More way, way up in the clouds intellectual/spiritual bantering between these new found comrades culminating in this from Maia:
And, sure, given these personal experiences, it is not unreasonable to imagine that she would come to be intertwined in nature as she has. Actually, in my own way, I have often felt the same way given the many, many, many hours I spent at Rock Creek Park, Gunpowder, Oregon Ridge, Deep Creek Lake and many other excursions out into the natural world around where I live.
Instead, it’s the part where nature and the Goddess get intertwined in turn in our moral and political values that most interest me. Maia seems to be of the mind that through nature and the Goddess she is able to connect the dots between them and a “moral life” that allows her to make a distinction between the “right behaviors” and the “wrong behaviors”. As though that really is rooted more in nature than in dasein. The part I tried over and again to get her to explore with me more fully.
Instead, to me, nature is as much this…
…earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, the brutal and savage slaughterhouse that revolves around predators and prey, pandemics, plagues, asteroid and comet strikes, countless medical afflictions. And then from time to time actual extinction events in which virtually all life around the globe is wiped out of existence.
…as in all the “spiritual” things that Maia gets from it. How, in fact, given what nature does throw at us is it not completely amoral in regard to us human beings?
To, me, Maia anthropomorphizes nature into this “glorious” thing “in her head” so that she can use it to anchor her Self in something that gives her own life an essential meaning and purpose.
Cue Satyr:
No, his life work is not to put everything into words, but to spew out gobs and gobs of swollen bombastic words while heaping disdain on all those who refuse to choose the same words that he does. Satyr of course is much more invested in “serious philosophy” than Maia. So words are everything to him when dumping his intellectual contraptions on her. On us.
She of course is in way over her head in grasping his scholastic/didactic screeds. But then he of course is in way over his head in grasping the “spiritual” connection she has with nature.
So, among other things, dumping on those like me – the abstract nihilists, the moderns – has to be the tie that binds them as comrades for now.
In all honesty, Biggy, I am no longer interested in getting into a discussion with you, at least not about that–and even if the topic is the farthest thing from that, I know you well enough that it will take no time to become a discussion about that. The questions which drive you are not a philosophy. They are a trap. A trap that unsuspecting newbies to ILP will fall into expecting to get something worthy of an actual philosophical discussion, but all they get is headache and frustration and a dizzy brain from going around in circles over and over and over again. You’re playing a different game. It looks like philosophy but it’s more like the game of let’s-see-if-we-can-get-so-and-so-trapped-in-a-maze-with-no-exit. No thanks. I’ve wisened up to your ways, Biggy.
But that thread so far has lived up to its name–gib and iambiguous don’t contend–why would you want to ruin that?
You’re obviously quite an intelligent man yourself, Biggy, I have never doubted that. But I do think you’re wasting your intelligence on the persuits who seem to be chasing. You’re mind could be put to so many better things–more productive things, more helpful, more fulfilling–than continually digging this hole you claim to be stuck in.
Maia, through her interactions with nature and the Goddess seemed [to me] able to find something more analogous to that which I construe to be an essential meaning and purpose in her life. And since I respected her intelligence and accepted her argument that she was not an objectivist, I could not help but be curious to see if her own understanding of nature and the Goddess might allow me to see the world around me from a less fractured and fragmented frame of mind.
No, how satisfying it might be for me if, while not being able to scramble up out of hole I’ve dug myself down into [philosophically, spiritually, morally, politically], Maia might actually come around to thinking as I do. Empathy, let’s call it.
Yes, and it’s actually worked. I have email exchanges now with a handful of people who have come down into the hole with me. One who used to post here at ILP, a couple from the now defunct Ponderer’s Guild, and one going all the way back to the Existlist philosophy forum in the old yahoo groups.
No, nothing like that. My gut feeling here – and that’s all it is, a visceral reaction – is this: on some level she recognizes what is at stake for her if she comes to believe that my frame of mind is more reasonable than her own. She chooses not to dive down into the deep end of the philosophical pool with me because she has too much invested in her own spiritual font. To the extent I threaten that she will back off. I’ve had this experience with many over the years who anchor their One True Self to one or another font. I mean, hell, look at the reactions of the actual objectivists here to me!
Fine. That’s your prerogative. And hers. I can only make the offer to explore our spiritual/moral/political narratives given the components of our respective philosophies.
Okay, once again you make it all about me. You level these abstract accusations but then refuse to engage in a substantive discussion such that the components of our moral philosophies can be explored given a specific set of circumstances in which conflicting goods occur. You’d have the opportunity to note specifically how my questions are not, what, “serious philosophy?” How they are a “trap” instead. A “game”. You could note specifics instances that would allow others to be “wise” to me as well.
Or, sure, some will say they have done this with me and it didn’t work. Fine, move on to others.
But, no problem. Think what you will about me here.
Yes, and she and I like you and I can go back and forth exchanging these abstract assessments about morality and nihilism and genes and memes and all the rest of it. What I prefer however is an examination into how each of us as individuals come to acquire a specific set of spiritual, moral and political value judgments. What I call prejudices. How much of that is embedded existentially in the lives we live and how much can be pinned down – deontologically? – by philosophers and ethicists.
But: No context? Sorry, on to others please.
Again, another entirely abstract assertion. What other players – major or minor – in regard to what situation involving conflicting goods that most here are likely to be familiar with?
As for ideology, that either revolves more around particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts rooted in dasein or it is argued [by some] that, no, their own ideology transcends all of that subjective/subjunctive stuff and really does reflect, objectively, the most rational and virtuous assessment of the human condition. All the other ideologies come up short, but not theirs.
Well, given my own understanding of what she is saying, she is on her own personal path re nature and the Goddess. That path has culminated in her own personal views on vaccinations, brexit, nihilism, monotheism and all the moral and political conflagrations that beset the species. But other Pagans, on their own personal paths, may come to completely different and conflicting points of view. So, how are nature and the Gods/Goddesses not proponents of “situational ethics” here? It’s like a smorgasbord morality. You have your path, others have their path and that need be as far as it goes.
Thus:
Great, another general description intellectual contraption. And what on earth can an individual’s conscious have to do with dasein?!!
Really? Link me to an example of this.
As for her “trying”, there’s my rendition of that and her rendition.
Again, back to my main point of contention with her:
To this she responded above:
To which I responded:
Well, sort of. Back in the days of the Dungeon at KT. But the more I hammered him on his refusal to take his serial abstractions down out of the clouds, the more he’d pile on with the personal attacks on “the Chimp” or the “moron” and the huffing and puffing. Eventually he stopped responding to me altogether. Now he has “disappeared” me and the Dungeon altogether from KT.
And you are aware, perhaps, that while permitting me to be a “user” at KT, I am forbidden to either respond to his [or Maia’s] attacks on me or to create my own posts in the agora.
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
And Maia, who tells us that she is a “moral person”, is perfectly willing to go along with this farce. But that’s between her, the Goddess and their respective conscience I suppose.
By the way, as I had promised Maia on a planet now far, far away, I tried this myself in my own little sacred neck of the woods. It lasted three days. Wasn’t able to draw in any energy at all. Let alone connect the dots between it and conflicting goods. A quitter let’s call me.
That will always be an imponderable I suspect. You are born blind and will miss out entirely on all that being sighted brings to being a part of the “human condition”. So, for some I would imagine, why not connect the dots to a “bigger picture” that puts it all into perspective “spiritually”. A way to make all seem necessary…natural.
Though, again, from my frame of mind, how can this not be profoundly embodied in dasein?
Can you believe this from our resident Uberman here?! Perfectly in sync with her on nature up in the spiritual clouds.
Almost like he is wooing her?
Just so long as these general description improvements are not focusing in on a moral or political prejudice where she and Satyr might, say, be at odds.
That in fact is what I keep waiting for. What happens when he advocates an actual specific behavior relating to race and gender and sexual orientation etc., that, well, repels her?
Or, instead, is Maia already on the same page with him in regard to these “demographic” factors? Sad to say, it really wouldn’t surprise me all that much if she is.
Only, once again, I can only react to things like this given my “fractured and fragmented” frame of mind re “I” in the is/ought world.
Okay, here there is just the hint that this will all be brought down to Earth:
Of course, as we all know, Satyr embraces some very specific dogmas in regard to race, gender and sexual orientation. You either think about them as he does in terms of nature or you are wrong. But nothing specific is noted here. Allowing Maia to come back with nothing specific in turn:
Note to Maia:
Do focus in then on how you construe race and gender and sexual orientation. Are some races “naturally” superior to others? Are gender roles entirely the product of genes and biological imperatives…having little or nothing to do with memes and social constructs down through the ages. Is homosexuality unnatural and something to be attacked.
Nope, keep it all up in the clouds:
Perhaps note actual examples from this in their own lives? The objective, ideal morality that the human brain uses on its own personal path with the Goddess.
Maia finally [sort of] brings it all down to earth:
Yes, there are clearly conflicting schools of thought here. Some ever and always place the emphasis on the “I” the individual and clamor for a more competitive climate. Others, however, place the emphasis on “we” the community and clamor for a less competitive, more cooperative climate. And this is clearly rooted in political economy. With the historical advent of capitalism, it all shifted dramatically to the competitive individual.
But does that mean this necessarily reflects the most rational frame of mind…or just one that is embedded historically in the modern world.
For example consider this from Jules Henry:
"Boris had trouble reducing 12/16 to the lowest terms, and could only get as far as 6/8. The teacher asked him quietly if that was as far as he could reduce it. She suggested he ‘think’. Much heaving up and down and waving of hands by the other children, all frantic to correct him. Boris pretty unhappy, probably mentally paralyzed. The teacher quiet, patient, ignores the others and concentrates with look and voice on Boris. After a minute or two she turns to the the class and says, ‘Well, who can tell Boris what the number is?’ A forest of hands appears, and the teacher calls on Peggy. Peggy says that four may be divided into the numerator and the denominator."
Henry remarks:
“Boris’s failure made it possible for Peggy to succeed; his misery is the occasion for her rejoicing. This is a standard condition of the contemporary American elementary school. To a Zuni, Hopi or Dakota Indian, Peggy’s performance would seem cruel beyond belief, for competition, the wringing of success from somebody’s failure, is a form of torture foreign to those non-competitive cultures.”
So, what does Maia do, take her excursions out into nature, commune with the Goddess and decide that competition is best? And if another Pagan on his or her own “personal path” comes to just the opposite conclusion?
Some Pagans stress competition, others cooperation. So, “naturally” which is it?
Now my point of course is that given the life that she lived, the aggregation of experiences she had, Maia became predisposed to embrace competition. But had something dramatically different happened in her life, she might have instead been predisposed to embrace cooperation instead.
Now, she basically just shrugs that part off as though it was a trivial matter. But, in my view, it is anything but trivial.
Not even sure where to begin in responding to this sort of “general description spiritual contraption”:
Again, from my own frame of mind this is what I call a “psychologism”:
First the dictionary:
Psychologism
PHILOSOPHY
a tendency to interpret events or arguments in subjective terms, or to exaggerate the relevance of psychological factors.
Then “me”:
A vague but evocative tendency to reduce the world down “in your head” to a description aimed almost entirely at comforting and consoling you rather than providing any truly definitive account of the vastness of the world as it really is.
To wt…
A world full of love and life and meaning as she has come to understand them given a life that she has come to live. Nature has been generally kind to her so she is able to fit comfortably into that self-serving description. And even though we are ever surrounded by others who can have a truly powerful impact on the choices we make in that world, it’s all entirely in in our hands. It ever and always comes down to “individual responsibility”, as the conservatives insist, and if someone for any number of reasons finds himself or herself in the need of help from others, well, unless they are “one of us”, they’re on their own. And, besides, it’s always their own damn fault.
Finally, after a tedious exchange of ponderous and predictable intellectual and spiritual contraptions up on the skyhooks – in which whatever Satyr posts up there, Maia invariably comes back with “I agree” – Maia notes this:
Now, for Satyr of course we all know that gender roles have little or nothing to do with nature the spiritual mentor or “the Goddess”. They are instead all about the biological imperatives in which women are [genetically] exactly as Satyr and his fellow Ubermen demand them to be.
Or to encompass that in one of his didactic intellectual concoctions:
So, will Maia come back with “I agree” here too? Well, yeah!!
godot to iambiguous:
Didn’t I tell you? You had completely misjudged her!! After all, she does pass messages onto to others here from Turd. That in and of itself speak volumes, you dolt!
Note to Maia:
You’re just fucking with his head, right? Say you ain’t what I’m beginning to think that you may well be: another godawful dittohead objectivist!!!
How in the hell is Satyr going handle this predicament?
Sounds flagrantly racist to me. But Maia won’t quite go that far…
Change the subject. From race per se to religion?
But then after insisting that races – breeds – are genetically/“naturally” different in regard to “IQ, abstract thinking, brain mass” etc., he comes back with this:
Along with this hopelessly obtuse intellectual contraption proviso:
And Maia’s reaction to that:
You tell me. Just another general description psychologism from my vantage point.
So, where were we? Oh, yeah, Maia reacting to Satyr’s flagrant racism.
Sort of as it were.
But let’s move on…
Yes, that’s my point. Nature is amoral. And yet here she is every bit as much a part of nature as you and I making claims to be a “moral person”. Her morality derived from a Goddess who would seem to be every bit as much the embodiment of an amoral nature.
How does she reconcile that? Well, in my view, by concocting her own rationalizations such that her own view about things like competition and education and race and gender are essentially true “in her head” because she is on her own “One Ture Path” to nature. And, in turn, all the other Pagans are allowed to come to completely conflicting points of view on their very different One True Paths. And even though Satyr’s One True Path, as we all know, revolves around a very, very different take on nature in which no one is permitted to be on any other path than his own, Maia refuses to confront him on this because it is apparently more important to her to sustain this “melding of the minds” regarding those like me.
So…
“Down with the fragmented and fractured ‘self’!”
“All hail the One True Path through Nature.”
Here, alas, I can only shudder and imagine that this might actually be the case with her!!!
godot to Maia:
Sorry, I have less and less control over his…obsessions?
Okay, she’s hip to Darwin. But she is clearly not hip to Marx.
A hunter-gatherer tribe may have been in competition with nature and other tribes to sustain their community’s existence, but within the community itself it was cooperation and not competition that sustained them. “We” was everything to them. Only when political economy eventually gave way over time to capitalism did that change. Not genes, but memes. And, perhaps, you might be aware that capitalism is, instead, all about competition in which it is the individual that prevails. Remember Boris and Peggy above?
Only Maia, with her more “mystical” view of nature, seems [to me] completely oblivious to things like political economy. Why? Because given the life she lived it just never really came up. And when I do bring it up, she can only fall back on the “I” that she has acquired existentially through her experiences with Paganism.
After all, that’s how the Self on the One True Path works “for all practical purposes”.
Note to others:
I know what you’re thinking: lighten up, man!!
And, yes, I’m ambivalent myself here. But, come on, she may well go full monty at KT!!! Satyr is reeling her in and it would just break my heart if she too were to become a full-fledged objectivist dittohead there. Look, don’t think it’s not just a hop, step and a jump from the One True Path to objectivism. I’ve seen it happen time and again myself in all those years as a political activists.
Seriously, though, are we expected to believe that Satyr’s take on altruism, wholly in sync with biological imperatives, is the same as Maia’s in sync with the Goddess. That his understanding of the “selfless concern for the well-being of others” is in sync with Maia’s?
And how on earth do either one of them reconcile altruism with the dog eat dog competition embedded organically/historically in the advent of the capitalist political economy?
We obviously come into the world hard-wire genetically to embody both altruism and selfishness. But then there’s the part where historically, culturally and experientially both can be intertwined in any number of very, very different actual communities. Call that “memes” or “social constructs” or “glorious nature”. But don’t allow yourself to be deluded that once on the One True Path you come to believe that your own take on all of this really is the One True Path. And thus allowing you to be in contempt of all those who refuse to think exactly like you do.
Is that where Maia is headed now? Or, perhaps, more to the point, is that where she already is?
Next up:
Neither one of them are now permitted to either really probe or to critique what the other one says.
That’s just how these exchanges unfold. That’s how my exchange with Maia unfolded on the dream thread. Up until I started to press her to go out into the deep end of the pool. That’s when she told me that she was getting “bored”.
Surprisingly enough it’s Satyr who brings it all back around from cows to race.
And the plot…thickens?
Let’s back up.
Above Maia noted that…
Which, I believe, most would construe to be the opinion of someone who is not a racist.
On the other hand, Satyr rebuts with…
Apparently, human beings like dogs and horses come in different “breeds”. And with the races their potential is as well different. And this, I believe, most would construe to be the opinion of a racist.
Now, back in the days when I was allowed to participate in the agora discussions, I wasn’t permitted to disagree with Satyr at all. No, it was off to the dungeon for me. And now just simply gagged.
How is it different for him with Maia? Well, that will probably depend on what it is he is after in this exchange with her. Are there ulterior motives involved?
Yes, for the blind from birth folks, if they are to become a racist, it will almost always be as a result being indoctrinated by a family or by friends or by a community of racists. So, in the Know Thyself community, to what extent are Satyr and the other long term members there racists? Do they believe that in terms of IQ, intelligence, worth etc., that the white race is in fact superior to all the other races? What then would their policies be if, in any particular community, they were to be the ones in power. Would they be inclined to practice, say, a Jim Crow approach to race relations? Or, for some, would slavery or even a “final solution” be appropriate? What of jobs and education and sex and marriage?
Will Maia broach these things with Satyr? Or, instead, will the exchange pertain [as now] only to general description intellectual/spiritual matters.
You tell me:
Oddly enough, her exchange with Satyr there reminds me somewhat of her exchange with me here. Satyr, like me, attempts to introduce Maia to his own philosophical assumptions…tries to bring her out into the deeper waters. Tries to get her, perhaps, to share his own assumptions. But Maia is not at all interested in going there. She won’t take the “bait” in her posts. The deep end of the philosophical pool has little or nothing to do with her own One True Spiritual Path “personal opinions” garnered through nature and the Goddess. She has sustained what I describe as the psychologisms she needs to feel grounded in the comfort and the consolation of being on the One True Spiritual Path and nothing that I or Satyr say is going to take her off it. There is simply too much at stake for her now in being grounded to it.
Unless of course I’m wrong. And, here, unlike Satyr, I’m the first to admit that my own reactions are hopelessly embedded in “I” as a fractured and fragmented intellectual contraption.
All I have to offer those like Maia are considerably more options in her life if they do stop believing that that must ever and always behave only in accordance with what Nature and the Goddess command of them.
Satyr, on the other hand [sans “ulterior motives”], will demand of her only that she eventually come around and agree with everything that he believes.
Of course my own wont here would be to bring all of this out into the world of flesh and blood human interactions.
A male. A female.
Given particular contexts relating to gender roles revolving around education, jobs, sex, parental responsibilities, social, political and economic status etc., what does Maia on her One True Spiritual Path with the Goddess believe reflects the best of all possible worlds for women in contrast to what Satyr believes given his own assumption about nature rooted in genes rooted in biological imperatives.
Will that happen here?
Uh, nope?
Again, it’s like the thing that binds them in their opposition to those like me must take precedent over anything that might bring about a rift between them.
Sometimes, one has to make it about the person rather than the argument. It’s not really much different than someone saying “You’re not listening.” Sure, that statement may be about the person, not the argument, but it’s meant to get the discussion unstuck and moving again. It’s said when one person recognizes that the problem–why he’s not getting through to the other person–is that the person is not listening to his argument, and therefore tries to draw attention to that in the hopes that the person will try harder to listen and be more likely to get the point the other person is making.
Whenever I’ve made the discussion about you, it’s been in this vain.
(Besides, 90% of the time, the discussion is about you. How often have you claimed that your motive in wanting to engage others in these discussions is to see if we can get you out of your hole, that you’re looking for someone to offer an argument that will change your mind… if that’s the case, people will focus on you and what you need to hear/do to get out of your hole or change your mind.)
You don’t think we’ve ever gone into the deep end of philosophy on certain occasions? Don’t make the naïve mistake that unless we agreed on the points being discussed, we haven’t even done real (deep) philosophy. I think you and I have gone quite deep on many occasions but rarely agreed.
Yeah, sometimes. Though it’s not like this can be calibrated with any degree of precision. And, given my own experiences with objectivists over the years, when they tell you that you are not listening, what they mean instead is this: that if you were listening you would agree with them.
That’s what I’m curious about with Maia here. Satyr is clearly embedded in the “listening to me = agreeing with with me” dogmatist/authoritarian ranks. But what of Maia, nature and the Goddess? If Pagans are all on their own personal paths intertwined in an amoral nature, and are able to come to conflicting conclusions regarding the moral and political conflagrations that have rent the human species now for thousands of years, what for all practical purposes does it mean for a Pagan in say “I am a moral person”?
Again, all I can suggest here of those who direct accusations/assessments of this sort at me is to focus in on a context in which we can explore our respective moral philosophies; and then as the discussion unfolds they can point to specific instances of me [or others] doing these things.
Also, my whole argument here revolves around the assumption that given how vast and varied our own uniquely personal experiences can be, it’s a wonder that we are able to communicate as well as we do. But: only in regard to “I” in the is/ought world, and not in the either/or world…where the objective truth does in fact exist. Though, for particular disciplines, it can take many, many years to grasp all of the complexities involved.
Well, I often note this myself, and others are then free [given the real deal free will world] to go there with me or move on to others. On the other hand, I still suspect the most hostile reactions to me revolve instead around those here who are disturbed that I might be suggesting that a fractured and fragmented “self” ought to perhaps be applicable to them too.
And, until I come upon arguments that convince me it is not reasonable to be in the hole that I have dug myself down into, I guess I am.
Thus that win/win frame of mind for me. I come up out of the hole and am able to 1] sustain some measure of comfort and consolation on this side of the grave and 2] have more hope about “I” on the other side. Or I am able to convince others to come down into the hole with me and am able to sustain a measure of empathy that all of us crave in finding others who “get” them.
Basically, I agree. And, for whatever reasons, I didn’t come up and you didn’t come down. So, what else is there but to either try again with different discussions regarding different contexts or just accept the gap between us an move on to others.
With both of us at least agreeing that we respect each other’s intelligence and that we are both committed to members of ILP living up to its name
Satyr continues to post on the Pagan Religion thread. A whole slew of his “general description intellectual contraption” sermons and rants. But, since Tuesday, Maia is no where to be found.
Perhaps this…
…was her way of letting Satyr know that she is now bored with him as well.
