, the things I do from day to day, the world of nature.

As I say In other words: I am a product, a kludge. These facts comprise me, these facts aren't about me.

You describe what you are as a body, situated; as reservoir of experiences; as a mechanism. You aren't describing you as a person. The closest you get to that is describing yourself as fractured and whatnot. Obviously, though, I'm having a conversation with a person, not a collection of facts, and no matter how broken you reckon yourself to be, you are coherent and consistent with obvious leanings.

And even my assumptions regarding determinism are no less fractured and fragmented.

And yet you still default to it. It seems you are less fractured about determinism than you are about free will. Why?

It's the compatibilists reconciling determinism with moral responsibility that escapes my grasp.

I agree.

What I keep waiting for is you explaining to me how in regard to abortion and guns and transgender politics your own value judgments are not derived existentially from dasein but instead from "following the dictates of Reason and Nature" ultimately connected to God.

Enough with the following the dictates of Reason and Nature. I never said any of that. You got that from some deism site.

As for explaining: I have, with you and others. Look here, the most recent (I think) example...

I said God created man as a free will with natural rights and man has the capacity to recognize and respect those natural rights. Surely, you see the difference, yeah? Our understanding of natural rights is intuitive. We don't reason natural rights out.

So if our intuition tells us we have a natural right, then we have that natural right?

What if I intuitively feel I have a natural right to sell you into slavery, henry?

I think we danced this dance already...

As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows he is his own. No one has ever truthfully said I ought be property. Now, considering the wide range of biological, psychological, cultural, sociological, societal, philosophical, religious, etc. differences between men and groups of men, it's reasonable to assume over the long haul of history some men or groups of men would have found it natural to be used as commodity or pack animal or food. But no such men or groups of men exist. There's never been a slaver who said or sez as it it right for me to own others, it wouid be right for another to own me. A man may violate another but he never takes his own violation as acceptable or right. This universal could be simply a brute fact, a peculiarity of human biology/neurology, but as it never varies, never goes away, this seems far-fetched to me. You could conceivably breed man to be eyeless or armless; it does not seem to me you could breed away man's innate intuition of self-possession. So, as self-possession is not a biological trait, but it exists, it must be sumthin' other than a function of biology.

You with me so far?

Yes, I am, and I can go along with it, and being an atheist is not an obstacle to my going along with it.

It's universal (everyone lives as though it were true), not material, easily recognizable thru deduction, and immutable. It's part & parcel to free will (causal & creative power), to personhood. That alone makes it objective. But, as I say, it -- the intuition of ownness -- does not seem to me to be a brute fact. Such an immutable, it seems to me, has purpose behind it. Purposefulness/intention, this too is part & parcel to personhood. That is: a Person is responsible for man being a person. Conventionally, this Person is called God.

I agree with, "a Person is responsible for man being a person", but not, " Conventionally, this Person is called God". I think most people mean something else when they talk about God.

But I don't see the problem: Why can't I be both moral and atheist?

I can go along with it, and being an atheist is not an obstacle to my going along with it.

Really? That's surprising cuz I'm talkin' about man's soul and natural rights.

Here, read it again with that in mind...

As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows he is his own. No one has ever truthfully said I ought be property. Now, considering the wide range of biological, psychological, cultural, sociological, societal, philosophical, religious, etc. differences between men and groups of men, it's reasonable to assume over the long haul of history some men or groups of men would have found it natural to be used as commodity or pack animal or food. But no such men or groups of men exist. There's never been a slaver who said or sez as it it right for me to own others, it wouid be right for another to own me. A man may violate another but he never takes his own violation as acceptable or right. This universal could be simply a brute fact, a peculiarity of human biology/neurology, but as it never varies, never goes away, this seems far-fetched to me. You could conceivably breed man to be eyeless or armless; it does not seem to me you could breed away man's innate intuition of self-possession. So, as self-possession is not a biological trait, but it exists, it must be sumthin' other than a function of biology.

I think most people mean something else when they talk about God.

Which is surprising, especially in a philosophy forum.

Why can't I be both moral and atheist?

If you recognize man as ensouled with a natural right to his life, liberty, and property, then I think you can be a moral atheist. The challenge, of course, is where did the soul and the natural rights affixed to it come from? If not the Maker, then...?

No, henry, *I don't believe there are such things as souls and natural rights, just as you don't seem to believe there are moral atheists. Still, it's a big world, surely there is enough room for both of us. I hope so, cos **I ain't the one who's gonna leave.

*Then how can you go along with what I posted?

**Me neither.

*Then how can you go along with what I posted?

Okay, I'll stop going along with it if it bothers you.

If morality were an objective fact, all nature would be bound by it. Gravity is an objective fact, we cannot avoid it by refusing to acknowledge it, but we are free to make a choice with morality.

We ignore gravity all the time: it called an airplane.

Okay, I'll stop going along with it if it bothers you.

You'll stop? You never did.

We ignore gravity all the time: it called an airplane.

That isn't ignoring it, it's dealing with it.

That isn't ignoring it, it's dealing with it.

If we could ignore gravity we wouldn't need airplanes.

Nitpickers.

Fine.

We thumb our noses at gravity; in the same way we can thumb our noses at morality.

But: you gotta land eventually.

Nitpickers.

Fine.

We thumb our noses at gravity; in the same way we can thumb our noses at morality.

But: you gotta land eventually.

You are like a dog with a bone, henry, you just can't let go.

I note you chose not to address this...

However, as you like, you can refer to my article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em) thread. Not everything there is evidence, but some pieces are. We can, if you read some of those relevant pieces, discuss them.

Why?

Also: you posited I have a condition. My curiosity is piqued. Do tell me about my condition.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Stay tuned.

Stay tuned? STAY TUNED?? Rather I am put on notice!

Note the the others: I been bad, real bad, but I promise to reform myself. Honest Injun.

[Flannel Jesus]

Then we're stuck. We can leave it to others to decide for themselves the extent to which you do have a clue regarding my points above.

Okay. That's always the case, isn't it? I take it as a given others will decide for themselves. Stating it seems unnecessary, just a rhetorical flourish.

I'll weigh in for fun:

Yes, it seems like Henry has a clue.

[henry quirk]

Then we're stuck. We can leave it to others to decide for themselves the extent to which you do have a clue regarding my points above.

Okay. That's always the case, isn't it? I take it as a given others will decide for themselves. Stating it seems unnecessary, just a rhetorical flourish.

I'll weigh in for fun:

Yes, it seems like Henry has a clue.

I always do: I'm razor-sharp (especially after coffee).

[but not apparently in affixin' my comments to the right quotes...more coffee is needed]

[Alexis Jacobi]

Also: you posited I have a condition. My curiosity is piqued. Do tell me about my condition.

In another thread I was spouting some transcendental tid-bits about our ‘crazed mind’. Sadly, in the midst, I left the sink faucet running and it flooded the kitchen (nothing serious).

When I saw what I quoted, above, I thought Iambiguous had asked the question. That someone said he had a ‘condition’. So, I thought I’d continue with my unsubtle jabs in typical proto-asshole fashion. ¡But lo! You are reacting to something he implied about you!

Sadly, I am thwarted ….

So instead I thought to introduce the Buddhist (also Vedic) notion of the monkey mind.

Isn’t everyone, really, a little batty? I mean if we meditate on our inner dialogue, our self-chatter, our existential angst, our forlorn confusion, and much else?

“Normalcy” is being skilled in pulling off the appearance of balance & control I sometimes think.

Mankind deals with this as an essential condition, no? I mean like Dasein as ‘conditioned human being’.

Monkey mind or mind monkey, from the Chinese compound xīnyuán and the Sino-Japanese compound shin'en 心猿 [lit. "heart-/mind-monkey"], is a Buddhist term meaning "unsettled; restless; capricious; whimsical; fanciful; inconstant; confused; indecisive; uncontrollable". In addition to Buddhist writings, including Chan or Zen, Consciousness-only, Pure Land, and Shingon, this "mind-monkey" psychological metaphor was adopted in Taoism, Neo-Confucianism, poetry, drama, and literature. "Monkey-mind" occurs in two reversible four-character idioms with yima or iba 意馬 [lit. "thought-/will-horse"], most frequently used in Chinese xinyuanyima 心猿意馬 and Japanese ibashin'en 意馬心猿. The "Monkey King" Sun Wukong in the Journey to the West personifies the monkey mind. Note that much of the following summarizes Carr.

[iambiguous]

But at least we still agree that given new information and knowledge both of us might change our minds about what we do believe.

Yes with the proviso (that I assumed was understood) information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. So, not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. Also, that new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just cuz he or his wares are new.

That's not the point. The point is that provided we accept the new information, we might change our mind. That we can't know for sure that down the road this won't happen. Whereas the objectivists among us who are absolutely adamant regarding their own moral and political dogmas [God or No God] never acknowledge that. That's why those who don't think like they do are often mocked as flat out wrong...even morons. Or, for some, are said to be going straight to Hell when they die.

And maybe someday you will get around to noting all of the "important things" that others have managed already to convince you to change your mind about. Like I did. Acknowledging that if you were wrong about "important things" in the past you may well be wrong about them here and now.

As I say: To the extent I found, find, it necessary: I've done, do, that. I'm not, however, fractured, so I suffer no compulsion to lay out for inspection my facts (which are about me, but are not me).

More wiggling. You told me on another thread that you had changed your mind regarding important things in your life. And, as I recall, you cited some vague example. But nothing really specific. And you don't in my view because I suspect that in regard to an issue like abortion or guns or transgender rights, you either never really have changed your mind in the past or you did but don't want to fess up to it because that just reinforces my contention that you are now forced to admit that you might be wrong about something important you believe in now.

Then the part where new experiences or new relationships might be instrumental in changing your mind as well.

Don't call me Mr. Snippet or Mr. Wiggle again. You do: this conversation is over.

Sure, use that as an excuse to avoid really responding substantively to the points I raise. But the fact is I certainly deem that to be what you are doing.

Okay, whatever that means.

It means you haven't convinced me you see your dasein as anything other than an individual is nuthin' but a product of experience. You say it doesn't mean that but you keep postin' stuff to the contrary.

I don't expect to convince you, henry. And that is because you are an objectivist, in my view. You have no doubt invested years in sustaining this "my way or the highway" libertarian mentality. You have posted nothing so far that would lead me to conclude that the "psychology of objectivism" is not what motivates you by and large.

All I know is it has nothing to do with a substantive response to the point I'm making.

It does. Your point, in context, is your dasein is sumthin' other than an individual is nuthin' but a product of experience. To that end, you offer passages and selections from the other place and here. Those passages and selections, though, don't, to me, seem to say anything other than an individual is nuthin' but a product of experience.

All I can do is to come back to this:

No, it means that given all of the different worlds that any particular individual might fortuitously be born and raised in historically, culturally and experientially, their experiences [as children and as adults] can be vastly different from others. Such that what they come to believe about things like abortion and guns and transgender folks can be widely divergent in turn. But then those who follow their own "dictates of Reason and Nature" ...

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

...convince themselves that only their own path is the One True Path.

In fact, in my view, that's what the God world folks and the deontological philosophers do...swap out the "rooted existentially in dasein" man for the man said to be "one of us". The good guys, the smart guys.[/b]

And note the gap between my assessment and yours. To say that all I am arguing above is "an individual is nuthin' but a product of experience" isn't even worthy of a response from me. Merely to point how shallow your own is.

Question: what exactly do you believe this conversation , between you and me, is about?

It's about how you and I construe the existential parameters of human identity in the is/ought world from very different perspectives. You as a run-of-the-mill objectivist to me.

Again, I note all of the many, many, many things about myself in the either/or world that are as objectively real to me as they are to you and to others. But still I "actually" don't believe it at all. At least in your head I don't.

This is what you note: in dozens and dozens of ways there is a real me: my age, my height, my weight, my residence, my past experiences, the people around me, the things I do from day to day, the world of nature.

As I say In other words: I am a product, a kludge. These facts comprise me, these facts aren't about me.

You describe what you are as a body, situated; as reservoir of experiences; as a mechanism. You aren't describing you as a person. The closest you get to that is describing yourself as fractured and whatnot. Obviously, though, I'm having a conversation with a person, not a collection of facts, and no matter how broken you reckon yourself to be, you are coherent and consistent with obvious leanings.

No, I am pointing out the fact that in regard to hundreds and hundreds of variables in my life I am not in the least fractured and fragmented. Then I note the parts rooted existentially in the is/ought world of value judgments where "I" am. And then in my signature threads and in my posts I explain why I think that way.

Then in regard to value judgments of your own I ask you to note why you are not that way.

Then, in my view, you wiggle out of going there and post responses that describe me in a way that is ludicrous to me. I can only remind myself of just how far you are from grasping what I am posting. And I suspect that revolves around you not really wanting to grasp that because, as with so many like you over the years, it begins to sink in: "what if that becomes applicable to me!!"

And even my assumptions regarding determinism are no less fractured and fragmented.

And yet you still default to it. It seems you are less fractured about determinism than you are about free will. Why?

Because of all the arguments I make here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34247

"Here and now" it makes the most sense to me given that human brains are matter. Only those like you have a God, the God to fall back on. If we have free will it's because God intended us to. Your God simply split the scene.

What I keep waiting for is you explaining to me how in regard to abortion and guns and transgender politics your own value judgments are not derived existentially from dasein but instead from "following the dictates of Reason and Nature" ultimately connected to God.

Enough with the following the dictates of Reason and Nature. I never said any of that. You got that from some deism site.

Yes, that's true. But, if you don't follow the dictates of reason and nature in regard to the issues above, what do you follow...unreasonable and unnatural dictates?

I said God created man as a free will with natural rights and man has the capacity to recognize and respect those natural rights. Surely, you see the difference, yeah? Our understanding of natural rights is intuitive. We don't reason natural rights out.

Well, there you go. When confronted with this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

...you bring it back to a God that, once again, to the best of my knowledge, you have no capacity whatsoever to demonstrate the actual existence of. Though not unlike all of these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

And [of course] "natural rights" in regard to abortion and guns and property and the like are what you say they are.

Why do you say it? Well, God provided you with the capacity to grasp things intuitively. You "just know" viscerally, deep down in your gut that what you believe about these things is true. And if those like Harbel, myself and others believe intuitively in something else, then...then what, henry?

As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc.

No, henry, in my view, that is simply preposterous. Even those like gib and magsj and maia who posit their own rendition of this deep down inside intrinsic/spiritual/emotional Self will no doubt differ from you regarding any number of issues. And certainly Deists themselves are all over the board morally and politically.

There are literally millions upon millions of men and women around the globe who intertwine "I" profoundly in one or another "we". Many far more willing to identity with the family or the community than with the so-called "rugged individual" mentality.

And that's before we get to the amoral global capitalists and narcissistic sociopaths who see others only as a means to their own selfish ends.

I note you chose not to address this...

However, as you like, you can refer to my article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em) thread. Not everything there is evidence, but some pieces are. We can, if you read some of those relevant pieces, discuss them.

Why?

What then is the evidence in these pieces? Note this given a particular context and then we'll talk.

As for the "condition" that was mostly tongue in cheek. But there are times when you do post things that are so far removed from the points I am making I sometimes wonder if from time to time you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

[Wizard22]

Daze In.

[ Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle ]

Daze Out.

[iambiguous]

Note to AJ:

An interesting development at ILP.

Flannel Jesus [our own I assume] is now a moderator over at ILP. And he seems intent on enforcing a ban against huffing and puffing, on ad hominems, and on posts that are little more than personal attacks against others.

He has already banned Satyr for a day or two for doing this.

So, it will be interesting to see how long Satyr can hold out here. On the one hand, ILP brings him a "bigger" audience. But in the past he has never been able to not be banned for going off the deep end against those who do dare not to finally come around to thinking exactly like he does. If only about everything.

Stay tuned.

Stay tuned.

Stay tuned? STAY TUNED?? Rather I am put on notice!

Note the the others: I been bad, real bad, but I promise to reform myself. Honest Injun.

Update:

Satyr has basically agreed not to explode into barrages of huffing and puffing and ad homs and personal attacks over at ILP.

Of course, in my view, these days he doesn't have posters like me going after him there. It's mostly those like Ecmandu and meno and Ichthus77.

Still, how long can he last in keeping the "my way or the highway" fulminating fanatic objectivist at bay?

Also, here is what my thread on morality there has been turned into: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... start=1050

The fucking Corner!!!

Oh, by the way, you're up here:

Oh, and what is it about Hannibal Lector that gives him a hardon? Is he, uh, a cannibal too?

This may require a separate thread however I am seriously considering cannibalism as a solution to many many different (but interconnected) woes. The more that I study it — subjectively and objectively — I tend to find it morally defensible.

Even in a no-god world. But also especially.

My point however revolves not around what any particular one of us "here and now" thinks about it, but the fact that reasonable arguments about it can be made both pro and con:

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search

And neither side seems able to rebut the other side's points until one side or the other establishes [philosohically or otherwise] the argument all men and women said to be rational and virtuous are obligated to embrace.

Unless, of course, you are an objectivist here. Then [God or No God] it's either "my way or the highway". You are either one of us [the smart, serious philosophers] or one of them [the morons].

The classic example being Satyr's clique/claque at KT. Only it's that way because those who disagree with him are kicked out of the discussions. Why? Well, for being morons of course.

Then those like me who are "fractured and fragmented". Those who recognize that given the context both sides can make good points and you just can't seem to decide definitively which side is the One True Path.

Then the part where I argue that how one feels about it subjectively seems clearly to be rooted existentially in the life experiences that one has had.

Finally, the recognition that in world awash in contingency, chance and change -- the Benjamin Button Syndrome -- new experiences, new relationships and new information and knowledge may result in you changing your mind.

[henry quirk]

I never understood what monkey mind was supposed to be, or how meditation was supposed to quiet it.

Then I stumbled on a piece about intrusive thoughts. Apparently there are folks who have uncontrollable thoughts, thoughts that disturb them, distract them. As an aside: there are also folks who self-report they have no inner monologue. They think in pictures, for example, but don't talk to themselves. And others who do talk to themselves but perceive this as an inner dialogue, as havin' a conversation, in their head, with some another person (shades of the bicameral mind?).

I find it all very alien to how my head works.

There are folks in-forum -- Roydop comes to mind -- who go to great efforts to describe everyone's thinkin' as uncontrolled and who offer relief in the form of meditation. I pooh-poohed them. But now I see they're just these poor souls plagued by intrusive thoughts who mistakenly think everyone is or must be burdened in the same way(not unlike our resident broken man who can't understand why everyone isn't broken like him).

Anyway...

[iambiguous]

Note to Alexis Jacobi:

I'm still not sure if you are a replicate of him or he is a replicate of you, but if you do ever decide to post at KT and get "disappeared" there as I was, I thought I'd provide you ahead of time with how, rooted existentially in dasein, Satyr rationalizes this:

See f-Jesus why no serious discussion can be had when creepy, insane, infantile people are around?
This is why I closed off KTS.
Place one insane person among a group of normal people and see what happens.
Place children among a group of adults, what happens?
Lowest-common-denominator drags the group down.
Place a cripple among marathon runners and tell them they must finish together....equity, all-inclussion, no child left behind ethical rules, you see....what happens?

See why morals and ethics evovled.....to filter out these unfit mutations, and to regulate them as long as they can survive.
As children and cripples multiply they require more supervision, more care...eventually they outnumber those that can supervise and care for them....and the system collapses.
As the US is, currently.

Diversity is not strenght.

This from the man who above all else demands to be thought of as a "serious philosopher". And, in order to assure that the evil of diversity doesn't sprout like a weed at KT, every single poster there thinks exactly as he does:

They can post new topics in this forum
They can reply to topics in this forum

As for the part about morality, note this:

Morality evolves to impose behavioural limits to individuals - restrict choices by imposing a cost, or adapting to a cost, i.e., negative consequence.
Morality's motive - conscious or unconscious - is a group's welfare and health.

And then when you ask, "given what context?"

For example, incest becomes innately deplorable, immoral, because of the genetic mutations it produces that reduce an individual's fitness, and through its participation in a group, reduces group fitness.
Moral refers to individual behaviours that increase group fitness.
Through group fitness the individual also benefits.

See how his mind works? Sex understood "naturally", "biologically", "genetically" must always revolve around reproduction.

But what of those who practice incest in order to embody feelings of love for each other or in order to provide each other with pleasure...and make sure there is no possibility of a pregnancy. What if the "sexual relations" they have doesn't involve actual copulation at all?

Same with homosexuality. To say that it is not normally the choice of men and women is not the same thing as demonstrating that it is unnatural. How can anything that human beings do, in being a part of nature, be unnatural?

Then the part that revolves around this: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+homo ... s-wiz-serp

No, instead, in my view, Satyr is just like all the rest of us. He lived a particular life and given a unique accumulation of personal experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge, he came to acquire existentially/subjectively a particular political prejudice regarding human sexuality. The part I root in dasein.

Just like you did and I did.

Then the question I always ask you in regard to sex and race and gender and Jews, etc.

If you were in power in any particular community, which behaviors/relationships would be rewarded and which punished? And, if punished, how?

[Agent Smith]

A quick glance at the world suggests, if not proves, dasein is still a long way off for 9 out of 10 humans, but of course we mustn't forget ... 9/10 of the iceberg is underwater ... invisible.

[iambiguous]

A quick glance at the world suggests, if not proves, dasein is still a long way off for 9 out of 10 humans, but of course we mustn't forget ... 9/10 of the iceberg is underwater ... invisible.

Yeah, AJ and Satyr, what about whatever that means?!!

[iambiguous]

Yo, AJ!

Let's continue probing a replicant's mind.

Oh....my.....gld....

Karen is defending incest.

and paedophilia, I am sure.
Necrophilia....bestiality.....

Actually, a long time ago, I had a sexual relationship with my sister and my cousin. I loved them both dearly and never felt in the least that embodying this love physically was unnatural. Quite the contrary. And because we were never foolish enough to engage in actual intercourse it always left me feeling rather wonderful.

As for pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality, nope, never. Here, however, we are talking about children who are simply not mature enough to engage in sexuality. Or the matter of consent.

Still, there are those who, in a No God world, are able to rationalize it. And not just the sociopaths.

My point being that our individual beliefs and behaviors here are rooted existentially in dasein. That philosophers and ethicists are not able to provide us with a deontological assessment of human sexuality. And that those like Satyr simply fall back on their own rooted existentially in dasein assessment of nature. It's always what they say is natural or rational or moral.

Why? Because what is crucial for these objectivists is not what they believe but that what they believe sustains for them the comfort and the consolation of believing in turn that what they believe is what all others who wish to think of themselves as rational and virtuous human beings must believe too. The "one of us" vs. "one of them" mentality.

And, over at KT, or else.

Just take this frame of mind as far as, existentially, it suits you. All the way up to Hitler and the Jews, for example.

Do you se now with what we are dealing?
Degeneracy.

Presto! Don't share his own value judgments? You're a degenerate.

She understood nothing...if the mother/son, father/daughter sexual relationship produces no children....then it is fine.

So, is he basically agreeing that incest that stops short of copulation and pregnancies is biologically, genetically reasonable and moral?

And what of those who disagree? Who insist that any sexual acts at all between family members and close relatives are naturally irrational and immoral?

Did she read the part where morality imposes limits to individual behaviour to inhibit behaviours that decrease a group's survival potentials?
There is the definition, Karen was looking for....but she does not like it.

Sure, if the incest that is sanctioned in a community includes intercourse and pregnancies and an explosion of babies born with birth defects, it would make sense to prohibit it. But even then there will be those who do it anyway. Fuck the community, fuck society. I'll do what it damn well pleases me to do.

Okay, Mr. Philosopher, provide us with a deontological rebuttal to that in a No God world.

And what defintion am I looking for?

Then this part:

Imagine a group where all these sexual fetishes were practiced....how long would the group survive?
How long would it be able to remain competitive when all tis members were screwing one another, aborting foetuses, indulging in hedonism....how long before another group destroyed them?

Exactly. You have to imagine it because when "in reality" is that ever likely to happen? What community on Earth has that ever happened in? Yes, within a community a tiny percentage of the population may engage in these behaviors. But where are the groups of people around the globe large enough to threaten the community/nation as a whole?