No, seriously, in your opinion, is gib coming closer and closer to my own rendition of dasein or am I coming closer and closer to his?
From my frame of mind, he’s already acknowledged that, yeah, if, down the road, new experiences in his life are dramatic and prolonged enough, he might actually be here supporting the government…both intellectually and emotionally.
And that is certainly my own take on dasein.
Only I flat out admit that whatever my own value judgements might have once been, are now or will be, I don’t myself have access through the tools of philosophy to the optimal or the only rational reaction to the trucker protest.
Which is not to say that there isn’t one. Only that, if there is, it has not been brought to my attention. Or, sure, it has been, but I lack the intelligence to grasp it.
On the other hand, for those here who insist that they do, how exactly do they factor that into all that they do not know about the existence of existence itself?
Are they not themselves, in turn, no less “infinitesimally insignificant specks of existence in the vastness of all there is” that “I” am?
This isn’t helpful. I’m just more confused than ever. Here you seem to be saying: I’m just as undecided about the objective reality of the either/or world as I am the is/ought world. Why? Because what if this is all a dream? What if we’re in the Matrix. What if I’m just hallucinating all this? But you nonetheless recognize the character of the either/or world as one of facts, of objective realities–that is, if we were to grant it’s reality at all, that’s the kind of world it would be.
I would say fair enough, but I still can’t reconcile the inconsistent responses I get from you. When I ask you if you’re an objectivist in regards to the either/or world, I get responses like:
You’re say “yes”, “no”, and “I don’t know” all at the same time.
I guess this is important: “Again, the gap and Rummy’s Rule aside…” ← Figuring that into your responses, I surmise you must be saying, “Putting aside my doubts (the gap and Rummy’s rule), I have no reason not to be an objectivist in regards to the either/or world, but since I do have doubts (what if this is all a dream?), I can’t really say I’m an objectivist in regards to the either/or world. But these doubts don’t mean that I’m certain that the either/or world is not objectively real (it still may be), it’s just that I have to remain undecided. Still, the either/or world, for all its objective reality or lack thereof, is characterized as containing facts (or “facts”) on which all rational and virtuous men and women can agree (just as everyone in the Matrix can agree that the world is round).” ← That’s a rather complex and convoluted answer, and if I’m right (that this is the correct interpretation), I don’t blame you for not being able to deliver it in a succinct and thorough couple of sentences or so, but good God man, why does it take 5 rounds of ILP posts to get it out of you.
Ya think? What was your first clue? The fact that that’s what I’ve been trying to say all along? The only differences between you and I are 1) you lean left and I lean right, and 2) you seem tormented about being “fractured and fragmented” while I couldn’t care less.
Reasonable? Sure. Correct? No.
What I was saying above was that my thoughts follow my emotions. My emotions are pro-trucker so the thoughts I will express (in a setting like having dinner with that girl) are also pro-trucker (or anti-government). But these are “informal” thoughts–i.e. thoughts that make me feel good to express (to this girl over dinner). In other words, I express them more to vent my emotions. They are not expressions of my awareness of the facts of the matter, of the truth as I can figure it out to the best of my abilities. If the girl said to me: “Ok, Gib, you’re anti-government, but what do you actually believe? Don’t tell me what makes you feel good. Don’t use me as a soundboard for venting your emotions. To the best of your ability, figure out what you really believe is true? What do you actually know?” ← In that case, I would express my “formal” thoughts, which don’t serve my emotions, which wouldn’t be just a case of venting–and they would be, “My knowledge of the situation is too limited and fallible for me to say who’s right and who’s wrong–the government or the truckers–so I have to say I’m undecided.” ← I don’t want to say that–I’d rather bitch about the government–but deep down I know it’s the truth (or as close to the truth as I can get).
When I discuss things at ILP, particularly when I discuss things with you, I try to express my “formal” thoughts, what I actually believe (or know)–though I do sometimes sink to the level of a pinhead and just bitch–i.e. vent my emotions with words that might sound like my formal beliefs, but don’t be fooled, I’m just getting shit off my chest. But this is more the exception than the rule.
Now the part about what would flip my emotions–this part you got wrong–and I already explained why in my last post. It’s not a matter of how deadly the virus gets, it’s a matter of how the information is presented to me–it’s more a qualitative difference, not quantitative–if youtube (or whatever sources I’m getting my information from) tells me that we really ought to be taking the pandemic seriously, and wear your mask and get your vaccines, oh and those truckers, they’re not good people–the government knows what’s best for us and they have good intentions, so trust them. I know you know me (Tucker Carlson, Dave Rubin, whoever) as a spokesperson for right wing conservative views–you’re a big fan and all, you far more readily believe what I say than those other left wing liberal media outlets, but trust me–in this particular case, the government is right, they are our friends. ← If that’s how the news conveyed the information about the pandemic to me, I’d be far more likely to be pro-government, pro-vaccine, anti-trucker, etc., etc., etc…
And it’s true that if the pandemic was so bad that people I know were dropping dead left and right, sure that means the virus is a lot more deadly (quantity over quality) but this is just a different means by which I get my information, which again is a qualitative difference.
See, I have a problem with this too. I trust science, but I don’t trust scientists. Scientists are human just like you and I, just like everyone else, just like politicians. In fact, a lot of them have one foot in science, one in politics–typically the higher ups like Fauci. And they can be swayed by media, take sides in politics, toe the community line, succumb to the pressure to conform to what the authorities are saying or else lose their jobs–especially in medicine–and I have tons of videos I could link you to of people attesting to this. Most of us get the science from the same media outlets that give us the news, and even when we get it straight from the doctor, we have no idea how brainwashed they are (most of them know what they know by reading articles, watching videos, attending lectures… rarely ever from actual experiments they conducted themselves) or if they’re just telling us what they’re telling us so they don’t lose their jobs. I set the bar high when it comes to knowledge–only if you’ve done the experiments yourself, and you know you can trust your measuring instruments, can you say you actually know.
Hard evidence? None. But the book does give some “suggestive” evidence–i.e. a picture of consciousness that (to me) seems plausible enough to buy it. And if you buy it, an afterlife just follows.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that it’s not the ability to cling to an objectivist view that you miss, but the dignity in standing for something, the pride, the feeling that what you’re doing matters, and that you have a whole community to support and defend you, who think like you, who believe in the same things you do, who share your values, who, for that reason, like you. Now you’ve got dasein but it isn’t quite doing it for you. You can’t quite squeeze it for dignity and pride like you used to your objectivist values, and everyone you confront about it, everyone you enter into a conversation with about it, tends to take an oppositional stance to you–so you can’t find a community to belong to, no one to agree with you, to share your values, to like you… you think?
Right. That’s the second difference between you and I that I outlined above: you care too much, I don’t care at all. I go with my prejudices (emotionally), you try to rise above them.
Some argue about the possibility of dream worlds and sim worlds and solipsism and the Matrix. Just as others argue about the possibility of God or the Buddha. All I’m pointing out here is the obvious: that you and I have no way in which to determine definitively what the one and the only truly objective – ontological? teleological? – reality of the “human condition” is. Given “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”: "but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know".
All we seem aware of, instead, is the fact that for whatever reason we were “thrown adventitiously” out into our own particular world. And that we are all given the task of making a distinction between things we are able to determine are in fact true for all of us and things that, instead, seem to be just a matter of our own personal opinions. Which “I” – re thoughts and feelings – root existentially in dasein out in the is/ought world. And then whatever you root your own emotions in.
Which as it turns out seems to be just as I do: in dasein. Only your emotions are just a tougher nut to crack re “dramatic and prolonged” experiences.
What’s inconsistent?
Given that essentially I don’t have access to a definitive explanation for the existence of existence itself, but given that existentially I also appear to be a part of the human condition, what am I to make of all the things that, in fact, do seem to be true for all of us: human biology → sex → pregnancy → abortion. And all of the things we seem to squabble endlessly about: “abortion is moral!” “no, abortion is immoral!”.
Well, given a world where human autonomy itself exists of course.
Sigh…
Given what context?
Yes, to the part about human biology linked to sex linked to pregnancy. All applicable objectively to men and women around the globe. No, to the belief that in a No God world mere mortals can demonstrate that abortion either is or is not moral. But “I don’t know” given “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule” pertaining to my capacity to demonstrate any of this one way or the other myself.
So, tell me, how is this any different for you?
Bingo!
Now all we need is an actual context: Did Mary have sex? Did Mary get pregnant? Did Mary choose an abortion?
Then…
1] Leaving aside dream worlds, sim worlds, solipsism, the Matrix etc., and
2] presuming a free will world
…let’s sort through what we can establish as true for all of us and what is just a “personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein”.
No, you only have to remain undecided [in a free will world] if you believe “in your head” that dream worlds, sim worlds, solipsism and the Matrix are not even worthy of consideration at all. There’s what you believe is true objectively and then, being a fulminating fanatic objectivist or a pinhead, absolutely nothing that the libtards or the morons or Satyr’s cunts say is going to change your mind. And, of course, the equivalent of them on the extreme left end of the ideological spectrum.
Well, if you think it is “complex and convoluted” up in your “world of words” intellectual contraptions, imagine just how much more it can become the case out in the world of actual flesh and blood human interactions. The abortion wars and the trucker protest being just two examples of this. Indeed, imagine only going 5 rounds here.
To wit…
[b]Then the part where I note there are those who subsume the morality of abortion into the either/or world as well. Abortion is asserted to be either moral or immoral. Why? Because the moral objectivists themselves subsume the is/ought world into the either/or world: one of us vs. one of them.
Then the part where we both seem to agree that how we think about the morality of abortion is rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein. But how, emotionally, you seem to be in possession of an “intrinsic Self” that “somehow” transcends dasein. That “somehow” allows you to feel more strongly committed to what you “support” here.
Only, if I understand you further, you now seem to acknowledge that if any new experiences you have are dramatic and prolonged enough, even your emotions here can be turned around.[/b]
Thus…
No, in the beginning of our exchange you seemed [to me] to set aside your emotional reaction to the trucker protest as something quite apart from your moral and political reactions. The latter rooted existentially in dasein more or less as my own were. But not resulting in a “fractured and fragmented” gib. Why? Because “there they were” these more intuitive deep down inside you “feelings”…emotional reactions that seemed [to me] to be the anchor allowing you to sustain a measure of comfort and consolation “I” no longer had access to.
But of late you seemed more inclined to acknowledge that, yes, if any new experiences you had were dramatic and prolonged enough your emotions regarding the truckers/government could “flip” in turn.
Though, sure, if you flipped back and forth intellectually and emotionally given additional sets of circumstances and that did not result in a more fractured and fragmented frame of mind, well, okay, then there are still the parts of you here that are different from mine.
Quite different in fact…
Or, of course, the girl becomes the springboard that results in a series of dramatic and prolonged experiences together such that [existentially] she becomes critical in “flipping” your emotions over to the government. And then when she is out of your life you have dinner with a new girl. Only with her your emotions precipitate anti-trucker protest thoughts.
Unless, through a series of dramatic and prolonged experiences with her, she managers to flip you back to the “gib” you are now?
Though where, how and why the informal thoughts are intertwined in the formal thoughts here is still well beyond my grasp.
Thus…
…whatever I am to make of that.
Note to others:
What do you make of it? Again, given your own thoughts and feelings about things like abortion and the trucker protest, how does it make sense or not make sense to you.
Really? It all comes down to YouTube and Fox News and social media narratives? With the health of yourself and your family and friends and loved ones on the line, you don’t attempt to go to the scientists and those in the medical community to get the most accurate information that you possibly can about the new pandemic?
No, it is a matter of how deadly [and how contagious] the new pandemic is. That’s the only thing that matters. Fuck the politics in literally life and death situations.
Thus…
Fox News vs. people all around you dropping dead left and right? As though if the people all around those on the Fox News evening lineup were also dropping dead left and right, they’d still be howling about a hoax…a globalist “fake news” libtard conspiracy.
I must be missing your point.
[b]
[/b]
Well, that’s great then. You respect science and disease experts overall in regard to viral pandemics, but that’s useless because you can’t trust the scientists and the medical experts individually…they might be Commies or dupes of the libtards.
Good luck to you and your loved ones with that then.
Same with climate change of course. You’ll wait until one-by-one coastal cities are actually underwater until, emotionally, you flip there. Flipping your thinking too.
On the other hand, what about the scientists here who are employed by the petroleum industry?
Okay, in regard to the covid pandemic, what personal experiments and scientific research have you done to back up your emotional support for the truckers? Don’t tell me that you yourself are relying solely on social media and the right-wing news media!!!
As for Sen. Johnson and Kyle’s racing heart videos, what’s your point? I’ve had all four covid shots. No side-effects [other than the sore arm] and no covid. Though, sure, in no way would I say that those on the anti-vaccine front have nothing important to say. It’s always going to be a calculated choice for all of us.
Or is this too just Big Brother government/globalist/libtard “fake news”?
You know, over at PN there’s this poster called Immanuel Can. He argues as well that there’s a book that demonstrates the afterlife. It’s called the Christian Bible. And around and around he goes. Immortality and Salvation must be true, he insists, because it says so in the Christian Bible. And the Christian Bible must be true because it is the Word of the Christian God.
That’s when I hit him with this part:
Bottom line: If you were asked to demonstrate what the Christian Bible tells us about the afterlife is true what actual hard evidence could you provide?
And, for those here familiar with our exchanges there, he has his own set of videos!!
So…
Okay, in that case then, the most persuasive “suggestive” evidence.
[b]
[/b]
Well, given just how complex any human psychological reactions are going to be in the is/ought world given all that we do not fully understand or control about the Benjamin Button variables in our lives, sure, that’s reasonable.
Doing it for me?! My conclusions regarding dasein are precisely what resulted in my thinking and feeling fractured and fragmented!!
And, yeah, this part…
…flows existentially from it. After all, why on earth do the objectivists from both the left and the right – from both the God and the No God world – tend to react to me with such equal hostility? They might feel anger and contempt towards “one of them” but both sides agree that there are objective moral and political value judgments that one can take comfort and consolation in. Their own of course.
It’s the part where they react to being “fractured and fragmented” themselves [intellectually and emotionally] that precipitates the most vicious Satyr-like attacks from the FFOs and the pinheads here. And at PN.
[b]
[/b]
[b]
[/b]
Since I spend most of my time immersed in my distractions, what I care about and the extent to which “I” attempt to “rise above them”, well, I’ll just leave that to your own “rooted existentially in dasein” imagination.
And the bottom line is that given a new set of experiences that are dramatic and prolonged enough, even you have to admit that someday you might care considerably.
Unless, of course, there’s an even deeper down inside you gib that can never be reached.
Given the only context possible. We’re talking about the objective reality of the either/or world. The objective reality of anything is defined precisely by the fact that there is only one context (or is context independent). Most of us would agree that the world is round, that it is an objective fact that the world is round. What that means is that it doesn’t depend on the context. The world is round independently of any context (or point of view, or subjective opinion, or someone’s religion). It means that the world is round even if you’re thinking of it from a Flat Earth context. If you think the Earth is flat, you’re just wrong; you haven’t made the Earth flat by introducing your Flat Earth context.
In your case, you’re saying: in some contexts, I believe the either/or world is objectively real, in other contexts I don’t, and in yet others I’m undecided. But that’s really just saying “I’m undecided”–undecided on what context to settle on. If you actually switch beliefs from one day to another–today you believe in the objective reality of the either/or world, tomorrow you won’t–you’re just inconsistent (or you keep realizing you were wrong over and over and over again)–and you can’t blame anyone for being confused about what you actually believe. But if you’re not literally switching beliefs, and instead just saying “it depends on the context”, then you’re just undecided–period.
Actually, they’re able to define what they believe to be true right out of the pen. That’s how the debates get started.
Seriously, Biggy? I didn’t think you’d stoop to the level of debating left versus right. You always seemed to claim to be above all that, to not really be supporting right wing views or left wing views but how people come to acquire the prejudices they have, objectivist moralist prejudices in particular. But here I seem to have triggered you. I expressed skepticism over scientific claims vis-a-vis the pandemic (more of a right wing view than left wing) and immediately you dig in your heels, sink to the level of a pinhead, and start arguing for left wing views (even bringing climate change into the mix). It’s so bloody ironic–the one person on ILP who cannot even bring himself to say he believes in the objective reality of the either/or world (because, you know, contexts) all of a sudden becomes a hardnosed objectivist when it comes to the scientific “facts” that doctors and left wing media are reporting. Did you just forget to mention the context? Am I allowed to argue from my own context? Does the context of the videos I posted not count?
(And you got another distinction wrong–it’s not “science and disease experts overall” that I trust and the “scientists and the medical experts individually” that I don’t–it’s science as a process that I trust, and people that I don’t–you know, the method of measuring and collecting data, the results of experimentation, of real world repeatable observations–not reports and words you’re supposed to trust because, well, they’re authoritative. You gotta do the experiments yourself if you’re gonna claim to know.)
Don’t tell you? Ok, I won’t. But I haven’t done any experiments. I just admit that I don’t know. I admit that I’m taking a leap of faith.
It’s whatever you want it to be. For some people, it’s gospel. For others, it’s fake news. For others still, it’s just more fuel to add to the flames of confusion and uncertainty. For me, it’s probably true (though, as I said before, I’m never 100% certain of anything). Did you think I was an anti-vaxer?
Buy the book (or just ask for it). ← Still waiting to see how interested you really are.
Oh God, you’re imagination’s going for round 2. Now there’s a second gib buried beneath the already deep down inside first gib. No doubt, you’ll blame me for “giving you the impression” that that’s what I was saying. I’d love to see a diagram of these images you conjured up.
Again, getting back to the trucker protest. Sans sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix etc., and taking into account “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rules” re all that we do not understand about where the human condition fits into the existence of existence itself, there does seem to be an objective either/or world applicable to all of us: the covid pandemic, the Canadian government’s reaction to it, the truckers’ reaction to that.
“You’re just wrong” if you say it was a polio pandemic that the Nigerian government was reacting to it and that dentists in that country staged a protest. Although, sure, for all I know that might possibly be true at some point in time.
Then how each of us as individuals reacts to the intertwined objective reality here subjectively in terms of our own thoughts and feelings. Then the part where you and I think and feel differently about thinking and feeling differently here.
Note to others:
What crucial point made by gib above do I keep missing? Connect the dots between a flat Earth and the trucker protest.
[b]
[/b]
Okay, let those on both sides of the trucker protest and the abortion wars debate over which side is rational and virtuous and which side is not. Let them define their terms such that after agreeing on all the definitions to all the words, the debate is resolved and we have a clear winner.
Again, I must be missing your point. Why? Because I don’t see how it is relevant to your own emotional reaction to the trucker protest. Your emotions defined right out of the pen here as well? Taking into account that given a new experience that is dramatic and prolonged enough you may embrace the same definitions but feel that the government is on the side of rationality and virtue?
[b]
[/b]
Or welcome to the real world. For all of us basically. Something like the covid pandemic occurs. How bad is it? What should I do? And unless we ourselves have the scientific background and the medical education to research it [or know someone we trust who does] we go to the news media, attempt to hear as many different sides as we can and then take that existential leap to what we construe to be the soundest assessment. But: any number of FFOs and pinheads among us will go only to the newspapers or the websites or stations that sustain their own political prejudices.
Huh? My point is not about left vs. right. It’s about the FFO and pinhead objectivists at both ends of the political spectrum insisting that if you don’t think like they do about the pandemic and the government you’re either a libtard or a conservatard moron.
Come on, gib, we both seem to believe that our moral and political prejudices are rooted existentially in dasein. It’s just that out in any particular community the “right makes might” FFOs are not interested in “moderation, negotiation and compromise” when it comes to government policy. It’s their way…or else. Left wing or right wing. No, instead, where things get murky for us as in regard to our emotional reactions. Though even here I’ve got you acknowledging that, yes, some experiences down the road might be powerful and protracted enough to “flip” you over to feeling supportive of the government.
Bullshit. I’m talking about a bubonic AIDS pandemic so ghastly that only the pinheads themselves would still reduce it all down to politics. They are the ones who would dig in their heels and refuse ever to change their minds.
Note to the pinheads:
You tell him, okay? Does my point above make me one of you?
Now this is in pinhead territory, in my view. Again, I do believe in the objective existence of the covid pandemic, the objective existence of the Canadian government and the policies it employed in responding to it and the objective existence of the trucker protest.
And, yes, there are going to be left wing videos and right wing videos. And it’s not which ones count but which ones come closest to whatever the scientific and the medical communities without a political ax to grind can ascertain about the new pandemic itself. And then the extent to which each of us as individuals are able to gain access to the most objective assessment.
What your point above has to do with my point completely escapes me.
Note to others:
A little help here please.
Right, like science as a process does not come down to the people – the individual scientists – who embody it. Thus, the need for me to go here…
Exactly. Just like almost all the rest of us here. But: the next pandemic makes covid look all the common cold. It treks the globe like the Black Death. Thinking and feeling and caring about that.
Yeah, and then the part where we both agree that how each of us as individuals thinks about it morally and politically is embodied existentially in dasein…and subject to change given new experiences. And now where we also seem to agree that if our new experiences are powerful and prolonged enough even those who are constituted emotionally as you are, are susceptible to “flipping”.
Shall we just leave it at that? Dasein down to the bone. Depending on the context? Whereas in regard to the actuality of the trucker protest itself, no matter what new experiences we might have it will never change the objective fact of it itself.
Back to this:
For those following our exchange at PN, I have asked him to link me to just the single most persuasive video. Of course: wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.
Look, if you provide me with what you deem to be the most powerful “suggestive evidence” in the book…and it hooks me?
Sure, I’ll buy the book. I am, after all, really, really interested in any evidence that the afterlife is the Real Deal.
No, I’m merely noting what you yourself have noted:
1] that what you both think and care about is subject to change re dasein/new experiences
2] that what you feel and care about is subject to change re dasein/new experiences.
But you seem [to me] to be embracing the “I don’t care at all” frame of mind so adamantly…as though beyond thinking and feeling about something there is a part of you – spiritually as with Maia? – that can never be reached [by any new experiences] such that you do care considerably about that which “here and now” you don’t care about at all.
Who said anything about resolving the debate? All I’m saying is that you have to define your position before the debate can begin. You have to know who are the trucker supports and who are not. That’s the easiest part. But not for you, I guess. For you, defining your position on whether the either/or world is objectively real or not (which you’ve obviously forgot is how this tangent began) is even more complicated than resolving the trucker debate (even just saying you’re undecided). This is one of the many reasons I think you have a cognitive disorder.
What’s so hard about defining my emotions? When I see on the news how the truckers are treated by my government, I get angry. ← There! Done! Emotions defined! Sure, I may change my emotional reaction in the future, but what does that have to do with how easy or difficult it is to define my emotions now?
Access? How about the ability to identify the most objective assessment?
The individual scientist? No, just the individual. In fact, just one’s self.
You’ll never be hooked. You can’t be hooked. And you’ll never buy the book. You won’t even ask for it despite I offered it for free.
I won’t give you any “suggestive evidence” for two reasons:
The book as a whole is the suggestive evidence. That’s why people write books. When one has an idea the justifications of which cannot be laid out in a simple paragraph or two, one must write something more lengthy, an essay, a journal article, a book. It’s what you get when you bring all your arguments, all your evidence, all your anecdotes to bear on the idea. Then it might be suggestive.
I know you. You’re not the least bit interested in hearing my “suggestive evidence”. You only ask for people’s views so you can tear them apart, so you can take a huge, steamy, revolting dump on them. It’s what you did to Mags views, to Maia’s views, to all the FFOs here, and it’s what you’ve been doing to my views throughout this thread. I’m not stupid, I know a trick when I see it.
While I can’t be held responsible for whatever your projecting onto me, you seem to equate “being adamant” with “thinking I can’t change”. But I assure you, I adamantly don’t care (here and now) while at the same time acknowledge that I could start to care in the future. Good luck wrapping your head around that.
Again, in your head, no doubt, your point here is relevant to my point. In my head, however, I’m still missing it.
You can define the meaning of the words “virus”, “government”, “trucker”, “protest”, etc., such that everyone agrees on what they mean in regard to the OP of this thread. You can go to the dictionary and look up the words “morality”, “thoughts”, “emotions”.
There’s still the objective either/or world reality here in regard to the protest and our own subjective is/ought world reactions to it in regard to our value judgments. Our thoughts and feelings. Which it now seems we both agree that, given new experiences that are profound and prolonged enough, are rooted existentially in dasein. Both our thoughts and our emotions can “flip”.
Only once again some insist, “wait a minute, how do we know for certain this is not just a sim world, a dream world, a Matrix confabulation, an exercise in solipsism? How do we know the entirety of our interactions are not wholly determined by brains that are in turn wholly in sync with the laws of matter themselves?”
Indeed. And that is when I take it all back even further. I introduce “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule” into the discussion. I speculate on the part where we are but “infinitesimally insignificant specks of existence in the staggering vastness of ‘all there is’”.
Go ahead, after watching the video, you tell me where the trucker protest fits into it. You tell me what you figure can or cannot be resolved once and for all here. And, come on, for the FFOs and the pinheads who followed the protest the whole fucking point was that it be resolved in their favor.
Go ahead, ask them.
Only you’re forgetting the part where you meet the girl above and she becomes instrumental in introducing you to others who involve you in those new “dramatic and prolonged experiences” that result in you “flipping” over to the government’s side. Both intellectually and emotionally. You get angry at the truckers for not realizing the need for the government to enact policies to stem the pandemic before thousands and thousands more get sick and die.
And defining your emotions? Here and now, you’re angry at the government? As though that is actually more important than noting that, given dasein, that girl, some other Benjamin Button variables in your past, you might be angry here and now at the truckers instead?
Huh? You created this thread. You posted the OP. You entitled it “Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!”
Note to others:
No, really, we need your help here? What point is he making above that I clearly keep missing?
As I noted, if we ourselves are not scientifically and medically trained to grapple with the virus [or know someone who is] all we can do is to search out sources in the media/online…those with the least political ax to grind…and then, to the best of our ability, take that existential leap to one rather than another set of conclusions.
To wit:
That’s my point though. Each of us, given the existential parameters of the life that we have lived, will be more or less better equipped to identity the most objective assessment.
What else is there?
I have no idea what this point has to do with my point above.
Right. Sorry. I keep forgetting that you know me better than I know myself.
Come on gib, there must be a paragraph or two that, in regard to the existence of an afterlife, is considerably more persuasive than the other paragraphs. Otherwise, you come off here as another Immanuel Can. The Christian Bible itself as a whole has to be read, he insists, in order to convince you that immortality is the Real Deal.
Oh, and just out of curiosity, does your own rendition of the afterlife include anything in the vicinity of salvation? IC is especially blunt regarding that. Reject his book and you become one of the damned…writhing in agony for all of eternity in Hell.
Right. Right. I believe “here and now” that in the not-too-distant future I will tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion. And then everything that I truly, truly love…from the food I eat to the music and films and books and philosophy that I thrive on day after day after day will be gone [along with me] forever and ever and ever.
But that utterly pales next to your own keen insights here regarding the “real me”.
Ah, but what I am reading between the lines here is that bit by bit I am deconstructing your own precious Self. Bringing you ever so closer to your own rendition of a “fractured and fragmented” “I”, perhaps?
The “phyllo, karpel tunnel, felixdakat” syndrome I call it.
Indeed, I think our “incredibly shrinking exchange” here points in that direction as well. It might be best perhaps to get me out of your head altogether? God knows [if there is one] I wish that I could get me out of my own.
We project onto everyone and everything the only thing we’ve got: “I”.
But, time will tell. Above, you posted…
“I don’t care at all. I go with my prejudices (emotionally), you try to rise above them.”
So, by all means, apprise us if, down the road, you do have new experiences that are profound and prolonged enough to, instead, incline you to care considerably.
And what I try to do here, polemics and 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
…aside is to come upon someone – anyone – who can either persuade me to come up out of the hole I’ve dug myself down into [philosophically and otherwise] or to come down into it with me.
Yet it was the same thread when you had no bloody clue in what context to answer my question about whether or not you believe in the objective reality of the either/or world.
Right, like those in the media come with a big stamp on their forehead saying “I [don’t] have a political ax to grind!”
Besides, it’s not just whether they have a political ax to grind… what about those who are brainwashed by those who have a political ax to grind? What about those who are just afraid of losing their jobs, their reputation, their freedom? What about those who are just incompetent. Not to mention how we can know whether we are interpreting the so-called experts properly. ← Sometimes the misinformation comes from ourselves.
Here:
YES!!! You shouldn’t be any anybody’s head! You’re like a virus that, once infected, one is plagued by the most severe mental illness. You’re like a demon requiring the skill of only the most practiced exorcist. I’m getting sick of you. I shouldn’t be allowing something so unimportant to frustrate me so much. The only reason I haven’t quit this thread all together is because last time I quit cold turkey I regretted it. I much prefer this witling down (what you call “incredibly shrinking exchange”) to an abrupt stop because I think it’s more graceful. But trust me, as soon as I can respond to you with no more than a simple paragraph, I’m taking a well deserved and extended break.
My only recourse here is to note [yet again] what I posted above regarding objective reality in the either/or world:
Note to others:
What “on Earth” do you imagine he means above regarding my own take on objective reality in the either/or world? With respect to any context, there’s what can be demonstrated [scientifically, philosophically, logically, epistemologically, empirically, etc.] to be objectively true for all of us…and that which devolves down into conflicting subjective assessments. Given “the gap” and "Rummy’s Rule.
Come on, gib, you tune into Fox News or to MSNBC and, by and large, you encounter clear-cut political prejudices. You tune into “talk radio”…the same thing. You are then either intelligent and resourceful enough to seek out those in the media/online less inclined to grind a political [prejudice] ax or you’re not.
Well, there you go: The real world. At least for those of us who are not scientists and medical experts. But, again, with your own health and the health of your family and friends and loved ones on the line, you do what you can to get the least biased information regarding this new, far more deadly virus.
Right?
What is the former and what is the latter here? Before and after the grave?
It seems to be an attempt to imagine the existence of zombies “scientifically”. But in the series, the zombie’s can be killed. No afterlife even for them.
But, sorry, in no way, shape or form can I read your excerpt above and think, “yeah, ‘I’ really might continue on upon shuffling off my mortal coil on this side of the grave.”
Note to others:
How about you? Feeling more confident about that yourself now? Or will you be sticking with God or the Buddha and the like?
Translation:
“I really have no substantive arguments to provide others regarding the points that you make above. And, in fact, haven’t I finally come around to acknowledging in regard to what I think and feel and care about pertinent to things like the trucker protest and abortion that, given new experiences profound and prolonged enough, ‘I’ too can ‘flip’ and espouse the opposite of what ‘I’ think and feel and care about here and now? That ‘I’ too might one day become no less ‘fractured and fragmented’ out in the is/ought world?”
Then this…
“But, however reasonable your points above might be for mere mortals in a No God world, that is such a grim, gruesome and ghastly way to think about the ‘human condition’, that this alone makes it something to avoid at all costs.”
It’s basically just another rendition of how those once reacted to Nietzsche’s proclamation that “God is dead”. Why? Because we killed him.
And now we must live in a world where, “in the absence of God all things are permitted”. And since this “for all practical purposes” can be, given any number of circumstantial contexts, terrifying to accept, it must be wrong.
Note to Maia:
And how is this not also applicable to you and your own “spiritual” Self?
Self-assuredness is a quality, so gained through external interactions not internal intrinsic musings… so gained out in the real world -over time- and not in One’s head. Why would someone want to challenge a philosophy that works for me? unless I asked for input and opinion, or a kind and helpful suggestion was given through thoughtfulness and genuine care.
Even if I had a different life, my view on the trucker protest would probably be no different, in… why aren’t theyallowed to protest and crowd-fund, when all other ethno-societal fractions can, and do.
My first reaction to the trucker protest -when I first saw it on the news- was “Oh wow, a trucker protest”. I did not at any time think that the protest would become any more than what it was… a protest of Canadian truckers against the Covid vaccine mandate. I was shocked at the monstrous spectacle, it was made to become.
Iam: “I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, only that “here and now” it doesn’t exist for me.”
Do you know why that is?
__
Try answer these… a few words on each, will do.
Enslaving others is/isn’t wrong? answer: ??? Forced abortions are/aren’t wrong? answer: ??? Prejudices are/aren’t wrong? answer: ??? Wars are/aren’t wrong? etc. etc. etc. answer: ???
It would seem that decent-looking females are attractive to most, then… so obviously an objective analysis, regarding attractiveness… so sexually and otherwise, not different strokes for different folks, as decent-looking females will always be attractive to most… no matter what they wear.
I was referring to Astro Cat’s photo, not Maia’s… the photo was photoshopped the f out of, and I’m not even sure that that account is even real. I am an intuit after-all… remember?
Yea, that would be me… I said those. I don’t talk about such matters online… though I did join in with that banter many years ago, of which I quickly had my fill. Dwelling on such exchanges for too long, can become uncomfortable, for some.
You’re right. I am intelligent enough. Intelligent enough to know you can’t trust anything you see in the media, or even just the words of others. But you’re forgetting that just because I can never be 100% certain, that doesn’t mean I can’t be 99% certain. There are some sources I trust more than others. This guy for example. I’d place my trust in him at, oh let’s just say, 90%:
Of course! And it needn’t be a new, far more deadly virus. Covid in all its variants will do. But this involves to a large extent trusting my gut, taking a leap of faith, and hoping I’m right.
Okay, who is this individual? What is his own political narrative? Is he from the CDC? Note how it can be demonstrated that he is not himself in the least motivated to grind his own political axe.
And, again, we were discussing the next possible pandemic – Bubanic AIDS – that was far more deadly and far more widespread than covid.
What then in regard to a trucker protest vs. the government?
Finally, the main point here [mine] is that in regard to something like the trucker protest, you are willing to concede that [re dasein] if your new experiences are profound and prolonged enough, you might well “flip” both politically and emotionally over to the government.
I merely suggest that in regard to issues like abortion, the “conflicting goods” are such that some [like me] may well come to be “fractured and fragmented”. Why? Because they conclude that both sides will always have arguments that the other side can’t just make go away. And so “I” will always be “drawn and quartered” re the OP on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=175121
Also, from Reuters:
“Statistics that show the majority of deaths from COVID-19 are among vaccinated people reflect the fact most people are vaccinated, not that the vaccines are ineffective, as implied in a social media post. Similar statistics show COVID vaccines continue to reduce the risk of dying and severe illness, an expert told Reuters.”
Exactly. Just like all the rest of us. Only the FFOs and the pinheads at both ends of the political spectrum are so fanatical about dividing up the world between the “libtards” and the “conservatards”, almost nothing in the way of new experiences is likely to get them to “flip”.
Right?
Note to others:
So, how many of you read his excerpt and thought, “yeah, that makes the possibility of an afterlife a whole lot more plausable!”
Then back to this [for me]:
Maybe you should stick to those here who are not intent on deconstructing the “self” itself in the is/ought world. Again, if only “I” could not be inside my own head here 24/7.
I bet none of them did. And that’s because I chose that excerpt at random. Correction: I went out of my way to pick a paragraph that had nothing to do with the afterlife, hoping you’d shut up about it.
So here we are at the end of our debate. Did we learn anything? I know I learned a hell of a lot… about you… but recent that well has run dry and I’m growing tired of responding to your misinterpretations, your willful ignorance, and your (deliberate?) strawman arguments. Throughout most of 2022, you were still worth probing a bit to see what kinds of reactions I’d get, what kinds of things you would say, what kinds of maneuvers you’d pull to get around my questions and points, but lately you’ve been all too predictable and frankly uninteresting. You’ve also been frustrating and offensive but that was always there. But now that that’s all there is, there’s no point in me sticking around, so I take my leave. Arrivederci!
Of course, gib and I now both know just how close he is to becoming “fractured and fragmented” himself in regard to things like the trucker protest and abortion.
Wild dream. All that’s left: “You know what’s interesting? Where all points converge…never mind.” It was about how the dialectic of ideas & the dialectic of objects only truly have harmony TOGETHER in the Godman. Cornerstone of the … everything.
