To state this again in the same way I did before…
Dasein is good (correct) anti dasein is bad (incorrect)
Resolution of goods is bad, but dasein is a resolution of good (contradiction)!
That would be “homologic”.
And speaking of the use of proper definitions: the term “conflicting goods” around here refers to the idea that one person thinks that X is good while another thinks that Y is good, yet X conflicts with Y. Bigus is obsessed with the thought of it concerning abortion issues wherein, as he stated, one person, Mary, thinks the abortion is good and the other, John, thinks that the birth is good. It isn’t that either is objectively good, but rather that each person accepts that their preference is good. So the word “good” here is taken strictly as a subjective value, not objective.
And if you say anything at all about how to resolve that conflict, then according to Bigus, by definition, you are an objectivist crackpot. 
And also, “dasein” around here refers to the actual, common occurrences in society (such as abortion arguments).
But don’t tell any of this to Bigus. He hates for people to define the words being used, because that is “conflicting his good” of eternal, irresolvable conflicting. And then what would he have to complain about.
Then what would be next - if that is successful?
…“and so it goes”. 
James,
Well, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I do not have an analytical mind but however more my mind is capable of stretching in that direction, I do try though fail often, James. Sometimes baby steps are all we have.
It’s important to reflect on whether “something” just doesn’t make sense as it is, doesn’t compute, figurativey speaking. We enjoy our so-called intuitive faculties more - which are quite capable of failing us.
Reflecting on whether or not something actually makes “sense” takes time and usually much more thinking than we want.
Define what you “mean” by dasein. I didn’t get it.
I didn’t get it either. For me dasein is the opposite of I think, therefore I am; it is I am, therefore I think.
Ierrellus,
I
I wanted James to define what HE felt dasein is.
I don’t really think of dasein in that way either.
How do you arrive at the above as being dasein?
For me, dasein is simply existence-for which there are only subjective, experiential definitions. It is being in and of itself. Adding to being are the stages of becoming and belonging. These enhance being, but do not define its essence. Analytical philosophy will not reveal the essence of being simply because it is interpretation–mind stuff. The experience of being can be described, but not defined. Philosophy, at the end of the 20th century, included recognition that critical analysis cannot have anything to say about ontology other than it is what it is.
As I have patiently explained time and time again, my friend, I choose the abortion issue because…
1] it is a moral/political conflict we are all familiar with
2] it is an issue that literally revolves around life and death
3] it is the issue that prompted me [over time] to abandon my own predilection for the “objectivist mind”
But also, time and again, I ask the moral/political objectivists – those who insist their own value judgments reflect the most or the only rational manner in which approach these conflicts – to choose their own issue. Then “out in the world” we can discuss the extent to which using the tools of philosophy one is able to encompass an argument such that they have demonstrated it is the moral obligation of all rational men and women to behave in one manner rather than another.
Now, you tell me, James: When have you [u][b]ever[/u][/b] done this? When has ecmandu ever done so?
And when/where/how have you managed to tie together RM/AO and the Real God so as to encompass them in an issue like abortion? Aside from merely insisting that your argument is logical because you insist in turn that your own definitions must be the starting point for judging it?
As for dasein, here is the manner in which I situate it out in the world of conflicting human behaviors: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Now, how is this [u][b]not[/u][/b] applicable to you pertaining to your own moral/political values expressed here in the manner in which I construe a political prejudice?
Or, as I noted for Moreno on another thread:
[b][i]I use the term dasein because I was struck by Heidegger’s conjecture regarding “thrownness”. We are each and everyone of us “thrown” adventitiously into a particular world at birth – historically, culturally, experientially. Being “here” and not “there”, being “now” and not “before” or “later”.
Thus: to what extent is that relevant or irrelvant relating to the manner in which we come to acquire a particular identity, a particular moral and political narrative?
What [using the tools of philosophy] can be determined as [essentially] true here for all of us objectively and what becomes considerably more intertwined [existentially] in a set of personal opinions/prejudices. [/i][/b]
Not that you wouldn’t have a good reason, but I suspect that you are thinking too much in terms of judgement. As I said, the need for the analytical mind is very limited (as life is today). And that means that you should not want everyone to be analytical. That would be like wanting all birds to be owls or all animals to be dogs.
??
“Dasein” is merely a word to refer to actual real life, what it is to be alive, or as Leyla put it, “being there”. There is theoretical life, intended life, designed life, imagined life, the feeling of life, ideal life, and then there is the actual dasein, the real experience of living (ie. taking out the trash, putting up with the kids, getting traffic tickets, finding drug needles in the worst places, stepping in the dog’s leftovers, hearing yet ANOTHER GOD DAMN NEWS REPORT ABOUT SOME SUPPOSED TERRORIST murdered by the FBI for suspicion of having had a dream wherein he stepped on Hilary’s toe, having to put up with Bigus on the internet, and so on).
The “analytic mind” tackles dasein. 
Oh James, you may regret calling me out, because I’m going to reply!! absolute lack of stratification is absolute homogeneity !! We both know what that means…
Oh yeah, and since I’m such an idiot James, you do realize the female blackmail system affects male cognition into patterns called synthetic sophistication algorithms…
Everyone but me on these boards…
Use your analytic mind to comprehend that!
No. It merely means more chaos.
That kind of depends on who is doing the blackmailing, doesn’t it?
A woman cannot deny me what I don’t desire.
You either for that matter, but such is up to you.
It means absolute nothingness…
Lack of stratification of my being, leaves only me…
Lack of stratification in my being doesn’t even leave a me…
Well, asexuals also have a bone on sexual politics of the other 99.99999 percent of the population.
As I always say to people, omission determines an asshole as much as aggression … You’ve taken the omission path… Under the auspices of changed mindset over time having matured …
So to you everyone is either a fucker or an asshole.
…Interesting mindset.
I’m not talking about sexual abstinence, I’m talking about omission … People play game after psychological game, but we all know sexual politics is culprit number one on this planet… The female blackmail system is designed to ostracize the simple fact that when you add up all the shit between the genders, females actually abuse males more than males abuse females, the facts back it up. This excuses neither male nor female behavior.
I agree that affectance is essentially what being is btw… Different objects in motion… The question here James is whether there is or is also a unified field which renders objects a contradiction???
I’m curious of your thoughts to that regard.
I’ll play the role of discussion facilitator here since were all in agreement except me that I’m a worthless fucktard trol …
If there is a unified field, then there can’t be definition…
Thus, there is no unified field …
Discuss…
Again … another definition that has been overlooked.
A “unified field” refers to an ontology that uses a single field to construct all behaviors. All other fields within a unified field theory are sequential, aberrant, or emergent fields of that one, named separately merely to distinguish a nuance (such as “electric” field, “magnetic field”, and “gravity field” being the various results of the underlying affectance field being in specific states). That single field, “affectance” unifies the other named states into a single coherent understanding.
I don’t think of you in that way, Ecmandu.
Dasein equals being there–isness. Conflicts come from becoming and belonging, not from isness. Conflicts arise from ego interpretations of being, not from being itself.