Western History Lessons for Zinnati

[The_Golden_Turd]

I have some western history lessons for Zinnati, so he can better understand Westerners and what makes us tick.

EDWARD MORDAKE

Edward Mordake was born with one body, but two faces. His front face was male, and of a good nature, but his rear face was evil, pure evil, and would say scary ass satanic shit to him in his head. People said it was a female, sitting in the rear if his head, and it’s eyes would follow others, and the lips would mumble, but never quite say anything.

He eventually committed suicide, saying in his suicide note he had spent his life listening to it’s vile, evil voice in his head, and only wanted to die, and to finally know peace, and begged whoever buried his body to destroy her face to make extra certain it was so.

He is the only man ever to here the inner thoughts of a woman, and was driven to kill himself out of hearing the pure evil of it. A lesson to all men.

One of the weirdest as well as most melancholy stories of human deformity is that of Edward Mordake, said to have been heir to one of the noblest peerages in England. He never claimed the title, however, and committed suicide in his twenty-third year. He lived in complete seclusion, refusing the visits even of the members of his own family. He was a young man of fine attainments, a profound scholar, and a musician of rare ability. His figure was remarkable for its grace, and his face – that is to say, his natural face – was that of an Antinous. But upon the back of his head was another face, that of a man. Some versions say that his “demon twin” was female, but that is impossible as all parasitic twins are of the same sex. The ugly twin, “occupying only a small portion of the posterior part of the skull, yet exhibiting every sign of intelligence, of a malignant sort, however”, would be seen to smile and sneer while Mordake was weeping. The eyes would follow the movements of the spectator, and the lips “would gibber without ceasing”. No voice was audible, but Mordake avers that he was kept from his rest at night by the hateful whispers of his “devil twin”, as he called it, “which never sleeps, but talks to me forever of such things as they only speak of in Hell. No imagination can conceive the dreadful temptations it sets before me. For some unforgiven wickedness of my forefathers I am knit to this fiend – for a fiend it surely is. I beg and beseech you to crush it out of human semblance, even if I die for it.” Such were the words of the hapless Mordake to Manvers and Treadwell, his physicians. In spite of careful watching, he managed to procure poison, whereof he died, leaving a letter requesting that the “demon face” might be destroyed before his burial, “lest it continues its dreadful whisperings in my grave.” At his own request, he was interred in a waste place, without stone or legend to mark his grave.

[The_Golden_Turd]

Dionysiaca by Nonnos

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysiaca

Much of Indian history is lost, due to poor record keeping. What did India do between the Mahabharata and Ramayana, and the Islamic liberation of India?

It got itself conquered by a drunk European God called Dionysus. Why? He was bored.

Its one of the largest epic poems the west ever produced, and after the author wrote it, it’s believed the author said fuck paganism and became a Christian.

Its jammed pack full of the classical mind’s deep desire to go to India, conquer it’s inhabitants, and return looking like a badass, and is every bit as legitimate and holy as any indic epic, just written from a western perspective.

[Zoot_Allures]

[ taps mic ]

Is this thing on?

…

So when Edward Mordake ever did anything dangerous his friends never had to tell him to watch his back.

I bet Edward Mordake has never had any regrets… I’m sure his hindsight is 20/20, if not better.

When Edward Mordake made a big decision in life to make a change, he couldn’t exactly just go for it and never look back.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

This goes to show you (Turd) know nothing of transsexuals or even other men, and your post of me (case of Trixie) was litterally a troll post.

Other philosophers are a century ahead of you, Jung mapped the anima model and Weininger already mapped the genderbread model, and most males (except you) have an inner anima and so your statement that
“He is the only man ever to here the inner thoughts of a woman”
Is quite laughable.

The genderbread model was invented by Weininger 100 years ago and states that humans are a mix of male and female parts. However, this theory is credited to pathetic modern hipsters, and so when it is presented, it is laughed at an ostracized. The picture in which it is presented, does seem rather hilarious, like a comedy routine…it shows pictures of people with 1 feminine leg, and 1 masculine leg, so it is understandable why it is laughed at, still, laughing at is a flinch reaction, a response of laziness and groupthink bullying without careful examination.

As for women being devils, that is their nature. Masculinity is more or less a nuetrality, and centered, while females fluctuate between polar extremes. This doesn’t make themselves neccessarily evil, females often distance themselves from their evil side. This is why females have “disturbing thoughts” which are so overbearing to them, and why females are easily “triggered”. It opens up a side of them that they are disconnected from, and once activated, it dominates them. They are fearful of it overcoming them and fully integrating itself into their personality. It is a bit like the Hulk who doesn’t want to trigger his evil side. So, females cannot be said to be wholly evil, as they are disconnected from and always running from their evil side.

[zinnat]

Turd,

I am ready to learn from anyone, including you, but you also have to offer me something worthy to learn. I am not interested in useless or bizarre things.

I am sorry to say that whatever you offered was neither history nor philosophy. Former was merely a case study of an abnormal individual while the later one was mere mythology.

And, all mythologies are not history, that is why they are called mythologies, not history. I do not think that there is any empirical evidence of Dionysus. Mahabharata and Ramayana have some, though not conclusive enough to be taken as history.

So, what am I supposed to learn from all that!

With love,
Sanjay

[iambiguous]

Some folks are sincere to a fault.
And there will always be other folks ready to take advantage of it.
Why?
Well, that’s always tricky. Rooted as it is in dasein.
But some seem ever driven to pin things down that won’t [or can’t] be pinned down. Even if only tongue in cheek.
On the other hand, wouldn’t it fascinating to actually be pinned down? To have the Real You exposed for all the world to see? Especially when you have all but given up on ever being able to accomplish this yourself.
So, sure, go for it.

[The_Golden_Turd]

No such thing as Dasein.

[iambiguous]

@Turd Ferguson

No such thing as Dasein.

So you say.

[The_Golden_Turd]

So say we all.

Honestly, if you tried to create a AI off of Dasien, it would never achieve consciousness, it’s a fucked up and ass backwards theory. Its why you never see serious works on neurology touch it.

“Looks like this brain lesion is effecting your son’s capacity to Daseinize” is a phrase no accredited neurologist has ever uttered while explaining a fMRI.

It would of been awesome having Heideggar in a dissection lab trying to explain his theory to the elite, final year medical students, I doubt he would of been able to pull off a coherent question and reply session with them.

[The_Golden_Turd]

The Original Cat-Phone

The Dasein mention reminded me of this.

In 1929, two researchers wired a cat’s brain to a telephone system, to see if the nerve transmitted signals.

They surpringly found that it does, but only while the cat was alive, which they figured out when they killed it just to make sure.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
In 1929 two Princeton researchers, Ernest Glen Wever and Charles W. Bray, wired a live cat into a telephone system and replayed the telephone’s primal scene. Following a procedure developed by physiologists, Wever and Bray removed part of the cat’s skull and most of its brain in order to attach one electrode to the animal’s right auditory nerve and a second electrode to another area on the cat’s body. Those electrodes were then hooked up to a vacuum tube amplifier by sixty feet of shielded cable located in a soundproof room (separate from the lab that held the cat). After amplification, the signals were sent to a telephone receiver. One researcher made sounds into the cat’s ear, while the other listened at the receiver in the soundproof room (Wever and Bray 344). The signals picked up off the auditory nerve came through the telephone receiver as sound. “Speech was transmitted with great fidelity. Simple commands, counting and the like were easily received. Indeed, under good condition the system was employed as a means of communication between operating and sound-proof rooms” (Wever and Bray 345). After their initial success, Wever and Bray checked for all other possible explanations for the transmission of sound down the wire. They even killed the cat to make sure there was no mechanical transmission of the sounds apart from the cat’s nerve: “[A]fter the death of the animal the response first diminished in intensity, and then ceased” (Wever and Bray 346). As the sound faded from their cat microphone, it demonstrated in the animal’s death that life itself could power a phone or any other electro-acoustic system-perhaps that life itself already did power the telephone.

To put a Zen tone to it, the telephone existed both inside and outside Wever and Bray’s cat and, by extension, people. They believed that they had proven the so-called telephone theory of hearing, which had fallen out of favor by the late 1920s. Here it is worth understanding both their error and their subsequent contribution to hearing research. While Wever and Bray thought they were measuring one set of signals coming off the auditory nerve, they were actually conflating two sets of signals. The auditory nerve itself either fires or does not fire and therefore doesn’t have a directly mimetic relationship to sound outside of it-there is no continuous variation in frequency or intensity, as you would have with sound in air. A series of experiments in 1932 revealed that the mimetic signals they found were coming from the cochlea itself. Called “cochlear microphonics,” these signals were responsible for the sounds coming out of Wever and Bray’s speaker in the soundproof room. Hallowell Davis wrote in a 1934 paper on the subject:

The wave form of the cochlear response differs from that of the nerve. From the latter we recover a series of sharp transients having the wave form and the polarity characteristics of nerve impulses [which fire three to four thousand times a second in the auditory nerve but only about a thousand times a second in the midbrain], while the cochlear response reproduces with considerable fidelity the wave form of the stimulating sound waves. Even the complex waves of the human voice are reproduced by it with the accuracy of a microphone, while from most nervous structures there is so much distortion and suppression of high frequencies that speech may be quite incomprehensible.

(Davis 206)
Davis thus suggested that nerves are bad circuits for reproducing sounds, but the cochlea is an excellent circuit for reproducing sound-much like a microphone.

Davis and his collaborators’ work on cochlear transmissions paved the way for a wide range of subsequent research, and cochlear microphonics are still important today. While they did challenge Wever and Bray’s conclusions about the telephone theory of hearing, Davis and his collaborators continued down the same epistemological path where ears and media were interchangeable; in fact, one was best explained in terms of the other. One of the most widely acknowledged and controversial achievements of this work has been the development of cochlear implants.

[zinnat]

@Turd Ferguson

The Original Cat-Phone

The Dasein mention reminded me of this.

In 1929, two researchers wired a cat’s brain to a telephone system, to see if the nerve transmitted signals.

They surpringly found that it does, but only while the cat was alive, which they figured out when they killed it just to make sure.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
In 1929 two Princeton researchers, Ernest Glen Wever and Charles W. Bray, wired a live cat into a telephone system and replayed the telephone’s primal scene. Following a procedure developed by physiologists, Wever and Bray removed part of the cat’s skull and most of its brain in order to attach one electrode to the animal’s right auditory nerve and a second electrode to another area on the cat’s body. Those electrodes were then hooked up to a vacuum tube amplifier by sixty feet of shielded cable located in a soundproof room (separate from the lab that held the cat). After amplification, the signals were sent to a telephone receiver. One researcher made sounds into the cat’s ear, while the other listened at the receiver in the soundproof room (Wever and Bray 344). The signals picked up off the auditory nerve came through the telephone receiver as sound. “Speech was transmitted with great fidelity. Simple commands, counting and the like were easily received. Indeed, under good condition the system was employed as a means of communication between operating and sound-proof rooms” (Wever and Bray 345). After their initial success, Wever and Bray checked for all other possible explanations for the transmission of sound down the wire. They even killed the cat to make sure there was no mechanical transmission of the sounds apart from the cat’s nerve: “[A]fter the death of the animal the response first diminished in intensity, and then ceased” (Wever and Bray 346). As the sound faded from their cat microphone, it demonstrated in the animal’s death that life itself could power a phone or any other electro-acoustic system-perhaps that life itself already did power the telephone.

To put a Zen tone to it, the telephone existed both inside and outside Wever and Bray’s cat and, by extension, people. They believed that they had proven the so-called telephone theory of hearing, which had fallen out of favor by the late 1920s. Here it is worth understanding both their error and their subsequent contribution to hearing research. While Wever and Bray thought they were measuring one set of signals coming off the auditory nerve, they were actually conflating two sets of signals. The auditory nerve itself either fires or does not fire and therefore doesn’t have a directly mimetic relationship to sound outside of it-there is no continuous variation in frequency or intensity, as you would have with sound in air. A series of experiments in 1932 revealed that the mimetic signals they found were coming from the cochlea itself. Called “cochlear microphonics,” these signals were responsible for the sounds coming out of Wever and Bray’s speaker in the soundproof room. Hallowell Davis wrote in a 1934 paper on the subject:

The wave form of the cochlear response differs from that of the nerve. From the latter we recover a series of sharp transients having the wave form and the polarity characteristics of nerve impulses [which fire three to four thousand times a second in the auditory nerve but only about a thousand times a second in the midbrain], while the cochlear response reproduces with considerable fidelity the wave form of the stimulating sound waves. Even the complex waves of the human voice are reproduced by it with the accuracy of a microphone, while from most nervous structures there is so much distortion and suppression of high frequencies that speech may be quite incomprehensible.

(Davis 206)
Davis thus suggested that nerves are bad circuits for reproducing sounds, but the cochlea is an excellent circuit for reproducing sound-much like a microphone.

Davis and his collaborators’ work on cochlear transmissions paved the way for a wide range of subsequent research, and cochlear microphonics are still important today. While they did challenge Wever and Bray’s conclusions about the telephone theory of hearing, Davis and his collaborators continued down the same epistemological path where ears and media were interchangeable; in fact, one was best explained in terms of the other. One of the most widely acknowledged and controversial achievements of this work has been the development of cochlear implants.

Turd,

I have to admit that this time you offered something really to look at. I will try to go in the details whenever I will get enough free time.

With love,
Sanjay

[The_Golden_Turd]

My state has a habit of building houses out of coal. I tried drawling up plans for a 100 percent coal house, but couldn’t figure out the fireplace.

We also build stupid castles built into Hillsides, and the hillsides are higher than the roof, and can be jumped on. One even experienced a Indian attack (who was stupid and attacked it from the lowest possible point).

This one I found driving aimlessly in Ohio, outside of Cincinnati, I was in a dead end neighborhood surrounded by flat farmland, and saw a very steep ravine, as wide as a alley way, I was worried the Jeep would tip over on the drive down… at the very bottom, a castle… I was expecting a trailer with a guy fucking a goat and trash everywhere, but no, it was the most improperly fortified place in America.

I can easily breech either’s defense with a axe, chopping down trees above it, letting them fall. Either roof breaks, or I’m squashing the defenders, and walking the trunk over top.

People just build random stuff. Why? I dunno. And it’s always the biggest, and you can’t prove them wrong otherwise. A town near here has “The World’s Biggest Teapot”

But in China they have one way bigger:

But fuck it, no matter how many times you tell them, or tape a picture of the larger teapot there, they ignore it. Still the biggest teacup. No one knows why we do this, and as the local philosopher, I am at a lost. Pride at having random, stupid architectural points that shouldn’t plausably exist in a sane and rational society.

We have church groups, who cover several surrounding states via van and bus… for hours a few times a year, to visit. Why? For photos, and to eat at a bad diner, serving shit food, then they go back to their uninteresting towns, who have similar stupid buildings. Boring tourists exploring boring places, and you gotta ask, why?

When did this start? Something left over, a distant echo of the old pilgrimage routes in the middle ages, so you can see the chapel of St. Thomist’s Thumb? I dunno. The practice is so widespread, it must be very old. Like Plymouth Rock… a actual rock. I always thought it was just a name… no, you go there, some guy will dress like a Pilgrim and tell you about a fucking rock like it’s the best thing in the universe.

Look at how excited that bitch is. CHANGED HER LIFE.

I dunno, should my heart surge with patriotic joy while I hum the national anthem looking at it? Fucking rock… yet, something compels me to look, like I just accomplished something amazing, tell people about decades from now.

[iambiguous]

@Turd Ferguson

So say we all.

Honestly, if you tried to create a AI off of Dasien, it would never achieve consciousness, it’s a fucked up and ass backwards theory. Its why you never see serious works on neurology touch it.

“Looks like this brain lesion is effecting your son’s capacity to Daseinize” is a phrase no accredited neurologist has ever uttered while explaining a fMRI.

It would of been awesome having Heideggar in a dissection lab trying to explain his theory to the elite, final year medical students, I doubt he would of been able to pull off a coherent question and reply session with them.

So you say again.

On the other hand, what does any of that have to do with any of this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

With zinnat [and with folks like ierrellus] the manner in which I construed the meaning of dasein existentially [rather far removed from Heidegger’s scholastic Dasein] seemed always to be subsumed in religion, in spirituality, in God. I was just unable to bring that particular discussion down to earth. So, I’m curious if that might be possible with you.

After all, my own rendition of dasein is applicable to folks from either the East or the West. At least with respect to the relationship between identity and value judgments out in a world owned and operated by the nihilists who sustain the global economy.

So, let’s abandon the facades, the personas and take this exploration into human identity [in “the modern world”] to, say, another thread?

[The_Golden_Turd]

With zinnat [and with folks like ierrellus] the manner in which I construed the meaning of dasein existentially [rather far removed from Heidegger’s scholastic Dasein] seemed always to be subsumed in religion, in spirituality, in God. I was just unable to bring that particular discussion down to earth. So, I’m curious if that might be possible with you.

What is wrong with me? I’ll tell you what for starters… I had no idea you had your own theory, for one.

So… I’ll have to keep you suspiciously at arms length until I get a full briefing up on it. When someone adapts a theory, everything can shift dramatically because they might be applying a slightly different neuron perspective, Ill have to see all your major statements in full and run a comparison. Problem with Heideggar is, a lot of his stuff is either made up, or too primitive of a grasp on certain psychological functions in his exactitude… hence the idea of him being hounded in a class full of neurologists. The language is offsetting, but that goes away when your mapping it out with Venn Diagrams, and using that to map it out on known networks of the mind… it never quite nestles down correctly, and the explanations I’ve read online don’t help much either.

I’ve more or less gave up on him, but know some have adapted his theories. A “different” more honest perspective would help me, cause I wouldn’t just have your theory, but your thought pattern to guide me as to where and how it likely works. I’m looking for operations of the mind I can pin it down to to, double check in my own mind and back up with current studies in that area. Vinn Diagrams aren’t always great for dense constructs (I use Di-Polar Spheres increasingly), but it more or less eliminated Heiddegar’s language issues. If you find a concept of mind is impossible to explain because the language gap is obtuse, it’s a great way to go. You can add a additional metric of Time/Dependent Sequencing to it, East to West, with arrows denoting feedback loops.

Its how I approach the more difficult thinkers who like to be obtuse. Its all a matter of zeroing in.

[/img] en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram [/img]

Just throwing out words like existentialist means nothing to me. Existentialism is thus nebulae of cabals and silliness, intermixed with random spoofs of glancing science designed to distract. I need something more concrete than modern lingo. I’m of a philosophical background where we take obscure cognitive theories and explain them, from all over time and the world. I’m put off on window dressing. Not saying your window dressing, because I haven’t read your theory, but just saying, I’m going to be dissapointed if it’s another exercise that only makes sense if one has hits the bong and has to juggle meaningless, going nowhere concepts to make it work.

[iambiguous]

@Turd Ferguson

With zinnat [and with folks like ierrellus] the manner in which I construed the meaning of dasein existentially [rather far removed from Heidegger’s scholastic Dasein] seemed always to be subsumed in religion, in spirituality, in God. I was just unable to bring that particular discussion down to earth. So, I’m curious if that might be possible with you.

What is wrong with me? I’ll tell you what for starters… I had no idea you had your own theory, for one.

Fuck theory. From day to day to day – in the course of actually living our lives – we all think of our “self” in a particular way. And we then interact with others given the extent to which we are either more or less confident that “I” is on solid ground. I merely examine this here…

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

…in such a way that very few folks I have bumped into over the years seem eager to explore. And I am always curious to note the reactions of others to my own narrative. Particularly if they strike me as intelligent, articulate, quick-witted and off the beaten path.

And certainly your persona here as Ferguson the unflushable turd has provided us with ample evidence that you are clearly the unconventional sort.

Really, I look forward to your posts. And I know this: that in the manner in which you are able to articulate your own unique vantage point about the world we live in you are considerably more adept with the English language than I will ever be.

So, you will either be interested in pondering the relationship between “dasein, conflicting goods and political economy” straight up [sans the persona] or you won’t.

@Turd Ferguson

Just throwing out words like existentialist means nothing to me. Existentialism is thus nebulae of cabals and silliness, intermixed with random spoofs of glancing science designed to distract. I need something more concrete than modern lingo. I’m of a philosophical background where we take obscure cognitive theories and explain them, from all over time and the world. I’m put off on window dressing. Not saying your window dressing, because I haven’t read your theory, but just saying, I’m going to be dissapointed if it’s another exercise that only makes sense if one has hits the bong and has to juggle meaningless, going nowhere concepts to make it work.

Yeah, this is basically what you do best. And you are without a doubt among the best at it.

But if all you are really interested in is exploring “existentialism” from a “philosophical background where we take obscure cognitive theories and explain them…”, well, I really wouldn’t know where to begin.

That sort of stuff just reminds me of the reaction I get from folks like Satyr. And all he really seems interested in is exchanging philosophical lectures. The dueling definitions sort.

Me, I’m willing to actually start the exchange with their own definitions and deductions. Provided they are willing to implicate and/or situate them out in the world of conflicting human behaviors in such a way that they are in turn able to demonstrate to me why the manner in which I have come to understand these things is less applicable to the “real world”.

[The_Golden_Turd]

Fuck theory. From day to day to day – in the course of actually living our lives – we all think of our “self” in a particular way.

Nope, I think of myself in many different ways, personal and impersonal. When I lift my asscheek to fart while lying in bed, it’s not even respectibly the same sense of personhood I would give myself say, telling about myself (autobiographical information + composure + situational awareness) on a first date.

People’s awareness constantly shift. I do believe huedeggar was aware of some of thus, he did build up hypothetical feedback loops. But that’s it, it was hypothetical because they we’re bullshit, didn’t match up with what actually goes on.

And I’m not a existentialist. I applaud Heiddegar for his early research into medieval and Greek philosophy, but I also note philosophies on being and becoming we’re defeated in the ancient world, especially post Manichean. I’m willing to follow it as far as the science allows, I know of a few theories that incorporates aspects of Heideggars thought, but realistically, it’s going nowhere. I’m not convinced it has a future in psychology and medicine, he is rather useless in the areas I study.

Its not that I’m disregarding ‘Being’, but I start most ancient, onward… I use the oldest formulas that fit, only mentioning innovations when they matter. Its a root structure… I pay attention when a guy like Photius says the arguments we’re defeated and pay very, very close attention. Constantly paying attention through all this to modent theories of how the mind works…

Why would such a person jump on the existentialist band wagon? I’m unlikely to ever refute them in most discussion, as they just don’t matter. I’m not going to rewrite history, eliminate thousands of years of ideas, to become a pony-tailed hippy saying “I don’t know how far existentialism will go, it’s all undiscovered frontier”.

Thats only the case if you don’t do any research into the eras prior, and I know for a fact a history degree doesn’t qualify you as competent in understanding the history of philosophy… I’ve read in it daily for years since 2008, I still have hugh gaps. I really don’t think becoming a existentialist will make me cool with the others. They will hate me, say I am not. I would agree in tort. Not everyone can join that bandwagon, despite it’s claims to universality. If it looks at times I’m using similar ideas, it because we likely are, just I’m not using it under existentialism, but philosophical eclecticism, straight from it’s original source, having been convinced of it’s arguments. I didn’t join some latter day school of philosophy where the ideas where inherited and mutated by a few think-tank philosophers. I have a profound appreciation for the spectrum of philosophy, past and around the world. No damn pont tailed hippy smoking weed and blinking while stautlring at the sun in confusion is going to tell me otherwise. Thats what a existentialist is to me.

[iambiguous]

@Turd Ferguson

Fuck theory. From day to day to day – in the course of actually living our lives – we all think of our “self” in a particular way.

Nope, I think of myself in many different ways, personal and impersonal. When I lift my asscheek to fart while lying in bed, it’s not even respectibly the same sense of personhood I would give myself say, telling about myself (autobiographical information + composure + situational awareness) on a first date.

Yes, but then there is the distinction that I make: between what you think about yourself that is in fact in sync with the world objectively and that which reflects on the world only from an ever changing and evolving subjective point of view. The part that revolves around the existential relationship between identity, values and political economy.

Thus, if you are a woman, what you think about the relationship between human biology, sex, pregnancy and abortion does not change the reality of it just because you think or believe or claim to know it is something else. Or if, in your opinion, you think the relationship ought to be different. For example, you think that men ought to get pregnant too.

But how then are either women or men to fully comprehend “I” with respect to the morality of abortion if not as largely embedded/embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

In other words, as though we can come to understand the ethics of abortion in the same manner in which we understand it as a medical procedure. And, to my way of thinking, this is basically what the moral and political objectivists do. They claim that if others don’t share their own value judgments about it they are necessarily wrong. Why? Because the way they [the objectivists] think about is said to be necessarily in sync with how all rational people must understand the objective world…or understand the world objectively.

In fact, scientists and philosophers are not even able to pin down precisely [objectively] when the unborn baby [between conception and birth] becomes an actual “human being”.

For me then “existentialism” always revolves around that which can be demonstrated to be true essentially for all of us and that which seems rooted instead in the particular lives that we live. For example, that all children all over the world and throughout all of human history are indoctrinated to embody the “reality” of their own particular family, tribe, community, culture, nation, historical era etc., would seem to be essentially true. It transcends dasein. Just as the conflicting goods in any particular community will sooner or later become subsumed in whatever “rules of behavior” those in power are able to enforce.

But how then, using the tools of philosophy, are ethicists able to embrace Kant’s agenda and argue that we are able [rationally] to grasp what the deontological duty and obligation of all reasonable men and women are. And here even Kant acknowledges that one or another rendition of God is essential.

[The_Golden_Turd]

I’m not converting to Existentialism, I still have so much to do with my life, as well as in philosophy, so to abandon it would be criminal.

In fact, scientists and philosophers are not even able to pin down precisely [objectively] when the unborn baby [between conception and birth] becomes an actual “human being”.

Yes they have, when the cells start dividing. We wouldn’t have the ability to do artificial insemination and monitor embryonic growth if we stuck to your story line of deep scientific confusion and ambiguity… the sole purpose of which isn’t to foster further scientific investigation to solve it, but to politically Dodge it for the sake of killing our own offspring while saving face. Its a excuse to infanticide, and is only that. Even the female body is at odds with female seekers of abortions, a woman must adjust their immune system (a quantifiable, known change) to adjust to the fact it has another life in it. We do this on a biological level, recognize it, but rhetorically we can’t, because it offends the left’s ideological prerogatives. How is this any different from the right wanting to teach equally scientifically sound positions like Jesus used to ride around on Stegasauras? Both are equally absurd, not found in the literature (or Bible for that matter), yet both seem to have the force of unassailable law. Both are the escapes of idiots. Your old enough to know better. A person is a person not because of morals, not because of values (if such a thing exists), not because of language, but because a person exists, on a forensic, scientifically verifiable level. Under any other set of arguments for existence, you can curl up in Zoots understanding of Solipism and have a nice nap. I can’t prove North Dakota or Ottawa, as no one ever been there, and a place never visited may indeed by mythical, but I can’t prove absolutely they don’t. I have the right to be skeptical, but not to the point of saying it’s okay to dump toxic waste there, killing the inhabitants, all the while eating science hasn’t proven they even exist. Destructive acts should be intentional, not accidental… if your intentionally doing so, it should be in full competency and knowing.

We allow a double situation of letting it be one, and yet the other in a two sided situation. Why not add another side? Every woman seeking a non-medically necessary abortion should be fixed, cause she is too stupid to know she is killing her own offspring. We can have that escapist argument into the winter’s wonderland of cold, short sighted moral ignorance then.

How dare me? How fucking dare everyone. I’m not the one killing babies. We churn out abortions like we churn our used brass shells on a machine gun range. I’m not the one slaughtering with bad arguments. If I come out in advocacy of killing someone, such as a terrorist, it’s for a greater good I can defend from several different positions, including that of the opposition’s population. I’m not going to dance behind shades of incongruent relativities and dubious logic, just so I can fit in with a side of the political spectrum.

[Zoot_Allures]

This bit about ottawa. The problem here is it would be more reasonable to take the word of five people who claim the place exists and have been there than it would be to claim that things and places do not exist unless they are being observed, therefore five people are wrong and this place isn’t existing right now… at least not until I go there. And then of course there’s that little problem of being able to go to a place that doesn’t yet exist.

We determine the criteria of justified belief by weighing our theory against the other… and ask for the preponderance of evidence. In this case, how would the solipsist explain the five people being wrong, going to a place that doesn’t yet exist, and the tenets of solipsism in general. Eventually you’ll be forced to the argue there is a god because a god would be required to solve certain paradoxes inherent to solipsism. The issues of two observers needing each other to exist, but being unable to not exist at the same time; for each to exist the other is needed to observe it.

[The_Golden_Turd]

I don’t trust Canadians, Ottawa is merely disinformation in hopes American troops will skip past Toronto (the real capital) to conquer Ottawa.

They know we can’t find it, but won’t admit to it. Once we get there according to the GPS, we will find nothing but beavers and lakes, and then they will nuke us.

No, fuck no. Look at the map, makes no sense for people to live there of all places.