Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

From the Value Thread

No, my approach is to examine an idea in terms of 1] what someone believes is true about it in their head and then 2] given a particular context, their attempt to demonstrate why their assessment of the idea ought to be the assessment of others if they wish to be thought of as a rational human being.

And then, for some, arguing further that if there is something they believe is rational then it must be moral as well. Re folks like Kant and Ayn Rand.

On the other hand, Karpel Tunnel seems to argue that even if he admits that another’s assessment of something is rational – or actually comes from an extant God! – if it goes against what he believes deep down inside, he still won’t change his reaction to it.

Now, if others here think they do understand what he means by this, by all means, let’s focus in on a particular set of circumstances and you can try to explain it to me.

From the bug thread.

Yes, this is how most of us seem to think. We may step on a bug or spray them with insecticide or hire an exterminator to rid our home of every single last one of them. And our motives are often wholly reasonable given that some insects in some sets of circumstances can cause us harm or bring harm to those we love and care about.

But what of those who stomp on bugs that can do them no harm…but merely because they take pleasure in it?

Is that something that can be deemed either irrational or immoral.

Yet even here, as I noted half-jokingly on the bug thread:

Yet with Karpel Tunnel I can only surmise once again that…

…if you come and say God says stepping on bugs is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves stepping on bugs is good, I will not override my revulsion. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.

You know, if his “visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me” Self finds stepping on bugs that do you no harm revolting.

I should rename to personas interraptus., rather be so abrusque .

But been following: and, admittedly from a more self sseving desire, as from anything elae, …

I involve myself, hoping to be unperceived as crashing, and worse still, a crashing bore.

Someone said,

Then it comes back down to the “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do”. In other words, some will admit that, given access to new experiences, new relationships, new ideas etc., in the past, they did change their moral narrative and political agenda. But that is only because they were able to come all that closer to the real “real me” here. There is still an objective morality. There is only the question of whether “I” here and now is in sync with it.

So, it seems, for some, there must still be doubts about this alignment.

Others, of course, don’t go down this road at all. They might change their minds about something given new sets of circumstances but it all just gets subsumed psychologically into the new “certainty”. They merely block out any other explanation more or less consciously.

Again, there are so many individual variables here embedded in so many very different lives that we may or may not fully understand of control, it’s easy enough to rationalize just about any aspect of “I” here.

"

And doubt is an indigenous part , where certainty is not.
There are the types that can feel Eureka, I’ve got it!(whatever that feeling can be of any shape of form be collected and fixed to a certain concept or series or methods of cognative skill will bind you.

That when happens, certainty need not be re-validated, again and again-

And then what? A gap appears, interminable and cut off. ( I call it the new lefts version of 'cut up method.)

This was a collage can be connected, and or disconnected , from various levels.

The ’ prime reason for investigations philosophical or some other sourced, need not impose some kind of need to expose fragility or some other thing abut it.

Be as it may, …or whatever it would sugnify:

By the way who is curly from some imaginable outer sphere of reference?

Now, the stage I would liked to have explored with him in our own discussions is how he explains the part of his own “self” here…

He doesn’t believe in God to the best of my knowledge. And an omniscient God would seem able to note definitively whether and/or when mere mortals are permitted or not permitted to step on bugs.

And he doesn’t believe – philosophically? – in objective morality. So there would appear to be no deontological assessment available to him in order to pin down rationally when or whether mere mortals can step on bugs.

Instead, he would rely on the extent to which, in any particular context, he felt “revulsed” when having to choose either to step or not to step on this or these particular bugs “here and now”.

But: My argument is that in many crucial respects even things like “revulsion” are rooted in dasein.

Thus, if someone had followed him around 24/7, year in and year out, noting all of the experiences he had involving bugs, they would come to one [or more] that might explain how and why he feels or does not feel revulsion “here and now” when confronted with these particular bugs in this particular situation.

But: he doesn’t have to access to all of the variables in his life that predisposed him to feel or not to feel “revulsion” here and now. In fact, none of us do. Our memories only go back so far. And there are any number of gaps in our memories. And any number of our memories may be false or distorted.

Right?

So, I’m back again here to the need for an omniscient and omnipotent God. No God and mere mortals are often taking leaps of faith in regard to their reactions to the world around them. Especially in regard to their moral and political values.

So what? Who cares if it is?

He still feels revulsion.

“A logical argument” doesn’t take away his revulsion. Why would it?

“An omniscient and omnipotent God” doesn’t take away his revulsion.

Okay, one could then argue that Nazis feeling revulsion for Jews and Jews feeling revulsion for Nazis, what, cancel each other out?

Clearly, based on the evolution of biological life on planet Earth, each one of us comes into the world able to feel revulsion…and, as well, many other deep-seated subjunctive states.

But, historically, culturally and circumstantially how does this innate capacity become manifested and embodied in any particular individual? I take a stab at this in my signature threads. Intellectual contraptions that we would have to “situate” out in particular contexts and examine our own “I” in regard.

And the extent to which others would “care” about my arguments is no less rooted subjectively in dasein. I’m certainly not suggesting that all rational men and women are obligated to.

Instead, I always focus on the extent to which “I” can be construed as the “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do”. And the manner in which the moral and political objectivists among us insist they they are in sync with a core self/soul and that they are able to divide the world up between “one of us” [the good guys] and “one of them” [the bad guys].

With Karpel Tunnel my interest revolves around the extent to which he construes what I construe to be his “visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me” Self, as or as not fractured and fragmented. Given that I deem the subjunctive “I” to be no less rooted in dasein. It just gets trickier here because the subjunctive “I” is closer to the “mammalian” portion of the human brain:

“Next is the limbic system, also called the paleomammalian complex; the mammalian brain; or the midbrain. This part of the brain is unique to mammals. According to MacLean, the limbic system of this mammalian brain is the center of emotion and learning.”

And that is right around the corner from the reptilian part of the brain, right?

Then, in turn, the murky junctures where the conscious brain becomes entangled in the subconscious and the unconscious brain functions.

Ever and always this part:

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

But, come on, if there is an omniscient and omnipotent God then at least we know that however we may squabble over these things, there is a “transcending font” that has all the answers.

Here is what he posted:

So, if he is acknowledging that even his revulsion is subject to “fracturing and fragmenting”, then how is he any different from me? And, in fact, he did note “at least now”. Which I also commented on. In other words, like me, new experiences, new relationships, new information and knowledge etc., might result in his not being revulsed by pedophilia at all.

Thus, as some insist, in the absence of God any human behavior can be rationalized. Behaviors here and now that you can’t imagine doing yourself are not inherently, necessarily out of the question. I call this the Song Be Syndrome. That’s the bottomless pit that is moral nihilism. Sociopaths act that out everyday. They just don’t step back in order to grapple with it “philosophically”.

But even here “I” am no less fractured and fragmented. Moral nihilism [and its practical implications for human interaction] is just something that as of now “I” have thought myself into believing. It may well not actually be reasonable at all to think as I do. Thus I can only come into place like this, deposit my signature threads, and hear out how others react to the points I raise in them.

On the other hand, if a God, the God did in fact reveal Himself to me in a way that could not be doubted, and if He said that pedophilia is good, and, further, that not pursuing it is bad, a sin, punishable by eternal damnation, why would I not pursue it? Who am I as a mere mortal to grasp, to doubt His mysterious ways with Hell itself on the line.

Though, sure, given an issue like pedophilia if he has reasons that are different from mine in regard to feeling fractured and fragmented, let him note them one more time.

Here we go again:

Let him choose a context in which we can explore each other’s moral philosophy. Then in a civil, respectful exchange, he can note particular instances of this on my part.

Let him start the thread. Let him choose the context.

Did Trump win? We don’t know yet. But what if he does?

This is an excellent opportunity to explore the nature of the self/“self” as construed differently by folks like Peter Kropotkin, Karpel Tunnel and myself.

Now, to the extent I understand him, Peter is still more or less committed to the “one of us” [the good guys] vs. one of them [the bad guys] frame of mind. He focuses in on behaviors that help or hurt others and wraps his moral narrative around his own set of assumption here. Less objectivist than some perhaps but still basically committed to the psychology of objectivism. He seems able to become genuinely outraged if Trump is re-elected.

Me, my own commitment to the Democrats and liberal policies [on most issues] is construed instead to be more the existential embodiment of particular political prejudices that I derived from my actual lived life derived from my current understanding of dasein in my signature threads.

So, yes, I’m disappointed if Trump wins. But I recognize that had things been very different in my life [no Song Be for example] I might still be the conservative I once was and feel excited if Trump wins. Also, I recognize that in regard to the conflicting goods that rend liberals and conservatives, things aren’t nearly as black and white as they once were to me when I was a political objectivist myself.

Which brings me to Karpel Tunnel.

On the one hand, like me, and to the extent that I do understand Peter’s frame of mind, KT does not believe in the existence of an objective moral and political path. A path that all those who wish to call themselves rational and virtuous are obligated to take.

But: On the other hand, he has this:

So, in regard to the election, that might be reconfigured into this:

In other words, if a Trump victory is viewed by him with revulsion on an intuitive, visceral, gut level.

That [to me] is the “I” he sees “at least now” as immune from fracturing and fragmenting. But to me that component of human identity is no less the embodiment of “I” as an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

The “revulsed” self. How is that different from say, the “soul”, or the “real me”?

Both of which may in fact exist, but neither of which “here and now” am I able to reach myself.

Of course the problem here revoles around noting who is or is not a troll.

More to point, on this thread…

So, in determining who is in fact beyond all doubt a troll here, he is able to avoid being “fractured and fragmented” as I am. Instead, he has this" visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" [b][u]I[/b][/u] able to rescue him from all that.

Well, “at least now” he does.

Ah, a troll as an intellectual contraption! No need to name names then.

As for specificity, lets go back to this:

“But if you come and say God says John Doe is a troll, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves John Doe is troll, I will not override my revulsion to that.”

If God tells us who the trolls are here, is that specific enough? If philosophers or scientists discover the whole rational truth about them, is that specific enough? Or does it always come down to his “visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me” Self/Soul telling him who they are?

But think about it: he is so sure that he is right about trolls here, that even if God, science or philosophy was able to demonstrate otherwise, he would still fall back on his own rendition of the “real me”!!! #-o

I’ll take a wild ass guess here: he means me. And “some people” is Magnus. And I invite others here to go there and note the entirety of my exchange with him: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=196115

Decide for yourself if this justifies my being called a troll.

Also, decide for yourself who makes the most convincing arguments.

Also, where am I being a troll on these threads:

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=170060
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 8&t=195930
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 8&t=196100
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 8&t=196110
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=175121
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195600
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=175006
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=186929
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195614
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195964
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

Oh, and when is he going to get around to responding to this:

He claims that in regard to his own value judgments, I am wrong to suggest that he is able to avoid feeling “fractured and fragmented” by inventing this “visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me” Self that he grounds his own moral and political prejudices in.

Apparently it’s something else instead. He just won’t or can’t tell us what that is.

So, how does he know all of this about me is true? How is he not “fractured and fragmented” as “I” in regard to value judgments such as this?

Consider:

“But if you come and say God says iambiguous is not a troll, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves iambiguous is not troll, I will not override my revulsion to fact that the real me just knows that he is. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.”

At least for now.

As for hijacking treads, my method of choice is actually to create them:

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=170060
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 8&t=195930
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 8&t=196100
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 8&t=196110
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=175121
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195600
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=175006
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=186929
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195614
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195964
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

From my own vantage point, the reason many need to deem me a troll is because I expose the objectivists here among us as neither moronic not evil.

Instead, my argument is that, in regard to moral and political value judgments, there are no brilliant or moronic philosophers/people…there are no good or evil philosophers/people.

Instead, there are only value judgments rooted subjectively/subjunctively in moral and political prejudices. Prejudices themselves rooted in dasein, in the existential life that one lives.

A life examined in my signature threads culminating in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

In my own subjective/subjunctive view, the objectivists here are most perturbed by me to the extent that [consciously or otherwise] I confront them with the possibility that this might be applicable to them too.

They have so much invested over the years in their own rendition of the “psychology of objectivism”. The “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do” allowing them to make that crucial distinction between “one of us” [the good guys] and “one of them” [the bad guys].

Look, I’ve been confronting moral and political objectivists now for years. Reactions of this sort from them are old hat stuff for me. Also, I still recall so vividly by own experience with losing that “objectivist feeling”.

It’s just that with Karpel Tunnel, he is not an objectivist at all. I puzzled over why he would react to me in turn as the objectivists did. Then it dawned on me. And what dawned on me prompted me to create this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=196034

For me [of late] it’s not trolls I don’t feed but those for whom I have little or no respect in regard to their intelligence.

Of course that’s even more subjective.

I still read KT however because I do respect his intelligence. And in regard to any number of topics.

And I think that, in some regards, he respects my intelligence too.

Instead, in regard to his own “sense of self” – as that relates to value judgments – he feels as threatened by me as the objectivists.

But why? I think it is because he has somehow managed to convince himself that there does in fact exist a “visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me” Self that allows him to keep a safe distance from my own “fractured and fragmented” “I”.

I threaten that somehow.

But he claims that is not the case.

But he won’t take the components of his own moral philosophy and compare and contrast them with the components of mine in regard to a particular set of circumstances involving conflicting goods.

From the Religion, disease and the First Amendment thread:

In regard to religion, disease and the First Amendment, my argument is that any particular individual’s value judgments are derived more from political prejudices derived from dasein than from any demonstrable [theological, philosophical, scientific etc.] objective good. Now I don’t know the extent to which Peter believes that his own point of view here is deemed to be in sync with the “real me” in sync morally, politically, spiritually etc., with the “right thing to do”. If he does believe this then, given my own set assumptions [no less an existential contraption], that would make him an objectivist.

But: Karpel Tunnel to the best of my current knowledge, does not believe either in God or objective morality.

But: If he is asked to describe his own reaction to any particular context involving religion, disease and the first amendment, he avoids and evades feeling “fractured and fragmented” as “I” am here by way of my own paraphrased rendition of this:

“But if you come and say that an actual God who has been demonstrated to exist thinks this about religion, disease and the First Amendment, or philosophically and scientifically we now have a logical proof regarding how all rational and virtuous people are obligated to think about them, it will not override what my own ‘visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me’ Self thinks about them.”

“At least now.”

Of course he claims I have this wrong. But he won’t participate in an exchange with me in which he makes an attempt to explain how he does react to conflicting goods of this sort, given his own “sense of self”.

So, it appears that Curly has a new target to vent on.

Peter, welcome to the club. You now officially have your very own Stooge here. On the other hand, how long can it be before he “foes” you and moves on to someone else.

Still, I’ll attempt [yet again] to set the record straight.

In regard to grasping one’s own intentions and motivations in exploring moral and political value judgments out in the world of actual human interactions, the extent to which one does not experience confusion and ambiguity and uncertainty is, from my own subjective perspective, the extent to which he or she may well be an objectivist.

But, over and over and over again, I make it clear that my own understanding of an objectivist itself is no less rooted in dasein. I’m not arguing that this is what an objectivist is. Only that “here and now” this is what I think it is “in my head”.

And that given new experiences, relationships, access to ideas etc., I might find my mind being changed.

Only for some I go too far when I point out that it seems reasonable to suggest this is applicable to everyone else as well.

So, what is an objectivist to me? An objectivist is someone who believes they are in sync with the real me [what some call the “soul”], in sync with the “right thing to do” in regard to moral and political and religious and esthetic value judgments.

Now, I am not inside Peter’s head. I have no way of grasping for certain if, given my own set of assumptions, he reflects my own subjective parameters of objectivism.

But even if he does I would have no less respect for his intelligence. And for his commitment to come here day in and day out and actually pursue the sort of thinking that I myself associate with those who really do “love philosophy”.

On the contrary, the mystery for me continues to be Karpel Tunnel/Moreno himself.

The part of him that continues to cling to his “visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-him” Self so as to keep the “fractured and fragmented” “I” at bay.

Only he doesn’t have the intellectual integrity to pursue that with me in a serious exchange on the philosophy board. Instead, he hides behind the “foe” option to keep the points I raise out of his head altogether.

Again, ironically enough, the sort of reaction I usually get from the hardcore objectivists here.

And the Kids!

Again, the fucking irony of it all!

He is accusing others of basically doing what he often does himself: getting pissed off at those who [eventually] don’t come around to accepting his own moral and political value judgments.

Here the issue just happens to be presidential pardons.

Another rendition of this:

“But if you come and say God says it is wrong to pardon Michael Flynn, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves that pardoning Michael Flynn is wrong, I will not override my revulsion if I don’t agree with them. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.”

At least now.

Instead, he has this “visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-him” Self that enables him to avoid the manner in which “I” become fractured and fragmented.

But my main point here is how a part of him seems to, in turn, come to embody 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.”

…in his reactions to those who don’t or won’t or can’t think like he does in regard to political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.

He needs something to anchor his Self to, in order to avoid tumbling all the way down into this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

And, with me, he has to go as far as to “foe” me in order to keep my own existential conclusions out of his head.

Okay, given a set of circumstances in which Karpel Tunnel has thought all of this through, what behaviors will he choose based on who he thinks he is. And on how he thinks he came to believe this.

What does it mean to him here to make a distinction between who he is not and who he truly is?

Given his “visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-me” Self.

Is it more reasonable and virtuous to be a leftist or a rightist?

How is he not, like me, fractured and fragmented here?

First, of course, I make the attempt to explain that “objectivist” is only a word that subjectively has come to mean the following…to “me”:

1] someone who believes that they are in sync with their real me and/or their core self and/or their “soul”
2] that this True Self is, in turn, in sync with The Right Thing To Do in regard to their moral and political values
3] that, in possession of political power, they come to embody authoritarianism and see the world as divided up between those who are “one of us” [the good guys] and “one of them” [the bad guys]

And that, given particular sets of circumstances, this can be an extremely dangerous and deadly combination. Historically, think folks like Stalin and Hitler.

And I don’t “name” someone an objectivist in the manner in which Objectivists of Ayn Rand’s ilk use that expression.

And, again, the irony is that in many crucial respects, I don’t construe Karpel Tunnel to be an objectivist himself. To the best of my knowledge, he believes in neither God nor objective morality. Just like me.

BUT

He does embrace a “visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-me” Self that keeps being fractured and fragmented [as a pragmatist] at bay.

In other words:

“But if you come and say God says that iambiguous is not all those things I say he is, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves iambiguous is not all the things I say he is, I will not override the revulsion that I think and and feel about him. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.”

At least now.

I have attempted to explore that with him here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=196034

But he “foed” me and refuses to explore the accusations and labels he thumps me [over and over again] with on the philosophy board here.

He basically hides behind the “foe” function.

Call it, say, the phoneutria syndrome.