Making iambiguous's day

And is this a hurdle to understanding the frame of mind itself or understanding its implications for how to act in the world?

And usually, only for the one who’s the target of these reactions. Most of us understand that these kinds of friction exist between people, but as spectators only hearing about it from afar, not really having close relations to the people involved, it’s hard to feel angst. The people who are in the thick of these conflicts definitely feel angst, and most likely people who have lived through experiences like this. The latter most likely have a heightened sensitivity to these kinds of things–even as bystanders just hearing about it–they become “triggered” as they say.

Given that, in your past, you’ve been more closely involved with conflicts of this sort, you may be more sensitive to the issues of prong #2 than the rest of us, and so to you it is a big deal, even just philosophically, and it may perplex you why others don’t seem nearly as concerned about it. ← This may be your answer. It may not be that others have a philosophy or an approach to the conflicts of prong #2 that you don’t, it may just be that they haven’t been involved in conflict as much as you have.

I think a general principle that behooves all philosophers is to refrain as much as possible from contradicting well established scientific fact. Whatever we end up learning about the brain scientists, philosophers ought to follow.

I’m not sure whether this is a yes or a no to my question. Seems more like a set of instructions/questions you’re asking others to observe in order to help you understand their views.

The move from 1) to 2) seems kind of odd: it’s like asking one to encompass a theory of how the body works, and then to note a time when his body came into conflict with another (say in a war, for example). How would his theory about his body change what happens when it gets shot by bullets?

I suppose you might mean to ask: how would he explain in terms of his theory what happens to his body when it gets hit by bullets, in which case I guess you’re asking me to describe what happens when I enter into conflict with another in terms of my theory of consciousness. Is that what you mean?

Would it be fair to say then that your interest in metaphysics lies along a specific branch–the metaphysics of morality and its relation to the world of either/or–but that the crux of the problem is the same as that found in all other branches of metaphysics: that finding certainty in the insights one arrives at remains indefinitely elusive? (This sounds like just another way of phrasing your dilemma.) It’s just that unlike questions of consciousness, being, transcendentalism, questions of morality and how that is practiced in the world of either/or is of tantamount importance, and so it tends to compel one to take it seriously?

Well, many philosophers think they are close. Problem is they all disagree with each other. And I’m sure that is all that’s talked about amongst that small handful of philosophers.

Yes, we all have our criteria for accepting truth.

My God is the universe–plain and simple–I’m a patheist. I think sans God, you would probably understand the concept of knowledge existing in the minds of intelligent beings, and that it follows from this that such knowledge also exists in the universe. So I would think the problematic part is: how is God the universe?

The reason this is cryptic to you is (partly) because I haven’t layed out all the gory details of my philosophy, just some of the conclusions I’ve come to. This is why I wrote a book.

Maybe not. But it is a two way street. As I said above, I wrote a book to (hopefully) accomplish this purpose, but you’d have to be interested in reading it.

It was just a commentary on the metaphysical problem of the nature (or essence) of existence–not meant to explain why it matters when choosing one thing rather than another.

Indeed! I think we already came to an agreement on this one–there is no objective answer (right?).

Nullius in Verba

That seems to be true, unfortunately, or should we hope that it will become untrue?

Ah, true words of wisdom indeed.

In fact, the irony is, I’m writing the last of chapter of volume 3 of my book in which I explain the roll of the philosopher in society: to be the guides of thought for mankind.

In any case, my statement is that philosophy ought to follow science, not scientists. There is no shortage of scientists who over step their bounds and philosophers not only have the right to whistle blow when they are doing so, but that is one of their most vital functions in society. You mention the conservation of energy, I always bring up physicalism. Physicalism is not science, it is a philosophical extension to some of the science that has been discovered about the brain. It says that science has solved the problem of consciousness (that consciousness is just the operations of the brain). But this is a philosophical conjecture based on what, at best, is only properly interpreted as a correlation between brain states and subjective experiences. If it actually is science–i.e. what has actually been observed and measured–then I think it’s a healthy thing for philosophers to keep their thoughts aligned with it, or at least not to contradict it, don’t you? What my statement is really meant to admonish against is going the way of the Creationist. I don’t think that philosophers ought to do that (the least of all reasons being that there are mountains of falsifying evidence against it). But if the philosopher can present a well reasoned theory that stands as an alternative to the mainstream science of the day, and it fits all the evidence so far accumulated, then apart from considerations of how healthy such a theory is for society, I see no issue with that.

I very much agree, but there are more detailed concerns that get in the way:

Science is the Philosophy of Observational Verification. There are other forms of verification, such as the Philosophy of Logic.

The good philosophers know that verification cannot ever occur without logic. They also know that any logic should be verified as much as possible. Neither should be without the other. But observation cannot always occur, such as the Big Bang Theory. Logic forbids the theory. The BB is actually an oxymoron. But to a scientist, it seems as a possibility. Scientists are not taught thorough logic, merely math … usually applied to prior presumptions.

So if a scientist says that the BB is highly probable, and a philosopher says that the BB is necessarily bogus, who decides?

To a philosopher, such a question should be easy to answer. But neither the philosopher, nor the scientist have the actual authority over what is to be promoted into society and thus to their next generation peers.

So who should have authority over when to listen to a scientist and when to listen to the philosopher?

There are other types of philosophers for that: Philosophy of Sociology and Philosophy of Ethics. But then scientists want that authority too.

The ruler decides via politics, corruption.

If the framework of mind itself is such that how we interact in the world is only as we ever could have interacted, folks react to that in differenty ways. But if the reactions are in turn only as they ever could have been…

Well, how exactly does the mind wrap itself around that?

Nothing would seem to be more fundamental than finally figuring out if mind is just matter interacting…mechanically?

But how would that be accomplished if it is presumed that any efforts to establish it are themselves only as they ever could have been.

And the implication here is that angst itself is situated existentially out in a particular world construed from a particular point of view. The philosopher might note that in reacting to the same unwanted pregnancy different individuals feel more or less angst. But: is there a way to determine the extent to which all rational men and women ought to feel angst? How is that not largely the embodiment of dasein?

Basically, yes. Imagine following someone around who embraces subjectivism as you do. Eventually, he/she becomes entangled in a prong #2 context. It is then that I would probe the extent to which subjectivism might be construed as more or less relevant to the manner in which I react: entangled as I am in my dilemma. My frame of mind here almost always revolves around the question “how ought one to live?” when the choices being made by particular inidviduals come into conflict.

My own interest here would be more in regard to the distinctions that can be made between subjective experiences that are more or less rooted objectively in a particular reality and our reactions to them which may well not be. For example, the experience of drinking a glass of wine overlaps considerably for all of us. As opposed to the experience of, say, being employed to pick the grapes to make the wine. Far fewer of us ever had that experience. But it is in this regard that prong #2 contexts emerge. And that revolves around certain political and economic prejudices regarding the wages being paid and the conditions of employment and all of the contention that swirls around immigration issues.

How then would being or not being a subjectivst come into play here?

Whether we move from the general to the specific or the specific to the general there still seems to be a crucial distinction to be made between probing the reality of abortion as a medical procedure and probing it as a moral quandary. Whether in the abstract or pertaining to an actual real time abortion.

“Consciousness” either makes a smooth transition from one to the other, or mind itself is matter of a whole different sort. That’s what I focus on. The difference between mind as it relates to that which we can all be in agreement about and minds that come into conflict when the parts revolving around either/ore become entangled in the parts revolving around is/ought.

It may be that a language is not available that will allow us to finally close the gap when we have disagreements regarding something as fundamental as the nature of mind itself.

As for the body in war, there are any number of things that medical science can predict/conclude pertaining to particular contexts. Again, where I reconfigure the beam is in the direction of that which is said to constitute a “just war”. Ought America to have invaded Iraq? The trauma inflicted on hundreds of thousands of bodies as a result of that choice is not much in dispute. You either lose your legs to an IED or you don’t.

More or less.

You came into conflict with others before you became a subjectivist.
You come into conflict with others after you became a subjectivist.

So, for all practical purposes, what’s the difference?

Here it would seem to come down to one’s understanding of the word “metaphysics”.

In the dictionary:

Philosophy.

  1. concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
  2. concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.

In other words, with things that some speak of as “ontological” or “teleological”. To wit: understanding conflicting human behaviors in the context of grasping the very nature of Reality or Existence itself.

And given that none of us really grasp this [aside from what I construe to be the intellectual/scholastic quacks like James S. Saint who more or less claim to] we are left to fend for ourselves when in fact our behaviors do come into conflict over value judgments.

Yes, that’s how it works “in reality”. It is what men and women believe to be true that motivates their behaviors. And it is their behaviors that have consequence. And in fact the consequences are real whether what those who precipitated them believe is true or not.

There are many who genuinely believe in Trump’s political agenda. There are many who genuinely believe in Clinton’s. And depending on who is elected there may well be any number of dramatic consequences. But: the consequences that some embrace others will loathe.

And they will do so without a thought being given to the dilemma that impales me.

But pertaining to particular matters there are facts applicable to all of us. And though some [as subjects] may not accept them it doesn’t make the facts go away. And since there are facts there is a greater likelihood of persuading the skeptics of their existence.

With value judgments however there are merely subjective interpretations of what the facts mean vis a vis the choices we make. There do not appear to be choices able to be disclosed as in fact the obligation of all reasonal/virtuous men and women to pursue.

With Christianity [and other such denominations], God can be captured in a world of words. A scripture is concocted and God becomes the embodiment of it. And then there is the part about before and after the grave.

But how do we do the same with “the universe”? The only way that I can grapple with it is to imagine a wholly determined world in sync with the immutable laws of matter.

But then we’re still stuck there with this:

  • why something and not nothing at all
  • why this something and not some other something

And does the “the universe” really have anything substantive to say about our moral and political agendas?

For cosmologists there is no equivalent of the 10 Commandments or of Heaven and Hell. There would seem to be just the brute facticity of it all in what may well be an essentially absurd and meaningless existence.

It’s cryptic to me because I am not able [palpably] to grasp it relating to that which is of interest to me philosophically. And what might tempt me to read the book is something in it that persuades me otherwise.

Yes, and then you eat the apple and are “completely exposed” to that. But the apple was poisoned by someone who wanted you dead and you are “completely exposed” to that. The contexts here are virtually infinite. And who gets to say what it means to be “completely exposed” to something in which value judgments do come to collide. Or in probing what it means to have an identity.

How are we “completely exposed” in the voting booth when choosing between Trump and Clinton?

In other words, when do we reach the point where that cannot actually be pinned down with any precision? Where it becomes almost entirely a subjective frame of mind that “here and now” you find applicable to one and only one conscious “I”?

That’s like saying logic is groundless because it can only be as it ever could have been. I mean, it’s true: if you say “All volkors are skybets, this is a volkor, therefore it is a skybet.” then it appears, in the moment of thinking that, that it could not be any other way. That doesn’t mean it’s groundless, it means it’s true. The only thing that determinism entails is the possibility in principle that our reasoning might be the ramblings of madness–I just don’t think that’s how it is in practice.

It’s worse with physical determinism because there you’re not dealing with mental subjective experience, but contingent facts of the world. ← Here you get no reasoning, no justification, for why things are as they are. And so it becomes conceivable that there is no reasoning, that’s it’s all some absurd flux of chaos–though still deterministic (<-- that’s possible).

It is largely embodied in dasein. But since we’re talking about “angst” in particular, there is an additional dimension to this discussion. It is true that some of us feel more angst over prong #2 than others, and it is true that this strongly indicates our embodiment in dasein, but it also strongly indicates a problem–a dilemma you might say–and so while I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion with my peers here at ILP, trying to figure out the puzzle of whether we should feel angst or not, I also see people in angst. My concern over whether or not you (or I) ought to feel angst is eclipsed by an impulse, when I see angst in others, to try (in whatever meager way I can) to suggest to them ways out of their angst.

It depends on the character of the particular prong #2 situation.

Going back to my example of drug use, for instance, let’s say I was caught by the cops on the street corner for smoking marijuana (not that I’d ever do that). The last thing I’d do is try to reason my subjectivism about consciousness and being to them. What I’d actually do would probably be to try to be as polite and conciliatory as possible, maybe researching ways to get off with the least severe conviction legally allowed–IOW, I’d do what most everybody else would probably do.

On the other hand, if I were in a conflict with an anti-drug group over the internet, I might bring my subjectivism into use. But here’s the catch–and this is something I’ve been trying to convey but without much success–it wouldn’t be just by the traditional objectivist approach (remember that terms means: simply asserting your reasons for believing in your “ism” in the hopes of convincing the other ← There’s a definition for you). It would be this: my subjectivism has taught me to be far more mindful of other people’s mental states than it has the “objective truth” as my “ism” would have it. It focuses me on other people’s psychology. With that in the background of my subjectivist point of view, I more readily attempt to apply the principles of psychology to deal with others in prong #2 contexts. ← Note that this is different from simply explaining my subjectivism to others in a prong #2 context. I offered the approach of “reverse psychology” earlier as an example (although that’s kind of a mickey mouse example in my opinion). Reverse psychology can work as an approach to dealing with people in a prong #2 context, but it obviously is not the “traditional objectivist approach” because it is certainly not just an attempt to explain what you actually believe in the hopes of convincing the other.

I don’t know if that’s what you’re looking for–I’m guessing it seems too “manipulative” and you’d prefer an approach that involves just “being honest” with others about what you think–even if that means risking disagreement–but an approach that leaves others powerless to contest with your impeccable reasoning. ← Is that what you’re looking for?

It wouldn’t be easy–that’s for sure–but as a subjectivist, my approach would be to, at first, try to keep the peace as much as possible, and for however long I can do that, try to gain experiences (which might just be limited to understanding different points of view) that help me form a rapport with the other person. This might result in me submitting to the other person’s point of view (but at least I would be somewhat, kind of, in agreement with them at that point) but it can also supply me with plenty of cognitive/mental material with which to try to persuade (in an amicable, diplomatic manner) the other towards my point of view, or at least a peaceful settlement. The point is: with more understanding of how the world looks from the other person’s perspective, the more easily one can deal with that person.

Would it be fair to paraphrase this as the question of monism vs. dualism?

I know. That’s my point. What happens to the body is not affected (so we would think) by that body’s “ism” (the person’s residing in it). You have to understand that when you ask me how my subjectivism pans out in a prong #2 situation, this sounds exactly the same to me: if I were in a situation where an angry mob of anti-drug protesters decided to gang up on me and threaten my life, I would just run and hide. And I don’t think it matters what “ism” is in question here. You could talk about an angry mob of anti-abortionists ganging up on an abortion rights activist, or an angry mob of marxists ganging up on a capitalist, or an angry mob of atheists ganging up on a theists–probably, the reactions would be the same: run and hide–just like the reaction of the body to bullets would be the same regardless of the “ism” held by that body.

Well, let’s be clear at the start that the difference wouldn’t be seen in the midst of the conflict. If I felt significantly threatened, I think I would just run and hide.

But let’s say after the mob went home and I came out of my hiding place, I went home and contemplated what just happened to me. Let’s say I think about it in term of my theory of consciousness.

I would say this: I have certain ideas about my rights to drug use (again, really, just alternate mental states, but whatever). The mob of anti-drug advocates also have ideas about my rights to drug use–they differ–I feel one has the right to alter one’s consciousness for the sake of mental exploration, they do not. Now in the thick of conflict, what’s happening, in terms of my theory of consciousness, is that their thoughts about drug use, along with their attitudes, feelings, past experience, etc., is culminating in the entailment of extraneous non-human experiences corresponding to the actions of the body–some of which manifest as speech, some of which manifest as bodily action (some of those might involve violence and even killing)–these “offenses” (let’s just call them that) are material/sensory representations of those extraneous experiences that I mentioned are entailed buy their thoughts, attitudes, feelings, past experiences, etc… In other words, their bodies–whatever it is they do as a means to conflict with me (verbally, physically, whatever their bodies do) can be mapped onto subjective, qualitative, first-person experience just as much as their brain activity can. But I call the former “non-human” because it corresponds to bodily movements, not brain movements, and so even though I believe some kind of subjective experience is still being had by their bodies, it is not had by their brains specifically–what this means, in the end, is that it is experienced unconsciously (the difference between conscious experience and unconscious experience is a whole other can of worms in my philosophy–maybe we’ll get to it later–suffice it to say, only specific parts of our brains have conscious subjective experiences).

In any case, those physical bodily actions give way to other physical effects–violence, say with the body’s finger pulling triggers on guns, give way to bullets being fired and wounding other bodies–words, as another example, result is sound waves being emitted through the air and being detected by the ears of other bodies; all this physical activity continues to correspond to some kind of subjective experience–at this point, however, the quality of that experience is anything but human–we are not talking about brain activity anymore, but non-human physical events–but my theory says that there continues to be subjective experience nonetheless–it’s just that the quality of that experience is unimaginable to us because our brains don’t have the capacity to mimic the experience.

But in the end, those physical actions do end up impact our brains. Being shot by a bullet hurts–hearing offensive words from others “hurts” (our feelings). This is because all this physical activity–from the point of ideas in their (the mob’s) head to the point of the physical effects of their actions impacting ideas and feelings in our heads–is one continuous seamless stream of subjective experience. It’s just that at a certain point in the process (when their ideas lead to actions), these subjective experiences cease to be conscious (and imaginable), and when they become conscious and imaginable again (in virtue of impacting another’s brain), they are conscious and imaginable to a different mind.

^ That’s how I would explain the dynamics that go on in prong #2 contexts in terms of my theory of consciousness–I know it’s a lot to chew in a few short paragraphs, but again I stress, I wrote a whole book on this so as to expand all that in palatable bites.

And I still don’t think this really helps you. Though you are asking for how others would interpret the nature and dynamics of prong #2 conflicts in terms of their “ism”, I think you are expecting that some may be useful to you and some may not be. I’m afraid mine probably is not helpful.

So you mean that metaphysics has (so far) not helped us to resolve the issues of prong #2?

But do you consider yourself to be a metaphysicist? At least of morality? Objectivity? Nihilism?

Well, it impales everyone, of course, but you seem to be one of the few who understand what’s impaling them. Many, today on Nov. 11, 2016, will feel that Trump impales them (figuratively speaking), but you at least know that this is just a specific instance of the more general instrument of impalement, which we are calling in this thread “prong #2” (and for some, extending as far as prong #1).

right, which is why with subjective interpretations, we can do whatever the hell we want with them.

Yes, I’m very careful in my identification of universal consciousness (as we can call it) with God–it’s definitely not the Abrahamic God, which brings with it a whole mythology of 10 Commandments and Heaven and Hell. It’s the universe as atheists and scientist depict it–except with conscious/subjective experience.

I will contest, however, the interpretation of it all being a meaningless existence. Conscious/subjective experience, as far as I’m concerned, is rooted in meaning–it may be absurd meaning, conflicting meaning, incomprehensible meaning, but there is meaning in everything nonetheless (as far as I’m concerned).

(It’s funny, I recall a conversation with Arcturus Descending in which I tried to point out how indistinguishable a meaningless universe would be from a universe chock full of meaning that was incomprehensible.)

And that’s fine. I’m just saying the options there for you if you want (and I’ll still give it to you for free of you want). And if you’re not interested, and I’m not able to persuade you, we might consider moving onto something else.

Well, that might sometimes happen. Someone who suffers from delusions or hallucinations (someone like Random Factor) might be forced into the position of coming to grips with the fact that he is the only one who sees the world as he does, but given the fact that his delusions or hallucinations are persistent, he would have no choice, short of forcing upon himself with extraordinary mental effort an extreme skepticism towards his own visceral experiences, but to arrive at a point of view according to which he is the only one who sees these things.

As a relativist, this is an option to me. It’s not one I’d prefer to take, but you could do it.

I think the key in these scenarios is to drop the (objectivist) assumption that reality has to be a constant–it is a changing, and sometimes paradoxical, flux. And as far as human consciousness is concerned–being evolved to perceive a single constant reality–it has no choice but to undergo reality transitions when it experiences this paradoxical flux. We are not built to process reality as a paradoxical contradictory flux, and so we must, on occasion, go through changes in our perceptions and beliefs, our values and our outlooks on life–I call these “reality transitions” but we don’t experience them as reality transitions–we just call them “changing our minds”.

From my frame of mind it is the fundamental question for all philosophers, scientists and theologians: do we have any capacity to freely choose what we think and feel and do?

If all that they do [that we do] is only as it ever could have been, what on earth can that possibly mean?

For example: for all practical purposes.

So, you tell me: were you fated by the immutable laws of matter to think this, to post this here — or is there an aspect of human consciouness able to tweak these laws and to allow for some measure [however that might be understood] of “autonomy”?

Okay, there are the signifiers – words, signs – and there are the things so signified. But if this relationship is autonomic how is that really any different [metaphysically or otherwise] from the mechanical relationship between the components of, say, an automobile engine?

We don’t command the heart to beat or the liver to function. Is the brain itself just one more organ in that regard?

And how would we determine this independently – independently of – the laws of matter?

I’ll be the first to admit though that the manner in which I think about this might be flawed. But then what does it really mean to articulate flawed thinking in a world that is wholly determined? What [realistically] does it mean to speak of something as inevitably flawed?

Me, I can’t [realistically] even imagine how a human mind can possibly wrap itself around this. Why? Because it is the mind that is trying to discover the nature of itself.

Yes, this makes sense to me. Well, to the extent that I understand what you mean. There is angst as a philosophical problem and there is the actual existential angst embodied in someone that you care about. Sure, for all practical purposes, you do what you can. But [for me] the part about dasein and conflicting goods [embedded in my dilemma] is no less debilitating if, for example, the angst my friend is feeling revolves around a particular existential context like an unwanted pregnancy.

The irony here being that it was my experience with Mary and John that triggered the angst that I feel now with regard to dasein and conflicting value judgments. Always [for me] it goes back to prong #2.

In other words…

But [for me] how the character of any particular context is construed is embodied in a subjective point of view embedded in dasein and conflicting goods. At least in situations where the manner in which two individuals characterize it come into conflict.

But what is of interest to me is exploring why, if it is the last thing that you would do, why/how it has any substantial/substantive relevance at all. And what of those who argue that smoking marijuana is something that should not be illegal in the first place. That’s the part where almost all of the conversations revolve. And that’s the part where the components of my own philosophy [moral nihilism, ironism] pertain.

Or so it seems to me.

I really do appreciate your attempts to communicate this to me. But try as I might I am still unable to grasp how this might be applicable to the parts of philosophy that most interest me. Though, admittedly, that may be more reflective of my own failure to comprehend what you have in fact succeeded in communicating to others. I am always intrigued more by the relationship/gap between that which we either can or cannot be honest about. Between the more or less rock-solid objective world of either/or and the far more subjective, interpersonal speculations that [to me] are built right into the world of is/ought.

Yes, the parts that are intertwined in dasein and conflicting goods. And it is the objectivists here – turd and uccisore and fixed cross leap to mind – who basically argue that this is not the case at all. They insist that if you think like they do about right and wrong then you are able to transcend this and discover/invent the most rational and virtuous narrative of all: their own.

But: the closer they come to my own frame of mind the more they recognize it as a threat. So they put me on ignore, or refuse to discuss it or leave the forum altogether in order to avoid it. They simply have too much to lose if my point of view is seen by them to be more reasonable than their own. And I know exactly what this entails because I exhibited the same fierce resistance to nihilism myself when my own objectivist frame of mind was threatened.

Yes, that’s the part in my narrative that revolves around choosing democracy and the rule of law over might makes right and right makes might. The part that revolves around moderation, negotiation and compromise.

But unlike others who embrace this in “the best of all possible worlds” I am still plagued by this:

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

And it is this that others [even the democracy advocates] are unable to grasp in the manner in which I do. It is just too pessimistic – even catastrophic – to think like this about your own value judgments.

Whereas your own frame of mind [here and now] seems more in sync with this:

This to me however revolves around attaining and than sustaining a political consensus. And I recognize it in turn as part and parcel of that “best of all possible worlds.” But [for me] there it is: that gnawing dilemma.

We perceive the world around us in a particular way embedded in a particular historical and cultural context. And from within the parameters of a particular set of personal experiences. How then are the individual variables out in this particular world – thousands upon thousands of them that ever evolve over time and across space – anchored to what any particular philosopher or a scientist or theologian calls “reality”. Trying to untangle deduction from induction would seem to be as problematic [to me] as trying to untangle nature from nurture in exploring and explaining the behaviors that we choose. For me, there are no “smooth transitions” that a particular “consciousness” can make here. There are only existential leaps of faith to one point of view [here and now] rather than another. It’s less a question of “monism” or “dualism” [for me] than of being overwhelmed by any attempts to make distinctions of this sort at all.

And in choosing objectivism as The Answer this allows the objectivists to make all of that go away. It comforts and consoles them psychologically to imagine that there is an answer. And, as luck would have it, it’s their answer!

It’s like the Man In Black character played by Ed Harris in Westworld. He is ever intent at getting to the bottom of this one particular reality. If he can figure out what is really going on there he will finally have solved…

…solved what exactly?

Will he have finally discovered the particular “ism” that motivated Robert Ford to create this world? And suppose he does? How would that not too be embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Yes, that makes sense. But I always come back to the extent which it is even possible to achieve a level of consciousness that makes my dilemma go away. For the moral and political objectivist, the whole point here [if largely subconsciously] is to avoid my dilemma at all cost. Subjunctively, they need to believe less that they are right than that right and wrong itself exists. That’s the part where I become particularly threatening.

Unless of course I’m wrong. And though many mock me for tacking that onto particular post of mine, they fail to grasp the extent to which that is in fact part and parcel of the dilemma that “I” am entangled here pertaining to the world of is/ought. The prong #2 world.

Actually, I am utterly perplexed regarding how the conscious human mind can grapple with this at all.

It would seem that the only way to comprehend it is to conclude that we interact in a wholly determined world where even explanations themselves are only as they ever could have been.

Again, that way “metaphysics” would seem to revolve more around 1] why something and not nothing and 2] why this something and not another something instead.

But what on earth does that/can that/will that ever mean?!!

To, for example, mere mortals.

I consider myself to be an infinitesimally tiny speck in an infinitesimally immense universe that may well be but an infinitesimally tiny speck in the multiverse.

In other words, to even ask such questions seems, well, ultimately senseless?

But we are hard-wired to anyway.

My point is that the objectivists here have figured out a way to trick themselves into believing that my dilemma is something that I have tricked myself into believing in order to avoid admitting that their own support for Trump or Clinton reflects the obligation of all rational and virtuous men and women.

On your own thread above we clearly see this objectivist frame of mind in action. And [I speculate] it is precisely the fact that I threaten it that uccisore and his ilk avoid at all cost the sort of discussion the we are having here.

Again, they have so much to lose if they abandon their own particular ideological font. “I” is the last thing they wish to confront.
At best they can argue [as you point out] that not all subjective realities are equal. Yes, “reality transitions” are possible because there is a collection of objective facts that can be attached to any number of conflicting political prejudices.

From my perspective however this becomes the “heart of the matter” only to the extent that “in your head” you have come to believe that it is. But there does not appear to be a way in which you are able to demonstrate that other “consciousnesses” ought to think that way too. For me this is more of what I call an “intellectual contraption” in which the analysis is true only to the extent that tautologically the premises/assumptions are true.

But how to actually show that they are? How does one get past “theory” here?

And it would seem the most important factor here is the extent to which a “universal consciousness” is able to be anchored to an actual teleology rather then to the brute facticity of an essentially absurd and meaningless world.

Again though: Whatever that means.

In other words, what, “for all practical purposes” or “theoretically”, does it mean to speak of “the experience of the universe as a whole”. Other than the way in which any one particular individual fits all the pieces of a “reality” together “in his head”. Similarly pertaining to the speculations that revolve around “the mind of God”.

Again, I see your analysis here as [psychologically] an attempt to come up with something [anything] that acts as a foundation onto which you can anchor “I”.

But I don’t mean this as a criticism. Why? Because in my own way I am doing the same thing. I just come to different conclusions here and now.

Which [as always] takes me back to this:

Then it all comes down to being or not being entangled in my dilemma. And in that respect all I can do is to explore the subjective narratives of those who argue that they are not entangled in it. While at the same time being entangled in a frame of mind that [here and now] cannot even imagine how [in a world sans God as I understand it] one cannot be.

I really don’t understand how one cannot be a moral nihilist. But I also understand that far, far more aren’t than are. So, one of the possibilities of course is that my thinking is flawed.

I don’t argue that human interaction is meaningless, only that there does not appear to be an essential, objective meaning that intertwines 1] before I was born 2] my conscious existence now and 3] after I die into a single teleological truth.

But this would seem to be the case only in a context in which you die and the rest is oblivion. If that is not the case [and this is clearly assumed by millions] then the Whole Truth to you is revealed in “paradise”.

That is why in my view objectivists of uccisore’s ilk are intent on linking the part about before we die to the part about after. They assume that only if one thinks and feels and behaves as they do is there a chance to pass muster on Judgment Day.

Thus for folks of his ilk, Trump’s political agenda is the more “Christian” of the two. And then if you point out that Donald Trump’s actual life could not possibly be further removed from the life of Jesus Christ, he will come up with a rationalization to “prove” that you are wrong.

I don’t know about freedom (that’s a whole other ball of wax and is highly dependent on how you define “freedom”), but I would just point out that even if we live in a deterministic universe, that doesn’t mean our thoughts and our positions on things is inescapably irrational or meaningless (as in, we would think that way anyway, even if it was irrational and meaningless)–in fact, I would argue quite the opposite: that we come to the conclusions we do because of the rationality we see in them–and this is why it could not be any other way.

Though I’m not saying we are infallible logic-chopping robots–just that the physical forces that determine the things our brains do is mirrored, in the subjective experience, by a rationality that really does inhere in our thought processes. ← This isn’t always formal logic per se (as the professional logician would have it) but it is a sense that we are being rational when we think through our thoughts, which is actually there in our thoughts and is the reason why we are drawn to the conclusions we are drawn to.

In other words, the apparent rationality of our thoughts is why our brains are determined to act as they do–it is why things can’t be any other way.

Again, this isn’t really a matter of “freedom” for me, or the lack thereof–I’m not really settled on the matter of whether we are truly free or not, but that doesn’t matter–my theory is certainly compatible with a strictly deterministic picture of reality: so let’s assume full determinism. In that case, yes I was fated by the immutable laws of matter (or mind) to think and post everything I am saying in this thread. But again, that (to me) doesn’t make any of it meaningless or irrational–on the contrary, to me it means that my reasons and my rationalizations and such are the reason why I was lead, immutably, to write these things down on this forum. In other words, the deterministic course of events finds its roots in subjective experience, and when found there, it turns out that the necessity which drives it all is “completely exposed”–you see not only that it is necessary, but why it is necessary (which is what makes it necessary).

Yes, that’s the trap we fall into when we attempt to examine ourselves from the third-person point of view. We attempt to imagine a “self” or a “mind” or a “consciousness” as though it were there before us, ready to be studied, to be examined–scientifically, objectively–but from the first-person point of view, we examine ourselves subjectively–what that means is that we simply note what we’re experiencing, we note what it feels like to be in situation X–for example, what it feels like to taste a pineapple or to listen to a particular song or what it’s like to be threatened by an angry mob. Noting these things to one’s self is a simple task. We simply have the experience and form a thought about how that experience feels–we don’t have to turn around and look at ourselves as if to observe the experience from the third-person point of view–we simply have to have the experience and allow it to take its course (which involved, among other things, allowing it to settle into thoughts, memories, insights, etc.–all things which allow us to “understand” what we’re experiencing).

In that exercise, we amass a wealth of information on what the mind (or consciousness) consists of–what subjective experience consists of–for all subjective experience amounts to is just what things feel like to us–and once we’ve got that, we have everything we need. There is no need to “step outside” the experience and see it from the third-person point of view because, as far as I’m concerned, there isn’t such a thing–subjective experience just exists in a first-person mode of being.

Ironically, the logical conclusion to be drawn from this is: subjective experience doesn’t feel mental at all. When I describe what a car looks like, for example–even though I’m describing my visual sensory experience–the rendition I’m forced to deliver is that of a car in the outer world–featuring properties belonging to the car itself–in other words, when subjective experience is laid bare–completely exposes, as it were–what you get is just the state of reality itself–hence my theory that reality and subjective experience are one and the same (essentially: idealism 101).

So does this mean when you sympathize with others over their angst, like you do with Mary and John, you also question (philosophically) whether, as a rational human being, you ought to sympathize? Perhaps as a way of finding reason to be detached? Detachment, if taken to extremes, might be a way out of the prong #2 dilemma. ← It’s the whole reason Buddhist monks live in monasteries.

I’m not sure I follow. Are saying that the character of the particular prong #2 situation is dependent on how the one entering into it construes that character? Well, sure! Of course! But we’re talking about me, aren’t we? What would I do, as a subjectivist, entering into a particular prong #2 situation? I can just tell you how I construe it. I can even give you some background experiences if you like. And I did give you two example situations: 1) being pulled over by the cops for smoking dope, and 2) getting into a heated discussion with an anti-drug group on the internet. ← My reactions, as a subjectivist, in these two situations would be very different indeed, and only in situation #2 might I bring up my theory of consciousness. The fact that how I react in these two situation, and how I construe them coming into them, is rooted in dasein seems, I would think, irrelevant.

But I don’t think everything we believe necessarily serves some substantial purpose towards solving prong #2 dilemmas–at least not directly. Your whole approach will, when people are cooperative, lead you to other people’s beliefs and values (objectivists or otherwise) but you shouldn’t expect that what you find there will be obviously useful towards resolving prong #2 dilemmas. Most of the time, what you’ll find is just the answers to your inquiries–you probe, they deliver; it’s not fair to follow that up with: but how is that relevant to prong #2? They are merely answering your questions.

Hmm… I find it interest how you say that we cannot be honest about the subjective world of is/ought. But in any case, I’m beginning to think that the approach I’m proposing to dealing with prong #2 situations (not solving, but dealing with)–i.e. the alternative to the “traditional objectivist approach”–is not useful to you if you say that it is not “applicable to the parts of philosophy that most interest” you. What I’m trying to propose is an approach (to dealing with prong #2 situations), which is based on a philosophy, but is not philosophy itself (although you could make it into philosophy quite easily, but not necessarily the area of philosophy you’re interested in).

In a manner of speaking, what I’ve been trying to convey is that my own philosophy–subjectivism–has lead me to a certain psychology–a certain mode of conducting myself in life and the world that comes with a slightly different view on human psychology, including myself–and this has evolved into a practice–one that is applicable to prong #2. The problem is–it only starts with philosophy (my subjectivism), but beyond that, to really reap the benefits of it, you have to put it into practice… thus the best approach to tackling prong #2 situations (the one that works for me, at least) is not to be found merely on the level of philosophy.

You might think of it in the same vein as any philosophy might lead to a certain practice–like Pythagoreanism leading to mathematics, or Francis Bacon and Newton leading to science, or St. Augustine leading to Christianity–only mine leads one to practice eximining one’s own mind and applying the principles he learns from that to others.

Yes, I do think they confound the two–the ability to attain ultimate objective truth and that their personal beliefs are the truth.

I’m sure the animosity that typically arises in heated discussions has a lot to do with it as well. Disagreements between points of view often begin because you don’t want to just abandon our own points of view at the drop of a hat for that being proposed by another. We arrive at our points of view as a matter of adaptation (to our environment, to our social network, to our lifestyles, etc.), so when another comes along and attempts to drive it out to make room in our minds for their own, our brains detect this as a threat–like a virus being downloaded onto a computer, even if that virus was a functional program for the computer from which it came. The initial reaction is to disagree, and when the disagreement continuously fails, aggression comes next. ← At this point, however, the threat becomes more the person than the point of view. And when aggression fails, violence and war, and then the threat is more about death and bodily harm–simply ignoring the argument or walking away notwithstanding.

Yes, it isn’t the ideal solution, just the “best” we can come up with (at least, insofar as the goal is to avoid violence and war, as opposed to finding the objective moral truth). Even in the best of all possible worlds, this approach won’t always make everyone happy–for example, when fighting over scarce resources: we can negotiate and decide that we each get half the resources–but those resources are still scarce, and they will eventually run out–which means we are still worse off than we would be in a scenario in which either of us fought the other and won.

You’re right, it’s probably a mix of both for all of us (but I doubt each one of us is exactly midway between the two extremes). Nevertheless, as algorithms, they are like night and day, and with algorithms, it makes no sense to talk about one that is “midway” between two alternatives. They can be both used at the same time, and I believe the brain does this, but they are most likely determined by two different neural sub-systems in the brain; what this means is that, like with any neural sub-system in the brain, one will usually be used or will be more efficient than others. I had the impression earlier in this thread that you relied on getting concrete examples from others in order to understand the main gist of their point of view, which would indicate an inductive way of thinking; I just thought maybe you were more of an inductive thinker than a deductive one (though, like with most people, you probably use a mix of both).

Will have to watch that movie.

Right. It would be nice to be able to say: I know I’m right.

Insofar as we objectify all such metaphysical explanations (i.e. think of it in 3rd person), it will always be rendered, in the final analysis, as contingent, not necessarily. Objectified explanations can easily serve to explain why some phenomenon is necessary, but not without introducing an infinite regress: why is that explanation necessary? It’s like passing on the mystery of a phenomenon that at first appears to be contingent–like why do rocks exist–onto an explanation that at least functions to explain the original phenomenon as necessary but, in turn, needs another explanation to account for it–like the atomic structure of the rock, which would entail the necessity of the rock’s existence along with all its particular properties, itself requiring an explanation: why do atoms exist? Why do sub-atomic particles exist?

This is an essential character of 3rd person accounts, of objectification–objects are contingent, not necessary–so long as phenomena are explained in terms of smaller, more fundamental phenomena (smaller, more fundamental objects), the contingency is only pushed further down the line.

This is why I say that necessity is to be found in subjectivity–it’s the only reason the ancient Greeks discovered the utility of logic in thought–necessity is to be found in mind, not matter–which is why I believe that consciousness is the basis for everything.

Right, and in my books, “objective facts” are simply ideas that tend to pull one in a particular direction, very rarely allowing one to return. For example, if you believe the world is flat, and then someone shows you the objective facts that prove to you the world is round, it’s very hard to go back.

Yes, we all are.

It may not be a matter of flawed thinking so much as not understanding certain other perspectives according to which there can be a morality. It’s like the glass is half-full/half-empty distinction–it’s not like one is right and the other is wrong (in fact they’re both right)–except where the two perspectives are far more complex, therefore meaning that making the switch from one to the other is far more difficult if you’re used to one and have relatively little experience with the other.

Yep, and this is what I contest. I say it is all meaningful (given my beliefs of universal consciousness and principle #3 about meaning)–before, during, and after your short existence on this Earth.

Does he have to? It wouldn’t surprise me, but it is a sign of feeling threatened when, in philosophical debates, one opts to object with one’s contender over things that they don’t need to. For example, I know many Christians who don’t feel it is our place to even try to be more Christ-like. They feel that this is precisely what the ransom was for: as humans, we are imperfect, we faulter, and sin–it is within our nature as finite beings–so while there is a moral obligation on each of our shoulders to try to do some good in this world, it is limited to whatever extent is reasonable for human beings, and the rest can be “compensated” by the ransom–that is, by asking for forgiveness from Christ. But if you challenge certain people on the point that one, or someone they look up to, is not acting very Christ-like, and they feel threatened by this challenge, they will go to such lengths to try and prove that they or the one they look up to is acting Christ-like.

Now, I don’t know if this is Ucci, or any of the other objectivists on this board, but there is certainly the type (I knew one personally in university).

Admittedly, in a determined universe, I have never really been able to wrap my head around “compatibilism”. Assuming of course I am correctly understanding what it means.

I always come back to this: that the manner in which I understand it now is nothing other than the only manner in which I ever could have understood it.

In other words, given the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of determinism.

Same with freedom. In a wholly determined universe, how would the definition/meaning that one gives to it be anything other than the only definition/meaning that one ever could have given to it? I just get “stuck” here all the time.

To speak of “rationality” here seems, well, problematic. It all comes back to the mystery of mind. To mindful matter.

Bottom line: We will all go to the grave thinking one way or another about it. But it does not appear possible to demonstrate that how we think about it now is how all rational men and women are obligated to think about it. And if death does equal oblivion the extent to which any particular human rendition of “reality” equals rationality seems equally moot.

In other words, while some may take a measure of psychological comfort in believing that…

…it does almost nothing to comfort me. And if I do believe that “in my head” “here and now” my reaction is only as it ever could have been, well, for all practical purposes, what does that actually mean?

And that [of course] is before we get to the second prong. In a world of conflicting goods embodied subjectively in dasein, what does it mean to speak of “rationality” here?

From my frame of mind, it all comes down to matter interacting – interacting necessarily – in the only possible manner in which it can interact with other matter given the laws of matter. The matter in the mind and the matter in the engine are just different configurations of matter itself. That’s always the part I can’t get beyond.

Mind is matter able to invent the matter we call an “engine” but that does not make it any less matter in sync with that which matter must be: ever in accordance with it’s own laws.

Therefore: who/what made the matter we call “mind”. And for any possible reason and/or purpose?

You speculate that…

Well, this sounds a lot [to me] like the ghost in the machine. And how on earth would we then translate that into a context in which one mind argues for the “natural right” of the unborn to live while another mind argues for the “political right” of women to kill it?

My visceral reaction: So what? All of this is no less intertwined in the fact that the brain is matter and that matter obeys a set of laws. The mystery then shifts to the origin of these laws. God, for example?

And why this set of laws and not another? Or, given the gap between what science knows now and all that would need to be known – re QM, dark matter, dark energy, time and space, before the Big Bang etc – how close are any of us “here and now” to grasping all this?

It means that I can well imagine others grasping the same situation and reacting very differently. The objectivists on the other hand will try to tell you that there are reactions here that are more or less reasonable, more or less virtuous. And yet [of course] this is all measured using their own definitions and meanings. Their own “analysis”. Their own assumptions and premises.

I am “detached” only in the sense that I am not able to confidantly attach my sympathies here. I recognize the extent to which my reaction is largely an existential contraption. And it is this reaction itself that so disturbs the objectivists. It begins to dawn on them that this might well be applicable to them too.

And then, as with me, their own “I” here begins to crumble.

Then we clearly have a “failure to communicate”. There are the objective facts that can be ascertained regarding both contexts. And then there are the subjective/subjunctive reactions to the facts that precipitate conflicting moral/political agendas. Which precipitate behaviors that in turn come into conflict that precipitate actual consequences.

If philosophers were able to concoct an “analysis/argument” enabling both parties to concur on the optimal reaction, one party may still react to the contrary, but at least it could be demonstrated/shown that this reaction was [from the perspective of rational human beings] the wrong one. Or at least not the optimal one.

My point though is still the same here:

Whether you do agree with them or not is [from my point of view] no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein. Both sides make reasonable arguments: conflicting goods rooted in a conflicting set of premises.

And there does not appear to be an argument available that would enable us to grasp the “right answer”. And the extent to which you [and others] don’t think like this is the extent to which, unlike me, you [and others] are not entangled in this:

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

Well, that’s my point: suggesting the things philosophers think that may well be [for all practical purposes] impotent regarding the world of conflicting value judgments.

My reaction here is always the same though: to what extent are the answers that you give able to be demonstrated as applicable to all rational men and women; or, instead, reflect only that which you claim to know or claim believe “in your head”.

That’s not really what I am arguing. Objectivists on both sides of the abortion wars are being honest when they argue for their own political prejudice. But they refuse to accept that their narrative/agenda is just a subjective/subjunctive prejudice rooted in dasein and conflicting goods. So my point revolves around the extent to which philosophers are able to establish where the truth lies. That way one side can still honestly argue for their own narrative but we are able to demonstrate that their honesty comes to naught in that it is not in sync with what is rational.

On the contrary, that’s all it is to me: useful. It seems to reflect the necessity to establish a political concensus in any given community. But many who do embrace democracy as the best of all possible worlds still believe that in “moderating their views and in negotiating and compromising” with those on the other side, they are still on the side of God or on the side of Reason or on the side of Nature.

Here and now, however, that is not an option for me. Your “I” still seems considerably less fractured and fragmented than my “I” here.

The “I” in other words that the objectivists are most disturbed by.

Here for example: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=191970

Classic objectivism. Both react to the Trump victory as they do because each is convinced that Trump comes closest to embodying their own political prejudices.

Only they are not seen as prejudices at all are they? Their own moral and political [and religious] values are construed instead as reflective of the whole, objective truth. Trump won because in a rational world he ought to have won.

But neither one of them will discuss this with me. Turd has me on ignore, and every time I broach my own narrative with Uccisore he merely scoffs and immediately falls back on defending his own ideological/objectivist agenda.

Again, both simply have too much to lose to go about this discussion as you and I are.

Here though I interpret human interaction as revolving by and large around the arguments that folks like Marx and Engels made. Or as Bob Dylan once suggested:

Democracy don’t rule the world/You better get that through your head/This world is ruled by violence/But I guess that’s better left unsaid

That’s the part where political economy comes into play. And that’s the part that political idealists avoid like the plague. Why? Because that’s the part about as far removed from “up in the clouds” as it gets. Well, not counting those academic Marxists who insist on taking it all back up there anyway.

We don’t really know what [ultimately] the human brain is wired to figure out. We know only that it is clearly wired to connect the dots between “in my head” and “out in the world”. And [to me] the objectivist mind here is rooted more in the mystery embedded in our subjunctive reactions to the world around us. And how, in turn, that is intertwined in those parts of the brain that are considerably more “primitive”.

In other words, the part where philosophy gives way to human psychology gives way to the naked ape gives way to the very first instances of “mindful matter”.

When it comes down to the deepest mysteries embedded in Existence Itself, how could we ever really know where contingency ends and necessity begins? Think about it: The human mind down to rocks down to atoms down to quantum interactions down to…God?

Or down to whatever brought into existence Existence Itself?!

Sure, it’s fascinating to speculate about this. But [I suspect] no less futile.

All I ask of folks here like Kropotkin and Uccisore is that they probe the extent to which the components of my own argument may well be relevant to them. But they won’t go there. Though I have my own suspicions as to why.

Which just takes me back to that crucial, fundamental distinction I make between the world of either/or [the Earth is either round or flat] and the world of is/ought [how should Earthlings live their lives socially, politically, economically].

With the latter, however, what arguments/evidence can be accumulated such that one side or the other finds it “very hard to go back”?

In any event, all I can do is to explore “frames of mind” that think about these relationships – these existential relationships – differently than I do. And they will either nudge me in a different direction or they won’t.

And, as I often point out to folks like Phyllo, “for all practical purposes” they have me pinned to the mat. Why? Well, not only are they able to talk/think themselves into believing that they have chosen the right behaviors on this side of the grave, but, for some, they are able to connect the dots between virtue on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

[b][u]None[/b][/u] of that is within [b][u]my[/b][/u] reach. At least not “here and now”.

And yet from my perspective this is but one more example of a particular man able to “talk/think himself into believing” something that “in his head” comforts and consoles him. I just don’t see any actual substantive evidence that this is “in fact” true.

You “do believe in a sort of ‘afterlife’”. But, well, what exactly does that mean? It doesn’t seem to convey anything that I am really able to sink my teeth into.

For all practical purposes in other words.

That you are able to believe it though seems to be the point. Or, rather, that’s my point. But this is not a criticism. It is in fact an open admission that while you are able to believe it, I am not. Me, I’m still tangled up in my dilemma and staring down into the abyss that is oblivion.

Well, this for me comes back to the question of: can we verify the rationality/validity of our thought processes? And I think we can; it’s just that it only gets verified in the moment of thinking them (in fact, their verification is what drives the thought process). For example, a man tries to figure out how many eggs he has. He says: well, I have two eggs in my left hand and I have two more eggs in my right hand, so all together I seem to have four eggs. The only way he is able to come to that conclusion is if he sees the rationality in the mental calculation of 2 + 2 = 4, but that rationality and its verification only comes in the midst of thinking it. After thinking it, however, he is able to “black box” it, so to speak–that is, he is able to objectify the concept “2 + 2 = 4”–treat it as a “block”, as it were, and use it as a starting point in some other line of contemplation (ex. what if 2 + 2 only seems to equal 4 but really it equals 5?). He is able to contemplate this only because the objectification of these concepts (which is another way of saying: forming second-order thoughts about first-order concepts) strips them of their inherent necessity (that which we saw in the midst of working through the concept, forming it) and replaces it with contingency. Thus, it becomes conceivable that maybe, in some way one doesn’t quite understand, 2 plus 2 really does equal 5.

Yes, that’s a whole other beast.

For me, it’s more like a machine in the ghost–physical matter in (or being generated by) a mind; as for how that translates into the contexts you’re interested in: first, understand what I’m saying, and then you draw the implications of that for the context you’re interested in.

I don’t believe science will get us any closer to the ultimate answer to these things. Science will bring us closer to the ultimate physical causes of things, but in my mind, this will only ever be material representations of subjective experiences (not always ours). The answers we’re interest in lie in these subjective experiences.

Sure, but if you’re asking what I, as a subjectivist, would do in prong #2 situations, and particularly how I would use my subjectivism in such situations, there is a very clear answer. I won’t necessarily answer the question: how ought I react in such situations, but I thought your inquiries were just your method of gathering insights that may get you closer to an ultimate solution out of your dilemma. I know my answers fall far from the mark, but so long as you keep asking your questions, I will answer them honestly.

Yes, I don’t believe anything I said denies this.

Yes, but not everything has to be potent. I suppose if we were in a war torn country, or we were starving, or in the middle of some kind of crisis, doing armchair philosophy might indicate backwards priorities (even then, that wouldn’t necessarily stop you from believing in them, and if asked, why wouldn’t you say: this is what I believe?).

For example: the question of whether intelligent life exists on other planets. Some of us have an opinion on the matter–for or against. But what use does this have when we’re in the thick of prong #2 situations? If we find no use, are we obligated to push such opinions out of our minds, not think about them, repress them?

And what if I were to say I claim to believe it “in my head”? Would you follow that up with: but that doesn’t help me with my dilemma? To which I would say: It wasn’t meant to. Am I to refrain from answering your question unless I know for certain that it will show you the way out of your dilemma?

Reading through Turd’s post there, my impression was that it was highly charged with emotion–he’s very invested in what he’s saying–and when this happens, considerations of whether your arguments and points are founded on rock solid objective reasoning and truth, whether they are nothing more than existential fabrications/contraptions, fly out the window–you’re in a completely different realm of thought.

Interestingly, this ties back into what I was saying above: that sometimes we only find the reasoning and justifications for our views when we’re in the midst of the experience–clearly, Turd is in the midst of the experience, going through the motions as it were–and in that state, he sees all the reasoning and justification he needs (sometimes feels the justification in the emotion). Again, though, this isn’t formal logic–that is, as a logician would have it–not the kind of justification that would apply to all rational human beings–but just “that which holds the views together”. ← So long as you stay in that state of mind, it will feel as though you have something to dish up as far as “proving” your point of view goes.

Yeah, well, if you want to take it back to primitive brains and rudimentary ways of thinking, you get closer to objectivism; the human brain is wired to take reality–the way it is experienced–at face value; what you see is what you get. In other words, what you see is objectively real. And this carries through to what you think, what you feel, and everything else mental (this ties directly into element #2 of my definition of “experience”: that it is being).

Subjectivity, relativism, points of view, and all that is something the human brain is capable of arriving at only after reflecting on its own experiences and drawing certain conclusions–namely, the conclusion that though some thing may seem objectively real, they are really subjective or relative, and may have no reality in existence whatsoever. ← But this is not the default perspective–this is something only the sophisticated thinker, the abstract and philosophically minded, comes to grips with.

Futile towards what end? Solving prong #2 dilemmas? Of course! I’ve admitted this. Finding the ultimate foundation of existence? It’s futile in this regard if you assume that being is to be found behind the veil of perception, so to speak, like the Kantian noumenal behind the Kantian phenomenal–but this is the pivotal point around which my philosophy spins this assumption completely around. If you assume being starts with perception–and you can verily see that it does just by experiencing perception–then you have it before you even begin to contemplate it (and then contemplation steers you away from it).

Now, the being that is exposed to God–well, that’s still beyond me–but at least what I do have, the being I am exposed to, serves as a sample of that–much like whatever you may discover about ordinary tap water works as a sample of that stuff you find in the ocean.

Such arguments are a lot more scarce, I’ll say that (though I’m not sure if any such arbitrary argument is equally persuasive one way or another than any other). But then you can bring in life experiences–particularly very intense, maybe traumatic experiences–and those will be highly persuasive, perhaps enough to be very hard to go back on. But these experiences can be matched by equally intense and equally traumatic experience that push one in the opposite direction. And one who has gone through such an experience, thereby being strongly persuaded towards one view or another, is just as susceptible to an opposing and equally strong experience that turns that completely around and converts him or her to the opposite view. ← Objective facts aren’t like this (although scientific reports are often like this–sometimes mistaken, sometimes very mistaken–and philosophically speaking, it makes sense to distinguish between scientific reports and objective facts).

What does that mean? Are you contemplating the implications that your moral nihilism has for your fate in the afterlife?

I know. I’ve mainly been explaining my views in piecemeal fashion, primarily as answers to your question. This discussion isn’t being designed to help you understand my views (though there’s always my hope that it will happen eventually… to some degree in any case). If that were my aim, I’d direct you to my book. ← I did design that with the aim of (hopefully) getting the reader to understand my view. And I did offer my book a couple times (maybe three?) in this thread, but other than that, I’ve only been giving you narrow vistas to my outlook (or perhaps, far too compacted summaries of the main points that underlay my outlook).

And again, I stress I’m no less tangled in your dilemma than you are (at least the second prong of it). If you could buy into my view, then it might help you feel less angst over your dilemma, but regrettably you’ll find that it isn’t the escape that you long for.

A language game by and large. Folks merely reconfigure the definitions to be in sync with that which they could only have reconfigured them to be in the first place. As opposed to not reconfiguring them – which they could never have done anyway.

Edit: Really, how would/could we go about discussing this and not [ultimately] be perplexed? It’s like trying to grapple with why something exist and not nothing. Or in comprehending the beginning and the end of time and space.

That whatever manner in which I respond to your point here is the only manner in which I ever could have responded to it. And calling that freedom.

If we were/are only verifying [or falsifying] that which we were/are only ever going to verify or falsify, what does it mean to speak of it as rational/valid? It is what it is. Period. Our mental reactions would seem to be just along for the ride.

And, again, my main interest here is not in how many eggs someone has but in the role of volition when the discussion shifts to the morality of consuming them. Are the herbivores and the carnivores among us merely but two more sets of dominoes falling over on cue?

I mean this: what does it mean to go back and forth about this if the exchange itself is only as it ever could have been? The distinction would [of necessity] be subsumed in the “immutable laws of matter”. Unless, of course, in the staggering mystery embedded in the “multiverse” itself, the laws of matter are not immutable at all.

Or not if matter is matter is matter.

Let’s just say that this distinction is rather fuzzy given the meld between mind and matter in my own brain. It is true or false only in the sense that you and I react to it as we do. And yet in a wholly determined universe our reactions are only as they ever could have been. And once I [“I”] come back to that, I’m [“I’m”] stuck.

Here:

Which means exactly what in a world in which both our premises and our conclusions regarding this relationship are only as they ever could have been? What difference does it make what we call things if we could never have called them anything else?

For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that your conscious mind was able to arrive at this conclusion…freely. How would it still not be but a conclusion predicated on the assumptions that you make regarding what unfolds “inside your head”? It would still seem to come down to that which the neuroscientists are able to either verify or falsify. In other words, as to what is “in fact” true. And the closer they get to determinism [and that seems to be the direction they are heading] the closer we get to everything unfolding [in and/or out of our heads] only as they ever could have.

Including of course this exchange itself.

And there is still always that distinction to be made between the act of starting a fire and justifying a fire that is being condemned by others as an act of arson. For your own reasons you started it, and for their own reasons they insist that you ought not to have. Yet both sets of reasons are in sync with the laws of nature.

Matter as tautology? With respect to those things we speculate about such that we needed to invent the words “ontology” and “teleology”?

You speculate that…

Okay, but, to me, this sounds as though you are suggesting something analogous to the “soul” — to a “spiritual” realm that somehow transcends materialism. To the part where “idealism” meets “God”.

And my point here then becomes this: How am I to understand your point of view when I am convinced that your point of view is largely an intellectual contraption predicatecd on a particular set of premises that you believe “in your head”. How can you demonstrate to me that, with respect to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments, your speculations are relevant?

The irony here being that a thousand years from now, scientists will be discussing much that we think we know is true about matter today in ways that we cannot [perhaps] even imagine. But how much closer will the philosophers be then from the philosophers today are from the philosophers back in the time of Plato?

Will their conjectures then be basically more of the same: things that are believed to be true [by and large] “in their heads”. “Realities” that are still largely embedded in “worlds of words”?

Yes. Until then I always construed my reaction to conflicting goods as an objecivist: A Christian, a Unitarian, an Objectivist, a Communist, a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a Feminist. All that began to crumble.

I’d say it is one or another psychological rendition of this:

[b][i]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.
[/quote]
[/i][/b]

Here things get particularly fuzzy for me. Why? Because, with respect to how I imagine [here and now] my own reaction to these situations, I am not able to imagine your reaction clearly at all. In other words, I am not able to imagine how you would react in such a way that those on conflicted sides of any particular moral conflagration would grasp “for all practical purposes” the point you are making.

In other words, it may not be necessary for you to react, but…but some won’t take kindly to that. For the objectivists, you are either “one of us” or you are not. What I do is to attack objectivism itself. It’s just that the only alternative I have to offer is my dilemma. And even I can clearly see how this might be construed as the “cure” that is worse than the disease. I am just not able to grasp them reacting to what you might tell them. And that is because “for all practical purposes” out in the world of actual existential conflicts I am still unable to comprehend what it is that you are saying.

But, again, that might be more the embodiment of my own inability to grasp how what you are saying is actually more reasonable than my own frame of mind.

This I will always acknowledge.

Yes, I basically agree. How we react to the relationships explored in this exchange – in particular prong #2 contexts – will always be situated out in a particular world: a world that is more or less awash in actual existential crises.

Here I am making the distinction between the intellectual assumptions concocted by those who embrace Religion or Reason or Ideology or Nature, and the extent to which, with respect to an actual context in which their values came into conflict with another [precipitating behaviors that came to clash], they note the manner in which they reacted to the conflict. How would they go about describing and then demonstrating why their own values were more reasonable, more virtuous, more natural?

How would they encompass the manner in which they were not entangled in my own dilemma?

It is the “realm of thought” embodied by the objectivists. They would merely argue that since their reasoning is essentially true their emotions are just along for the ride.

What I find most interesting about folks like him is how they refuse even to probe the components of my own argument. He claims that I don’t exist. Whatever that means. The irony is that with reactions like this, I come to surmise that there is a part of him that recognizes [if only subconsciously] the threat that I pose to his juggernaut frame of mind. He is wholly invested in his own particular “world of words” and is only interested thumping those who don’t/won’t go along. He is like a species of Intellectual that you can spot a mile away. He claims to study for studies hours and hours a day; and he clearly knows a lot about many things. But once you make the attempt to bring him out of the world of either/or, it all comes down to “one of me” or “one of them”.

But it is precisely this that I am deconstructing. In other words, not whatever particular values that he subscribes to.

And that always takes me back [of course] to the question of determinism. Our brains may be considerably more sophisticated but they are no less matter. But: what exactly does that mean?

For example, I recently watched a documentary in which it was noted that an octopus can reconfigure both the color and the texture of its body to perfectly match its environment. How then does it’s brain know to do this? Now, if human beings were able to invent a technology that duplicated this, we can imagine our own brain noting a new environment and then choosing the appropriate color and texture schemes. But how does the octopus brain [or a chameleon’s] accomplish the same?

Well, perhaps [in a wholly determined universe] there is really no difference at all.

My reaction to this sort of conjecture is really no different from my reaction to my own sort of speculation: Who knows?

Now, if there is a God [in whatever configuration] we might at least imagine that there is an answer. But I suspect that, in whatever configuration mere mortals invent Gods “in their heads”, they do so in order that psychologically they have a font able to tug them in the direction of one or another rendition of life after death.

It’s just that I have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate this beyond what “here and now” I believe in my head.

Then we just go around and around and around. To this for example: what on earth is matter doing with a psychological dimension?!!

Then it’s back to this:

What I assume is that oblivion is just around the corner for me. What I assume is that I/“I” will soon be reconfiguring back to star stuff. That, in other words, both prong #1 and prong #2 will soon become moot for I/“I” for, among other things, all of eternity.

So, sure, if someone is able to demonstrate to me why this is not necessarily true at all, I’m all ears.

Now, how, in your own mind/brain have you actually accomplished that? How is your frame of mind not just one more intellectual contraption comprised basically of the manner in which you define the meaning of the words you use in your “analysis”…in your own particular set of assumptions?

I’m not saying that you haven’t accomplished this…or that you can’t…only that “here and now” I’m not convinced.

It would seem reasonable that anyone who speculates about the existence of an afterlife is going to speculate in turn about the relationship between “before I die” and “after I die”. In other words, is the part “after” in any way predicated on being judged regarding the part “before”.

The whole point of God and religion.

It is in fact the entire point that I had in mind when I created this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

On the other hand, regarding these things, how does one know if they have lied to themself unless the actual truth itself is able to be demonstrated?

After all, your rendition of God is but one of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of others. And you will either connect the dots here between before you die and after or you won’t. But, in the interim, that is not going to stop someone like me from asking you to demonstrate why your rendition and not all of the others.

And it is for you and you alone to determine “in your head” the extent to which your belief is [if only subconsciously] more a reflection of what you want to believe is true rather than something that you are actually able to “bring to life” more substantively/substantially for others.

I certainly would never judge you here. And I am always grateful to those who at least make the attempt. But I can only react to it given what I believe to be true [here and now] in my head.

But “experience” as perceived by/reacted to from what/whose perspective? If not “I”?

Instead my own reaction invariably revolves around this:

Admittedly, I engage in discussions of this sort precisely in order to determine the extent to which another point of view might succeed in yanking me up out of my dilemma. But I don’t expect others to be motivated by that in turn.

Eventually the exchange will end [for any number of reasons] and we will get from it what we do.

And if it’s not freedom, can we not proceed anyway? Obviously, there would be no way of knowing whether you’ve got anything right or wrong (short of the very logic that leads you on your path of philosophical thought), but I don’t think this is a matter of freedom or determinism. We’d probably be just as likely to make mistakes in our reasoning if we really were free, and have no better way to verify whether we were right or wrong. At least in the moment of thinking, we have something to go on, and it seems to work whether or not we can answer the question: is my response the only response I ever could have given?

Sure, we could say they are, but you can’t tell me that when you do arithmetic in your head, there is no sense that you’re following a rational thought process. And it’s more than just that it seems like a rational thought process, but is validated as such… in the moment.

Well, if it’s a question of what we are to conclude from this, my answer, as I’ve been putting forward, is that we can conclude that, in principle at least, it’s still possible that our thought processes are still rational despite (or because of) the universe being determined. Unless we are forced to rule out the possibility which I’m proposing–that the rationality which inheres in our thought processes is why things are determined–we must conclude that rationality in a determined universe is still a logical possibility. (And incidentally, that would answer the other question: What makes the world deterministic?).

But I suppose you’d prefer to conclude with a bit more of a solid answer than just a logical possibility that holds only in principle. If we could definitively answer the questions 1) Is the universe exhaustively determined? And 2) What does that mean for rationality and exchanges like this one? Do you think you could move beyond this point in metaphysics (assuming the answer doesn’t come out: all our seeming rationality is just superficial but beyond that it is meaningless)?

This only makes sense to me in a materialist context in which it is often “fuzzy” when we are talking about mind and when we are talking about matter. But to me, the distinction has never been difficult to make.

The same difference it makes even if we were free to choice what we do and think. It doesn’t follow from determinism that exchanges like this can’t have the desired effect for one party or the other. So if you call mind “matter” and I don’t, I can bring this up in a conversation and hopefully have the effect I want to have on your mind. In hindsight, we can still both look back on that and say: it could not have been any other way.

In any case, my point was that I don’t think the laws of mind and the laws of matter are just equivalent. That doesn’t mean it’s not all deterministic, but I think the laws of mind (which, for me, funnel down to the laws of meaning) end up being represented as the laws of matter in sensation.

I don’t know if they’re relevant (as I’ve said before), but you shouldn’t need to think of it as anything more than an intellectual contraption just to understand. Does an atheist need to think of “God” as anything more than an intellectual contraption to understand the theist’s point of view?

So long as philosophers cannot deliver definitive results, like the scientist can, there will always be ebbing and waning between different philosophical positions, much like there is in politics between left-wing and right-wing. What I find interesting is how, as our thoughts and understandings of things become more sophisticate, new branches of philosophical thought come onto the scene. For example, the philosophy of language. ← That was non-existent in the time of Plato. But yeah, these too will simply get thrown into the mix and contend endlessly for credibility.

However, some of these philosophies are compatible with science, others not. I think my philosophy is perfectly compatible with science and scientists may conjecture certain meanings on existence by adopting my theory.

And I’ve explained why: the core tenets around which my subjectivism revolves don’t really connect directly to the typical kinds of conflict that arise in most prong #2 situations. It’s like the example I gave earlier about the existence of intelligent life on other planets: some may have a strong opinion that intelligent life does exist on other planets, some may have strong opinions that it doesn’t–but when was the last time you read headlines depicting some serious conflict between pro-intelligent-life advocates and con-intelligent-life advocates. Could we chock it up to the possibility that some controversies just don’t have prominent rolls to play in typical prong #2 situations?

But then again, you can image one day a strong political movement unfolds in which pro-intelligent-life advocates gain a strong foothold in government–then people’s lives start to be effected, and the way they will try to maneuver and negotiate their way through the new social, political, and economic environment will be by trying to argue cases and present proof for or against the existence of intelligent life on other planets. Then we might see numerous and significant examples of how positions on intelligent-lifism (as we might call it) play out in prong #2 situations. You can imagine the same thing for subjectivism (my brand or otherwise). In that case, the debates that serve as examples of how subjectivism figures in prong #2 conflicts might be a lot like the debates you see here at ILP–mine or otherwise–and in fact, I jumped into one just now: Trixie’s Message to Iambiguous. ← Perhaps watch how that one unfolds to see an example (as I’m sure you will)*.

Other than that, I find I really have to stretch the context in which my subjectivism holds in order to provide you with examples. I gave you some examples of how I might engage with others using alternatives to the “traditional objectivist approach” (where reverse psychology was my simplest analogy), and then I drew the connection between my subjectivism and my drug use, which I thought might serve as an example as drugs are a hugely hot topic in prong #2 arenas. ← But I feel these are a stretch–I feel I’m not giving examples of how my subjectivism is directly brought to the table in prong #2 situations. Perhaps the only other way of answering your question is to invite you to search through ILP for debates I’ve gotten into with others over my subjectivism… but typically these don’t go much beyond intellectual debates and disagreements. They do get heated, of course, but I wouldn’t say they get “political” as most of the prong #2 situations you seem to be interested in get.

Yes, it doesn’t serve their agenda.

I find most hardnosed conservatists are like this. Conservatists are far more prone to expect war than peace. They are therefore far more defensive. They don’t want to be open minded to other points of view. They construe this as weakness, as subjecting themselves to the psychological tricks of the enemy. They are all too willing to risk living with paranoid delusions and ignorance for the sake of avoiding possible deception or “brainwashing”. This ironically leads to the kind of aggression which typically instigates war and creates enemies, thereby making their paranoia into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I wouldn’t think so. What you’re talking about is the mechanics of the brain–how the brain takes input from it’s environment (in the form of electric and chemical signals), how it processes it through a complex network of neurons, and how it outputs the results back to the body so as to engage it in some kind of action (again in the form of electric and chemical signals). In that respect, I would think both human brains and those of all other animals work the same.

But the way I look at the relation between mind (or subjective experience) and the mechanics that determine the actions of matter is essentially that between cause and reason. We can easily imagine any arbitrary configuration of neural interconnections, any balance or variety of chemical interactions therein, and that will cause some kind of behavior for the organism overall. The subjective experience that comes along with that, as far as I’m concerned, is just the reason for the behavior. For example, I stub my toe and I jump up and down screaming “Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!” There is an obvious causal chain of events going on here. I stub my toe, that initiates a signal that travels up a neural line into my brain, it stimulates the pain centers in the somatosensory cortex and the anterior cyngulate gyrus, and those in turn send singals to the mortor cortex, which in turn send signals to the various muscles in my body and my voice box in order to coordinate the action of jumping up and down and screaming “Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!” That’s the causal account. But what is my reason for jumping up and down and shouting “Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!” It’s the fact that it hurts! The pain, which is obviously a subjective experience, is a reason for jumping up and down shouting “Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!”

My theory is that the range of possible “reasons” for behavior is limited only by the possible range of physical configurations a system can take, configurations which determine its behavior. This obviously means the range of subjective experiences which are possible in principle transcend by far the range we are familiar with. If you ask me: is it possible to see colors outside the familiar red-to-violet range we as humans are acquainted with? I will say yes, so long as you have an organism whose neural configurations are such that they cause that organism to behave as if it saw said color. What is the subjective experience of an octopus that changes color or skin texture in order to camouflage with its environment? I don’t know. That kind of behavior is outside my repertoire of behaviors. But all this means to me is that the experience is likewise outside my repertoire of experiences, the ones my human brain allow me to have. But what I can say, if my theory is true, is that whatever the experience, it’s the perfect reason for wanting to camouflage with the environment. It would be such that if I could experience it, I’d say “Ah, yes I can see how the octopus would want to change its colors and skin texture.”

What I’m confused about is why you think that the admission that this is all in my head means that it can’t be real. I’m not saying I’ve proven it, or that I believe it necessarily must be true, just that I haven’t ruled out the possibility.

Now one thing I can’t understand is how one can have vivid experiences right in the thick of “here and now” and not see reality right in the midst of those experiences, how one can’t see that reality is “completely exposed”. Or in the case of thought, how one can’t see the “logic” of one’s own reasoning right in the midst of those very thoughts (again, not necessarily up to the specs a professional logician might expect, but at least a kind of verification of why one believes what one thinks). I’m thinking, of course, of the Cartesians and the Kantians, those who regard perception and experience with a strong skepticism, those who believe reality is to be found (if it can be found at all) outside experience. ← I recognize a similarity between this and your skeptical position on the meaningfulness of thought in a deterministic universe, or your recognition of thought and ideas as intellectual contraptions. Sure, it’s an intellectual contraption, but I think we in the West are still tainted by Cartesianism and Kantianism in the sense that we take this to imply that it is unreal, that any reality that is to be found is to be found outside these intellectual contraptions. This is why I find no problem in admitting that my subjectivism is an intellectual contraption without feeling that it is therefore false. My whole view revolves around the fact that any time we are confronted with reality at all–the whole reason we know about a reality–is that it comes embedded in our experiences.

Obviously, this doesn’t mean that any intellectual contraption we whip up “in our heads” is by default real. I personally don’t experience my subjectivist beliefs as inescapably true, just as metaphysical possibilities that neither I nor anyone else has been able, to my satisfaction, to rule out. I suspect that most people experience their more abstract/philosophical/metaphysical thoughts and beliefs in that way–as possibilities only–and when we find some, like the objectivists around here, boasting about the “facticity” of their views, about the objectively proven reality of their views, I see this as a psychological move serving some agenda (i.e. if you present your views as objective, as matters of fact, you’re essentially confronting others with a much more challenging front). This is not always a trick, and indeed there are some beliefs and views that genuinely are experienced as objective fact (for example, one’s birthday), but sometimes the presentation of our views as objective fact is more that–presentation–and not a true reflection of how they feel “in our heads”.

It’s all a matter of personal integrity. Some are raised in a particular community, are told that this is what we believe and these are the values we stand for, and so it behooves them to try to preserve/defend their integrity as part of that community, to think of or research as many rational arguments as they can, or present their views in as objective/factual manner as they can, and to preserve as much respectability in the eyes of others as possible. After years and years of doing this, they condition their minds to become convinced that they’ve got it right, that it is self-evident, that they’re not just thinking but “seeing”–much like your list of psychological steps the objectivist goes through to arrive at this point.

So it seems like you’re kind of in a state of limbo regarding your resolve on this. Not that I’m any closer to knowing the truth about what awaits us in the afterlife, but my views do offer their own answer: experience continues in one form or another but the “I” dissolves. But like I said above, this is not certainty, but merely a metaphysical possibility that I have constructed in my head which simply hasn’t been ruled it out. It just plays the roll in my head as the “default” answer I am accustom to giving, after admitting that I know nothing, when one asks: what do you think happens to us in the afterlife?

It is possible to have experience without the sense of an “I”. This is what they say the experience of deep meditation is like. Or to take a more mundane example, what it’s like to be gripped by a good movie. When you’re “zoned” into a good movie, that’s all that exists for you in that moment–just the series of events in the movie, the emotions, the thrills, the excitement–and the fact that you’re sitting there in your recliner is completely lost from your consciousness. This loss of the “I” will be permanent in the afterlife–there will be nothing to reconstruct it–and there will be no words to describe what the experience will be like (certainly not that of being gripped by a movie).

It also explains a lot about why I’m not able to help you understand. As I’m fond of saying, we believe in the things that serve our purposes–which suggests that we will only understand that which serves our purposes. The feeling when something “clicks” in our heads–that moment of “Ah ha! Now I get it!”–is the feeling of “that works for me”–it is the mind “accepting” what was just proposed to it. If I am not able to demonstrate to you how my subjectivism or my theory of consciousness would be applied in a prong #2 situation, then I have not helped you serve your purpose, and thus it would most likely not make sense to you. Your mind “rejects” it.

Correct me if I’m wrong: you’re trying to get me to answer the question: Why would you believe that? Right? If it can’t be demonstrated–thus at least putting it to some use in prong #2 situations–why do you cling to it? ← While there probably is a lot about my views which just aren’t making sense to you, it seems like its also a question of demonstration as well.

  • At the time of my writing that, the thread hadn’t degraded into a debate about who’s the better programmer–me or Trixie. sigh Well, there’s always the potential it might get back on track. :laughing:

It works pretty much the way that selecting a move works in the game of chess. One is compelled to move … If one does not move , the time simply runs out and the game is over. Similarly, one is compelled to think and to select behaviors.

One selects a chess move based on one’s understanding and evaluation of the position. A skilled player will select a good move more often than an unskilled player. He won’t always pick a good move but he will pick it statistically more often.
In any given position, some moves are better than others. In some positions, there are clearly winning moves and clearly losing moves but in many positions, there are many reasonable or ‘good’ moves and many ‘bad’ moves.

Similarly, in life there are often many ‘good’ choices and many ‘bad’ choices.

Really? How does that work in my case (since my name came up)?

I was born in a Communist country and lived there until I was 7 years old. Religion was officially discouraged. We never went to church. I got baptized but that’s all … probably because it may have meant something to my great-grandparents.
Later in Canada, we went to a Baptist church because our landlord went every Sunday and we tagged along. I have no recollection of anything that was said during the service … it made that much impression on me.
My parents never talked about God, religion or Jesus. I still don’t know what my father thinks about God … if anything.
Everything that I think about God is based on my research as a young adult.

Yet, I’m stuck with this ‘objectivist’ stereotype label that Iambig dumps on me. He even sees me as some kind of evangelical Christian. LOL.
It says more about him than me.

I’m always wary about participating in a discussion with others when the topic is someone else. That someone might read this! :astonished: :laughing:

I re-read that passage and, yes indeed, Biggy did mention you.

I chose my words carefully when I said “Some are raised in a particular community…” trying not to implicate anybody but I guess you were already implicated. Sorry about that.

If you’re story is true (which sounds interesting) it means you’re an exception to this. I’m assuming your point is that you had no integrity to uphold, at least not with respect to religion, so must have gotten into religion for other reasons.

What was the communist country you were born in?

There is a tendency to wrap up objectivists into nice tidy packages.

But according to Iambig, an objectivist is anyone who thinks there are rights and wrongs … which covers a huge range of people.

Is the discussion of objectivists anything more than a discussion of a stereotype?

Czechoslovakia

But “right” and “wrong” itself would be subsumed in what could only have unfolded in a determined universe. You think what you think here because there was never an actual option for you to think something else. So, what does it really mean then to discuss/debate whether you [or I] are right or wrong? Or which of us is making a “mistake”?

To wit:

Again, this distinction can be made, sure. But if what unfolds in the relationship between “in my head” and “out in the world” [u][b]is[/b][/u] “only as it ever could have been” than “I” would seem to be only along for the ride.

Or so it seems to me.

Yes, but among the vegetarians who insist that consuming animal flesh is immoral and among the meat eaters who insist that consuming animal flesh is natural, arithmetic is not the point, is it?

And yet in a wholly determined universe they might as well be, right?

In other words…

Maybe, but I can’t seem to tear myself away from the assumption that in a wholly determined universe [multiverse] you are writing and I am reading only what could ever have been. And once “I” get “stuck” there, there would appear to be no exit.

It all seems to get sucked down into a “metaphysical” frame of mind that [for now] is beyond the capacity of “mere mortals” to grasp…let alone to resolve.

Thus when you speculate that…

…I have no real understanding regarding what “on earth” you talking about here. It is as though you have been able to make a distinction between “mind” and “brain” “in your head” but [to me] you are unable to demonstrate how “for all practical purposes” this is relevant to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments rooted in dasein out in a particular political economy.

Which, of course, is what I am always inclined to bring these discussions back to.

You suggest that…

Hopefully? You either will or you will not succeed here. But if it has nothing to do with actual volition, hope is no less an immutable component of what could only have ever been. In other words, somehow matter has been able evolve into a life form able in turn to react to the world subjunctively. But no less mechanically.

But aren’t the neuroscientists intent on discovering whether “introspection” itself either is or is just one more inherent manifestion of the laws of matter?

Consider for example dreams. While we are having them [“in” them] we are absolutely certain that these things are actually happening to us. Instead, it is all just unfolding “in our head”. Literally. Chemical and neurological transactions simulating a “reality”. Thus in a wholly determined universe our waking reality would be the same. We “think” and we “feel” that we are calling the shots, but in actuality…

But In actuality, what…?

If something is “meaningful” to us in a particular way only because it could not have been construed as meaningful in any other way…

Let’s just say that you and I react to the existential implcations of this in differing ways.

All I can note here is the extent to which I am unable to grasp any substantive/substantial sense of what “on earth” you are talking about. Not once the conversation swings around to prong 2 discussions. Though I’d be curious to note the reactions of neuroscientist to something like this. What questions would they ask you?

In other words…

An atheist is able to note the manner in which a belief in God is manifested in any number of actual human behaviors. Behaviors that precipitate actual consequences in human interactions. After all, in discussing conflicting goods [as I often do] a belief in God is one particular font that “mere mortals” can use to justify how they do behave.

And it is in this context that I am trying to grasp the significance of the points that you are making.

Yes, but the leftists and the rightists can wrap their words around actual events that are unfolding out in a particular world. And there are folks here who insist that their political narratives are in sync philosophically or theologically with the way things really are. For example, pertaining to Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration.

I am just trying to get closer to understanding how your own set of assumptions here might be conveyed to those on either side of the divide. In my opinion, I have no problems conveying my own narrative to them. It revolves around dasein, conflicting value judgments and the role of power out in this particular world.

And yet if Carl Sagan’s Contact ever becomes a reality, that extant event will trigger all manner of controversy regarding what we “ought” to do in the face of a civilization far, far more advanced than our own. If they came to me I would note all of the reasonable points/assessments made from various sides, and [no doubt] tumble down into my dilemma. My point however being that there is no one objective [optimal] resolution. Instead, these things are always embedded in conflicting goods, perceived subjectively/subjunctively from conflicting points of view.

How would you respond to them? I suspect however that to the extent your discussions with other here “don’t go much beyond intellectual debates and disagreements”, is the extent to which my own frame of mind is [subjectively] pointing in another direction. I’m not arguing that mine takes precedence over yours, only that our interests and motivations in exploring these things are different.

Bingo. Or perhaps one day one or the other [or both] will actually set aside their dogmatic huffing and puffing and engage in a civilized and intelligent discussion of these relationships.

The octopus is conscious of its environment. But its behaviors seem to revolve wholly around biology. Instinct. It changes color/texture in order to defend itself against predators. But I suspect that, concomittantly, it is not thinking “it’s not moral for sharks to hunt us down.” It’s all might makes right, survival of the fittest. Thus to what extent is it really any different from our own species? And how do the mechanisms at play in the brain of an octupus differ from our own? With octopi there are no historical and cultural references. There is no equivalent of “nurture”. Or an indocrination in the ways of the community. Much less a role for philosophy.

How then is the “causual account” experienced by the octopus very much the same and very much different from out own? It’s one thing for a mind to think – to think self-consciously – “I have the capacity to camouflage my body. I see that I am entering a very different environment. It’s time to make the necessary adjustments.” And another thing altogether for a brain to make these adjustments more or less on automatic pilot.

Or, in a wholly determined universe, is that distinction more an illusion than anything else?

Because, if the discussion revolves around the possibility of life after death, there is a world of difference between someone telling me what he thinks is true about it – that it does in fact exist – “in his head” and what he can demonstrate as true for all rational men and women. Just as there is a world of difference [re prong #2] between someone who hasn’t ruled out the possibility that abortion is either moral or immoral from someone who insists that if you don’t rule out what he has ruled out “in his head” you are wrong. Words here are either connected empirically/materially/phenomenologically, etc., with the world or they are not.

Thus an analysis of this sort…

…is just that: an analysis.

My own interest still revolves around the relevance of these observations as they pertain to actual human social, political and economic interactions. The objectivists here will provide us with words – a world of words – that is rooted in God or Reason or Nature. What would interest me though is a discussion between you and I and someone like Uccisore/PK [sans the huffing and puffing] relating to that which motivates us to behave as we do when these berhaviors come into conflict around value judgments.

In other words [from my perspective] “personal integrity” is no less an existential contraption. There are aspects of it that one is, in fact, able to defend as true objectively and there are aspects that reflect merely subjective opinions – things believed to be true “in your head” that may or may not be demonstrable to others.

On the other hand, nothing quite brings you – as “I” – back to reality as in finding yourself in a situation where how you construe reality is challenged by another such that in behaving as you want to [or as you think a rational man or women ought to] the other seeks to impose his or her own sense of reality instead.

That’s what I always come back to: How ought I to live?

And how and why did I arrive at the particular assumptions that I champion “here and now”. And that’s when I tumble over into this:

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

And the only viable option I then have is to explore the narratives of those who are not entangled in it.

And thus…

Yes, but from my frame of mind a purpose is no less an existential contraption.

Given the enormous complexity of human psychological interactions – re the conscious, the subconscious and the unconscious components – intertwined with Reptilian brain functions going all the way back to however [and why ever] “the minds” of men and women came into existence [given the evolution of life itself], it may well be [ultimately] futile to grasp the actual, objective relationship bnetween prong #1 and prong #2 communication. We can only do our best in trying to bridge the gaps.

Yes, that is now basically what draws me to philosophy “here and now”: ethics and mortality.

Note to others:

Again: What extraordinary insight of his am I missing here? How do the choices that we make in a game of chess work “pretty much the same” as the choices that we make when our value judgments are challenged by others on this side of the grave, knowing [as many religionists claim] that these choices will then be judged by God, an entity able to grant us immortality, salvation and divine justice?

Chess is just a game. The match [the conflict] revolves around clear-cut rules and the moves that we make either result in the chessman’s equivalent of Heaven [a victory] or Hell [a loss].

The result clearly and unequivocally differentiates good choices from bad.

How then is that [an existential snapshot of dasein] not but another rendition of this:

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 distinction seems to revolve around your claim that in “researching” God and religion as a “young adult”, you were able to obviate that component which I call “dasein”.

You thought through these things and arrived at what you construe to be the optimal frame of mind. In other words, theological/philosophical assumptions about God and religion that [it would seem] all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to share.

Well, okay, then demonstrate how and why what you think about God and religion “in your head” – in your head “here and now” – is in fact the optimal frame of mind.

Given all that [u][b]is[/u][/b] at stake here.

But do so by integrating your own thinking here into your own behaviors when your assumptions about God and religion come into conflict with the assumptions of others pertaining to very different Gods and very different religions.

And, as this pertains to a moral and political conflagration that we are all familiar with.

On the contrary, for months now I have been trying to persuade you to bring your God down to earth. As this relates to your perceived fate beyond the grave. Which perforce relates to the choices that you make on this side of it. The latest: