What is Dasein?

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.

If the above is some sort of an evilly ‘Venus Fly Trap’ then what it is?

Note the above is not the only post, but there are many other posts like the above in varying presentation.

One thing that Prismatic and Iambiguous share is their implicit and sometimes open claim to be braver than their opponents: theists in the case of Prismatic, Objectivists – which would include most theists, but is not limited to them – in the case of Iambiguous.

Prismatic (Spectrum perhaps) has faced death and theists are not capable of it. Iambiguous has faced the inability to truly 1) know what the objective good is and 2) how to convince people effectively to give up their side of conflicting goods disputes and objectivists are made too uncomfortable by this, so they run or attack him or try to help him join their cult.

Two brave men, the former likely much younger, having faced the harsh truths, locked in struggle with more cowardly humans, unable to deal with their knowledge.

There are a lot of ways to question this fundamental position they share.

The first is to point out that dasein-based models AND modern science should make one wary of hard positions about what one is doing, why one is doing it and one’s own ability to KNOW what the motivations of other people are.

‘The difficult thing is not to reject belief in order to shock the believing other, but to be a non-believer without the need for another subject supposed to believe on my behalf.’ Zizek.

Note this is just an example, I am not claiming I know that Prismatic and Iamb get off on the dynamic. Get off on the dynamic of ‘being the one who can face harsh truths that others cannot’ and hence the attraction of continuing the dynamic, rather than, say, finding ways to move in the world that one values. I also think it would be an oversimplification in both cases, even if it were true. I suspect it is a factor and that in both cases the dynamic itself is in part protecting them both from facing certain fears, whatever those may be.

You will not find Buddhists who actually have meditated a long time with discipline going on and on about the bad Muslims, nor will you find them speaking about subject/object splits and advanced Buddhist abstractions based on more meditation and states-reached than they have. Only early stage, adolescent practitioners will focus on all these terms as if they know what they hell they are talking about in more than some abstract Westerner, feels right in my neocortex’s imagination way Prismatic has. So one can wonder what the hell Prismatic is avoiding facing when he runs around spouting Buddhist truths, as if he has achieved the meditative states which ground this knowledge, and judging publically the motivations of people who believe differently from him. There are reasons Buddhist communities of all kinds and Buddhist masters of all kinds advice novices to avoid such behavior and it is hardly brave to engage in this what is a best cart before the horse behavior.

And most post Heidiggerians, will not simply lock onto the conflicting goods, problems with contingency stuck point, but will face the fear of acting in the world without a deity’s or science’s permission to. Iamb wants permission to act in the world, in the sureness that it is towards the Good, something he, at this point, does not believe is a valid concept. He does not believe in a deity. He does not believe there is an objective Good or one could not know it if there was one. YET he is waiting before acting in the world ever again, for permission from that non-existent deity or perhaps somehow from science (if it can manage to convince him it knows ‘ought’ along with ‘is’. This is hardly a brave stasis.

Both these men hide in the neocortex, one having sided with Buddhists who instead of finding ways to integrate the limbic system, for example, teach one to disidentify with it AND to not allow the natural flow of the limbic system into expression. Their practices specifically disconnect the limbic system from the vocal apparatus and from the bodies movements in general. Such people with such goals, should be very wary about judging how much fear they themselves can face, since they are actively suppressing and disengaging from their emotions.

There’s that scene in Heat, Deniro in the hotel room with the man who betrayed his gang. He is going to kill the guy. He is pointing his gun in the guy’s face. The guy is not looking at him and is not particularly afraid. Look at me, Deniro says a number of times. He knows that by a simple not looking the man is not facing his fear, a mere physical posture. The guy finally looks up at Deniro’s face, realizes he is going to die and Deniro kills him. There are all sorts of ways to not really feel one’s fears. Neither of these two brave philosophers has a good way to judge their own abilities in relation to others on this front, though I suspect Iamb has faced a lot more fears than the boyish - even if he is not as young as he comes off - Prismatic.

Iamb might agree on this, but think that on this specific issue of the problem of dealing with conflicting goods, etc., he has faced a fear that objectivists have not, however brave they may be in other areas. But even this is speculation. And there are plenty of holes to go around and face. I doubt either one of you know what a religious person going through a dark night of the soul experiences, since the very practices that person engages in intensify the connections between the limbic system and the neocortex. They haven’t been hard at work cutting off the connections or suppressing the mammalian brain, nor have the projected their emotions onto other groups, to give them the role of their own limbic expression. Even if it is a wrong turn to accept the whole brain, you who would disidentify should be wary of thinking you can somehow meansure how much discomfort or fear others have faced in compaison with you. Let alone what the religious person who thinks it is likely they will go to hell will face.

This does not mean you need to give up your rational critiques or search for answers, it is the framing of the dynamic and the simple assumptions this is based on I find pretty hubristic.

Who knows how much fear the theist they are feeling superior to is actually facing. And besides, modern science has a number of other theories about why theists believe and Prismatic’s smug hypothesis is mere speculation.

Iamb will not act in the world, except to the degree he runs his threads. Talk about not leaving his comfort zone. Yes, there may be other factors, but even via the internet there is the opportunity to do what comes after noting one’s thrownness, the problems of determining objective morals, and stepping into life without God or permission from science for one’s choices.

Cognitive science should make one somewhat cautious about certainty about one’s own motives for engaging in the dynamics one does and even certainty about what one believes - if one 1) puts current scientific consensus on a pedastal as both you and 2) one intentionally enacts one’s distaste for the limbic system, as both do. And that’s not even getting to how cautious one should be about the motivations of others if one has just science to go on as THE EXPERT. And since these two render unto science that which is science’s and even base their smugness on it and it’s clear distinction, for them, from what other people base their beliefs on, it would behoove them to notice the humility about their own bravery that comes with modern science in relation to self-knowledge. And since both have tremendous distaste for the limbic system – despite Damasio, for example – the likelihood that they are even more cut off from what they are really up to than many of the enemies – who do not share that same distaste for the limbic system or may to lesser degrees, humility might be more consistant.

Or more honesty about the rage and smugness that’s there. The good, rational neocortex man who wants to make the world a better place stance in both cases is very hard to buy.

I think what’s most important about iambiguous’ absurdity, is that without any doubt whatsoever, iambiguous has (like everyone) a really strong opinion of what would be bad to occur to him personally. It’s much stronger than his repeated contradiction of “Dasein”.

He knows for a fact what he doesn’t want to happen to him, and he knows for a fact that everyone else is the same. He’s trying to control bad occurring in his own psyche by claiming nobody is too good for something that has happened to be bestowed upon him - he’s trying to be a puffed up bad-ass, but he’s not, and neither is anyone else.

Where did I claim I am a Buddhist?

My approach is eclectic and I pick on generic truths regardless of where they come from.

I agree the Dalai Lama is a very wise Buddhist but he is not an all rounder.
The Dalai Lama is VERY stupid when it comes to the subject of Islam.

How can the Dalai Lama claimed the above when he has not studied the Quran and Islam seriously. He is merely relying on fallacious logic of hasty generalization, i.e.

All religions are peaceful
Islam is a religion
Islam is a peaceful religion.

I am not too sure whether he is really that stupid on Islam or pretending for being politically correct.

Point is I have never come across any Buddhist scholar or expert claiming they are also an expert on Islam and insisting Islam is a religion of peace.

I think you have a problem when you failed to see this 500 pound gorilla in the room.

Perhaps you will only wake up when you or your relatives are stab or killed by Islamists while sitting in a cafe somewhere.

The hole has several facets. There is the philosophical topic you focus on. There are the emotions that the word hole is shorthand for. These need not be solved simultaneously, even if some frustration may remain around getting the answer to the philosophical issue.

Sure, the decision to take approach X to getting out of the emotional hole may be one of trial and error, or research into scientific journals or by following your own sense of what suites your personality better than the others. This last leading potentially to trial and error.

Well, then it does not sound like a hole. You have presented it as something unpleasant, something that other people avoid with great effort and are unable even to admit their own fears around falling into the hole.

Now you are presenting it as something you can distract yourself form via music and film.

To me that is hardly a hole, in the emotional sense, and likely something with a degree of suffereing many people are facing. Why do I conclude that? Because in the holes I have faced - and surely you as a veteran have faced, I would guess - those things I would call holes and think that people go into denial over and run from and lie about, are not remotely soothed by film and music, though I certainly tried. Fears of death or not existing through time or the immanent painful death of loved one, realizations that what I thought I was doing and valued I did not. Memories of traumatic events when they surface with a vengeance over time and not just in flashes. Fears of being damned or made wrong or fundamentally repulsive at a core level. Facing actions I truly regret while at the same time not being certain I will not repeat them. When hit with these kinds of holes - which are often intermingled - your list of distractions do not distract me, in fact they can almost feel worse. I have the same feelings, and their is irritating noise or images on top of it.

Now if you want to call that a hole, fine. It’s a vague metaphor. But when you are making it seem like that kind of existential crisis hole is something all objectivists run from, I truly doubt that.

But now I get a better handle on why you might not feel any urge to climb out. You ain’t that deep down, you have whatever obstacles you hint at above, and you have your own forms of self-medication.

[/quote]
It’s still framed, above, with objective morals. I do not think there is a right thing to do. There may be more effective approaches given my goals, but it is not right in any moral sense.

I was in a training where there was a consultant. Another participant reacted with open anger when we had to redo a values analysis - ironically in this context. The online instructions were not clear, most of us came to the wrong way of numbering responses. I was curious and didn’t mind redoing it. He was more irritated, at first willing, then picked up the judgment of the consultant team about his emotional reaction and actually stomped out of the room.

During the discussion of this, I came to his defense - I should add I did this even though he was critical of my accepting the task. The consultants had values about emotional expression that collided with ours. I felt empathy for his reaction, and expressed it this way. I argued that ideas about the damaging effects of emotions are not convincing to me. They argued that his way of responding was counterproductive. I argued. Well, it doesn’t really matter but there was some back and forth. He felt supported by me. The situation could have had negative effects for us financially, that is they had some power.

I pushed for having that particular situation and perhaps vaguely also society move in a direction I prefer. I was moved to act by my empathy and understanding of his reaction and my rejection of their beliefs/preferences.

I don’t know if the world I would create - if I were unbelievably convincing - would be objectively good or better than the way things are. I reacted, I think, out of yes, ideas, but also near physical reactions to judgments about emotions and emotional expression. I see culture and not always being pitted against culture, but also against bodies. IOW I do not think all reactions and preferences are simple memes. It feels to me like human bodies have preferences.

But I do not know how universal these are. I do not know if it is better, in some objective way, for the human race to die out, and anything making us uncomfortable is just peachy.

I move towards what my empathy and desire say is supportive to that which I love. And move against things I think are damaging to what I care about. Generally my main tools are to undermine arguments for things I do not like and against things I do like. IOW they tend to be skeptical arguments.

I make my best guesses. As far as what moves things in the direction I prefer.

In the specific case I think it opened some space for us to not have to stifle ourselves in the presence of authority. A tiny local victory for my preferences.

Realized that you may see my description as me claiming to have solved conflicting goods. Nah, I do not have that kind of power. This is how one can live even if one does not have objective morals. And one has no reason not to. If there are no objective morals or one cannot know what they are, THERE IS NO REASON NOT to make things more like one likes and one thinks is supportive to the things one loves. There is no reason to withdraw and not act. One can, of course, if that is what one wants to do, but then one might as well be clear to oneself and others that this is what one wants, not some noble waiting for permission to participate - even if it is only online participation.

And notice that sure, people who believe in objective morals have conflicts. So do people who do not have objective morals.

Iambig’s characterization of the hole changes all the time. That’s one reason why I think he is playing a game most of the time - entertaining himself by jerking people around and getting a reaction out of them.

Sure, there have been countless “self-help” narratives/remedies that have been broached and peddled over the years. They pop up on the best seller lists all the time. And they have certainly helped any number of folks out of their own particular holes. Or they wouldn’t be best sellers.

And, yes, I could spend the rest of my days trying them all one by one.

But how many of them have you come across that actually engage the hole that I am in? How many holes revolve around 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.

“Feeling better” here is one thing. And, as I noted above, I already have plently of distractions for that. But I still feel no less embedded in an is/ought world that I construe to be embedded in turn in an essesntially absurd and meaningless No God world that ends for “I” in oblivion.

And the crucial part here in this forum is that my frame of mind revolves not only around circumstances but around a philosophical contraption such that I have managed to think myself into believing what I do.

So, I go in search of those who do not believe what I do.

But, out in the world of actual conflicting human behaviors, why don’t they?

And here they will either bring the components of their own philosophical contraptions down to earth or they won’t.

Instead I often get “general descriptions”/“intellectual contraptions” like this:

Let’s explore this as it pertains to your own life. Or to a context “in the news” that clearly divides folks into either the “one of us” or the “one of them” camps. Human interactions that clearly precipitate and then sustain all manner of human suffering.

Morality need not exist for those who are, say, castaways on a deserted island; or for those who choose to separate themselves from all others by living in survival mode out in the wilderness somewhere. Here only their belief in the existence of God would create the need for a moral path.

But once we choose to interact with others, wants and needs come into conflict. And then “rules of behavior” need to be established. And, when push comes to shove, isn’t that really what traditions/customs/folkways/mores/laws/constitutions etc., revolve around?

It just comes down then to how any particular human community configures and ceaselessly reconfigures all of the components embedded in the interaction of genes and memes.

And you think that you understand my motivations and intentions here better than I do myself. Meanwhile, I make it abundantly clear that given the pofoundly problematic manner in which “I” construe even my own capacity to understand that, “I” can never really be wholly in touch with it myself!

And, again, in my view, it is precisely this ambiguous frame of mind that others wish to avoid themselves. And, in order to do so, they must come to believe that there really does exist one or another rendition of a “real me” able to discover and/or invent rules of behavior said to be the optimal or the only rational way in which to interact with others.

Again, what on earth are you suggesting here? Note a context, note a set of conflicting behaviors. We can then engage the respective components of our arguments as they pertain to actual human interactions revolving around identity, value judgments and political power.

Yeah, I get this part. And how in the world would I – could I – ever really know for certain the extent to which it [or parts of it] aren’t true?

All I know is that, in being down in the hole, “I” feel profoundly fractured and fragmented in engaging moral and political issues. Conflicts that, as an objectivist, I was able to obviate by embracing a frame of mind enabling me to believe that I was in fact in touch with a “real me” able to grasp those truly right and those truly wrong sets of behaviors.

And, as a devout Christian, I was destined once to attain both immortality and salvation.

But in order to embrace those enormously comforting and consoling idealities once again I’d have to betray…what exactly?

Being trapped in am is/out world, is like seeking confirmation. to allay that feeling.(or being trapped. But there is no exit , because the social safety valve has dropped out many years ago, dropped one into total doubt.

The will habe abandoned is, into a world of choices , too many to evaluate, hence we only can drop all of these choices into two: the a capable acceptable and the unacceptable. We forced to go ahead with it, or get back where where tho choices kept narrowing into plausible , rational decisions, where the authority and final fimal judgement judgement waa divided into a jury of opinions

One thinks, might as well keep the choice open between a jury of many, or Yourself being the only instinctual arbiter…

Can I trust myself to be that, when others feel the same?
Can the be each and every one think the same?

Can my self trust be grounded in such successful conclusions in the past? Or with the risk of a failure of judgement be prey to a self condemnation?

If so, hesitation at first steps in and then that into absolute reversal of any future attempt of judgement.

This becomes a perceived crisis in ethics.

Everything is permitted, as long its grounded in the rational expectation of how such a man would judge. Appraising reason.

A reasonable man can discern singular, empathetic leeways of applicability, predominantly based on reduced either this or that: are we innocent or guilt in declaring any value to stand on what can be allowed, and what can’t?

Morally, there is no such choice, what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong
It is based on what should. R done, and there really is no two ways about it.

This, from my point of view, is a classic example of what some philosophy here has devolved into.

Is the point true?

In other words, are the definitions and the meanings and the order that have been given to these words able to encompass that which all rational men and women are obligated to share?

Well, let’s bring this “absolute hole” and “idealism” and “dual logic” and “confusions” regarding moral relativity down to earth and explore it given the manner the manner in which I have come to situate the meaning of dasein out in the world of actual human interactions.

Those Those comforts that allow one to think thataybe are caused by moral necessary consideration, and not due to ethically confusing patterns necessitating a choice.

A choice between a consciable necessary moral act suspending a moral self condemnation, or one where not acting in accordance with acceptable standards result in unconscionable acts resulting in confusion and self doubt…

Examples are necessary here and those acts such as saving someone to whom one owns an unqualifies debt to , such as saving saving a daughter from drowning a daughter , or saving saving a host of giving said daughter medicine to save her life, even if, itnhaa to be stolen from a drug store, mad worry about the consciable judgment of others’ opinions after that, and plead non contest after that

Moral imperatives do not allow any finding of.truth and false, by definition , they are categorically true and allow no false-mess to distill into a further choice based on even a modicum of doubt
Does abortion not conflated between ethical and moral consideration s? Does an ethically inclined doctor soint his own consciences. and necessitates his suspension of judgement, because of the necessary implementation of going going aheadnof am abortion, or, could he refer the procedure with someone less consciable?

Why presume that it would take trying them all.

Because as I have said elsewhere and perhaps not just me, there are two things going on, an emotional hole and the philosophical conundrum.

[/quote]

[/quote]
Putting ‘feeling better’ in citation marks is bizzarre. People actually feel better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193663&p=2701804#p2701804

You have been presenting your hole as something so scary to objectivists they must oppose you and deny the validity of what you are saying and hide the truth from what you are saying. And yet now it is described as something you watch films and listen to music to distract yourself from. We thought you were really deeply upset 1) because you called it a hole 2) because of how powerful the effect you attribute to this hole having on objectivists when they get somewhere near it.

But here is turns out to be on a part with everyday stress such as that at the average job, given the list of self-medication techniques you use. And yes, I understand now why you feel little motivation to find a way out of your hole and I now see no reason to point out that there are methods to help you out of the hole. You can,however, back off from the - my ideas threaten you so much, I can face the discomfort of the truth and you cannot posturing. That’s just silly, now that you’ve revealed what can soothe your dark night of the soul, even if it is only temporary.

Or just finding a way not to change while accusing his opponents of being afraid. It is a pretty standard ad hom. You run from the truth of my arguments, you cannot face them - I mean the know thyself crowd uses this approach regularly. But when suggestions come at him to come out of his hole, then it is not so bad. Convenient answers at different points in time that do not reconcile. Who knows? I have noticed oddities and probed them and at times I am sure it is something like what you say, at times something else. I really don’t know. A form of trolling. An angry stance covered by a more ‘I just don’t know what to do’ stance. I don’t know how much self-knowledge there is, how much intent to piss off or hit back on people he thinks are making the world worse. Or…

In the end I just see the inconsistancies and get the sense something other that what he is presenting is going on.