Kompromat

See, you’re doing it again.

Sure, from inside your head, this point may well be seen as clearly appropriate in responding to my points above. But, from inside my head, I don’t really have a fucking clue as to what the hell it has to do with anything…let alone to my argument.

Let’s try this…

How would your point here be reconfigured into a description of your own assessment of the OP?

And how do you see it as different from my point of view?

I’m not even entirely certain here that your posts are not just exercises in irony. Attempts to show just how irrelevant much of what passes for “serious philosophy” is pertaining to the actual lives that we live from day to day in interacting with others.

No worries, remember the philosopher St James? Suddenly without warning he strangely disappeared or died which I doubt and You contested that at the time if I remember correctly.

I bring him up in connection to something relevant of what we are talking about here today.

The ideas of infinity were broadly and mathematically were discussed, and I bring that up in terms of defining wjat infinity is. (Bound , or unbound)

The point I am trying to make is, that I expressed my being an Intuitionist, and unfortunately they can only learn backwards-which is in direct opposition to "normal’ progressive learning. The same kind of idea as with the Korean language reading and writing to what is customary. So that is a serious block not to be .minimized.

So that’s part of I think Darling had against me. Not my fault.

At the same time, ALL learning has been mostly didactic, deductive up to at least Leibnitz through the Oxford language analysts of the 20th th century. That is confirming/confirming pro Len of a possible connection between the psychology of philosophy and vica versa.

Now to get to Your point.
Given what You have written, and based on the blocks between so called intuitionists and nihilist, it is not that there is no connection or, even affinity towards, but the missing pieces are more prone to be discovered by going back-to the source, and starting with that, but not teleologoxally or ‘objectively’.

And that is where we both stand without knowing , or REAlizing IT.

What is that IT? Well that goes into an expansive and protracted field , which needs to be guaranteed , in order to become consensualised.

Emnededness(Polanyi) of whom I dreamed about 5 years ago, in an unseen albeit auditory dream, I honestly believe, and I recall You poo
Pooing it.

So if WE want to pursue this , we need other participants, so as to arrive at a consensual base.

The whole thing may only have one over reaching problem: the avaibiliry for the requisite time.

Well, if James is still around and ever does show up on this thread, I’d ask him to connect the dots between Trump, Putin and the 2016 election [on the one hand], and RM/AO and the Real God [on the other].

Good luck with that!

But seriously, it would not be counter productive to dig deeper into the hole?

I’m up for it .

It was never my intention to dig the hole in the first place. Instead, a set of circumstances beyond my control combined with my first “philosophical” encounter with “rival goods” began to deconstruct my own objectivist frame of mind.

And here I am now on this thread drawn and quartered by a reaction to Trump/Putin that I have come to construe basically as a particular set of political prejudices rooted existentially in “I”.

No longer am I able to react to events of this sort with the self-righteous indignation of someone convinced that how he has come to understand the world around him reflects that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to emulate in turn.

But: Being “fractured and fragmented” in this manner is precisely the frame of mind that the objectivists among us are most intent on avoiding.

For some, Trump and Putin are “good”, for others, “bad”.

For me, however, here and now, value judgments of this sort have [by and large] become just prefabricated and ever refabricated “existential contraptions” configured and then reconfigured in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that will soon tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

“Me” in a nutshell now: youtu.be/aNUr__-VZeQ

Well, almost.

K: I still have the ability to be outraged… try it sometime…
reconnect with the world at large…instead of inside of your head
thinking that dominates your thinking…

Kropotkin

But is there basis to what You implied, Peter that perhaps he has no ability to do that, not on terms of being able , but in a sense similar to one wit’s opinion , that we are past the point of ‘kicking Trump out of office’ ( In Lambigious’s own nomenclature)?

Is there something puzzling to say that philosophical process It’s self have afforded overcoming as a way out of existential pathos, not only in the literal sense as Nietzsche coined it. but , in the sense of how fractures in metaphysical development in the most basic forms , from its enlightenment beginnings , from pointillism through pointing -as its post modern counterpart &/or the point of demarcation from Husserl-Heidegger- through Sartre and beyond might be inaccessible to Lambig as a way reconciling them? Even if such a reconstruction was possible, without the bad idea of a flat out statement , like One can not return home again among the multitude?

Or is it that Lambig’s fate fatale parallels the vainglory attempt to come to terms of what is happening to what some terms as almost cataclysmic events?

Are there not any 2 connections which could shadow each other nowadays?

Fatalists and nihilism make odd but necessary bedfellows?

I find that a repulsive attitude after almost 100 years of existentialism.

Democrats are putting on their tinfoil hats in droves.

Tinfoil hats are clearly bipartisan.
I find it amazing that anyone still thinks that either the Democrats OR the Republicans are the problem.

In fact anyone who does has a tin hat that has fallen over their eyes and ears, but not yet, unfortunately, their mouths.

Despite our recent rather protracted exchange on your thread, your reaction here merely exposes [to me] how, in discussions of this sort, points of view often go in one ear and come out the other.

From my frame of mind, it’s not about being outraged by Trump’s policies, but the extent to which you manage to think yourself into believing that being ouraged is the moral and political obligation of all rational [and decent] human beings.

I once embedded my own outrage at conservatives in that sort of psychological contraption. And it felt great. They were simply wrong to think about immigration or abortion or gun control or animal rights or the role of government as they did. Why? Because we were simply right.

One of us…one of them.

All that is embedded in the “is/ought” world becomes but one more component of the “either/or” world. It was just a matter of choosing a partiular font: religion, reason, ideology, deontology, nature.

Hell, even if we lost a particular battle back then, we could always suckle on the comfort and the consolation embedded in the fact that we were either destined to win the war, or, even if we lost that too, we deserved to win it.

In other words, on our exchange from your thread, you seemed to pay lip-service to the idea that “for all practical purposes”, we’re right from our side and they’re right from their side.

But when push comes to shove you seem to have much more invested in heaping scorn on those who don’t share your own value judgments. Just as they have much invested in heaping scorn on you.

And, sure, given the enormity of the human pain and suffering that can result from policies we don’t agree with, that’s all perfectly understandable.

I simply don’t have access to it the way I once did myself.

I’m still down in this hole [here and now] in a way that you are not. And the irony here – well, one of them – is that it was through philosophy itself that I came to think as I do. Moral nihilism [in a No God world] seems to be an entirely reasonable way in which to construe the existential juncture that embodies identity, value judgments and political economy.

I agree, I don’t identify as conservative, nor liberal, it’s just liberals are more likely to criticize conservatives for being a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theorists than inversely, so I’m merely point out that, liberals do it too, whenever it’s convenient.

From John Brennan’s NYT opinion piece today: nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opin … rance.html

[b]

[/b]

And then this question: Why?

Why did Trump do it?

The whole focus of the OP here in other words.

Here is an interesting [and rather comprehensive] take on Trump and Putin

slate.com/news-and-politics/201 … of-us.html

[b]

[/b]

Here the focus tends to be on Putin the narcissistic authoritarian appealing to Trump the narcissistic authoritarian. The two just, well, bonded. Only, unlike George W., they weren’t at all interested in getting the measure of each other’s “soul”.

“Over a barrel”:

apnews.com/4ac772445073491aa7d3ca9e558e0144

Again, for some, it comes down to what is deemed to be most humiliating barrel that might be. And you all know my own rendition of that.

Consider this argument: nytimes.com/2018/11/29/opin … e=Homepage

We are clearly getting closer and closer to finally pinning this down. It is only a question of how explosive the truth turns out to be.

Uncharted territory indeed…

thedailybeast.com/ex-fbi-of … y?ref=home

So, if the above does in fact turn out to be the worse case scenario for Trump, what on earth could Putin and the Russians have on him?

I figure it’s got to be either the piss tape or lots and lots and lots of rubles.

Or…

Could Trump actually be a Russian spy?! A mole who had been compromised many years ago?

Let’s face it, who really knows now where this will all end up?

There are probable and less probable scenarios.

The most probable was hinted at recently as one which implicates both The Republican Party and Trump’s own predeliction toward setting an agenda to an undefined platform.

It is , as if , the large scale foreign policy issues , have been held at bay for a long time now, creating a specter, similar to what the pre WW2 planners had in mind, with the old apologists, when cementing Chamberlain’s ‘Peace in Our Time’, still reverberating, whistling through the darkness of Wilson type neutral separatism, the exaggerated context of a personal grayish area.

Much of this is well understood , yet the risk is there that the lessons were not well learned.

It is quite possible that the only collusion will consist of a vast symbolic conflict over the Wall, within which ramifications of over the top searches for wider meaning: as , using
separatism to cover all manner of social conflict as springboards to political assessment and action , may be eventually settled , as a norm.
That is , the Wall, signifies an absolute measure , by which all else will be measured.

Once that is funded, most every thing may fall into place.

The grey area will understandably be resolved by black and white necessity.

It would be very surprising for Mueller to come out with a direct finding for obstruction of justice, for the same reason , that it might too severely estop the too far gone Republican Agenda. But an impeachment show ing a lackluster and borderlinely cooperative President with a pre-existing Russian maleformed cyberplan, (with 2 more years of extended litigated window to knock the wind out of sentiment )is a possibility.

Another take on Trump and Russia:

nytimes.com/2019/01/18/opin … e=Homepage

This part in particular:

“Donald Trump never thought he was going to be president,” the Trump biographer Timothy O’Brien, who wrote TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald, told me. “He began this thing as a marketing venture, and I don’t think the people around him thought he was going to win, either. They all jointly saw this thing as a big food fest.”

It’s plausible I suppose. Trump just bumbled and stumbled into this mess by accidently winning the election.

Had the Democrats ended up with anyone but Clinton, s/he would almost certainly have beaten Trump.

How’s that for irony.

Keep hoping and praying that your fantasy world will come true.

I need to remind you that my reaction to Trump is an existential contraption rooted in a particular set of political prejudices rooted in dasein.

And that is problematic down to the bone.

You’re the one [I suspect] who actually imagines that your own take on him reflects, what, the politically correct mantra of the self-righteous objectivist?

Besides, this thread revolves mostly around figuring out how Putin has him by the balls.