a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

“Identity and Freedom in Being and Nothingness”
Stephen Wang in Philosophy Now magazine.

This is basically my own point when I distinguish between [b]I[/b] in the either/or world, and “I” in the is/ought world. Though even in regard to conflicting goods there are any number of actual objective facts that can be determined as true for all of us.

And this, in my view, has got be the “for all practical purposes” demarcation. The things about yourself able to be established and your reaction to things able to be established precipitating particular moral and political value judgments.

But, sure, there is no way for me to then demonstrate that these too are not able to be pinned down as true for all rational men and women. Here all I can do is to invite others to argue that they can be. That this is the case because they have already done so. And that they are able to demonstrate to me why I am in turn obligated to share their assessment.

What the objectivists then do is to insist that, on the contrary, their very own moral and political [and even esthetic] value judgments reflect what is essentially true given the font they have come to embrace as the transcending source one turns to in order to settle any conflicts.

In other words, one is never able to accumulate at one time and in one place all of the indisputable facts about that which constitutes their identity. There are only those variables that, at any given time and in any given place, one is actually conscious of.

And, in my view, the relationship, the responsibility, and the attitude we take regarding human interactions in any particular context is always going to be profoundly problematic. Even in regard to the facts at hand.

Making the part where “I” interacts with others in the is/ought world all that much more “ambiguous, insecure, and insufficient”.

“Identity and Freedom in Being and Nothingness”
Stephen Wang in Philosophy Now magazine.

In other words [as I interpret it] there are objective facts that [b]I[/b] is embedded in. Historical facts, cultural facts, facts derived from our actual situation out in a particular world. We may not understand or express those facts as they are but they are there to be demonstrated as in fact things that are true about us.

Where things get problematic here however is when the facts are what they are but mere mortals are not able to demonstrate them.

As I noted on another thread:

[i]"…even in regard to the ‘fact of the matter’, one may ultimately need God. At least when someone makes a claim that comes down to either believing it or not believing it. In other words, a claim that cannot be substantiated beyond that.

I recall for example the courtroom scene from the film Reversal of Fortune. Sunny von Bülow is hovering like a ghost above the proceedings below. Speculating on what the outcome of the trial might be. Now, there was “the fact of the matter”: Claus is either guilty or not guilty of putting her into an irreversible coma. The jury acquitted him. But was their own decision in fact the right one?"[/i]

In a No God world there is simply no way to get around this even in the either/or world.

This is something that I often point out. Some here see me as this anguished soul barely able to function from day to day. But in the course of living my life from day to day, I, like you, experience no anguish at all regarding the preponderance of the behaviors that I choose. Alone or with others. It is only when my behaviors come into conflict with others in the is/ought world that “I” am likely to experience anguish.

Or in a time of general crisis when our lives are being pummeling in a particularly grim manner.

It’s just that my own anguish is embedded more in the manner in which I construe human interactions from the perspective of the moral nihilist. My anguish revolves more around a fractured and fragmented “I” down in a “hole” that is embedded in conflicting goods derived from dasein: “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty”.

Whereas the anguish of the objectivist is more likely to revolve around a context in which they are convinced the “real me” is in sync with “the right thing to do” but in a particular context things are not going their way. Those who are not “one of us” are prevailing. But at least the objectivist can take comfort in the fact they are on the side of the angels.

“I” have access to none of that anymore.

“Identity and Freedom in Being and Nothingness”
Stephen Wang in Philosophy Now magazine.

This is basically where things get considerably more complicated for me. From my frame of mind, even to the extent that we strive to be “authentic” in the thngs that we choose [in the is/ought world], “I” is still necessarily entangled in all of the many, many genetic and memetic variables that go into the creation of any particular “self”. Deliberate all you wish but there are still going to be any number of factors embedded in the myriad experiences that you have had from the cradle to the “here and now” that you are either not wholly aware of or that were beyond your control.

Starting with the historical and cultural context into which you were thrown, then acknowledging your childhood indoctrination and then accumulating all the particular and unique interactions that you had that nudged or shoved or toppled you into particular predispositions regarding any number of aspects that culminated into who you think you are today.

How here is “I” not largely an existential construct?

Yes, we come to forks in the road where after deliberating we must choose one course of action rather than another. But, in my view, only those oriented towards objectivism are able to convince themselves that [in the is/ought world] one way is necessarily more authentic than another.

Instead, as I see it, the deliberations themselves are just another manifestation of “I” as an existential contraption. And that’s before we get to the part about political economy and conflicting goods.

“Identity and Freedom in Being and Nothingness”
Stephen Wang in Philosophy Now magazine.

This is the part that always comes down to a fundamental question that seems beyond our grasp: is any of this interaction between Sartre back then and Wang and you and I here and now really within our control as autonomous beings?

I merely suggest in turn that the answer to this question is predicated entirely on the answer to the questions, “why is there something instead of nothing?” and “why is there this something and not another?”

Sure, we can speculate endlessly about natural phenomena, human experience and feelings of anguish. But we are seemingly unable to establish that any of this was ever able to be other than what it must be given that “I” has the capacity to opt for an alternative reality.

If we are in fact not detached from the immutable laws of matter having naturally/necessarily evolved into human brains [on this planet] then what reality seems to be to any particular one of us is interchangeable with what it appears to be to anyone else: only how it was ever able to appear.

Thus to speak of a “prejudice” here seems entirely moot.

“Identity and Freedom in Being and Nothingness”
Stephen Wang in Philosophy Now magazine.

From my frame of mind however it is less the part where we go beyond our identity and more the part where “I” is understood only in the context of all those factors in our lives that are either beyond our understanding or control. The part embedded in dasein as an existential contraption. It is the distance here that counts most. And while we can attempt to gather as much information as possible to bridge the gap between the indoctrinated child and the more autonomous adult there are still going to be countless gaps not able to be filled.

In other words, in my view, each individual “I” has his or her own set of reactions to the world around them. Then the question becomes whether or not through disciplines like science and philosophy conflicting points of view can either be reconciled or resolved.

Yes, but only to the extent that we acknowledge “I” as an unimaginably complex and problematic intertwining of genes and memes set down in a particular world understood in a particular way. It’s not so much paralyses as the ambiguity embedded in “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty.” Pertaining by and large to the is/ought world.

Some go further beyond this than do others. But, in my view, that really only takes them deeper into the profound mystery of existence itself. Ever and always assuming some measure of autonomy here.

Okay, but to the extent that one then makes a distinction being living “authentically” and “inauthentically” is the extent to which I will then interject with my own far more nihilistic components.

“Identity and Freedom in Being and Nothingness”
Stephen Wang in Philosophy Now magazine.

My point though is that, above all else, in however we react to this particular general description of “a human being” our conclusions must be brought out into the world of actual human interactions. A profoundly problematic existential contraption in which most will eventually confront others who react to the author’s meaning here differently.

And then these “philosophical” interpretations become entangled further in lived lives in which “goals” and “movement” may or may not be in sync with what philosophers like Sartre call “authentic” behavior.

The existentialists themselves are no less entangled in the variables embedded in my own vantage point. “I” as a ceaselessly fabricated and refabricated embodiment of dasein confronting conflicting goods in a world where what ultimately counts in these conflicts is who has the political power to actually enforce one set of behaviors over all others.

No, it involves whatever you have come to believe these particular words put in this particular order mean “in your head” here and now. A world of words. Take them out of your head and employ them in interacting with others and they acquire an actual existential use value and exchange value.

Which in discussions about identity and value judgments in places like this, you are either more or less willing to bring arguments and assessments “down to earth” by noting the manner in which your philosophical conclusions impact the behaviors that you do choose given a particular context out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view.

I do this and bump into a fragmented and fractured “I” tumbling down into the hole that is moral nihilism.

And you?

I told you, man. Anytime you find yourself tumbling down into the hole of moral nihilism, ride the scree.

ride the scree, Biggs.

Nowhere Men
Nick Inman wants to know where you’re at.
In Philosophy Now magazine

Actually, the crunch question would seem to be, “why am I who the anthropologists say I am, and what the physical scientists say I am?”

That and how did existence itself come to be such that it evolved into who or what or why others speculate that I am.

Including philosophers.

Of course, we seem far, far removed from an answer that definitive. So what real choice do we have [in the interim] but to explore possibilities short of that. After all, they are no less fascinating to ponder.

Here we start getting closer to the “stuff” that fascinates me the most. The part in particular where we delve into the relationship between brain matter precipitating mind precipitating consciousness precipitating “I”. Is any of that ever really within our command as autonomous matter? Or is it intertwined in one or another manifestation of God or pantheism? The part where wherever you are there is no getting around the most fundamental fonts of all.

Again, aspects of “I” that are applicable to all of us. Given the gap between “I” and all there is to know about all there is to know. But far more fascinating to me is the part where, given some measure of autonomy, “I” and “you” and “they” are not able to pin down what seems to be true for all of us.

And, for some, this marks the end of the discussion. In other words, is this or is this not inherently and necessarily a manifestation of biological imperatives? The part about dasein is merely subsumed by the determinists in the assumption that it is.

Here on this thread though I can only start by taking an intellectual leap to autonomy. Even though I have no capacity to demonstrate that it does in fact exist.

What’s So Simple About Personal Identity?
Joshua Farris asks what you find when you find yourself.

Most here know what I propose. There are the self parts we are able to reasonably situate objectively out in the either/or world. Facts about us. Assuming some measure of autonomy. And accepting that even demonstrable facts are embedded in our ignorance regarding “I” and a complete understanding of existence itself.

Of course so far this just another general description intellectual contraption about human identity. And who among us can make clear-cut distinctions between “the body, the brain, the memory/character continuity” and all of the hundreds upon hundreds of additional variables intertwined in the genetic and the memetic “I”. “I” out in a particular world historically and culturally. To even suggest a “simple view” seems preposteroius to me.

What’s So Simple About Personal Identity?
Joshua Farris asks what you find when you find yourself.

Okay, take this body out into the world and, with it, interact with others. When they ask why you choose the things that you think, feel, say and do you tell them, “I am my body, that’s why.”

Here that makes sense [to me] only to the extent the body as a whole is in sync with the laws of matter in a determined universe. Then identity itself is merely an inherent manifestation of that.

The part where given some degree of human autonomy ascribed to the self-conscious “I”, a distinction is made between the autonomic body functions entirely embedded in the biological evolution of life on earth and that mysterious “ghost in the machine” that somehow more or less self-consciously maneuvers this body in and out of particular contexts only more or less able to be understood or controlled. The part where the genetic self stops and the memetic self begins; and then gets embedded in any number of historical and cultural narratives that each individual “I” ceaselessly constructs, deconstructs and reconstructs existentially from the cradle to the grave. The part “I” assign to my own understanding of dasein.

Again, here are the two “reductionist” explanations:

1] the body is at one with nature and all of this unfolds only as it ever could have. “I” is merely the illusion of opting for alternative twists and turns.
2] Religion. “I” is manifestation of God’s will.

Where this becomes all the more problematic is when we consider the way in which “I” can be profoundly upended by biological conditions – Alzheimer’s, dementia, schizophrenia, other major mental disorders – that seem to confirm the extent to which the body prevails.

Or the use of powerful drugs that can shape and mold the manner in which we experience “I” as a a sort of…chemistry lab?

you know you really make us feel inadequate when you do this, biggs. i’m just sayin. it’s like we’re not good enough for you so you go find some quotes online somewhere and bring them back here to argue with.

Thanks.

care to bring that intellectual contraption down out of the clouds and explain to me in a particular existential context how i should interpret that in a world awash with conflicting goods, chance, and contingency?

Sorry, I was only being ironic.

He said in jest.

What’s So Simple About Personal Identity?
Joshua Farris asks what you find when you find yourself.

The brain view is of course necessarily embedded in the body view. In fact, unless the mind part can somehow be explained as “transcending” the argument that the brain is but more matter inherently in sync with the laws of nature there’s no real distinction at all.

And here we are: hopelessly stuck!

Or, rather, so it still seems to me. But this part will always exasperate some more than others. In that some are able to convince themselves that how they think about this relationship here and now need be as far as they go to make it true. Then the part where how what we think and feel precipitates behaviors that precipitate very real consequences whether what we think and feel is in sync with what is actually true or not. Let alone in being able to determine if all of that is moot given the assumption that the brain and the mind and “I” are all entirely at one with nature itself entirely at one with the possible existence of God.

Got that? Next up: the hand picking up the stick and using it to thrash someone soundly. That even more problematic matter able to reconfigure into a point of view. An actual vantage point out in a particular context out in a particular world in which the brain qua mind qua “I” precipitates [existentially] moral judgments from others.

The “I” is the part that speaks. Some parts of us are unknown to the “I”.

Enter: Metaphysics.

yes, stuck, and yet so many philosophers insist on scratching their heads over it. know why? it’s this whole problem about ‘what to do’ in life if there is some truth to substance dualism… and substance dualism is the underlying metaphysics to all theories of spiritualism whether religious or not. so as long as these folks aren’t absolutely certain that when they die, it’s curtains, they’ll live their entire lives in a nervous stupor over ‘omg omg what should i do?! am i doing the right thing!?’ that’s what it comes down to. no philosopher was ever interested with the question of mortality just because it’s an interesting question. it’s an invested question, and that’s why it’s so important to these guys. it’s not about ‘loving god’ or ‘doing the right thing’, either. it’s about covering one’s ass for the afterlife. niggas don’t wanna burn in hell or be reincarnated as a mushroom. that’s the real reason.

me, well, i run a two part pragmatic approach to this matter. first, i dismiss any system of existence/reality in which i am expected to guess at anything that is incredibly important. such a system is fundamentally flawed, and i will not drive myself crazy wondering if what i do now will have negative consequences for the afterlife. i do what the fuck i’m gonna do and if that pays out, good for me. if it doesn’t, good for you. this brings us to the second part. i will NOT ever regret anything i’ve done, and i will certainly feel no remorse. whatever i do, whenever i do it, is for a reason which at the time was obviously the ‘best’ thing i believed i could have done. duddint matter if the consequences of that decision turned out to be a disaster for reasons beyond my control. i don’t blame anyone or anything, i resent nothing, and i adapt to the shit storm if i find myself in one. this is because i don’t expect anything to work out when i have to deal with other people. this is my splendid quasi-misanthropy and it’s never been wrong. i say ‘quasi’ because it’s not genuine hate. there is no place for hatred where ‘they know not what they do’, as it were. if i could find a human being who was not only an asshat, but meant to be, i could move beyond mere contempt and perhaps feel some kind of hatred. but alas, human beings are so fucked up they can’t even be evil right.

and this is only a pickle if you drive yourself nuts hoping for some redemption from it all in some afterlife. you have to stop allowing yourself to be played with like a toy by [insert favorite god], and you have to understand that there will be no qualitative difference in the experiences you have now and the experiences you will have ‘in the next life’. you would simply exist in another ‘now’, phenomenologically structured by the same causal forces, affairs and events working to form your current experiences in this life.

what i’m implying here is that monistic spinozist stirnerite historical materialists do it better. fuck all that platonic/cartesian ‘guessing’ and piss on the afterlife. we make shit work here and now… because that’s all there is; the eternal here and now.

we are the ministers in the marriage of heaven and hell here on earf. morrison was wrong. you cannot break on through to the other side. there is no other side. and if there was, you’d only ask ‘what’s next’ when you got there. same shit, different dimension.

“first, i dismiss any system of existence/reality in which i am expected to guess at anything that is incredibly important.”

OK, that was pretty awesome…

“Morrison was wrong …”

You arrived at the same place as Fear And Loathing guy, wassisname. And all leftist hippies. The wiser position is “there might well be, but I got a sandwich.”

“same shit, different dimension.”

You belie the true promise and terribleness of transcendentalism: it is not only things arround you that radically are not the same.

The healthiest is Nietzsche’s: neither transcendentalism nor atheism: overcoming and self-overcoming. And transcendentalism a little bit.