The precise term, in my case, is bilateral optic nerve aplasia, which means no optic nerves. There is no known cause. Thankfully, there were no other complications, except with regard to my eyes, which were atrophied, and were removed when I was two. The upside of this is that I get to choose my own eye colour. I’m told that green suits me, so I always go for that, though I also have a pair of blanks, which are much cheaper. Is this what you wanted to know?
With regard to sexual matters, however, I think I’ve already said as much as I want to on that subject. It’s not something I feel particularly comfortable talking about.
Like a student caught without a hall pass? Thanks teacher.
You know, Biggy, when I imagine an authoritarian dictator ruling over a foreign country, I imagine someone sanctioning a national ideology that everyone is legally obligated to believe and follow, on pain of imprisonment or death for believing in anything else. But when I imagine you as the authoritarian dictator, I imagine you sanctioning no national ideology–in fact, outlawing belief itself unless they achieve the impossible goal of meeting your challenge–demonstrating in such a manner that all men and women, should they wish to be recognized as virtuous and rational, are obligated to agree with (except you, of course, who, because he applies his philosophy to himself, can believe in whatever prejudice he wants). I can’t see you simply accepting that others might have beliefs different from you–even if they can prove it–or even if they freely admit there is a gap–even if they believe everything you believe about dasein (since you don’t seem to accept that IRL)–it’s like you would inverse the roles of belief and wealth in your authoritarian dictatorship–amassing the right to believe all to yourself and leaving nothing else for all your citizens (or subjects).
That’s the majority of people, not just pinheads (unless you think of the majority of people as pinheads). Even a 5 year old is an objectivist (even if he doesn’t understand the term “objectivism” or know how to think intellectually about it) as he takes the world and everything around him as objectively real. Again, I think (and I could be wrong) that you’re referring to the dogmatists–those who insist on objectivism without feeling they need a reason to–as opposed to just anyone who thinks the world is objectively real.
You’re confusing what philosophers, scientists, and theologians are grappling with for why. And I suppose the insolubility of the mind/matter problem is reason enough, but we don’t even get to that point. We are creatures of evolution, trying to survive against natural selection–everything we do and think (including the perpetual debate on the mind/matter problem) is in the service of survival–which comes down to leveraging social and political power–trying to be right in the face of your opposition–for prestige, wealth, and power. This is why Nietzsche believed we’re primarily driven by the will to power as opposed to the will to truth. This only exacerbates the problem because the will to power breeds competition whereas the will to truth breeds cooperation, a willingness to arrive at consensus.
Sure, but I’m proposing that there is a third option: indeterminism without free will. Many scientists believe this is what we’ve uncovered with quantum indeterminism–that seemingly random collapse of the wave function–which many philosophers concede is anything but free will. Can you imagine if the particles that make up your body, your brain, suddenly started doing things randomly (which they do, according to quantum mechanics, but not nearly close enough to the macroscopic level to matter)? Would it not feel like you had lost control of yourself? Your behavior and your body? ← I wouldn’t call that free will but it’s not determinism either. Is it dasein? Well, insofar as dasein is our being thrown into the world despite our not having chose to, I suppose it is dasein, but with the caveat that here we’re all in the same boat–at the mercy of the randomness of nature (as opposed to the mercy of genes and environments which differ from person to person).
But your own philosophy pretty much scratches that out as a possibility. Any explanation they could offer would come in the form of an intellectual contraption, which you unwaveringly dismiss as just an intellectual contraption. How, according to your own philosophy, is it even possible for one (anyone) to meet your challenge?
Then why do you insist that it’s impossible for people to “almost” understand each other to the point of agreeing or having a functional conversation? I never said this had to take place in the realm of the is/ought world (although it obviously happens there too).
How 'bout (and this is a stretch) conversations like the latest Mets game–or is the is/ought world the only world that exists for you?
So you’re saying we contradict ourselves knowingly? You’d seriously rather believe that than that you got one of the propositions wrong (might I suggest the second one–that we thinking our “true” inner selves would guide us to the “right” morality anyway)? 'Cause, you know, I’ve only been correcting this mistaken for the last 18 pages!
You mean other than the answer to this question I’ve given over and over and over [size=85]and over and over[/size] [size=50]and over and over…[/size]?
The fact that you imagine this, that it is pure fantasy, explains everything.
What about instead of a shift, one just stopped thinking about it?
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say! I have these emotions that happen to be pro-trucker and I can’t help it!!! I don’t fall back on them as a justification for why my support for the truckers is right, I just point out (to you because you’re asking) that I have them and I can’t make them go away.
Yes indeed!
I think you’re being far too generous in your appraisal of my motives here. They’re a lot more limited than that. They’re simply to counter your (apparent) insistence that intuitions are always used merely to cultivate a sense of comfort in being able to say “I just know”. I’m saying that even if that’s so, intuitions can still be right. Whether I’m using that to bolster my own case (or Maia’s–this initially applied to her after all and I merely defended it), I haven’t said.
Are you saying intuitions are too (I guess) “mystical” to be grounded in anything real/natural? Didn’t you read (stupid question, of course you didn’t) my account of intuitions as simply unconscious thought processes delivering to consciousness their conclusions but not the means by which they arrived at them? So you end up with a sense of “just knowing” without knowing how you know? What’s so mystical about that? Do you think of “unconscious processes” as psychological mumbo-jumbo?
Uh… yeah. They’re just there. I don’t know how I acquired the emotions I have, the intuitions I have. But when I look inside, when I introspect, there they are! All these pro-trucker emotions and intuitions. Not that I believe in what they say (necessarily) but they’re definitely there and they compel me. And it’s not that I can’t speculate on how they got there. Dasein all the way, sure, but what specific events or life altering turning points or movies or books or experiences… well, I can only speculate. And it’s not that I’m afraid of speculation, it’s just that it seems pretty useless when the only point I want to make is that these emotions and intuitions happen to be there in my mind, there to stay it seems, to the chagrin of everything you say. It doesn’t matter how they got there, whether it was dasein or not, your arguments, my arguments, don’t make them go away. I don’t see why that should be such a shock to you. Maybe your brain doesn’t work that way, but since when has the world been just a bunch of cookie cutter copies of you? We’re all different, and if I tell you I have these pro-trucker emotions (and fine, intuitions too), it behooves you to take my word for it. Arguing your points about dasein, even when I agree with them, doesn’t have some magical prowess capable of making them disappear.
'Cause I’m a dirty old man who like fat 14 year old girls (you see Biggy, we’re the same).
And what does that have to do with the trucker protest?
I’ll explain. When you engage with members here at ILP, you seem to apply anything but the philosophy of “their thoughts/feelings are theirs, mine are mine”. You seem obsessed not only with what they think and feel but with attempting with every measure to poke holes in and utterly shatter their beliefs and feelings. You seem wholly incapable of letting people have their beliefs and feelings while you have yours, and putting it past you. If you could apply the philosophy that you apply to your feelings towards Maia to everyone else, you wouldn’t campaign here at ILP nearly as much as you do (or at least on the same old worn subject). But what fun would that be? Am I right?
That, to me, sounds like a prime concern with what she (and others) believe and feel.
Maybe it should. Maybe you’d realize how ridiculous your theory on how people’s “I” stays intact really is.
Yes, and this is goal post shifting. Sure, the ultimate goal of this thread is to discuss the trucker protest, but we were on a tangent talking about how you determine why someone’s “I” remains intact. ← Let’s stick to that a bit longer before we bring this around to the trucker protest. Stick to scenarios in which morality and conflicting goods don’t arise and explain to me why one cannot anchor one’s “I” onto things in that context (like one’s career, one’s children, mathematics, music, cooking, etc.).
Ugh! * You’ve already moved on. I want to know, before we get back to human conflicts and problematic situations, why these are the only contexts to which one can anchor one’s “I” and remain intact.
You see, Biggy, we went off on a tangent because I’m trying to answer this question. It became apparent that you can’t understand my answer because you can’t understand how my “I” remains intact despite agreeing with your take on dasein while still taking a side. So I had to (try to) explain how my “I” remains intact because I anchor it onto “being a father, an artist, a software developer, a recovering alcoholic/drug addict”. If you can understand that, I can bring this back to the trucker protest by saying “my ‘I’ remains intact despite agreeing with your take on dasein and yet picking a side because I don’t anchor my ‘I’ on my feelings or morality about the trucker protest.” ← That’s what it has to do with the trucker protest. But we seem to be stuck on how I can anchor my ‘I’ on being a father, an artist, etc. so I can’t quite bring it back to the trucker protest just yet. At this point, I need some extra information from you. I need to know why you think one cannot anchor one’s “I” on things like being a father, an artist, etc…
Right, and I gave those to you… long time ago. I’ll even link you to it: here. Then we went on a tangent about the girl who stood me up when I was 16… like my explanation wasn’t enough and if only I could explain to you how that event affected my life’s course would you suddenly be satisfied. Or would you need more? Would you need me to acknowledge, for example, how building a train from spice bottles when I was 3 years old affected the course of my life such that I, standing here today, am a proud trucker supporter? How many, and what kinds, of events from my past, out of the gazillions that there were, would you need included in the account to be able to say “Ah, thanks gib, now I can work with that”?
Great! Now answer my question: why must one anchor one’s “I” on a controversial objectivist morality in order stay intact? Why not a career or movie trivia?
And this is a really strange thing to call “mysterious”. Why is it so mysterious that deep down inside I care about the trucker protest (the pro-trucker side in particular). Don’t you find things you care about when you look inside? Even if you find that they conflict with other things you care about? Didn’t you say you still harbor certain leftist prejudices and, along with them, leftist feelings that make you care about leftist issues? Is it so mysterious that you could look within yourself and find them there? Or do you mean to say that I refuse to acknowledge that they come from dasein? Is that what the scare quotes around “somehow” are about? I don’t contend with your use of the scare quotes but not because I deny that my caring for the truckers comes from dasein but because I can’t be 100% certain about what particular life events or influences or genetic predispositions it comes from (though I can speculate with a relative degree of certainty). But, sure, in general it all comes from dasein. I just prefer to emphasize my feelings and my caring for the truckers as a brute fact about my psychology that doesn’t go away just because I acknowledge it comes from dasein.
I take it you’re with the Wicker Man.
But a perceptive pinhead, you gotta admit.
Fair enough, but what I mean is that I don’t care about all that in the moment. If I were caught in a heated debate with an anti-trucker at a protest, a debate that was on the brink of exploding into violence, all the things from my past that brought me to embrace a pro-trucker point of view and react emotionally to the anti-trucker as I would… would be the last thing on my mind. I’d be way more concerned with defending myself and preparing for the possibility of a fight. But in calmer, safer, more secluded, more thought-provoking contexts (such as this discussion), sure I would care about all the factors that lead me to my current pro-trucker position and emotional reactions–“care” that is in the sense that it interests me to think about.
Wrong answer my friend! Let’s try again. Why your [insert prejudice here] and not someone else’s? Let’s bring in a more concrete context. Let’s say we’re discussing your “deep down inside” leftist prejudices that you admit still linger within. Why your leftist prejudices and not some right-wing fanatic’s (Urwrong?) prejudices? You get what I’m doing here, right? Dasein can’t be the answer because it has to be something that applies only to your leftist prejudices and not the right-wing fanatic’s. You know why, right? Because the question is setup to pit you against him. It’s either your prejudice or his–not both. Dasein applies to all of us. So why yours and not his? Your answer to that will apply to me when the question is directed at me [size=85](hint: “I don’t know” is probably the right answer)[/size].
But I’m on the precipice of becoming a pinhead right? How many strikes do I have left?
I just love how at exactly the point where I justify myself (explaining how it doesn’t render me above dasein), you have to split the quote into two and call the latter a “general description intellectual contraption”. Your defense mechanisms come with impeccable precision. You know exactly when to obfuscate my words.
I do. But your the one who links this with my “Self”. You don’t get the concept of an “emotional self” without the “self”. This is why I brought up the idea of linking one’s self with the shit they took. Based on your explanation about what keep one’s self intact (that they anchor their “self” onto something that makes them feel “in sync” with it), one could attach their self to literally anything. You might as well say you have a “shit self” (not to be confused with your shitty self). This was before you added the condition that it had to be something controversial or “problematic” (which I still don’t understand), but that doesn’t come from me. The only thing that comes from me in this particular case is that I sometimes have certain feelings that are at odds with my thoughts (which is true of everybody except you, I guess). That I use this as my “self” anchor is your contribution.
This still doesn’t explain what you expect to get out of this thought experiment. What are you expecting me to suddenly be hit with by running this thought experiment through to its end in my mind? What are you expecting to be hit with when I report my results?
Do you mean to bring in the emotions/intuitions vs thoughts distinction again? As in, our thoughts don’t matter? What matters is our feelings?
In that case, it’s not something like that… at all. I don’t think my feelings “matter” more than my thoughts–I just have them, and I can’t help but to see my thoughts on the matter–thoughts that stem from those very emotions–as vacuous in the light of what I understand about dasein. I guess in that sense, they don’t matter, but that just means I can’t bring myself to believe in them given what I know about dasein, and that while I might say the same of my emotions, my emotions stick around nonetheless. ← This is the part where I bring in the fact that I can’t help it. I can’t help what I can’t control–my emotions sticking around despite what I know about dasein. And the part where I fall back on brute facts–it’s just a brute fact that my emotions stick around, always driving me, compelling me–while my thoughts just “fizzle out”, powerless to take a stand with or against my emotions. ← All of this is brute fact which is the only thing I find myself justified to bring to this conversation and which you are powerless to make go away.
D’uh! You say this about everyone who disagrees with you. To me, the fact that you need to say this in response to the myriad variety of responses you get to your views on dasein tells me this is your defense mechanism, a way to make yourself feel “strong” (uber strong!), able to take the painful sting of dasein’s harsh truth, of not needing a comfortable consoling fairy tale to live in. What else do you have in your grim dismal world?
But in any case, like I said, I don’t see any one “truth” at this level of exegesis to be any more “real” than any other. I see them on equal footing. I don’t know what makes mine a “defense mechanism” and yours not (except in the sense that they’re all defense mechanisms). In order to say I only hold onto my conception of dasein as opposed to yours because I need it to sustain a “whole gib” and feel comforted and consoled by that, you must believe your conception of dasein is the “true” conception and mine false. So the ol’ question rears its ugly head again: Why yours and not mine?
Now, to add my updated list. You have yet to confirm or deny any one item of that list. Until you do, I will assume I’ve got it right and move forward with that assumption, and the list itself will continue to grow.
I have observed that too. He would outlaw every belief about what’s good and what’s bad. All other beliefs would be allowed though. Remember that he keeps making that distinction between “either/or” and “is/ought” world i.e. between descriptive and prescriptive statements. And even then, chances are he would only outlaw those beliefs that are a bit too certain for his taste. So you might not be able to state your value judgments confidently but you would still be able to state them . . . so as long there is a way you can state them such that Biggy’s feelings aren’t hurt. At least you would be free to say whatever you want about elections and whatnot since such statements don’t bother him as much. But if you’re going to say that homosexuality is a disease, you will either have to say it in such a way that shows that you aren’t really sure it’s true or you will have to satisfy his impossible demands; or you will have to spend some time at a camp working really hard.
By all means, make up your own minds here. Note how he left out what he himself posted that I was responding to above. His accusation that the arguments I make in my signature threads are not an attempt by me to explain what I mean by dasein. Both philosophically and experientially.
How preposterous is that?!
Bottom line [mine]: When, in regard to an issue like the trucker protest or abortion, is he going to take his own intellectual contraptions here down out of the clouds?
Instead, in regard to this thread…
…we get this from him:
Let him point out the things in the OP that were not clear to him.
And, no, I don’t call everyone an objectivist…only those who divide up the world of moral and political value judgments into those deemed to be “one of us” [the smart guys, the good guys] and “one of them” [the dumb guys, the bad guys]. And they do this, of course, by insisting that they are in touch with the Real Me ever and always in sync with the Right Thing To Do.
Now, let him note his own reaction to the trucker protest, to the morality of abortion, to the gun control conflagrations etc. Let him intertwine his own life experiences with his philosophy as I did above in regard to abortion. Anything to get him down out of those didactic clouds where the arguments invariably swirl around dueling definitions and deductions.
Again, I’ve explained why my own understanding of it is not just a state of confusion. Someone might be confused about who is right or wrong in the trucker protest, but they believe that there is a right side and a wrong side. Whereas I believe that while right and wrong might exist here, until it is demonstrated such that there can be no doubt about it, I maintain that such value judgments are rooted existentially [subjectively] in dasein.
Gib believes that as well in regard to his moral and political narrative. But he is convinced that his [to me] mysterious “intuitive self” puts him on his own rendition of the One True Path.
Now, when is Magnus going to articulate his own assessment of the trucker protest as a moral and political issue?
Instead, this ridiculous example from him:
As though this is the equivalent of the trucker protest!!
Is he really this dense? As though he himself can provide us with an argument that demonstrates which side is absolutely right and which side is absolutely wrong. Killing the unborn or forcing women to give birth.
Same with the trucker protest? He can provide us with the whole truth here so that we will all know whether to support them or not?
Uh, logically?
Then, in my view, an example of how the pinheads “think” this through:
It’s all so simple. One or the other. Magnus is basically telling us that human morality itself is entirely in sync with logic? There’s how he thinks? And if you don’t think like he does in regard to the trucker protest and abortion and gun control and animal rights and homosexuality and on and on and on, you are not being logical yourself?
Thus:
A discussion in which I am mentioned. In which points I raise are criticized. Only unlike over at Know Thyself where I am accused of this and that and am not able to defend myself, here I still am.
The causes of congenital blindness seem rooted in biological imperatives that are basically beyond our control many times. It is what it is. “Nature’s way” some might call it.
Instead, where things get considerably more problematic is in our reaction to it. Your reaction to it in experiencing the condition itself and the reactions of others based on any number of factors in their lives. Some of the factors might result in ignorance. Or in stereotypes. Or in prejudices. People react to you based on what they have been told about blindness…which might have nothing at all to do with how you experience it.
A few points…
1] to the best of my recollection, the subject of sex was introduced by you in our exchange on [I believe] the dream thread or in our email exchange. I was grappling to understand your behavior in regard to the Goddess and to Nature. And you had mentioned your commitment to abstain from sex for a number of years as an example. And that struck me as peculiar because in the film The Wicker Man [and more recently the film Midsommar] sex seemed to be of fundamentally importance in both communities. And what could possibly be more natural in human interactions than that which reproduces the species itself? In fact, “in my head” I have always associated Paganism with the libertine, Dionysian lifestyle.
2] I would suggest that you change your avatar. Or, as at the PN forum, not have one at all. Now, admittedly, this is entirely subjective on my part, but I myself find the picture you chose with your brother to be sexually provocative. And I think that other men will as well. On the other hand, how on earth can I actually explain that to you given that you are unable to see it yourself at all. It is strictly a “hunch” on my part.
3] Okay, I can respect you wanting the discussions here to steer clear of your own sexuality. If you are not comfortable talking about it then that is what it is. Still, discussing sex in a philosophy venue can be very different from discussing it on a “social media” venue, or on a dating app. There are, after all, countless controversies that swirl around sexual issues “in the news” and it is certainly something that can be discussed without things getting creepy or salacious.
+++The causes of congenital blindness seem rooted in biological imperatives that are basically beyond our control many times. It is what it is. “Nature’s way” some might call it.
Instead, where things get considerably more problematic is in our reaction to it. Your reaction to it in experiencing the condition itself and the reactions of others based on any number of factors in their lives. Some of the factors might result in ignorance. Or in stereotypes. Or in prejudices. People react to you based on what they have been told about blindness…which might have nothing at all to do with how you experience it.+++
People’s reactions can certainly be embarrassing at times, which is why I’m always happy to try and dispel a bit of ignorance. That’s my own personal decision, of course.
And yes, nature’s way, for sure. Nature has bestowed this gift on me, so it’s my responsibility to use it as best as I can.
+++A few points…
1] to the best of my recollection, the subject of sex was introduced by you in our exchange on [I believe] the dream thread or in our email exchange. I was grappling to understand your behavior in regard to the Goddess and to Nature. And you had mentioned your commitment to abstain from sex for a number of years as an example. And that struck me as peculiar because in the film The Wicker Man [and more recently the film Midsommar] sex seemed to be of fundamentally importance in both communities. And what could possibly be more natural in human interactions than that which reproduces the species itself? In fact, “in my head” I have always associated Paganism with the libertine, Dionysian lifestyle.
2] I would suggest that you change your avatar. Or, as at the PN forum, not have one at all. Now, admittedly, this is entirely subjective on my part, but I myself find the picture you chose with your brother to be sexually provocative. And I think that other men will as well. On the other hand, how on earth can I actually explain that to you given that you are unable to see it yourself at all. It is strictly a “hunch” on my part.
3] Okay, I can respect you wanting the discussions here to steer clear of your own sexuality. If you are not comfortable talking about it then that is what it is. Still, discussing sex in a philosophy venue can be very different from discussing it on a “social media” venue, or on a dating app. There are, after all, countless controversies that swirl around sexual issues “in the news” and it is certainly something that can be discussed without things getting creepy or salacious.+++
I’ve taken your advice and removed my pic. It’s over ten years old, anyway.
I can’t remember who brought up the subject of sex, but if it was me, it was probably a mistake. As for the Wicker Man, as I never cease to point out, it’s a work of fiction. Real Pagan communities are not like that. That’s why Pagans love it so much, because it’s really funny and over the top. And your own opinions on the nature of Paganism are not informed by any actual experience of the Pagan community, either.
In any event, my point is that, as with the trucker protest, voluptuous is in the mind of the beholder. And the mind of the beholder is rooted existentially in dasein. Now, with gib, Maia and I, what we believe “in our mind” “here and now” about the truckers and abortion and guns and human sexuality, etc., is such that had our lives been different, we might be here arguing something altogether different.
But with gib and Maia, there is a “spiritual Self” and an “intuitive Self” that, to me, seems similar to your own “intrinsic Self”.
Only I am not really able to understand how “for all practical purposes” that came about for any of you.
All I can note is how, again, to me, it might be construed as the perfect moral philosophy. Why? Because no one can really challenge you. Why? Because in order to grasp your moral and political convictions others would have to be you.
Right?
Same with Magnus. In regard to the trucker protest, what are his own moral and political convictions? From what particular factors and variables in his life did he come to acquire a “self”/Self?
Is he a moral objectivist rooting his value judgments in…logic? Is he in possession of his own “intrinsic Self”?
Why do you think I possess such convictions? And even if you don’t, and you are merely using those as an example of what kind of convinctions you want me to “bring down to earth”, why should I? But first, you will have to explain what you want me to do. You want me to “bring my moral beliefs down to earth”. Okay, what does that mean? What do you want? We’ve been over this. You have a very poor memory. I told you what the next step in the process is. You said “Okay, then we’re stuck”. Now you’re acting as if that never happened. So you really are just nagging at this point. But ultimately, you do realize that you’re asking me to switch to a different subject? I was discussing certain issues with Gib that have less to do with morality and more to do with understanding your position. Nothing to do with truckers.
Why should I? I was talking about the word “dasein”.
What about people who divide people into those who are right and those who are wrong – not necessarily into those who are smart and those who are dumb? There’s such a distinction too but just because someone is wrong on some issue doesn’t mean they are dumb.
All in all, the impression that I get is that you don’t like it when people say negative things about other people because you don’t want to be one of those people. You don’t like it when people criticize you (even if indirectly.)
Nag nag nag nAg Nag naG NAG nag nag nag.
“WIGGLE WIGGLE WIGGLE!”
NAG NAG NAG NAG NAG!
Who decides whether or not a moral belief has been demonstrated beyond doubt?
How does that work?
Everyone must agree?
A certain percentage of people must agree?
Biggy decides it?
If so, what’s the criterion that you use?
Well, it obviously went over your head.
What kind of argument is that? A magical one? What properties does it have? Who decides whether or not any given argument demonstrates which side is absolutely right and which side is absolutely wrong?
Some things are indeed simple. Like crossing a road. Or tying your shoes. This one is one of them.
Please. There are countless things that we take for granted in our day-to-day interactions with others. And precisely because they can readily be demonstrated to in fact be true for all of us. The authority here being nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us, the rules of language.
Thus, we are not here arguing about whether there was a trucker protest in Canada, are we? Or whether the covid virus was the real deal. Or whether the Canadian government was faced with what to do about it.
No, instead, what I focus in on here are those Big Questions that have stumped scientists and philosophers for centuries. Along with all the conflagrations that revolve around conflicting goods. Demonstrating how what you think is true here is in fact true objectively.
Do you know of anyone able to demonstrate definitively that we either have free will or we don’t? Do you know of anyone able to demonstrate definitively that the truckers were either right or wrong to protest?
Sigh…
Back again to this majority actually being able to demonstrate that what they believe “in their head” about the laws of matter, about the human brain as matter, need be as far as they go in order to make what they believe true.
In other words, why are they grappling to determine if what they are grappling with they are grappling with itself with or without free will?
And if we don’t then my confusion, like you pointing it out, is inherently, necessarily embedded in the only possible reality.
Right?
Ultimately, nothing is more important than pinning this down. Not if we want to believe that what we believe we freely opted to believe. About anything, I’m guessing.
But how exactly does the brain go about explaining itself?
Right, like it really doesn’t matter that [ultimately] we cannot determine here and now whether any of this is in fact a manifestation of human autonomy.
The only problem here of course is the gap between what scientists think they know about quantum mechanics here and now and all that can possibly be known about it. And, again, for me, dasein is relevant only in assuming that we do have some measure of free will. But that, even if we do possess it in the is/ought world, in the absence of God, there does not appear to be a font mere mortals can turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods. Value judgments then become the very embodiment of dasein, in my view.
I recount the actual experiences I had in my life that did challenge my own convictions regarding abortion. From Christianity to Marxism to Existentialism to Nihilism. From an objectivist Self to a fractured and fragmented “self”.
People understand each other and function smoothly regarding tons of things from day to day. In the either/or world. But the contentions that revolve around things like the trucker protest, the abortion wars, and the election tomorrow in America pertain to how we ought to behave in the is/ought world. I merely attribute the lack of clear communication and smoothness to the “self” as the embodiment of dasein.
Okay, so why didn’t you start a thread entitled “Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!! The Mets game!!!”
With the trucker protest, there are things [facts] most can agree on. That there was a protest. That the covid pandemic in Canada was not just a “Libtard” hoax. That the government there had an obligation to its citizens to come up with a policy to deal with this global health crisis.
But what policies? Policies that every single Canadian citizen would embrace as the most rational? No, this thread revolves mostly around whether the trucker protest was a good thing or a bad thing. Then how I construe the acquisition of both an identity and value judgments in my arguments. You in yours.
Again:
There is how you think about the trucker protest. As a moral and political issue. But you admit that had your life been different you might well think completely different about it.
But emotionally and/or intuitively, you support them.
Now, to me, this is to say that “somehow” your emotions and your intuitions “guide” you – re what, a “core self”?, a “soul”? – to support them. Even though you might be out among the truckers telling them that morally and politically you think they are wrong.
You might have contradictory thoughts and political prejudices regarding the truckers over the years. But “somehow” you “just know” that you should support them. In whatever way you construe your own emotions and intuitions.
Emotions and intuitions I ascribe largely to dasein no less than the thinking part. But you ascribe to what…God? biological imperatives? Nature?
That is what I don’t understand?
No, you have described your Self here in terms of both.
Exactly!
That’s why believing this makes it the perfect moral philosophy!! How can anyone challenge you when they do not have access to the “deep down inside you” Self?
You are not fractured and fragmented because you have managed to convince yourself that this Real Me is able emotionally and intuitively to “just know” that you should support the truckers.
Okay, so how exactly do you go about demonstrating that this Real Me does in fact exist? That it is not merely a manifestation of dasein as I encompass it?
Oh, now I understand:
Again, in my view, you can’t even really explain it to yourself.
Come on, gib, there could be another protest. You could take your arguments here to them. And I’d love to be there myself catching their reactions.
Let’s leave it to others to decide for themselves if that’s true.
Right, and what does the organ you think with, and feel with and intuit with have to do with the points I raise?
Sure, that’s always possible for some. But how probable is it?
Back when I was a devout Christian, my thinking and my feeling about God were in sync. But then I met Danny and Mac and Steve and John in the MACV at Song Be. And, over time, my thinking shifted to Marxism and to atheism. But, admittedly, my emotions at the time were more muddled. I still wanted to believe in God. And a part of me was truly ambivalent regarding it all emotionally and intuitively. But by the time I was out of the Army and in college, I had had enough new experiences and new relationships and access to new information and knowledge such that my emotions and intuitions were once again in sync. Same with when I came to abandon objectivism altogether.
Again, if this is how you have come to think about it, good for you. It works. You acquire a certain measure of comfort and consolation in believing that you just can’t help what your brain – programed by God? by Nature? – commands of you.
But how about this. The life you lived was different. And, as a result of that, you come to think like I do here instead?
But, no, there is still this [to me] mysterious Real Me emotional gib that “just knows” not to think like I do.
Then around and around we go.
Note to the fulminating fanatic objectivists here who support the truckers intellectually, emotionally and intuitively:
What say you to gib?
I’m pointing out the obvious here, in my view. That to the extent someone is able to convince themselves that their thinking and/or their emotions and/or their intuitions are in sync regarding how they ought to respond to the trucker protest, that is likely to comfort and console them. It’s just that some along the way begin to ponder whether or not the whole point of it is to experience a feeling of comfort and consolation. Whether in supporting the truckers or in supporting the government. It’s objectivism itself [whatever you anchor it to] that offers at least some measure of solace in what can, at times, be a truly brutal world.
I mean an essential reality, of course. A reality that we can anchor meaning and purpose in that goes beyond our own infinitesimally insignificant life in the staggering vastness of “all there is”. In the either/or world we are on the same path: birth, school, work death.
But what of “meaning and purpose” then? Why ours and not theirs? Why yours and not mine? The part that revolves around dasein.
This part:
I’m saying we all come into this world hard-wired to think and feel and intuit. But we clearly are not hard-wired to think and feel and intuit in the same way. No, that’s the part where the memes comes in. Memes rooted historically, culturally and personally in our own individual lives.
Instead, if we all “end up with a sense of ‘just knowing’ without knowing how we know”, what, for all practical purposes, does that mean? If not a mystical world than certainly one in which we are closer to being programmed biologically by our brains to behave in a way that we don’t really have all that much control over.
Again, the perfect moral “philosophy”: There they are! So, there it is: your support for them.
Again, for me, all the murkier. Yeah, you say, there they are…your emotions and your intuitions. Dasein all the way, sure. Though you’re right: all those experiences we had as a kid being brainwashed to see the world around us as others do. And all those experiences as an adult that we can only have so much understanding or control over. But, so what!! There they are anyway.
Not to worry. As long as they comfort and console you and you are able ground your Self to an emotional anchor, why on earth would you want them to go away. And, of course, those on the other side of you for the same reason thinks that your emotions and intuitions are full of shit? Well, “there it is” for all of you!
Actually, in my view, your brain is closer to the cookie cutter. It stamps out emotions and intuitions that you can then use to “just know” to support the truckers. And, again, who can really challenge you? What can they possibly “just know”, “just feel”, “just intuit” about you other than what their own brains stamp out for them.
Nope, I prefer voluptuous mature women with brains.
Again, it revolves around how we come to acquire our value judgments: 1] Existentially, given the particular life we lived/live, 2] spiritually, rooted in Nature, or 3] emotionally, rooted in whatever the hell you have convinced yourself that means. And this is applicable to both the trucker protest and to choosing celibacy.
Yes, as I noted to Maia, a part of me wants to bring her down into the “hole” that I have thought myself into. Why? Because I’d have someone I could empathize with. But another part of me recognizes the possibility that, being as bright as she is, something she notes about her spiritual Self might persuade me instead to reacquire one of my own.
No, those I go after here are the objectivists. Why? Because I believe that objectivism [God or No God] is a dangerous philosophy. Why? Because as often as not when objectivist acquire actual political power they can and will make life hell for those who do refuse to toe their line.
Maia has made it clear that she is intent first and foremost on doing the least amount of harm to others given the behaviors she chooses. And over and again she argues that Paganism doesn’t have a dogmatic moral or political or spiritual agenda. She is not out to tell others that they ought to think or behave as she does.
On the other hand, suppose she were to acquire that power I speak of. And suppose she could pass and enforce laws relating to abortion? She seems fiercely opposed to it. Would she proscribe it if she had the power?
Then the part where, like you and I, she agrees that had her life been different she might be here championing a woman’s right to choose abortion. But, like you, she “somehow” has acquired this spiritual Self that either does or does not transcend dasein.
What actions have I taken to insist to her that her spiritual Self is not her own business?
Exactly…what?
Of course that matters to me! How else can I possibly create and then sustain a friendship or a relationship that revolves around empathy? Or one in which I am persuaded to come up out of the hole I’m now in?
Note to others:
Anyone here want to switch discussing our respective moral philosophies from the trucker protest to taking a shit?
And I don’t have “theory” about intact souls. I have actual objectivists here who insist that all who refuse to think as their own intact souls do are, among other things, “morons”. And then I have those like you nestling down in an emotional/intuitive Self that, in my opinion, you are not even able to explain to yourself. It is all “just there” for you.
Right. You bring up shitting. And then when I respond to it, I’m the one shifting the goal post. You bring up my personal reaction to Maia choosing celibacy. And then when I respond to it, I’m the one shifting the goal post.
Thus:
Of course, my problem here is that I still don’t understand how you remain “intact” other than because “there it is”. This Real Me gib derived from a brain derived from genes has “somehow” seen fit to provide you with a frame of mind you can nestle down in.
That always depends on the context that is raised. If, for example, the discussion is about a Mets baseball game – the facts of the game itself – who isn’t intact then? No, things get problematic here in regard to, say, decisions the manager makes. Arguments over whether he should have done something else instead. The game was lost because the manager brought in the wrong relief pitcher, says Joe. Or arguments about things like the designated hitter.
But where things really get problematic are debates over things like “which is the better game, baseball or football?”
Who is the most “intact” in that discussion?
Again: what does being intact here in regard to the facts of your life have to do with this deep down inside you “emotional Self” embracing the truckers? What, such that, if you were not a father, an artist, a software developer, a recovering addict…maybe you wouldn’t feel compelled to support them?
If this…
…seems to you to be an adequate respond to my reaction then we may well have to just agree to disagree about it.
Satisfied with what? Suppose you had met with her. Suppose she became an important part of your life. Suppose she became instrumental in persuading you to embrace the liberal arguments regarding the trucker protest. Yet you would still be explaining to her why you support the protest. All I can do then is to imagine her reaction to that.
Maybe she could fathom how your emotions and intuitions are so different from mine. And certainly how different they are from the objectivists here among us.
What else is there? We think what we do. Then something dramatic happens in our life and we think something else. And if you think this new thing long enough then [for me and the most folks I have known] your emotions will start to become more and more in sync with the thinking. Thus, I used to think abortion was a sin against God. And I felt the same way. But then events unfolded that changed my thinking about it. And as I accumulated more and more experiences in college and accumulated more and more relationships with people around me in my political activist days, my feelings about abortion become more and more in sync with my thinking as well. I never felt this “deep down inside me emotional Self” that was impervious to my new experiences and thinking.
Because you can have a career or let your life revolve around movie trivia such that it is has absolutely no impact whatsoever regarding how you feel about things like the trucker protest or the abortion wars.
But today in America, millions will go to the polls and vote their objectivist intactness. What is MAGA but the classic example of political intactness in the is/ought world? What were the Nazis if not intact? Hell, Germans could have focused on a career and movie trivia back then too, right? Fuck Hitler and the Jews, I’ve got my own thing!!
Okay, you’re right. I misunderstood you here. All we are agreeing on is that depending on the life one lives, one might [morally/politically] have come to an opposite conviction.
For the objectivists here, their thinking revolves around what I construe to be their “arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian” dogmas. It’s not a product of dasein at all to them. I’m the one who is “fractured and fragmented” because I believe “here and now” that, in regard to the trucker protest, this frame of mind…
…is reasonable.
Yes, but that is because, like me, you acknowledge that what you think about it is rooted existentially in dasein. So, like me, until you hear an argument that convinces you that what you think is in fact the objective truth your current subjective opinions don’t prove anything.
We’ve been over this. Yes, I harbor leftist political prejudices. But that is because I spent over 25 years of my life as a radical left wing political activist! Like I noted above, do something long enough and your emotions and intuitions will eventually come into sync with your thinking. On the other hand, had I not been drafted into the Army and experienced what I did in Song Be, chances are I would have remained the right-wing, God-fearing fanatic. And I might be here today insisting that all rational men and women are obligated to support the truckers…only intellectually, emotionally and intuitively.
I use “somehow” here because how you explain yourself above simply does not resonate with me at all. “Somehow” you accomplish this and “somehow” I can’t. You agree that even your emotions and your intuitions “in general” come from dasein. But that “somehow” you still “prefer to emphasize” that “your feelings and your caring for the truckers as a brute fact about my psychology that doesn’t go away just because I acknowledge it comes from dasein.”
Okay, again, good for you. That “works” for you to keep you intact. Well, it doesn’t work that way for me. And I truly doubt that it works that way for the fulminating fanatic objectivists among us. They’re still squarely in, among others, Satyr’s camp.
It’s a “brute fact” but it’s a brute fact given that “you can’t be 100% certain about what particular life events or influences or genetic predispositions it comes from”.
That’s my point. All of the experiences in our lives [especially as “socialized” kids] we do not fully understand and control. My conclusions about dasein are no less murky in that regard. Yet the objectivists among us still bombard us with their bombastic “one of us”, “my way or the highway” dogmas.
Come on, gib, how many people here shared your childhood experiences? How many people here had the same trajectory of experiences as an adult…experiences that conflate into someone like you? You’ve already admitted that in regard to your own life, there are any number of things you are fuzzy about. It’s not a question of perfection, but of how many others here even come close to seeing themselves and the world around them the same as you do.
Oh, so that’s what rooting my value judgments, my emotions and my intuitions in dasein is now…a mental disorder.
Of course: the pinhead gib!
But it bespeaks a world where those on both sides of the protest simply have to care about their own side. You get pissed off at the government. The liberals get pissed off at the truckers. And you are both right because what you care about comes from down deep inside you.
Same with me and dasein. I believe both sides are able to make reasonable arguments. That both sides embody reasonable emotions and intuitions. But unlike you this precipitates in me a sense of being fractured and fragmented. You’ve got this murky “emotional self” that just “somehow” comes into your brain and allows you to feel, what, self-righteous in supporting the truckers? Even though the care that you feel comes from parts of you more or less beyond your control?
Yes, sex as always been a big part of my own life. But I don’t root it “spiritually” in Nature. I root it in the sex drive we all come hardwired into the world with. Yet, re dasein, some are willing and able to refrain from it.
Why?
Well, here, Maia has noted that she is not comfortable talking about her own sexuality. And, sure, I’m curious as to why she’s not. Especially if it is related to her being blind, and to her choosing virginity. But it is what it is.
I don’t understand it. And, apparently, neither do you:
Again, from my frame of mind: whatever that means.
And whatever this means:
So, at the next anti-government protest, you tell the protesters you care about them, you support them. But both you and they might actually be there protesting the protest itself had your lives been different. And that your caring and supporting them emotionally here and now is just a “brute fact” embedded in Who You Are.
And what I contend with are those who insist it’s a “brute fact” that others who don’t think, feel and intuit exactly as they do about the truckers, are moron, libtards and/or Commies.
This frame of mind is practically, well, mindless to me. At the protest itself, these emotions well up from deep down inside you as a brute fact much beyond your control…so fight! fight! fight!
Not sure what you’re asking. If it’s about whose prejudices should prevail, I’m back to being fractured and fragmented. Certainly not mine in regard to the trucker protest. After all, I’m admitting that they are just existential prejudices. That had my life been different I might be embracing the opposite prejudices. And if I held those prejudices long enough, my emotions and intuitions would be in sync with them.
No, I do know. I know why I acquired those prejudices. Back to Song Be. Back to my college years in the left-wing seventies. Back to my political activism years where my experiences, relationships and reading material were almost all left wing.
I must be misunderstanding you here.
Note to others:
What point here am I missing?
Mean what? They are still able to believe that they are in sync with their Real Me in sync further with The Right Thing To Do. I was too for years. Just not anymore.
Believe what? That what I believe now I might have rejected had my life been different?
The pinhead comment above was followed by this:
Meaning it was tongue in cheek. It’s just that, sure, sometimes you’ll post things and I think, “that sounds like something a pinhead would note”. It’s all no less complicated when you are fractured and fragmented.
So am I when I am able to use this to acknowledge that it is past experiences…experiences I had only so much understanding and control over…that made them just political prejudices in the first place.
Then this “general description intellectual contraption”:
Sorry, but, again, all I can do here is to imagine you taking that to the truckers. Trust me: Eventually, they are going to get around to asking, “okay, gib, but what the hell does that have to with the assholes in the government and their libtard covid policies?”
Come on…
We’re going to anchor it first and foremost to our basic needs. Then the part where we are born and raised in different historical and cultural and social and political and economic contests. How that can have a profound impact on our “sense of self”. Then our own personal experiences…including the occasional epiphany derived from truly dramatic events. There are people who, as a result of this, remain more or less intact all the way to the grave.
Only in the modern world, the odds are we might bump into any number of experiences that propels us in different directions. And then the part where the modern-world became the post-modern world. All bets are off there, right? At least for some of us.
Again, if you really can’t understand taking a shit as a biological function, and taking a particular shit in a particular context such that where and when you take it might appall others…?
Thought experiment? Whatever we are thinking and feeling and intuiting, let’s bring it back around to the trucker protest. Or to abortion. Or to any other conflicting value judgments.
At the next protest, pull down your pants and take a shit right there on the ground with the truckers all around you. Get back to us on it.
You’re the one who goes there. Your thoughts about the truckers might matter, but unlike the thoughts of the objectivists here you recognize that thoughts themselves are rooted in dasein. But you still need something to justify your support for them. Presto! The “brute fact” of your emotions!!
Right?
Whereas I recognize that both my thoughts and emotions matter because the covid pandemic is real and with tens of thousands dying in Canada, the government there had to come up with some policy. But I also recognize that both sides are able to make reasonable arguments, given their own spin on the facts. But: in no longer being a left-wing objectivist I’m unable to ideologically make the government the good guys.
Back to the brute facticity of emotions that are just there. And how there doesn’t seem to be much you can do about them.
Who else here thinks like that?
Your personal experiences result in the way you think about the world morally and politically, but the existential factors that create your value judgments…“somehow” have no real impact on your emotions. They have a “mind” all their own. Then there are those like Satyr who insist that they are derived from Nature. Then he tells you how you must “naturally” think about blacks and women and gays and government and Russia and China and India and everything else under the sun.
You just “find yourself” caring about things. And how is that not bringing things together? And your own dasein, in my view, makes things easier for you in being immune to the “brute fact” of your emotions. They’re basically “beyond your control.” Protecting your ego with a super-ego of sorts. One that does comfort and console you in caring about…the good guys? But what makes them the good guys though is that you care about them.
Thus…
But in regard to conflicting moral and political and spiritual value judgments, I note that we disagree with each other all the time. Why? Because out lives are often so very, very different in turn. And, in a No God world, who do we turn to to provide us with the most rational – the “wisest” – sets of behaviors. Scientists? Philosophers? Deontologists? Naturists? Ethicists?
I don’t need a defense mechanism. I flat out admit that my own conclusions here are no less derived existentially, subjectively, subjunctively from dasein. And what “strength”? Here I am grimly reminding myself from day to day that my life is essentially meaningless and purposeless…“I” am fractured and fragmented on this side of the grave and believe that immortality and salvation are just things that truly weak people cling to through their Gods. Oblivion is right around the corner for me.
But: in the interim I still have “distractions” that make my life truly fulfilling and satisfying: music, film, PBS, the Science Channel, philosophy, books, magazines…good food, the occasional fuck, laughter.
On the other hand, as I noted in an email, you have been blind all your life. But some you meet may have never had any experiences at all being around the blind.
Again, like that scene from Scent of a Woman:
Frank: Are you blind? Are you blind?
Charlie: Of course not.
Frank: Then why do you keep grabbin’ my goddamn arm? I take your arm.
Charlie: I’m sorry.
Frank: Don’t be sorry. How would you know, watchin’ MTV all your life?
I suspect most sighted people will probably never understand that frame of mind. Unless I am misunderstanding you. Are you saying that blindness from birth is a gift from nature? Or, again, back to the distinction between those blind from birth and those who lose their sight later in life? There’s no way I could ever imagine it as a gift given all of the things that I treasure in being able to see…art, film, photographs, nature, sunrises, sunsets, human faces and bodies.
Is this construed as a gift given your spiritual Self? If so, it’s not likely that I will understand it. I simply do not have a spiritual Self. Not “here and now”. Although I once did.
I think that’s a good idea. Although, admittedly, I’m going to miss it.
Mistakes here are always tricky of course. But you can only come to your own conclusion based on your own life. Though, who knows, maybe down the road you will have one those “epiphanic experiences” that changes your mind. I’m just always fascinated by how anyone comes to think about things like sex…and love.
That’s all true of course. I’m still on the lookout for an internet link that explores it from within a Pagan community. But the pickings are slim given my own interests.
My question would be this: are there communities there that go beyond moots? Are there communities that do come closer to the fictional ones depicted in Wicker Man and Midsommar? Larger communities where members interact among themselves from day to day as a Pagan community?
Amish are kinda like that except prolly not with the sex rituals, etc. I legit wish it was possible to wash one’s brain out.
That way, you could erase every example of “That being said” from the universe … but it would prolly crop back up repeatedly like eyeballs from a primordial nekkid soup of universals. It would be like whac-a-mole prolly. I don’t even know if that applies here. Don’t come complaining to me because I don’t even write this stuff.
+++On the other hand, as I noted in an email, you have been blind all your life. But some you meet may have never had any experiences at all being around the blind.
Again, like that scene from Scent of a Woman:
Frank: Are you blind? Are you blind?
Charlie: Of course not.
Frank: Then why do you keep grabbin’ my goddamn arm? I take your arm.
Charlie: I’m sorry.
Frank: Don’t be sorry. How would you know, watchin’ MTV all your life?+++
Again, a work of fiction (I presume). I wouldn’t be so crass as to rebuke a person who was only trying to help, or try and embarrass them.
+++I suspect most sighted people will probably never understand that frame of mind. Unless I am misunderstanding you. Are you saying that blindness from birth is a gift from nature? Or, again, back to the distinction between those blind from birth and those who lose their sight later in life? There’s no way I could ever imagine it as a gift given all of the things that I treasure in being able to see…art, film, photographs, nature, sunrises, sunsets, human faces and bodies.
Is this construed as a gift given your spiritual Self? If so, it’s not likely that I will understand it. I simply do not have a spiritual Self. Not “here and now”. Although I once did.+++
Yes, of course I regard my blindness as a gift. How could anyone possibly think otherwise, after everything I’ve said here?
+++I think that’s a good idea. Although, admittedly, I’m going to miss it.+++
Make your mind up!
+++Mistakes here are always tricky of course. But you can only come to your own conclusion based on your own life. Though, who knows, maybe down the road you will have one those “epiphanic experiences” that changes your mind. I’m just always fascinated by how anyone comes to think about things like sex…and love.
That’s all true of course. I’m still on the lookout for an internet link that explores it from within a Pagan community. But the pickings are slim given my own interests.
My question would be this: are there communities there that go beyond moots? Are there communities that do come closer to the fictional ones depicted in Wicker Man and Midsommar? Larger communities where members interact among themselves from day to day as a Pagan community?+++
It’s all very well going to Wikipedia, and similar sources, but they have very little to do with the reality on the ground. And yes, there are indeed Pagan communities, or settlements, as I’ve mentioned before. I was even invited to join one. They are nothing like the Wicker Man, though.
Okay, let’s explore this. Given a particular context of your choice.
Are they not good enough because they don’t encompass how one acquires a personal identity out in the is/ought world as you do? And, in how you do, does that assume [as the objectivists among us insist of themselves] that how you construe your own Self in the world of conflicting moral and political and spiritual value judgments is how all others must as well…if they wish to be thought of as a rational man or woman?
As I note to gib here, the options seem to be…
That’s what interest me. Given a particular political conflagration in the news of late and given a particular context, what are your moral, political and/or spiritual convictions? And how do you see yourself as having come to acquire them?
To wit:
Note to others:
See? The same thing! Keep it all up in the clouds:
Any subject will do for me. As long as it revolves around an issue most of us here will be familiar with. And that you note what your moral/political convictions are. And how, in your view, you came to acquire them given the experiences that unfolded in your life, the people you met in regard to the issue and the information and the knowledge you accumulated pertaining to it as well.
My point being simply that, for any number reasons, events may have unfolded in your life such that you came to acquire different convictions.
Again, simply unbelievable. To me anyway. You claim a lack of clarity on your part in regard to this:
I ask you what parts were not clear, and you say you are talking about the word dasein. Like, in the OP above, I wasn’t?!!
Okay, but the point is that the objectivists among us who do insist that in regard to things like the trucker protest and abortion and guns and dozens of other “conflicting goods” issues, there is the right thing and wrong thing to think, feel, say and do. With gib and I we make this distinction between what we think about them [rooted more solidly in dasein for me] and what we feel about them [rooted more solidly in dasein for me but considerably less so for him].
I’m just trying to grasp the distinctions here that you and I make. Given a particular issue, a particular context and our respective moral philosophies.
Huh? Cite some examples of that. And I’m my own biggest critic here. Why? Because I flat out admit I am not exempt from my own point of view. That, in other words, my very own conclusions are no less rooted existentially, subjectively and subjunctively in dasein. That’s why from time to time I will end a post with “unless, of course, I’m wrong”.
No way would I – could I – argue otherwise.
Note to others:
Magnus Anderson…the pinhead!!!
Well, out in the real world, that is usually decided [in any particular community] by an ofttimes complex intertwining of…
1] might makes right: some have the raw political power [usually derived from economic “ruling class”/“deep state” power] to enforce particular behaviors in the community…behaviors that sustain their interests
2] right makes might: some are able to persuade a majority in the community that re God or political ideology or deontology/philosopher kings, that there is a way to know the most rational [virtuous] manner in which to interact given all contexts
3] democracy and the rule of law: the community is willing to allow right and wrong to be decided legislatively, executively and judicially through elections. Elections that often involve policies that revolve around “moderation, negotiation and compromise”
[the part he left out]
Again, in regard to this thread, being fractured and fragmented about the population of Nigeria, would be like being fractured and fragmented about whether the protest occurred at all. The actual fact of it.
Well, the misunderstanding was that I thought you were talking about the opening post of this thread and not some other thread.
You are talking about moral objectivists. You should make that clear. And you’re talking about an abstract philosophical issue. You’re basically saying “Moral beliefs have no truth value”. This might not be the case, of course, but due to the manner in which you’re using language, I am led to take that possibility into serious consideration. If that’s not what you’re talking about, you should reword your position, to make it clear what you’re talking about. If that’s what you’re talking about, it’s actually fairly trivial to show why that statement is false. But one has to ensure that you are receptive to such arguments. There’s a very decent level of possibility that such an argument will fly over your head.
You’re making a general claim. “Moral beliefs have no truth value” is a general claim. And that general claim is best addressed using general terms. But, for some unknown reason, you want to address that claim by talking about some particular issue and some particular context. Why is that?
It’s a small price to pay for what you’re going to get. You’re asking everyone to become less confident about their moral beliefs. I am sure that, for some people, that’s precisely what should happen. But is that what everyone should do? I highly doubt it. If people are made to become so uncertain of their moral beliefs that they no longer dare to attempt to correct what they perceive to be mistakes of those who surround them, you’ll end up in a world free from criticism. Noone will be able to criticize your moral decisions. And if you have to give up on your freedom to criticize other people’s moral decisions in order to bring such a world into existence, that’s a pretty small price to pay, isn’t it? All in all, it is you who are asking for the entire world to stop attempting to influence other people’s moral decisions. “There are no true and false moral beliefs! It’s all arbitrary! Believe what you want to believe! Don’t let anyone tell you what to do! Let’s get loud, let’s get loud, turn that music up to hear that sound! Ain’t nobody gotta tell ya what you gotta do!” I am sowhere in the middle. I agree that there’s a negative type of influence that should be prevented from taking place but I don’t think that all influence is bad influence. It’s extremely important for people to learn from each other. In your world, no learning of that sort can take place. Everyone is an island.
You said “until it is demonstrated such that there can be no doubt about it”. What does that entail? What must I do in order to “demonstrate [that there is a right side and a wrong side] such that there can be no doubt about it”? I have to know the objective of the game . . . otherwise, what’s the point in playing it?
So it’s you against the world, huh? You against anyone who thinks the world is objectively real. Didn’t you say you believed in the objective reality of the either/or world?
I think that all depends on the nature of consciousness. If consciousness is such that it can be aware of the brain just as it is, then I’d say it has made great strides in explaining itself. If, on the other hand, consciousness is like a dream or a grand hallucination, none of the world as we know it being real, then who knows if brains even exist.
It doesn’t! How would human autonomy make a difference to my point? If free will is real, then we are choosing to seek power over each other in these kinds of philosophical debates rather than truth. If free will is not real, then we are forced by our natures to seek power over each other in these kinds of philosophical debates rather than truth. The whole free-will/determinism debate is incredibly moot.
A manifestation of dasein? Sure!
And what now? Can anyone rise to your challenge now? From what you’ve said, you didn’t start posing your dasein challenge until you got to the point you’re at now, this dead end from which you cannot escape. Your transformation from Christian to Marxist to Existentialist to Nihilist doesn’t prove anything since you only started posing your challenge at the end of the line, at Nihilism. I’d like to know how one is supposed to rise to your challenge such that they persuade you to leave Nihilism for something else. How, when anything they offer would only amount to an ineffectual intellectual contraption, which you consistently reject out of hand at every turn.
On this, I think we finally agree (almost).
Now you’re getting closer. Though I would still say that in the majority of such cases, the crux of the issue is people talking passed each other as opposed to not being able to understand each other… but yeah, there’s certainly a fair degree of the latter (and with you, there’s a insurmountable degree).
Don’t or won’t?
I’ve admitted to having intuitions (as we all do I would think… except you I guess), but I never said my intuitions tell me that the truckers are right. I’m just reminding you of where those terms came from. Emotions came from me (when I said that I’m driven mainly by emotions to support the truckers) and intuitions came from Maia (or so you’ve said). If you want to intermix them with me, that’s fine (because I do have both), but my argument was never that my intuitions guide me to support the truckers.
First off, I never said the “Real Me” is not a manifestation of dasein. Second, there’s plenty of things about our inner (mental) life that we have access to that others don’t. I know when I’m angry because I can feel it (i.e. I introspect it) and no one else can confirm that except me. I don’t need to demonstrate that to others to know it myself. And as hard as this may be to believe, I can actually accept if someone doesn’t believe me. The self isn’t all that different. In fact, it’s even easier to demonstrate because it has one foot in the outer physical world–my body! A part of who I am is the person I see in the mirror–a living, breathing, human body! What more of a demonstration do you need than that! If you need a demonstration of an “inner” me, I have none to give. And third, I don’t even think of myself in that way anyway. I don’t think there is an “inner” me. The foot the self has in the “inner” world is just the fact that I’m alive and conscious (I’m not an automaton or a zombie). Through the power of introspection, I have the ability to peer inside me and see that I am conscious. That’s all one needs, AFAIC, to be a person, a self–to be a living, conscious human body (all the while, being perfectly compatible with dasein). But if you think I’m some kind of robot or lifeless machine that’s only pretending to be conscious, I won’t fret over that. I won’t jump through hoops trying to convince you with some irrefutable demonstration that you’ll most certainly reject anyway.
Well, that certainly is your view.
And on this note, I might just ask: what is there to explain? I mean, unless we’re talking about how my “self” remains intact (which I have explained numerous times before), just the fact that I am a self needs no deeper an explanation than a rock’s existence needs an explanation to say “the rock exists”. If you see the rock, you can say “the rock exists”. You don’t need to understand how the rock got there or what sustains its existence. Seeing it is enough of a justification to say you know it exists. Just the same, seeing myself (in the mirror or introspectively) is enough (for me) to say “I exist”.
Oh sure, there could definitely be another protest. But that’s not the part I’m calling “pure fantasy”. It’s the part where given how this fantasy all unfolds in your own (wild) imagination, all your false assumptions about me can run rampant. Particularly this part: “you explain that “somehow” both you and they must have acquired this Intuitive Self that steered them in the right direction.” ← You can imagine whatever you want when all your assumptions–true or false–go completely unchecked.
Biggy: Hey gib, what’s 2 + 2?
gib: Why, it’s 4 Biggy!
Biggy: What does that have to do with the points I raise?
In my case, it’s very probable. That’s why I keep appealing to my emotions instead of my thoughts. And to bring this back to the point, what happens when one stops thinking about some issue (at least in my case) is that one’s emotions kinda stay where they are. There’s nothing for them to catch up to (and it doesn’t help that I keep watching right-leaning youtube videos which only fuel my emotions and keep them alive).
And I think I’m gonna stop saying that I don’t think about these issues (if I ever did say that)–that’s patently false (obviously!)–but I don’t cling to or reinforce a particular ideology, I don’t commit to a particular conviction or belief, an “ism” (unless it’s something really basic–like one shouldn’t kill or harm children or rape, etc.–but even then this is just me giving voice to my conscience, not an ideology or an external authority).
What’s important is that I’m driven primarily by my emotions, not my ideology. This is the reverse of what you seem to think happens in most peoples’ minds–you seem to think most people are indoctrinated with an ideology (or they choose one) and then that determines their emotions–so it is the ideology which is the main driver, and emotions are (what?) a kind of side effect? I agree that one’s ideology can condition the mind to react in certain emotional ways to certain events or speech or news stories, etc., but when it comes to taking action, emotions are typically the driving force and ideology comes along for the ride just in case you need to justify your actions to others who challenge you.
Okay, I gotta stop here and clarify a few things. Not that this will sink in with you, but I need to lay out the logic of my thoughts on this topic for my own future reference, to clarify for myself how I want to argue my point going forward. So this thing about acquiring comfort and consolation, I’ve admitted that going with my emotions brings me a certain measure of comfort and consolation, but I think this is true of everybody, even you–what else is going with your emotions but seeking gratification (i.e. comfort and consolation)–what else are you doing by seeking out people who might pull you out of your hole or at least come down in it with you but seeking gratification. Just because your efforts are frustrated and mine are not doesn’t mean you’re fundamentally different in this regard.
And it’s not so much believing in my emotions that gives me comfort and consolation. It’s their satisfaction. The injustices and atrocities done to the truckers, when I saw them on the news, angered me. Anger doesn’t comfort and console me. But I know that if I try to satiate my anger, it will. It’s pretty basic like that–pretty banal and trivial (like most of your mantras).
But I don’t think this is what you mean when you call people out on believing things for the sake of comfort and consolation. You typically bring up this charge in the sense of feeling comfortable and consoled by ideas–pleasant, happy ideas–like if you believe in God, it comforts and consoles you to know that there is an all-powerful being who loves and forgives you, who will welcome you into Heaven at the end of your earthly journey if you play your cards right. All I’ve admitted to is that satisfying my emotions brings me comfort and consolation ( what a concept! ), which isn’t the same as saying that my beliefs–the way I see the world, how I think of myself–brings me comfort and consolation (because, I guess, of what a pleasant, rosy picture it paints).
And finally, there is one exception to this. There is a kind of comfort and consolation that one’s thoughts about the world–how it works, how to make sense out of it–brings. But again, it’s just as trivial and banal as the way satisfying your emotions brings you comfort and consolation; it’s that it feels good to understand the world, to make sense of it. It’s the opposite of confusion. It’s the feeling of “Ah-ha! Now I understand!” We’re all seeking this. We all try to build intellectual contraptions in our minds that bring us this feeling of the world making sense, of getting rid of the confusion and the barren curiosity. And again, even you: you keep saying that all you’re trying to do is to understand, to make sense out of other people’s points of view, to once again put together a thought structure, an “ism”, that will mend and heal your fractured, fragmented self. It’s just another case of your efforts being frustrated and mine not. But again, it’s not the same kind of comfort and consolation as that of believing there is an all-powerful God who loves and forgives you, and welcomes you into heaven when you die–not just in the sense that the latter is about feeling safe and protected whereas the former is more about making sense of the world, but in that the latter usually depends on a delusion (or at best, faith) whereas the former is an attempt to uncover the truth. Which is more or less the same as unhealthy vs. healthy forms of comfort and consolation (take yourself for example… do you have a healthy mindset?).
There, now I feel better–comforted and consoled–I can now refer back to this in future arguments.
Yeah, really! I’d like to hear what others have to say too. Biggy always appeals to the readers, the audience, but you never reply. It would be great if we could get some input from others (Magnus, I know you have something to say. Don’t be shy. ).
Biggy, that’s a really dumb point… even for you. It doesn’t impact my point one iota. In fact, it bolsters it. If you really want to say there is no reality (essentially, existentially, whatever), then for sure reality doesn’t care.
Yeah, the latter, which is nothing like “mystical”.
Full of shit or not, they’re there.
It’s just as convenient for you as it is for me. If you can’t access my inner “me”, verify my emotions and intuition as it were, then how can I challenge your insistence that I only cling to my emotions and intuition to foster a sense of comfort and consolation? I can’t prove to you otherwise, so you can carry on believing in your theory that we all only believe what we believe because of the comfort and consolation it brings us, a theory that I’m sure brings you much comfort and consolation. How convenient.
Who are 14 years old… ← You forgot that part.
Ok, then let’s review. You started out by saying, “Maia’s thoughts and feelings about me are her business. My thoughts and feelings about her, mine.” I challenged that, appealing to the way you obsess and can’t accept the way others think and feel, even wanting to poke holes in and destroy their thoughts and feelings, and now you admit it, giving a reason why (you want to either bring them into the hole or have them pull you out). So care to take back your original statement?
Ooo, you slipped up there Biggy. This sounds like a political prejudice to me… and very objectivist in the language you chose. So now I get to pose all the challenges you typical pose to others when they express an objectivist political prejudice. And you can go ahead and remind me that you apply your own philosophy to yourself, but since that never seems to be an excuse when anyone else does it, it won’t be for you either. So let’s start with: why yours and not someone else’s? Why should we restrict political power for the objectivist rather than, say, the post-modernist whom, according to many, is 10 times more likely to become a tyrant in a position of power and “make life hell for those who do refuse to toe their line”? Is there a “Real Me” Biggy deep down inside who “just knows” that the objectivists are the “true” bad guys and the post-modernists are not? Does that “Real Me” Biggy have a demonstration of how the objectivists are the real bad guys? A demonstration that all those who wish to be considered rational and virtuous ought to agree with? And then how do you close the gap between all you think you know “in your head” and all that would have to be known in order to say, definitively, that the objectivists are the bad guys? And finally, how do you know you really chose that point of view in a free-will world, as opposed to a world in which the laws of matter compel you to do, think, and say only that which you could not have not done, thought, or said?
Then do you care to take back what you said: “Maia’s thoughts and feelings about me are her business. My thoughts and feelings about her, mine.”
What you call an opinion, I call a theory. If it’s up there in my chart with a check mark under your name, it’s your theory. You believe that one can only have an intact soul if they believe in some objectivist (problematic) morality. ← That’s a theory.
Well, let’s have a look at your response, shall we:
I brought up taking a shit as a critique of your approach to assessing whether a person has an intact ‘I’ or not. I don’t see any mention of the ‘I’ in the above; I see a steering of the discussion away from the ‘I’ and towards another moral/political conundrum. Probably because I hit on a good point.
Ironic… since that’s exactly why I want you to answer my question: why can’t one’s ‘I’ remain intact by anchoring one’s self to non-problematic, non-controversial things? You don’t understand because you think one can’t. I don’t understand you because I think one can. If you could just answer my question (instead of shifting the goal post so that you don’t have to answer it) I might–might–finally understand you, and then maybe–maybe–know how to explain to you how I am able to anchor myself to non-controversial, non-problematic things (like being a father, an artist, a software developer, etc.) that keep my ‘I’ intact. But I’m not counting on that happening any time soon. You keep avoiding my answers and explanations and the questions I need answered in order to offer you more or better answers and explanations–you know, since you claim to want to understand–so I guess you’ll never understand and instead come up with your own fake, concocted explanations for my psychology.
I don’t know, it depends on how they think of themselves. But first, thank you for answering my question: “who isn’t intact then?” Whom indeed! There’s nothing about a baseball team that would rend a person torn–at least, not down to their core–even an avid Mets fan, in a heated debate with a Red Sox fan, could easily stay intact so long as he stuck to his guns (i.e. didn’t second guess his commitment to the Mets). Now just carry this over to my case–a case of identifying myself as a father, and artist, a software developer, etc… Aren’t we still asking: who isn’t intact then? Is there any reason to get into a heated debate about my fatherhood status? And if for some bizarro reason someone wanted to debate my fatherhood status (or maybe convince me that being a father is the last thing to be proud of), I would (so I’d like to think) remain intact by virtue of sticking to my guns or maintaining my pride in being a father. Is that really so hard to imagine?
This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t feel torn about certain other issues having more to do with politics and morality–whether Trudeau’s latest move to ban all hand guns in Canada is right or wrong, for example–I could easily feel torn (though I tend to lean against moves like this) not really being sure whether I should support Trudeau in this instance or not–but I don’t keep all my eggs in one basket–that is to say, I don’t keep my whole identity, my sense of self, my ‘I’, anchored to one issue or one “ism”, not even to a whole bunch of “isms” so long as they fall into a moral context–I try to diversify my ‘I’ such that it is anchored to either/or stuff, things over which there isn’t a whole lot of controversy or discord–things like… wait for it… being a father, an artist, a software developer, etc. So if I end up feeling torn over whether banning hand guns is a good thing or a bad thing–even if dasein promises that there is no way to determine whether it is a good thing or a bad thing–I won’t lose sleep over it–I will still take pride in knowing that I’m a father (a damn good one), an artist (a damn good one), a software developer (good enough to be a team lead), and so on and so forth. So I can be as fractured and fragment as you in regards to things like abortion, the trucker protest, gun control, covid, and whatever else… it doesn’t impinge on my feeling of “intact-ness” when it comes to who I am vis-a-vis being a father, an artist, a software developer–it’s something to fall back on. Now if the trucker protest was all I had to anchor my identity to, then maybe I’d be in hot waters, but I got a shit ton of other things to anchor my identity to, things that aren’t nearly as ambiguous or controversial–so my ‘I’ is safe and sound.
There’s no link between the two. My identifying as a father, an artist, a software developer, etc. aren’t the reasons why I feel emotionally compelled to support the trucker. If you want the cause of the latter, consult youtube (really, youtube is fucking with my brain, making me feel empathetic towards the truckers). That’s not to say that if I wasn’t a father, an artist, a software developer, etc., I would still support the truckers. We’d be talking about a different life, one in which (who knows) maybe I’d be against the truckers–but don’t draw any causal links between the two. They have very little (direct) affect on each other. Maybe the above–my response to your question, “Who isn’t intact then?”–will shed some light on this.
Even now, you refuse to go to the link where I actually gave you a quite lengthy reply to exactly that which you asked for, and would rather dwell on the 16 year old who stood me up (is it because she’s 16?).
And… oh wait, that’s it. sigh Well, at least I got a more sensical answer from you above.
Are you saying having an intact self can be a bad thing? I would put the blame on dogmatism personally, but if it’s “intact-ness” that’s the culprit in your eyes, why do you long for it? Why are you seeking the opinion of someone who can convince you to change your worldview such as to reacquire an intact self? Couldn’t that be dangerous? You might end up believing in the wrong thing.
And on that note, you might just end up believe in the right thing. Not just the right thing, but something that can greatly benefit the world–cure cancer, end world hunger, figure out how to get Maia to fall in love with you–in a sense, you might be doing the wrong thing by not being convinced of a new worldview that would put your ‘I’ back together.
^ Ah-ha! You called them “dogmas”! You see, even you understand it’s the dogmatism in their objectivist ways that’s the real enemy.
Exactly! So do we still have a problem with my “inexplicable” thinking, as per your quote here:
Doesn’t matter. The point is, you still harbor them now. And this gives you a reference from which to understand me. So I ask again: why is it so mysterious that one could look inside and find certain feelings, prejudices, intuitions (whatever)–even ones in transition, soon to be aligned with your new way of thinking–and thereby become conscious that they’re there (even if one doesn’t understand how they got there, even if they will soon give way to new ones more aligned with one’s present thinking)? This is all I’m trying to say about myself, and the same is obviously true of you. So why the “mystery”?
Dude, it’s been (what?) 10 years? 20 years? Since you’ve abandoned your left leaning stance? When are your leftist prejudices finally gonna disappear in a cloud of smoke? Tomorrow? Next week? Another 20 years? Have you ever considered that you’re trying to push your prejudices beyond their limits? That it’s literally impossible for a human being to be the perfect nihilist, holding absolutely no prejudices, no objectivist sentiments, no clingy emotional attachments to unprovable intellectual contraptions? I mean, it’s true that the human brain is very plastic, and the mind can be (self-)programmed in a diverse array of directions, but you’ll never be Spock. The mind is like an elastic band… you can stretch it in any direction, but stretch it far enough, and it will have no more give (or, heaven forbid, snap!).
Sounds to me like you are talking about perfection. I claim that most people here are highly likely to understand (and agree with) the things I’m saying. I don’t think we have to have lived similar lives to have a common understanding of the things I’m saying. Human populations tend towards convergence of their store of concepts, knowledge, memes, etc. such that two people from the same population can live very different lives, start out from very different circumstances, and still share similar concepts, language, knowledge, memories, memes, etc.–it’s how our species survived. But if you’re saying that we all have to have grown up in (what?) a wealthy suburban neighboorhood, or on the farm, or on the streets, just to be able to communicate properly and understand one another, that sounds like you’re veering towards an expectation of either perfectly identical experiences before we attempt to communicate or perfectly identical understandings in the act of communicating.
I think you just don’t want to consider that you actually might have a mental disorder, and are therefore very different from a society that consists of people who are, for the most part, nearly the same.
It’s not so much that. I’m not calling the contents of your beliefs (or what you anchor your value judgments to) a mental disorder. People express a wide diversity of bizzare crazy beliefs all the time–especially here at ILP–and that’s beautiful thing–but with you, there’s something about the way your brain processes information, the kinds of algorithms it’s running, that strikes me as “odd” (to put it mildly). The way you accuse people of not sticking to the subject in response to answering the very questions you ask, the way you seem to misinterpret people so badly that when they say “white” you hear “black”, the way you seem to not only forget what you said just one post ago but when reminded strike you as nonsensical intellectual contraptions (yeah, your own words, unintelligible even to you). ← If that’s not a mental disorder (a cognitive disorder specifically), then there is no such thing as mental disorders.
My diagnosis: psychoanalytic defense mechanisms run amok.
Yes, but I don’t see why that makes it wrong. Uncertain, sure. Can’t prove it to the caliber of your demonstration-for-all-rational-people challenge, sure. But that doesn’t make it wrong. I don’t see why being under the control of these (supposedly) unconscious and accidental forces of nature is incompatible with my states of consciousness, my reasoning abilities, my empirical experiences and memories being able to get at least some things right. My feelings of care for the truckers certainly feel right, and maybe they are! Beyond that, I just don’t fret over it. I just let them take their course.
Why don’t you try it. Tell us all about your sexuality, right down to the dirty graphic details… ugh… on second thought, don’t.
Well, I certainly don’t understand it with the rigor that you (apparently) demand–absolute certainty!–but who does? I’m just not a fulminating fanatical dogmatic pinhead (at least, in my better moments)–I can (believe it or not) accept that I could be wrong–but I am (apparently) much more accepting of a “good enough” understanding to feel comfortable saying I do understand (you must have missed the “I’m relatively certain” part).
I didn’t say I’d get into a fight, I said I’d prepare for a fight–which might involve running away, or hiding, or attempting to simmer the situation down… and what if I did get into a fight?.. you gonna call me a neanderthal? ← Would that convince me that it’s all dasein after all?
We’re on a roll today, aren’t we Bigz! Two actual answers to the questions I asked in one post! Above, you answered my question about why one can’t anchor one’s ‘I’ to a mundane uncontroversial thing like one’s love of music or one’s career, and here you answered my question: why yours and not someone else’s? Why? You don’t know. You just feel fractured and fragmented about how to answer the question. Which is an answer (it’s okay, Biggy, that’s allowed). Now, take the next step. Take your answer and apply it to me. Whenever you ask me the question “why yours and not someone else’s?” understand that my answer is “I don’t know”. Then do that thing which comes nearly impossible to you (introspection) and see if it satisfies.
Now you’re answering the wrong question. I didn’t ask “how did you acquire those prejudices?” I asked “why yours and not someone else’s?” ← Once again, we have a great example here of one of the symptoms I listed above as part of your cognitive disorder: misinterpreting your interlocutor to the extent that I might as well have said “white” and you might as well have heard “black”. Albeit, in this case, it’s not quite that extreme, but I don’t know how you can be asked “Why yours and not someone else’s?” and hear “How did you come to acquire the prejudices you have?” Oh well, I got my answer (and there’s nothing you can do about it ).
Absolutely! That is a remarkable account of how our sense of selfhood evolves throughout our lives. But I’m trying to understand how you think this works. What kinds of things can one anchor their ‘I’ to and what kinds of things can’t they? And why? The whole reason I brought taking a shit into this discussion was because it is clearly a ridiculous example. This can be effective if one wants to know where someone draws the lines. Introduce a ridiculous example and one will surely draw the line somewhere between it and more reasonable examples (or so the assumption goes). Where do you draw the line between things one can anchor their ‘I’ to and things they can’t? Can one go so far as to anchor their ‘I’ to, oh let’s just say, taking a shit? Because based on what you’ve told me, it seems one can. But if you think this is too ridiculous an example, then where is the line drawn? And why?
Right, so you draw the line between mundane uncontroversial truism (like the facts of human biology–i.e. taking a shit) and issues that are likely to rile up feelings of being appalled or affronted–verging into the moral territory. Why?
Now earlier, it seemed we had settled this matter. You said “If, for example, the discussion is about a Mets baseball game – the facts of the game itself – who isn’t intact then?” implying it is possible to anchor one’s ‘I’ onto things as mundane and uncontroversial as baseball teams (as taking a shit?) but that when the stakes get high (i.e. when discussions get heated)–as for example when a Red Sox fan contends with your love of the Mets–then we run the risk of our self becoming fractured and fragmented, depending on how much energy we devote to our commitments to the side we’re defending.
So which is it–do you draw the line between mundane uncontroversial things and things that are highly significant and controversial–or are both on the same side of the line (one can anchor their ‘I’ to both) and it’s just that the line between the latter and the former is one that demarcates where the risk of being fractured and fragmented becomes significant?
You do. Remember? you said: “That’s my point. All of the experiences in our lives [especially as “socialized” kids] we do not fully understand and control.”
I’m going to add this to the list of your symptoms:
Being so contrarian as to be willing to contradict something you yourself said just in order to avoid agreeing with your contender.
But Frank’s blindness resulted from his own arrogant stupidity and he is in New York with Charlie to commit suicide. Charlie, however, a truly decent human being, is able to bring him back from the brink. He is able as well to bring Frank around to the realization that, in his life, it’s not just his sight that he is blind regarding.
And Frank acknowledges his own crassness by reminding Charlie that he has nothing to be embarrassed about. What could Charlie know about being around blind people, he points out, if he has never been around blind people?
Well, some might note, they’re not called psychological defense mechanisms for nothing. But, sure, if you welcome it as a gift, I can only return once again to the fact that there is absolutely no way that I can possibly understand how you think about your own life. You have clearly made the most of it. Living a wholly independent and self-sufficient day to day to day existence. And it’s true that I have rarely come upon someone who feels as comfortable in their own skin as you seem to. So, I’ll just chalk it up to the things you know here that I can’t possibly know.
Remember, it doesn’t really work that way for me. I’m often “drawn and quartered” in regard to things like this. Looking forward to seeing it on the one hand, but also glad that, with it gone, there is less likelihood it might bring you into contact with men who are attracted to you for all the wrong reasons in a philosophy venue.
I know! Why don’t you send it to me in an email!!
Just kidding.
I think.
Well, since being on the ground much beyond the community that I live in isn’t a viable option for me these days, I go where I can.
But it was construed by some to be more a “horror film”.
It is an actual Pagan community that most interest me…men and women and children interacting from day to day to day as a community. The part where they come together and the part where they deal with interactions that might tend to pull them apart.
Of course, I’d be most interested in how they might react to my own thinking about meaning and morality and purpose in life. Spiritually and otherwise. And then the part beyond the grave.
But Frank’s blindness resulted from his own arrogant stupidity and he is in New York with Charlie to commit suicide. Charlie, however, a truly decent human being, is able to bring him back from the brink. He is able as well to bring Frank around to the realization that, in his life, it’s not just his sight that he is blind regarding.
And Frank acknowledges his own crassness by reminding Charlie that he has nothing to be embarrassed about. What could Charlie know about being around blind people, he points out, if he has never been around blind people?+++
I wonder if the writers of the film had, either?
+++Well, some might note, they’re not called psychological defense mechanisms for nothing. But, sure, if you welcome it as a gift, I can only return once again to the fact that there is absolutely no way that I can possibly understand how you think about your own life. You have clearly made the most of it. Living a wholly independent and self-sufficient day to day to day existence. And it’s true that I have rarely come upon someone who feels as comfortable in their own skin as you seem to. So, I’ll just chalk it up to the things you know here that I can’t possibly know.+++
I wondered if you’d bring up psychological defence mechanisms, or something like that. Given that this will always be lurking behind any explanation I try and give, there’s probably no point in me doing so.
+++Well, since being on the ground much beyond the community that I live in isn’t a viable option for me these days, I go where I can.
Apparently the film Midsommar is based “partially” on a “Real Life Swedish Festival”: esquire.com/entertainment/m … raditions/
But it was construed by some to be more a “horror film”.
It is an actual Pagan community that most interest me…men and women and children interacting from day to day to day as a community. The part where they come together and the part where they deal with interactions that might tend to pull them apart.
Of course, I’d be most interested in how they might react to my own thinking about meaning and morality and purpose in life. Spiritually and otherwise. And then the part beyond the grave.+++
Yes, when you first brought it up I mentioned that Midsommar is a real Swedish festival taking place in midsummer. It’s very popular.
I suspect that, if you happened to engage them in conversation, and brought up your own thinking, they would probably give you a polite hearing, then try and answer your points. But then, having done so, when you responded with exactly the same points again, they would most likely extricate themselves from the discussion.
what a concept! ), which isn’t the same as saying that my 
