About three or four metres. Any normal social setting will do.
Then around and around we go…
You can’t imagine it only because you have not experienced a set of circumstances “dramatic” or “traumatic” enough to precipitate it. Same with me and abortion before Song Be. And “a way of interacting with the world” is [to me] just another way of embracing an intuitive “spiritual” Self that is “somehow” immune to “contingency chance and change”. Something that, from my frame of mind, you just know about yourself in your head.
You might attempt to encompass it more perspicuously for those who are not in your head. Same with me and moral nihilism.
Fair enough. After all, who is to really say when one has explored something “enough”. But, again, your own explanations [to me] basically come down to this: it’s what I believe I know, it comforts and consoles me, there’s no way anyone can demonstrate I ought to know something else instead and, hopefully, I can take this frame of mind all the way to the grave.
Well, nature, in regard to the human species, is responsible for those mental afflictions. After all, nature creates such conditions in the human brain as schizophrenia. It’s not that people don’t care but that their brain can direct them — through voices, hallucinations and such – to kill others. Or they might have a brain tumor that brings it about. Think Charles Whitman and others like him: scientificamerican.com/arti … %20control.
Again, a profoundly amoral nature.
Yes, but I recognize how “my frame of mind” here is rooted in dasein…a subjective appraisal derived from political prejudices derived from the life you lived.
Of course, those on the other side of the issue can argue that the propaganda really revolves around patriarchy and sexism. And how many women really choose abortions strictly out of convenience? Many agonize over it. Many are in situations far more dire than others. Some sought to prevent the pregnancy, but a faulty contraceptive device brought it about. Some have been raped. Some the victims of incest.
What message is society giving out if it forces pregnant women to give birth? If it accuses doctors who perform abortions or women who receive them of first degree murder?
All I can do here is to fall back on my years as a political activist, my interactions with women who did choose abortion, the many, many, many news articles I have read in which women have expressed all manner of conflicting reactions to abortion. Their own or others.
Okay, but when we come to philosophy venues, the discussions don’t usually end with exchanges in which we tell others what we believe “in our head”.
We want to know why others believe what they do. Especially when it’s not what we believe. And if someone who links their moral convictions to an “intuitive spirit” Self – demonstrating it only in that this is what they believe “in their head” – insists this need be as far as it goes, well, that’s true. It “works” for them. It anchors their Self to a comforting and consoling psychological path.
Which I react to [subjectively] as follows…
Why would we be exchanging posts on this thread if we didn’t believe that we can learn from others regarding things like this? Or that they might learn things from us.
On the other hand, what I would not be inclined to inflict on another is a self-righteous authoritarian frame of mind whereby their behaviors are judged as being either moral or immoral. That judgment then revolving around an objectivist frame of mind/font. Around God or ideology or deontology or a genes > memos Satyrean Nature.
With you, however, you seem basically to share my perspective. But you don’t. You still have these “moral convictions” rooted in your entirely “private and personal” “spiritual Self” yet you inflect this “judgmental” connotation in reacting to those who do things that you consider wrong. Like choosing an abortion.
And yet you acknowledge that had your life been very different, you might be here defending abortion.
But, then, no, you couldn’t. Your “spiritual Self” just somehow draws the line for you. Not in the manner in which the objectivists draw their lines here…re Gods ideology, deontology and the like…but in a way that you can’t even really explain to yourself I suspect. You just know certain things about yourself.
And why wouldn’t you? It’s your intuition that comforts and consoles you. If that goes away, where are you but down in the hole with me? And, again, having myself gone through confronting experiences that deconstructed my own comforting and consoling security blankets, I know what is at stake for those on are on their own one true paths. Or what others call it.
I’m glad to hear that. It makes perfect sense to me.
Those we “meet” on the internet may or may not be who they say they are. Their intentions towards you may or may not be what they tell you.
Pheromones.
With other animals, this almost always revolves around sex…around mating. Or, rather, when I watch nature documentaries, that’s what it always seems to revolve around.
How is that different for you? I would think that pheromones would tell you nothing about a person’s intellectual breadth, emotional depth, social skills, sense of humor, accomplishments. Or their intentions toward you. Any ulterior motives. There, blind or sighted, we would all seem to be in the same boat.
Wit. That’s another thing that pheromones might miss.
Perhaps though you might consider a new user photograph here. Your intentions may well have been to have a bit of fun, but if you could see what I see, you may or may not grasp how some men [or women] might find the photograph you chose to be, well, sexually provocative.
Jesus.
A photograph showing two knees and half a thigh is too much for these guys. 
For some guys. That’s the part rooted in dasein. 
You in particular since you are the one writing about this.
Yeah, I noted my own reaction to the photograph above. My own “private and personal” subjective reaction rooted in dasein. The one that some would call “creepy” while others might be willing to discuss conflicting reactions to it “intelligently and civilly” in a philosophy venue. And even to connect the dots between that and their own “Kingdom of Ends” relating to human sexuality.
You know, as you yourself might done years ago here. 
Metres? WTF are metres? You mean yards? C’mon, aren’t you British?
You missed the point though…
Human perception is based on: 1) sight, 2) sound, 3) smell, 2) taste, then 1) touch.
Since you are blind and lack #1, you miss out on a fundamental method of sexual attraction. People feast in lust and appetite with eyes and sight first.
We covet what we see. Then, and only then, do we move closer. Then we hear. Then we smell. Then we taste (kiss), which is also a touch.
We learnt both metric and Imperial at school. Some types of measurement use one, and some the other.
Well, I do it differently. For me, smell comes first, in terms of sexual attraction, and it’s always the first thing I notice about a person. Then sound, that is, voice.
Maybe it’s a subconscious thing, people don’t realize how much sound, voice, or something like music, affects them.
Anyway, I think that’s enough derailing from me in this thread…
Hopefully Icthus returns.
Maybe you ought to ask Maia if she wants to be sexualized in this way. Ask if she wants to discuss it and discuss it in the manner that you are doing it.
Cause a couple of her responses seemed to indicate that she felt uncomfortable.
+++Then around and around we go…
You can’t imagine it only because you have not experienced a set of circumstances “dramatic” or “traumatic” enough to precipitate it. Same with me and abortion before Song Be. And “a way of interacting with the world” is [to me] just another way of embracing an intuitive “spiritual” Self that is “somehow” immune to “contingency chance and change”. Something that, from my frame of mind, you just know about yourself in your head.
You might attempt to come encompass it more perspicuously for those who are not in your head. Same with me and moral nihilism.+++
I’ve been trying to describe and explain it for quite some time now. But it seems like I can’t. And that’s ok.
+++Fair enough. After all, who is to really say when one has explored something “enough”. But, again, your own explanations [to me] basically come down to this: it’s what I believe I know, it comforts and consoles me, there’s no way anyone can demonstrate I ought to know something else instead and, hopefully, I can take this frame of mind all the way to the grave.+++
You say that as if it’s a bad thing.
+++Well, nature, in regard to the human species, is responsible for those mental afflictions. After all, nature creates such conditions in the human brain as schizophrenia. It’s not that people don’t care but that their brain can direct them — through voices, hallucinations and such – to kill others. Or they might have a brain tumor that brings it about. Think Charles Whitman and others like him: scientificamerican.com/arti … %20control.
Again, a profoundly amoral nature.+++
Indeed. I have never said otherwise.
+++Yes, but I recognize how “my frame of mind” here is rooted in dasein…a subjective appraisal derived from political prejudices derived from the life you lived.+++
Are you saying that because you recognise it, your frame of mind is better than mine?
+++Of course, those on the other side of the issue can argue that the propaganda really revolves around patriarchy and sexism. And how many women really choose abortions strictly out of convenience? Many agonize over it. Many are in situations far more dire than others. Some sought to prevent the pregnancy, but a faulty contraceptive device brought it about. Some have been raped. Some the victims of incest.
What message is society giving out if it forces pregnant women to give birth? If it accuses doctors who perform abortions or women who receive them of first degree murder?+++
I’ve heard the argument from pro-abortionists that I’m perfectly free to not have an abortion myself, but have no right to try and tell others what to do. This is a ridiculous and dishonest argument, I think, because all you have to do is swap abortion for murder, for example, to realise that it doesn’t work. Is murder a matter of personal choice, or does society have the right to tell its members not to do it? And this deals with the other main pro-abortion argument too, namely, that it’s always happened anyway, in secret. Well, so has murder.
+++All I can do here is to fall back on my years as a political activist, my interactions with women who did choose abortion, the many, many, many news articles I have read in which women have expressed all manner of conflicting reactions to abortion. Their own or others.+++
Can you think of any reason why those women might have been unwilling to discuss their innermost feelings with you?
+++Okay, but when we come to philosophy venues, the discussions don’t usually end with exchanges in which we tell others what we believe “in our head”.
We want to know why others believe what they do. Especially when it’s not what we believe. And if someone who links their moral convictions to an “intuitive spirit” Self – demonstrating it only in that this is what they believe “in their head” – insists this need be as far as it goes, well, that’s true. It “works” for them. It anchors their Self to a comforting and consoling psychological path.+++
You keep saying this as if your path is somehow less subjective.
+++Why would we be exchanging posts on this thread if we didn’t believe that we can learn from others regarding things like this? Or that they might learn things from us.+++
In truth, I doubt very much that I’ll either learn anything or convey anything on these matters.
+++On the other hand, what I would not be inclined to inflict on another is a self-righteous authoritarian frame of mind whereby their behaviors are judged as being either moral or immoral. That judgment then revolving around an objectivist frame of mind/font. Around God or ideology or deontology or a genes > memos Satyrean Nature.
With you, however, you seem basically to share my perspective. But you don’t. You still have these “moral convictions” rooted in your entirely “private and personal” “spiritual Self” yet you inflect this “judgmental” connotation in reacting to those who do things that you consider wrong. Like choosing an abortion.
And yet you acknowledge that had your life been very different, you might be here defending abortion.
But, then, no, you couldn’t. Your “spiritual Self” just somehow draws the line for you. Not in the manner in which the objectivists draw their lines here…re Gods ideology, deontology and the like…but in a way that you can’t even really explain to yourself I suspect. You just know certain things about yourself.+++
I do indeed know certain things about myself, and this, in my opinion, is no bad thing.
+++And why wouldn’t you? It’s your intuition that comforts and consoles you. If that goes away, where are you but down in the hole with me? And, again, having myself gone through confronting experiences that deconstructed my own comforting and consoling security blankets, I know what is at stake for those on are on their own one true paths. Or what others call it.+++
Thankfully, it’s not going away.
+++I’m glad to hear that. It makes perfect sense to me.
Those we “meet” on the internet may or may not be who they say they are. Their intentions towards you may or may not be what they tell you.+++
I think I’m a pretty good judge of character, but yes, you’re absolutely right, of course.
+++Pheromones.
With other animals, this almost always revolves around sex…around mating. Or, rather, when I watch nature documentaries, that’s what it always seems to revolve around.
How is that different for you? I would think that pheromones would tell you nothing about a person’s intellectual breadth, emotional depth, social skills, sense of humor, accomplishments. Or their intentions toward you. Any ulterior motives. There, blind or sighted, we would all seem to be in the same boat.+++
Pheromones bring about sexual attraction. The rest comes later.
+++Wit. That’s another thing that pheromones might miss.
Perhaps though you might consider a new user photograph here. Your intentions may well have been to have a bit of fun, but if you could see what I see, you may or may not grasp how some men [or women] might find the photograph you chose to be, well, sexually provocative.+++
It’s just my work uniform at the leisure centre. It might be many things, but I assure you that sexually provocative is not one of them.
As Phyllo has pointed out, it’s only you who seem to have sexualised my pic in this way, and you’ve asked me about sexual matters a number of times, too, despite me telling you that I didn’t really want to go there.
Please. Maia has made it abundantly clear on both threads that she had no intention of “sexualizing” herself. But she can’t see what I suspect some men see. Though, sure, in this sexually charged culture that we live in my own reaction is just another subjective conjecture rooted in dasein.
I don’t doubt that I might be completely wrong here. But I don’t doubt that you might be completely wrong as well. And with Maia of course it becomes all the more problematic because she can’t see the photograph herself.
Which only brings me back around to why some are uncomfortable discussing things relating to sexuality while others are not. The thing about human beings that most fascinates me. The thing that brought into existence this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197598
Exploring male/female exchanges here. And that is derived at least in part from the stalking incident she had with Adam. Did he see the photograph?
Unless you are part of a religious group which requires all part of the female body to be covered, there is nothing in that photograph which does not conform to community standards.
And this has exactly what to do with how individual men might respond to the photograph?
Like all of us here reside in precisely the same community where sexual standards have been pinned down objectively. And, by those standards, this photograph is entirely chaste.
All I can do is to speculate that some might find it sexually provocative. And they may or may not be of the stalker sort.
It was only a suggestion on my part given her own personal experience with the stalker sort.
Yes, I agree. It is entirely okay. Same with me explaining myself to others here. Ironically, that’s why I persist in trying over and again. Maybe the next time with the next person my frame of mind will sink in. And they will either have an argument that deconstructs mine and I’m up out of the hole or my argument will deconstruct theirs and they are down in the hole with me. Win/win. What can be better than that?
Well, if you are able to think yourself into believing that, in a philosophy venue, what counts most is that which brings you the most comfort and consolation all the way to the grave, sure, stop right there. On the other hand, others won’t just let you stop there. They will be more interested in how you demonstrate even to yourself that what you believe is true.
After all, there are any number of a God, the God, my God sorts here who will insist that if you are really after comfort and consolation you should opt for their One True Path. Why? Because the comfort and the consolation doesn’t just stop at the grave.
Yes, but if the reason some people kill is entirely as a result of nature itself, that they do not care about what they are doing is basically moot.
No, I am only suggesting that, in my own opinion, I am explaining my own frame of mind better that you are explaining yours. On the other hand, since so much of your own “sense of self” seems rooted in things you just know about yourself intuitively, that puts you in a position where, even in a philosophy venue, you don’t need to explain yourself at all. You merely have to believe what you do “in your head”. Again, to my way of thinking, the “perfect philosophy” in some respects.
Again, in my opinion, you completely avoid the point I am making here. You have no effective argument against this:
Instead, no matter what the circumstances are that result in an unwanted pregnancy, if the woman isn’t forced to give birth and chooses abortion that makes her a murderer.
Then it only comes down to the extent to which she is a murderer [a legal term] because she is deemed in turn to be inherently immoral. Even though “intuitively” she may herself deem this behavior to be moral.
It’s one thing to argue that you are free not to have an abortion yourself, and another thing altogether to argue that you must give birth. Or be charged with first degree murder. And then perhaps given a death sentence. Then we can argue over the conflicting “intuitive” assessments of capital punishment as a moral issue.
Sure, tons of reasons. But that is no less rooted in dasein from my own perspective. And what personal experiences have you had being around women who chose an abortion?
Note what you construe to be the most succinct examples of me doing this. No way would I argue that in regard to my own fractured and fragmented value judgments my frame of mind is less subjective. In fact, that they are fractured and fragmented in the first place speaks volumes regarding the extent to which “I” am drawn and quartered here.
It’s just that in regard to my own views on the morality of abortion I take people step by step through my own life in the OP here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
With you, however, it still comes down [from my frame of mind] to you just somehow knowing what you do about it. Without really addressing the arguments of those on the other side.
Or, again, so it still seems with me.
Yes, that’s why I noted that, in all likelihood, only a truly “dramatic/traumatic” experience is likely to bring you around to another frame of mind.
Well, it’s certainly not a bad thing if the things that you think you know about yourself enable you to sustain your own comforting and consoling frame of mind all the way to the grave.
But how well do you really know them when basically you are acknowledging even to yourself that you can’t really explain why and how you do know them? You just do.
Or, again, so it seems to me. But, again, that’s okay with you because what things seem to me [even in a philosophy venue] are ultimately moot.
Nothing can perhaps be better as a moral narrative then to merely fall back on what you think is true “in your head”. That makes it impervious to any and all criticism.
Thus [from my own subjective rooted-in-dasein vantage point]:
Again, you note this while acknowledging in turn that you have no idea what truly “dramatic/traumatic” experiences await you “down the road”. Back again to the Intuitive Spirit Self that is completely immune to contingency, chance and change.
Yes, you strike me that way as well. But never underestimate the “will” of those who have “ulterior motives” in regard to you. Especailly on line where we can be whomever we want others to think that we are.
Again, admittedly, what can I possibly know about that? To the best of my knowledge – consciously – I don’t think that smell has ever played a big role in my own romantic relationships. But if you do find yourself drawn to another sexually through pheromones, will “all the rest” make or break the relationship?
Well, for some, a mini skirt is very much sexually provocative. As is how you were posed in it. But how can I communicate my own reaction to the photograph to someone who is not only not seeing what I do but does not even associate sexual attraction itself with sight.
First of all, what brought sexuality into our exchange in the first place was you mentioning to me [here at ILP or in our email exchange] about the commitment you made to the Goddess to be celibate for literally years. Then the part where in our email exchange you noted that Adam/Urwrong had stalked you sexually. Yet you continue to interact with him to this day.
All that sort of stuff fascinates me because, above all else, I am fascinated with why some individuals embrace sets of behaviors that others find appalling. The part embedded in dasein.
And sexuality is dynamite here because it brings into clear [or muddled] focus the stuff that those like Satyr always reduce it down to: genes vs. memes.
And the fact that, in my view, this cannot be explored philosophically to any great extent until philosophers themselves are willing to “get personal”.
I’m not in the least bit uncomfortable going there. And given the extent to which sexuality does saturate so much of our interactions in this postmodern world, the last thing we need are mentalities rooted in what those such as Wilhelm Reich explored.
Sexual repression among other things. Sexual repression and conservative political narratives/agendas in particular.
But that’s just me. If others wish to argue that it’s all just “creepy”, so be it.
Don’t gaslight her.
You’re the one sexualizing her photograph. You.
Whatever she said about her celibacy is entirely separate.
In a really perfect world this would not even exist, and you would not be linking it.
And, of course, the very fact that you accuse me of gaslighting her here is enough to make it true.
I keep forgetting how the objectivist mind works.
Oh, and why are you so obsessed with something that is but a sliver of our exchange on this thread?
Any contribution from you regarding the other 95%?
Or is this once again all about you coming after me? Stooge stuff.
Given, perhaps, the damage that I have already done to your own precious Self? 
The very fact that you deny it is enough …
No, you don’t even deny it.
“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”
If anyone finds fault in anything that you do, then he is a stooge.
So, you’re sticking with the sex stuff, eh?
Note to Maia:
Make of that what you will, of course.
And you now know me so well you’ve figured out that if I deny something that makes it true? Or did you pay ecmandu to read my mind?
But then you need to have it both ways. I am gaslighting her because I deny it. But, no, I don’t deny it at all.
But, in fact, I do.
Look, I already noted to her what my own reaction to the photograph was. And I can only react to it as I do, right? So, my aim then is to shift the discussion to why some will react to it sexually while others will not. Then of course the part where using the tools of philosophy we might be able to pin down how all rational men and women ought to react to it. If they react sexually, is that wrong?
Ah, Mr. Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle.
Note to others:
Okay, maybe I’m missing his point here. You tell me why you think he is so obsessed with my reaction to Maia’s photograph.
No, a Stooge here, given my own hopelessly subjective, rooted-existentially-in-dasein frame of mind, is someone who, in my opinion, tries to make the exchange about me.