Pick an issue to talk about here. Then we can discuss what it means to properly “engage” it.
I think the problem has comes up, at least for me, when it seemed like a more mutual discussion is potentially on the table, as is generally expected, even welcomed in discussion forums. But if all else is completely ignored, as is done in this thread and a clear statement is made…
More discussion about having a discussion. What I would prefer is a discussion of the existential relationship between “self”, “values” and “political power” as it pertains to a conflicting good out in a particular world most here are likely to be familiar with. As that pertains to a philosophical examination of the question “how ought one to live” in a world of conflicting goods.
My issue is X, period. All else I ignore. If you have trouble with my approach or assumptions or philosophy, I am not interested. I have one exact role for people who respond to me, all else is of no interest and I will not engage with it.
Actually, my point is that “I” am down in the hole regarding all moral and political issues. Given any particular context there are those things able to be demonstrated as true for all of us, and those things that appear [to me] to be invested more in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in the is/ought world.
And, clearly: if someone here is not interested in exploring my own approach to “I” as an existential contraption – a bundle of political prejudices at the intersection of self, values and political economy – they can move on to others.
With you though [on thread after thread] you choose to engage in a discussion with me…and then abandon it. Perhaps because you feel that I refuse to engage in the “exact role” that you have in mind for others.
A clear ‘just do this or I am not interested’ have a nice day. Keeping it just to your threads, so none of your posts can be confused with participating in the intentions of the other OP writers or participants in those threads.
Come on, how hard is it to note the manner in which any particular value judgment that you now embody is embedded sequentially in the evolution of your particular experiences, your particular relationships and your access to particular information, knowledge and ideas.
I merely note that in articulating this you are pointing out all of the experiences, relationships and ideas that you did not have access to.
And that “I” here out in the is/ought world revolves around grasping the implications of that for any particular “I”.
This part:
[b]Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables—some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are “thrown” into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of “reality” suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.
On the other hand:
In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making. [/b]
But then this part:
But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my “self” is, what can “I” do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we “anchor” our identity to so as to make this prefabricated…fabricated…refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.
On the other hand the culture of philosophical disussion or really discussion in general requires the utterly clear and limited approach you took here. No engagement at all with the other person’s positions or criticisms. None. No labeling the other person. No psychic stuff - the age thing is minor. Here’s my goal, and it is the only one. All else will be utterly ignored.
No need to repeat what your goal is, no need for the cutting and pasting. A link, perhaps if you encounter someone you never encountered before. This avoids seeming to be responding when you are not. And when it appears in other discussions seems like an attempt to derail or a misunderstanding of what other people’s goals are. Their goals do not matter to you, which is fine. Keep yourself from being noise for them, as you did here. This is all I will discuss + link. Nothing more. This will eliminate, for example the entire need for long campaigns with me or Phyllo and anyone else like us in the future. These discussions have not given you what you want, the one single goal you have. These tangents can be completely avoided by the concise approach here. The first post could simply have been like your last here. No repetition of the position. No possible confusion on a reader’s part that you are engaging in mutual discussion.
Until we bring this “general description” of me down to earth, I’m still at a loss as to what you are intending to convey substantively about the components of my own narrative.
Given a context likely to be familiar to most of us.
Admittedly, very few folks here engage me in the particular discussion that I crave. And those that once did [in the past] are long gone.
I suspect this revolves around…
1] the fact that my “style” tends to be provocative, challenging…even surly at times.
2] the speculation that my “message” is disturbing. In particular with regard to understanding the nature of “I” as a fractured, fragmented existential contraption unable to truly [wholly, fully] commit to a set of values.
3] my emphasis on oblivion in a No God world.