What is Dasein?

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.

Again, I take it all back. I thought your hole was a deep existential and painful crisis. I do hold you responsible to a great degree for that impression, even here above your use of language makes it sound extremely painful. But given how easy it is to distract yourself from it and your lack of interest and need for any way out of the emotional hole, I have a better sense of what you are facing on a day to day level. I took your rhetorical attack on objectivists too seriously. You do think they are deluded but you are not remotely as troubled yourself as it seemed. It was just a good way to attack those you see as deluded.

OK, now I know you do not identify as Buddhist. You kept mentioning Buddhist Noble Truths and presenting ideas that are experienced only by advanced meditators as if you knew them to be the case, again within the Buddhist tradition. You took umbrage, elsewhere, to criticisms of the Buddhist community and masters and the judgments and behaviors I find there. You were sure it would not hold for those masters in South Asian Buddhism, I believe it was. My experience is that those masters also are very critical of public judgments and speaking about meditative states one has not yet experienced and even then very carefully. But I see now you have just taken what you like and are not interested in why masters who actually have attained those states over decades - and in their belief system, lifetimes - universally warn people off some of the behaviors you exhibit, and because they consider it to slow down their development as meditators thus increasing their suffering. IOW evil, in their non-Western sense of the term. You know better than them despite your novice status what can be tossed to the side. Which if fine with me, I do not like that tradition anyway.

I was not referring to public statements on Islam. I was talking about daily practices that lead to deeper meditation and the specific states that Buddhist practices are aiming at. And then what obstacles one can create to accomplishing things there. But you are in the mall of Buddhism, shopping for what you like, like many a Westerner.

What the heck are you on about? My views on Islam are extremely negative.

What an ugly thing to say. Furher it is a stupid thing to say. My relatives are vastly more likely to die from corporate conscoius negligence, wars and their effects carried out for corporate profit,than through terorrism and so are yours, but we’ll never see you writing threads critical of the philosophies of life and value inherent in corporate culture will we?

And just to be trebly clear. Those methods engage the emotional suffering related to any hole. They do not solve the conundrum and they will not elimate all suffering, but they reduce it, often to a remarkable degree. And as said repeatedly and repeatedly ignored by you, you can then continue to seek an answer to the conundrum while suffering less. But now I understand that your suffering is not so great, given your self-help methods, and, for your information, that level of suffering is likely NOT something people are terrified of, or those books would not be so popular, nor would more serious players be looking for methods that help people deal with really heavy stuff and true existential crises.

It would be better perhaps not to focus on one particular person but generalize a discussion. toward shared problems that need not descend into am absolute abyss for I do not think that even exists.

The reduction toward such descent is the backbone of existential reduction and this befits all mankind.

The reduction traps any one into nihilism, since phenomena are out pointiillystically into.an expanding canvas, where the edges seem to blend into one another
But it’s an illusion and the illusion. Is which we are all trapped in. In particular illusions into more illusions with the optics becoming more fabulous.

So if Lambigious’ problem with reduction is worthy of closer examination into it , he is not doing his own reduction , unless he wants to become self destructive, and listening to him over the years. that is not my impression of him, but that he is not attuned to , literally the increasing impressionist interpretation. Who he is, probably not worth his while to transcend, because he may not view transcendental reality the way to so it.(phiilosophically) in fact I do not believe for a second that he is a tranacendentalist.

This is also my preference, to connect the points by a visual correspondence between equally spreading and seemingly disembodied visual clues which have taken up residence in usual roles without actually believing them.

Its like six characters searching for an author, while remaining in an accustomed characterization.

With dozens and dozens that have already come down the pike over the years, why would I suppose I’ll actually bump into the one most likely to work on me?

Besides, I can always slump down into one of my own distractions in order to feel “comfortably numb”.

Though, sure, if I come upon a regimen that actually appears to address the hole I have come to think myself into, my interest would be considerably more piqued.

My hole is a numbingly complex intertwining of circumstances, psychology and philosophy. But what are the odds that I could successfully convey that to others who have no substantive understanding whatsoever of how the existential variables in my own life came to predispose me to this “sense of reality”.

Better [for me] if they aim to persuade me to try something that has actually worked for them. But only in the sense that, when they are confronted with conflicting goods [re their interactions with other], they are not consumed themselves by the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here.

I actually feel better immersed in one of my distractions as well. But, if others are down in the hole that I am in, that will only last until the next newscast. Or until the next spasm in their aging body reminds them that oblivion really may well be just right around the fucking corner.

What I do is to note that when I was an objectivist myself, I was able to embody the comfort and the consolation of imagining that the real me was in touch with a self-righteous truth on this side of the grave and with immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

That [here and now] is beyond my reach.

But would appear [here and now] to still be within their reach. Depending of course on the particular objectivist frame of mind that they subscribe to.

Indeed, here we are again: at the fucking epicenter of dasein.

How on earth would I go about making you understand my frame of mind? Hell, even if you knew me for years, there would still be any number of crucial gaps between my “I” and yours. The vast, vast number of possible permutations built into the evolution of our own particular sequence of existential variables is for all practical purposes incalcuable.

And then we would still have to confront what I construe to be the reality of conflicting goods out in a world where the bottom line always revolves around who has the political power to enforce one or another actual set of rules.

Why on earth would I back off? Only in reminding others how they may well be susceptible to my own frame of mind someday am I likely to provoke them into making an attempt to demonstrate why they are not now.

But only to the extent that they are willing to broach their own sense of self [in the is/ought world] by noting their own equivalent of this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

In other words, taking us through the existential intertwining of a sequence of actual experiences and a sequence of actual ideas they came across in the course of actually living their life.

There is only one self, one “true self”, one “real self” … it’s the self that exists now, in the present moment.

Again, there is that enormous existential gap between what I think I am trying to convey to you here about my frame of mind and what you think that I think I mean instead.

So, you hold me responsible for what…pointing this out?

I think the sort of hole that you are talking about here revolves far more around particular sets of circumstances. One is in constant excruciating pain. One is being battered from all directions. One’s life is in the toilet. One’s options are few.

And then if, on top of all that, you feel human existence is essentially meaningless and absurd, it can sure as shit become all that more unbearable.

I have absolutely no illusions that any day now one or another rendition of the “big one” will descend down upon me and I will be in that hole you are now imagining of me in your head.

But I don’t think that they are necessarily deluded. After all, how on earth would I go about demonstrating to others that they are? And over and over and over again I point out that my own narrative here is no less an existential contraption.

I think basically you confuse my provocative polemicist persona here with what you are actually able to imagine is instead the real [or realer] me.

Which just reflects how far removed we actually are from grasping the manner in which I have come to think about “I” in the world of value judgments. Or in discussions that revolve around “the meaning of life”.

But then I have come to expect that in exchanges like this.

It truly deflates me when you allow your contributions here to be reduced down to this sort of thing.

Yes, here and now, there is only one particular “I” embodied in each and every one of us in any one particular context confronted with any one particular set of options.

But why in the same context do so many different people go in so many different directions:

Morally.
Politically.
Aesthetically.

Is the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above an important component to be considered here?

And, if not, how, in your own conflicted interactions with others, is it basically nowhere to be seen?

Iambiguous, we’re going to have a little talk here.

You see, there are people who want to be in charge and send people to hell forever. The only people they can round up are people like you, by consent, by spiritual mandate. Why would you do that to yourself?

I’m not trying to be mean here…

You skipped over this post though…

viewtopic.php?p=2701754#p2701754

You’ve lived long enough… what do you think really happens to someone who repeatedly denies their innate morality repeatedly in the universe…

It’s called consent iambiguous!

Since many of them have positive effects in most participants, the odds are very high their would be a reduction in suffering after trying just a few. But, again, I see why you have little motivation in part because the hole is not very deep.

Right and duly noted. But this places the way you contextualize you and the objectivists in a light that is not flattering. You have your distractions. You are fine being comfortably numb. The hole you are in does not have a particularly serious emotional depth. So to judge the objectivists as running away, unable to face the hole, is grounded on nothing.

Sigh. Read it again. Back off from the way you couch the issue, not the issue of conflicting goods. I have said this time and again.

You couch the issue as objectivists cannot face what you have managed to face. They cannot deal with the discomfort. Now you reveal

as justification for not bothering with any method that might alleviate your suffering

that TV and music work. You have your self-help method.

That these work reveals that the suffering is very mild. Those things do not work for depression, PTSD, existential crises, etc.

So your positioning yourself as having faced something so tough objectivists in general cannot face it

is something you should back off from because it is false.

When someone talks about you, you raise dasein issues

How could you possibly know me? and we get a short lecture in the effects of dasein.

But you know why objectivists do not join you in your hole and can know, somehow, all of their minds.

Of course I am reacting to the kind of person you present yourself as here.

Of course when you present yourself or a polemic self as bravely facing a hole
and present objectivists as running from it
and then say that you can distract yourself from this hole via media

I will respond to what I have to work with.

You are acting in the world, to whatever degree it is polemics.

In these acts you have judged others who do not agree with you.

I found these judgments wanting going by what you put forward about yourself and the objectivists.