iambiguous wrote:Okay, not that she ought to, but that in order for the outcome to be more to your liking, she chooses to behave more in sync with your own behaviors.
Still, from my frame of mind, these choices are no less in sync with the components of my own moral philosophy here. Something you tell her predisoses her to change her behavior. But, with another, it may not have been effective at all. It would be you that would have to change your behavior or the conflict would go on.
Sure, that can happen. Nothing you say here goes against what I see and experience. That's life as I know it. I certainly hope I haven't given the slightest impression I always get what I want. Hardly.
Objectivists [the right makes might folks] would be adament: my way or the highway. Why? Because my way is the right way. Or it might come down to someone [in the might makes right crowd] simply exercising his power to effectively create a "solution" in sync with that power.
At best, using moderation, negotiation and compromise, a give and take proposal can save the day. But the assumptions I make regarding how that works don't go away.
As I've said before objectivists use moderation, negotiation and compromise ALL THE TIME. So do I. And non-objectivists can have a might wins, so have might attitude. Not sure what this has to do with the present topic, however.
Again, as I see it, your "contraption" here revolves around the manner in which [from my frame of mind] you have come -- existentially -- not to be as bothered as I am that any behaviors agreed upon are still no less entangled in the assumptions that I make down in my hole.
I was never as bothered by it. I don't have a contraption or a 'contraption'. I love the shift to 'contraption', with the citation marks. LOL.
I gave this example elsewhere, but let's look at
your behavior in a different context. A person who cares very little about how one ought to live but is in a hole about mortality - his own death and the deaths of those he loves - and spends his time online challenging religious people of different stripes to prove there is an afterlife. This guy in his different from your hole hole notices your threads and thinks
Oh, this guy, iambiguous, must have a contraption. He should be focused just on the fact that we die and there's no reason to believe in afterlives, but he is obsessing over morals. He should be in my hole.
(and just because you once in a while mention upcoming death, you do it just a tiny percentage of the time. To someone in the mortality hole you obsession with how one ought to live will seem odd, that you are not giving the more important issue more weight will seem odd to him)
Or the person in another kind of existentialist hole. The one yearnign for love and real friendship, intimacy. He sees you focused on morals and thinks, oh, that iamb, he must have a contraption, why isn't he in my hole. He must have a soothing contraption about not needing love or closeness otherwise he would give MY HOLE the weight it deserves.
IOW you think a contraption must be present if someone is not in your hole. Either the person not in your hole is an objectivist, or they are a non-objectivist with some other contraption that soothes them. But to people in other holes, you will seem to have contraptions, since you give so much weight to morals, rather than mortality, or rather than the impossility of true intimacy and love. The reason you are in your hole and not their holes may have nothing to do with contraptions, it might have to do with temperment, experiences, current situation, personality.......
You know, I think you are incapable of actually understanding what I am getting at here. You are oddly clueless for such a smart guy. I think it has taken me a long time to understand that functionally you aredumber than you are. I still find it a fascinating mystery. But it is no longer fascinating enough.
And when I say you are obtuse or clueless, this does not mean about dasein, etc. Nor does it mean you should do what I do or have some contraption that I do not have. When I say you are clueless it has to do with how hard it is for you to NOT take every response I make as me trying to prove your fundamental position is wrong. It has to do with you're not even considering that your behavior, which I am obviously focusing on, is the issue rather than your nihilism. It is to do with you OBVIOUSLY considering your own reaction to non-objectiivism as the default one other should have, but then denying you think this, then behaving as if it is, then denying it, then contradicting it.
Your cluelessness utterly astounds me. Because it stands in contrast to what you are capable of on occasion. So, I have been drawn in time and again to probe this. Can he really not understand what I meant`?
Not, can he really not understand that I am right and he should feel less fragmented.
See, I have to say things like that because you always CONVENIENTLY (though not consciously) misinterpret. Oh, he is telling me I should do what he says, take on his contraptions. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I am telling you your communication is so limited it is truly unbelievable.
Honestly, no polemics here, this morning I woke up and had a moment of fear that I had been communicating with a Turing program and hadn't realized it. I don't say that to insult you. I mean, there is this eerie odd experience of you always interpreting everything into a couple of potential interpersonal acts. 1) I am telling you you are wrong about the effects of dasein. 2) I am trying to convert you. 3) What I am presenting to you is a contraption I think you should take on.
So often I wonder things like....
how can he possibly not understand the topic of what I wrote, me now having reworded it 8 times? How could he possibly not have understand, since I quote his behavior, referred to the quote, called it behavior in a specific context, that I was not saying his nihilism was wrong?Utterly astounded. Curiosity gets the cat stuck in sticky paper.
Basically, this part:
Had either of your lives been different you may well be pushing each other from the opposite end of the moral and political spectrum. But they weren't different and you are both what you became given the existential trajectory of your lives. And that's good enough for both of you.
Then this part:
As though there is really nothing more that I can say that might tug you down into the hole with me. Or nothing more that you can say that might yank me up out of it.
I'm not trying to tug you out.
And how can not thinking like this [in whatever manner that you don't] not be more comforting and consoling?
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Sigh. It certainly seems like it is troubling for you to keep saying these same things and to keep trying to find answers you can't find.
Perhaps because I have come to think myself into a hole that you have not.
Finally, thank you. Yes, that's possible. (and then below, astoundingly, you go back to assuming I have a belief or contraption again, after here saying it is possible that the difference between us might depend ON YOUR THINKING, your own contraptions. Unbelievable. It's like you have a split personality.)
I guess what intrigues me in particular here is how exasperated I seem to make you at times. If all these things that you assert about me are true, why not just chalk me up as a lost cause and move onto others.
Good question. I find it utterly fascinating how obtuse a smart person can be. I honestly can't believe it. It is a mystery. And this mystery had kept me coming back to be stunned over and over how badly you misinterpret and how much you assume.
My suspicion is that there is a part of you that wonders if what I am suggesting here re conflicting goods might not be applicable to you too. Then what? What then of your ability to feel less fractured and fragmented than "I" am?
Well, obviously that is your interpretation. That interpretation fills EVERY POST AND EVERY RESPONSE. I would have to be clueness not to have noticed that that is perhaps THE DOMINANT PATTERN you have when encountering anyone. Which would be fine, if it was open to revision. Or if you could see that your own philosohpy - dasein et al - indicates other possibilities which are just as likely.
It seems utterly impossible for you to actually MULL over what it would mean to you if you encountered someone who was a non-objectivist but despire not having a contraption is not in your hole. It would seem likely that scares you.
Because you cannot for one second explore what that would mean to you.
That sort of thing is construed by me as just another rendition of this:
"I have told you how I think about these relationships but you don't seem to agree that it makes more sense than how you think about them."
Yes, it is construed by you that way. But I don't think differently about them. You often tell me I do.
You know why you do? Becaues I am not in your hole. So, it has to be that way. If I point out that you are saying it is inevitable that everyone will react like you. You snort with indignation. But then you go right back assuming it over and over despite a complete lack of evidence AND other very liklely possibilities.
I know it would be scary to think you have a contraption that makes you obsess about the hole. But there are other interpretatoins where neither of us has a contraption. I can only assume those threaten you also.
Still, you are someone convinced "here and now" that there is no objective morality [as I am], yet you do not feel fractured and fragmented in confronting conflicting goods. Why Not?
LOL, asking me again
Your option then is to bring your "pragmatism" here down to earth and try to describe your thoughts and feelings pertaining to an actual context involving conflicting value judgments; or to simply insist that you have already done this and that the problem here is my failure to grasp how this works for you.
That's my option? No. There are a number of options.
You are asking me for a contraption. You are asking what contraption I use to not feel bad like you do. If you are the one with the contraption, and that is the difference between us, then I obviously can't do that. LOL
If it is your temperment to withdraw and fall into this hole or holes in general that is the source of the difference since I don't have that - another possibility - then I have no contraption to offer you.
There are other possibilities, as I have said, not invovling contraptions on my part.
Even though you admit above your hole may be created by your own thinking, here you are again asking for my contraption.
Then give up on me and move on.
Yes. We agree on that.
And, if that's what you decide, fine. No hard feelings on my part. I've enjoyed our exchanges. You think and feel about these relationships as I wish that I could. All I am doing here [polemics aside] is trying genuinely to understand how you have managed to convince yourself of what you believe. Because "I" cannot.
There you go again. You're being an ass here. Polemics aside. You keep making an assumption that I believe something that makes me feel better about conflicting goods, dasein and all those implications. You keep making that assumption. Even after denying you make that assumption, you go back to that assumption. Even after saying it is not inevitable, you go back to acting like it is.
And you are a smart guy. It utterly amazes me. Truly utterly amazes me that after all this time, with all the different ways I have explained other possiblities. Sometimes in anger, sometimes calmly.
And you keep coming back to me having a contraption.
As a parting note...consider what would be scary about me not being in a hole AND not having a contraption. I can only assume there must be something scary about that.
Whatever that means.
You didn't understand. But nice passive aggressive way of putting that on me.
Really, try this. See if it might stimulate something "new" from me.
[/quote]But it didn't. In fact, things got worse.
Sticky paper, goodbye.