Ok, this has to stop. If you have things you want to ask me, in a respectful way, then start a new thread and do so. Posts will be limited to a maximum of six each, starting with yours and ending with mine, to forestall what I think you really want, namely, a discussion that goes on forever. Please feel free to decline, if this is unacceptable to you, but I will not be entering into a negotiation about it. If you accept, then simply start the new thread.
And then afterwards, as I’ve already told you, if you want to talk to me you’re welcome to engage with me about subjects that interest me. Assuming, that is, that you stop embarrassing yourself, and making me feel uncomfortable, with all this creepy stalking-type behaviour.
I’m sorry, but, spontaneously, “in the moment”, right now, my reaction to this is…“!!!”
In all sincerity, this strikes the rooted in dasein “me” as, well, weird.
Anyway, on a new thread or on this thread, what I would most like to discuss with you comes back around to this:
To this you responded:
It’s not that I believe none of us are likely to agree on every single issue that interest me nearly as much as how each of us as individuals comes, existentially, to think and to feel what we do about “conflicting goods” given the manner in which I construe the creation of a personal identity – “I” – in my signature threads here.
It is all but inevitable that we will often come to disagree given what can be very, very different lives…sets of experiences, relationships, access to information, knowledge and ideas.
In other words, here “I” is as much about what we don’t come into contact with as it is what we do.
Then the part where, given this, others still manage to create a sense of self that is not nearly as fractured and fragmented as mine.
Then this and the “hole” I’m in. Me perhaps being able to pull myself up out of it or them actually ending up instead down in it with me.
Start a new thread, ask your questions, and we’ll have six posts each. Any further stalking of me on other forums, and posting my conversations here, will result in my offer being withdrawn.
I’m sorry, but this still strikes me as just plain weird. Six posts each?!
I made my points above. You will either respond to them in depth here or you can create a new thread. Or email me. Or you can choose not to respond to them at all.
And “stalking” is your word, not mine. Stalking you is what those like Adam did. I am instead genuinely interested in how you think through your own sense of identity and your own moral values given your understanding of nature and the Goddess. And I am genuinely interested precisely because on the dream thread I came to respect your intelligence, your gifted capacity to articulate it and the fact that, unlike Satyr, you are not an objectivist.
Look, if you don’t want me to respond to your posts either here or there just ask me to stop and I will.
The only stipulation being that you don’t make comments about me. If you do, I feel that I have the right to respond. After all, here I am not gagged as I am at KT.
You are welcome to respond to any posts I make on ILP, but to reproduce parts of a conversation I’ve had on a totally different forum is definitely a form of stalking, whatever the motivation, and I do, indeed, insist that you stop.
As for limiting the posts to six each, as I’ve already said, that is to forestall the possibility that the discussion will drag on indefinitely, going round in circles and getting nowhere. And then, after that, we can still talk about other things on later occasions.
So, for the third (and last) time of asking, start a new thread and ask away. I’m right here, ready to respond.
Definitely? In other words, if I do not construe it as “stalking” then I am, what, necessarily, inherently wrong? That’s SatyrThink to me.
You and Satyr are free to post thinks like this…
…about me and my philosophy but then he stuffs a gag down my throat so that I can not defend it or myself. And you don’t object to that at all. How does your interaction with nature and the Goddess rationalize this as moral?
But, okay, provided that I and my own moral philosophy are not skewered there, I will stop responding to your exchanges at KT.
Well, until it can be pinned down once and for all [philosophically or otherwise] which frame of mind is the most rational, how can exchanges of this nature not go on and on? That’s kind of my point actually. Instead, what happens is that one and/or both parties simply stops responding and moves on to others.
Okay, will do. Later today or tomorrow.
Edit:
Again, as close as I can come to understanding my own motivation here, I am drawn to you because, in the manner in which “I” understand it here and now, you are obviously intelligent, are not an objectivist and yet you are not “fractured and fragmented” as “I” am. So, I figure, if anyone might be able to facilitate my own effort to pull myself up out of the hole that I have dug myself into, it would be someone like you. Or, again, if not that, my arguments might persuade you to come down into the hole with me.
I can’t lose. Only fail to either go up or to bring you down.
I construe it as a form of stalking, and frankly, since you know I’ve had problems with that before, it beggars belief that it didn’t even cross your mind that I might consider it as such.
Only one of those posts you quote was by me, and in it, I was referring to Nihilism in general, as is patently clear.
If you can’t say what you need to in six posts, then you probably can’t say it at all, in a way that’s likely to persuade me. Either way, six posts each is my offer.
I’ve said it before, Biggy, and I’ll say it again. You might be suffering from some kind of brain disorder. Seriously. I think that’s what these encounters with subjectivists who don’t feel your existential angst are telling you. If you, Maia, and I are all subjectivists, and you’re the only one that’s bothered by it, maybe your woes have nothing to do with subjectivism or objectivism.
There’s only a handful of philosophers I know of who expressed such angst over their existential crisis–Kierkegaard, Sartre, de Beauvoir–but it happens every now and then–these existentialist nihilists who not only see no meaning or purpose in life, but are tormented by it–and I come to wonder whether what they are describing–existential angst–is more a rare brain disorder than a philosophical outlook, a chemical imbalance that simply causes them to be miserable and to pin the blame on the meaninglessness of everything. I suggest you see a doctor and see if you can get a prescription.
But the other person can definitely lose. This is why you’d make a terrible salesman. Telling people how much you benefit doesn’t exactly entice others to get into a conversation with you, especially if they stand to lose something. You gotta tell people what’s in it for them.
^ Do these responses here count as part of your six posts? ^
It simply boggles my mind that you would dare to compare my attempt to understand your thinking and your value judgments in the same manner in which Adam – and others? – stalked you given your account in the emails we exchanged. That’s a rather low blow from my frame of mind.
And what of your own refusal to confront Satyr’s caustic attacks on me there knowing that he has gagged me. Again, reconcile that with being a “moral person”.
Also, I agreed to stop responding to your exchanges there that did not involve a mention of me. Though, yes, you’re right, that should not include a reaction on your part to nihilism in general.
In all honesty, given my own rather bleak suspicions here, it will probably not even last six rounds.
My own “existential angst” revolves only around the assumption I make that in a No God world there does not appear to be a way to make an objective distinction between right and wrong, good and evil behaviors…other than given the manner in which I make my case in my signature threads here. And you and others will either note how that is not applicable to you given a particular set of circumstances or you won’t.
Come on, you keep passing up all the opportunities that would unfold in such a discussion to note specific examples of my disordered brain. As though to be a moral nihilist is, what, by definition to be mentally damaged? Is that your point?
Also, my “existential angst” revolves around the assumption that in a No God world each of us one by one tumbles over into the abyss that is oblivion…nothingness…for, say, all the rest of eternity?
And, what, you’ve come up with the right wing antidote for that?
This is so far removed from the manner in which I construe myself in the world around me, it would be utterly futile to explore it further with you. You can’t possibly be shallower in grappling with existential angst if you merely associate it with feeling miserable. I almost never feel miserable myself. Instead, I have any number of distractions that still bring me an enormous about of satisfaction and fulfilment.
No, my interest here is in discussing with others the extent to which this…
…seems reasonable to them. And the manner in which it is or is not applicable to them when their own moral and political value judgments come into conflict with others. Given a particular context.
Now don’t forget I did note my respect for your intelligence above. Don’t make me regret that okay?
After all, this “huffing and puffing” is borderline Stooge stuff to me. And the last thing I need here is another one of those.
I have. Right, Maia? The trade off.
Yes, if you have thought yourself into believing in a font – religious, spiritual, ideological, deontological, being at one with nature etc. – it can provide you with the comfort and the consolation of knowing that you are on the One True Path. And that’s no small thing. On the other hand, in being on the One True Path your behavioral options are almost always limited to staying on the path. You can do this, but you cannot do a hell of a lot of other things, right? Whereas down in the hole your options can explode. You can fabricate and refabricate your own moral narrative or, as some do, become full blown sociopaths and revolve your behaviors entirely around what brings you the greatest satisfaction.
My point was clearly laid out in the quote you’re responding to here. And no, a moral nihilist is not by definition mentally damaged, I’m saying you are mentally damaged and it has nothing to do with moral nihilism.
And I’m not taking a crack at you. I don’t mean “mental disorder” in the pejorative sense, I mean it in the sense that you actually might have a mental condition that is keeping you down (depressed, angsty, troubled, whatever your hole represents) and that the longer you keep attributing this to your dismal nihilist outlook and looking for solace at ILP of all dumpsters, the longer you’ll put off being happy (or happier) and moving on with your life. This is me actually trying to help you.
Read what I said again. I’m saying precisely the opposite. I’m saying your existential angst has absolutely nothing to do with “the assumption that in a No God world… yada, yada, yada…” It’s all brain chemistry. It always is. For you, for me, for Maia, for everyone. When I’m miserable, my mind’s attention is drawn to all the shitty things about my life; when I’m happy, it doesn’t–even though the shitty things are still there–what’s the difference? The difference is… get ready… brain chemistry. It’s our mood that determines what we dwell over, not the other way around.
My intelligence doesn’t change in light of what I say.
Don’t fret, Biggy. If you believe what I said above (that I’m actually trying to help you) then you see that this is not “huffing and puffing”.
I don’t know if it’s scary as much as my morality is still too much intact to want to become a psychopath. But let me ask you: this freedom you describe–the numerous options that explode when you’re down in the hole–is this a good thing or a bad thing. After all, the way you describe your situation–being down in a hole–sounds pretty bleak and miserable, and I think most people get the same impression. But if your options explode when you’re in the hole, that sounds like a good thing. Is it just a matter of pros and cons? Despair balanced with a few perks? No comfort from a fabricated God yet having all the options in the world as a consequence? What is it actually like… being in your hole? Should I bother trying to give advice or let you be so as not to disturb your “enormous amount of satisfaction and fulfilment”?
as of now, I have stayed out of this thread… but gib raised an interesting point
that needed to be understood…
he holds that IAM isn’t about the existential threat of existence that
the existentialist went on about, he holds that IAM is “sad” or “depressed”
because of brain chemistry…the problem with that is it denies the
possibility that a (no god world) has an impact upon us… as it should…
one of the possibilities of existence is this notion of a “no god world”
and if that is true, what are the implications of it? That “objectivist”
hold their beliefs because of certain assumptions like, there is a god…
and by holding that assumption/superstition, they then postulate
certain aspects of existence… for example, if there is a god, then
there is a possibility for an “absolute” morality…and they hold to their
believe under the assumption that there “is a god”…
but IAM holds that it is possible to hold to an universe where we
cannot, cannot assume “there is a god”…
in other words, we act upon our assumptions and superstitions, as if they
were in fact reality… “there is a god” and that assumption underlines
“objectivist” beliefs…the fact is that all the other parties outside of IAM,
are working off of assumptions, unprovable assumptions… for example,
Satyr and MIA and gib are all operating under certain assumptions…
what IAM is doing is to get to the heart of those assumptions,
what are those assumptions that Satyr, MIA and gib work under?
for example, Satyr holds to a “racist” assumptions, that race is somehow
a factor in our existence… whereas RACE is a human construct, it is
part of a filing system we use to classify people… we can easily use other
factors to classify people besides race…
MIA holds to a pagan belief system… Gia “mother earth” understanding
of the universe…and that is also fine, as long as it is understood to be
a mental construct of the universe…
what is needed is an understanding of the assumptions, prejudice, superstitions
and biases of these people to get to the heart of their belief system…
Satyr holds to certain biases, superstitions, and assumptions… he has failed to
overcome those childhood superstitions/ indoctrinations… and so he is, in
my words, in error… his beliefs are in error because they are part of his
belief system which he doesn’t challenge… he simple accepts his belief system,
his assumptions as natural, just as MIA accepts her belief system as being natural
beliefs…
so the question becomes, have you examined your belief system for the
underlying assumptions, bias, prejudice and superstitions?
it is quite clear that Satyr hasn’t nor has MIA and for that matter, nether has
gib…what assumptions underline their belief systems?
Again, the hole is not a “psychological condition” to me but a philosophical assessment of human interactions in a No God world. And it is “dismal” only to those who, like me, have come to conclude that it is actually reasonable for “I” in the is/ought world to be “fractured and fragmented”. In other words, given the arguments I make in my signature threads in regard to our subjective moral and political prejudices on this side of the grave and given the assumption that on the other side of the grave, “I” is obliterated for all time to come.
But: for those moral nihilists who revel in being able to rationalize any and all behaviors as revolving solely around “what’s in it for me?”, dismal is the last thing they feel.
And, given that life can and does culminate in all manner of terrible pain and suffering for mere mortals in a No God world, what would be dismal is not having the option to end it all.
And until you are willing to sustain another discussion with me regarding the components of our own respective moral philosophies, others here will just have to “guess” at what you mean by my having a “mental disorder”.
I mean, sure, I can’t rule out the possibility that some clinical condition in my brain – the Charles Whitman Syndrome/ scientificamerican.com/arti … in-damage/ – is the explanation here. But, again, I suspect the reaction I get from many like you revolves more around this: “what if iambiguous is right?! what if his points are reasonable?!! what if his arguments are applicable to me?!!!”
And not only might it actually be all “brain chemistry”, but we don’t even know with any absolute certainty if that chemistry doesn’t extend all the way back to the Big Bang. Not only a No God world, but a no free will world either. A world in which this exchange itself is wholly subsumed in the only possible reality subsumed in the only possible world in an entirely determined universe.
Right? Or do you have right wing TOE for that too.
Then “the gap”.
Okay, it’s not a crack. You’re not just another Stooge here.
First of all, I only participate in these exchanges a few hours a day. The rest of my day is filled with doing those things which are experienced by me as anything but “dismal”. And it’s not “solace” I seek here but arguments from those like Maia who might actually succeed in nudging me into accepting a less dismal philosophical/spiritual perspective.
And how on earth does one “move on” with his or her life when his or her life, as a philosopher, in a philosophy venue, expresses what they do think and feel based on an honest, introspective assessment of their life?
What the hell are you talking about here? That, in thinking these things through, I didn’t come to a more upbeat, more optimistic, and more “intact” frame of mind so I should just scrap this philosophy thing altogether?
Okay, so how do you know for sure that thinking and feeling that your morality is intact is not in turn just more “brain chemistry”? The irony being that in regard to making a distinction between the sociopath and the psychopath, it is often pointed out that the psychopath really is compelled by brain chemistry to act in ways that are largely “beyond my control”.
Whereas the sociopathic mind is more about just not giving a shit about anyone other than yourself. Only here my point revolves more around the distinction between the sociopaths who become one given the circumstances in their lives and those who, in using the tools of philosophy, come to the conclusion that in a No God world, entirely selfish behavior is neither a necessarily good thing nor a necessarily bad thing.
And that’s what’s scary because you can’t reason with them. Why? Because they used reason themselves to rationalize their behaviors. And not just any number of the Bilderberg Group folks – think Henry Kissinger – who own and operate the “show me the money” global economy. It could be anyone you come across. They don’t give a shit about your “intact morality” – whatever that is! – and it is very, very unlikely that you can use it to change their mind.
Note to others:
Unbelievable, right? All these discussions we’ve had over the years and he is still so naive about my frame of mind here that he would ask a question like this?!
Again, if sustaining the comfort and consolation of having thought yourself into believing that your own moral, political and spiritual Self is on the One True Path is important to you, being up out of the hole is a good thing. But then you are obligated to stay on it. And that means doing only what is expected of you by others on the same path.
Whereas for those who reject such paths, if you want something you go after it. You take it. All others be damned. Any options are okay as long as you don’t get caught. And that is a good thing.
The trade off. How hard is it to understand this?
Thus…
Or, as Phyllo might say: “Bingo!”
Again, first of all, it’s a matter of when and where [adventitiously] you are “thrown” into a particular world at birth. The points I raise on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
How, given a particular set of circumstances in which your own “intact” value judgments are challenged by others, are these points not applicable to you?
No, iambiguous [and I know him well] believes that morality is a complex and ever evolving intertwining of nature and nurture, of genes and memes that, in regard to abortion, is grappled with as the embodiment of dasein assessed on this thread – ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
Iambiguous then challenges those like satyr to an exchange in which the components of our respective moral philosophers are explored in depth [given specific sets of circumstances] either in the philosophy forum or in the Rant House.
Yes, subjectively, you might think of me here as a piece of trash. That’s your prerogative rooted in dasein. But it is not just a subjective opinion that he is a Chickenshit here. That is about as close to an objective fact as we can come.
K: it seems to me that Sat, or as you have defined him, chickenshit, is not really
a chickenshit as much as he has very, very low self esteem… only someone who
is so afraid of conversation as he is, and must control what conversation there is,
has so little self esteem as to prevent any conversation they cannot control…
he is so unsure of what they say or believe in, that they cannot hold
a conversation that cannot be controlled…an open conversation that isn’t
controlled means a conversation he MIGHT LOSE and that possible losing
is a major fear of his… I have met similar people who were so insecure about
something that they will not, under any circumstances, lose control…
Sat believes himself as to be a brilliant but to hold onto that fantasy, they
must limit and control the conversation to allow them their fantasies… anybody
who contradicts their fantasies, is sent off to the dungeons, here literally, for
fear of being found out as a fraud… Satyr is deathly afraid of being discovered
to be, well rather stupid and to hide that, they will do anything to avoid being
discovered…so, we have someone so insecure to prevent us from finding
out that the emperor has no clothes, that they won’t even discuss it…
Satyr will never have any type of conversation with you because the truth
might be discovered… that Satyr is a loser, a 12 year old kid with delusions of grandeur…
and probably dumber then dirt…
