But: None of it relates here from your point of view. And I may well still be in the dark as to what that actually is. Or, you may still be in the dark as to what my own motivations and intentions are here. In particular exchanges though the communication will either become more in sync it won’t.
But: I really don’t expect that it will. The existential gaps are often just too great.
yes, we know what you want. And in a world of compromise, negotiation, moderation, one notices that other people have other watns, and we do not act superior, if those are our values, which you often express as being yours, and label people in ways that do not show THE SLIGHTEST FUCKING INTEREST in compromise negotiation or moderation in a context where participants have a variety of goals, some, obviously, not the same as yours.
Another exchange of abstractions. What you and I and others need to do [in my view] is to shift the exchange in the direction of a particular context. Here the thread revolves around Trump, Putin and collusion. What might “moderation, negotiation and compromise” look like in a discussion of that? We know that the hardcore objectivists [from both sides] aren’t intertested in this. And the moral nihilists who own and operate the global economy are only interested [by and large] in a morality that revolves around “show me the money”.
And my point is that even with respect to “democracy and the rule of law” I construe my own value judgements here as political prejudices rooted in the existential contraption that is my own actual “lived life”.
How then does your own “I” fit into all of this re the OP?
But labeling other people’s behavior that does not fit with your desires as avoidance is unnecessary and does not fit with your values.
Why not live it instead of repeating it without living it?
Back again to this: What conflicting behaviors in what particular context construed from what particular point of view?
What might be the limits of philosophy here?
After all, you and I had our own rather protracted exchanges here once, right? You basically pulled away from them after having given me your best shot.
That’s a weird way to couch that. I would not say I pulled away after my best shot. I pulled away because in that thread you had a goal and I was not the right interlocutor.
Well, how has that changed here?
Trust me: my goal here is exactly the same. Is there or is there not a way for me to react to Trumpworld other than from down in the hole that “I” am in?
Even in a world sans God sans objective values other people may very well have internal lives and goals of their own.
Okay, and they will either discuss this at length with regard to the value judgments they bring to the Trump/Putin relationship [on this thread] or they won’t.
The “internal lives and goals” that particular individuals have here are in my view largely “existential contraptions” rooted in dasein. And that is no less true of Trump and Putin. They just happen to be in possession of the sort of power that could ramify the lives of literally millions of people.
Sure, I know how you view it. But the point is you labeled their behavior as if all behavior was either aligned with your goals or in avoidance. When in fact their motivations - existential contraptions or not - obviously could be something else. That’s all.
But I make it abundantly clear over and again that the labels themselves are in turn no less existential contraptions. I can only take out of others what I first put into them: “I”. At least in the is/ought world. We either struggle to close the gaps in communication here or we give up and move on to others.
See how simply acknowledging that is a response to what I said. True enough. Period. But you bring up your view of existential contraptions as if that is relevent. It’s not. It may be relevant elsewher ein the thread, in fact I am sure it is. And certainly in other threads. And it is a priority for you.
But everytime you use anything that happens near you as if its only value is as a jumping off point for you to repeat positions - that you claim here we are aware of already - you are not showing your own values of moderation, consideration and negotiation.
You are a discussion partner who cannot negotiate a social or discussion space. To the extent that you cannot, in the case above, even conceive that someone’s motivation for not doing what you want must be fear and avoidance.
You cannot even really see them as something other than a tool that helps you or does not help you with your goal.
This is just back up in the clouds from my frame of mind. I’m unable to connect the dots between what I attempt to understand about this point and what I think I know about the world around me “here and now” from down in my hole.
Sure, I recognize that lots of folks here have little interest in an exchange with me. Why? Because…
1] my polemical bent rubs them the wrong way…I come off as unnecessarily provocative and confrontational
2] I am hopelessly repetitive in ever circling around what zinnat called my “groots”
3] my truly cynical and pessimistic philosophy radically deconstructs “I”; and on both sides of the grave
I come off as Nietzsche on steroids to some. Only Nietzsche’s philosophy – the will to power, the uberman – is just another existential contraption to me.