How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:47 pm

That is: by what particular person?
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:16 pm

It never ceases to amaze me how these ponderously "intellectual" folks continue to come up with truly twisted ways in which to wiggle out of bringing their technical skills [and "analysis"] down to earth.

The point here [presumably] is to pin a phenomenon down epistemologically. To capture it in a bunch of words defining and defnding another bunch of words.

I give them a particular. But it's not the right particular. My particular is flesh and blood. Their particular is anything but.

Or, sure, maybe I'm not broaching the particular here correctly. Why don't one of you try.

Anything to actually bring the discussion out into the world that we, you know, live in.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26942
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:20 pm

My friend, my good friend, what is particular about this?

"How might phenomenal interactions here actually be distinguished?"

That is almost the definition of abstract, lacking flesh and blood. Who is it that wonders what who might distinguish?

You know, in terms of flesh and blood?
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:43 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:My friend, my good friend, what is particular about this?

"How might phenomenal interactions here actually be distinguished?"

That is almost the definition of abstract, lacking flesh and blood. Who is it that wonders what who might distinguish?

You know, in terms of flesh and blood?


See, they seemingly can't help themselves. All they can do [apparently] is to bend over backwards to keep the exchange up on the sky-hooks.

Maybe it's a genetic thing embedded in the actual DNA of the inveterate scholastic.

Hell, I can't even get him to grapple with the phenomenon the whole fucking world is obsessed with these days: Trumpworld.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26942
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:47 pm

"See, they seemingly can't help themselves. All they can do [apparently] is to bend over backwards to keep the exchange up on the sky-hooks.

Maybe it's a genetic thing embedded in the actual DNA of the inveterate scholastic."

I am not lying. I am not being fasciecious. This is exactly what I think about you whenever we have an exchange. And also on this particular occasion.
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:49 pm

"Hell, I can't even get him to grapple with the phenomenon the whole fucking world is obsessed with these days: Trumpworld."

Even this!
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:51 pm

My name is Pedro Ignacio, I am flesh and bone, and you are asking me what "one" might think about a "phenomenon..."

Can you not bring it down to Earth?
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:05 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:My name is Pedro Ignacio, I am flesh and bone, and you are asking me what "one" might think about a "phenomenon..."

Can you not bring it down to Earth?


True, this exchange is unfolding down here on earth.

So, I guess that's as close as I'll ever get to it with him. 8)
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26942
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:12 am

"So, I guess that's as close as I'll ever get to it with him."

Well, if you ever gather the courage to bring your abstract castles in the sky down to Earth, I'll be happy to be a part of it.

You can start, when you are ready, with one of your alleged particular situations.

Sabara
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:41 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:"So, I guess that's as close as I'll ever get to it with him."

Well, if you ever gather the courage to bring your abstract castles in the sky down to Earth, I'll be happy to be a part of it.

You can start, when you are ready, with one of your alleged particular situations.

Sabara


As many will note [complain], what I always do here is to copy and paste the very first set of phenomenal interactions -- the very first "particular situation" -- to upend a philosophy of life rooted in objectivism:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


The point being to note that distinction between the objective facts embedded in my life [phenomenally] and my subjective/subjunctive reaction to the facts as my moral narrative changed over the years.

Eventually, I evolved/devolved into what I construe to be a moral nihilist rooted phenomenally in the manner in which I came to understand the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political power out in the particular world that I -- "I" -- live in.

"I" here being subsumed in this interpretation of "human identity" out in the is/ought world: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

As a consequence [since then] all of my "particular situations" are basically just configurations of the manner in which I describe the "hole" that "I" have dug myself into in groping to encompass the meaning of any and all phenomenon I come across in the course of living my life such that others [philosophers for example] might argue that I am being more or less rational, more or less virtuous.

How about you?

Note for us the seminal experience that nudged you in the direction of your current view of interacting phenomena. And the manner in which you either do or do not make a distinction between the either/or world here and the is/ought world.

Or, again, sure, you can "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" out of it by insisting that my own reactions here are not sufficiently abstract [or technical] enough to qualify as a serious philosophical discussion of phenomenal interactions between actual flesh and blood human beings out in a particular context, out in a particular world.

Interactions in particular that come into conflict. How might a technically proficient philosopher describe and then examine those behaviors so as to capture what is essentially unfolding between those on one side of the moral divide and those on the other.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26942
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Meno_ » Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:10 pm

A simplified version of interpreting the above: the either either or problem of resolving conflicts within perimeters of real and abstract constructs, is the realization that they are logically connected to the degree of willfullness to acquire legitimacy vis. this tendency to reduce the phenomenology.


If situations arise, where the identity in question is challenged, then the more the reduction submerged the identity into an either this or that mode.

The existential jump takes place into the upper or lower phenomenal phenomenal regions, but ultimately it searches for an exit, retaining a safety zone, with pure categories , understanding that above or below those safety boundaries, a total fall or or rise above not be occasioned.

That safety zone protects identity from total dissolution or complete and abstract fall.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:36 pm

Meno_ wrote:A simplified version of interpreting the above: the either either or problem of resolving conflicts within perimeters of real and abstract constructs, is the realization that they are logically connected to the degree of willfullness to acquire legitimacy vis. this tendency to reduce the phenomenology.


If situations arise, where the identity in question is challenged, then the more the reduction submerged the identity into an either this or that mode.

The existential jump takes place into the upper or lower phenomenal phenomenal regions, but ultimately it searches for an exit, retaining a safety zone, with pure categories , understanding that above or below those safety boundaries, a total fall or or rise above not be occasioned.

That safety zone protects identity from total dissolution or complete and abstract fall.


It's not a simplified version that I am after here. I am instead after a version in which the point you raise above can be illustrated. Illustrated such that it in any particular context in which human beings interact, its meaning can "for all practical purposes" be made clearer.

It's just that for me, clarity in the either/or world and clarity in the is/ought world encompass approaches to phenomena that are not always in sync. At least not "in my head".

However we finally come to think about the existence of things that are not immediately perceived by us, human interactions do in fact seem to exist such that we can describe them objectively in some ways while not being able to evaluate them objectively in the realm of morality.

Unless of course we can. Then the problem would be either 1] I have not myself come across a proof of this yet or 2] I have come across it [here for example] but I am not able to grasp it. Or [perhaps] I am not intellectually sophisticated enough to grasp it.

This all gets really, really mindboggling though. Berkeley had to presuppose the existence of God as the transcending font able to encompass the existence of all things even when you or I are not connected to them.

But in a No God world what is the next best thing?

And how does the next best thing react to the manner in which I construe a human identity out in the is/ought world?
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26942
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:07 pm

"
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. 
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby. 
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism."

What's the situation here? What is your question? What ought who to do about what? Particular people, mind you, not hypothetical examples which this whole thing could very well be. Convincingly. Like I can convince you that I'm me.

You wanted me to bring down to Earth a number of things I wrote about. Which things? Regarding what?

We are being PARTICULAR. Because we want to bring it DOWN TO EARTH, FLESH and BLOOD.

Just reminding you.
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:11 pm

Because, let's be real iambiguous, for a man who complains about lack of particulars and flesh and blood so much, you sure are careful to avoid them!
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:29 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Because, let's be real iambiguous, for a man who complains about lack of particulars and flesh and blood so much, you sure are careful to avoid them!


Uh, I think we're done here. :lol:

Or, sure, maybe... :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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26942
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:35 pm

I have a friend. Jack. He is gay and doesn't want to be. Why? I think because a person in his life told him he better be and better be it in the way that person says. That's certainly a good reason not to want to be.

Jack is a good close friend of mine. Sometimes he makes passes at me. I think he thinks that if a straight man seduces a straight man in secret, then it is not gay. This causes him a fucking world of pain. Which, because I am his friend, causes me pain.

What would you have me do? Wonder about phenomenology or some bullshit? Fuck you.

I want my friend to be free.

It is also a fact that my friend hurts people because of his frustration. I want to stop this as well.

But I value him as a person more than I want him to stop hurting people. My objective is his health, not morality. Because he is my friend and I care about him.

I would like to tell my friend that he will be more powerful, not less, if he accepts his desires. I want to tell him that gayness is far from the only thing the fucking machine appropriates and makes shitty, and he should just deal with it regarding that person that tells him he shouldn't be.

But. And this is a big reason why we are friends, he has some fucking pride on him. So I cannot approach him in public. And I know enough about wanting someone to know that if a girl I want says anything to me in private, even if it is to tell me how she will never be mine that way, I will find a way to construe it as she wants me that way.

What would a lover of wisdom like me do in this situation? First of all, tell him that it's not abouy coming out of the closet or some faggety ass modernist shit like that. It is simply to accept his desires and build THEM into his conscious self rather than the goddamn soul eating machine.

Not provide him with some stupid ideal form. Gay is not an ideal form. It is just a convenient word for a man who often desires other men sexually.

But here's the catch! I know there is a deep cruelty in me. So I hesitate to do anything about this because I fear it will wind up being a cruel thing somehow.

I have accepted this will to subjugate into my conscious self where care about other people also is. So I just turn it on myself. I subjugate ghosts in myself. It's been pretty fruitful. Sometimes people jump in while I do it and they have a choice: allow the ghost I am subjugating to be subjugated in him or protect the ghost.

If I see the person is in any actual danger, I hit the self immolate button and give him an exit. I figure, if he is brave, he will subjugate the ghost. If he is not brave, then he is of no interest to me and might as well leave.
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Meno_ » Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:14 am

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:A simplified version of interpreting the above: the either either or problem of resolving conflicts within perimeters of real and abstract constructs, is the realization that they are logically connected to the degree of willfullness to acquire legitimacy vis. this tendency to reduce the phenomenology.


If situations arise, where the identity in question is challenged, then the more the reduction submerged the identity into an either this or that mode.

The existential jump takes place into the upper or lower phenomenal phenomenal regions, but ultimately it searches for an exit, retaining a safety zone, with pure categories , understanding that above or below those safety boundaries, a total fall or or rise above not be occasioned.

That safety zone protects identity from total dissolution or complete and abstract fall.


It's not a simplified version that I am after here. I am instead after a version in which the point you raise above can be illustrated. Illustrated such that it in any particular context in which human beings interact, its meaning can "for all practical purposes" be made clearer.

It's just that for me, clarity in the either/or world and clarity in the is/ought world encompass approaches to phenomena that are not always in sync. At least not "in my head".

However we finally come to think about the existence of things that are not immediately perceived by us, human interactions do in fact seem to exist such that we can describe them objectively in some ways while not being able to evaluate them objectively in the realm of morality.

Unless of course we can. Then the problem would be either 1] I have not myself come across a proof of this yet or 2] I have come across it [here for example] but I am not able to grasp it. Or [perhaps] I am not intellectually sophisticated enough to grasp it.

This all gets really, really mindboggling though. Berkeley had to presuppose the existence of God as the transcending font able to encompass the existence of all things even when you or I are not connected to them.

But in a No God world what is the next best thing?

And how does the next best thing react to the manner in which I construe a human identity out in the is/ought world?




By simplification I did mean a logical simplification which is less complex at the same time. Since You are a nihilist, You must realize that a before the threshold of where the either or was the primary signifier, exclusion of one guaranteed the absolute inclusion of the other. So either reality or a logical system not meeting certainty.

The absolute certainty guarantees that hole or abyss, toward which doubt, or states of it, fall or is reduced toward- an existential hole.

It is simpler and more connected to reality. the kind of real reality described in 'realism', as an art form.

I must confess, I feel a lot more comfortable in that reality than the abstractions which break reality into the kind of parts which don't male much sense nowadays.

In aesthetic terms , I am bracketing my safety zone as well. and find comfort with aestheticians such aa Kierkegaard, in my fall. But the tension. Is overwhelming , nevertheless, since art plays a limited role in my life.

Icarus was burned by the sun because he got too close to the sun, and that metaphore plays out for people with ideals that have to navigate though a complex , conflicted world.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Meno_ » Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:32 am

But in a No God world what is the next best thing?

And how does the next best thing react to the manner in which I construe a human identity out in the is/ought world?

--------------
--------
---------

The idealism per aesthetic rules may give credence and homage to a god, but it doesent have to. The rules pertain to god as well as a principle and /or a structural continuity.

This is because the ideal world proceeded a causative god. The pagan gods and reality were interconnected causally. Pagan gods preceded logic and language. nature as metaphore symbolized an anthropomorphism.

I am not entirely sure if a simpler causation based on perceptual signifiers lead to the classical logic inherent in language. But that's another topic.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:22 pm

As more time goes by it becomes more clear to me what popular philosophy is about; to find a replacement for God. To find a Rule, a Law, something to alleviate the grand burden of having a will and multiple options of using it, as well as the option of not using it, "trading it" for the pleasures of self-consumption.

And what un-popular philosophy is, on the other hand; the rejoicing of the mind at the will and its various options; the dawn of true human Agency.

I do not blame the former category for not rejoicing - neither do I pity them - but I do take displeasure at seeing the anti-will institutionalized under the noble name of Philosophy.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:26 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote: I have a friend. Jack. He is gay and doesn't want to be. Why? I think because a person in his life told him he better be and better be it in the way that person says. That's certainly a good reason not to want to be.

Jack is a good close friend of mine. Sometimes he makes passes at me. I think he thinks that if a straight man seduces a straight man in secret, then it is not gay. This causes him a fucking world of pain. Which, because I am his friend, causes me pain.

What would you have me do? Wonder about phenomenology or some bullshit? Fuck you.

I want my friend to be free.


From my frame of mind, it's not a question of what you wonder about phenomenology but the extent to which you are able discuss the phenomena that revolves around homosexuality; such that what you think is true regarding this particular context, is in fact true objectively for all sentient human beings.

There is what is in fact true here and what particular individuals think is in fact true here. Juxtaposed in turn with what they are convinced ought to be true instead. Is Jack a homosexual? Is how he feels about that a rational frame of mind? Is how you think that he thinks about it a rational frame of mind? Is there a moral narrative and a political agenda here that reflects the most [or the only] virtuous manner in which the phenomena revolving around human biology revolving around human sexuality ought to be embodied by all reasonable men and women?

What on earth does it mean for someone to be "free" here given the gap between what any particular one of us think we know about homosexuality and all that can be known about it as a phenomenon?

Fuck me? Is that a philosophically appropriate thing to express here? Or is that too just another manifestaton of your own partiular "I" as an "existential contraption"?

But I value him as a person more than I want him to stop hurting people. My objective is his health, not morality. Because he is my friend and I care about him.


Okay, but to what extent is your reaction to his reaction to your reaction to his pain embedded in the most rational assessment of the situation? To what extent might his pain be rooted instead in conservative political dogmas that construe homosexuality as, among other things a Sin against God or "unnatural" or a "perversion"?

How are all of these variables not embedded in a particular historical, cultural and experiential context? Ever evolving over time in a world of contingency, chance and change?

What is the most philosophically astute reaction that all reasonable and ethical men and women are obligated to embody here?

The way he thinks about it? The way you think about it? The way I think about it? The way others do?

Pedro I Rengel wrote: I would like to tell my friend that he will be more powerful, not less, if he accepts his desires. I want to tell him that gayness is far from the only thing the fucking machine appropriates and makes shitty, and he should just deal with it regarding that person that tells him he shouldn't be.


So, is this the most phenomenologically sound assessment of these relationships? Should we poll all phenomenologists [and then all the ontologists] and see if we can construct the most rational consensus regarding same-sex relationships?

And, again, how is all of this related to the OP:

How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?
If you scratch under the surface, they believe in ideal forms.


Pedro I Rengel wrote: What would a lover of wisdom like me do in this situation? First of all, tell him that it's not abouy coming out of the closet or some faggety ass modernist shit like that. It is simply to accept his desires and build THEM into his conscious self rather than the goddamn soul eating machine.


In my view, this is basically just another "existential contraption". A particular political prejudice rooted more rather than less in dasein. In the actual sequence of your lived experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge --- as they relate to homosexuality.

Why don't you apprise us of this sequence. In the manner in which I describe my own existential trajectory with respect to abortion. How would you differentiate between philosophical realism and political idealism with respect to this issue?

Pedro I Rengel wrote: But here's the catch! I know there is a deep cruelty in me. So I hesitate to do anything about this because I fear it will wind up being a cruel thing somehow.


Okay, is this cruelty more the product of genes or of memes? In the manner in which some argue that homosexuality itself is more the product of genes than memes? How does the philosopher [as a moral objectivist] go about pinning this down? As either a phenomenologist or as an ontologist. With respect to human sexuality a priori and a posteriori.

And then of course a deep dive into the convoluted nature of human psychology:

Pedro I Rengel wrote: I have accepted this will to subjugate into my conscious self where care about other people also is. So I just turn it on myself. I subjugate ghosts in myself. It's been pretty fruitful. Sometimes people jump in while I do it and they have a choice: allow the ghost I am subjugating to be subjugated in him or protect the ghost.

If I see the person is in any actual danger, I hit the self immolate button and give him an exit. I figure, if he is brave, he will subjugate the ghost. If he is not brave, then he is of no interest to me and might as well leave.


We can take this assessment to folks that champion Carl Jung or Sigmund Freud or Wilhelm Reich. And then after they chip in we can take their insights to the phenomenologists and the ontologists.

Pin down once and for all Jack's actual objective situation. And then move on to yours and mine.
Last edited by iambiguous on Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26942
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:54 pm

I note this:

iambiguous wrote:It's not a simplified version that I am after here. I am instead after a version in which the point you raise above can be illustrated. Illustrated such that it in any particular context in which human beings interact, its meaning can "for all practical purposes" be made clearer.


And you come back with this:

Meno_ wrote:By simplification I did mean a logical simplification which is less complex at the same time. Since You are a nihilist, You must realize that a before the threshold of where the either or was the primary signifier, exclusion of one guaranteed the absolute inclusion of the other. So either reality or a logical system not meeting certainty.

The absolute certainty guarantees that hole or abyss, toward which doubt, or states of it, fall or is reduced toward- an existential hole.

It is simpler and more connected to reality. the kind of real reality described in 'realism', as an art form.

I must confess, I feel a lot more comfortable in that reality than the abstractions which break reality into the kind of parts which don't male much sense nowadays.

In aesthetic terms , I am bracketing my safety zone as well. and find comfort with aestheticians such aa Kierkegaard, in my fall. But the tension. Is overwhelming , nevertheless, since art plays a limited role in my life.

Icarus was burned by the sun because he got too close to the sun, and that metaphore plays out for people with ideals that have to navigate though a complex , conflicted world.


We are clearly not in sync here regarding the manner in which phenomena might be or can be or ought to be discussed.

Or so it seems to me.

What I am after instead is more in sync with Pedro's description of his friend Jack above. An actual existential context in which we can discuss phenomenology by "illustrating our text".

We may not agree on the meaning of the words that we use but at least they are in reference to actual human interactions out in a particular world.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26942
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:10 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:As more time goes by it becomes more clear to me what popular philosophy is about; to find a replacement for God. To find a Rule, a Law, something to alleviate the grand burden of having a will and multiple options of using it, as well as the option of not using it, "trading it" for the pleasures of self-consumption.

And what un-popular philosophy is, on the other hand; the rejoicing of the mind at the will and its various options; the dawn of true human Agency.

I do not blame the former category for not rejoicing - neither do I pity them - but I do take displeasure at seeing the anti-will institutionalized under the noble name of Philosophy.


Note to others: Is this a reasonable point of view?

Does it pin down a correct distinction between popular and un-popular philosophy?

If it does accomplish this, how, for all practical purposes, would it be applicable to your own life? How would embracing un-popular philosophy be pertinent to you given your own interactions with others?

And, in particular, phenomenal interaction embedded/embodied in the "human condition" that revolves more specifically around the question that I pursue here above all else: How ought one to live in a world of conflicting goods?

Or of conflicting values. Is there a "value ontology" that one might subscribe to here?

Can actual examples of this be provided here such that we more clearly grasp its potency in regard to "the rejoicing of the mind at the will and its various options"?

What on earth might that mean?
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26942
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Gloominary » Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:49 pm

Phenomenologists don't necessarily believe in transcendent, or imminent forms, they do necessarily believe in appearances.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:01 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Because, let's be real iambiguous, for a man who complains about lack of particulars and flesh and blood so much, you sure are careful to avoid them!
He will mention particulars he has no contact with, sometimes by category - the hypothetical pregnant women who want an abortion. I am sure he thinks Trump is a concrete example and not an abstraction, but it is not him, encountering something specific in his life and living in some way in relation to it. It is always a case study related to what the universal 'I' should do or cannot do.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:37 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Because, let's be real iambiguous, for a man who complains about lack of particulars and flesh and blood so much, you sure are careful to avoid them!
He will mention particulars he has no contact with, sometimes by category - the hypothetical pregnant women who want an abortion. I am sure he thinks Trump is a concrete example and not an abstraction, but it is not him, encountering something specific in his life and living in some way in relation to it. It is always a case study related to what the universal 'I' should do or cannot do.


Again, for years now I have been confined to my apartment by and large. But, as the Vicomte Sébastien de Valmont might observe, "it is beyond my control".

But, over the course of my life, I have had many, many, many wide and varied experiences. I was a devout Christian growing up and I did in fact stumble into adulthood in the belly of the white working class beast. I worked a couple of years at Maryland Shipbuilding and Drydock. I was drafted into the Army and served a year in Vietnam. After being discharged I became a member of the Unitarian Church. I worked summers at Bethlem Steel to help pay for college. At college [almost 6 years] there was almost nothing that I did not try at least once. I majored first in political science and then in philosophy. Concurrent with that I commenced my involvment in radical political organizations. After dabbling with the CPUSA, the RCP and the SWP, I spent a couple of decades in and out of such organizations as NAM, DSOC and DSA. I was married and became a father. Then a single parent.

In other words, tons and tons of close encounters with the world around me.

And Mary and John were no hypothetical couple struggling with a pregnancy that was unwanted by one and wanted by the other. Though I changed their names my involvement in their experience was a fundamental turning point in my life. I began to struggle with the question "how ought one to live?" from a whole other frame of mind.

As for "I", I make what I construe to be an important distinction between the parts of me that are true objectively [for everyone] and the parts of me that are embedded/embodied more in an existential contraption rooted in dasein out in a world of conflicting goods resolved in the final analysis by those able to enforced [legally, politically] their own moral/political narrative/agenda.

Or [here and now] so it seems to 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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26942
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users