What is Dasein?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Meno_ » Mon May 28, 2018 3:55 pm

Another reason is that , if an analogy can be seen between a personal 'hole' and something broader, is, that a Dasein effected solution has a tendency to self question -doubt similar to a person who questions whether the lightbulb in the refrigerator works.

To check , the door has to be opened, bit when it's. closed it can't be certAin if the light didn't go out, so one can't really be 100 % certain. It's an attempt to match bio feedback with probability.
Black Sun
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 28, 2018 7:43 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Since many of them have positive effects in most participants, the odds are very high their would be a reduction in suffering after trying just a few. But, again, I see why you have little motivation in part because the hole is not very deep.


Again, to the extent that there are self-help regimens that actually address the hole that I am in, I would certainly take the time to note what they have to say.

But with distractions already able to take me away from "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty", I'm covered.

As for the fact that, in your view, my hole isn't deep enough to qualify, well, what can I say? You got me there. :wink:
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25524
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 28, 2018 8:16 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:...I understand now why you feel little motivation to find a way out of your hole and I now see no reason to point out that there are methods to help you out of the hole. You can,however, back off from the - my ideas threaten you so much, I can face the discomfort of the truth and you cannot posturing. That's just silly, now that you've revealed what can soothe your dark night of the soul, even if it is only temporary.


Why on earth would I back off? Only in reminding others how they may well be susceptible to my own frame of mind someday am I likely to provoke them into making an attempt to demonstrate why they are not now.
Sigh. Read it again. Back off from the way you couch the issue, not the issue of conflicting goods. I have said this time and again.

You couch the issue as objectivists cannot face what you have managed to face. They cannot deal with the discomfort.


No, my point is that when I cannot face what I construe to be the grim consequences of being down in the hole [re morality on this side of the grave, oblivion on the other] I still have at my disposal distractions able to take me away from it.

At least until circumstantially the hole swallows up even those as well.

As for the objectivists, they don't have to deal with the discomfort. Why? Because they have managed to think themselves [here and now] into embracing a world in which the hole doesn't even exist.

So, I think, perhaps they can describe for me how, when their own values/behaviors come into conflict with others, they are able to subsume dasein and conflicting goods into a sense of self that is grounded in one or another essesntial, objective sense of reality out in the is/ought world.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: That these work reveals that the suffering is very mild. Those things do not work for depression, PTSD, existential crises, etc.


Perhaps, but imagine being afflicted with one of these and being down in the hole with me?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: So your positioning yourself as having faced something so tough objectivists in general cannot face it is something you should back off from because it is false.


That you imagine complex mental, emotional and psychological positions of this sort can be pinned to the mat as either true or false speaks volumes regarding your frame of mind from my frame of mind.

Any number of objectivists don't "face it" because they do not experience it. I note the manner in which I construe "I" [as dasein, as an existential contraption] in the is/ought world; and, for the first time, many objectivists are actually confronted with a new narrative; and, in turn, the possibility that someday they might have to "face it" themselves.

All I can do is to ask them to bring "I" out into the world of conflicting goods and to note how their own frame of mind is deemed [by them] to be more reasonable than mine.

You call this a "lecture", not me.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25524
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 28, 2018 8:52 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
If you are going to judge and insult people, you may find that someone will respond by pointing out the contradictions inherent in that.


Over the years, I have had any number of exchanges with folks here in which there was little or no huffing and puffing. Or name-calling. Or, for that matter, polemics.

That you now judge me as judging and insulting others is something I will always allow others here to judge for themselves.

The good news: no one is required either to read my posts or to respond to them.

Let's keep it that way, I say.

As for the extent to which I accuse objectivists here of not having the intellectual integrity and/or courage to agree with me, that's all mostly "in your head" in my view.

All I can do is to note the extent to which being down in the hole is disturbing to me. And then to imagine that if others were to tumble down into it as well it would be disturbing to them.

Then I note how, in order to avoid this, many folks come to embody one or another existential rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

What I call the "psychology of objectivism".

Here the shoe either fits or it doesn't.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am sure Hitler was using polemics a lot. If he implicitly compared himself to Jews, he has to accept that how he presents himself and the Jews will be looked at.


Yes, but unlike him [I suspect] my views on polemics [in philosophy exchanges in forums such as this] revolves more around this:

What does this mean to be a polemicist? It means that I enjoy provocative exchanges. A provocative exchange is one in which folks take opposite sides on an issue and aggressively pursue their own point of view. A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, pokes and prods, satire. But it's almost never meant to be personal. It's just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating. When the best minds are goaded they are often driven in turn to make their point all the more forcefully. It's like both of you are down in the arena using words for swords. From my experience these are almost always the most interesting exchanges.

I suspect that, re the Jews, this was not Adolph's intent at all. The real Adolph was intent on eradicating all Jews from the face of the earth.

But, down in the hole, can one argue that [philosophically] this is necessarily evil? That all rational and virtuous men and women are intellectually and emotionally and morally and politically obligated to agree that it is evil?

In a No God world?

Folks either get how disturbing questions like this can become for the moral nihilists or they don't.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25524
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Ecmandu » Mon May 28, 2018 10:59 pm

So basically, you say it's no good to be you, and not only that, you also think that because we lose continuity of consciousness after we die. For some strange reason, you think continuity of consciousness relies on god ...

So, basically, you're telling people that you believe there is no continuity of consciousness because god doesn't exist, and for this reason, you are trying to not be evil, because evil is your deepest desire, but there's nothing stopping you!

Not much sympathy here
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6997
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue May 29, 2018 5:23 pm

Meno_ wrote:Another reason is that , if an analogy can be seen between a personal 'hole' and something broader, is, that a Dasein effected solution has a tendency to self question -doubt similar to a person who questions whether the lightbulb in the refrigerator works.

To check , the door has to be opened, bit when it's. closed it can't be certAin if the light didn't go out, so one can't really be 100 % certain. It's an attempt to match bio feedback with probability.

I love the refrigerator light concern as a metaphor, but I am not quite sure what it is relaed to in the thread. I see 'hole' mentioned. Perhaps you see Iamb's hole or existential holes in general as being something similar to the person who keeps checking the fridge but cannot be satisfied, but I can't be sure what you meant. what did you mean?
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 29, 2018 6:15 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I see no reason to remove myself from acting in the world, nor will I, like you recently claimed about yourself, decide to remove myself from acting in the world or making political statements etc, until such time as someone demonstrates objective morality. That would imply, to me, that it would be bad to do things, in case it turns out they are objectively wrong. My inaction could turn out to be objectively wrong. I might as well, and in fact I want to make things move in the direction I prefer which includes may care for many types of lifeform.


First of all, my own decision to remove myself "here and now" from political commitments, revolves more around issues of health. As you get closer and closer to officially being "old", the body itself has considerably more to say about what you either can or cannot do.

And while I do continue to make my own "existential leaps" to what are generally construed by most here to be a "liberal" or a "progressive" political agenda, I have no illusions regarding the extent to which "I" here is an "existential contraption".

And most objectivists [from either the left or the right] will have none of that. So, you more or less learn your lesson after a while. To the extent that you suggest to others that their own political commitments may well be "existential contraptions", is the extent to which many will back away from you. You are pointing out that the manner in which you are down in your hole here may also be applicable to them someday. And that is precisely when "I" here begins to crumble. It crumbled for me, why not for them?

Others are either willing to grapple seriously with the implications of that [re their own sense of "self" in the is ought world] or they aren't.

Look what's at stake after all.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I believe you see three possible categories to change things in the world

Might makes right
Right makes might (not quite sure what this one means)
Compromise, etc.

My reaction to this is that 1) they are not mutually exclusive 2) they likely are value laden choices.


Sure, out in the real world -- the world of actual conflicting goods -- the social, political and economic permutations can accumulate dramatically. All three approaches become entangled in any one particular context. Depending in part on the extent to which the objectivists and the nihilists and the narcissists/sociopaths are themselves entangled in either assessing the situation or in resolving it.

But to the extent that the choices/values here are in fact rooted in dasein more so than in philosophical contraptions like deontolgy, is the the extent [in my view] to which moderation, negotiation and compromise reflect the best of all possible worlds.

Unless of course someone is able to contoct an assessment and a resolution that he or she is able to demonstrate to others as the optimal or the only rational way in which to embody human interactions out in any particular world.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: If one thinks compromise is the way to go this is likely based on values. I think you have presented it as the approach if one realizes that we do not have access to objective values. But once we do not know what objective values are, we still have all options for attaining on the table. If using these, given the epistemological conundrum seems wrong, well then you have access to objective morals. If it seems impractical, I think this is either 1) a cover for a moral judgment or 2) not paying attention to history or oneself. If someone comes into my house and tries to rape one of us, I will not compromise. Yes, an extreme example. Figuring out when using power over might be practical is not going to be simple. It would be currently beyond any scientific proof, as a rule that is.
I do the best I can weighing the various options and consider any option on the table, in general.


Here again though [aside from one extreme context] you are noting this only as a general description of human interactions entangled in conflicted goods.

With issues like abortion, capital punishment, animal rights, the role of governemnt, gay marriage, gun control etc., there are considerable numbers of people on both sides of the issue.

And, even with regard to extreme contexts like rape, child abuse, genocide or slavery, the nihilists are still able to argue that in a No God world, it is perfectly reasonable to embody choices that revolve basically around "what's in it for me?"

The sociopaths main concern is not whether their behviors are right or wron, but whether or not they can get away with doing something that gratifies what they construe to be in their own best interests.

But to what extent is this frame of mind itself just one more "existential contraption"?

The point is that many religionists will make this very point in arguing basically that even if God does not exist, He would have to be invented. Why? Because otherwise, any and all human behaviors are able to be rationalized from any one particular point of view rooted in any one particular sequence of experiences embodied by any one particular individual out in any one particular world construed from any one particular point of view.

And, from my frame of mind, objectivists more or less sense that if this is ever construed as applicable to their own "I", then, like mine, it will begin to crumble. At least with respect to value judgments.

And, sure, it would be fascinating for someone like me to engage in a discussion such as this with someone like Martin Luther King. To the extent that he was an objectivist re the existence of God, his own "I" would have had a rather rock-solid foundation. But was he? Or, instead, was his faith more problematic. As, for example, embodied in the character Father Ralph de Bricassart from the novel The Thron Birds?

Here, again, there so many different possible manifestations of "I" because there are so many different lives that any one particular inidvidual can lead.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Like other social mammals I live and struggle without objective morals, trying to make things work for me and others I care about...


Then, from my point of view, you have accumulated a particular set of political prejudices rooted largely in the manner in which your actual lived life predisposed you to go in one direction rather than another.

You can never really know for certain then how things might have been very, very different had the course of your life been very, very different. Here I always go back to the man I was before being drafted into the Army and the man I was after being discharged from it. It is almost impossible for me to convey just how radical the change really was.

And only because my number was low enough to be drafted. And that was an accident of birth.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25524
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 29, 2018 6:38 pm

Deontology may or may not be a contraption but a legitimate effect. Whether at times contraption and/or a conception, may depend on a anomaly between necessity and contingency.

Whether one enlists or, is drafted, whether age pre determines or determined one's action can only be enhanced by metaphor or analogy, because of the existential status of a relatively static hold on am objective morality/ethics

Fighting for a cause has he is very nebulous within and without the theatre of war, or even a literal theater- which has become absurd, yet the illusion of a necessary and meaningful bracketing of that reality has to be defined as objective for the vast majority.

Your position has a very strong , albeit temporary existential mode of apprehension, and agreeable leaving the leaps to younger revolutionaries.

Some having become obsessive about holding on against all odds, may anguish over the transmutation of values, where values become appreciably perceived by increasing number of thinkers. Conflict resolution. Has To become a modus operans.
Black Sun
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 29, 2018 6:55 pm

Maybe conflict resolution has to involve a reversal, or even oscillations. back and forth between competing struggles for existence outside the scope of Dasein, without IT becoming irrelevant.

A mantra practice of repetitive aesthetic formulations as regards to the conflict between contradictory values, ironically work, in absence of a solid ground, admittedly.

After Sartre disillusioned with Communism, socialism had no ground to stand on, and it took 40 some years to find out.

That is why agreement with disillusionment with ontological precedent is only the result of a backward look. By then it's obsolescence can be revised to accord with current opportunists
Black Sun
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Ecmandu » Tue May 29, 2018 11:12 pm

Seriously! "My sense of I crumbled for me.. why not everyone else!!"

Let's get this straight, you reply to posts.

You have a very strong sense of "I"

You're contradicting yourself to be viable to females.

You go on to say that the context of the draft made you who you are. That's an infinite number of objective statements there.

Ironically, you deny the subjective, such as draft dodging, the spirit that given the same circumstances, took a different path than you, Jeffrey Dahmer was raised in a perfect home, yet, became who he was by spirit, by genetics. You are a pure nurturist, but not a naturist. That is another major flaw in YOU
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6997
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed May 30, 2018 4:38 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Since many of them have positive effects in most participants, the odds are very high their would be a reduction in suffering after trying just a few. But, again, I see why you have little motivation in part because the hole is not very deep.


Again, to the extent that there are self-help regimens that actually address the hole that I am in, I would certainly take the time to note what they have to say.

But with distractions already able to take me away from "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty", I'm covered.

As for the fact that, in your view, my hole isn't deep enough to qualify, well, what can I say? You got me there. :wink:
Um, it doesn't qualify according to your own description of what alleviates it. I am sure a number of the methods would help you emotionally, but given the way you describe it, it no longer sounds pressing, nor does it sound like something objectivists, as a rule, would run from.

You may have just made up an excuse not to try anything by saying you could distract yourself from the hole with films and music. To avoid changing you position or for some other reason.
You may have just been being obnoxious to objectivists.
You may be suffering immensely, but when cornered by people pointing out ways out, you decided to hide how little you can alleviate your suffering.

There are other possibilities.

But what I had to work with was your framing yourself in contrast with objectivists as having come down in a hole so uncomfortable and scary, they avoid it PLUS that you can distract yourself and are not in need of help, since you have media.

That does not hold.

That\s all. Perhaps in creating your polemisized self, you ending up using polemics that contradict each other. Perhaps you, in fact, hold ideas about yourself and others that do not really work and you haven\t or can\t look at this.

I don\t know.

But I have only you to work with. Your ideas about objecivists are obviously guesses. But I might as well take at face value your evaulation of what distracts you from your hole, polemisized self or otherwise.

So I no longer take seriously you comparing yourself to objectivists in the convenient for you,insulting for them light you have framed it here.

I doubt it\s a good strategy either, if it is a strategy. And if it actually is your view, you look silly continuing to assert it when the silliness is pointed out.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:42 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Since many of them have positive effects in most participants, the odds are very high their would be a reduction in suffering after trying just a few. But, again, I see why you have little motivation in part because the hole is not very deep.


Again, to the extent that there are self-help regimens that actually address the hole that I am in, I would certainly take the time to note what they have to say.

But with distractions already able to take me away from "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty", I'm covered.

As for the fact that, in your view, my hole isn't deep enough to qualify, well, what can I say? You got me there. :wink:


Um, it doesn't qualify according to your own description of what alleviates it. I am sure a number of the methods would help you emotionally, but given the way you describe it, it no longer sounds pressing, nor does it sound like something objectivists, as a rule, would run from.


Back again to this:

1] I'm explaining my frame of mind to you in the manner in which I think I understand it.
2] you are reacting to this from me in the manner in which you think you understand me explaining it.

We may or may not ever bridge the gap here.

Still, as I noted above, it is only a matter of time before a set of circumstances comes crashing down, overwhelming any and all distractions that I may [here and now] have accumulated.

All I can do is to point out the extent to which from my frame of mind here and now being down in this hole fractures and fragments me; and such that I am no longer able to embody the comfort and the consolation that my objectivists narratives in the past provided me.

In other words, with regard to embracing the sense that a "real me" is in sync with "the right way to live" on this side of the grave; and in regard to immortality and salvation on the other side.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You may have just made up an excuse not to try anything by saying you could distract yourself from the hole with films and music. To avoid changing you position or for some other reason.


Sure, to the extent that I am not wholly in sync with my own motivations/intentions, that is always possible. But given the extent to which "I" can only grasp this up to a point, isn't that to be expected? There were so many experiences I had over the years that I was only somewhat in control over or understanding of. Just like you. We do the best we can in connecting these dots.

And that's before we get to the subconscious and the unconscious mind. Entangled murkily in instinct and id. In those more primodial components of the brain/mind meld.

The parts that often come to the "surface" in dreams perhaps. Indeed, what is one to make of "I" then?

From my frame of mind all of this only serves to make "I" all the more an existential contraption. Profoundly problematic to say the least.

And then last but [perhaps] not least how all of this is to be understood in the context of the hard determinists arguments; or in the context of how "the human condition" is to be understood given that which explains the ontological [teleological?] meaning of Existence itself.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You may have just been being obnoxious to objectivists.


I don't doubt that this is a component. It is all somehow intertwined in the manner in which I think "I" am intertwined in this frame of mind:

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

It's not for nothing that I finally settled on this for my signature here.

But if you are asking me to explain with any real precision what it all means in encompassing the meaning of my arguments here, well, I'll almost certainly disappoint you.

You would first have to come closer to understanding "I" in the manner in which I construe it on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

And then take your own "I" out into the world of conflicting goods and political economy and note how your "self" here is very different.

Using whatever "techniques" that worked for you.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You may be suffering immensely, but when cornered by people pointing out ways out, you decided to hide how little you can alleviate your suffering.


But [so far] no one has been able to point out a way in which they have either 1] avoided tumbling down into the hole that I am in or 2] once down there succeeded in yanking themselves up out of it.

At least insofar as they intertwine their sense of identity here in contexts involving conflicting value judgments and/or conflicting goods. Or with respect to oblivion.

Let's just say that what "holds" for you here doesn't hold for me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I no longer take seriously you comparing yourself to objectivists in the convenient for you,insulting for them light you have framed it here.

I doubt it\s a good strategy either, if it is a strategy. And if it actually is your view, you look silly continuing to assert it when the silliness is pointed out.


Not to get too technical here, but, huh?

Again, as it pertains to an actual context we are all likely to be familiar with, only when you are willing to take these points down to earth by discussing the manner in which you and I react to particular strategies deemed to be either silly or not, are we likely to better illustrate the respective components of our arguments.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25524
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:06 pm

Maybe a new venue/time could be creayed : Cosmic Psychology 101

Maybe Cosmology, apart from Cosmetology.
Black Sun
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:43 pm

Whays the difference?
Black Sun
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:13 pm

Andrew Royle
"Heidegger's Ways Of Being"

Being-With-Others
In a similar way to Dasein’s entangled relationship with world, so too is Dasein entangled with other people. For Heidegger, we do not exist as isolated individuals; just as we are committed to Being-in-the-world, so too are we committed to Being-with-others. For Heidegger, it is impossible for an “isolated I without other to be given”. This is because, whatever I am – a son, father, husband, or bereaved, etc – necessarily refers to and infers the existence of others – a parent, child, wife, or a deceased loved one. So at the same time that I claim my existence, my ‘mineness’, I also necessarily declare the incontrovertible existence of others.


Okay, Dasein meets other Daseins. Yet here again the same distinction: between those things able to be established [in our interactions] as in fact true for all of us, and those things not able to be established.

For example, Bob may in fact have murdered Don. But if only he has knowledge of this, others might suspect it, but are not able to demonstrate that in fact he did it. Here God is still required in order to establish all things as either in fact true or in fact false.

On the other hand, though individual Daseins might be in disagreement about particular facts, there are some facts able to be established.

But what of Daseins in dispute over whether Bob was morally justified in murdering Don?

What is Heidegger's take on that?

Let us not underestimate the profound significance of Heidegger’s move here, which is a direct refutation of René Descartes’ solitary introspection some three hundred years earlier, reversing Descartes’ sceptical starting point for philosophy. Descartes asks, How can I be sure that the world and other people actually exist? He replies to himself that whilst I may doubt the world and others, whilst doubting, I am at least thinking – I cannot doubt that. “I think therefore I am” writes Descartes famously. Yet from a Heideggerian perspective, it is a contradiction-in-terms to say “I doubt the existence of others”, since the very positing of ‘I’ necessarily refers to (in Heideggerian terms, has relevance to) a ‘you’ or an ‘other’. Just as Heidegger’s workman claims his existence as a workman in relevance with the world of his workshop, so too does each Dasein claim its I-hood from the world of others that it is necessarily with and which is relevant to it: the I necessarily posits the not-I, because Dasein comes to understand itself from the world of things and of other people. In this way, ‘other’ is intimately predicated by and entangled with Dasein. Heidegger therefore states that “Dasein is essentially a Being-with”


To be honest, I fail to see the "profound significance" of Heidegger's reaction to Descartes.

How has he really refuted him since the argument he makes merely relies on a different set of assumptions regarding the existence of "I"?

Here the arguments become intertwined in certain metaphysical assumptions that are made regarding the nature of Existence itself. Descartes was no less interacting with other human beings. "I" and "we" and "him" and "her" and "they" and "them", are, for most of us, everywhere.

Sure, "philosophically" we can create a problematic frame of mind here if we choose to. Solipsism. Determinism. Sim worlds. Demonic dreams.

But there they are: people. Other Daseins coming in and out of our life. And the same distinction. There is "in fact" what they do around us and there is our reaction to the facts. Ought they have done something else instead? How "in fact" do we establish that?

Obviously, the workman has a particular [factual] relationship with his tools. But the tools have nothing to say about it. Ought only comes into play here when we note someone hammering a nail with a saw and we suggest that she ought to use a hammer instead.

With other Daseins though, our "entanglements" revolve not only around facts able to be established or not established, but around certain assumptions made with respect to our understanding that if we comprehend the facts embedded in human relationships as they are said to be by the objectivists, then [as rational men and women] we are obligated to behave in particular ways.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25524
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:43 am

iambiguous wrote:Andrew Royle
"Heidegger's Ways Of Being"

Being-With-Others
In a similar way to Dasein’s entangled relationship with world, so too is Dasein entangled with other people. For Heidegger, we do not exist as isolated individuals; just as we are committed to Being-in-the-world, so too are we committed to Being-with-others. For Heidegger, it is impossible for an “isolated I without other to be given”. This is because, whatever I am – a son, father, husband, or bereaved, etc – necessarily refers to and infers the existence of others – a parent, child, wife, or a deceased loved one. So at the same time that I claim my existence, my ‘mineness’, I also necessarily declare the incontrovertible existence of others.


Okay, Dasein meets other Daseins. Yet here again the same distinction: between those things able to be established [in our interactions] as in fact true for all of us, and those things not able to be established.

For example, Bob may in fact have murdered Don. But if only he has knowledge of this, others might suspect it, but are not able to demonstrate that in fact he did it. Here God is still required in order to establish all things as either in fact true or in fact false.

On the other hand, though individual Daseins might be in disagreement about particular facts, there are some facts able to be established.

But what of Daseins in dispute over whether Bob was morally justified in murdering Don?

What is Heidegger's take on that?

Let us not underestimate the profound significance of Heidegger’s move here, which is a direct refutation of René Descartes’ solitary introspection some three hundred years earlier, reversing Descartes’ sceptical starting point for philosophy. Descartes asks, How can I be sure that the world and other people actually exist? He replies to himself that whilst I may doubt the world and others, whilst doubting, I am at least thinking – I cannot doubt that. “I think therefore I am” writes Descartes famously. Yet from a Heideggerian perspective, it is a contradiction-in-terms to say “I doubt the existence of others”, since the very positing of ‘I’ necessarily refers to (in Heideggerian terms, has relevance to) a ‘you’ or an ‘other’. Just as Heidegger’s workman claims his existence as a workman in relevance with the world of his workshop, so too does each Dasein claim its I-hood from the world of others that it is necessarily with and which is relevant to it: the I necessarily posits the not-I, because Dasein comes to understand itself from the world of things and of other people. In this way, ‘other’ is intimately predicated by and entangled with Dasein. Heidegger therefore states that “Dasein is essentially a Being-with”


To be honest, I fail to see the "profound significance" of Heidegger's reaction to Descartes.

How has he really refuted him since the argument he makes merely relies on a different set of assumptions regarding the existence of "I"?

Here the arguments become intertwined in certain metaphysical assumptions that are made regarding the nature of Existence itself. Descartes was no less interacting with other human beings. "I" and "we" and "him" and "her" and "they" and "them", are, for most of us, everywhere.

Sure, "philosophically" we can create a problematic frame of mind here if we choose to. Solipsism. Determinism. Sim worlds. Demonic dreams.

But there they are: people. Other Daseins coming in and out of our life. And the same distinction. There is "in fact" what they do around us and there is our reaction to the facts. Ought they have done something else instead? How "in fact" do we establish that?

Obviously, the workman has a particular [factual] relationship with his tools. But the tools have nothing to say about it. Ought only comes into play here when we note someone hammering a nail with a saw and we suggest that she ought to use a hammer instead.

With other Daseins though, our "entanglements" revolve not only around facts able to be established or not established, but around certain assumptions made with respect to our understanding that if we comprehend the facts embedded in human relationships as they are said to be by the objectivists, then [as rational men and women] we are obligated to behave in particular ways.
That is your weakness here when you did not read Heidegger directly and thus is misled by the misleds [those who miread Heidegger's philosophy].

Note
Andrew Royle is a dramatherapist, working with the bereaved, in private practice in London.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/125/He ... s_of_Being

dramatherapist :!: :?: From what he wrote, Andrew Royle definitely has misread and misunderstood Heidegger.

The Purpose of BT is the following;

    Purpose of This Book
    Our aim in the following treatise is to work out The Question of the Meaning of Being and to do so concretely.
    Our provisional aim is,
    the interpretation of time as the possible horizon for any understanding whatsoever of being. page 1

Heidegger's philosophy [I hv written before] is not about 'Bob may in fact have murdered Don,' John's dick entering Mary's cunt ending with a squabbling over abortion, and the diverse human activities.

Since the Concept of Being is so pervasive, Heidegger narrowed down the idea of Being to the 'being' of humans or a person. Heidegger deliberately labelled such a being [human related] as Dasein with intention to ensure his views are not associated with typical human [Bob, Don, John, Mary etc.] activities.
For Heidegger, the being [Dasein] of the human being is the exemplary being and a representative of being-in-general to be interrogated and as a pivot to understand being-in-general.
Heidegger stated he is using the generic concept of Dasein to drill down to understand the Question and Meaning of Being-in-General.
Since the purpose of 'Dasein' is supposed to be a generic concept, it cannot be transposed to the individual person[s] and their specific life problems.

Heidegger wrote:
the being of Da-sein is not to be deduced from an idea of human being. pg 182


The problem is [within some ambiguites and vagueness] there are some philosophers and specialist Heideggerian who has misunderstood Heidegger and put the 'typical human' spin to it. One such philosopher is the very popular Hubert Dreyfus.

Heidegger's focus is only on generic principles that will support the understanding of The Question and Meaning of Being-In-General.
Heidegger did not get involve in how these principles are to be translated or practiced by the individual person[s] or group in detail, which is off topic to the purpose of his thesis re BT as stated above. This is the limitation on practice had drove him to be a Nazi member.

Even when Heidegger mentioned "I" or "Mineness" is it always related to the undifferentiated "I" [self] and not the isolated I, e.g. in countering Descartes' isolated "I" [I AM] that is a soul that survives physical death and can be salvaged to heaven. Heidegger viewed such theory as a falsehood that conceal truth and authenticity.

Now, if you want to apply Heidegger's principles to individual person[s] or group you must at least have understood the principles with BT first before you apply them from your own perspective to the specific activities of life of specific individuals.

The mess you are creating is you are trying to deal with individual human[s] or group problem without first understanding Heidegger's principles. What is worse is you are using bastardized interpretations to justify your arguments re Bob, Don, John, Mary, Tom, Dick, Harry, etc.

What is worse and pitiful is you are creating a hole of a mental torture chamber and lock yourself therein based on false theories.

The correct solution to your predicament is to dig deep and understand the fundamental principles of Heidegger and other wise philosophers first imperatively and then only apply them from the base up. Unfortunately for you this is a mountain of a task since your are imprisoned in some kind of mental straight jacket that trapped you within the hole you have created yourself.

Example, if you want to get involve with anything to do with force, momentum, velocity in practical with a reasonable degree of precision, you must first understand Newton's Principles thoroughly. How can you plan and execute a strategy to go into space in a rocket with half-baked understanding of Newton's principles?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:38 pm

The correct solution to your predicament is to dig deep and understand the fundamental principles of Heidegger and other wise philosophers first imperatively and then only apply them from the base up. Unfortunately for you this is a mountain of a task since your are imprisoned in some kind of mental straight jacket that trapped you within the hole you have created yourself.

Example, if you want to get involve with anything to do with force, momentum, velocity in practical with a reasonable degree of precision, you must first understand Newton's Principles thoroughly. How can you plan and execute a strategy to go into space in a rocket with half-baked understanding of Newton's principles?
The fundamental problems of the situation are still here :

Does the particular philosophy have any practical value?

Who understands the philosophy?

Which actions are required in order to apply the philosophy?

This is why Iambig keeps going on and on about demonstrations.

In the case of a space rocket, it either flies into space or it does not. The value of Newton's principles is easy to see. The engineers who are able to get it into space are the ones who understand the principles. The required actions are the ones that produce a flight into space.

Compare that to Heidegger's philosophy.
How is the practical value demonstrated?
Does Prismatic understand the philosophy or do "some philosophers and specialist Heideggerian who has misunderstood Heidegger" actually understand it better than Prismatic. IOW is Prismatic right or someone else? How is that demonstrated?
And then what ought one do to apply Heidegger's philosophy in someone's life?
The answers are not at all clear. Certainly they are not on the same level as the space rocket example.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10701
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:03 pm

Here is the monkey wrench in the reasoning which I have tried to explain to Iambig but without success :

While the rocket is being designed and constructed, you don't know if Newton's principles are valuable, you don't know which engineers understand the principles and you don't know which actions to take.

You only know after the launch. You only know by looking backwards. Clarity is in hindsight.

In the present, there is the same uncertainty for 'is' (rocket) and 'ought'(value judgements). The "obligation" on what to think and believe is fuzzy. There are conflicting opinions on which actions to take and how to proceed ... conflict during the design and construction.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10701
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:45 pm

phyllo wrote:Here is the monkey wrench in the reasoning which I have tried to explain to Iambig but without success :

While the rocket is being designed and constructed, you don't know if Newton's principles are valuable, you don't know which engineers understand the principles and you don't know which actions to take.

You only know after the launch. You only know by looking backwards. Clarity is in hindsight.

In the present, there is the same uncertainty for 'is' (rocket) and 'ought'(value judgements). The "obligation" on what to think and believe is fuzzy. There are conflicting opinions on which actions to take and how to proceed ... conflict during the design and construction.


...and what others are trying to explain to you is the same concept about foresight, except not with the same conceptual variables because they are a bit different.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:55 pm

Dasein really creates a problematic signal to noise ratio if you explain things in extremely vague, abstract language. It's hard enought to know what other people mean. Give examples, connect the abstract to the concrete.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:02 am

phyllo wrote:
The correct solution to your predicament is to dig deep and understand the fundamental principles of Heidegger and other wise philosophers first imperatively and then only apply them from the base up. Unfortunately for you this is a mountain of a task since your are imprisoned in some kind of mental straight jacket that trapped you within the hole you have created yourself.

Example, if you want to get involve with anything to do with force, momentum, velocity in practical with a reasonable degree of precision, you must first understand Newton's Principles thoroughly. How can you plan and execute a strategy to go into space in a rocket with half-baked understanding of Newton's principles?
The fundamental problems of the situation are still here :

Does the particular philosophy have any practical value?

Who understands the philosophy?

Which actions are required in order to apply the philosophy?

This is why Iambig keeps going on and on about demonstrations.

In the case of a space rocket, it either flies into space or it does not. The value of Newton's principles is easy to see. The engineers who are able to get it into space are the ones who understand the principles. The required actions are the ones that produce a flight into space.

Compare that to Heidegger's philosophy.
How is the practical value demonstrated?
Does Prismatic understand the philosophy or do "some philosophers and specialist Heideggerian who has misunderstood Heidegger" actually understand it better than Prismatic. IOW is Prismatic right or someone else? How is that demonstrated?
And then what ought one do to apply Heidegger's philosophy in someone's life?
The answers are not at all clear. Certainly they are not on the same level as the space rocket example.
Note I have always ensure I maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity not like Iambigous who is like a loose rocket out of control in space and going no where.

I have read Dreyfus -Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I,

note this from Dreyfus [one of the more popular Heideggerian];

In bending over backward to avoid the Sartre/Follesdal mistake of identifying Dasein with the conscious subject central to Husserlian phenomenology, interpreters such as John Haugeland [a student of Dreyfus'] have claimed that Dasein is not to be understood as an individual person at all.6

Dasein, according to Haugeland, is a mass term. People, General Motors, and Cincinnati are all cases of Dasein. While Haugeland has presented a well-motivated and well-argued corrective to the almost universal misunderstanding of Dasein as an autonomous, individual subject-a self-sufficient source of all meaning and intelligibility-Haugeland's interpretation runs up against many passages that make it clear that for Heidegger Dasein designates exclusively entities like each of us, that is, individual persons.
For example, "Because Dasein has in each case mineness one must always use a personal pronoun when one addresses it: 'I am,' 'you are'" (68) [42].

The best way to understand what Heidegger means by Dasein is to think of our term "human being," which can refer to a way of being that is characteristic of all people or to a specific person-a human being. -page 14


I believe Dreyfus' weakness is his focus / emphasis on merely on Division I and the above very narrow view but not fully on the whole book. It is very unfortunate Dreyfus has influenced a high proportion of his student from the University of California, Berkeley, and the public from his books into the wrong take which has effected society.

There are many statements and contexts that indicate Heidegger in BT did not intend 'Dasein' to represent the individual person and especially his/her specific life issues. This is why Heidegger avoided the term "Mensch" i.e. 'man' or human being.

The above has led the Heideggerian community into two major camps.

Heidegger's philosophy has many useful bits but one must understand the basic grounds thoroughly and note the limitations to avoid pitfalls [falling into holes].
One limitation is, for Heidegger, to be 'positive' is to express the 'good' [authentic] path and he provided certain fundamental principles but he did not go into sufficient thorough details and fundamentals on 'what is good' and how to practice 'good.'
It due to the above limitation and narrow approach [without much wisdom] that Heidegger ended as an active Nazi member.

Kant's own philosophy [Moral and Ethics - e.g. re respecting basic human dignity] would definitely prevent Kant from joining a demented nationalist party like the Nazi Party.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:14 pm

Note I have always ensure I maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity not like Iambigous who is like a loose rocket out of control in space and going no where.
Iambig makes some important points ... which typically get lost because of his posting style.
Kant's own philosophy [Moral and Ethics - e.g. re respecting basic human dignity] would definitely prevent Kant from joining a demented nationalist party like the Nazi Party.
I wonder if that's true. I wonder what he would have done if he was "tested".
We won't ever know.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10701
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:29 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: That is your weakness here when you did not read Heidegger directly and thus is misled by the misleds [those who miread Heidegger's philosophy].


As I noted above, I did read most of BT back in college. Though, admittedly, that was many years ago.

Which is why I challenge those who have read it more recently to bring his points down to earth by situating Dasein out in the world of actual conflicting goods. Something that the author above avoids altogether.

My point is that Dasein in relationship to tools used in a workshop [wholly in sync with that which they are chosen to be used for] may not be akin to Dasein in relationship to moral and political values [wholly out of sync -- existentially -- with the values of others].

That's the distinction I wish to explore. In other words, given the manner in which you claim to understand Heidegger's own understanding of Dasein in BT as more or less out of sync with the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein out in the world of conflicting goods.

Here on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Prismatic567 wrote: The Purpose of BT is the following;

[list]Purpose of This Book
Our aim in the following treatise is to work out The Question of the Meaning of Being and to do so concretely.


In the workshop perhaps but what of Dasein and the fascist? How [concretely] are rational men and women obligated to react to fascism?

Prismatic567 wrote: Heidegger's philosophy [I hv written before] is not about 'Bob may in fact have murdered Don,' John's dick entering Mary's cunt ending with a squabbling over abortion, and the diverse human activities.


Clearly.

On the other hand, my point is aimed at exploring the extent to which his point can be discussed intelligently when diverse human activities come to blows.

But, then, there you go, straight back up into the intellectual stratosphere along with all of Will Durant's other "epistemologists":

Prismatic567 wrote: Since the Concept of Being is so pervasive, Heidegger narrowed down the idea of Being to the 'being' of humans or a person. Heidegger deliberately labelled such a being [human related] as Dasein with intention to ensure his views are not associated with typical human [Bob, Don, John, Mary etc.] activities.
For Heidegger, the being [Dasein] of the human being is the exemplary being and a representative of being-in-general to be interrogated and as a pivot to understand being-in-general.
Heidegger stated he is using the generic concept of Dasein to drill down to understand the Question and Meaning of Being-in-General.
Since the purpose of 'Dasein' is supposed to be a generic concept, it cannot be transposed to the individual person[s] and their specific life problems.

Heidegger wrote:
the being of Da-sein is not to be deduced from an idea of human being. pg 182



Right, let's take that to those folks pummelling each other at a protest outside the abortion clinic.

Prismatic567 wrote: Now, if you want to apply Heidegger's principles to individual person[s] or group you must at least have understood the principles with BT first before you apply them from your own perspective to the specific activities of life of specific individuals.


Then we are clearly back to our tug of war. You wish to tug the exchange up into the scholastic clouds and I wish to tug Heidegger's "philosophical" take on Dasein down to earth.

The "mess that I am creating" revolves precisely around the gap between the world of words that Heidegger's Dasein seems to nestle in, and a world in which the words that he used -- the definitions, the deductions -- never quite seem to reach the part where actual flesh and blood human beings are clobbering each other over particular values in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

Imagine for example Martin explaining his concept of Dasein to Adolph.

Prismatic567 wrote: The mess you are creating is you are trying to deal with individual human[s] or group problem without first understanding Heidegger's principles. What is worse is you are using bastardized interpretations to justify your arguments re Bob, Don, John, Mary, Tom, Dick, Harry, etc.

What is worse and pitiful is you are creating a hole of a mental torture chamber and lock yourself therein based on false theories.


Here I've got you huffing and puffing, making me the issue. And, generally, when I reduce objectivists down to this, it speaks volumes regarding the extent to which my own frame of mind is starting to be seen as a threat by them.

Unless of course I'm wrong. On the other hand I tend to thrive on polemics. So, sure, keep it coming.

Prismatic567 wrote: The correct solution to your predicament is to dig deep and understand the fundamental principles of Heidegger and other wise philosophers first imperatively and then only apply them from the base up.


More to the point [mine] is that, as an objectivist yourself, the only "correct solution" there can ever possibly be is your own.

I merely suggest there are reasons for this rooted more in the "psychology of objectivism" that I explored with other on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Prismatic567 wrote: ...if you want to get involve with anything to do with force, momentum, velocity in practical with a reasonable degree of precision, you must first understand Newton's Principles thoroughly. How can you plan and execute a strategy to go into space in a rocket with half-baked understanding of Newton's principles?


And yet over and over again I point to the distinction between using Newton to get up into space and using Newton to resolve the political conflict between those who embrace space exploration and those who do not.

The arguments made here for example:

https://vittana.org/11-pros-and-cons-of ... xploration

https://universavvy.com/pros-cons-of-space-exploration
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25524
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:47 pm

phyllo wrote:Here is the monkey wrench in the reasoning which I have tried to explain to Iambig but without success :

While the rocket is being designed and constructed, you don't know if Newton's principles are valuable, you don't know which engineers understand the principles and you don't know which actions to take.

You only know after the launch. You only know by looking backwards. Clarity is in hindsight.


But the important point [or, rather, the point I deem to be important] is that objective knowledge is within reach in that if the scientists/engineers do in fact understand the laws of physics objectively, the rocket ship goes up.

Either/or.

Now take this sort of argument to the discussion/debate here: https://universavvy.com/pros-cons-of-space-exploration

What is the equivalent in this context of the rocket ship going up? Which argument encompasses the optimal or the only rational frame of mind?

Is space exploration something that we ought to pursue? Some make arguments that, yes, it is, while others insist that, no, it is not. And both sides have reasonable points to make. Points that the other side are not really able to make go away.

At least not completely.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25524
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:50 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Dasein really creates a problematic signal to noise ratio if you explain things in extremely vague, abstract language. It's hard enought to know what other people mean. Give examples, connect the abstract to the concrete.


Exactly!

On the other hand, what on earth are we to make of this out in the world of actual conflicting goods?
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25524
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users