What is Dasein?

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?

In FACT being in the absolute hole is what idealism is all about. There are no two ways about it, and there the dual logic of argument rests, by fiat. Wether that, or ascend into the confusions of moral relativity.

Biut that has been foreclosed by the will.

I believe ‘realism’ is in a bigger ‘hole’ i.e. the hole of an independent ‘reality.’
What the realist do not realize is ‘realism’ = empirical idealism.
There are many types of ‘idealism’ and the most realistic view is that of transcendental idealism in complementary with empirical realism.

Iambiguous, like the venus fly trap is trying [evilly] to get others into his ‘hole’ and condemning others as objectivists. Iambiguous do not realize his views of being in hole is the mother of all objectivity. The ‘hole’ re “I am in a hole” is an ‘object’ while “I” is the subject thus falling into his own trap of his detested ‘subject versus object’ dichotomy.

Certainly the us vs. them categorizing is an ironic thread running through iambiguous’ online behavior. However 1) I can find no reason to consider Venus Fly Traps evil even were I an objectivist and I appreciate them eating flies.

Does Iambiguous want to drag people down into his hole? - let’s set aside what Lacan might say here about the question itself. If so, it must be very frustrating. I tend to think people latch onto dynamics not goals, even though we tend to think we are aiming at a goal. IOW it is the relationship as it is experienced now that is attractive or less repulsive, especially if it continues for a long time. Thus the goal is not for him to convert objectivists, but to judge them and taunt them, but also to yearn for them to come to him, perhaps joining him perhaps converting him upward again. This static dynamic that will never resolve in his lifetime is the goal, as it is now.

Yeah, that’s not what he means by objectivism.

And ironically since you are referring to him in this way, he becomes the object of your subject, since you clearly disidentify with him. The irony is here you are being a hypocrite to your own pseudo-Buddhism while at the same time equivocating on words beginning with ‘object___’

The interesting thing for me is that Iamb presents an undercurrent post-enlightenment position. It’s one of the ways the rational mind can flounder when Enlightenment values and modes of thinking become the rule. I notice it around me in all sorts of discussions of politics and ethics, though very few people present it openly like he does. A shame about acting in the world if one does not know one is right and good. A guilt about having desires and acting on them. Not a religious guilt, but a rational guilt. And look, it ends up, ironically, with a neo-Buddhist withdrawel from the world. An attempt at purity. At least I will have spent my last years with no blood on my hands. I will not have asserted that anyone or anything is bad or good. I left no moral footprint (instead of not leaving a carbon footprint). It is the desperate hope of someone who does not believe in objective morals to NOT do something immoral ever again.

Throughout many of his posts Iambiguous was ‘expecting’ [a subliminal dark desire of evilness] those you try to yank him out of the hole would end up in a hole instead.
nb: Evil Act = any act that is net-negative to the well being of own or/and other selves.

I think you have not followed Iambiguous’ historicity. His is a disdain for objectivists along the line of Heidegger [I am deeply into his views] via William Barrett and other existentialists.

My personal view is ‘objectivity’ must be complemented with ‘subjectivity’, as in Ying must complement with Yang re Taoism which reconcile with the Two-Truths of Buddhism.

That is the problem that be and the pre occupation of various forums that St.James and others concerned ourselves with, I.e.that of the problem of set theory, of limits with the infinite set, and the paradoxical infinite set that. contains all sets including Its self .

Now being a life long Kantian, my initial solution has a synthetic middle which diffuses the problem of inclusion or exclusion, (and in my case , preclusion) by virtue simply of categorically truism.
Not by defining reality as an excluded transcendental reality, by virtue of how reality cuts or is transcended by an ideal world, or how modern philosophy tends to reduce the way that reality, which is used in contextual schema, but how logically reality preconceives the various contexts including their totality.

So I am unfortunately in a position of being in the middle of an argument of a no win win type.
The man in the middle is indefinable except categorically

The reason I landed there is beyond my total
comprehension , but it has to do with the implausabilituy of reducing both: a phenomenological and eidectic method to contravert meaning so that a negation may entail a total qualitative and quantitative re presentation.
There is always a diferance. a remainder between an absolute and a relative set.

I am expressing basic set theory in terms of the language of philosophy , a language inadequate for a total signification. of meaning.
The idea that there is always a gap . an exclusion of partial sets, is simply not what absolute idealism is meant. to Be (for an idealist or conceived.)

For this reason, separating absolutes on real basis , -idealism into a realism of objective ideals from the claim for absolutely real ideals, does not work.(For me)

$chematic points of view( and the use of 'point of view’generally, in a reduced phenomenological sense) of the existentially present, being the starting point, may presuppose a total contradiction.( of values)
And with that, the fly trap analogy works.
But which it is is relative to the type , as here is the full appreciation of how the paradox works, that which occupied both Cantor and Russel -were so concerned with.

The reason I am elaborating, is because both Russell and Eyer’s arguments lands them into infinite regress.
They work , but they are anchored in limited and pragmatic realities, and it can be said of realities . as well, that there are different realities.

The closer a multi functional reality becomes useful, the less credible an absolute idealism becomes.

This schema in terms of absolute contradiction is preferable and Kant becomes a better solution.
Here I point to a regress in Kant as well, for in the naturalistic fallacy in in the use of the categorical imperative -why the ’ should" instead of the ‘is’ the’ because 'becomes another should.

Hegel-Kant-Hobbes are a linear progression to the problem of universals, and the problem consists of the inability to reduce one end to the other end because the idea is not a one dimensional progression of interwoven conceptual links . The sum of partial sums will differ toward a minimum, but it always remains.

Now I am sure that the above is full of holes, but the general framework is fairly consistent with the idea…

Here I should not make a call, and yet the trap is obvious and yet, it becomes paradoxical on a closer look.

I know that on a previous occasion You implied that Lambigious will never go there, -a fair middle- and absolute idealism is only very minimally motivational position to get out of nihilistic stasis, but thinking categorically , it is as problematic
Idealism needs no compromise, and it’s appeal is mostly due to a reactive point of view to the existential problem that. conflicting values throw one into the world.

This is true with certainty because modernity diminishes traditional values, that any such values mark as useless. Man is more alone now, then at any other time in human history.
You are right in the relative sense of realitive absolute, but minimize the sense of a real absolute , not merely transcendental , but preconsceptual.

Again i am not and can not be in an adversarial position in any case, it would be a logical inauthentic formulation on my part.

Lambiguous’s position can not be argued to get him out of the whole, he is in an existential position, that he can only extricate himself by the intentionality of using his own will , to power over the binding situation , of one he may see unfit.

Again . my overview should not give any impression of a belabored point, I was trying to make sense to myself of the points raised, partly to refresh the train of thought that did logically flow.

That’s because you and I have very different ideas about what a solution to the hole would produce.

You expect it to resolve all conflicts, eliminate uncertainty and produce a “real self” which is static over time.

I think that a solution allows you to accept the existence of conflict, uncertainty and a dynamic self. IOW, it produces the ability to live without being disturbed by these ideas.

Just for the record, I think much of the time I am not trying to pull him out of the hole, but trying to tease out what he is really up to. I have asked why, given that he has no idea what the good is, if there is a good, he would chose to try to make people suffer. Still, I have no problem with Venus Fly Traps.

OK, I got the impression somewhere, likely me mixing up people or reading poorly, but I thought to were Buddhist or held with Buddhist ontology, where there would generally be no evil in any Western sense and further pointing fingers that this or that is evil in specific at a specific person or his or her acts, would be seen as problematic. And of course it is a great example of reinforcing the subject object split.

For him objectivists believe there are objective morals. IOW there is no solution to all instances of conflicting goods or any. We cannot determine objectively if abortion is good or bad, though we can make up laws and our own subjective judgments. In fact I would go so far as to say he conflates universal and objective morals since he often conflates practical reconciliation which is possible and might happen over time with abortion, say, with epistemological issues around objectively determining what is good or evil. But in any case it is about morals. So, any issue related to the subject object split is not relevent to his objectivism. It is not about objects. It is not about the fact that there is no objective knowledge. It has to do with morals, period. And as far as Heidigger I believe you have pointed out his idiosyncractic use of dasein, which is not really how H intended it. He is not a Heidiggerean or, really, he would not be in a hole. He took some words and was inspired to his position in part by him, it seems, which most people, other than fanatic devotees, do to varying degrees with H and every other philosopher.

And to me this continues to indicate you do not understand what he means when he labels someone an objectivist. If a scientist tells Iambiguous that experiments repeatedly show that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen Iamb will not label him an objectivist. He is also not advocating that everyone be subjective. In fact he thinks that people often speak as if they are being objective when in fact they are being subjective, often based on collective subjective ideas.

In fact his basic point about conflicting goods and his criticism of what he means by objectivism is PERFECTLY compatible with many forms of Buddhism, whereas your comparing him to a Venus Fly Trap in the context of evilly trapping people does not fit well at all with Buddhism.