Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

I am not able to think that my own value judgments are not inevitably entangled in dasein. Again you tell me that I think myself out of something. But I have not done that. I am not unlike you there. You just, again, said I am something but it is not true. I think it is inevitable that those things are entangled. I took out the word ‘hopelessly’ since this implies an emotional reaction I do not have, but which you do. We are unlike in our emotional reaction to this. We are unlike in that you spend a very large part of you communication and time on this issue. We are unlike in that you are seeking to solve this, but giving every chance for some objectivist to demonstrate their values are correct. But I have no contraption that MAKES me different from you there. Perhaps you have a contraption makes you put so much weight on the issue. Perhaps you do not. Perhaps dasein has made it that you put much more weight on it than I do, or mine such that I do not. Perhaps it is your temperment, coming from dasein and genetics. I don’t know.

Yes, we are more complicated. But I have no contraption. I try, like mammals, to solve problems related to my preferences. I have more preferences than a garden mole. I have more ways to solve problems or fail to. There are more factors, but there is no value contraption associated with it. I don’t find myself obsessing about the lack of objective morals. Consider that your reaction my be your particular, individual reaction based on dasein, etc, to the absence of objective morals. I mention mammals because it seems to me it offers the opportunity to consider what the default is. And to consider if the weight you put on the issue might itself be based on a contraption and/or based on dasein.

One huge thing that separates us from mammals, who are not in your hole, are contraptions. It takes a number of contraptions to give all that weight to the issues around your hole.

You assume a non-objectivist not in the hole must have a contraption.
I am pointing out that it may very well take a contraption to put a lot of weight on the issue in the way you do.
Or it may be due to your particular temperment, at this time in your life, and your experiences.
And, in any case, when you try to lay out how my contraptions work and what they are, they have nothing to do with me.

Nope. I have never decided not to be concerned about it. This is you making up some kind of process in me, presumably based on yourself.

I think, but I am not sure, that you use yourself as the default. Since you react to non-objectivism the way you do, if someone else does not they must have a contraption. And repeatedly over and over, you tell me what I have done, like in the quote above, and it is not something I have done.

Apart from differences in our pasts, our current lives could also affect how much weight we put on things. Our social lives, intimate connections, work or lack of and how well that fits with our skills and preferences and in general do we get to do things that we care about with people we care about. All that would also affect the amount of weight, time and energy one would put into ANY existential hole.

I no doubt contributed to this confusion by using a philosophical term pragmatism when I meant in the way I have now described.

I realize I have only partially responded. But I keep thinking this dialogue needs to be very focused. I mess this up by trying a dozen angles and then regretting it. Consider me a ‘bulimic’ interlocutor.

In a world of conflicting goods the will to power prevails. That’s why the world is will to power. All non-power-gathering drives lost out.

Meaning it is a contraption to make a problem of conflicting goods. A more honest and direct approach simply recognises all entities as mining the same pool of “goods” and it isn’t the goods, but the entities that conflict.

Someone marked by “amor fati” ( a Latin “contraption”) even considers this conflict a “good”. So at that points goods only conflict on the lower tiers.

For example, the fight against leftists is excruciating because of their profoundly ugly souls bit deep down it gives me absolute satisfaction to be made so aware that I am not them, nothing like them, they will never value my values and thus I can completely dismiss them as less than worthless. This places me at the heart of nature, away from all contrived “peace” and in a genuine calm, a steady flame.

It surely occurred to you all here that any intellectual question is a contraption.
The uncontrived mind simply observes, weighs and decides.

Iambs core question is a contraption contrived to invite contraptions, presumably to avoid knowledge.

Knowledge is decisive in its influence. Iamb contrives to be free of this influence much like Sokrates, who also was in a deep hole he could only escape through “suicide by trial”.

In the last analysis there is only one question, Hamlet asks it.

From the answer to this question all the rest follows.

Sokrtes answered negatively, and all his “philosophy” (contraption) is to be derived from that answer.

Hamlet is a good character to bring up. He is in a kind of a hole and in his ‘to be or not to be’ he discusses the issue. Imagine he discussed the issue, using the same terms, the same lines, over and over hundreds of times. He is a member of ILP and he comes here, in the hopes of finding an objective answer to whether he should choose to continue living despite the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or whether it is logical, objectively smart to end his suffering and die.
This is not Iamb’s hole. He seems to have chosen to live. Suicide is not on the table.
He has a different existential crisis.
But if we imagine this ILP Hamlet coming back again and again to post on his hole and this choice, we might find it odd if he thought everyone else should have his particular focus give it the same weight. That the amount of weight Hamlet gives, the ILP Hamlet, to this hole, should be the weight every person gives to that hole.
If they don’t, he tells them they have a soothing contraption.
One should be able to conclude that Iamb must have a contraption regarding the suicide issue. He’s not a mammal driven by just biological needs.
One should be able to conclude that since Iamb does not bemoan external transience and contingency, he must have a contraption there also.
The people we know, the places we live often shift as we age. Many people find this outer transience depressing, that It makes their lives meaningless and random.
But Iamb is focused on the inner transience, that his morals have changed over time and may again. He does not focus much on that other hole. Fine.
But when he encounters a non-objectivist who is not in hole about the contingency and transience of morals, their lack of objectivity…and they are not troubled by this like he is, he then starts telling them they have a contraption that makes them not worry so much.
As if we must all be like him. Because he would need a contraption to not give it the incredible weight he gives it, I assume.
What contraption keeps him out of focusing on Hamlet’s hole? Or Siddhartha’s hole that he suffered before he invented Buddhism?
There’s the hole about the gap between men and women or between people in general: the one where one cannot find way to think the intimacy one yearns for is possible or how to get it or how to know it is real. He’s not in that hole. What contraption keeps him from that?
What contraptions might be involved in the amount of weight he gives his hole?
What secondary gain might be gotten from focusing only there?

if you’re a therapist its easy, you must say its laziness

he spends 99 percent of the energy needed to go out of the hole on making the hole slippery. It is only 1 percent easier but it works super. He doesn’t need to go beyond the hole and face the unexpected where he can’t be lazy. Thats what one of 12 therapists I was into when some bad shit had freaked me out, told me. But then I realized the therapy was the Hole. I just got out of it and got my life in order like snap, really cool it worked.

Fuck the hole.

I-)

No its will to power. He does make the hole slippery and tries for others to fall into it, and it works, we are talking to him in his hole about his hole.

He is just having fun, posting music and keeping people obsessed with him. That is a good routine to have on a forum.

gotcha
Be the flame, not the moth that is his motto.

I don’t know either. But that is largely my point. In trying to understand how and why we come to react [as particular individuals] to conflicting goods at the intersection of “I” and political power, our intentions and motivations become entangled in the gap between what we think we know is true here and now and what is in fact true given a frame of that actually can know this.

Here of course most folks assign that task to God. But others, in rejecting religion, assign it instead to one or another political ideology or intellectual contraption [RM/AO, Value Ontology etc.] or assessment of nature.

As for the “hole”, my argument is certainly not that your argument is less reasonable than mine. It is only an attempt to describe it here at ILP; and then to note the assumptions and the components it is based on; and then to elicit reactions. Reactions from the objectivists, reactions from the non-objectivists.

And then [from time to time] to speculate on the extent to which some folks here become rather hostile to my point of view. Entire threads are created to expose me as a fool. Why? Well, perhaps because some sense the possibility that the components of my own argument here may well be applicable to their own “I” too.

What do you think?

Or, perhaps, we should invite the “serious philosophers” here to pin down once and for all the epistemological parameters of the word “contraption”.

They could react to the manner in which I construe your own rendition of pragmatism as just another existential/intellectual contraption; and then the manner in which you insist that it is not a contraption at all.

Let’s make the attempt to take this to the either/or world: Is it or not?

Then we could invite in other members of the mammal community to weigh in on it.

And then, in my view, it’s straight back up into the stratosphere:

Indeed, the dialogue needs to focus in on a particular context. One involving conflicting goods that we are all familiar with. We can explore the actual existential, “for all practical purposes” implications of the words that we choose in our “general descriptions” above.

Note to others:

Is this not but another contribution in which words define and defend other words?

“Will to power”.

Okay, let’s consider that. Do these words reflect a reasonable assessment of human interactions when confronted with conflicted goods?

Or, instead, are they too just another “intellectual contraption” embedded historically, culturally and experientially in any number of vast and varied contexts.

Entangled in turn in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Let Jacob bring the discussion here down to earth. Let him note a particular context.

Beat it Kid!

Seriously though, reconfigure this blustering sub-mental Kiddish accusation into an assessment of your own moral philosophy when confronting conflictng goods. How are you not down in the hole as I describe it above?

And from your perspective, as you have described it, saying you do not know, not as a mere disclaimer, but up front, makes sense. Since your philosophy allows for a wide variation of reactions, necessarily connected to experiences, assuming I have a contraption and this is why I react differently does not make sense.

Pragmatism in turn allows for “a wide variation of reactions, necessarily connected to experiences”.

My point then revolves around the extent to which these individual reactions are predicated more rather than less on the manner in which I encompass dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

In other words, given the assumptions embedded in this intellectual contraption, what makes “sense” to any one particular individual is, in my view, also going to be embodied in dasein.

Out in the world of actual conflicting behaviors.

Then it comes down to others here noting the extent to which these assumptions are not applicable to them with respect to issues like abortion or Communism or the Kavanaugh confirmation.

Sure, of course, as I have repeatedly said, experiences affect how I think and what I prefer.

Who is he arguing with?

Show of hands … does anybody think that preferences are not the result of genetics and experience? Anybody?

He doesn’t mention genetics much. When I started bringing it up, he seemed to agree, but reading most of his posts one could easily conclude he is a tabular rasa believer. That we are black slates and our preferences and morals ONLY come from our experiences.

So, we’ll see if he raises his hand.

And thus…

Had those experiences been considerably different you might well be embracing considerably different preferences.

So: Any particular sequence of new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge might result in preferences that are actually the opposite of what you embrace now.

All I then ask of others here [objectivists and non-objectivists alike] is to provide us with an argument [and a context] such that they are able to describe how their own reactions to conflicting goods embedded in their own chosen preferences results in them – in their “I” – not being fractured and fragmented.

Mine is. How are theirs not?

But: I don’t argue that if their “I” is not also in pieces here, it ought to be. I’m just unable to reconfigure my own “I” back into something analogous to “the real me” in sync with the “right thing to do”. Something that they [more or less] are still able to do.

So, let them encompass a value judgment near and dear to them in the manner in which I do in my abortion trajectory above. The part where experiences and ideas shape and mold each existentially into any one particular “I” here and now.

And, sure, call it a “contraption” or don’t.

First, of course, I am arguing with those who insist that, given any particular conflation of genes and memes, they have arrived at a frame of mind – an alleged optimal frame of mind – such that they are fiercely convinced that through God, ideology, deontology, nature etc., there are essential, objective distinctions to be made between good and bad behavior.

Okay, I suggest, let them demonstrate this to us.

[Though I am still utterly at a loss here in understanding the extent to which that includes you.]

And then I note how, in intertwining my very own genetic and memetic “I” in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, “I” come apart at the seams down in my hole.

How, then, are others able to avoid this?

Actually, over the years, my thinking has come closer to those who focus the beam more on nature than nurture.

Grappling with racism and gender roles for example.

Thus, while I castigate folks like Satyr as but more renditions of my blockhead objectivists, I think their arguments are probably a lot closer to whatever the “whole truth” may be than those who actually do believe in a “blank slate” approach to human interactions.

It’s just that, from my frame of mind, there appears to be no getting around the fact that the variables here are embedded in an enormously complex and [perhaps] hopelessly entangled “contraption” way, way, way beyond the capacity of any one particular “I” to untangle.

And that’s before we get to the implications of all of this being embedded in a determined universe. Or the part that revolves around what may well be an enormous gap between what any particular one of us here think is true and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to know something like this.

The sheer spectacle of the “infinitesimally small and insignificant specks of existence” that we are putting our foot down one way or another!

Let alone taking this preposterous arrogance out into the is/ought world.