Challenge to iambiguous and surreptitious both

So in other words… you’re arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral.

Correct?

How on earth does someone actually go about “hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms”? And if, having accomplished this, what criteria would they cite in order to differentiate moral from immoral behaviors?

With respect to, say, any particular moral conflagration we are likely to be familiar with.

[size=50][just out of curiosity, has your sanity ever been questioned?
By a professional, I mean][/size]

Ahh… so now someone who solves your hole must be clinically insane.

We already co-hallucinate reality from eternal forms.

Without the eternal form of say, walkingness, walking would be impossible to name as an object.

Let me be more succinct. Without eternal forms, motion could not be named as an object and different motions could not be named as different objects.

I am arguing that there is no such thing as hallucinating reality from eternal forms [ whatever they are ]
But what has this got to do with subjective morality which is supposed to be what this thread is about ?

Motion is not an object but a behaviour and will you please stop posting all this nonsense as it makes absolutely no sense at all

Yeah, that’s basically my own reaction as well. Some of the stuff he posts makes me think that, philosophically, he’s a double bogie short of a hole in one. Or 299 pins away from a perfect game.

I can’t decide if he is in fact a fucking genius…and that I am in way over my head. Or perhaps he is just fucking around entertaining himself by posting whatever pops into his head in order to yank our chains.

All I know is that he comes no where near to bringing these “eternal forms” [and all the other intellectual contraptions] out into the world of conflicting goods; and he certainly doesn’t describe or demonstrate the manner in which they are said to be applicable to the part where we topple over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Is he living in a world all his own? One inside his head? Or am I the problem? Am I simply not getting some very, very insightful points from him?

I’m open to be convinced it’s the latter.

It has everything to do with the objective solution to morality, we all need to individually be in our own reality to solve all moral equations.

I solved this with what I call, “the 5 heartbreaks of relationship”

A reality with more that 1 person in it, never works.

Walking is motion, we name it as an object.

It’s all in my videos … about 7 hours content

Sure, that’ll do it. You can pack your things and live alone on an island somewhere. Or you can eschew all human contact and live by your own wits deep in the forest. A survivalist.

This way the behaviors that you choose come down to a relationship with nature alone.

Or, for some, with a God of their choosing.

The point being that you behave only in accordance with your own sense of right and wrong. There is simply no one else around who might beg to differ.

For the overwhelming preponderance of us however that is not an option that they choose. They do interact with others who might beg to differ. And regarding any number of things.

Then what?

Then any number of folks will make any number of videos to explain how if only others will choose what they choose then moral harmony can still be the order of the day.

The reality you are currently experiencing comprises over 7 billion people

Reducing that to just I will not automatically solve every moral equation

I thought it was interesting because the summation works rather well for you also, except for the two things cited at the end

“the unreal me” and the "seeming impossibility of finding the right thing to do coupled with the need to prioritize finding it anyway over all other things’

would be my replacements.

And yes, this leads to Ecmandu and Iamb having different metaphysics but it ends up creating similar discussion partners.

I’m not going to bother with your baiting other than to say Iambiguous and I are very different in approach and philosophy.

I will say this though, and I truly believe it.

There are no lords or emperors or kings… female as well, there is only prime logos.

You and iamb are not prime logos beings to the extent I am.

May very well be true. I am not an abstraction, even one that governs the universe. I am a complicated being.

When have I ever denied that my own narrative here is no less an existential contraption? How many times have I acknolwedged that I have no capacity to demonstrate substantively that others ought to share my own frame of mind?

I simply note how in my own subjective opinion “here and now” I – “I” – construe myself as having tumbled down into a hole in which my own value judgments are seen to be rooted in dasein, out in a world of conflicting goods, predicated in the final analysis on who has the political power to enforce one set of rewards and punishments over another.

Then I ask those who do not share this frame of mind to bring their own value judgments “down to earth”; so that we can focus in on a particular context and exchange moral narratives and/or political agendas.

In the manner in which, say, Phyllo and I have done with regards to Communism.

Okay, let’s zero in on a conflicting good most of us here will be familiar with. We can discuss the manner in which one might make a distinction between the “real me” and the “unreal me”.

And we can note in turn how a distinction might be made between those things that one construes to have a higher priority over other things. With respect to the moral conflagrations that revolve around issues like abortion or gun control or the role of government or social justice or homosexuality or immigration laws or animal rights.

In all honesty, the posts from Ecmandu here are practically gibberish to me. I almost never see any real connection between the points I make and the points he makes.

It’s as though he really has concocted this made up “world of words” inside his head; and everything flows from those assumptions.

For example what on earth does it mean to speak of a “prime logos” with respect to ones own conflicting interactions with others?

He’ll either go are [and illustrate the text] or he won’t. Or, if he already has, I would appreciate being linked to it.

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if science could invent a technology that allowed us to grasp what others are thinking and feeling in “real time”.

But even here we wouldn’t have access to all of the many, many, many experiences and relationships and sources of information/knowledge that, in accumulating over years, predisposed their own particular “I” to see the world around them as they do.

All we can do instead is to make an effort to distinguish between these subjective elements and those things that we [as scientists or philosophers] are able to demonstrate as that which all reasonable men and women are likely to think and feel in turn.

Iambiguous, you are abysmal at self reference, which is why in this level, your posts look like the posts of a 10 year old

For example: what if you are just another existential contraption ?

I’ll be dead serious with you here …

Humans think they’ve won!!

“I got the house, I got the wife, I got the job, I got the children”

All zero sum… actually they all lost in the game of life.

Zero sum lives aren’t worth living.

Your reaction to this is obvious and not helpful.

You’re still in the delusion that life accepts zero sum interactions as anything but pure evil, and so your head spins in associative aggression (your posting history)

No, seriously, how is this not just “babbling on”? Huffing and puffing about me while making no attempt at all to bring his “challenge” to me down to earth?

Objective morality? Okay, maybe. Let him choose the context, the behaviors, the conflict.

Or is that a bit “frightening” to him and his ilk here. :wink:

I thought it was interesting because the summation works rather well for you also…
[/quote]

Reread your post. You said Ecmandu seems to live entirely in his head, etc.
Now I am supposed to believe that really you meant he was just like you. You think of yourself this way. Two guys living entirely in your heads.

And if this is what you meant, in that first part of your description of him - that he is like you and everyone else, having existential contraptions and solipsistically isolated in his head like everyone,
HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY
not realize that readers would take it as a criticism of Ecmandu that did not apply to others.

I do realize that the second part, where he knows the right thing to do, distinguishes him from you, but that first part, the part I mentioned as the same in you (and I sure as shit meant you in particular), can only be read as a specfic criticism of Ecmandu.

I don’t find you able to take responsibility for your acts. Your acts in communication.

Side note: you seem, above, to now be saying that since one’s narrative is an existential contraption one is living entirely in one’s head AS IF the stories we tell are the only way we relate to and are affected by the outside world. You seem to confuse yourself with being ONLY your stories. The words in your mind. Is that all you are?

Yes, you do that. Sure. I didn’t realize that you were saying that Ecmandu was like you, as far as you can tell, and everyone else. In fact, I find it impossible to believe you could be so naive about how other people would take your description of him, even in the case that you did not mean something specific about him.

Read again the post I responded to and I think, one hopes, you can see that pretty much any human would think you were categorizing Ecmandu specifically, not saying that he is like you and everyone else. That you were reacting to his way of posting and that this indicated he was entirely in his head. That is was a criticism of him, one that was less likely to be true about you.

Here you are talking about value judgments. To say someone is entirely in their own head is saying something more than saying they are objectivizing their value judgments.

Let’s look at your behavior here in the forum. Respond to it yourself. You cannot know if it is moral, yet you have decided to expose others to this behavior.

Extend that to a range of other situations, and you have just described me.

Neither you nor I can tell if we behave in ways and interact with others in ways that are objectively good or bad, etc.

We both, however, interact with others. Expose them to our behavior and thoughts.

You allow yourself to do this. I allow myself to do this.

Your hole has NOTHING TO DO WITH not knowing if their are objective goods.

You act in the world following your preferences and interests, despite not knowing whehter this makes the world worse or better. You do what you want.

Me too.

I am less fragmented because I allow myself to do this in the wide range of ways I do this. It seems you restrict yourself - for reasons unknown - to this one interpersonal activity.

You give yourself permission to act only in one very limited line.

So the rest of you is cut off from living.

Despite the fact that even the one thing you allow yourself might be making the world worse, for all you know. If you allow yourself that, you might as well allow yourself whatever you are capable of.

[/quote]
Why bother?

Indeed, that’s how it works for all of us. We must be willing to take what we think we know about objectivie morality “in our heads” out into a particular context that most will be familiar with.

Then back again to the partiulcar context in which partiuclar behaviors come into conflict over particular value judgments. If he has taken his arguments there I missed them. Please link me to an instance of this.

Really, what else is there here? ILP is a virtual reality when discussing the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power. We can only relate an experience of our own, or one “from the news” of late.

Please cite an example of how one would take responsibility for the act of posting here. I’m not sure what your point is.

Again, all abstract. Let’s bring our “stories” down to earth. Note a context and then we can discuss the manner in which we react to particular behaviors in conflict. What parts of what we believe are true are things able to be demonstrated as true for all rational men and women.

In this regard, I focus on ecmandu specifically only to the extent that, in my view, he refuses to take the exchange in this direction. On the other hand, I’ve only read a small portion of his contributions here. If, in fact, he has illustrated his text [relating to objective morality out in the world that we live and interact in], please link me to some examples of this.

How can a challenge relating to the existence of objective value judgments not be about value judgments? I must be missing your point. Are you referring to solipsism? The argument that the only thing that can really be known [in either the either/or or the in/ought world] is that which is inside your head?

Instead, my point is more that, sans solipsism, the distinction to be made is between what you are able to demonstrate is true objectively for all rational human beings [and not just true in your head] and what is predicated more on the subjective components of my own moral philosophy.

Exactly. But: Under the assumption that my own frame of mind is in turn just another existential contration. So: What if others are able to convince me that my frame of mind here is less reasonable than their own? And that their own frame of mind [out in the is/ought world] allows them to feel considerably less fractured and fragmented. Thus enabling them to feel considerably more consoled and conforted by their own moral philosophy; one predicated on the assumption that there is a “real me” able to be in sync with “the right thing to so”?

True. But I am still largely uncertain as to how your own “pragmatism” actually “works” for you [in particular contexts] such that you are not in turn down in the hole that “I” am in.

Your own existential leaps to particular behaviors seem to allow for a more “integrated” sense of self. Something that “here and now” is beyond me.

You say this:

But I can’t be inside your head when “for all practical purposes” you do bump into others who challenge your own moral and political values. There was once a time when I was able to think that, “I’m right and you’re wrong” when confronting those who challenged me.

Now it’s more like, “had I lived your life I might well think as you do; besides, when push comes to shove, both of our arguments are reasonable given a particular set of assumptions; finally, I am hopelessly tugged in many different directions regarding my own value judgments.”

We both take our existential leaps but mine are considerably more wobbly than yours.

Well, that depends on whether or not this is actually an option for someone. Someone may well be able to not bother. But most of us are embedded in actual social, political and economic contexts in which we are not only expected to bother but are tugged and pulled by others to bother as they do.

By what criteria are you establishing that it is a zero sum game ? Does not everyone have the right to live their life how they choose as long as they do so within the law and do not harm others ? Now if having a house and wife and job and children is failure in your eyes then what actually constitutes success ? Not having a house and wife and job and children ? Do you have an alternative model that would actually work ? Because if you do I would love to see and it but if not then why are you even writing this ? You make no sense Ecmandu so can you try just for once to write something that actually does