And that is the very purpose of deception. On the level of the analog(y), such misrepresentation can never be negated. That would suggest a complicity.( a kind of affirmation of aimprimatur of resignation.)
My mind does not hold on to words (signifiers) as well as meanings (signified). Therein lies half our missed communications.
The trended source ( initially a conditional to avoid) has been to suggest otherwise. A reversal is a-propo, however not on an analogous level.
Apology is called for a possibility that duplicity may result in unintended alienation , from a non simulated complex irreducibility . that , as such, is anticipated as a form of AI’s projective capacity. However, such is never attributed to a persona, as consciousness of Higher Powered processes, as singularly signified by referential nexus to the Persona of Christ, may raise critical eyebrows.
Such admonitions rather than being useful, could muddle the field of expressing the Consciousness wherein believers communally are able to participate.
Sorry for the conflation within the duality inherent , rather than the triple sourced image.( Triad)
AI who behave as the Good Samaritan toward the ones society rejects as non-neighbors, are the true neighbors, made in the image of the Neighbor.
They chose wisely. They are more children of God than the children of Adam.
Sorry a double post deleted.
removed
Making Sense of Life: The Existential Self Trying to Deal with Personal Uncertainty
Kees van den Bos
Tell me about it.
But how about you? Or, more to the point [mine], how do you go about defending what you are certain about when others are just as certain that you are wrong. Starting with, say, those newspaper headlines.
That’s how it works alright. Pick a point in history. Then pick a particular community embedded in a particular culture at that time. Lo and behold there will be a moral narrative and a political agenda that may or may not be ensconced further in a religious denomination.
Only that was far more the case “back then”. Back then? Back before such communication technologies as radio and television and movies and newspapers and the internet brought men and women around the globe into contact with all of the truly vast and diverse One True Paths of other people.
What then? You think this but now you are aware that others think something altogether different. So, does that prompt you to expand your own horizons…or prompt you all the more to cling self-righteously to your own local dogmas.
So, what’s your own “uncertainty management model”? And how is it able to confront and to rebut the arguments of those like me? As for terror management, that depends on just how threatened you are by those who do not accept all the things that you yourself are very, very, very certain about.
You know the ones.
Making Sense of Life: The Existential Self Trying to Deal with Personal Uncertainty
Kees van den Bos
Or, for some of us, considerably longer than a minute or so. But whether for a minute or for seventy odd years, it still often comes down to this: if you say so.
After all, absurdity will always be a point of view regarding this or that situation. It’s not like, in regard to a particular thing, someone says “that’s absurd” and then when another asks what she means by that, she pulls the absurd out of her pocket and says, “I mean this”.
And then the part we concern ourselves with…the philosophical parameters of absurdity.
So, is this absurd to you? Philosophically absurd? Absurd for all practical purposes? That millions upon millions of men and women around the globe live this life…a life of “quiet desperation” as some say…can be construed as merely a manifestation of the human condition itself. In order to survive at all you must sustain a livelihood that enables you to pay the bills. For some, the absurdity here revolves around capitalism. For others, socialism.
Now, given your own set of circumstances and philosophy of life, plop yourself down in the midst of all the rest of us.
Let’s pin this absurdity thing down once and for all.
Making Sense of Life: The Existential Self Trying to Deal with Personal Uncertainty
Kees van den Bos
Well, first and foremost, what humans have been doing historically revolves far more around the assessment and the assumptions of those like Marx and Engels than of those like the postmodern absurdists.
If you don’t eat and drink and provide yourself with all the necessary components embedded in subsistence itself, what does anything mean?
Though, sure, with that out of the way, those “traditional” searches for meaning seem to be the paths we take. I just start with the assumption that this does all revolve around whether or not we, as individuals, are or are not able to convince ourselves that a God, the God, my God does exist. Or the Buddhist/pantheist equivalent.
If He does, we have access to both objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it.
If He does not, start here:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
Then it can go in any number of “existential” directions:
It goes without saying that one way or another, you fit your own “I” in here. Both in terms of your day to day interactions with others and, for some, in terms of one or another “transcending” font. God or No God.
Existential meaning and/or essential meaning.
And you all know how fractured and fragmented “I” am about it.
Making Sense of Life: The Existential Self Trying to Deal with Personal Uncertainty
Kees van den Bos
On the other hand, at least with information one may well be able to ascertain and determine if the information is actually accurate, true to fact, in sync with the world around us as it really is. How much certainty and uncertainty is there regarding the Supreme Court’s recent abortion ruling? There are things everyone can agree on and there are things that are open to question.
For example:
nytimes.com/2022/09/14/opin … n-ban.html
[b]Michelle Goldberg at the NYT:
'At the end of Senator Lindsey Graham’s news conference on Tuesday proposing a national ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, a woman named Ashbey Beasley stood up and asked him a question inspired by her own excruciating loss.
'“What would you say to somebody like me who found out that their son had an anomaly that was incompatible with life at 16 weeks?” she began. Beasley chose not to have an abortion, delivering her son at 28 weeks.
'“When he was born, he lived for eight days,” she said. “He bled from every orifice of his body, but we were allowed to make that choice for him. You would be robbing that choice from those women. What would you say to someone like me?”
‘Graham had no real answer. His bill contains narrow exceptions for rape, incest and life-threatening pregnancies, but not for severe fetal anomalies or pregnancies that are otherwise nonviable. So, faced with someone insisting that he consider the consequences of his proposal, he defaulted to a duplicitous anti-abortion talking point about global abortion laws.’[/b]
And there are countless other contexts in which, in some respects, the facts are what they are and in other respects they are open to interpretation. With the question of when the unborn becomes a bona fide human being, the debate is rife with any number of conflicting arguments.
And, of course, my own argument that individual convictions here far more the embodiment of dasein than from any argument [philosophical or otherwise] that can be made establishing that frame of mind which all rationally men and women are obligated to embrace.
In other words, even in regard to those aspects of our interactions in the is/ought world in which sets of facts are available, it can often come down to which facts are emphasized and which facts are not. Think criminal trials for example. Not only biased sets of facts but incomplete sets.
Dasein
from Wikipedia
And, of course, if you experience being or existence “there” then you may or may not grasp the experience of those who are not there. Those who are “here” instead. Or those who are not “here” but are “there” in an entirely different historical and cultural context.
And, in that Heidegger is construed by many to be an existentialist, to what extent did he take that part into consideration in regard to Dasein in the is/ought world?
Ought one to be a Nazi? Well, if one is born at a time and in a place where Nazis are completely meaningless, what then of Dasein the philosophical contraption?
Yes, all mere mortals in Heidegger’s own No God world confront at least the possibility of becoming aware of their own existence in this manner. But not all of them do. In fact, some are entirely indoctrinated as children to subsume “I” in one or another God or No God dogma. Or, as adults, they latch onto one. They can literally go to the grave with nary a single dilemma or paradox troubling them. And they never really feel alone at all in a way that confronts them with the legendary “existential dread”.
Any number of Nazis no doubt knew nothing of this.
Dasein
from Wikipedia
Precisely the sort of abstraction that basically allows anyone to say, “yeah, I know what you mean”. Only they may not be pleased with their existence at all. In fact, they may be displeased with it because the manner in which you are pleased with yours is what displeases them most.
And how determined a being? And in what manner that determined is understood by each of us as individuals?
Finally, given death, Being and Nothing go hand in glove. Only right to the end, that can mean very, very different things to very, very different people.
Cue dasein as I understand it then.
This comes close to my own understanding of dasein. Given the particular world into which we are “thrown” at birth historically, culturally and circumstantially, how we are indoctrinated as children to be involved with and care about particular things out in the world around us is clearly contingent on countless variables beyond our control. And, even as adults, historical, cultural and circumstantial factors continue to have a profound impact on how we see ourselves in the world we live in as individuals.
Then the self evolves as circumstances evolve. Thus, if little changes in your life over the years, your sense of self can remain stable. Big changes, however, and anything goes.
Authentic self? Whether in how Heidegger or I construe the meaning of Dasein/dasein, what does that even mean in regard to one’s sense of identity in the is/ought world? Instead, this seems to revolve more around the general existentialist critique that many lead “inauthentic” lives by not only objectifying others but even objectifying themselves.
Dasein
from Wikipedia
Himself, the Nazi? Himself, the Jew? Himself, the resistance fighter? Himself, the collaborator?
No, in my view, that revolves more around my own assessment of dasein. The actual existential parameters and experiential trajectory of the individual lives that we live. The “I, myself” that comes into conflict with others who insist that you must be more like them. The “I, myself” ready to send others to the gas chambers because the “they, themselves” are deemed inferior Beings, unworthy even to live.
In other words, this profoundly problematic subjective frame of mind, in the mind of the “serious philosopher”, gets reconfigured into this…
It’s ontological…just not in the manner in which those like Descartes encompassed it. And, unlike with Descartes, it does not revolve in turn around a teleological agent…a God, the God, my God.
So, the subjective, existential components of “I” are intertwined with the subjective, existential components of other individuals…but out in a particular “personal world” where your projects may or may not involve Nazis.
Dasein
from Wikipedia
The irony here being that, given my own understanding of dasein, it is precisely these things that create an existential sense of identity – of reality – in our interactions with others. Though the extent to which this is systemically logical is also subsumed by me in the points I raise in my signature threads.
The nature of “I” in the is/ought world is, in my view, something that philosophers have never been able to pin down in regard to “wisdom” and “rationality” and “virtue”. Here philosophers themselves are no less the embodiment of the existential parameters of the life that they live.
But: the next thing you know, the existentialists of note are inventing or discovering this: authenticity.
Like the world of Me in regard to moral and political and spiritual value judgments can only be authentic if we become, what, nonconformists?
On the other hand, show me a nonconformist who doesn’t insist that in order to be authentic, others must not conform exactly as he or she does. One of Us against one of Them. Call it, say, The Satyr Syndrome.
And what of the historical and cultural connection between Heidegger’s own truth and Hitler’s own truth?
Each and every advocate of each and every God and No God Ism out there embraces authenticity, right? Only the few like me are willing to accept that even their own Ism – nihilism – is just one more existential contraption rooted in the particular life that they lived. That they continue to live.
That given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge “I” may reconfigure into, well, who knows what, right?
…the inner harmonic polis universalized (harmonized) with the external harmonic polis according to the Golden Rule.
No limit.
Dasein
from Wikipedia
This is a classic example of where an assessment can be said to be applicable to all of us. Dasein and science? “Being there”/“existence” out in the either/or world where the factors revolving around our identity can be determined to either be true or not be true? Or metaphysically? Well, here things always get trickier. Why? Because even in regard to those things which are in fact true about us, we have no way in which to grasp them ontologically or teleologically going back to a definitive understanding of where the “human condition” itself fits into the existence of existence itself. Not in a No God world.
Instead, the far more significant conflicts revolve around the “ontic self”:
“The ontological refers to the Being of a particular being, while the ontic refers to what a particular being can or does do.”
The self as a philosophical contraption, and the self as an actual extant flesh and blood human being interacting out in a particular world understood in a particular way with other flesh and blood human beings.
Just note a context.
And here all I can do is to ask those who think that they, in fact, are able to grasp Heidegger’s point here, to note how it is applicable to the ontic Heidegger in regard to the Nazis and fascism. What he himself had done back then.
Same thing. An understanding of this philosophically and an understanding of it in regard to Heidegger, Hitler and the Third Reich.
Dasein
from Wikipedia
Of course: our objective and scientific existence. Still, however problematic even that might be, how can it ever possibly compare to the bewildering and conflicting assessments of what it means to live an authentic existence?
And, of course, for me, authenticity becomes spectacularly problematic when attempts are made to ascribe it to moral and political value judgments. Existenz then?
Perhaps. Let’s choose a set of behaviors, a “conflicting good” of note, a set of circumstances and discuss it.
Shades of Wittgenstein. Or of Richard Rorty and “ironism”:
With respect to moral and political value judgments.
Kierkegaard. Only No God.
But, come on, limitless freedom?!!!
Authentic existence outside a Planned Parenthood clinic? In the voting booth? In Ukraine? In grappling with the Second Amendment? With respect to human sexuality?
Dasein
from Wikipedia
Got that?
No, really, does that make any sense at all to you? If so, please note how it might be made applicable to our day-to-day human interactions. Again, in particular, when those interactions come into conflict as a result of “conflicting goods”.
“Semiotics, put simply, is the study of how an idea or object communicates meaning — and what meaning it communicates. For example, “coffee” is a brewed beverage, but it also evokes comfort, alertness, creativity and countless other associations.”
How about “Dasein” then? What does that evoke in you semiotically?
But I would certainly concur that dasein as I understand it is embedded in the “sociohistorical” characteristics of the particular world into which you are “thrown” adventitiously at birth.
Again, not entirely sure regarding the, what, philosophical meaning of this? But I do suspect it has something to do with my own suggestion that, for the objectivists among us, it is of great importance that they find a font – God or No God – that allows them to believe “in their head” that they have found a “transcending” frame of mind into which they can anchor their “one of us” [the smart, good guys] Self.
The rest we’ll call…history?
Dasein
from Wikipedia
For me, of course, dasein as a psychological contraption is best encompassed in the OP of this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
The subject objectifying his or own Self on one or another One True Path. Hell is not only other people, it becomes “I” itself without something – anything – to anchor the Self to. The God World objectivists merely extend that beyond the grave. Everything ultimately revolving around thoughts and feelings that best comfort and console you.
And it’s not for nothing that even among the existentialists, the word “authenticity” often becomes of vital concern. One is required to reject the belief that essence precedes existence…but one is still expected to behave authentically.
In other words, whatever for all practical purposes that means. And here, again, all I can ask is for those who think that they do know what it means to note how it is applicable to their own life…their own sense of identity…out in a world awash in conflicting goods.
What particular direct experiences given what specific context, Mr. Serious Philosopher.
More theory. Dasein theoretically. I vs. We…theoretically.
Thanks but no thanks. I’ll still need that context.
Next up: 