Dasein/dasein

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: And arguing [philosophically or otherwise] that some things are good and some things are bad is not nearly the same [to moral nihilists of my ilk] as actually demonstrating how, in regard to issues like abortion, gun control and human sexuality, this is in fact the case.

And yes, over and again, I focus in on what I construe to be the potential dangers of both moral objectivism and moral nihilism. And how, in fact, is human history to date [in a free will world] not but the endless and ongoing embodiment of both mentalities?
Iwannaplato wrote: Well, duh. I don't know where you got the impression I didn't understand you objections and moral antirealists or nihilists in general think those are the same. I mean, seriously, duh. It is amazing how much you find excuses to repeat yourself. You made the case against objectivism/moral realism/etc. all over the place.
Come on, you and I both know there are any number of moral objectivists among us who seem convinced that what they do believe "in their head" about the morality of abortion and guns and human sexuality constitutes all the evidence that is necessary to make it true. Those are the folks my arguments are aimed at.

Look at Harry Baird. He seems convinced that if certain behaviors are repugnant to him that makes them immoral.

With you, it's grappling with how, given an issue like the three above, you either are or are not "fractured and fragmented" as "I" am.

Then this part:

In my view, this is what most perturbs the moral objectivists among us. They are always eager to take on those from the "other side"...those who share their belief in the One True Path regarding abortion and gun control and transgender politics, but...but insist that "it's my path not yours".

What I question is not what they believe so much as how "subjectively, rooted in dasein" they came to acquire their moral and political prejudices given the lives they live out in particular worlds historically, culturally and in terms of their own particular trajectory of "personal experiences". What if their value judgments really are more "existential contraptions" than components of one or another religious script or ideological dogma or deontological philosophy or assessment of nature?
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 amBut you do cast the objectivists as bad. Since you do not share their objectivism you are at the very least not bad like they are. You also cast people who disagree with you in moral terms, all the time, in precisely the ways moral realists do. Shameless, is one example. That's an old moral judgment. Not only has one done something bad, one feels no guilt or shame about it, doubling the badness.
Come on, for decades I was myself an objectivist. Both God and No God. And I certainly did not construe myself to be a bad person then.
Iwannaplato wrote:Right, then you were an objectivist. But since you have become whatever you are now, you judge people just like objectivists do, only the group you consider bad is objectivists.

You are responding as if I said 'You have always considered objectivists bad, even when you were one.'

It is this kind of not really reading or thinking that adds to the waste of time communicating with you. You make up strawmen and half-straw men all the time.
Again and again and again: this is your iambiguous. It is not my own considerably more complex, convoluted -- even contradictory -- understanding of my own motivations and intentions here.

And, truly, if you do believe it is a waste of time communicating with me then try this: stop responding to my posts.

After all, with very, very few exceptions, I only respond to you when you seem convinced it is vital to expose me to others. To explain me to others.

From my own clearly subjective frame of mind you are just another "serious philosopher" intent on keeping the discussions up in the intellectual contraption clouds. Like AJ and Harry. The only time they come down, in my view, is to espouse their own objectivist moral and political dogmas.

And, yes, I do believe that if they were ever able to acquire power in any particular community, they could be quite dangerous to those who refuse to toe their own moral and political line.
On the contrary, I was intent on saving souls and on overthrowing what I construed to be an amoral, exploitative, "show me the money", "me myself and I" ruling class. And while you are certainly entitled to post your own rooted existentially in dasein rendition of me here I'm also permitted to note that I don't recognize your own iambiguous much at all. Though, sure, in polemicist mode I'm likely to post many things that rub others the wrong way. That's what makes the exchange provocative.
Iwannaplato wrote:Obviously I already noticed you don't agree about what others note is problematic about your communication. It's clear in a number of my posts to you. For example, where I point out your not the least fractured and fragmented about this possibility. Again you are writing as if I need to be told you don't agree.
More to the point [mine] is the extent to which "I" construe my own arguments here as problematic. After all, I don't exclude my own point of view from my own assessment of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

Though, again, if you are convinced this is not the case at all and that works for you in "exposing" me to others here, so be it. Post what you will about me.
And, if others want to go there, let them note an issue and a context in order for us to explore our respective moral philosophies at the existential intersection of identity [dasein], value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy [power].
Iwannaplato wrote:More repetition.
Okay, but that still doesn't stop you from going there. A new discussion pertaining to a conflicting good of note, a context, and an exchange between us in which you can substantiate your accusations against me.

And, besides, like I'm the only one here who repeats points. Like every single post from you imparts information and knowledge you have never brought up before.
And the irony is that this moral nihilist is always encouraging others to choose "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the "best of all possible worlds".
Iwannaplato wrote:Well, it's good you realize it's an irony.
Yes, ironic because from the frame of mind that many embrace, a nihilist is often portrayed as a truly dangerous radical, an anarchist on steroids, an anything goes sociopath, a Hitler or a Stalin that sent millions to the grave.

Few associate them with "democracy and the rule of law".
Whereas for any number of moral and political objectivists "democracy and the rule of law" must be replaced with their own rendition of "right makes might". Again, God or No God.
Iwannaplato wrote:And then there are the objectivists, which you are also in part, who think that moderation, negotiation and compromise are objective goods. But they get batched in the category of those who are like Hitler and the Taliban.
No, I merely note that "here and now" I believe that "moderation, negotiation and compromise/democracy and the rule of law" is preferable to "might makes right" and "right makes might".

And that, given human history to date, between the last two, it's a toss-up as to which frame of mind is the most dangerous.

Again, though, we'd have to note a context, and examine all three perspectives politically and legally.

Then ever and always this part:

Though, again, the world is, by and large, ruled by those who own and operate the military industrial complex, Wall Street, K Street, thug regimes like Russia and China and the various theocracies. As Mr. Zimmerman once surmised...

"Democracy don't rule the world
You better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid"
Iwannaplato wrote:And there, precisely is the victimization. Also, sometimes, victimization from others, in the posture of 'one treated badly because others cannot handle the truth.'
That's your me again. And handle what truth?
Iwannaplato wrote: Really? Come on. You don't remember saying that you got to a number of different posters here and elsewhere, that the reason they left was because they faced cognititive dissonance or felt their own inlikings of your fractured and fragmented state.
You have no memory of doing that a good number of times. Whether you're a liar or self-deluded I don't know or care.
A teeny, tiny handful of posters have come over to my frame of mind. A miniscule percentage of the hundreds of objectivists I've encountered over the years going back to The Ponderer's Guild, the Cafe Philo, Yahoo Groups and the very first, Friends of Brainstorm at MSN.

Please note where I seemed to suggest instead that many, many have done what you claim I managed to accomplish and bring about.
iambiguous wrote: Me brave? No way. Above all else [as I have noted before] I want someone to bring me back to the One True Path that leads to immortality and salvation.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 amI'm not asserting you are brave, but rather posing as if you are. When people disagree with you or because of your behavior stop interacting with you, you psychoanalyze these reactions as fear based.
Iwannaplato wrote:I would feel sympathy for you if I truly believed you can't remember doing these things. And they have been pointed out in context by people and it did not lead to the slightest concession on your part.
Again, I don't doubt that "here and now" this is the reality for you "in your head". And, if that allows you to think, "I got him!", fine, so be it. But I'm still allowed to demur.

To wit...
Look, if that's what you need to believe about me, fine. But the bottom line is that there's not much I wouldn't give to bump into someone online actually able to bring me back to one or another One True Path again. Especially if it includes immortality and salvation.
Iwannaplato wrote:Those are not mutually exclusive. One can hallucinate convenient psychological interpretations of why others criticize you or stop communicating with you AND also hope that one of them will bring you out of your existential pain.

So, that was just a BS rationalization.

And you should note that when you deny the possibility of X by pointing at your behavior Y, generally speaking you are assuming X and Y are mutually exclusive. You did this at least twice in this last response. And they are not mutually exclusive. You were an objectivist who did not think you were bad. Later your philosophy changed and, yes, then you started to divide the world into the bad objectivists and yourself. Sometimes having three categories with the nihilists you also consider bad as the third category. No contradiction. I describe your behavior in terms of good guys and bad guys NOW and you explain that this can't be true because you were an objectivist who didn't think he was bad THEN.

After that you explain that you wouldn't psychoanalyze and mindread objectivists and others for being critical of you because you want them to have an answer you would believe in. Again, not mutually exclusive in the least.

You have some basic confusions about what is mutually exclusive.
Again, you'll have to note examples of this. Or engage with me in a new discussion pertaining to value judgments, conflicting goods, dasein, etc.,. And then, given a particular issue/context, one by one you can note all of the things you accuse me of.
Note to others: you tell me what you think this means in regard to me here. It goes way over my head.

No, seriously.

Given a particular issue like abortion, guns and transgender politics, and my own "fractured and fragmented" "I" in the is/ought world, how do you suppose he is describing me here?
Iwannaplato wrote:Get that: 'they cannot face what you have faced.' You have managed to face it, even if it plagues you. They can't. You can. You've been implying for years that you are braver than other people. You can face what they cannot face (and you mindread motives into their reactions to your posting habits based on this hypothesis.
Look, if that's what you need to believe about me, fine. But the bottom line is that there's not much I wouldn't give to bump into someone online actually able to bring me back to one or another One True Path again. Especially if it includes immortality and salvation.

And the beauty of the human condition is that it doesn't even have to be true. I just have to convince myself that it is.
Iwannaplato wrote:Yeah, via words on a screen. Though I will bet that if you look back on how your paradigmatic changes took place they came after real life experiences: wars, abortions, and more chronic, regular experiences where those paradigms just did not seem to fit the world as you experienced it. But here you'll go on hoping that someone's argument will convince you.
Words on a screen, given my current circumstances, are basically all I've got now. And, yes, given truly dramatic experiences in my life and the arguments of others, I have changed my mind about important things over and over and over again. That is my point. To those like Gib with his deep down inside Emotional Self and Maia with her Spiritual Self and MagsJ with her Intrinsic Self, they are able to sustain some measure and comfort and consolation regarding their own value judgments. They can convince themselves that no way will they ever be "fractured and fragmented"!

I'm just curious to explore your own rendition of that.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Atla »

Soo has someone figured a way to explain in a few sentences what dasein means?
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by promethean75 »

in iambiguism the concept 'dasein' is used as a general description of man's existential condition, specifically two aspects of this condition are important; the sheer contingency of your life and existence and the particular and unique characteristics of that life and existence that only u have. it's trajectory, so to speak, which leads u in certain directions, develops u intellectually and leads u to philosophy world view y rather than x.

as a consequence of this, one can neither think of themselves as necessary or in possession of any real objective values or truths (except in logic). one discovers that had they took bro's advice and gone to community college rather than to LA to form a rock band, their whole system of thinking could be different... they could have ended up holding values that they now are passionately opposed to.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by promethean75 »

... and that becuz we are all 'unique and creative nothings' that can make no claim to any objective values, our ultimately meaningless subjective values are de facto in conflict with each other. That's the 'conflicting goods' bit u always hear.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Atla »

promethean75 wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 10:41 pm in iambiguism the concept 'dasein' is used as a general description of man's existential condition, specifically two aspects of this condition are important; the sheer contingency of your life and existence and the particular and unique characteristics of that life and existence that only u have. it's trajectory, so to speak, which leads u in certain directions, develops u intellectually and leads u to philosophy world view y rather than x.

as a consequence of this, one can neither think of themselves as necessary or in possession of any real objective values or truths (except in logic). one discovers that had they took bro's advice and gone to community college rather than to LA to form a rock band, their whole system of thinking could be different... they could have ended up holding values that they now are passionately opposed to.
Thanks, so it's like a blank slate philosophy, where it entirely depends on outside influences, which directions someone's views and sense of being takes?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

HEIDEGGER AND ETHICS:
FROM DASEIN AS BEING-IN-THE-WORLD TO DASEIN AS ETHICAL
Eric Panicco
The aim of this thesis is to show that we can understand Dasein as ethical. In order to do this we first need a reason to think Dasein might be ethical.
How could it not be? Other than in "being there" one is entirely alone. Suppose you are stranded on island and everything revolves around subsisting...surviving. Now, for some, they may believe in God. A relationship between I and Thou is sustained that involves behaving in such a way as to please God. But if one is alone and has no belief in God, ethics is irrelevant. It's all about you and nature. And nature has no moral code.

So, let's call this castaway Mark.

One day, another man -- Michael -- washes up on shore and joins Mark. And that changes everything. Suddenly what Mark does might be questioned by the newcomer Michael. For any number of reasons he might object to what Mark chooses to do. And Mark to what Michael chooses to do.

In other words, when Dasein involves two or more adults together "being there" necessitates "rules of behavior". Ethics some will call this.

And here that might be predicated on might makes right. One or the other castaway is simply stronger, more powerful than the other and gets to dictate the relationship. Or they find out that they both share the same moral code. Right makes might unnecessary. Or they agree to negotiate and compromise in regard to their interactions.

The crucial point is that for each of us "being there" involves a particular set of circumstances. And, in certain respects, those circumstances will go a long way in determining which behaviors are rewarded and which ones are punished.

I merely suggest that, in a No God world, "philosophical ethics" is almost always only applicable "theoretically" up in the intellectual clouds.
Heidegger certainly never gives anything resembling a positive account of ethics. It is extremely rare for him to even bring up ethics.
Of course, that's my point regarding the manner in which Heidegger's Dasein bears little resemblance to my own dasein. My dasein revolves almost entirely around individuals "being there" in a set of circumstances that involve "conflicting goods". The part where I root the "self" existentially out in particular worlds that for each of us can be very, very different. And that in using the tools of philosophy then, "failures to communicate" are the rule as often as the exception. Depending on which collection of moral and political prejudices one accumulates. And how at odds they are with another's.
So then, why should we think that his characterization of Dasein should be ethical? As an initial answer, our interest stems from Dasein as fundamentally engaged in the world.
Here, all I can do is to tap those on the shoulders who have read Being and Time and think they understand Heidegger's "philosophical" assessment of Dasein and ask them if they are willing to "bring it down to Earth" and in particular contexts compare and contrast it with my own rendition of dasein here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by henry quirk »

"you took your own leap of faith to the Deist God here, right?"

Nope.

As I say over in the Christianity thread (6/9/23): 'As I've said across multiple threads (including this one, as I recall), man, any man, every man, any where or when, has an intuitive understanding that his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. In a world overflowing with differing cultures and conflicts, differing environments and adaptive tricks for surviving them, this simple intuitive understanding stands coherently when all mores and laws rise and fall away. If this intuitive understanding were simply a kind of survival trait then one would expect, over the long haul, it would have been bred out of at least some populations. It never has been. Even in societies founded on deference to authority, men still take offense at being used as property. The consistency of this intuitive understanding, even as attempts are made to squelch it, to mebbe breed it out of mankind, has a lot to do with my being a deist. I didn't, as one dumb sob, asserts over and over, 'take a leap of faith'. I deduced from available fact. But, as I've told the dumb sob over and over, I might be wrong. This sense of self-possession, this ownness, this intuitive understanding a man has that his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's may be 'brute fact'. There may be nuthin' (or no one) behind it. If so, if natural rights is simply a kind of deep-seated survival trait, does this negate the universal repugnance we have for murder, rape, slavery, and theft? No, it doesn't. Even an evil man, one who murders, rapes, slaves, or steals, and sez God is a fairy tale, will not consent to being murdered, raped, slaved, or robbed.'

"I do not say that I am a free will."

This is what I posted: 'you do agree that you are a free will, that your life, liberty, and property are yours. You live as though these things are true (becuz they are). You will not disavow and say 'I am a meat machine. My life, liberty, and property are not mine'. You, I believe, want to be meat with no moral claim to yourself; you know this is not possible. You are lost.'

"As for my views on life, liberty and property, I once garnered my convictions from the Christian Bible, then from the Unitarian Church, then from the Howard Roark Objectivists, then from the Marxist-Leninists tomes, then from the works of those like Michael Harrington, then from the existentialists, then from Supannika and the deconstructionists, then from the moral nihilists."

None of that matters. No matter what hoop-dee-doo you once, currently, or will subscribe to, you lived, live, will live as a free will with a natural, inalienable right to your life, liberty, and property (becuz you 'are' and you 'do'). Your view of life, liberty, and property is, no matter what political/ideological/philosophical/social/cultural nonsense you shelter in, the same as mine and everyone else: it's 'your' life, 'your' liberty, and 'your' property and, like everyone else, you take a dim view of being deprived of any of them. Even as you advocate for others to be disarmed, you hold on to your revolver.

"bring anything you'd like from there here"

Okeedoke...

"I note how in regard to guns as property people who once did no wrong with them will find themselves enraged at another or will find their circumstances change or will go off their rocker, etc., and do things that lots and lots of others certainly construe to be wrong."

Yes, you state the obvious over & over. Joe could go crazy; Stan might be overcome by passions. And becuz he 'could', becuz he 'might be', you, and those like you, would penalize both in advance. Guilty till proven innocent. An utterly unreasonable position to hold.

Incidentally, what assurances can you give anyone, come tomorrow you won't go crazy, or be overcome by passions, and take your revolver to work, or the grocery, or a local school and start shootin' co-workers, or fellow shoppers, or kids?

"given the fact that others might some day want to do them harm [for any number of reasons] or that others might get pissed off at them for not thinking or behaving as the objectivists do or that others may well get afflicted with some mental disease and go off their rocker, they think it is quite reasonable to ban the buying and the selling of grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces, RPGs, IEDs, claymore mines, chemical and biological weapons and dirty bombs."

Fear is not a foundation for reasonable actions or policy. Paranoia about what has yet to happen is bugfuck Crazy. Condemning one becuz of the wrong-doing of another is not reasonable.

Incidentally, these folks who would deny me a bazooka: right now, 'today', want to deny you your revolver. As you are sympathetic to their position: when will you divest yourself of your gun?

"Innocent people can find their lives changing enough to become guilty of all sorts of terrible things."

Yes. People can do wrong. When they do: take them to task. When they don't: leave them be. Innocent till proven guilty.

Now, imagine if, in America, these mass murderers [who were themselves once innocent and had done no harm to anyone] did have a legal right to purchase any and all weapons of mass destruction."

Yes, let's imagine a nation of free men and women, each wholly self-responsible, some carrying the seeds of insanity or unbridled passion/berserker rage. I suggest even the probability that some of these folks might go off and cause mass death is not sufficient to deprive all of property or of a particular kind of property. You, on the other hand, like so many folks of your persuasion, say the mere possibility that some may go loopy or give into berserker rage is sufficient to take or deny access to property (even as many of you own firearms or rely on those who do to protect your keisters).

"I could become like some of those mass murderers we read about where it is revealed that they did suffer from one or another mental illness."

Knowing this about yourself: why do you own a gun?

"If fear and paranoia is gripping America in regard to gun violence today..."

It's not. You've been consuming, and are consumed by, a steady diet of garbage and propaganda. Most Americans are not frothy at the mouth, eyes rollin' back in their skulls, over the 'conflagration' (as you might put it). This is becuz there is no 'conflagration' outside the Metropolis. In my own state, Louisiana, the gun violence stats are driven up solely becuz of New Orleans and thereabouts. Take N.O. out of the mix and the numbers drop enormously. Same for Illinois (excise Chicago, the numbers drop); same for New York state (leave off NY city, the numbers drop). Your 'conflagration' is not universal or nation-wide. It afflicts the Metropolis. Why? Could it be city-life is intrinsically degrading to one's state of mind? Could be it be when folks are crammed into such overtly artificial ways of living, they go a little crazy? No, of course not. It's the damned gun's (or bazooka's) fault. Take those away and everything will be hunky-dory. Ape will not kill ape.

"imagine what it would be like if more and more citizens were permitted to arm themselves with far, far, far more deadly weapons?"

The Metropolis, in all its incarnations, would burn more brightly than it does. Outside the Metropolis, not so much.

"there is not a single nation on Earth that I am aware of that permits its citizens to own weapons of mass destruction."

Each of those 'nations' is dominated by The State. The State denies, or tries desperately to deny, individual self-defense. When it wins you get...

Soviet Union 1922-91: 20,000,000 dead.
Nazi Germany 1933-45: 10,500,000 dead.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 1948-present: 2,000,000 dead.
People's Republic of West Taiwan 1949-present: 65,000,000 dead.
Warsaw Pact Nations (Combined) 1955-91: 1,000,000 dead.
Socialist Republic of Vietnam 1975-present: 1,000,000 dead.
Cambodia 1975-79: 3,000,000 dead.
Afghanistan 1978-92: 5,000,000 dead.
Various commie governments in Africa and South America mid 1960's - present: 7,150,000 dead.

114,650,000 people dead from being disarmed by an iteration of The State and having a different opinion from The State. Killed by agents of The State using guns, bombs, bazookas, etc.

1.16 million people per year for the past 99 years.

Compared to 18,252 homicides per year from guns; I think we're better off with keeping the guns (and, mebbe, gettin' our hands on some of them military-grade ordnance to boot).

Of course, I'm strayin' far a'field from my point: a man's life, liberty and property are his, full stop. Until he is proven to have done wrong, no one -- no matter how skeert or well-intentioned -- can morally lay claim to his life, liberty, or property, full stop.

"It's simply mind-boggling those swept up in their arrogant and autocratic "all or nothing" "my way or the highway" moral and political campaigns will allow themselves to become completely oblivious to the consequences of their extremism."

I agree...

Soviet Union 1922-91: 20,000,000 dead.
Nazi Germany 1933-45: 10,500,000 dead.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 1948-present: 2,000,000 dead.
People's Republic of West Taiwan 1949-present: 65,000,000 dead.
Warsaw Pact Nations (Combined) 1955-91: 1,000,000 dead.
Socialist Republic of Vietnam 1975-present: 1,000,000 dead.
Cambodia 1975-79: 3,000,000 dead.
Afghanistan 1978-92: 5,000,000 dead.
Various commie governments in Africa and South America mid 1960's - present: 7,150,000 dead.

114,650,000 people dead from being disarmed by an iteration of The State and having a different opinion from The State. Killed by agents of The State using guns, bombs, bazookas, etc.

1.16 million people per year for the past 99 years.

"all of the points I raised above are simply swept unto the rug as you imagine all of the citizens in your own "best of all possible communities" never, ever going beyond the parameters of this make-believe world in your head."

Your single point (more will de if everyone can have a bazooka) is simply not sufficient to deny everyone property. Hell, you don't even believe it. If you truly did you wouldn't own that revolver ("I could become like some of those mass murderers we read about where it is revealed that they did suffer from one or another mental illness."). Do the right thing, iam...give up the gun...think of the children.

"Come on, henry, what are the odds that in America the government will ever confiscate all guns from all citizens?"

That has nuthin' to do with what I said. Again: 'Incidentally, these folks who would deny me a bazooka: right now, 'today', want to deny you your revolver. As you are sympathetic to their position: when will you divest yourself of your gun?'

So: when will you, by your lights, do the right thing?

Don't wiggle away: answer the question. Climb down offa your intellectual contraption and be in the real world of conflicting goods: if you, by your own admission, cannot be trusted with that revolver, when will you give it up?

I think this conversation cannot move forward until you give up the gun or justify why you ought to keep it.

"Come on, henry, that's not your point and you know it. Your point is that given your own God-given intuitive understanding of life and liberty and property, right and wrong/guilt and innocence revolves entirely around that."

No. My point, in context, is: 'Yes. People can do wrong. When they do: take them to task. When they don't: leave them be. Innocent till proven guilty.'

"it's not my position on guns "here and now" that I focus in on but on how existentially I came to be predisposed to believe what I do in regard to my own particular political prejudice rooted in dasein."

Okay. So how did you existentially come to believe you should own a gun while denying others a gun? Where is your reasonable undergirding for such a position?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by henry quirk »

And let's add this bit of tripe to the mix...

"Here you would have to gather anthropologists, historians, ethicists, sociologists, political scientists, etc., together and pin down exactly what it means, in regard to morality, to speak of "foundational similarities" when it comes to historical and cultural contexts where there were differences [sometimes considerable differences] in and between communities regarding attitudes that pertained more around "I" or "we", around greater or lesser government involvement in the lives of citizens, around cooperation or competition, around capitalist/market political economies or socialist/collectivists political economies, around pragmatism or idealism, around religious or secular practices, around egalitarian philosophies or racist/sexist/classist philosophies, around might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law."

No. You don't need a Blue Ribbon Committee. It's obvious what undergirds and is foundational; what is naturally applicable to every person, any where or when. Even among murderers, slavers, rapists, and thieves as they deny others of life, liberty, and property, each zealously claims his own life, liberty, and property as his own.

All this nonsense about historical/cultural contexts, this hooey about cooperation/competition, this malarky about political economies, this eyewash about pragmatism/idealism & religiosity/secularism, this manure about might & right, this hoopla about democracy/rule of law: all of it is secondary detritus.

First comes 'what is man?' and 'what is permissible between and among men?'

You know the answers. You live the answers.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Note to others...

Is there anything at all that henry posts above in this particular "rooted existentially in dasein" rant that actually has anything to do with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein as it pertains to the value judgments we acquire and then sustain given the life that we actually live.

I skimmed parts of it and could find nothing.

Or -- gasp! -- is the whole point of this "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" harangue to simply remind others that unless they accept his own God-given, intuitive definition and his own God-given intuitive meaning of the words "life, liberty and property", they are quite simply...

IDIOTS!!!








[he picked this mentality up from Satyr]
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Atla »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 9:44 pm the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein as it pertains to the value judgments we acquire and then sustain given the life that we actually live.
What about factors we are more or less born with? Like having various forms of empathy, how strongly these empathies manifest, strength of feelings/emotions, level of intelligence, how strongly self-awareness manifests as an "I", preferred order of cognitive functions (like MBTI etc.), smaller seasonal differences in brain wiring based on birth date, how strongly abstract thinking manifests, etc., and then there are the myriad of minor and major biological brain issues etc.

Two people with different brains can adopt different values, even when given the exact same life, can we even consider so many factors at once and arrive at any definitive answers?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by henry quirk »

iam dissembled and diverted with: " Is there anything at all that henry posts above in this particular "rooted existentially in dasein" rant that actually has anything to do with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein as it pertains to the value judgments we acquire and then sustain given the life that we actually live."

Uh, no.

"Or -- gasp! -- is the whole point of this "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" harangue to simply remind others that unless they accept his own God-given, intuitive definition and his own God-given intuitive meaning of the words "life, liberty and property", they are quite simply...IDIOTS!!!"

Uh, no.

Here, try again...

*

"you took your own leap of faith to the Deist God here, right?"

Nope.

As I say over in the Christianity thread (6/9/23): 'As I've said across multiple threads (including this one, as I recall), man, any man, every man, any where or when, has an intuitive understanding that his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. In a world overflowing with differing cultures and conflicts, differing environments and adaptive tricks for surviving them, this simple intuitive understanding stands coherently when all mores and laws rise and fall away. If this intuitive understanding were simply a kind of survival trait then one would expect, over the long haul, it would have been bred out of at least some populations. It never has been. Even in societies founded on deference to authority, men still take offense at being used as property. The consistency of this intuitive understanding, even as attempts are made to squelch it, to mebbe breed it out of mankind, has a lot to do with my being a deist. I didn't, as one dumb sob, asserts over and over, 'take a leap of faith'. I deduced from available fact. But, as I've told the dumb sob over and over, I might be wrong. This sense of self-possession, this ownness, this intuitive understanding a man has that his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's may be 'brute fact'. There may be nuthin' (or no one) behind it. If so, if natural rights is simply a kind of deep-seated survival trait, does this negate the universal repugnance we have for murder, rape, slavery, and theft? No, it doesn't. Even an evil man, one who murders, rapes, slaves, or steals, and sez God is a fairy tale, will not consent to being murdered, raped, slaved, or robbed.'

"I do not say that I am a free will."

This is what I posted: 'you do agree that you are a free will, that your life, liberty, and property are yours. You live as though these things are true (becuz they are). You will not disavow and say 'I am a meat machine. My life, liberty, and property are not mine'. You, I believe, want to be meat with no moral claim to yourself; you know this is not possible. You are lost.'

"As for my views on life, liberty and property, I once garnered my convictions from the Christian Bible, then from the Unitarian Church, then from the Howard Roark Objectivists, then from the Marxist-Leninists tomes, then from the works of those like Michael Harrington, then from the existentialists, then from Supannika and the deconstructionists, then from the moral nihilists."

None of that matters. No matter what hoop-dee-doo you once, currently, or will subscribe to, you lived, live, will live as a free will with a natural, inalienable right to your life, liberty, and property (becuz you 'are' and you 'do'). Your view of life, liberty, and property is, no matter what political/ideological/philosophical/social/cultural nonsense you shelter in, the same as mine and everyone else: it's 'your' life, 'your' liberty, and 'your' property and, like everyone else, you take a dim view of being deprived of any of them. Even as you advocate for others to be disarmed, you hold on to your revolver.

"bring anything you'd like from there here"

Okeedoke...

"I note how in regard to guns as property people who once did no wrong with them will find themselves enraged at another or will find their circumstances change or will go off their rocker, etc., and do things that lots and lots of others certainly construe to be wrong."

Yes, you state the obvious over & over. Joe could go crazy; Stan might be overcome by passions. And becuz he 'could', becuz he 'might be', you, and those like you, would penalize both in advance. Guilty till proven innocent. An utterly unreasonable position to hold.

Incidentally, what assurances can you give anyone, come tomorrow you won't go crazy, or be overcome by passions, and take your revolver to work, or the grocery, or a local school and start shootin' co-workers, or fellow shoppers, or kids?

"given the fact that others might some day want to do them harm [for any number of reasons] or that others might get pissed off at them for not thinking or behaving as the objectivists do or that others may well get afflicted with some mental disease and go off their rocker, they think it is quite reasonable to ban the buying and the selling of grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces, RPGs, IEDs, claymore mines, chemical and biological weapons and dirty bombs."

Fear is not a foundation for reasonable actions or policy. Paranoia about what has yet to happen is bugfuck Crazy. Condemning one becuz of the wrong-doing of another is not reasonable.

Incidentally, these folks who would deny me a bazooka: right now, 'today', want to deny you your revolver. As you are sympathetic to their position: when will you divest yourself of your gun?

"Innocent people can find their lives changing enough to become guilty of all sorts of terrible things."

Yes. People can do wrong. When they do: take them to task. When they don't: leave them be. Innocent till proven guilty.

Now, imagine if, in America, these mass murderers [who were themselves once innocent and had done no harm to anyone] did have a legal right to purchase any and all weapons of mass destruction."

Yes, let's imagine a nation of free men and women, each wholly self-responsible, some carrying the seeds of insanity or unbridled passion/berserker rage. I suggest even the probability that some of these folks might go off and cause mass death is not sufficient to deprive all of property or of a particular kind of property. You, on the other hand, like so many folks of your persuasion, say the mere possibility that some may go loopy or give into berserker rage is sufficient to take or deny access to property (even as many of you own firearms or rely on those who do to protect your keisters).

"I could become like some of those mass murderers we read about where it is revealed that they did suffer from one or another mental illness."

Knowing this about yourself: why do you own a gun?

"If fear and paranoia is gripping America in regard to gun violence today..."

It's not. You've been consuming, and are consumed by, a steady diet of garbage and propaganda. Most Americans are not frothy at the mouth, eyes rollin' back in their skulls, over the 'conflagration' (as you might put it). This is becuz there is no 'conflagration' outside the Metropolis. In my own state, Louisiana, the gun violence stats are driven up solely becuz of New Orleans and thereabouts. Take N.O. out of the mix and the numbers drop enormously. Same for Illinois (excise Chicago, the numbers drop); same for New York state (leave off NY city, the numbers drop). Your 'conflagration' is not universal or nation-wide. It afflicts the Metropolis. Why? Could it be city-life is intrinsically degrading to one's state of mind? Could be it be when folks are crammed into such overtly artificial ways of living, they go a little crazy? No, of course not. It's the damned gun's (or bazooka's) fault. Take those away and everything will be hunky-dory. Ape will not kill ape.

"imagine what it would be like if more and more citizens were permitted to arm themselves with far, far, far more deadly weapons?"

The Metropolis, in all its incarnations, would burn more brightly than it does. Outside the Metropolis, not so much.

"there is not a single nation on Earth that I am aware of that permits its citizens to own weapons of mass destruction."

Each of those 'nations' is dominated by The State. The State denies, or tries desperately to deny, individual self-defense. When it wins you get...

Soviet Union 1922-91: 20,000,000 dead.
Nazi Germany 1933-45: 10,500,000 dead.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 1948-present: 2,000,000 dead.
People's Republic of West Taiwan 1949-present: 65,000,000 dead.
Warsaw Pact Nations (Combined) 1955-91: 1,000,000 dead.
Socialist Republic of Vietnam 1975-present: 1,000,000 dead.
Cambodia 1975-79: 3,000,000 dead.
Afghanistan 1978-92: 5,000,000 dead.
Various commie governments in Africa and South America mid 1960's - present: 7,150,000 dead.

114,650,000 people dead from being disarmed by an iteration of The State and having a different opinion from The State. Killed by agents of The State using guns, bombs, bazookas, etc.

1.16 million people per year for the past 99 years.

Compared to 18,252 homicides per year from guns; I think we're better off with keeping the guns (and, mebbe, gettin' our hands on some of them military-grade ordnance to boot).

Of course, I'm strayin' far a'field from my point: a man's life, liberty and property are his, full stop. Until he is proven to have done wrong, no one -- no matter how skeert or well-intentioned -- can morally lay claim to his life, liberty, or property, full stop.

"It's simply mind-boggling those swept up in their arrogant and autocratic "all or nothing" "my way or the highway" moral and political campaigns will allow themselves to become completely oblivious to the consequences of their extremism."

I agree...

Soviet Union 1922-91: 20,000,000 dead.
Nazi Germany 1933-45: 10,500,000 dead.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 1948-present: 2,000,000 dead.
People's Republic of West Taiwan 1949-present: 65,000,000 dead.
Warsaw Pact Nations (Combined) 1955-91: 1,000,000 dead.
Socialist Republic of Vietnam 1975-present: 1,000,000 dead.
Cambodia 1975-79: 3,000,000 dead.
Afghanistan 1978-92: 5,000,000 dead.
Various commie governments in Africa and South America mid 1960's - present: 7,150,000 dead.

114,650,000 people dead from being disarmed by an iteration of The State and having a different opinion from The State. Killed by agents of The State using guns, bombs, bazookas, etc.

1.16 million people per year for the past 99 years.

"all of the points I raised above are simply swept unto the rug as you imagine all of the citizens in your own "best of all possible communities" never, ever going beyond the parameters of this make-believe world in your head."

Your single point (more will de if everyone can have a bazooka) is simply not sufficient to deny everyone property. Hell, you don't even believe it. If you truly did you wouldn't own that revolver ("I could become like some of those mass murderers we read about where it is revealed that they did suffer from one or another mental illness."). Do the right thing, iam...give up the gun...think of the children.

"Come on, henry, what are the odds that in America the government will ever confiscate all guns from all citizens?"

That has nuthin' to do with what I said. Again: 'Incidentally, these folks who would deny me a bazooka: right now, 'today', want to deny you your revolver. As you are sympathetic to their position: when will you divest yourself of your gun?'

So: when will you, by your lights, do the right thing?

Don't wiggle away: answer the question. Climb down offa your intellectual contraption and be in the real world of conflicting goods: if you, by your own admission, cannot be trusted with that revolver, when will you give it up?

I think this conversation cannot move forward until you give up the gun or justify why you ought to keep it.

"Come on, henry, that's not your point and you know it. Your point is that given your own God-given intuitive understanding of life and liberty and property, right and wrong/guilt and innocence revolves entirely around that."

No. My point, in context, is: 'Yes. People can do wrong. When they do: take them to task. When they don't: leave them be. Innocent till proven guilty.'

"it's not my position on guns "here and now" that I focus in on but on how existentially I came to be predisposed to believe what I do in regard to my own particular political prejudice rooted in dasein."

Okay. So how did you existentially come to believe you should own a gun while denying others a gun? Where is your reasonable undergirding for such a position?

"Here you would have to gather anthropologists, historians, ethicists, sociologists, political scientists, etc., together and pin down exactly what it means, in regard to morality, to speak of "foundational similarities" when it comes to historical and cultural contexts where there were differences [sometimes considerable differences] in and between communities regarding attitudes that pertained more around "I" or "we", around greater or lesser government involvement in the lives of citizens, around cooperation or competition, around capitalist/market political economies or socialist/collectivists political economies, around pragmatism or idealism, around religious or secular practices, around egalitarian philosophies or racist/sexist/classist philosophies, around might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law."

No. You don't need a Blue Ribbon Committee. It's obvious what undergirds and is foundational; what is naturally applicable to every person, any where or when. Even among murderers, slavers, rapists, and thieves as they deny others of life, liberty, and property, each zealously claims his own life, liberty, and property as his own.

All this nonsense about historical/cultural contexts, this hooey about cooperation/competition, this malarky about political economies, this eyewash about pragmatism/idealism & religiosity/secularism, this manure about might & right, this hoopla about democracy/rule of law: all of it is secondary detritus.

First comes 'what is man?' and 'what is permissible between and among men?'

You know the answers. You live the answers.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by henry quirk »

iam,

We both know you won't address the bulk of my post above.

So, how about just answerin' the question...

How did you existentially come to believe you should own a gun while denying others a gun? Where is your reasonable undergirding for such a position?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

HEIDEGGER AND ETHICS:
FROM DASEIN AS BEING-IN-THE-WORLD TO DASEIN AS ETHICAL
Eric Panicco
As an initial answer, our interest stems from Dasein as fundamentally engaged in the world.
And thus Martin Heidegger is often construed to be an existentialist. Which is to say that, in being "engaged in the world", it is not a world connected inherently or necessarily to one or another God, or one or another ontological/teleological/deontological font into which individuals are expected to subsume, among other things, meaning and purpose.

In other words, "existence is prior to essence" and each of us make our own way from the cradle to the grave out in particular worlds that, while shaping and molding us, will do so only up to a point. Beyond that we are on our own in framing and fashioning our Self in what for some existentialists is an essentially meaningless -- and even absurd -- world.
For Heidegger, being-in-the-world is the fundamental way in which Dasein is related to the world: And even though Being-in-the-world is something of which one has pre-phenomenological experience and acquaintance, it becomes invisible if one interprets it in a way which is ontologically inappropriate…
Whatever, for all practical purposes, that means?

Dasein becomes the embodiment of the "ontic" self. A self that has no access to such things as religious fonts or Platonic forms. Just the manner in which each of us is indoctrinated as children and then come to interact with others in a considerably more existential space/time continuum.

As for one "ha[ving] pre-phenomenological experience and acquaintance" and "becoming invisible if one interprets it in a way which is ontologically inappropriate...". you tell me how that is applicable to your own life.
For what is more obvious than that a ‘subject’ is related to an ‘object’ and vice versa? This ‘subject-object-relationship’ must be presupposed. But while this presupposition is unimpeachable in its facticity, this makes it indeed a baleful one, if its ontological necessity and especially its ontological meaning are to be left in the dark.
Again and again: what particular subject in relationship to what particular object? And the relationship is certainly presupposed in that each of us as individual subjects come into contact over and over again with actual objects out in a particular world. Like, for example, the subject Martin Heidegger came into contact with an object -- a book -- entitled Mein Kampf. And came into contact with an objective entity called the National Socialist German Workers' Party...and became a member in 1933.

As for how any of this is "baleful" or the extent to which "its ontological necessity and especially its ontological meaning are to be left in the dark", you tell me.
It will be argued that this subject-object dichotomy is at least not necessary for ethics. If this is not required of ethics, then it is possible that Dasein can be understood ethically. This, though, only constitutes a way in which Dasein is different from traditional approaches to ethics. It does not answer why we should have reason to think Dasein is ethical; however, it is important to that answer.
Nope, not my dasein. These "technical" arguments may well be over my head, but from my frame of mind everything revolves around the extent to which any particular individual subject reacts to any particular object like book or a political party given the existential prejudices that he or she acquires that revolve around these objects actually being around given the life that he or she lives.

And with my dasein, as soon as a subject chooses to interact with others, rules of behaviors invariably become necessary because people come to want and need different things in different contexts.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Atla wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 7:41 pm
iambiguous wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 9:44 pm the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein as it pertains to the value judgments we acquire and then sustain given the life that we actually live.
What about factors we are more or less born with? Like having various forms of empathy, how strongly these empathies manifest, strength of feelings/emotions, level of intelligence, how strongly self-awareness manifests as an "I", preferred order of cognitive functions (like MBTI etc.), smaller seasonal differences in brain wiring based on birth date, how strongly abstract thinking manifests, etc., and then there are the myriad of minor and major biological brain issues etc.

Two people with different brains can adopt different values, even when given the exact same life, can we even consider so many factors at once and arrive at any definitive answers?
Yes, we all come into the world hard-wired genetically to empathize. As well as to differentiate in many ways between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys]. As a "social species", we spend much of our lives intertwined with others in nuclear and extended families, in communities. And we all come into the world able to think and feel.

Then that age-old debate revolving around the extent to which our behaviors are indeed the embodiment of "biological imperatives". For those like Satyr and his ilk here -- https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora -- that clearly encompasses such things as race and ethnicity and gender and human sexuality and Jews and other political value judgments.

Then those who focus more on "memes". Yes, we come into the world hard-wired genetically, they say, but down through the ages historically and across the globe culturally and in terms of our individual experiences, that has come to be manifested socially, politically and economically in many, many very different and conflicting ways.

My point then is that where each of us draws the line here is rooted existentially in dasein; whereas the objectivists of Satyr's and henry quirk's ilk insist that only where they draw the line reflects the most rational [and often virtuous] thinking and feeling.

Then the part where I acknowledge that my own frame of mind is not excluded from my own frame of mind in the OPs here...

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

...and recognize that given new experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge, I may well change my mind about my own existential prejudices "here and now".

Something that the moral and political and religious objectivists among will rarely do. Why? Because, in my view, it's less regarding what they do believe in pertaining to their value judgments, and more regarding what they do believe in comforting and consoling them by not only believing in one or another God or No God objectivist font, but in more or less "arrogantly, autocratically and authoritatively" allowing them to heap scorn on those who refuse to think and feel exactly as they do.

Which is why the moral and political objectivists all up and down the ideological spectrum react so scornfully to me. It's their very Precious Self in sync with The Right Thing To Do that is on the line.

What if they start to crumple into a more "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind here?!

As "I" did.

What I call the "psychology of objectivism" and explore on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Atla »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 5:17 pm
Atla wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 7:41 pm
iambiguous wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 9:44 pm the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein as it pertains to the value judgments we acquire and then sustain given the life that we actually live.
What about factors we are more or less born with? Like having various forms of empathy, how strongly these empathies manifest, strength of feelings/emotions, level of intelligence, how strongly self-awareness manifests as an "I", preferred order of cognitive functions (like MBTI etc.), smaller seasonal differences in brain wiring based on birth date, how strongly abstract thinking manifests, etc., and then there are the myriad of minor and major biological brain issues etc.

Two people with different brains can adopt different values, even when given the exact same life, can we even consider so many factors at once and arrive at any definitive answers?
Yes, we all come into the world hard-wired genetically to empathize. As well as to differentiate in many ways between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys]. As a "social species", we spend much of our lives intertwined with others in nuclear and extended families, in communities. And we all come into the world able to think and feel.

Then that age-old debate revolving around the extent to which our behaviors are indeed the embodiment of "biological imperatives". For those like Satyr and his ilk here -- https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora -- that clearly encompasses such things as race and ethnicity and gender and human sexuality and Jews and other political value judgments.

Then those who focus more on "memes". Yes, we come into the world hard-wired genetically, they say, but down through the ages historically and across the globe culturally and in terms of our individual experiences, that has come to be manifested socially, politically and economically in many, many very different and conflicting ways.

My point then is that where each of us draws the line here is rooted existentially in dasein; whereas the objectivists of Satyr's and henry quirk's ilk insist that only where they draw the line reflects the most rational [and often virtuous] thinking and feeling.

Then the part where I acknowledge that my own frame of mind is not excluded from my own frame of mind in the OPs here...

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

...and recognize that given new experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge, I may well change my mind about my own existential prejudices "here and now".

Something that the moral and political and religious objectivists among will rarely do. Why? Because, in my view, it's less regarding what they do believe in pertaining to their value judgments, and more regarding what they do believe in comforting and consoling them by not only believing in one or another God or No God objectivist font, but in more or less "arrogantly, autocratically and authoritatively" allowing them to heap scorn on those who refuse to think and feel exactly as they do.

Which is why the moral and political objectivists all up and down the ideological spectrum react so scornfully to me. It's their very Precious Self in sync with The Right Thing To Do that is on the line.

What if they start to crumple into a more "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind here?!

As "I" did.

What I call the "psychology of objectivism" and explore on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
I get the impression that you entirely missed the point I was making. Forget race, ethnicity, gender, human sexuality, forget the ages. I was saying that two people (say, same race ethnicity gender sexuality, born in the same year and country), hypothetically being given the exact same life, the exact same circumstances, exact same knowledge and experiences, can still adopt different values, simply because they were born with differently wired brains. Obviously.

For example
Yes, we all come into the world hard-wired genetically to empathize.
though it's in our DNA, some people seem to be born without the ability to empathize. So they may adopt different values (if we can even call them values) even if all the other circumstances are the same.
Post Reply