What is Dasein?

As I had mentioned in the other post, it may have taken you years but you have jumped into and is stuck in a different hole and still in the same shaky paradigm.
You gotta to shift out of this shaky paradigm.

I have put in a lot of effort to stabilize my “I-ness” and that is to ensure I will not be influenced by Dark-Matters from you or anywhere.

There are not many people re type (1) above in philosophical forums as they are busy digging deeper holes.
As for (2) no one can yank you out your hole except yourself. The most others can do is to throw in various ideas and views.

Each of these philosophers provide specific narrow windows of insight but as a holistic view, they are very half-cooked. Schopenhauer toyed with Hinduism and Buddhism but got nowhere [not his fault as the relevant materials during his time was scant].
Philosophers like Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and others changed boat in mid-stream.
For full thorough holistic philosophy I would suggest adding Kant [proper reading], Buddhism and others.

maybe the path forward isn’t out of the rabbit hole, but further in and through the other side? You can only go so far into a dark forest or desolate wasteland before coming out the other side.

ooooo, but that’s just me doing what you called as ‘The most others can do is to throw in various ideas and views.’

I’m in the hole emotionally only because I think it is reasonable to believe that this is true:

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.

That’s a “frame of mind”. It’s a way of thinking about the world such that it motivates behaviors. And it is human behaviors that precipitate actual consequences.

But: Is it reasonable to believe that this is true? All I can do here is to ask others if it seems reasonable to them. And, if it does not, to suggest that we move on.

To this: “Okay, let’s bring it all down to earth by exploring the existential parameters of human interactions in which clashes occur as a result of value judgments out of sync.”

In three parts:

1] The part about conflicting goods
2] The part about dasein
3] The part about political economy

I’m not depressed. I’m not manic. I’m in a hole [derived philosophically] such that I believe “I” live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblivion.

Can I find a way to not think like this? Maybe. But I can’t just “will” myself to abandon what [here and now] seems reasonable to me.

As for the part about bravery, I don’t congratulate myself for having the “courage” to accept this brutally bleak assessment of the “human condition”. And its only appeal is that in rejecting objectivism as a frame of mind I am afforded considerably more options. Why? Because I don’t have to align my behaviors with the “right thing to do”.

But not believing that there actually is a right thing to do [and that “I” here is largely an existential contraption] has its own rather stark consequences.

But what doesn’t change of course is that others will still judge your thoughts and your behaviors as either in sync or out of sync with their own.

And then the part about laws.

Your acts and your thoughts are always going to be an enormously complex intertwining of genes and memes out in a particular world historically and culturally; and ever awash in contingency, chance and change.

And my point is not about being “correct”. On the contrary, it is a suggestion that correct is just one more existential contraption. A fabricated and ever refabricated “I” rooted in dasein and entangled in both conflicting goods and political power. If only all the way to the grave.

And it’s “pleasant” only until it’s not.

Yes, if your life is in the shithole it is rather comforting to believe there really wasn’t anything that you could have done to change it. Why? Because there was never anything that you could have done of your own free will. Period.

On the other hand, such thinking can only be appalling to those who deem themselves, among other things, masters of the universe. The ubermen. After all, their great success was just “fated” to be; and going all the way back to the Big Bang.

Whatever that means.

No, I didn’t jump into it. I tumbled down into it over the years. And paradigms of this sort [in the is/ought world] are shaky only from a point of view.

Indeed, but my argument is that this effort revolves more around an intellectual contraption that, in my opinion, is a psychological defense mechanism.

All I can note here are the many times in the past I was able to abandon one objectivist frame of mind only when others were able to convince me to embrace their own. And we always saw those who did not share our own righteous cause as in a hole all their own.

But this hole is nothing at all like them.

And, who knows, if I am finally able to yank you down into it with me, maybe you too will see the light.

That isn’t there.

Very unfortunate for you.
As I had suggested you need to strive to reframe your philosophical position on this by your own self.

I have mentioned it is critical for ‘knowing’ to be complemented with ‘doing’. I have done extensive research, i.e. secure solid wide and deep intellectual foundations [not contraption] and spent years practicing to reinforce the neural circuits in my brain to modulate the inherent existential impulses and other potential deviations to sustain an optimal state for my well being.
This is why I am very optimistic and moving forward in contrast to you wallowing in your muddy pool of pessimism.

I am well aware there are many psychological, existential holes and the mother of all ‘holes’ in life and I have always taken the effort [knowledge and ‘spiritual’ practices] to ensure I don’t fall into them [I have preference for a certain one though].

Indeed, and rather fortunate for you in that you have been able to think yourself into a frame of mind that allows you obviate an essentially absurd and meaningless world by subsuming “I” in what I construe to be but one of many whollistic intellectual scaffoldings.

They abound here, at KT and in many other venues devoted to philosophical, political and/or religious discussion.

It is then only a matter of whether you come to recognize [as I once did] the psychological nature of these basically didactic mindsets.

“I” is anchored to a way of understanding the world such that the crucial distinction can then be made between “one of us” [who get it] and “one of them” [who don’t get it].

On the other hand, I have what might be called a more enviable frame of mind. I may well be right regarding my own dilemma above; but I am always hoping that someone will come along able to convince me that I am wrong.

And, from my vantage point, you need to recognize the extent to which, in offering this advice to others, you are arguing that only when they come to share your own set of technical assumptions, have they reframed their philosophical position to be in sync with what is in fact true for all of us.

Okay, I then note, but in what particular context regarding what particular conflicting behaviors?

Instead [over and over and over again] we get “analysis” like this:

And then, when, in exasperastion, I ask, “what on earth does that mean?!”, you simply reconfigure the words into yet another “general description”.

All I can surmise here is that you accomplish this by refusing to substantiate your “analyses”/“arguments” above. In other words, in an exchange that probes human interactions we are all familiar with such that the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, are grappled with [by you] existentially.

Actually the point I got from you is you have dug a hole so deep [presumably with lots of snakes and terrible vermins] you cannot yank yourself out of it.
So I provided suggestions how you can get out of it and stated only you can do the climbing out yourself.

Now if you think you are right about your dilemma and accept it as a fact of life, then so be it.
I am not interested in proving you are wrong as long as you do not kill, harm or oppress me and others who do not agree with your views. As such there is no issue and no need for anyone to convince you to change your mind.

What I have suggested is a typical solution is solving any persistent problem if any, i.e. reframing the question appropriately not necessary to another’s point of view.

How else?
As I had stated, all problems must start with intellectual questioning and suggested solutions.
The only actions is you have to decide what to do with it.

What is critical is I [unlike you] don’t dig holes for myself to fall in and cannot get out of it.

You keep repeating this statement which I don’t understand and I don’t think is applicable to me at all.

The fact is you are lacking in the depth and width of knowledge of the variables you yourself are entangled with in that hole you have dug for yourself e.g. re the Philosophy of the Self and others.

My point is that I can’t just will myself out of it. I can’t just think, “gee, this is a shitty way to look at things, so I guess I’ll look at things another way”.

Instead, I have to come up with a point of view that convinces me that my dilemma is not a reasonable way in which to construe human interactions in the is/ought world. With or without contributions from others.

And I appreciate any and all suggestions that any and all folks are willing to offer.

But they either will or will not nudge me in another direction. Again, I’m not arguing that because they don’t they are wrong. The problem may well be that I just don’t understand how they are able to experience conflicted interactions with others and not be entangled in my dilemma.

But here I need them to note how they actually accomplished this by taking their arguments/analyses and situating them “out in the world”: in contexts we are likely to be familiar with. Some [like you] claim to have accomplished this. But clearly we do not understand this in the same way.

Note my points raised in the other thread.
viewtopic.php?p=2691744#p2691744

I believe you have leaped out of a real psychological anchor of theism [flimsy but nevertheless exists] into existentialism but without developing any real psychological anchor to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential angst.

Generally I would not recommend the average theists to get out of theism unless they have an alternative that provide them real psychological security or anchor to deal with the very desperate inherent unavoidable existential angst.
I was once a pantheist and panentheist for a very long time.

It is very shaky to jump out of theism merely based on intellectual arguments. The exception is only for the very strong intellectuals who are supported by other rational elements or those who have suffered traumatic experiences from theism due to various reason. Even then some of them could neurally and psychologically collapse into theism, note the once very notable atheists, Anthony Flew and Sartre who had to cling to theism in the later part of their lives when their intellectual capacities failed due to natural atrophy.

I think that is appealing to some people, I am not sure it is appealing to him. He does seem to judge people as being wrong, and morally, not just epistemologically. He sees this as simply something he cannot control but not really what he believes. To me it seems systemic, that the hole allows him to judge more absolutely. The objectivists are wrong to hold moral opinions, period. This slides past any need to point out what is wrong with any particular moral stance. One need not get into the abortion debate and try to demonstrate why abortion is OK or not. A complicated debate to say the least. But with the dasein critique of having moral stances one has a tool in practice morally judge especially the right - since he is on the left - without getting into the muck of specific issues. Now I don’t think he is only doing this disingenously. I do believe that he does sit there and think that there are no objective supports for leftist values also. I am sure he does have those moments. But the pattern of behavior and how the hole functions allows a purity of focus and moral attack. He can always put the other person in the position of proving something. Give them the onus. Give them the hoops to jump through. There are secondary gains galore in that.

If he believes in determinism, then it gets even funnier.

Because then the is/ought dichotomy means nothing. If we are all absolutely compelled to believe what we believe, how can any individual be confident they can believe set X on objective grounds? or even trust their memory about how they or anyone else arrived at their conclusions?

Existentialism often revolves around the idea of “authenticity”. Many existentialists argue that one lives “inauthentically” through one or another rendition of objectivism. In the is/ought world. Hell is other people not because they can make your life miserable, but because they objectify you. They refuse to interact with you subject to subject. I merely probe the existential parameters of the “subject” – “I” – by focusing the beam on the points I raise in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Then I tap folks like you on the shoulder and ask them to note how this is not applicable to them. With respect to their own interactions in the is/ought world.

Sans God, in other words, “authenticity” becomes just one more existential contraption. And, by and large, rooted in dasein.

In other words, from my frame of mind there is no “psychological anchor”. At least not for me.

Consequently, your own intellectual contraptions above [and elsewhere] are [from my frame of mind] just another attempt to replace God with one or another secular rendition of a moral/political font.

Why? Because [ironically enough] this affords you the same sort of psychological comfort and consolation that the theists embody through God. It’s just that, unlike them, you scratch the part about immortality and salvation.

So, you are able to convince yourself that we do not live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world. But then there’s this part:

“They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more.”

You can’t help but wonder then what Samuel Beckett might have made of this exchange.

Sure, that’s one way to look at it. But is that the only way to look at it? Unlike you, I suspect the sheer complexity of the interwining variables that encompass the motivation/intention [re genes and memes] of any one particular individual in any one particular context, may well be beyond the capacity here of any one particular “I” to grasp.

All I can do is to note my dilemma above and to ask those convinced that they are not entangled in it themselves, to describe actual contexts in which they were in fact able to demonstrate that their own moral/political narrative reflected the optimal or the only rational frame of mind. Meaning [for some] the optimal or the only virtuous set of behaviors.

What I recognize about myself is this: that if I choose to interact with others, I am going to come upon contexts in which value judgments come into conflict. I will be expected to choose sides. But: to what extent can my choice be more than just a political prejudice rooted in dasein?

Instead, it is back up into the clouds of abstraction:

Pertaining to what particular context? Provide us with one of your own.

Actually, my point here is to note the gap between what I think I know about determinism here and now and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to know for sure.

I merely speculate that this is almost certainly true of yourself as well.

Unless, of course, you can encompass the definitive assessment of what is popularly described as “free will”.

I mentioned in the other thread I have just read William Barrett’s Irrational Man.

In a way, i.e. the experience of reality by the subject. But existentialism is all talk, no to-do-list [actual skill development] and many of its elements are very misleading.

You have constructed a very flimsy raft, there is no way I will step into it when I am already on a very steady ship.

You keep thinking and is mistaken I am one of those religious bigots and objectivists which typical continental existentialism and William Barrett are targeting. Nope, Philosophically I am way out of range from their bull’s eye.

Western existentialism started with Kierkegaard who introduced the importance of the ‘subject’ within in the practice of theism rather than focusing and looking outside to a God, paradise and hell out there.

Note this issue of centering-on-the-subject was introduced long ago since Protagoras ‘Man is the Measure of All Things’ and very very long ago in the Eastern Philosophies.
Also note Kant’s famous Copernican Turn toward the ‘subject’ for knowledge instead of the external.

While Kierkegaard still kept one foot with God [at least some psychological anchor albeit fictitious], the problem with the subsequent Continental existentialists was they cut the ‘subject’ loose without making any attempt to develop an anchor to stabilize the subject and thus throwing all those [moths] who adopt their philosophy [Continental existentialism] into a limbo, lost or got burnt.

If one study and adopt the teachings of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, etc. there is nothing in those teachings that show how one can act [the practices] and do to to improve oneself to deal with the theorized despairs of existentialism. What they do is condemnation of the ‘other’ then talk, talk and talk only but no proposed actions that are effective and can improve one’s skills to deal with the theorized problems of life.

This is why I propose all humans must develop a psychological anchor, the stronger the better, but at least there must be some sort of anchor.
Note:
Equanimity
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193778

Generic Problem Solving Technique of Life
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030

Know Thyself

If one do not develop some sort of anchor, one will be lost and suffers.
Fortunately yours is a philosophical existential crisis and not a spiritual crisis.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_crisis

Come on, let’s not forget that historically existentialism in the 20th century was in part a reaction to the horrors of World War II. Folks like Camus, Sartre and deBeauvoir were in ways large and small embedded in the French resistance to Hitler and the Nazis.

In fact, in my opinion, the best account of existentialism as a substantive philosophy “out in a particular world” is conveyed in Simone de Beauvoir’s novel The Blood Of Others. Basically it is an attempt to flesh out the moral ambiguities embedded in a world that she interpreted philosophically in The Ethics Of Amibiguity.

On the other hand, I suspect your own “to-do” list revolves more around the objectivist credo: “one of us” vs. “one of them”

Me? As I once noted previously here…

[b]I was born and bred into the belly of the working class beast…worked in the shipyards, the steel mills. And then the army…Vietnam. Six plus years of college. 25 plus years of political activism. Marriage. Parental responsibilities. Paying the bills. Intellectual pursuits of all sorts.

I’ve had ample opportunity to actually “test” the ideas I’ve bumped into. And then to come up with new philosophical configurations all my own.[/b]

How about you? How do you connect the dots here between what you think philosophically and the depth of your own experiences?

What on earth does that mean though? Your own “steady ship” in my view is largely a world of words.

That’s why [your protestations to the contrary] you only really feel comfortable in this exchange up on the skyhooks. You come down to earth only long enough to remind me that “in the future” your own “progressive” behaviors will be the norm. Or, if not, the species is doomed.

Or so it seems to me.

From my vantage point the subject [in the is/ought world] revolves around the ideas that I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Whereas, in my opinion, your own narrative regarding “I” revolves more around the ideas I raise here:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

And until you intertwine your conflicted interactions with others in an exchange that is more in alignment with my own abortion trajectory above, we are likely to remain out of sync.

Perhaps, but what the objectivists then do is to anchor “I” here [in the is/ought world] to one or another font/foundation: God, reason, deontology, ideology, nature.

One or another intellectual rendition of this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

I am irrational and this is somehow rationalized as defined irrational behavior based in emotionality few understand completely based in vast complexity. My irrationality stomps your rationality into the dust because I, and you, and everyone else, thinks erratically. Any semblance of ‘rational’ thought is but a momentary thing.

I agree the reactions of the continental existentialists were rational in relation to the issues they raised, e.g. rigid religions, logical positivists, objectivists, Scientism and others, and from there brought attention to the subject which objectivists has ignored.

That is the furthest they go, but they [the continental existentialists] do not introduce any to-do-list and relevant knowledge for the subject to resolve [via skills] what is highlighted by the existentialists themselves.

Note in contrast to the Buddha [existential] introduced a wide range of practices to suit different individuals to develop themselves via rewiring in the brain to deal with the existential issues, especially the mother of all existential problems, i.e. the existential crisis.

Yes, flesh out [good but not enough] but that is ‘talk’ only but no suggested actions to improve the individual psychological states.

You have a short term memory problems? Note reminder, I am not an objectivist.
I have stated elsewhere, my ‘to-do’ list involves the acquisition of the relevant knowledge [as wide and deep as possible] and complemented with wide range of physical and mental exercises and actions to rewire my brain to stabilize my psychological state, e.g. equanimity.

What you have done was realizing the shortfall of religion via existentialism which dug a deeper hole for you to fall in and trapped therein.

The actions you listed above [shipyards, the steel mills. And then the army, etc.] do not directly develop the necessary faculties, skills and mental tenacity in the brain to deal with the turbulences from the existential crisis.

The necessary actions entail ‘spiritual’ knowledge and practices, e.g. breathing exercises, meditation [various], visualizations, mindfulness [specific and at all times], etc. and etc. which are specifically targeted to improve the necessary mental skills to deal with those inherent existential issues.

“Steady ship” is equivalent to mental stability to deal with the mental turbulences is life especially the inherent unavoidable existential ones.
I recognized which are the necessary neurons to develop for this state and follow a to-do list to improve on it.

The problem is you don’t even understand the problem you have fallen into.
Recognize the real issues and root causes of your problem, resolve them and they will naturally be in sync with me.

The above is your invention.

What is critical is for one to understand the nature of one existential problems then act to secure and anchor the “I” to deal with the rising existential turbulences.

From my frame of mind, however, when you speak of progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future, you don’t seem to recognize the extent to which that too is all just “talk”.

Only her “talk” was embedded in the actual experiences of those she wrote about.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.

Okay, do that. And as you go about the business of living your life let me know when you actually come upon a context in which others challenge your values. Or when you come upon someone “in the news” who embodies values not deemed “progressive”.

That’s the discussion I’ve been waiting for.

Instead, over and again you come back to one or another rendition of this:

Then we are back to the abortion clinic. You are relating this to the folks on both sides of the conflagration. For some reason though it just doesn’t sink in. On the other hand, they are stuck in the present where the actual existential parameters of this particular conflicted good are still very much around.

All I can do for them is to note this. And then to suggest that until your own progressive Middle-Way behaviors are finally pinned down “in the future”, the best of all possible worlds may still be moderation, negotiation and compromise.

I don’t deny what I have been proposing is all talk.
However the difference is what I proposed for the future is about a course of action to take to deal with the anticipated problems.

The problem with existentialists in general is they do talk but do not show any direction and propose real actions to deal with the problem.

Perhaps you can explain in this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193807

Btw, people are challenging my views all the time, note Phyllo, and others.
I have no big issue on this.
Everyone is free to express their views and where it challenges my views and if I am interested I will respond accordingly. No big issue.
One big issue I have is when people [like Snark, JSS, Aminius] throw irrelevant one-liners without supporting justifications and are off topic.

I think the most effective suggestion is they start cultivating a state of equanimity and perform some self psycho-analysis exercises.

One of my problem is this;
I do have the expectation religions especially theistic should be got rid off immediately, NOW! so that there will be no more theistic-based evils and violence.
Because I have a sufficient state of equanimity, I understand my expectations are not realistic at present but only in the future >50, >75 years or >. I modulate my emotions [may be triggered naturally] do not go haywire because my expectations are not met.
While I discuss how to get rid of religions [with fool proof replacements] in the future, I have no problem accepting people who are religious and will even recommend someone to take up religion if that is the most appropriate thing for them to do NOW.

If you note the above carefully, what is critical as a base is a state of equanimity of an effective degree to deal with the related issue plus all the necessary knowledge of knowing and doing.

I understand the fundamental grounds of all religions [theistic religions] is psychological and thus must be dealt with psychologically. If they do not take the psychological approach the problem will always be there. However, based on current trend the masses will be convinced they can resolve the existential dilemma psychologically as what the Eastern spiritualities has done.

Really, come on, what on earth does this mean? Relating to what particular context construed from what particular conflicting moral and political points of view? That part is veritably bursting at the seams in The Blood Of Others.

Yet it barely shows up at all in your own didactic/scholastic “analysis”.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Or, perhaps, the problem with existentialists is that they root “real action” in the “ethics of ambiguity”.

The talk exchanged by the characters in her novel always revolved around actual choices – actual behaviors that precipitated actual consequences.

After all, there really was a French Resistance to the Nazis.

Something that you avoid at all cost. Why? Because actual human interactions here and now [rather than in the future] beget actual conflciting goods that are able to be defended in conflicting moral and political narratives embedded in conflicting assumptions about human interactions.

Okay, link me to such a discussion. I can only react to it by comparing and contrasting it to the manner in which I construe folks challenging each others values.

And again: That is what both sides are likely to agree with! And then they will assure us that if one does this, they will see things as they really are. As they do. But if they don’t see things as they do, then clearly they are doing something wrong.

Which is then encompassed in an intellectual contraption like this:

Yeah, right. It’s all as simple as that. In your head, for example.