who iambiguous actually is

iambiguous · December 12, 2020, 8:06pm

Trust me: no one is more interested in knowing this than I am.

Here I will be the context. And Mags, Pedro and others, using every tool of philosophy at their disposal, will reconfigure all the fragments derived from “I” rooted in dasein, into the Real Me.

Maybe even capturing my [b]soul[/b] itself.

Me? Well, to date, the closest I have gotten to it myself is this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Also, this being the philosophy board no Kids please.

MagsJ · December 12, 2020, 10:32pm

Your whole M.O. has changed in recent months, and you constantly attacking Phon is odd IMO,
and others here too have been dropping the odd odd-slur her way, which isn’t cool either, IMO.

It’s the kind of thing females would do/do, and you are coming across as bitter about something,
but I’d rather not speculate what that is… though I have thought about the what it might be.

iambiguous · December 12, 2020, 11:39pm

Nope, still no less fragmented.

Pedro_I_Rengel · December 13, 2020, 12:03am

Threads like this make me realize that more people follow Pedro’s Corner than I think.

People like to dick around listening to Vivaldi and Metallica instead of working.

You fucking slackers.

Pedro_I_Rengel · December 13, 2020, 12:04am

Qui solvit?

Pedro_I_Rengel · December 13, 2020, 12:04am

Now if only ilp had a “mark as read” option…

Meno2 · December 13, 2020, 12:25am

Sort of. But it’s not as if the gaps looking for are not obvious MO to find cohesive evidence. deductively or inductivelly, to firm an objective opinion.

It’s a game, repeated effort to hold at bay the mid 19thcentury ethos the overcoming of the gathering evidence of the approach of that objective.

There are those , and I am among them indicating as such, that that idiom has passed, and holders on have to pay an enormous price which can not ever surge the will to sow up the fractures.

Pedro_I_Rengel · December 13, 2020, 1:06am

I’m not responsible for what other people think.

I don’t think in terms of collectives.

The zeitgeist is for gayz.

iambiguous · December 13, 2020, 1:47am

My guess: He doesn’t actually know who iambiguous is at all.

Just more of the usual “yak yak yak” drivel.

Right?

Pedro_I_Rengel · December 13, 2020, 2:03am

Hahaha sure.

phoneutria · December 13, 2020, 2:12am

YEAH
YOU TELL THEM MAGS

MagsJ · December 13, 2020, 2:36am

Lol… it took me a few seconds to register what you were alluding to…
it’s been a long day and I’ve had a few drinks, you see.

It seems you picked up haters, from somewhere/KTS perhaps… they seem
to have issues, so they should get out their tissues… and cry into them.

iambiguous · December 13, 2020, 2:37am

So, what does this tell us about who phoneutria actually is?

Not much right?

On the other hand, I do take a stab at that here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=196097

phoneutria · December 13, 2020, 2:39am

lol i got some fans over at kts

currently having hella drinks

iambiguous · December 13, 2020, 2:46am

On the contrary, I have made it quite clear that I have an enormous respect for both her intelligence and her wit.

I would merely like to explore with her the extent to which her frame of mind in regard to moral and political value judgments is at odds with my own given the arguments I make in my signature threads.

In other words “I” at the existential juncture of identity, conflicting goods and political economy. To what extent is she or is she not just a chip off the Satyrean objectivist block.

And if she were to engage in an exchange with me on the philosophy board, I can ensure you that it will not be me that reconfigures it into little more than huffing and puffing.

obsrvr524 · December 13, 2020, 5:47am

Just look up the word “gadfly”.

Meno2 · December 13, 2020, 5:56am

Well then he is doing pretty good, for Socrates refers to himself as ’ gadfly’.

obsrvr524 · December 13, 2020, 6:01pm

From the little I know of Socrates, you have a point - always asking unanswerable questions.

The difference being that Socrates asked MANY DIFFERENT INTERESTING questions - not merely already understood ambiguous contraptions used to derail a discussion into ad hom fetishes.

iambiguous · December 13, 2020, 7:48pm

I have already made the attempt to explore who, what and why obsrvr524 and his objectivist ilk “actually are” here.

For example on this thread:

iambiguous:

obsrvr524:

iambiguous:

I maintain that this is embedded subjectively in political prejudices rooted in dasein. The objectivists insist that, on the contrary, there is only one objective interpretation and it is theirs.

Let’s call this the “psychology of objectivism”.

That is NOT true.

Well I guess that settles that then. For example, in your head. Where, I suspect, all of your own dogmatic value judgments are settled.

obsrvr524:

What defenders (all of those you call “objectivists”) are saying is that the SCOTUS is to fairly attempt to interpret what was originally intended. If something else is needed it is up to Congress to amend the Constitution.

On the contrary, I’m not arguing that defenders are necessarily objectivists. I’m arguing that those defenders who insist that only their own defense is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with their own are necessarily irrational are objectivists.

In fact I am an advocate myself for the right of American citizens to bear arms. I’m armed myself. It’s just that I recognize that others, based on different sets of assumptions regarding what the words in the amendment mean, are also able to make reasonable arguments.

And that depending on whether the blue states or the red states are able to send more representatives to Congress, the legal parameters of “well regulated” are clearly political prejudices. Why on earth do you suppose that cases keep ending up in the courts: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f … ted_States

Instead, I focus on the words “well regulated”.

obsrvr524:

As usual your default and derail to “objectivism” has nothing at all to do with any of this.

No, as usual, from my point of view, you presume that your own understanding of all this is the the one and the only understanding that counts.

Consider:

How is this not applicable to you:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview regarding the 2nd amendment.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective on the 2nd amendment expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about the 2nd amendment; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy regarding the 2nd amendment with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about the 2nd amendment with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own views about the 2nd amendment as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original quest for truth regarding the 2nd amendment, has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.

iambiguous:

It’s not the militia part that some emphasize, it’s the part about the right to bear arms being well regulated. Then the part about what it means to regulate those citizens with guns that are not in a militia.

obsrvr524:

Wrong again. It says that the “militia” being well regulated, NOT the citizens.

Again, that’s just your interpretation. Others insist that if the part about a well regulated militia wasn’t important in regard to a cirizens right to own guns, the amendment would simply have read, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

iambiguous:

And who would do the regulating if not the federal, state and local government? And how would an understanding of being “well regulated” not be embedded existentially in the political prejudices of each individual?

obsrvr524:

Political prejudices are irrelevant to the right for a “well regulated militia”.

Once again, from your own doctrinaire, authoritarian mind, merely asserting it makes it so.

iambiguous:

how these political prejudices are rooted in dasein rather than in some “my way or the highway” political dogma.

obsrvr524:

Again - irrelevant. The issue is simply whether the rights exist - NOT who is “objectively” right or wrong.

Same thing. Every single word in the amendment must be understood only as you understand them. And how you came to understand them has nothing to do with the existential trajectory of the experiences, relationships and access to specific information and knowledge you happened upon in regard to gun ownership in America.

In other words, I am less interested in what these objectivist sorts claim to believe “in their head” in regard to their moral and political value judgments, and more fascinated instead with how their lives unfolded existentially to predispose them to embrace one set of political prejudices rather than another.

In fact, I dare him to go there in exploring the extent to which any of us can grasp who we “actually are”.

obsrvr524 · December 13, 2020, 11:38pm

“Know thy self” - FIRST!