the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

And what is this self-control that I am talking about?

Self-control is the capacity to refuse to ingest what you cannot digest.

It is about knowing yourself, knowing your limits.

iambiguous’s obsession with identity tells us that he has an extremely poor self-consciousness.

His conclusion that identity is unknowable is a projection of his own incapacity onto the universe.

It is not him who is too stupid to know his identity, who is too weak-willed to create psychological calm necessary for any genuine thinking to being, but it is the universe, the laws of nature, that forbid(s) him to do so.

Well thanks for chewing this over.
It’s obvious enough that you have not managed to digest what is going on and therefore offer us this vomitus.
Might I suggest some virtual Gaviscon?

I like what Carl Jung said - in his “Psychological Reflections” (Awareness and creative living).
I think a good response to the above -

“Never in any circumstances should one indulge in the unscientic illusion that one’s own subjective prejudice is a universal and fundamental psychological truth. No true science can spring from this, only a faith whose shadow is intolerance and fanaticism. Contradictory views are necessary for the evolutution of any science, only they must not be set up in any rigid opposition to each other but should strive for the earliest possible synthesis.”

One can’t always help leaning toward or evolving through especially No. 7 but one always has to keep Jung’s words in mind, in mnsho.
One can change the word psychological to philosophical and it still fits.

If you gathered from my post that I am seeking for an absolute representation of reality, then you can’t read for shit, kiddo.

I know, hot mama. I have never said that you have said that you are seeking for an absolute representation of reality.

Nonetheless, you are submissive and have zero self-control.

Now spread your sexy legs.

With respect to moral and political value judgements [about which the OP is aimed], my argument [here and now] revolves around this:

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 every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

What I am curious about are arguments from others able to poke enough holes in it so that I might be able to reconsider it as perhaps a less than reasonable manner in which to construe the “human condition” sans God.

Instead, I tend to bump into the abstractionists like you and Lyssa and Satyr – scholastic sorts who spew out intellectual contraptions that have almost nothing whatsoever to do with the lives that we live.

All I am trying to do is to actually engage your words down here. Why in the world is that something you always avoid?

Again, you can pick the topic.

I have already explained this to you over at KTS.

It is you who are avoiding to discuss things because you find them too difficult to understand.

You are trying to force people to speak in a language that you can understand. You are burdening them.

You want to discuss, but without making any effort. You want it all served for you.

What I am “obsessed” with is grappling with the question, “How ought I to live”?

And then in exploring the limits of philosophy [logic, language] in providing an answer.

Much of what constitutes my own identity is not unknowable at all: gender, race, age, weight, height, state of health, residence, income, family, neighborhood, nationality, current interests, personality, character and on and on and I. There is much about myself that is clearly true objectively. It has nothing to do with dasein.

No, what fascinates me are those aspects of any particular sense of identity that revolve around conflicting value judgments that revolve in turn around conflicting goods.

Why and how do each of us come to accumulate a set of moral and political values that prompt a set of behaviors that, time and again, come into conflict with others? What experiences did we have, what people did we meet, what information did we happen upon that shaped our values over the years? And, in a world of contingency, chance and change, who knows what new experiences, relationships, knowledge etc, we will happen upon to reconfigure our values and behaviors down the road.

Is there a way philosophically to resolve these conflicts or, instead, must we always resort to either “might makes right” or “moderation, negotiation and compromise”?

All I insist is that when we discuss these relationships our words need to be fully integrated into the world in which we live.

I can only try to imagine what it must be like to be inside that head of yours. :wink:

Anyway, if the day should ever come when you have enough confidence to test those didactic assertions of yours on an actual moral issue, please do it here.

And, just out of curiosity, can you cite a few examples from your own life in which you walked this talk? For instance, confrontations you had with others over value judgments. How were you able to translate your arguments above into behaviors that reflected the most rational option available to any thinking human being?

Oh, I see, that doesn’t apply to me at all. It’s just a useless observation you pulled out of nowhere.
Kind of like all your posts.

I’m glad that you cleared that up.

Phoneutria has sexy legs?

Why haven’t I been told about this?

I’ve got 8.

I hope you aren’t one of those natural chicks who doesn’t shave their legs…

What about your chelicerae? You got real ones or fake ones?

Yeah I kinda left you in a difficult spot; try to say something clever, which would be hard to do with what I left you to work with (my bad), or say nothing at all and risk being mistaken for a dim-wit who can’t say something witty about a spider.

I think you did the right thing. The eight legs comment was good; you’re not trying to keep something going that’s difficult to work with. See now I would, and as per usual I would make a mess of it. That’s just me: if you look up the word ‘obnoxious’, there will be a picture of me in the left margin… right margin if you’re using a Chinese dictionary.

I’m from Brazil. They don’t call them brazillian waxes for nothing.

Oh, these are real, babe. But I think when I hit mid life crisis I’ll get a couple of double dees.

Don’t worry about it. I try to never say anything clever. People might start thinking I’m smart.

You can be obnoxious, and I can be noxious, and we can sing a duet. We may even get a few quarters in our hats.

Oh well, another thread bites the dust… :laughing: :astonished: :laughing:

I’ll fix it, toots. I haven’t replied to your post.

Gimme a few. Need a snack.

Static/dynamic reality

Static: reality is a static object that is uncovered by the individuals using perception. Reality does not change, it is our sensory organs that fool us into thinking that reality is changing.

Dynamic: reality is flux. Our sensory organs do not uncover reality, they freeze it. The less we freeze reality (i.e. the more we absorb chaos) the more accurate is our perception. The more accurate our perception, the more effective ways in which we can freeze reality.

Public/private reality

Public: reality contains us ( = we do not control reality, reality controls us.)
Private: we contain reality ( = reality does not control us, we control reality.)

Objective/subjective mentality

Being objective means judging from the totality of your senses.
Being objective means seeing the difference between what you want and what is.
Being objective means absorbing (but not becoming) chaos.

Being subjective means judging from the selection of your senses.
Being subjective means conflating what you want with what is.
Being subjective means freezing (i.e. denying) chaos (which is to say, becoming chaos.)

Being objective does not mean knowing the “objective truth”.
Being objective means perceiving reality (i.e. being flexible, absorbing chaos) to the best of your ability.

Objective reality, flux and solipsism

Objective reality: static + public reality.
Flux: dynamic + public reality.
Solipsism: private reality.

Logical solipsism: belief in the private reality.
Physiological solipsim: no belief in the private reality, but acting as if reality is private.

I am not aware of any logical solipsists. But there are plenty of physiological solipsists. Those who believe in objective reality, for example, are physiological solipsists.

External/internal reality

External reality: whatever is outside of our body.
Internal reality: whatever is inside of our body ( = our past.)

Chaos can be internal or external.
Mental subjectivity means denying any of the two types.

Well, think of it as if it was language. Language develops in a region of the world and is deeply tied to the culture and the people’s way of being. The farther you move from a point, the more difference in accents and vocabulary you will see until it’s not the same language anymore. However, if a foreigner moves into my land, I expect them to learn my language so that they can communicate with me, not the other way around. Also, languages are alive, they evolve and adapt. I can learn some interesting sounds and phrases from the foreigner if I have a use for them, and if some new phenomena appears, I’ll have to create new expressions to refer to it.

There is no such thing as a right language and a wrong language. But it is my language. In my land, I enforce it.
It is the preservation of a cultural value in it’s own land. The foreigner can call that an agenda and choose to fight it. He will be met with resistance.

How does that sound?

Why must all rational men behave the same? Is there ever only one solution to a problem?

I see what you mean, but why do you think think that there is anything particularly wrong with justifying one’s behaviors through reasoning, even if ultimately you are doing something simply because you want to?
With Satyr, I find that the problem is that at times what he says doesn’t match his behaviors, but I won’t speak in detail about that. That would be very indelicate.

Sure, toots.