Karpel Tunnel, Curly and iambiguous

[iambiguous]

iambig why u always calling people names?

Bingo. And while, of course, he gets called a lot of names. He starts it with the label objectivist in interaction after interaction, the name obviously meant perjoratively. And then after labeling, he will add in the reasons you disagree with him or complain about his behavior: read: it is never about his behavior, it is because we are afraid of losing the comfort of some contraption.

First, of course, I make the attempt to explain that "objectivist" is only a word that subjectively has come to mean the following...to "me":

1] someone who believes that they are in sync with their real me and/or their core self and/or their "soul"
2] that this True Self is, in turn, in sync with The Right Thing To Do in regard to their moral and political values
3] that, in possession of political power, they come to embody authoritarianism and see the world as divided up between those who are "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys]

And that, given particular sets of circumstances, this can be an extremely dangerous and deadly combination. Historically, think folks like Stalin and Hitler.

And I don't "name" someone an objectivist in the manner in which Objectivists of Ayn Rand's ilk use that expression.

And, again, the irony is that in many crucial respects, I don't construe Karpel Tunnel to be an objectivist himself. To the best of my knowledge, he believes in neither God nor objective morality. Just like me.

BUT

He does embrace a "visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-me" Self that keeps being fractured and fragmented [as a pragmatist] at bay.

In other words:

"But if you come and say God says that iambiguous is not all those things I say he is, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves iambiguous is not all the things I say he is, I will not override the revulsion that I think and and feel about him. 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 now.

I have attempted to explore that with him here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=196034

But he "foed" me and refuses to explore the accusations and labels he thumps me [over and over again] with on the philosophy board here.

He basically hides behind the "foe" function.

Call it, say, the phoneutria syndrome.

[iambiguous]

First of all, yet another brand new thread started here by either one of the Kids or one om my Stooges...with iambiguous as the subject!

Now that's entertainment!!

I love it!!!

Look, I know that tormenting and then humiliating these poor souls speaks volumes regarding my own character. And, really, a part of me is in fact rather embarrassed by it.

But, given the decrepit state that ILP is in now [thanks largely to them], a bigger part of me just can't resist making fools out of them...

No, no, seriously.

We need a discussion that revolves around something more specific. And in particular relating to that which brings me to ILP in the first place: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

You can choose the subject or I can note one from one of my many posts.

Then we can attempt to pin down distinctions between an objectivist and a subjectivist frame of mind. Here however groots are just arguments that I believe are of particular importance in framing my argument. You can never use them too much.

As for the role of science, they don't call psychology one of the "soft sciences" for nothing.

Beside, as I point out time and again, who really knows with any precision where psychology rooted on genes ends and psychology rooted in memes begins. Let alone the individual idiosyncrasies rooted in dasein.

So, we'll just plug away as best we can. Vacillating as always [with the Pedros here] between actual substance and yak yak yak, fulminating fanatic bullshit.

Then we can create a poll to vote on that.

We?

Perfect. Caught the narcissism/solipsism in a one word response.

What else:

But if you come and say God says iambiguous is not a narcissist/solipsist, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves iambiguous is not a narcissist/solipsist, I will not override my revulsion 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 now.

Note to Wendy, the Kids and all of my other Stooges here:

Curly's conclusions about me are derived from his "visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-me" Self.

What do you derive yours from? You know, as Kids and Stooges.

As for "we", there was nothing either "universalist" or "binary" about it. I was merely referring to the members of our own beloved community.

[iambiguous]

"He just doesn't offer any solutions or real implemented changes for the world."

At a certain point the problems, crisis, damage, conflict, and over all ill health of the world becomes so severe that it becomes impossible to reform, neutralize, fix, turn back, or rationalize. At that point all you can hope for is the whole stinking, rotten, corrupt, and decadent infested edifice to come crashing down only to be swallowed up by the earth itself. That's basically my own mindset these days.

Further it's not like you haven't described, to some degree, how you want things to be after the dust settles. I don't really want your version of society, if I have understood it correctly, but you have presented it. PK reads a little, draws conclusions without knowing much....you know kid stuff, as he would say.

Okay, here's the thing. Or, rather, here's my own subjective take on the thing.

Karpel Tunnel has foed me. For whatever personal reasons of his own, he has decided that I am just a troll here hell bent on derailing countless threads in order to spew philosophical garbage. Relentlessly, over and over again with the same "copy and paste" tripe.

I have in fact created a thread in which to explore this with him: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=196034

But, as I described him to PK, the "chickenshit" hides behind the foe button in order to sustain that crucial distance between his own "visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-me" Self and my own "fractured and fragmented" "I".

Just as [being a "stalker"] all the objectivists like phoneutria do.

Anyway, back to the "thing".

I suspect that in many important ways he does not embrace your own moral and political values. As he notes. But you seem to have contempt for me and thus on this thread that's all it takes for him to defend you. In other words, in my view, it's considerably less about you and considerably more about me.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

[iambiguous]

No more.

I knew it. One way or another the conclusions that I have come to in regard to "morality here and now and immortality there and then" have sunk down into you as well. And not [I suspect] just in regard to owning up to the possibility/probability that we live in an essentially meaningless world. Other things about the "fractured and fragmented" "I" as well.

But that you have is actually my way of complimenting you. Or, sure, complimenting myself in turn. In, perhaps, coming at least somewhat close to understanding the "human condition"...philosophically.

However profoundly grim and problematic the conclusions might be.

In fact, it may well be that, in Karpel Tunnel's refusal to go there, he has invented this "visceral, intuitive deep-down-inside-me" Self in order to keep the "for all practical purposes" implications of that essentially meaningless world at bay.

I don't know. He says I am wrong about it. But he refuses to go further.

[iambiguous]

But he just gets to state things about my internal life - my motivations for example - based on unstated arguments that would not even convince a couple of people here. IOW hypocrisy. But it's great someone finally solved the problem of other minds.

Huh?

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. Are you different?

...came from him. Him giving us a peek into his "internal life".

I'm just ever after him to examine/describe what this means "for all practical purposes" given a particular context involving conflicting goods. And as it contrasts with my own far more disintegrated "I".

And, in regard to moral and political value judgments, what disturbs the objectivists [and apparently Karpel] here is the arguments I make in my signature threads. In other words, what if they are reasonable points to make? And what if they are applicable to the objectivists [and Karpel] as well?

Then he made the mistake of waxing nostaligically about those great forums back then with real philosophers and I saw that he posted the same things and they reacted to his BEHAVIOR the same way. Sure, his arguments bothered some of them, but people got pissed at his behavior. And he had to know this, so he was lying, theatrically, in an attempt to put down people here, I would guess. Before I was never sure before that he knew he was lying. I always wondered what was really going on in him. There was an asterisk.

Note to others:

Go to this thread and decide for yourself which of us makes the most sense in regard to this "accusation": https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 6&t=195958

Anyway, got a new job starting Monday, and I find I am getting pissed off at too many people. With a few exceptions it's just team posting and team attacking, and yeah, binary thinking is the zeitgeist. I am finding I avoid discussions in my private life also. There are no gray areas any more.

See, what did I tell you above or on another thread? He does get pissed off over and over and over again at those who in an exchange with him don't eventually come around to agreeing with how his own "visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-me" Self sees things. It's hardly just me. With me, however, I was challenging him to see how his own "visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-me" Self itself as just another existential contraption rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein. That for all practical purposes his reaction to me really wasn't all that far removed from the objectivists here.

Really, think about it: how is his "visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-me" Self not just but one more example of "binary" thinking?!

So, has he left ILP? Again, I hope not. Aside from our own "failure to communicate", he was one of the few left here going back to the time when I first became a member myself. One less counterweight to the Kids, the social media yak yak yakkers and the near Nazis that have overrun the site of late.

[iambiguous]

Well, he seems to be gone.

Or, from my perspective, "another one bites the dust".

But I always reserved that for either the objectivists or the "serious philosophers".

With KT I am still left grappling with what it really was about me that rankled him so. I'm figuring it was the manner in which I exposed his "visceral intuitive deep-down-inside-me" Self to my own fractured and fragmented "I".

Anyway, I'm figuring that he will be back. Either as Curly with me, Karpel Tunnel with others or, perhaps, just as Moreno reconfigured into Karpel Tunnel, he might choose an altogether different handle.

If so, let's see who is the first to spot it.