the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Sat May 10, 2014 9:16 pm

Moreno wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I do believe that many objectivists are wrong and silly. Also, that if they get into a position of power over others they can be quite dangerous. Often with the best of intentions.

But I don't predicate that on Science or Philosophy or God. Or on something said to be Rationally or Metaphysically or Objectively true. Instead, I offer folks my own subjective understanding of myself "out in the world" from the perspective of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
It seems like you do do this. You explain why one can know things in science but not about morals. To do this you present models of reality and what is possible for humans.


Then we are stuck I guess. I don't believe that I do.

And what scientifically can be communicated to folks from all the different sides of all the different conflicting value judgments such that it would be irrational not to believe it? That is basically my point. To make this distinction. And that seems [to me] to be as close as we can get to what is true objectively.

Moreno wrote:But my general Point was more like, if you really believed you could not know, then you wouldn't waste time criticizing them, mocking them or trying to show they are being silly. I see below that you have pulled back from political activity. Well, THAT is consistant. But this is political activity online.


I believe this only "here and now" though. I don't know how to explain that any better. And since I believed something other than what I believe now before I can only assume that I might believe something other than what I believe now later.

And my "mocking" style is rooted more in my online persona. I am a polemicist. I have always enjoyed dueling with others in places like this -- using words as swords. Being provocative can often bring out the best arguments in others.

But, sure, who really knows what -- subconsciously, unconsciuously -- motivates me in turn. The subjunctive frame of mind is always beyond our grasping fully. Or mine always has been.

Moreno wrote: ...if they actually believed there was no way to even know if objectivists are doing harm, which means if any possible moral position is detrimental or beneficial, then ONE MIGHT AS WELL DO WHAT ONE WANTS AND THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO. If you want to be kind to people, well, you might as well do that. If you want to hurt them, well do that, if the risks involved do not create counterdesires. If you want to go to a Movie, you would do that.
That is what is left when there are no morals, or when one Thinks one cannot know what is right, when it is mere guesswork.


Yes, there is always that option. You can begin with the assumption that morality revolves solely around whatever it is that makes you feel good. You weigh the pros and the cons in regard to possible consequences and then you do whatever it is you think you can get away with.

But whatever it is you think makes you feel good is still rooted largely in dasein. And that approach to life as "good" is certainly going to come into conflict with others if what you perceive to be good for you is perceived to be bad for them.

Then it becomes either a dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, might makes right world or you agree to moderate your behaviors through negotiation and compromise. Through democracy, for example. And [always] within the context of political economy -- taking into account the role that wealth and power will always play here.

My point is only this: that there does not seem to be an option whereby folks are able to determine [rationally, logically] what is fact the only truly objective moral truth to be had.

And this is what I believe others do not want to believe about themselves. They want some sort of objective moral and political Truth they can attach "I" to. Thus objectivism [to me] becomes more and more embodied in human psychology.

Moreno wrote: Sure, but for all you know it might be a good thing. So you don't know if challenging it, as you repeatedly do is doing more harm than good. It's a coin toss. Seems like a waste of energy to me, given your perspective.


Sure, any particular objectivist doctrine may well in fact be the best of all possible worlds. But those who espouse them still have to present me with an argument that counters the points I make regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

After all, there are hundreds and hundreds of dogmas out there, right? Why should we believe that one rather than another is the true font for enlightenment? And yet the reasoning given by these folks seems to reflect more than just a flip of the coin to decide which way to go. But that's what we do. From a particular subjective point of view we take our existential leaps along the moral and political continuum.

Moreno wrote: ...heck, sometimes you can even share your guess on a subject that rubs up on morals. they objective speak, you speak in I Think and want. But it seems like, in general, you would see no Point in either 1) Calling into question their objectivism - since for all you know this is you being bad and 2) discussing morals in general.


This makes sense [to me] only if you literally choose to live apart from all others. Then you don't have to concern yourself with questions of "morality" at all. But as soon as others enter the picture there is the possibility of conflict. What choice then is there? You have to make an existential leap to one set of rules rather than another. It then comes down to the extent to which someone begins to argue that you should abandon moderation, negotiation and compromise and instead embrace a set of behaviours predicated [allegedly] on some religious or secular Truth.

The alleged objective truth. Again, always theirs.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26591
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Moreno » Sun May 11, 2014 2:06 am

iambiguous wrote:Then we are stuck I guess. I don't believe that I do.
I guess we are stuck. I didn't really Think this part was controversial. It seems inherent in the distinctions you draw around the procedure of an abortion and the morals around the abortion.

I believe this only "here and now" though. I don't know how to explain that any better. And since I believed something other than what I believe now before I can only assume that I might believe something other than what I believe now later.

And my "mocking" style is rooted more in my online persona. I am a polemicist. I have always enjoyed dueling with others in places like this -- using words as swords. Being provocative can often bring out the best arguments in others.
WEll, sure. And if all you are doing is essentially playing chess with people, then it could be consistant. It doesn't come across that way and frankly I don't really Believe it is merely play for you, but, yes, if it is merely pointless play for you and you know this going in, then it is consistant.

But, sure, who really knows what -- subconsciously, unconsciuously -- motivates me in turn. The subjunctive frame of mind is always beyond our grasping fully. Or mine always has been.
I really don't Think it is all that mysterious. You don't like objectivism and you are arguing against it. This is not the stuff of depth psychology. The irony is that it is implicit in your position simulataneously that for all you know it might be a bad thing that you try to change people's minds. But I will admit the very unlikely possibility that you are just playing. Note: I am not saying that is your only motivation; play, curiosity may also be motives. I couple this with your presentation of what to you seems an impossible situation: how can you interact with people when you are not an objectivist. I say, just do and suggest what you want. And state your opinions as preferences. You are on solid epistemological ground, in your system, and actually most of the time this will not lead to problems. Certainly less problems that telling people they are objectivists and you Think this is a problem.

I mean to me it is like I with a Group and one guy keeps arguing that we stop doing X. he says he Believes - but is not sure - that X is bad. He argues this way for years. I ask if he Thinks he has any way of knowing if it more likely that doing X as a Group leads to more problems than no longer doing X. He says, No, I have no way to know. Then he goes forward trying to convince the Group for Another few years that they should stop doing X.

A bit odd, n'est pas?

Imagine a doctor relating to his clients this way. OK, that's an authority figure, but it should highlight the strange motivation seemingly invovled somewhere. And without the hierarchy: imagine telling someone that speaking to one's spouse in way X is a bad idea. You then tell them that you have no way of knowing if they discontinue it will get better worse or the same. Then you go back to telling them you Think it is a bad idea.

Again: when it is suggested you shift to 'I want' speech and 'I dislike* speech, you do not find this a good solution, even though it is 1) probably accurate and 2) consistant with your epistemological beliefs about morals.

Yes, there is always that option. You can begin with the assumption that morality revolves solely around whatever it is that makes you feel good. You weigh the pros and the cons in regard to possible consequences and then you do whatever it is you think you can get away with.
No, there is no need to make that assumption. I am talking about 1) being honest and 2) being consistant with your epistemology of morals. You claim you cannot know what the good is. You also claim, by extension, that you cannot know if the effects of objectivism are good or bad. So to speak about what you like and dislike remains as what you can communicate about as true.
But whatever it is you think makes you feel good is still rooted largely in dasein. And that approach to life as "good" is certainly going to come into conflict with others if what you perceive to be good for you is perceived to be bad for them.
Sure, but if you read what I wrote, I never said that doing this would solve all the problems. I was pointing out that I could not understand why you don't do this and why you continue to write about what seems bad to you, GIVEN YOUR EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS. Why write sometimes like an objectivist when there is this simple, honest and clear way to communicate even about objectivism?
Sure, any particular objectivist doctrine may well in fact be the best of all possible worlds. But those who espouse them still have to present me with an argument that counters the points I make regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
No, you are missing my Point. I am not defending objectivism, I am focused on you. When you argue against objectivists or objectivism, you, according to you, have no idea if the effects of doing this, if successful lead to a better World or not. (or if unsuccessful) Yet you continue. You put effort into an activity that you admit you have no idea if it is doing good or harm, while bemoaning the harm you Think, but have no way of knowing, the objectivists are doing.

I am responding to you. I am not defending objectivism. I am not saying that simply talking about what you want instead of making moral noises will save the World. I am pointing out your strange inconsistancy and then what I Think is a simple, elegant, consistant alternative.

This alternative will not make all the objectivists agree. It will not make the World perfect.

It is about you, based on what you claim you Believe about the epistemology of morals.

If I found a self-proclaimed pacifist hitting poeple with an ax, I might Point out that there is a more consitant behavior for a pacifist.

Imagine my surprise when I Point this out and the pacifist says

how will my not hitting people change the way X, Y and Z mistreat people?

I mean seriously Iamb.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 11, 2014 8:09 pm

Moreno wrote: WEll, sure. And if all you are doing is essentially playing chess with people, then it could be consistant. It doesn't come across that way and frankly I don't really Believe it is merely play for you, but, yes, if it is merely pointless play for you and you know this going in, then it is consistant.


Discussing the psychology of objectivism as it relates to conflicting value judgments could hardly be further removed from playing chess. Or do you equate playing chess with the calculations that go into the raging conflagration that revolves around aborting human babies?

My point [aside from the polemics] is to nudge folks away from believing one can approach abortion as though it were just a game of chess. Chess: where each piece can only be moved in particular ways on a particular board and where you either do or not not checkmate your opponent. With chess everything is [ultimately] predicated on what must happen given the particular moves that are made.

Moreno wrote:You don't like objectivism and you are arguing against it. This is not the stuff of depth psychology. The irony is that it is implicit in your position simulataneously that for all you know it might be a bad thing that you try to change people's minds.


The OP offers up one particular subjective narrative for assessing and then evaluating the relationship between an objective moral/political dogma and human psychology. It makes sense to me. Here and now. And since it also makes sense to me here and now that moral objectivism can become dangerous when it takes the form of a political ideology, it makes sense to suggest this to others. But I never go beyond this. I do not insist that this is [in turn] the most rational manner in which to think about these things.

Moreno wrote:...imagine telling someone that speaking to one's spouse in way X is a bad idea. You then tell them that you have no way of knowing if they discontinue it will get better worse or the same. Then you go back to telling them you Think it is a bad idea.


Yes, this is precisely my point when I note this:

How can I think like I do and interact with others at all? If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then everytime I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might just as well have gone in the other direction instead....Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it together at all. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

That's the paradox or the dilemma embedded in the irresistable force smashing into the immovable object.

But again: What choice do we have if we do choose to intereact with others? One way or another one point of view will prevail. Re abortion, either babies will be killed or women will be forced to give birth. You can't have a world in which both sides prevail.

This is the part I don't think you really address. My own solution to it was [in part] to withdraw from interactions with others "out in the world". Though there were other reasons for that as well. My health, mostly.

And there is always the possibility that my epistemological framework here is wrong. But how can I know this if I do not present my arguments in places like this.

You can begin with the assumption that morality revolves solely around whatever it is that makes you feel good. You weigh the pros and the cons in regard to possible consequences and then you do whatever it is you think you can get away with.


Moreno wrote:No, there is no need to make that assumption.


But people DO make that assumption. How then do philosophers demonstrate to them that in fact there is no NEED to make it? They WANT to. It is how they have come [existentially as dasein] to construe morality out in the world. The real world that they live in.

Moreno wrote:I am not defending objectivism, I am focused on you. When you argue against objectivists or objectivism, you, according to you, have no idea if the effects of doing this, if successful lead to a better World or not. (or if unsuccessful) Yet you continue. You put effort into an activity that you admit you have no idea if it is doing good or harm, while bemoaning the harm you Think, but have no way of knowing, the objectivists are doing.


No idea? But I do have some idea about all this. I offer a point of view regarding moral and political objectivism as a [possible] component of human psychological predispositions. Then I can note historical instances where moral and political objectivism have caused enormous human pain and suffering. It's not like I am just completely making all of this up in my head -- without making a number of references to the world of actual human interaction.

Moreno wrote:If I found a self-proclaimed pacifist hitting poeple with an ax, I might Point out that there is a more consitant behavior for a pacifist. Imagine my surprise when I Point this out and the pacifist says how will my not hitting people change the way X, Y and Z mistreat people?

I mean seriously Iamb.


In my view, the pacifist is an objectivist if she insist that being a pacifist is the most rational and ethical manner in which a human being can interact with others out in the world.

Then she can either go in the James S. Saint/von rivers direction, i.e. that pacifism is applicable only one context at a time, or in the direction of the universalist, i.e. that pacifism is always the right thing to do.

She can either try to explain why hitting someone with an ax can be rationalized in this situation or, if she believes it is always irrational and immoral, then she is not a pacifist.

All I can do is to probe her life...to try to root out the existential factors that led her to become a pacifist [in a world where many do not] and to note how sets of circumstance might unfold that she had not really considered...sets of circumstanctes so dire that she may well change her mind about being a pacifist.

But what I don't see possible is a philosophical argument able to demonstrate once and for all whether being a pacifist IS the right thing to do. Objectively.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26591
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun May 11, 2014 8:23 pm

iambiguous wrote:Here, in my view, is one particular rendition of what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism". Applicable to either Religion or to Reason.

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

What is it?

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

Is truth more true when it is vital? Yes I would day so so this is the way to make truth more true. And we need truth to be as true as it possibly can to survive it.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

Yes this is true, we find people that agree with us more agreeable.... and they us also. Life is a circle but it takes time.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

Like God or a pet animal who is beloved by all. Who will feed the cat the most favorite dish is the priest.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

Yes! We must do this also with the truth about truth. Vigorous vital truth.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

Oh no. But no now you have killed truth.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

Now i am depressed. I wanted to fight for truth but you have killed my hope.

Image

Let's not kill

Image

Let's watch the pain

Image

And hope for truth!
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: pit of snakes

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 12, 2014 8:00 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Here, in my view, is one particular rendition of what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism". Applicable to either Religion or to Reason.

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

What is it?


Well, here is own subjective narrative:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26591
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 18, 2014 11:55 pm

wrong thread
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26591
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby James S Saint » Mon May 19, 2014 9:12 am

iambiguous wrote:Here, in my view, is one particular rendition of what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism". Applicable to either Religion or to Reason.

I can give "one particular rendition" of just about anything.

But unlike you, I do not make the leaping and lustful generalized conclusion that because I can imagine a bad scenario, all scenarios are necessarily bad and anyone saying different is a "dangerous trickster".

In short, you are still merely preaching your dasein dilemma and ranting against anyone else.
And calling your ranting "psychology of", doesn't change what it is.

The only way this relates to psychology is in the question;
"Why do some people have a deep lingering lust to preach their dasein dilemma?"

Of course it is a sociology question as well because it has only arisen due to political warring, not rational thought.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Mon May 19, 2014 10:17 am

Dasein dilemma is a contradiction in terms, anyway.

The whole point about Dasein is that it was Heidegger's solution to the Sartrean angst. Dasein is a Germanic solution to a Gallic problem.
There is no Dasein Dilemma, and if it is presented as such the presenter is still stuck in an existential Nausea.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby James S Saint » Mon May 19, 2014 11:05 am

His view is that John wants the child to be born and Mary wants to abort it (the Dasein Dilemma). Then he asks, "Which is the moral solution?" Then answers it with;
"THERE SHALL BE NO MORAL SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM AND ANYONE SAYING OTHERWISE IS A DAMN, MALICIOUS, TRICKSTER, DICTATOR, OBJECTIVIST, LIAR!!!"
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 19, 2014 6:57 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:Dasein dilemma is a contradiction in terms, anyway.

The whole point about Dasein is that it was Heidegger's solution to the Sartrean angst. Dasein is a Germanic solution to a Gallic problem.
There is no Dasein Dilemma, and if it is presented as such the presenter is still stuck in an existential Nausea.


Thanks for, uh, clearing that up. Though I suspect our understanding of "dasein" may somewhat different.

Here is where I start:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

What's your take on it?

And how do you relate it to morality? Morality and the "objective truth". Abortion for example. Or choose your own moral conflagration.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26591
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 19, 2014 7:02 pm

James S Saint wrote:His view is that John wants the child to be born and Mary wants to abort it (the Dasein Dilemma). Then he asks, "Which is the moral solution?" Then answers it with;
"THERE SHALL BE NO MORAL SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM AND ANYONE SAYING OTHERWISE IS A DAMN, MALICIOUS, TRICKSTER, DICTATOR, OBJECTIVIST, LIAR!!!"


James, please!!!

The last thing ILP needs is yet ANOTHER seemingly futile exchange between us about objective morality. Take this over to "our" thread okay? :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26591
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby James S Saint » Mon May 19, 2014 7:08 pm

iambiguous wrote:The last thing ILP needs is yet ANOTHER seemingly futile exchange between us about objective morality. Take this over to "our" thread okay? :wink:

The question is, "Why did you bring it over here?"

Your OP is merely you inventing a single case of bad reasoning, having almost nothing to do with objective morality or psychology. And let me remind you, you are an objectivist yourself. Soon, you might realize that along with the others who have.

And on top of that, even you couldn't deny the reality that your own definitions led to concerning the existence of "objective morality". In a way, you are seriously hating yourself, hating what is You.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Mon May 19, 2014 9:40 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:Dasein dilemma is a contradiction in terms, anyway.

The whole point about Dasein is that it was Heidegger's solution to the Sartrean angst. Dasein is a Germanic solution to a Gallic problem.
There is no Dasein Dilemma, and if it is presented as such the presenter is still stuck in an existential Nausea.


Thanks for, uh, clearing that up. Though I suspect our understanding of "dasein" may somewhat different.

Here is where I start:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

What's your take on it?

And how do you relate it to morality? Morality and the "objective truth". Abortion for example. Or choose your own moral conflagration.


My understanding of Dasein is that shared by scholars of Heidegger.
How does it relate to specific morality - it does not.
If you think it does then you've missed the whole point.

What kind of thing is "objective truth", you are pulling my leg aren't you?

Subject/object is not relevant. One of the key points, i think.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby James S Saint » Mon May 19, 2014 10:22 pm

Be careful, Bigus only allows the definitions that HE dictates.

Dasein
Dasein (German pronunciation: [ˈdaːzaɪn]) is a German word which literally means being there (German: da - there; sein - being) often translated in English with the word "existence". It is a fundamental concept in the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger particularly in his magnum opus Being and Time. Heidegger uses the expression Dasein to refer to the experience of "being" that is peculiar to human beings. Thus it is a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself.

Original meaning and Heidegger's interpretation
The word Dasein has been used by several philosophers before Heidegger, most notably Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, with the meaning of human "existence" or "presence". It is derived from da-sein, which literally means being-there/there-being, though Heidegger was adamant that this was an inappropriate translation of Dasein. In German, Dasein is the vernacular term for "existence", as in I am pleased with my existence (ich bin mit meinem Dasein zufrieden). According to Heidegger, however, it must not be mistaken for a subject, that is to say, something definable in terms of consciousness or a self. Heidegger was adamant about this distinction, which carried on Nietzsche's critique of the subject. Dasein, as a human being that is constituted by its temporality, illuminates and interprets the meaning of Being in Time. Heidegger chose this term as a synonym for "human entity" in order to emphasize the critical importance "Being" has for our understanding and interpretation of the world. Some scholars disagree with this interpretation, arguing that for Heidegger "Dasein" denoted a structured awareness or an institutional "way of life".[1]

    "This entity which each of us is himself…we shall denote by the term “Dasein”" (Heidegger, trans. 1927/1962, p.27).[2]

    "[Dasein is] that entity which in its Being has this very Being as an issue…" (Heidegger, trans. 1927/1962, p.68).[2]

    "In the question about the meaning of Being, what is primarily interrogated is those entities which have the character of Dasein" (Heidegger, trans. 1927/1962, p.65).[2]

    "…it is possible to individualize [the question of the meaning of Being] very precisely for any particular Dasein" (Heidegger, trans. 1927/1962, p.63).[2]
    "…Dasein is essentially an entity with Being-in, it can explicitly discover those entities which it encounters environmentally, it can know them…" (Heidegger, trans. 1927/1962, p.84).[2]

As we can see from these quotations from Heidegger's Being and Time, the replacement of "Dasein" with "awareness" or "way of life" would render the ontological difference between entities and the being of entities incoherent. "Being is always the Being of an entity" (Heidegger, trans. 1927/1962, p. 29).[3] Establishing this difference is the general motif running through Being and Time.

Heidegger used the concept of Dasein to uncover the primal nature of "Being" (Sein). Like Nietzsche, Heidegger criticized the notion of substance, arguing that Dasein is always a being engaged in the world. The fundamental mode of Being is not that of a subject or of the objective but of the coherence of Being-in-the-world. This is the ontological basis of Heidegger's work. There can be no Cartesian "abstract agent" - the agent emerges out of his environment.[citation needed]

On Heidegger's account, traditional language, logical systems, and beliefs obscure Dasein's nature from itself.[citation needed] Beings are Dasein even when they are ontologically wrapped up in a tradition which obscures the authentic choice to live within and transmit this tradition. In this case Dasein still authentically chooses the tradition when it is confronted by a paradox within the tradition and must choose to dismiss the tradition or dismiss the experience of being confronted with choice.[citation needed]

Heidegger attempted to maintain the definition of Dasein as we all are, in our average everydayness.[citation needed] Dasein does not spring into existence upon philosophical exploration of itself. Heidegger intended Dasein as a concept, in order to provide a stepping stone in the questioning of what it means to be. When Dasein contemplates this, what seems (absurdly) circular in ontic terms, is recursive in ontological sense, because it brings the necessary appearance of time to the center of attention.[4]

In Being and Time, Heidegger posits that the potentialities of Dasein's Being extend beyond the realms disclosed by positive science or in the history of metaphysics. The character of Dasein, as Being-ontological, which is "[...] being in such a way that one has an understanding of Being," lends itself to an understanding of Dasein that "is ontically distinctive in that it 'is' ontological." (Heidegger, trans. 1927/1962, p.32).[5] "Scientific research is not the only manner of Being which this entity can have, nor is it the one which lies closest. Moreover, Dasein itself has a special distinctiveness as compared with other entities.... [...] it is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it" (Heidegger, trans. 1927/1962, p.32).[5]

Origin and inspiration
Some have argued for an origin of Dasein in Chinese philosophy and Japanese philosophy: according to Tomonobu Imamichi, Heidegger's concept of Dasein was inspired — although Heidegger remained silent on this — by Okakura Kakuzo's concept of das-in-der-Welt-sein (being-in-the-worldness, worldliness) expressed in The Book of Tea to describe Zhuangzi's philosophy, which Imamichi's teacher had offered to Heidegger in 1919, after having followed lessons with him the year before.[6]

Karl Jaspers' Dasein and Existenz
For Karl Jaspers, the term "Dasein" meant existence in its most minimal sense, the realm of objectivity and science, in opposition to what Jaspers called "Existenz", the realm of authentic being. Due to the drastically different use of the term "Dasein" between the two philosophers, there is often some confusion in students who begin with either Heidegger or Jaspers and subsequently study the other.

In Philosophy (3 vols, 1932), Jaspers gave his view of the history of philosophy and introduced his major themes. Beginning with modern science and empiricism, Jaspers points out that as we question reality, we confront borders that an empirical (or scientific) method can simply not transcend. At this point, the individual faces a choice: sink into despair and resignation, or take a leap of faith toward what Jaspers calls "Transcendence". In making this leap, individuals confront their own limitless freedom, which Jaspers calls Existenz, and can finally experience authentic existence.


But to Bigus, it means, "conflicting beliefs in good".

And to me, it appears to mean, "Being in the state of having no fucking idea of what I am thinking or doing".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 20, 2014 6:18 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:My understanding of Dasein is that shared by scholars of Heidegger.
How does it relate to specific morality - it does not.
If you think it does then you've missed the whole point.

What kind of thing is "objective truth", you are pulling my leg aren't you?

Subject/object is not relevant. One of the key points, i think.


No, I am not interested in exploring dasein as it relates to a scholastic pursuit of philosophy.

I am interested only in exploring how you and I have come to understand what it means "here and now"...and in how we would situate that understanding out in the world of human interactions that come into conflict over moral and political value judgments.

Moral objectivists have insisted there is but one truly rational manner in which to understand these things. The way they do. By and large. Then there are those objectivists who insist that the way they understand it is applicable universally. Others, like James, insist that it is applicable only to each particular context.

This thread was an attempt on my part to link either "frame of mind" to human psychology.

In particular, the discussion revolved around abortion. But I am more than willing to explore these relationships regarding any other moral conflict we might all be familiar with.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26591
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 21, 2014 3:41 am

iambiguous wrote:Moral objectivists have insisted there is but one truly rational manner in which to understand these things. The way they do. By and large. Then there are those objectivists who insist that the way they understand it is applicable universally. Others, like James, insist that it is applicable only to each particular context.

You mean moral objectivists like yourself who believe that your understanding that there is no objective morality is the only rational way to understand morality?

Can't even you see the parallel between the atheist who firmly believes in the lack of God attacking people for having a firm belief concerning God and your firm objective belief in the lack of objective morality attacking people for having an objective belief concerning morality? You are a moral-atheist.

In effect, you are saying that there is this objective truth, "...."

Your objective truth is that there is no objective morality.
Other people say there is an objective morality.
Both make claims of objective truth.

So you disagree with their stance on morality. But both are espousing objective truths concerning it. Both have an opinion of objective/universal truth/reality. Theirs is "yea". Yours is "nay". But both are declarations of objective truth.

Your real argument seems to be merely one of fixed/blind morality, not "objective".

And the psychological question (which I could easily guess) is "Why do you hate moralists so much as to not even listen to what they might have to say before preemptively attacking them?"
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 21, 2014 7:33 pm

James S Saint wrote: Blah, Blah, Blah


Seriously, perhaps Lev will take up my offer to discuss dasein [as it relates to conflicting value judgments as it relates to the psychology of objectivism] "down here". Re abortion or some other issue.

Perhaps someday you will too.

In the interim, I am not interested in exploring [on yet another thread!] the circular nature of your own "definitional logic".

Please bring it over to "our" thread, okay?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26591
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 21, 2014 7:53 pm

iambiguous wrote:Blah, Blah, Blah..
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Orbie » Wed May 21, 2014 8:11 pm

That's pretty objective.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Orbie » Wed May 21, 2014 8:16 pm

[quote="Lev Muishkin"]Dasein dilemma is a contradiction in terms, anyway.

The whole point about Dasein is that it was Heidegger's solution to the Sartrean angst. Dasein is a Germanic solution to a Gallic problem.
There is no Dasein Dilemma, and if it is presented as such the presenter is still stuck in an existential Nausea.[/quote


Heidegger could not possibly have attempted this, in good faith, since he knew the boundary issues between Germany and France. He may have tried to show a politically expedient good faith. His signature was much more grounded in people like Husserl and Holderline.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Wed May 21, 2014 10:01 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:My understanding of Dasein is that shared by scholars of Heidegger.
How does it relate to specific morality - it does not.
If you think it does then you've missed the whole point.

What kind of thing is "objective truth", you are pulling my leg aren't you?

Subject/object is not relevant. One of the key points, i think.


No, I am not interested in exploring dasein as it relates to a scholastic pursuit of philosophy.
.


Translation: Iambiguous does not know what he is talking about.

Dasein IS a concept as developed by philosophy, reaching its apogee with Heidegger.
If you don't know what he was talking about then I suggest you read Being and Time.

If al you got is your own uninformed idea, then you are actually talking about something else, so I suggest you stop using a term that does not apply.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Wed May 21, 2014 10:03 pm

obe wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:Dasein dilemma is a contradiction in terms, anyway.

The whole point about Dasein is that it was Heidegger's solution to the Sartrean angst. Dasein is a Germanic solution to a Gallic problem.
There is no Dasein Dilemma, and if it is presented as such the presenter is still stuck in an existential Nausea.



Heidegger could not possibly have attempted this, in good faith, since he knew the boundary issues between Germany and France. He may have tried to show a politically expedient good faith. His signature was much more grounded in people like Husserl and Holderline.


It's not about what he intended to "attempt" ; its about what he achieved with Dasein.

There are no boundary issues to ideas; so what do you think you are talking about?

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Wed May 21, 2014 10:04 pm

obe wrote:That's pretty objective.


Don't you mean objectionable?

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 22, 2014 4:26 am

Lev Muishkin wrote:Translation: Iambiguous does not know what he is talking about.

Dasein IS a concept as developed by philosophy, reaching its apogee with Heidegger.
If you don't know what he was talking about then I suggest you read Being and Time.

If al you got is your own uninformed idea, then you are actually talking about something else, so I suggest you stop using a term that does not apply.


Fine, then I don't know what I am talking about.

But anytime you are inclined to bring the manner in which you define and understand the meaning of the word down to earth, I'll be more than happy to accommodate you.

Hell, I would liked to have discussed and debated dasein with Heidegger himself. Sans all the abstruse jargon of course. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26591
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Orbie » Thu May 22, 2014 5:30 am

Lev Muishkin wrote:
obe wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:Dasein dilemma is a contradiction in terms, anyway.

The whole point about Dasein is that it was Heidegger's solution to the Sartrean angst. Dasein is a Germanic solution to a Gallic problem.
There is no Dasein Dilemma, and if it is presented as such the presenter is still stuck in an existential Nausea.



Heidegger could not possibly have attempted this, in good faith, since he knew the boundary issues between Germany and France. He may have tried to show a politically expedient good faith. His signature was much more grounded in people like Husserl and Holderline.


It's not about what he intended to "attempt" ; its about what he achieved with Dasein.

There are no boundary issues to ideas; so what do you think you are talking about?




There are even boundaries between issues and ideas. As for example in cases where issues are framed in terms of ideas. The political post war climate between Germany and France can not be discounted in basically ideological garb, although a case can be made for that view. Even the distinction between idealism and the existential reduction can be interpreted, as the effect of political backlash, on part;of former underground french patriots,Sartre having been one of them, to reduce the traces of an ideal buildup by a reduction of politically loaded ideas.

Granted the genesis of existentialism did not begin with Sartre, Nietzsche, too, reacted against that, however, Nietzche did not end idealism, he merely closed it with the circle. The metaphor of the ring cycle, culminating with Brunhilda's immolation, leads to the view that Sartre, par excellance, started the politico-ontological deconstruction of the ideal, Liebnitzean world. He proved too metaphorically obscure, and propped it up with the system anti system of the pure Heglelian dialectic, that of Marx. That failing, meaning analysis was reduced to the meaning of meaning, and preoccupation with text and context. Unfortunately for Russel, he was caught in a semantic ,irresolute semantic trap.

What remains? Hermeneutics and relational meaning between subject and object, ad hoc creation of temporal meaning.

You are right, that there is no subject/object referentiality in all this, and it is because the language of reference and meaning, has been buried within in solution of irreversibility. But vestiges remain, and these are archetypical foundations of what Polanyi calls 'tacit knowledge'

The only reason to bring up this absence in presence, as Stirner calls it, is because, it is too tempting to bring in old notions of subjective/objective differentiation, of what it has become basically a text-context issue.

Whether it is or is not what he intended to effect, or if what he has achieved would be the primary focus , in defining the contradictory nature of dasein, is trumped by the antithetical Sartrean position on Heidegger's intentionality, vis. presence can be imbued in absense.(ibid)

Sartre's existenze is not absolute,it persists in a nausating duration, containing within it, the possibility of what is absent. The nothingness is contained in being, but from a so called objective position, being may well turn out as empty as nothingness. For Russell, these terms are probably co-dependent to a point where definitionally it may prove totally reductive to build any real framework upon them.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider]