Note to Fate
Do i have a choice in the matter, or has it all been determined?
Am I in possession of free-will?
If so, then why doesn’t anyone else?
If not, then am I guilty of something?
Again: another truly dumb non sequitur.
Though, sure, we could take it to peacegirl’s determinism thread.
On the other hand, that’s also in the philosophy forum. And, In “Mr. Fun” mode, what would be the point for me of that?
Note to Others
What does this even mean?
Can anyone help me?
There you go again, assuming that the defect is from my end and not from yours. And your reaction is but a prime example of what I’m talking about.
Again, this is completely obscure to me. Joe has an opinion about feminism. He despises it. Jane has an opinion about feminism. She embraces it. Now, to what extent are these opinions derived from the aggregate experiences they had in life predisposing them existentially to despise or embrace it. The points I raise in my signature threads. The points that in my view you merely deflect to the points that you make here. The unintelligible ones.
Next, Joe and Jane take their own “conflicting goods” about feminism to the philosophers, ethicists, political scientists. Can they determine how all rational and virtuous men and women ought to think and feel about feminism?
It’s the dots you connect here that are obscure to me. My experiences in Song Be and later with John and Mary rested entirely on my draft number. Completely beyond my control. But suppose my number had not been called? No Army. No Vietnam. No Danny, Mac, Steve and John. No college. No John and Mary. No William Barrett. Back to the shipyards and a life that, before the Army, revolved around my being s male chauvinist pig.
Isn’t that the point that has generated the headlines? There are those in the feminist movement who embrace a woman’s right to choose an abortion. And those anti-feminists who argue that a woman’s place is in the home raising children. Conflicting goods. Now, how do individuals here come to be on one side rather than another? Is that rooted more in political prejudices derived from dasein…or from their capacity to grasp the optimal or the only rational manner in which to think about both feminism and abortion.
That’s not obscure to me.
Actually, it is.
Ah, of course: wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.
I get that a lot here when I persist in reminding the “serious philosophers” that their abstract intellectual contraptions might become clearer if they would just bring them down to Earth. Illustrate the ofttimes wall of words text.
I’ve eeexplained that.
Then we are in two different discussions.
Because, in my view, you don’t connect these feelings more concretely to your thinking about feminism derived from the experiences that you had predisposing you to think, then feel as you do existentially.
Actually, the issue seems to be that we don’t frame the issue in the same way. I link the hole that I am in to the OP on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
As well as the fragmentation.
I still don’t really have a clue, however, as to how you intertwine your own personal experiences and your own personal philosophical sources in order to come to the conclusion you have regarding feminism “here and now”. How are you not fractured and fragmented given that you acknowledge that 1] your present views are rooted in the life you live and 2] that there does not appear to be a way [using the tools of philosophy] to come up with the optimal or only rational conclusion.
Then [for me] back up into the abstract clouds, the “it’s-all-about-you” and the psycho-babble:
Again, from your frame of mind, this explains the gap between how we have come to understand our own subjective assessments of feminism differently. But I don’t really have a clue as to how I can relate this to my own experiences and my own philosophical sources. It really is basically psycho-babble bullshit to me.
And in no way, shape or form, does it seem to address the points I raise in my signature threads about “I” at the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments and political economy.
And, for now, I’m sticking with this.
Again, that’s what you think I am doing here.
But I’m still no less confused as to how you manage to sustain your own “one of us” [the smart ones] vs. “one of them” [the dumb ones] mentality. You may not be as far out on the arrogant/caustic ideological limb as those like Satyr, Urwrong and Obsrvr524, but you are a hell of a lot closer to them than you are to me.
No, in no way am I doing the Buddha bit here. The Self pertaining to demographics and to the empirical, biological, social etc., facts of my life isn’t fragmented. Like you and others, I go through the bulk of my days never giving much thought as to whether I am wholly who I think I am.
The fragmentation revolves around value judgments in a world of conflicting goods; in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change. With experiences you often only have so much understanding and control over. Experiences which can nudge you or shove you into evolving frames of mind about things like feminism and abortion.
But my very point is that it does! We just think about the “for all practical purposes” implications of it – re the behaviors we choose – different.
No, my main point in regard to this is to focus the beam in on those moral and political objectivists here who self-righteously sustain their own Coalitions of Truth, their “your wrong if you don’t think like me” mentality in regard to their own value judgments.
With you it’s more about grappling to ascertain the extent to which you understand the points I raise in my signature threads, the extent to which you agree and disagree with them and, to the extent that you do, why you are not in turn as “fractured and fragmented” as I am.
Given a particular ser of circumstances that precipitate conflicting goods.
Thus…
But [again] my point is that the main reason you’ve convinced yourself it shouldn’t be your cup of tea is, in turn, rooted in thoughts and feelings that are derived existentially from the life you lived. This as opposed to having a theological, scientific, philosophical, ethical, political etc., argument able to establish that in fact all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to reject or accept feminism. Either as many conservatives do, or as many liberals do.
In other words, whether I had come to embody my Song Be experiences or not, there would still be available to me an objective assessment of feminism. It wouldn’t be just a political prejudice but a political fact that feminists are wrong.
And then the gap between how we think about this.
Then for me back up into obscure stratosphere you go…
Formal? As in Platonic? As in Aristotelian? As in “metaphysical” re Ayn Rand’s own assumptions about feminism? Howard may have raped Dominique…but not really. It’s just the most rational/natural relationship between men and women. That sort of “formal” thinking?
Let’s ask the objectivists here? If they didn’t think that their own assessment of feminism wasn’t rooted in the Real Me in sync with the Right Thing To Do, why would they become so enraged at those who don’t think as they do? Why would they invent “Coalitions of Truth”? Why would they hold in contempt those who don’t share their own fierce genes > memes convictions about race and gender and sexual orientation?
Nope. I’m just extrapolating from my vast experiences with fulminating fanatic objectivists over the years. Those who, one way or another, come to embody the “psychology of objectivism” explored by me on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
Okay, in regard to such issues as reproductive rights, women in the work place, child care, sexual relationships, patriarchy, social, political and economic equality, gender stereotypes, combat roles etc., what positions must one take if they wish to be thought of as being “reasonable, realistic, and wholistic” about feminism? And how are one’s thoughts about these things not profoundly rooted in dasein? And how does one make a distinction between what one thinks about them and what one feel about them…in such a way that this is not too a manifestation of dasein?
You make this distinction between ideas and emotions here as though your thoughts about feminist issues really can come closer to the objective truth than your feelings. Says who? Well, you of course. Your thinking about women in the home or in the workplace or in social relationships or in the military are, what, inherently superior to the liberals?
And when the liberals insist that, on the contrary, it is the conservative moral and political agenda that is inherently inferior…they’re just wrong?
And then for the objectivists here it just comes down to the font they use…religion, ideology, deontology, nature.
This part:
No, it seems to suggest [to me], there’s no way that this is just a subjective political prejudice rooted existentially in the life you lived…this really is as close as a human mind can come to the objective truth.
And then of course there’s the threat that many, many women feel in the presence of men who want to take them back to the 1950s. To June Cleaver and Betty Anderson and Lucy Ricardo.
But you are more nuanced and balanced in your assessment…
Now, let’s bring in the “social science” experts to sift through all of this and then, context by context, come up with the most reasonable assessment of all. Assessments such that your emotional reactions will be the least biased and prejudiced.
Then your reaction which is still largely obscure to me given my point above.
I’m assuming you mean segue here and not an “electric transportation device.”
But your assessment of my doing this simply does not sink in at all. I’m basically confused about what it is you are even accusing me of in regard to how I construe any particular individual’s reaction to things like feminism and abortion. We seem to start with very different assumptions.
From my frame of mind, that’s because you separate out thinking about things like feminism and make this something that you can be considerably more certain about than any feelings you might have. Whereas, for me, feelings are more convoluted mostly because they invove more primitive brain functions. You might not take women back to the 1950s but only because those that want to aren’t as smart as you in their thinking.
One way or another you come to embody a point of view about feminism. It could be rooted in a particular historical or cultural context. It could be rooted in your childhood indoctrination. It could be rooted in traumatic/dramatic experiences. Whichever way, the thoughts and the feelings that you have allow you to anchor your Self in what you come to construe is the most reasonable way to think about it. You are able to feel comforted and consoled that when it comes to gender roles, you know best.
And that is what you sustain. Not what you believe about feminism but that what you believe about it makes you more reasonable than those who believe something else.
You said it yourself.
still…no context.
All up there on skyhooks.
What about Mary Land’s foetus?
Let’s dish, girlfriend!!!
Was she a slut or was she merely naïve? Bad judgments lead to bad choices…
Why does the collective have to step in and evenly distribute the negative consequences of Mary’s bad judgement calls?
Explain this part. In the US military, how are “draft numbers” picked? And what is a draft number?
No it’s not! 
It’s true that supplying real world examples adds clarity to what might be a highly abstract point, but there’s no way the abstract points I’ve been making are just soooo unclear that no one can possibly make heads or tails of them. I make abstract points like this all the time, and you’re the only one who’s ever been incapable of grasping them.
And I know you’re capable of grasping abstract points. Your entire philosophy is about as abstract as it gets. And I’ve made points in discussions with you just as abstract as the ones I’m making here that happened to work in favor of your point (i.e. I was agreeing with you) and you seemed to have no problem grasping those abstract points.
I’ll grant that there’s a difference between expressing abstract points, listening to abstract points, and thinking about abstract points–each of these activities is handled by different systems in the brain–so one could conceivably be brilliant at making abstract points (say) but defective in comprehending abstract points expressed by others. But the pattern I’ve noticed with you is that your reading comprehension skills shut off when someone makes an in-depth wordy point that happens to be a good one, one that has some potency in challenging your arguments (or even supplying you with the examples/answers you always ask for). That’s not me, it’s you. It’s scary how psychoanalytic it is, how much it can be explained by psychological defense mechanisms (the Freudian kind), mechanisms that blur/distort incoming ideas or block them out all together.
^ Too abstract for you?
Ah, so you do expect my feelings towards feminism to be shut off as soon as I admit my prejudices towards feminism are rooted in dasein.
Probably shouldn’t have joined then, huh?
It is about you. Remember, Biggy, this is my thread, and it’s whole purpose, it’s reason d’etre, is for me to figure you out. The title was just bate and you took it. What you’re responding to here is me drawing some conclusions.
Would you frickin’ drop the fixation on feminism. This hasn’t been about feminism for several posts now.
But to me and everyone else, it’s pure gold.
You know, Biggy, you really are self-centered. You seem to think we’re all here to discuss the topics you want to discuss, that our primary concern is to satisfy you. This is why I’m now wondering if you’re autistic (high functioning).
Thank God.
This sounds like it’s missing a punch line. After “feminism and abortion.” what would you add starting with “Therefore…” and ending with “…and that’s why my ‘I’ fragments.” I guess I’ll have to conjecture that your ‘I’ fragments because whatever identity you imagined yourself having, however you defined yourself, that turns out to be just another intellectual contraption. The fragmenting of the self, therefore, is the fragmenting of this intellectual contraption, this identity you thought defined you, your self-image. Ok, so you no longer know who you are, what you are. I guess this is why you always mention ‘I’ in quotes–you recognize that it’s not really you but an image of yourself that you’ve hitherto held to be a faithful representation. And your ‘I’ is hopelessly fragmented because anything you erect to take its place will be but another intellectual contraption.
Fair enough, it’s just that you seem to want this to be a revelation to me, like it’s not fair if I beat you to the punch. It’s like you want me to be an objectivist denying that my political prejudices are rooted in dasein so that you can traumatize me with the sudden realization that they do. You seem to think that admitting that your arguments apply even to your own political prejudices is a good enough excuse for you to go on expressing/defending those political prejudices, but not for anyone else.
Well, Biggy, if the explanations I gave above for this were “too abstract” for you to comprehend, you have no hope in hell of ever understanding. I mean, those explanations are just the tip of the iceberg. If I really wanted to go deep, I’d bring in my theory of consciousness (it’s really high up in the clouds) and try to explain to you how it changes the way I look at a lot of this stuff, a way that makes their standing as intellectual contraptions, and how intellectual contraption related to the real world, not nearly as problematic. IOW, while I don’t deny that these are just intellectual contraption that ultimately find their origins in dasein, I think of intellectual contraptions radically differently from you (and pretty much everybody). To give you a hint: we are both subjectivists, but only one of us is a nihilist.
Bye-bye! 
No, formal as in what I’m willing to commit to.
Whatever you say, homie. This is pure gold because we really get a good look at why you don’t understand my explanations. You are literally not listening (is that the right use of the word ‘literal’?). You split up my quote to interject your reactions, which itself is fine (it doesn’t indicate you’re not listening), but what you say in those interjections does. It indicates that you’re just too eager to get back to your dasein arguments, your challenges to objectivy sounding statements. I talk about a hypothetical attempt to get at the truth about feminism (in order to show you how I distinguish between formal beliefs and emotional reactions), and all you think is “Oh, gib’s talking about feminism! This is my opportunity to do my daseiny thing!” Then I talk about why I have the emotional reactions to feminism that I do (to contrast it with formal thoughts) and rather than take it as an answer to the question you asked, you dismiss it because, to you, it’s just another opportunity to let your dasein arguments and challenges out of the gate, to play your game again. Your not actually reading what I wrote, you’re just itching to do your dasein thing, like a kid peeing his pants because he’s been holding it for hours. You just read what I say until you find something that kinda, sorta remotely sounds like I’m taking a stance on feminism, like I really am making an objective statement about feminism, and then you let loose with your overly rehearsed dasein script, taking what you perceive to be another objectivist to the cleaners. It’s no wonder you don’t understand my explanations. You’re not taking them as explanations. You’re looking at them as a torrent of words in which you’re likely to find a few opportunities to do your dasein thing.
Ah, so you’re right:
I guess you are a better linguist than me.
Huh? Now this, to me, is just a wall of words (or maybe just a string). Are you saying I’m trading in certainty about my feelings towards feminism for certainty about knowing the difference between thoughts and feelings (doesn’t have to be about feminism)?
So you know there’s a difference.
Another really strange jumble of words. I interpret it thus: Because I abhor feminism, I must want to take women back to the 1950s. But I can’t. However, the reason I can’t may not be what I think. The real reason is that the women who want to go back to the 1950s aren’t as smart as me (in their thinking)… so… uh… what?
Is this your attempt to psychobabble about me? Don’t try, you don’t hold a candle to me.
- Sigh * Not doing a good job of trimming this down, am I Biggy. Oh well, let’s try one more round.
Just a reminder that your excruciating embarrassment here is now just days from being over.
Uh, you won’t be coming back for still more thumping, will you?
But don’t let me stop you. Making a fool out of you – effortlessly to boot! – is always a pleasure.
Oh, and Mary wanted me to tell you that you are living proof that in some cases abortion ought to be mandatory.
Any really, really, really clever riposte from you?
After all, there’s always the first time.
Back to huffing and puffing.
The objectivist up on the stratosphere.
Note to Others
Who’s thumping who?
Or am I wrong?
Note to Fate
Am I really responsible if I could not have done otherwise?
Note to Self
Make a note to yourself about objectivists, skyhooks, being fragmented, thumping…and on and on.
Note to Universe
Did I write the previous notes or was that you causing me to cause myself to write those notes?
I’m trapped in a looping loop of loopiness.
Note to my Notes
Please determine that I should stop writing notes.
Note to Future
Didn’t work. It is my destiny.
Note to Destiny
I am innocent.
Note to Innocence
Who is self?
Note to Self
Back to nothingness.
Mr. Fun to iambiguous:
Define “clever”. 
Back to rooftops of Ayn Rand’s bungalow.
Note to Collective
Who is gonna pay for this?
We need a system of shared responsibility so Mary can stay as sluttish and gullible and stupid as she can be.
:-" =D> =D> 
Wendy to Mr. Fun:
You’re on the right track, but if your only point is to take a sub-mental dump in his threads, try this:
Hello…Hello is that you Joker?
Yes, the nobody worshiping nothing, is on the other line.
Yes…the end…the Last Man…The final nothing is at hand.
Again, I challenge/dare you to even make sense of this!!
Ah, here we have Biggy in his prime. This, you have to admit Bigs, is what it’s all about. The trolling, the jabs, the battle of wits… this is where you shine, isn’t it? This is where you hope to take each of us, one by one. And it don’t work unless we play your game.
I do have to admit though, this was funny:
Another point about this… Is this how you think of the order of operations?
dasein ==> prejudices ==> emotional reactions based on prejudices
I mean, is your think that we all start out in dasein, then through our life experiences we develop certain prejudices (which are primarily cognitive in character–i.e. they’re more beliefs than feelings), and then we have emotional reactions to situations that seem to compromise our prejudicial dasein-based beliefs?
Because what I was trying to say with my example of being a man in a world featuring angry feminists was this:
dasein ==> emotional reactions ==> prejudices
[size=50](if a wall of words was too thick for your comprehension, hopefully diagrams are more clear)[/size]
That is to say, dasein had it that I was born a man, and being a man in a world surrounded by angry feminists vying for political power, I learned to feel threatened by feminism. And then I conjured up some semi-rational thought structure about how feminism is bad as a way of justifying my feelings.
You see, this way, when I admit that my anti-feminist prejudice is rooted in dasein, that only cuts the chord here:
dasein ==> emotional reactions =≠=> prejudices
…leaving my emotional reactions tied to the vine, being kept alive by dasein (i.e. by the fact that I’m still a man and therefore still in danger of being harmed by angry feminists).
But I can understand how your quote above makes sense given that, according to your order of operations, the chord is severed here:
dasein =≠=> prejudices ==> emotional reactions based on prejudices
…effectively chopping off both my anti-feminist prejudice and my emotional reactions to it.
But my point about being a man in a feminist infested world (which you conveniently ignored) was that my emotional reactions are closer to the root of dasein than my cognitive justification of my prejudice. Therefore, they don’t depend on the latter. And you should know that nothing stops dasein, right? Certainly not the acknowledgement that it’s all rooted in dasein. You think that by admitting that my emotional reactions are rooted in dasein, that dasein would relent and stop making me feel those emotions? Nuh-uh. Dasein has it that I’m still a man, and I’m still in a world surrounded by angry feminists vying for political power, and therefore I still feel threatened. The only thing that acknowledging that it all stems from dasein does is it makes it clear (to me and everyone else I confess this acknowledgement in front of) that my patchwork cognitive justification I slapped together to defend my emotional reaction isn’t really grounded on anything that could sustain it as a true, objectively valid, justification that all rational men and women ought to affirm. It just means when I rail against feminism, I have to admit I’m driven primarily by my emotional reaction, not by a conviction that it’s objectively right, which makes it more selfish than I’d like to admit.
And BTW, I don’t think women ought to be dragged back to the 1950s–that’s conjecture on your part and betrays your own unconscious prejudices–being anti-feminist doesn’t mean being anti-women any more than being anti-nazi means being anti-German. The man hating power hungry feminists I feel threatened by are crazy; most women are not.
It just clicked for me, click-clack, THE context, objectively…
Piggy is viscerally afraid of a Woman’s “Choice”, that females control mortality, dictate who lives and who dies.
The Natural filtering process.
He’s scared shitless. He’s never confronted this fact, in his entire life.
Like this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_lottery_(1969
It’s all actually a blur to me now. The irony being that I later signed up as an RA recruit. Why? Because the recruiter promised me I would not be sent to Vietnam if I did. A flagrant lie. But mostly because Regular Army recruits served three years active duty, then three years inactive reserve duty. Whereas US recruits served 2 years active, but then 2 more years in the active reserve.
In any event, I did get sent to Vietnam. I did meet the men who dramatically changed my life. Now, of course, this is all a crucial component of my “hole” argument.
On the other hand, how many others are intent on bringing these abstractions down to earth for the reasons I insist that they be?
Okay, given the arguments I make in the OP here… ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382 …note how, in regard to my views on the morality of abortion, my entire philosophy here is about as abstract as it gets.
Typical. Even in discussing abstract points you do it almost entirely with yet more abstract points. Again, in regard to your own assessment of things like abortion, what exactly are you saying here? How would you go about demonstrating that your own abstract points are “good ones”. If for example you were making the point to those on either side of the political prejudice line outside a Planned Parenthood clinic. I’m trying to imagine their bewildered reaction to “serious philosophy” of this sort.
I suggest only that thoughts and feelings intertwined in “I” in regard to our reactions to things like the morality of abortion, or the rationality of feminism, are unable to be neatly separated into “this is what I think”/“this is what I feel”. They are both embodied in dasein…through any number of complex and convoluted variables going back to the very first time we became aware of them as conflicting goods.
Okay, but it’s all about me predicated [from my end] on the assumptions you make about me rooted in in your own hopelessly subjective personal opinions regarding me. As though your conclusions can come anywhere near pinning me down given how profoundly different our lives have been. But that’s what the objectivists here do. I’m just willing to acknowledge in turn that I am far, far removed even from understanding myself “here and now”.
Like you, there are countless variables/factors in my life I scarcely have any real understanding of or control over. Especially the parts of “I” that were shaped and molded through years of childhood indoctrination out in a particular world. Then the Song Be Syndrome as an adult.
On the contrary, over and over and over again, I make it abundantly clear that my main interest in philosophy revolves around the answers individuals give to this: “how ought one to live in in a world awash kin both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change.”
Given particular sets of circumstances.
That and the “Big Questions” like determinism/free will, death, why there is something and not nothing, sim worlds/dream worlds/solipsism/Matrix quandaries.
And, of course, polemics.
Not interested in this? Well, to the best of my knowledge no one here is required to read my posts…let alone respond to them. Move on to others if you wish. And neither one of us is likely to lose any sleep about it.
Let me guess: the “one of us” God?
No, that’s what the fulminating fanatic objectivists here need to turn it into. Anything to keep their own precious Self wholly intact. I’m just not exactly sure how you go about doing this. Other than up in the intellectual contraption clouds with the rest of them.
All conflicting goods of course. Unless I encounter an argument able to convince me that there is in fact – philosophically or otherwise – an objective moral assessment and political agenda.
Know of any?
Again, you are basically unable to discuss this except up in an intellectual contraption. Me, I return time and again to the OP [and posts] from this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
It’s not just an intellectual contraption at all. It’s a world of words, sure. But that’s all we have here. But the words always make reference to the life that I lived. To the philosophy books I encountered. If someone asks me why I believe what I do about abortion, I can tell them.
Then I can point them in the direction of all the arguments pro and con that others make in regard to the issue: abortion.procon.org/
People on both sides making reasonable arguments given initial sets of assumptions regarding what the priority is – saving the unborn or protecting the political rights of pregnant woman.
Arguments neither side can just make go away.
I’m just waiting for you to provide me with the same existential trajectory in regard to your own views on abortion. Or feminism. Or an other moral conflagration that has rent the species now for thousands of years.
What I want is an argument able to convince me that my own existence is not essentially meaningless and purposeless. That I am not going to be tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion. That there is no need to feel fractured and fragmented morally and politically on this side of the grave.
Now, sure, we can delve into all the numbingly complex psychological components embedded in this. Going back to the cradle. Going back to all of the experiences we had that are now part of our subconscious/unconscious reactions to the world around us. Why I think and feel this, why you think and feel that instead. Our underlying motivation and intention.
Good luck with that. Again, the enormous gap between what we think we know about ourselves and all that there is to be known about ourselves…? Why do you suppose we invent Gods and anchor our Self to fonts?
Anything to keep the fracturing and the fragmentation at bay.
This is how Michael Novak encompassed it in The Experience of Nothingness.
“I recognize that I put structure into my world…There is no ‘real’ world out there, given, intact, full of significance. Consciousness is constituted by random, virtually infinite barrages of experience; these experiences are indistinguishably ‘inner’ and ‘outer’…Structure is put into experience by culture and self, and may also be pulled out again…The experience of nothingness is an experience beyond the linits of reason…it is terrifying. It makes all attempts at speaking of purpose, goals, aims, meaning, importance, conformity, harmony, unity----it makes all such attempts seem doubtful and spurious.”
I merely make the distinction here between I in the either/or world and “I” in the is/ought world.
Given particular contexts.
Then – “here and now” at least – I have no hope in hell of understanding. From my frame of mind you are mostly intent on avoiding the manner in which I construe these exchanges as “down to earth”. You’re just not as arrogant as Satyr and Urwrong and Obsrvr.
I vaguely recall discussing this with you in the past. And, yeah, I’m grateful that you leave it out of this exchange.
Again, this will only make more sense to me when you provide me with your own “existential/philosophical” trajectory re my OP above in regard to abortion. Until then, it’s all mostly up in the clouds stuff to me.
Okay, but in regard to what anyone is willing to commit to with respect to their moral, political and spiritual value judgments, there’s the part rooted subjectively in dasein and the part rooted objectively [or more objectively] in arguments that philosophers, ethicists and political scientist can make. And then demonstrate empirically, phenomenologically.
Given an actual “situation” involving conflicting goods.
All this indicates to me is how we think about these existential relationships differently. You create this “Biggy” in your head and proceed to pin him down given your own set of assumptions about what he is doing here.
Meanwhile, I’m still back to grappling with this…
And this…
…in regard to how you construe the meaning of dasein. In regard to why you are not fractured and fragmented yourself.
In other words, why in regard to the heart and soul of my own philosophical “hole”…
“If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.”
…this is not applicable to you in regard to your own value judgments. Given the extent to which you do claim to both understand and agree with the meaning I give to dasein in my signature threads.
You tell me. Note how you think about feminism. What are you certain about in regard to the pros and cons that people note: psychologytoday.com/us/blog … s-feminism
visionlaunch.com/pros-and-cons-of-feminism/
Now, how you feel about feminism. What are you certain about here? Is it possible to feel the same sort of certainty, whether in thinking about it or in regard to the feelings you have?
Not only do I know this but I make these differences the whole point of my argument in regard to objectivism. After all, it was the Capital O Objectivist Ayn Rand who insisted that her own feelings about things could be pinned down with precisely the same exactitude as her thoughts.
And then being an Objectivist insisted that everyone else had to share her own thoughts and feelings are be thrown out of the personality cult she created.
Like Satyr sending you to the Dungeon. Or completely “disappearing” you.
Again, compare and contrast the exchange that gib and I are having with crap like this.
Well, not that gib and I aren’t fully capable ourselves of taking the exchange there. 
From one failed ideology to the next…
Unable to make sense of the world, unable to change it…she finally found one that could chisel away at its foundations, bringing it down from the inside.
Now she waits for death, chiselling away…scraping away…wearing down the foundations one brick at a time.
Her old god of oneness, of absolute order, have been abandoned as failures. They could not lead her to absoluteness, to absolution. To complete wholeness.
Now she worships the god of that god…the nil.
God of nothing. Complete, total, and whole.
She will return to him, in the abyss, as one who did her duty, proved her faith in him.
He will give her forgetfulness.
Wow! This is almost intelligible!!
But we’ll still need a context.