a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:32 pm

Francis Fukuyama & the Perils of Identity
Peter Benson critiques a liberal but nationalistic brand of identity politics.

The American political philosopher Francis Fukuyama is still best known for his 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man. It was written in response to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. Those events, he contended, constituted the triumph of liberalism, democracy, and capitalism over the alternative social model provided by communist totalitarianism. “For a very large part of the world,” he wrote, “there is now no ideology with pretensions to universality that is in a position to challenge liberal democracy”.


Political identity:

"I am a Communist".
"I am a capitalist".
"I am a liberal".
"I am a conservative".

And, in fact, historically, far, far fewer of us are likely to call ourselves Communists today than capitalists. But who would actually argue that in regard to "liberalism and democracy", ideological commitments are not still thriving? There are millions and millions who insist that only the manner in which they embody both reflects what they call themselves but that which everyone else who wishes to be thought of as a rational human being must choose to call themselves as well.

And, to the extent that their moral and political values might be deemed "totalitarian" and/or "authoritarian", well, you'd have to ask them.

Now, I use a different word. I use the word "objectivism". And, in regard to any particular individual's "political identity", I ask them how convinced they are that right and wrong and true and false and good and evil can be understood by a core, fundamental self able to grasp and to choose behaviors wholly aligned with an objective morality. Either apllicable universally or otherwise.

Next up: Donald Trump.

From today’s perspective, this triumph seems a good deal less definitive. Various forms of totalitarianism remain alive and well: in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. And the rise of populist politicians in the West has placed strains on the continuance of recognizable liberal democracy. Fukuyama’s latest book, Identity: Contemporary Identity Politics and the Struggle for Recognition (2018), was written as a reaction to the unexpected election of Donald Trump. Like many people, Fukuyama feels troubled by the fact that a liberal democratic society could elect as its leader a man so notably opposed to liberal values and often openly contemptuous of democratic processes. How could this happen? What does it tell us about our world?


First of all, historically, when the rise of totalitarianism is not rooted in either theocracy or political ideology, it tends to revolve around one or another systemic crisis. Or a series of them. Today, the concern with Trump is the extent to which he intertwines crony capitalists, reactionary evangelicals and racists at a time when the coronavirus, economic travail, and social unrest have created conditions that are basically unprecedented. No one is really sure what will happen next.

On the other hand, none of this was unfolding in 2016. So, how to explain his election victory then. Here my conjectures revolve around that large swath of Americans who see Trump as at least the possibility of providing them with a conservative value voter foundation when men were men, when boys were boys and girls were girls, when the Christian faith flourished, and when everyone around them looked like they did. The need to have a world around them they could more easily anchor "I" to. The world as it should be, must be, can be again.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Artimas » Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:11 am

iambiguous wrote:Kant & The Human Subject
Brian Morris compares the ways Kant’s question “What is the human being?” has been answered by philosophers and anthropologists.

Throughout history, and in all cultures, people have responded to Kant’s fundamental question ‘What is the human being?’ in very diverse ways; even denying that humans have any relation with the material world, as extreme gnostics do. Or Hare Krishna devotees exclaim, ‘You are not your body’. Indeed, there has been a long tradition in Western philosophy that identifies the subject/self with consciousness.


Okay, but where does this actually take us other than back to the point I keep raising: that, in regard to "all things human", what counts is not what you "exclaim" to be true but the extent in which your exclamations are able to be substantiated experientially with respect to a particular context that most in the discussion will be familiar with.

Otherwise, the exchange ends up revolving only around what you believe to be the case about being human. And, down through the ages there have been countless intellectual renditions -- social, political, economic -- of that.

Anthropologists have long emphasized and illustrated the diversity of cultural conceptions of the human subject; but even within the Western intellectual tradition there exists an absolute welter of studies that have attempted to define or conceptualize the human subject in different ways.


And how much more readily that is accomplished when the concepts themselves come to reflect, by and large, how one defines the words in the concepts. That is why, when push comes to shove, anthropologists have been able to depict cultures over time historically and across space culturally that construe "what is the human being" in so many complex and conflicting ways. What does that tell us about the limitations of language itself in capturing these things objectively?

Western responses to Kant’s fundamental question have been extremely diverse and contrasting, and I want to briefly discuss three approaches: the essentialist, the dualist, and the Kantian triadic ontology of the subject.


The "Kantian triadic ontology"?

That ought to be interesting.


The human being is a/the string of nature that is conscious of itself. Same hands, different puppets and the hands DO get tired.

Losing or consciously controlling identity is choosing nature over mankind, it’s a matter of value attribution, like all is. Which symbiotic relationship one wishes to pursue in terms of awareness, spirit, nourishing, etc.

To escape the trap of “I” one must die, but to be on such a path while living one must be closer to source, to be closer to source one must be individual and know self without background noise. The path of least distraction, least environmental shaping without consciously choosing. If one can become clouded by environment, sensory saturation, being byproduct, then one can also be still and clear in environment, a sensory deprivation and shaped to peak ability, one can be the shaper and not the unconscious/subconscious byproduct. This is the fork in the road that is existence, does one wish to be god or does one wish to remain small as a human? The being human, conscious, is the being god.

My answer is to be both in the right ways.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:21 pm

Artimas wrote:The human being is a/the string of nature that is conscious of itself. Same hands, different puppets and the hands DO get tired.

Losing or consciously controlling identity is choosing nature over mankind, it’s a matter of value attribution, like all is. Which symbiotic relationship one wishes to pursue in terms of awareness, spirit, nourishing, etc.

To escape the trap of “I” one must die, but to be on such a path while living one must be closer to source, to be closer to source one must be individual and know self without background noise. The path of least distraction, least environmental shaping without consciously choosing. If one can become clouded by environment, sensory saturation, being byproduct, then one can also be still and clear in environment, a sensory deprivation and shaped to peak ability, one can be the shaper and not the unconscious/subconscious byproduct. This is the fork in the road that is existence, does one wish to be god or does one wish to remain small as a human? The being human, conscious, is the being god.

My answer is to be both in the right ways.


This is what I call "a general description intellectual contraption". The sort of thing that, in my view, folks like meno and magnus anderson and many others here seem content with in discussing [philosophically or otherwise] things like identity, morality and political power. And, sure, I use them myself.

But, as I noted above:

Okay, but where does this actually take us other than back to the point I keep raising: that, in regard to "all things human", what counts is not what you "exclaim" to be true but the extent in which your exclamations are able to be substantiated experientially with respect to a particular context that most in the discussion will be familiar with.

Otherwise, the exchange ends up revolving only around what you believe to be the case about being human.


So, what we need now is an actual context. A set of circumstances in which we can explore each other's take on both the philosophical and the experiential parameters of "I".

Let's settle on one.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:48 pm

Death of the Author and the web identity crisis
Zachary Colbert spins a story of power and deceit brought to you via your computer.

In Death of the Author (1977), the French philosopher Roland Barthes introduces the idea that for a piece of work to be fully appreciated it must be understood in itself, completely separate from when, where and especially by whom it was created . “Writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin” he says. The reader should not have any knowledge of the author’s identity, including their history, class, race, religion and political preferences, as these lead to preconceptions about the writing, and the reader may be encouraged to believe there is only one ‘correct’ translation of the text.


Fully appreciated. But from whose point of view? Whether you knew Roland Barthes intimately or knew nothing at all about him, you will understand or appreciate a book by him only in the sense that you will take out of the book that which you can put into it: yourself. Or, perhaps, even more telling, given only the manner in which you think you understand yourself.

And, even here, the same distinction that I always make: the author writing something able to be proven as in fact true for all of us, and the author writing something that encompasses only his or her personal opinion in closing the gap between the way the world is, and the behaviors we choose and the way the author thinks the world ought to be instead and the way he or she thinks people ought to behave instead.

If Barthes were to write a book about mathematics or chemistry or meteorology what is there to be understood and appreciated in information and knowledge that, by its very nature, is immune to deconstruction or semiotics or any other post-structuralist intellectual contraptions.

The same with identity. There are parts of the self that are considerably less open to translation or interpretation than other parts.

To know the author is to know the source of the text and therefore expect a single definitive interpretation : “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing”. The Western mind-set requires clarification of one ultimate and ‘correct’ meaning, for the sake of believability. But without preconceptions on the writing’s birth, the audience is left to their own devices and imagination to create meaning entirely. For Barthes, the meaning of a work depends on how it is received rather than how it is intended. The view of a text’s unity “lies not in its origin but in its destination”. This would imply that the reader is in complete control.


Clearly, if a book is written about race or gender or sexual preference, knowing the race, gender and sexual preference of the author is hardly irrelevant. But there are still facts that can be confirmed as true or confronted as falsehoods. There are simply too many components of human interactions in the either/or world in which ultimately there is only one "correct" meaning.

My own particular self is embedded in any number of biological and demographic descriptions and others can believe them because I am able to demonstrate that in fact these things that I depict about myself are true. Just as you can. Received or intended facts are facts.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:24 pm

Death of the Author and the web identity crisis
Zachary Colbert spins a story of power and deceit brought to you via your computer.

A postmodern perversion of reality has culminated on the net, where anyone can generate a fictional persona in terms of race, sexuality, music taste, fashion and connections: a MySpace account is simply fabricated pages of images and words. As Sherry Turkle says in Identity Crisis (1996), p.258, “One’s identity emerges from whom one knows, one’s associations and connections. People link their home page to pages about such things as music, paintings, television, shows, cities, books, photographs, comics, and fashion models.” The user/reader believes an on-screen identity to be ‘true’ when it fulfils these conventions.


Of course you don't need the internet to pretend to be other than you are in your interactions with others. Even with those who think they know you inside out -- family, friends, lovers, work colleagues -- you can "in reality" be anything but. Call it, say, the Ted Bundy syndrome. Or think of all the grifters out there hell bent on stealing you blind by pretending to be only what you want them to be. Or only what they think you want them to be. And I'm sure this sort of thing is not only a manifestation of our post-modern world. Think for example Niccolò Machiavelli.

Instead, what always fascinates me far more are those who are utterly convinced that who they think they are is who they really are. That their sense of identity is not just an "existential contraption rooted in dasein". And, thus, ever and always subject to change given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas.

It is the "fractured and fragmented" identity that most are disturbed by. Imagine not believing in the deep-down-inside-me Self able to see the world as it really is. Isn't that the most unnerving frame of mind?

"I" have certainly come to think that.

Here at ILP we can adopt any persona we chose. Exchanging philosophy can become just another sort of video game. Still, the words that we choose to convey opinions about this or that --- we are either able to demonstrate their actual truthfulness or we can't. It all comes down to the context.

For example:

So the first issue is an issue of trust: users do not know what information to believe and what data to discard. For example, the user-generated encyclopedia Wikipedia has been heavily criticized for its attitude favouring ‘consensus over credentials’. The encyclopedia’s articles can be edited by anyone with access to the internet, allowing highly-qualified professionals and bored teenagers alike to make alterations to the material. But this anti-elitist accessibility leaves the site open to information vandalism. When the accuracy of the data is scrutinized by experts, inaccuracies are frequently found. However it’s still one of the most popular user-content sites online, with many poor imitations following its formula.


What else: What particular information about what particular Wikipedia article? Edited or not what in the article can in fact be confirmed as true by anyone regardless of of the persona that they choose to adopt in bringing it to the attention of others.

Consensus or credentials there is still the part where the information and the facts and the opinions and the evidence that are imparted is or is not able to be demonstrated as true for all rational men and women. At least to the best of our ability in a No God world.

Here though we don't have "experts" to scrutinize our posts and fact check them. Besides, my point is that with regard to moral and political value judgments there are no actual experts -- deontologists -- among us able to resolve any disputed claims. Or, rather, if there are, they haven't convinced me of their prowess.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 01, 2020 6:51 pm

Death of the Author and the web identity crisis
Zachary Colbert spins a story of power and deceit brought to you via your computer.

The website mouchette.org -- http://www.mouchette.org/ -- is a prime example of web artists toying with notions of identity. Appearing to be the homepage of an innocent thirteen-year-old Dutch girl, with some exploration it becomes evidently darker and sexually provocative – for example with an image of her tongue licking the screen.


Of course art and identity will often encompass a particularly problematic relationship. After all, art itself is often anything but a linear or literal exploration of either the "human condition" or of "reality" itself.

Now, I'm not sure the extent to which "I" becomes "fractured and fragmented" in art but it is intertwined in all of the many different aspects of what it means to be a human being out in a particular world understood in a particular way. All of the mind-boggling complex ways in which genes and memes can become entangled. Only expressed at times in "abstract art" or "surreal art" or "pop art" or "impressionistic art" or "post impressionistic art." And on and on and on.

Dada anyone?

Proletarians and politicians alike demanded the ban of mouchette, and for the artists responsible to identify themselves. But without knowing the origin of the text, what can we trust in the hyper-real internet world?


Then [of course]: to censor or not to censor. And not only in the "hyper-real internet world" either. In fact to the extent that any particular individual finds his or her own "self" maligned in a work of art the fusillades can come from any number of directions. Art is hardly exempt from the culture wars. Though many artists wouldn't have it any other way.

Still, the internet, with its broader unanimity tends to mass-produce especially obnoxious reactions to art. The "real me" objectivists in particular. After all, they've got the most to lose, right?
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:29 pm

Death of the Author and the web identity crisis
Zachary Colbert spins a story of power and deceit brought to you via your computer.

How did this situation of identity uncertainty come about?

With the deterioration of traditional family values and cultural heritage, there is a greater sense of selfishness and personal identity: the ego increasingly dominates the super-ego, resulting in a more dominating sense of ‘I’. “Blame globalization and its accompanying fear of insignificance,” Laura Pappano says in The Connection Gap (2001), p.133.


The "post-modern" persona is clearly all the rage in many parts of the globe. Capitalism has in fact hastened the disintegration of a world in which the social bonds revolving around a far more homogeneous community -- the village -- has given way to the "me, myself and I" mentality more in sync with a "lifestyle" than a communal ethos.

In a world where countries are of less significance than companies, communication has been made so easy that there is much less need for physical interaction, and this decentralization has fragmented society.


More to the point, capitalism has created a vast surplus labor pool that revolves around so many outlets not directly involved with subsistence itself. There are endless distractions to choose from. Sports, film, music, pop culture. The focus on consumption and acquiring all of the things that advertisers are able to convince "the masses" they cannot live without.

And along with a the increasingly decentralized social agenda comes a shallower and shallower sense of identity itself. There are simply less and less people intent on diving into the deep end of the pool --- intellectually, politically, culturally. We have a large swath of citizens who are barely literate regarding any number of things that don't pertain to their own small world.

It's not for nothing that philosophy itself attracts fewer and fewer young people. And, for many who do pursue it, the philosophy itself becomes further and further removed from the lives that we actually live. A sterile technical approach that almost never comes down out of the analytic clouds. Technically as it were.

During the age of Modernism, in the earlier parts of the Twentieth Century, people were brought together by the utopian thought of developing their environment with the help of technology and science. But “it was easier decades ago to forge common ground with neighbours and community members, in part because so many people shared the same backgrounds, experiences, and values” (The Connection Gap, p.197). Now it instead seems that people’s knowledge and awareness of technology and science has improved so much that we are separated by our own bloated sense of self-importance, and have the overwhelming desire to be someone of significance. We need to be unique.


Who knows how close to or far away from the actual reality of the human condition [over the past 100 years] this intellectual assessment is. But it seems to be clearly the case that all of the factors that once did enable communities to sustain whatever actual existential consensus held them together politically, socially and culturally, is being frayed by all of the factors that reconfigured modernism into postmodernism. My own assessment is just one more attempt to make sense of it.

On the other hand, the objectivists among us, atop their very own soap boxes, will still insist that they and only they can slay the dragon that is "identity uncertainty" and tell us all who we "really" are.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:53 pm

Death of the Author and the web identity crisis
Zachary Colbert spins a story of power and deceit brought to you via your computer.

Consumer culture persuades us to purchase by promising uniqueness through mass-produced high street labels. “We are Goth music fans, food co-op members, Volvo owners, or the Macintosh faithful. Even haters like skinheads and white supremacists or those drawn to violence through gang membership yearn for a collective identity – though it may not be desirable.”


Yes, and what does this encompass but the extent to which "I" in our postmodern world revolves more and more around lifestyles. Rather than more substantive, historical demographics. Lifestyles that by and large become part of one or another market. It's not just a matter of attaching your identity to "one of us", but of all the things out there that you can then purchase to demonstrate that you really are "one of us".

And, given this pop culture/mass consumption mentality, some of the most absurd confrontations can unfold. For example, in the film Twentieth Century Women there a scene where a character is confused when she walks to her car and notes that someone had spray painted ART FAG on one side of her car and BLACK FLAG on the other?

Why? Because her son happened to be listened to the Talking Heads, the Art Fag band, instead of Black Flag, the hardcore punk rock band. "I" reduced down to something as idiotic as this.

We have a desperate thirst to be original and different, while simultaneously and contradictorily wanting to feel like we belong.


And here the lowest common denominator mentality is writ large across the entire globe for literally millions of us. We attach our ego to the dumbest fucking things to at least to be counted as "one of us" and not "one of them".

Again, it's not what you believe but that you believe. Something, anything.

Unfortunately, that mentality can also be attached to far more serious things like politics. Here the consequences of being or becoming "one of them" can be literally a matter of life and death.

The internet helps to quench this thirst for significance. It gives us limitless alternative worlds in which to experiment with multiple online personalities: “Our emancipation has become a no-holds-barred quest for self-expression, self-definition and self-gratification.”.


Yes, but that doesn't make "I" here any less virtual. And even the virtual identity that we choose is no less anchored to dasein. As for "me myself and I" that's clearly rooted out in our own particular world.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:41 pm

iambiguous wrote:Yes, but that doesn't make "I" here any less virtual. And even the virtual identity that we choose is no less anchored to dasein. As for "me myself and I" that's clearly rooted out in our own particular world.


But genes and memes aren't virtual, are they iam? Not rooted in dasein?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:00 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Yes, but that doesn't make "I" here any less virtual. And even the virtual identity that we choose is no less anchored to dasein. As for "me myself and I" that's clearly rooted out in our own particular world.


But genes and memes aren't virtual, are they iam? Not rooted in dasein?


How are our virtual personas even possible unless they are derived from the genes that constitute our biological existence?

As for memes, which ones? Our virtual personas can discuss social, political and economic interactions online that can in fact be bursting at the seams with particular memes.

These things:

"A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that becomes a fad and spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme."

But: an idea, behavior or style in regard to what? And in what particular set of circumstances viewed from what particular point of view? Why your memes and not mine? Why my understanding of them and not yours?

We'll need a context of course.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:04 pm

iambiguous wrote:How are our virtual personas even possible unless they are derived from the genes that constitute our biological existence?


That's not the question, is it? I know their objectivist theories seem objectively true to objectivists (in reality the gene meme paradigm is a scientific theory and pretends no truth value).

The question is:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:But genes and memes aren't virtual, are they iam? Not rooted in dasein?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:16 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:How are our virtual personas even possible unless they are derived from the genes that constitute our biological existence?


That's not the question, is it? I know their objectivist theories seem objectively true to objectivists (in reality the gene meme paradigm is a scientific theory and pretends no truth value).


All I can do here is to appeal to others:

What point do I keep missing here? And, if you think you understand it, how would you respond to it?

Pedro I Rengel wrote:The question is:

But genes and memes aren't virtual, are they iam? Not rooted in dasein?


How are our virtual personas even possible unless they are derived from the genes that constitute our biological existence?

As for memes, which ones? Our virtual personas can discuss social, political and economic interactions online that can in fact be bursting at the seams with particular memes.

These things:

"A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that becomes a fad and spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme."

But: an idea, behavior or style in regard to what? And in what particular set of circumstances viewed from what particular point of view? Why your memes and not mine? Why my understanding of them and not yours?

We'll need a context of course.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:17 pm

I know, I know, you just want to keep telling me what they are and how they are objectively true. My question is:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:But genes and memes aren't virtual, are they iam? Not rooted in dasein?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:22 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:I know, I know, you just want to keep telling me what they are and how they are objectively true. My question is:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:But genes and memes aren't virtual, are they iam? Not rooted in dasein?


Anyone else? 8)
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:24 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:I know, I know, you just want to keep telling me what they are and how they are objectively true. My question is:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:But genes and memes aren't virtual, are they iam? Not rooted in dasein?


Anyone else? 8)


How about you, son?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:25 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:I know, I know, you just want to keep telling me what they are and how they are objectively true. My question is:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:But genes and memes aren't virtual, are they iam? Not rooted in dasein?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users