Back again to this:
1] I’m explaining my frame of mind to you in the manner in which I think I understand it.
2] you are reacting to this from me in the manner in which you think you understand me explaining it.
We may or may not ever bridge the gap here.
Still, as I noted above, it is only a matter of time before a set of circumstances comes crashing down, overwhelming any and all distractions that I may [here and now] have accumulated.
All I can do is to point out the extent to which [b]from my frame of mind here and now[/b] being down in this hole fractures and fragments me; and such that I am no longer able to embody the comfort and the consolation that my objectivists narratives in the past provided me.
In other words, with regard to embracing the sense that a “real me” is in sync with “the right way to live” on this side of the grave; and in regard to immortality and salvation on the other side.
You may have just made up an excuse not to try anything by saying you could distract yourself from the hole with films and music. To avoid changing you position or for some other reason.
Sure, to the extent that I am not wholly in sync with my own motivations/intentions, that is always possible. But given the extent to which “I” can only grasp this up to a point, isn’t that to be expected? There were so many experiences I had over the years that I was only somewhat in control over or understanding of. Just like you. We do the best we can in connecting these dots.
And that’s before we get to the subconscious and the unconscious mind. Entangled murkily in instinct and id. In those more primodial components of the brain/mind meld.
The parts that often come to the “surface” in dreams perhaps. Indeed, what is one to make of “I” then?
From my frame of mind all of this only serves to make “I” all the more an existential contraption. Profoundly problematic to say the least.
And then last but [perhaps] not least how all of this is to be understood in the context of the hard determinists arguments; or in the context of how “the human condition” is to be understood given that which explains the ontological [teleological?] meaning of Existence itself.
You may have just been being obnoxious to objectivists.
I don’t doubt that this is a component. It is all somehow intertwined in the manner in which I think “I” am intertwined in this frame of mind:
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
It’s not for nothing that I finally settled on this for my signature here.
But if you are asking me to explain with any real precision what it all means in encompassing the meaning of my arguments here, well, I’ll almost certainly disappoint you.
You would first have to come closer to understanding “I” in the manner in which I construe it on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
And then take your own “I” out into the world of conflicting goods and political economy and note how your “self” here is very different.
Using whatever “techniques” that worked for you.
You may be suffering immensely, but when cornered by people pointing out ways out, you decided to hide how little you can alleviate your suffering.
But [so far] no one has been able to point out a way in which they have either 1] avoided tumbling down into the hole that I am in or 2] once down there succeeded in yanking themselves up out of it.
At least insofar as they intertwine their sense of identity here in contexts involving conflicting value judgments and/or conflicting goods. Or with respect to oblivion.
Let’s just say that what “holds” for you here doesn’t hold for me.
I no longer take seriously you comparing yourself to objectivists in the convenient for you,insulting for them light you have framed it here.
I doubt it\s a good strategy either, if it is a strategy. And if it actually is your view, you look silly continuing to assert it when the silliness is pointed out.
Not to get too technical here, but, huh?
Again, as it pertains to an actual context we are all likely to be familiar with, only when you are willing to take these points down to earth by discussing the manner in which you and I react to particular strategies deemed to be either silly or not, are we likely to better illustrate the respective components of our arguments.