What is Dasein?

I’m pretty sure that you admitted to being just that on a couple of occasions.

I’m too lazy to search for the actual quotes.

The game is a distraction while you are waiting.

One can say several things about this : Don’t dwell on the future. Only the present exists. Accept the things that can’t be changed. Will whatever happens.

I could suggest some techniques for dealing with it but I doubt that you would be interested.

In case anyone else is interested, MBSR(Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction) is an effective system. (Improves quality of life, reduces anxiety and depression, etc)

Have you ever heard of the Clay Mathematics Prize?

You get 1 million dollars just for solving one of these from about 100 years ago…

Those haven’t all been solved.

That doesn’t mean numbers don’t exist.

Your entire shtick is that because we haven’t solved EVERY moral problem, that morality doesn’t exist.

I’ve already given the solution to ethics, you blew it off…

Everyone getting everything they want.

So yes, I repeat, you are neither the reasonable or virtuous person you expect everyone to convince.

With what, Communism? And yet I come back to that because, to the best of my recollection, it is really the only issue in which you bring your own arguments down to earth. It seems to be your own equivalent of Prismatic’s chattel slavery. :wink:

True enough. I could only speculate that if a child of yours announced at the dinner table that she had become a Communist, you would be appalled.

Apparently not.

Same with my daughter. In no way shape or form did I try to steer her into embracing the manner in which [at the time] I was hammering Marxism into existentialism into nihilism.

In any event, her whole world was revolving more and more around art.

On the other hand, I can well imagine any number of objectivists going the route the father chose in The Book of Daniel, the novel by E.L. Doctorow.

Well, I like to think of myself as a complex human being. And, as such, my motivations and intentions are not easily pinned down. Playing “the game” is part of it, sure. But trust me when I tell you there are other parts as well. Considerably more disconcerting and disturbing parts.

Still, that gap between these words flowing out of your mind and then flowing into mine. And that [for me] has dasein written all over it.

And this [to me] is just another “general description” such that any particular individual will react to it only from within whatever particular existential contraption his or her own “I” has been concocted.

What I am most interested in are arguments, assessments, techniques etc., that might persuade me to whittle dasein down to a more manageable size. Something that might persuade me that there actually is a way up out of the hole. Either on this side of the grave or on the other side of it.

I thought that I had brought abortion down to earth … allowing abortion for a certain number of weeks balances the needs of the woman and the needs of the potential child.

Capital punishment … given the large number of mistakes by the police and the governments which conduct kangaroo trials, it’s safer for everyone not to have capital punishment.

Sure those are my opinions but they are ways of dealing with the issues which allow for mistakes and personal choices.

I never read the book or saw the movie. Before my time.

The American Vietnam war soul searching has always seemed very trivial to me. My personal dasein has produced a less abstract attitude towards war. My great-grandparents, my grandparents and my parents either fought in the wars (WW1 and WW2) or were directly effected by it. The same is true for my wife.

I see the absurdity of war but also the sad necessity.

I’m offering you ways of dealing with those parts and you seem uninterested.

Yeah and I keep telling you that you have to go beyond arguments because arguments won’t convince you. Arguments are the problem, not the solution. You need to go to a place without words.

If you try something like mindful meditation, then your dependence on words and arguments will decrease.

I have recommended the cultivation of equanimity and mindfulness meditation which is within the Noble 8 Fold Paths of the 4 Noble Paths. This is the most critical step to establish strong psychological anchorage before attending to any critical matters in life.

The point with mindfulness meditation is one’s brain need to have a greater degree of plasticity to ensure easy rewiring. Where Vispassana is concerned it is not very effective for those who are above 55-60 [with exceptions maybe] as it require a reasonable degree of neural plasticity.

I believe in the case of Iambiguous his brain is likely to be heavily ossified and subjected to heavy atrophy. Therefore mindful meditation is not likely to help effectively. As far as Iambiguous is concern I believe we just have to go along with his rigid beliefs and idiosyncrasies.

I’m suggesting MBSR which has been shown to be effective for older adults. For example:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28686822

I have also accused Iambiguous of being ossified. :evilfun:
However, I would not say that there is no hope and no potential for change. It’s never too late. Every day one is reborn into a world full of possibilities.

He just has to decide to take the first step.

Okay, my friend, against my better judgment, I’ll pursue this with you. After all, you are one of the remaining few here willing even to engage my points at all.

I have now.

On the other hand, what does this have to do with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein [on this thread] pertaining to conflicted human interactions in the is/ought world? And how, with respect to your own conflicted interactions with others, are you not yourself down in the hole that “I” am in?

The thing about numbers mathematically is that they would not only appear to exist, but they would appear to exist objectively for all of us. Thus the existence of this very technology. The tricky part though seems to revolve around those who insist that we invented them versus those who insist that, on the contrary, we only discovered them.

On the other other hand, though, the Science Channel last night noted there were very serious scientists speculating about the existence of a multiverse – a TOE reality in which universes may well exist in which the laws of physics themselves may well be different.

Indeed, go figure things like this that far out on the metaphysical limb.

Schtick: a gimmick, comic routine, style of performance, etc., associated with a particular person.

As I noted to Phyllo above, a part of my “routine” here is indeed embedded theatrically in “the polemicist waiting for godot” schtick.

Also, it is embedded in some obscure murky way in this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest.
John Fowles

But other, more somber, discomfitting facets revolve around the very real “agony of choice in the face of uncertainty”. It’s less a schtick than a grim [and constant] reminder that I really am down in this fucking hole that I have thought myself into believing.

And this: that, right around the corner, is oblivion.

Besides, I do not argue that morality does not exist. I argue that from my frame of mind here and now it does not appear to exist essentially, objectively, necessarily, universally etc.

That, instead, it appears to be embodied in an existential contraption rooted in the manner in which here and now I construe the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods and political economy.

At least try to grapple with that distinction.

So, with respect to such moral and political conflagrations as abortion, homosexuality, gun control, affirmative action, animal rights, the role of government etc., conflicts would be resolved if only everyone gets what they want?

Well, let’s just say that here, our understanding of, among other things, the real world, is very, very different.

What can I say…

If there was an Olympic medal for miscontruing my points here, you would be bringing home the gold, the silver and the bronze.

Yes, they are personal opinions. Political prejudices that, in my view, you have taken a subjective/subjunctive leap to, given the confluence of experiences in your life that predisposed you existentially to go in this direction rather than another.

Just like me.

The only alternative, given the fact that others with very different experiences are able to offer reasons for going in a different direction, is that philosophers/ethicists etc., are in fact able to devise an argument [and a political agenda] in which it can in fact be demonstrated that all reasonable [and virtuous] men and women are obligated – obligated necessarily – to share it.

In other words, to be thought of as rational and virtuous people.

Some may still decide not to share it, sure, but there it is able to be so demonstrated.

It’s just that to go in that direction exposes the manner in which I construe “I” here as basically an existential contraption. And once someone goes down that road, they may well begin to question their self – their identity – in some rather disturbing ways.

To wit:

“My opinion about Communism, abortion, the death penalty and war does not reflect the Real Me in sync with the most rational way in which to understand these things, but is only [or mostly] embedded in the manner in which, given the historical, cultural and experiential parameters of my actual lived life, I have come to think and to feel about these things.”

And, let’s face it, the consequences of that are, in my view, just too disturbing for most to accept. In other words, from my frame of mind, given how disturbing they are to me.

But, given that this is, in turn, no less my own existential contraption here and now, it’s as far as I can go. I can only be persuaded or not persuaded to see things differently.

But you do not yourself embody these parts in the manner in which I do. So how on earth could you possibly know if these techniques would allow me to deal with them? Besides, I have my own techniques: distractions: movies, music, PBS, the Science Channel, HBO and Showtimes series, crostics, relaxation exercises, poetry etc.

What I need most from folks here are arguments able to convince me that there are ways up out of the hole such that the hole itself is shown to be an unreasonable “intellectual contraption”. Ways in which to construe conflicting human interactions such that the impact of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy are, as I suggested above, whittled away.

Back again to the abortion clinic. You note this to the folks hammering each other with conflicting goods. Sure, they may try your techniques and they might help them. But the babies are still either aborted or they are not. The pregnant women are still either forced to give birth [or be punished] or they are not.

Indeed, let’s take these techniques to the liberals and the conservatives over at the SGE board. They might help some. Just as engaging in my distractions might help some too.

But that still leaves the part about the role that dasein plays in constructing their individual value judgments; and the extent to which they embrace the authoritarianism embedded in an objectivist frame of mind.

If everyone was exactly like everyone else, then there would be nothing to learn from other people.

If that works for you, then fine.

But if you are here writing about the hole all the time, if choice is agony and oblivion is appalling then it sounds like your distractions are not working.

Still, it’s your decision.

No. My statements were directed to you and your “hole” problem.

Did I ever say that I was applying it to abortion issues?

Everything has to be one-size-fits-all?

Yeah, you find it disturbing and I don’t.

Go figure.

Iambiguous, you really don’t listen.

If the world offered ethics prizes, at a billion dollars each for proofs… they’d be solved!

Now, some guy like you comes along and says that since EVERY ethics prize hasn’t been solved, morality is not objective. I’ve. Already enumerated the three reasons why morality is objective and you called it “too general”, it’s a meta-proof for a reason!!! Duh!!!

And your tripe about the “I” really?? You respond the people who respond to you.

You are not the person you expect everyone to convince… the opposite, you are just an absurd contradiction deluding itself into believing it’s philosophy or psychology.

And I have recommended that you bring these intellectual contraptions down to earth and note how, in using them, you yourself have established a strong psychological anchorage with respect to critical matters in your own life.

How does this stuff actually work re your own conflicting interactions with others?

In other words, so far, all I have basically been able to establish “substantively” is that you almost certainly don’t own any slaves or smoke any cigarettes.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever come upon a brain that viewed these things quite differently that was not all these things?

That seems to be a crucial factor in the creation of the truly ossified brains. Embodied by, among others, the objectivists among us.

More to the point, you and others have accused me of burrowing down into my impregnable hole and using it basically as some sort of security blanket.

While [of course] accusing others of not having the “courage” to do the same.

And I have no illusion about bridging the gap here until one of us actually does come upon a new experience [or a new argument] that [for all practical purposes] manages to nudge us in the direction of the other.

I merely note how many times in the past my ossified brain did in fact succeed in becoming an altogether different ossified brain. As I lept from one objectivist frame of mind to the next.

Only now my new “ossified” brain does not permit me to wallow in the comfort and the consolation that all those other ones did.

And certainly not as some of the objectivists here among us own brains do:

1] yes, I am in sync with the real me

2] yes, the real me is in sync with one or another rendition of an objective morality

And then some are able to go even further…

3] yes, the real me is in sync with a religious rendition of objective morality and, on the other side of the grave, I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever

That’s my line of course. The one about human interactions in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change. But while I am willing to acknowledge these factors may well succeed in yanking me up out of the hole, how many objectivists are willing to concede in turn that they may well succeed in dragging them down into it as well.

Not many that I have ever come across.

Here the moral, political, religious, philosophical etc., objectivists will all line up to give you examples of the steps that they took. And only if the steps that you take bring you in sync with the steps that they take here and now are you ever likely to become “healed” or “enlightened” or “saved”.

In other words, to be come “one of us”.

Of course if you ask the objectivists to shift the discussion from the points that I make to them to the points that they make to each other, all hell breaks loose.

For them the only thing worse than not being an objectivist is in being the wrong objectivist.

And yet we all know that, depending on which particular historical, cultural and experiential context that any unique individual is born and raised in, they will be teaching others some very, very different [often very, very conflicting] lessons.

And while there is enough overlap [re nature and nurture] to make communication possible, when you get down to the actual motivation and intentions of individual folks like “you” and “I” and “her” and “him”, there are always going to be factors that become increasing harder to bridge.

Until you are down in the hole with me, you can’t possibly imagine just how effectual or ineffectual your techniquies will actually be. Same with me up out of the hole.

The bottom line [mine] is that in the hole “I” here is construed to be largely an existential contraption. And in a way that those not in the hole seem [to me] unable to truly fathom at all.

We’re just “stuck” here until those new experiences and arguments finally begin to actually sink in. Through them one of us finally begins to see more clearly what the other seems to be getting at.

But even if they do, there’s still the problem [in the is/ought world] of demonstrating that all rational men and women ought to think and to feel the same as “I” do. Or as “we” do.

Well, the paradox here [for me] is that, try as I might, I can’t escape a world in which conflicting goods [and nihilism] pummel the human species with all manner of actual pain and suffering. And there it is: oblivion.

So I burrow down into things that take me away from all that. And yet – existentially – my own particular rendition of dasein is simply awash in both politics and philosophy. My lived life has come to revolve around them. It’s a deeply engrained part of “I” that I am unlikely to ever jettison completely.

Besides, there’s no getting up out of the hole unless I provoke others into provoking me to challenge it.

This speaks volumes regarding the gap between us. From my perspective, the “hole” is utterly inseparable from that clash outside the abortion clinic. The only antidote there for me is the distractions.

I suspect this may well be beyond figuring out philosophically – logically, epistemologically. That, instead, the manner in which it either disturbs or does not disturb someone is embedded existentially in the actual life that they have lived.

Unless, of course, we’re both wrong.

Let’s run it by Prismatic.

You know, so that he can run it by Ecmandu

I think some objectivists have said here are some processes that have worked for many people and that there may be others. Further moving out of the hole and feeling better does not mean you would necessarily at all be then satisfied with any answers to your question about conflicting goods. Some of the suggestions seem clearly NOT to be ones that answer the question, but might eliminate some of the hole aspects. You have couched the issue as one between facing the epistemological truth, which will lead to discomfort which objectivists avoid. Some of the suggestions are clearly aimed at reducing suffering while at the same time could not possibly answer your question. IOW they will not make you this or that objectivist. They will not make you an objectivist, they might however reduce the suffering in the hole.

And hence they would not make you ‘one of us’. Certainly a Christian might present you with a process that they would think would do both, but others have not.

Further the situation is more complicated than you present it. There are other people here, there is at least one thread in fact, where people are asserting that morals do not exist. There are people like me who do not think there are objective morals, though I feel no urge to claim there are none. And yet I do not experience that as a hole. I did at one time find it very uncomfortable, though it was not a hole. There are other holes that I found much harder to deal with and I hit them much younger than you seem to have found problems with objectivist thinking. This is part of why the smugness in the way you present yourself as the brave one who can face a dark night of the soul surrounded by cowards so irritating.

Yes, and you think objectivists are worse than you. Just as two Japanese can tell when a third is looking down on them and judging even though every word, carefully chosen, and every act, delicately performed, claims otherwise.

And all hell does not always or even as a general rule break out between objectivists.

Why does your model generally head towards binary conclusions and psychic reading of others made by someone who models his beliefs on dasein-based critiques of objectivism.

What if discomfort is not the root of some of the reactions to what you write?
Why do you think the hole and non-objectivism must go together?
This is part of the reason some people assume you are attached to the hole for reasons you do not say or perhaps do not know.

It is almost as if…if you gave up being down in the hole, you would be betraying something, even if after you got out of being depressed and uncomfortable you continued searching for a solution to conflicting goods. Who would you be betraying or what would you be betraying if this is the case?