Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

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

Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 07, 2020 6:22 pm

I think I may have found it...

What is it about iambiguous -- me -- that reconfigures Karpel Tunnel into Curly, the Stooge? What about my arguments most rankle him? Over and again, I would note his reaction to me is far, far more in sync with the reaction I often get from the moral and political and religious objectivists. But their reactions always made sense to me. Why? Because to the extent they began to understand what was at stake for them if my frame of mind was more reasonable, it would take me back to my own visceral/philosophical reactions at the time when as an objectivist myself, "I" began to crumple, to crumble. The very last thing the objectivists among us want to feel is "fractured and fragmented" in regard to the fundamentally important comfort and consolation they feel in regard to their own "real me" identity at one with their belief that their own value judgments reflected "the right thing to do". That sacrosanct "Sense Of Self" here must above all else be sustained.

But: Karpel Tunnel, like me, did not appear to believe in either objective morality or in a God/the God/my God.

So, I wondered, how did he manage not to feel fractured and fragmented himself in regard to conflicting goods rooted in dasein given a particular political economy.

Then, today, I came upon this:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But if you come and say God says pedophilia is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves pedophilia is good, I will not override my revulsion. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.

Are you different?


Now, sure, my own reaction to this is no less a subjective/subjunctive interpretation rooted in dasein. I would never insist that I have actually figured out What He Means by it. In fact, I would never insist that I have finally figured out the meaning of my own existential reactions to human interactions out in the is/ought world. All I have are the arguments I raise in my signature threads. Assessments that, as I note time and again, seem reasonable to me only "here and now". Assessments I recognize that, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas -- in a world bursting with contingency chance and change -- might nudge or shove me into accepting a whole new frame of mind.

So, with that in mind, I'll take a stab at it.

Karpel Tunnel seems [to me] to be arguing above that there is some "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self that just knows that pedophilia is repulsive. That is the part of him that is somehow immune to being "fractured and fragmented". And that, whether more or less consciously or sub-consciously, my own arguments here represent a threat to this conviction. What if it really is true that "in the absence of God all things can be rationalized"; and that all it takes [for anyone] is some future context either beyond their total understanding or control that might make them do things that "here and now" they are adamant that they would never, ever do because "here and now" they are revolting to them?

And don't get me wrong: there is still a part of me that feels the same way. It's just that in a philosophical venue I can't come up with a way to think myself into believing [once again] that any human behavior is inherently/necessarily immoral in the absence of God.

So, yes, in regard to all of this, "I" am different from him. But only "here and now".
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:34 pm

Nope, bad guess. And if you read with care you'd have noticed that.

You have bitched about my treatment of you, many, many, many times, yet after I ignore you for whatever it is a week or two, you put me in the title of thread?

You didn't ruin ILP. You embarrassed yourself with the great forums of the past nostalgia, and also for being nostaligic about Moreno. You're a terrible, rude, disruptive communication partner and that was it. I know that's incredibly hard for you to believe.

But if your story above brings you comfort, keep it.

Your muck has no interest for me. Toodle loo.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:51 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Nope, bad guess.

And I'll keep not engaging you. It seems to be sticking this time.


Okay, fair enough.

On the other hand, if you're like me, you may not even know yourself.

Still, try this:

To be more certain that you won't be tempted to "engage' me, do what folks like phoneutria do: "foe" me.
Had you done that, you would not even have been tempted to respond here.


Only, again, she is an actual objectivist. Mentored by...Satyr?

Note to others:

So, is he only fooling himself here? Or can you think of another reason that makes sense given all of the substantive things that he and I do in fact share in common. Something that he, in fact, has pointed out himself. He keeps insisting his problem with me is a "personal" thing. Not what I post but the way I post it.

Though, me, I'm still convinced "here and now" that I nailed it above. And I'm almost sure that he knows it. That he is a "deep down inside" objectivist.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:25 pm

Perfect!

He claims to have stopped engaging me...but than after he posted what he first did, he's back immediately to amend it. To "broaden" the attack on me, personally.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Nope, bad guess. And if you read with care you'd have noticed that.

You have bitched about my treatment of you, many, many, many times, yet after I ignore you for whatever it is a week or two, you put me in the title of thread?


I explained that!

It was only after reading an excerpt from a post of his on another thread, that this new "insight" dawned on me. The "deep down inside" "real me".

Also, I don't ignore his posts. Why? Because he is clearly in possession of the sort of mind that I value here at ILP. A genuinely sophisticated, intelligent mind that we need more of. And, again, substantively, I do share many of his own points.

Instead, I suspect that when push comes to shove he is more interested in exploring philosophy in what I deem to be the Magnus Anderson mold over at the value thread: up in the academic clouds where [basically] the technical components of philosophy can be explored. Discussions that consist largely of the logical and epistemological components of value revolving around didactic meaning that comes almost entirely from pinning down the right definitions.

I was genuinely surprised to see KT focus more instead on pedophilia -- an actual set of human interactions that involve the manner in which "I" construe the existential meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Also, someone, please note where I have bitched and bitched about him. On the contrary, my main aim in regard to him is encompassed in the OP.

Then of course: Back to me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You didn't ruin ILP. You embarrassed yourself with the great forums of the past nostalgia, and also for being nostaligic about Moreno. You're a terrible, rude, disruptive communication partner and that was it. I know that's incredibly hard for you to believe.


No, I am not this way at all for those who wish to engage in an intelligent and civil discussion devoid of huffing and puffing. But for those who do wish to make it personal, I can go there as well. I thrive on polemics. But only if another is also in sync with it.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But if your story above brings you comfort, keep it.


Unbelievable. My "story" above, profoundly and problematically rooted in dasein, is anything but comforting. How on earth can anyone believe that construing "I" as fractured and fragmented out in an essentially meaningless world that ends in oblivion, be comforted by it?!! Instead, my own comfort is embodied in distractions: music, film, books, art, the good stuff on TV.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:41 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But if you come and say God says pedophilia is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves pedophilia is good, I will not override my revulsion. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.


my emphasis

I missed this part.

And it's an important qualifier.

To the extent that anyone is willing to accept that their thoughts and feelings about conflicting goods are embedded existentially in the "here and now", they recognize [more or less as "I" do] that their value judgments might change.

Then it comes back down to the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to do". In other words, some will admit that, given access to new experiences, new relationships, new ideas etc., in the past, they did change their moral narrative and political agenda. But that is only because they were able to come all that closer to the real "real me" here. There is still an objective morality. There is only the question of whether "I" here and now is in sync with it.

So, it seems, for some, there must still be doubts about this alignment.

Others, of course, don't go down this road at all. They might change their minds about something given new sets of circumstances but it all just gets subsumed psychologically into the new "certainty". They merely block out any other explanation more or less consciously.

Again, there are so many individual variables here embedded in so many very different lives that we may or may not fully understand of control, it's easy enough to rationalize just about any aspect of "I" here.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:57 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
A different issue is that it doesn't seem to me a means to a goal, but an end it itself: those values. Eating butterscotch ice cream does not bring me closer to some goal. Except to the extent that I want to eat things that I like (with provisos for health perhaps).


From the Value thread.

And, as often as not, it is this sort of context which seems to preoccupy the "serious philosophers" there. I value eating butterscotch ice cream because my goal is to eat things I like. A quandary only occurs when I value good health as a goal as well and eating ice cream might preclude that.

And even when he brings value down closer to things like freedom vs. security -- things that concern me out in the is/ought world -- we get more general description intellectual contraptions:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Then if we get into values like valuing freedom or security or creatvity most, I don't think one can say that the way I prioritize these values is not true or false, but is a matter of my taste. Or something very like taste. I cannot say that someone who values security higher than I do and freedom, say, much lower, and creativity not much at all, is wrong or that his values are false.

Maybe if I see that he really does seem to value freedom as much as I do, while saying he'd rather be safe than free, and even takes risks to protect his freedom, I could perhaps argue that he has falsely evaluated his own priorities. But I can't say his values are false.


Again, in what set of circumstances? In regard to, say, freedom vs. security with respect to gun control legislation?

Why are some people embedded at the extremes of the political spectrum here? And others in the middle? How is that related or not related to the manner in which I embed the self here in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

As I noted above, the closest I can get to understanding his own moral philosophy here is that, in regard to his views on gun control, there is this "deep down inside" him true self that can be configured into something like this:

"But if you come and say God says gun control is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves gun control is good, it will not overcome my own 'deep down inside me' self if I don't agree with either God or the philosopher-kings. Because how I think and feel about it, at least now, means more to me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical."

Whereas for me, "I" here is an existential contraption rooted in dasein confronting those on both sides of the issue who are able to come up with reasonable arguments that the other side can't make go away. And that what ultimately counts is who has the actual political power [often derived from economic power] to pass and then enforce legislation that rewards or punishes particular behaviors in any particular community in any particular historical, cultural and circumstantial context.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:22 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I did not mean, let's test the idea and I will show you you can't convince me so it is not objectively true and/or there is no other way to be than my way. That's the Iambiguous approach.
From the Value Thread

No, my approach is to examine an idea in terms of 1] what someone believes is true about it in their head and then 2] given a particular context, their attempt to demonstrate why their assessment of the idea ought to be the assessment of others if they wish to be thought of as a rational human being.

And then, for some, arguing further that if there is something they believe is rational then it must be moral as well. Re folks like Kant and Ayn Rand.

On the other hand, Karpel Tunnel seems to argue that even if he admits that another's assessment of something is rational -- or actually comes from an extant God! -- if it goes against what he believes deep down inside, he still won't change his reaction to it.

Now, if others here think they do understand what he means by this, by all means, let's focus in on a particular set of circumstances and you can try to explain it to me.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:36 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:No, we have motives for our actions. Most people don't intentionally kill even insects without the insects being specific pests or biting them or raiding their garbage or whatever.


From the bug thread.

Yes, this is how most of us seem to think. We may step on a bug or spray them with insecticide or hire an exterminator to rid our home of every single last one of them. And our motives are often wholly reasonable given that some insects in some sets of circumstances can cause us harm or bring harm to those we love and care about.

But what of those who stomp on bugs that can do them no harm...but merely because they take pleasure in it?

Is that something that can be deemed either irrational or immoral.

Yet even here, as I noted half-jokingly on the bug thread:

1] choosing to step on bugs and reactions to those that do is rooted subjectively in dasein
2] philosophers appear unable to determine how all rational and virtuous people ought to react to those who do step on bugs
3] It depends on the context


Yet with Karpel Tunnel I can only surmise once again that...

...if you come and say God says stepping on bugs is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves stepping on bugs is good, I will not override my revulsion. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.

You know, if his "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self finds stepping on bugs that do you no harm revolting.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby Meno_ » Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:57 pm

I should rename to personas interraptus., rather be so abrusque .


But been following: and, admittedly from a more self sseving desire, as from anything elae, ......

I involve myself, hoping to be unperceived as crashing, and worse still, a crashing bore.

Someone said,

Then it comes back down to the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to do". In other words, some will admit that, given access to new experiences, new relationships, new ideas etc., in the past, they did change their moral narrative and political agenda. But that is only because they were able to come all that closer to the real "real me" here. There is still an objective morality. There is only the question of whether "I" here and now is in sync with it.

So, it seems, for some, there must still be doubts about this alignment.

Others, of course, don't go down this road at all. They might change their minds about something given new sets of circumstances but it all just gets subsumed psychologically into the new "certainty". They merely block out any other explanation more or less consciously.

Again, there are so many individual variables here embedded in so many very different lives that we may or may not fully understand of control, it's easy enough to rationalize just about any aspect of "I" here.

"
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7595
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby Meno_ » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:08 pm

Meno_ wrote:I should rename to personas interraptus., rather be so abrusque .


But been following: and, admittedly from a more self sseving desire, as from anything elae, ......

I involve myself, hoping to be unperceived as crashing, and worse still, a crashing bore.

Someone said,

Then it comes back down to the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to do". In other words, some will admit that, given access to new experiences, new relationships, new ideas etc., in the past, they did change their moral narrative and political agenda. But that is only because they were able to come all that closer to the real "real me" here. There is still an objective morality. There is only the question of whether "I" here and now is in sync with it.

So, it seems, for some, there must still be doubts about this alignment.

Others, of course, don't go down this road at all. They might change their minds about something given new sets of circumstances but it all just gets subsumed psychologically into the new "certainty". They merely block out any other explanation more or less consciously.

Again, there are so many individual variables here embedded in so many very different lives that we may or may not fully understand of control, it's easy enough to rationalize just about any aspect of "I" here.

"




And doubt is an indigenous part , where certainty is not.
There are the types that can feel Eureka, I've got it!(whatever that feeling can be of any shape of form be collected and fixed to a certain concept or series or methods of cognative skill will bind you.

That when happens, certainty need not be re-validated, again and again-

And then what? A gap appears, interminable and cut off. ( I call it the new lefts version of 'cut up method.)

This was a collage can be connected, and or disconnected , from various levels.

The ' prime reason for investigations philosophical or some other sourced, need not impose some kind of need to expose fragility or some other thing abut it.

Be as it may, .....or whatever it would sugnify:

By the way who is curly from some imaginable outer sphere of reference?
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7595
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:31 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But so far you haven't reached the same stage in our discussion. You haven't said 'I like killing bugs.' Or I like killing bugs more tha[n] [activity X] you could have done instead. from the bug thread


Now, the stage I would liked to have explored with him in our own discussions is how he explains the part of his own "self" here...

But if you come and say God says pedophilia is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves pedophilia is good, I will not override my revulsion. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.


He doesn't believe in God to the best of my knowledge. And an omniscient God would seem able to note definitively whether and/or when mere mortals are permitted or not permitted to step on bugs.

And he doesn't believe -- philosophically? -- in objective morality. So there would appear to be no deontological assessment available to him in order to pin down rationally when or whether mere mortals can step on bugs.

Instead, he would rely on the extent to which, in any particular context, he felt "revulsed" when having to choose either to step or not to step on this or these particular bugs "here and now".

But: My argument is that in many crucial respects even things like "revulsion" are rooted in dasein.

Thus, if someone had followed him around 24/7, year in and year out, noting all of the experiences he had involving bugs, they would come to one [or more] that might explain how and why he feels or does not feel revulsion "here and now" when confronted with these particular bugs in this particular situation.

But: he doesn't have to access to all of the variables in his life that predisposed him to feel or not to feel "revulsion" here and now. In fact, none of us do. Our memories only go back so far. And there are any number of gaps in our memories. And any number of our memories may be false or distorted.

Right?

So, I'm back again here to the need for an omniscient and omnipotent God. No God and mere mortals are often taking leaps of faith in regard to their reactions to the world around them. Especially in regard to their moral and political values.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby phyllo » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:53 pm

But: My argument is that in many crucial respects even things like "revulsion" are rooted in dasein.

So what? Who cares if it is?

He still feels revulsion.

"A logical argument" doesn't take away his revulsion. Why would it?

"An omniscient and omnipotent God" doesn't take away his revulsion.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:26 pm

phyllo wrote:
But: My argument is that in many crucial respects even things like "revulsion" are rooted in dasein.

So what? Who cares if it is?

He's still feels revulsion.

"A logical argument" doesn't take away his revulsion. Why would it?

"An omniscient and omnipotent God" doesn't take away his revulsion.


Okay, one could then argue that Nazis feeling revulsion for Jews and Jews feeling revulsion for Nazis, what, cancel each other out?

Clearly, based on the evolution of biological life on planet Earth, each one of us comes into the world able to feel revulsion...and, as well, many other deep-seated subjunctive states.

But, historically, culturally and circumstantially how does this innate capacity become manifested and embodied in any particular individual? I take a stab at this in my signature threads. Intellectual contraptions that we would have to "situate" out in particular contexts and examine our own "I" in regard.

And the extent to which others would "care" about my arguments is no less rooted subjectively in dasein. I'm certainly not suggesting that all rational men and women are obligated to.

Instead, I always focus on the extent to which "I" can be construed as the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to do". And the manner in which the moral and political objectivists among us insist they they are in sync with a core self/soul and that they are able to divide the world up between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys].

With Karpel Tunnel my interest revolves around the extent to which he construes what I construe to be his "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self, as or as not fractured and fragmented. Given that I deem the subjunctive "I" to be no less rooted in dasein. It just gets trickier here because the subjunctive "I" is closer to the "mammalian" portion of the human brain:

"Next is the limbic system, also called the paleomammalian complex; the mammalian brain; or the midbrain. This part of the brain is unique to mammals. According to MacLean, the limbic system of this mammalian brain is the center of emotion and learning."

And that is right around the corner from the reptilian part of the brain, right?

Then, in turn, the murky junctures where the conscious brain becomes entangled in the subconscious and the unconscious brain functions.

Ever and always this part:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

But, come on, if there is an omniscient and omnipotent God then at least we know that however we may squabble over these things, there is a "transcending font" that has all the answers.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:13 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: In a discussion with the motivationless insect killer Iambiguous said the following….
But whether it is stepping on bugs or any other moral and political context in which there are "conflicting goods", he has thought himself into believing there is this "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self that is somehow immune to being "fractured and fragmented" in the manner in which I construe my own "self" out in the is/ought world.
I never said anything about being immune to F & F, and only cherry picking and ignoring what I said elsewhere in that thread could manage to give any hope I would say that or had said something equivalent. If he read my post in the thread he referred to with any care, it would be clear I do not have this belief. I don’t think I am immune to F & F, nor would I know what to check to see if I was immune. I don't think I am as F&F as Iamb - he seems to have the same impression - and I have presented a wide range of reasons why this might be the case. None of which he has ever bothered to counter and none of which have to do with me having contraptions.


Here is what he posted:

But if you come and say God says pedophilia is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves pedophilia is good, I will not override my revulsion. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.


So, if he is acknowledging that even his revulsion is subject to "fracturing and fragmenting", then how is he any different from me? And, in fact, he did note "at least now". Which I also commented on. In other words, like me, new experiences, new relationships, new information and knowledge etc., might result in his not being revulsed by pedophilia at all.

Thus, as some insist, in the absence of God any human behavior can be rationalized. Behaviors here and now that you can't imagine doing yourself are not inherently, necessarily out of the question. I call this the Song Be Syndrome. That's the bottomless pit that is moral nihilism. Sociopaths act that out everyday. They just don't step back in order to grapple with it "philosophically".

But even here "I" am no less fractured and fragmented. Moral nihilism [and its practical implications for human interaction] is just something that as of now "I" have thought myself into believing. It may well not actually be reasonable at all to think as I do. Thus I can only come into place like this, deposit my signature threads, and hear out how others react to the points I raise in them.

On the other hand, if a God, the God did in fact reveal Himself to me in a way that could not be doubted, and if He said that pedophilia is good, and, further, that not pursuing it is bad, a sin, punishable by eternal damnation, why would I not pursue it? Who am I as a mere mortal to grasp, to doubt His mysterious ways with Hell itself on the line.

Though, sure, given an issue like pedophilia if he has reasons that are different from mine in regard to feeling fractured and fragmented, let him note them one more time.

Curly wrote: I consider him a toxic discussion partner because of a number of problematic traits he has, including his inability to read well, and will continue not to engage with him.


Here we go again:

Let him choose a context in which we can explore each other's moral philosophy. Then in a civil, respectful exchange, he can note particular instances of this on my part.

Let him start the thread. Let him choose the context.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:58 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Pardon the digression, but it responds to what seems like an assumption in the OP. Has Trump won? Or is the failure to have not clearly eliminated him already? If he did win, could you link me to that.


Did Trump win? We don't know yet. But what if he does?

This is an excellent opportunity to explore the nature of the self/"self" as construed differently by folks like Peter Kropotkin, Karpel Tunnel and myself.

Now, to the extent I understand him, Peter is still more or less committed to the "one of us" [the good guys] vs. one of them [the bad guys] frame of mind. He focuses in on behaviors that help or hurt others and wraps his moral narrative around his own set of assumption here. Less objectivist than some perhaps but still basically committed to the psychology of objectivism. He seems able to become genuinely outraged if Trump is re-elected.

Me, my own commitment to the Democrats and liberal policies [on most issues] is construed instead to be more the existential embodiment of particular political prejudices that I derived from my actual lived life derived from my current understanding of dasein in my signature threads.

So, yes, I'm disappointed if Trump wins. But I recognize that had things been very different in my life [no Song Be for example] I might still be the conservative I once was and feel excited if Trump wins. Also, I recognize that in regard to the conflicting goods that rend liberals and conservatives, things aren't nearly as black and white as they once were to me when I was a political objectivist myself.

Which brings me to Karpel Tunnel.

On the one hand, like me, and to the extent that I do understand Peter's frame of mind, KT does not believe in the existence of an objective moral and political path. A path that all those who wish to call themselves rational and virtuous are obligated to take.

But: On the other hand, he has this:

But if you come and say God says pedophilia is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves pedophilia is good, I will not override my revulsion. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.


So, in regard to the election, that might be reconfigured into this:

But if you come and say God says a Trump victory is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves a Trump victory is good, I will not override my revulsion. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.


In other words, if a Trump victory is viewed by him with revulsion on an intuitive, visceral, gut level.

That [to me] is the "I" he sees "at least now" as immune from fracturing and fragmenting. But to me that component of human identity is no less the embodiment of "I" as an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

The "revulsed" self. How is that different from say, the "soul", or the "real me"?

Both of which may in fact exist, but neither of which "here and now" am I able to reach myself.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:33 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I know, it's a platitude, but there it is. If your anger is interpreted as the troll's effectiveness by the troll..... If any attention is positively experienced by the troll....then if your goal is to discuss the topic, ignoring the troll is the best move.

Trolls may not know they are trolls. This can contribute to their seeming, potentially, a couple of posts away from realizing you have a point about them.
Trolls may have certain positive qualities. The most effective trolls must have these.

I think 'feeding the troll' is an exceptionally good metaphor. And one is literally feeding the troll oneself: one's time, one's effort to explain, one's energy...

It may look like a discussion, but it's not. I suspect that trolls are empty and this is a kind of emotional feeding. There is nothing that really engages them in life so they can only enjoy trying to hurt others - however differently they frame what they are doing to themselves, perhaps even thinking they are doing something noble and deeply insightful.

But, really, what difference does it make?

If your goal is to discuss the topic, ignore them. If your goal is to get the troll to have an insight about themselves, good luck.


Of course the problem here revoles around noting who is or is not a troll.

More to point, on this thread...

But if you come and say God says John Doe is a troll, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves John Doe is troll, I will not override my revulsion to that. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.


So, in determining who is in fact beyond all doubt a troll here, he is able to avoid being "fractured and fragmented" as I am. Instead, he has this" visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" I able to rescue him from all that.

Well, "at least now" he does.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:04 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
I think of a troll as something specific: that at root the posting is not intended to join a discussion but has some other purpose: generally emotional, and generally to upset other people. That the actual topics are of no real interest and one does not see it necessary to engage with points made.


Ah, a troll as an intellectual contraption! No need to name names then.

As for specificity, lets go back to this:

"But if you come and say God says John Doe is a troll, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves John Doe is troll, I will not override my revulsion to that."

If God tells us who the trolls are here, is that specific enough? If philosophers or scientists discover the whole rational truth about them, is that specific enough? Or does it always come down to his "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self/Soul telling him who they are?

But think about it: he is so sure that he is right about trolls here, that even if God, science or philosophy was able to demonstrate otherwise, he would still fall back on his own rendition of the "real me"!!! #-o
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:08 pm

Curly wrote:For example: on the beauty thread. Some people requested that one poster remain on topic. This degenerated first into a discussion of whether this actually happened, then into James Saint and how he handled the poster, then into disagreements over James Saint's positions and personality.


I'll take a wild ass guess here: he means me. And "some people" is Magnus. And I invite others here to go there and note the entirety of my exchange with him: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=196115

Decide for yourself if this justifies my being called a troll.

Also, decide for yourself who makes the most convincing arguments.

Also, where am I being a troll on these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=170060
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=195930
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196100
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196110
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195600
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175006
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=186929
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195614
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195964
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Oh, and when is he going to get around to responding to this:

But if you come and say God says John Doe is a troll, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves John Doe is troll, I will not override my revulsion to that. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.


If God tells us who the trolls are here, is that specific enough? If philosophers or scientists discover the whole rational truth about them, is that specific enough? Or does it always come down to his "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self/Soul telling him who they are?

But think about it: he is so sure that he is right about trolls here, that even if God, science or philosophy was able to demonstrate otherwise, he would still fall back on his own rendition of the "real me"!!! #-o


He claims that in regard to his own value judgments, I am wrong to suggest that he is able to avoid feeling "fractured and fragmented" by inventing this "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self that he grounds his own moral and political prejudices in.

Apparently it's something else instead. He just won't or can't tell us what that is.
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: Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:23 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Maybe he really wants to hijack more threads, dismiss even more of what people say with condescending labels and psychoanalyze all disagreement as fear of losing comfort (psychic claims that generally come first before people 'make him the issue' IOW after they where made the issue and labled as objectivists or serious philosophers or avoiding discomfort, etc.). IOW maybe he already feels like he has compromised. Ah, just kidding. Social mammals, humans included do care what other people say. But those people without faces, as just words on a screen, where the first person can pretend all sorts of stuff and never have to look someone in the eye when called out on stuff. Even a narcissist will get flustered when confronting a few people. A psychopath will move to where no one realizes what he or she is up to. Online, no need. Or vastly less need.

And imagine the degree of face saving already invested in. This is a pattern that has gone on for more than a decade without, I think, a single admission of merit in any criticism of behavior.

I truly wish there were some other option. I tried as many tacks as I could and have with other trolls who at least were smart and seemed, I say seemed, to engage in a discussion.

But please let me know if you or someone else has some kind of breakthrough or gets and admission of anything regarding behavior. And link me to it. I'd be happy actually.


So, how does he know all of this about me is true? How is he not "fractured and fragmented" as "I" in regard to value judgments such as this?

Consider:

"But if you come and say God says iambiguous is not a troll, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves iambiguous is not troll, I will not override my revulsion to fact that the real me just knows that he is. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical."

At least for now.

As for hijacking treads, my method of choice is actually to create them:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=170060
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=195930
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196100
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196110
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195600
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175006
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=186929
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195614
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195964
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
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


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users