who iambiguous actually is

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

who iambiguous actually is

Postby iambiguous » Sat Dec 12, 2020 9:06 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:I will say it: I know who iambiguous actually is.

Likewise..


Trust me: no one is more interested in knowing this than I am.

Here I will be the context. And Mags, Pedro and others, using every tool of philosophy at their disposal, will reconfigure all the fragments derived from "I" rooted in dasein, into the Real Me.

Maybe even capturing my soul itself.

Me? Well, to date, the closest I have gotten to it myself is this:

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

Also, this being the philosophy board no Kids please.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby MagsJ » Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:32 pm

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:I will say it: I know who iambiguous actually is.

Likewise..


Trust me: no one is more interested in knowing this than I am.

:lol:

Your whole M.O. has changed in recent months, and you constantly attacking Phon is odd IMO,
and others here too have been dropping the odd odd-slur her way, which isn’t cool either, IMO.

It’s the kind of thing females would do/do, and you are coming across as bitter about something,
but I’d rather not speculate what that is.. though I have thought about the what it might be.
Last edited by MagsJ on Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21513
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:39 am

MagsJ wrote:
Your whole M.O. has changed in recent months, and you constantly attacking Phon is odd IMO,
and others here too have been dropping the odd odd-slur her way, which isn’t cool either, IMO.

It’s the kind of thing females would do/do, and you are coming across as bitter about something,
but I’d rather not speculate what that is.. though I have thought about the what.


Nope, still no less fragmented. 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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:03 am

Threads like this make me realize that more people follow Pedro's Corner than I think.

People like to dick around listening to Vivaldi and Metallica instead of working.

You fucking slackers.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:04 am

Qui solvit?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:04 am

Now if only ilp had a "mark as read" option...
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby Meno_ » Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:25 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Qui solvit?




Sort of. But it's not as if the gaps looking for are not obvious MO to find cohesive evidence. deductively or inductivelly, to firm an objective opinion.

It's a game, repeated effort to hold at bay the mid 19thcentury ethos the overcoming of the gathering evidence of the approach of that objective.

There are those , and I am among them indicating as such, that that idiom has passed, and holders on have to pay an enormous price which can not ever surge the will to sow up the fractures.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8073
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:06 am

I'm not responsible for what other people think.

I don't think in terms of collectives.

The zeitgeist is for gayz.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:47 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Threads like this make me realize that more people follow Pedro's Corner than I think.

People like to dick around listening to Vivaldi and Metallica instead of working.

You fucking slackers.


Pedro I Rengel wrote:Qui solvit?


Pedro I Rengel wrote:Now if only ilp had a "mark as read" option...


My guess: He doesn't actually know who iambiguous is at all.

Just more of the usual "yak yak yak" drivel.

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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:03 am

Hahaha sure.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby phoneutria » Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:12 am

YEAH
YOU TELL THEM MAGS
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4134
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby MagsJ » Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:36 am

phoneutria wrote:YEAH
YOU TELL THEM MAGS

Lol.. it took me a few seconds to register what you were alluding to..
it’s been a long day and I’ve had a few drinks, you see. :D

It seems you picked up haters, from somewhere/KTS perhaps.. they seem
to have issues, so they should get out their tissues.. and cry into them.

:lol:
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21513
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:37 am

phoneutria wrote:YEAH
YOU TELL THEM MAGS


So, what does this tell us about who phoneutria actually is?

Not much right?

On the other hand, I do take a stab at that here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=196097
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby phoneutria » Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:39 am

lol i got some fans over at kts

currently having hella drinks
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4134
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:46 am

MagsJ wrote:
phoneutria wrote:YEAH
YOU TELL THEM MAGS

Lol.. it took me a few seconds to register what you were alluding to..
it’s been a long day and I’ve had a few drinks, you see. :D

It seems you picked up haters, from somewhere/KTS perhaps.. they seem
to have issues, so they should get out their tissues.. and cry into them.

:lol:


On the contrary, I have made it quite clear that I have an enormous respect for both her intelligence and her wit.

I would merely like to explore with her the extent to which her frame of mind in regard to moral and political value judgments is at odds with my own given the arguments I make in my signature threads.

In other words "I" at the existential juncture of identity, conflicting goods and political economy. To what extent is she or is she not just a chip off the Satyrean objectivist block.

And if she were to engage in an exchange with me on the philosophy board, I can ensure you that it will not be me that reconfigures it into little more than huffing and puffing.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Dec 13, 2020 6:47 am

iambiguous wrote:Trust me: no one is more interested in knowing this than I am.

Just look up the word "gadfly". :D
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby Meno_ » Sun Dec 13, 2020 6:56 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Trust me: no one is more interested in knowing this than I am.

Just look up the word "gadfly". :D



Well then he is doing pretty good, for Socrates refers to himself as ' gadfly'.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8073
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Dec 13, 2020 7:01 pm

Meno_ wrote:Well then he is doing pretty good, for Socrates refers to himself as ' gadfly'.

From the little I know of Socrates, you have a point - always asking unanswerable questions.

The difference being that Socrates asked MANY DIFFERENT INTERESTING questions - not merely already understood ambiguous contraptions used to derail a discussion into ad hom fetishes.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:48 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Trust me: no one is more interested in knowing this than I am.

Just look up the word "gadfly". :D


I have already made the attempt to explore who, what and why obsrvr524 and his objectivist ilk "actually are" here.

For example on this thread:

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I maintain that this is embedded subjectively in political prejudices rooted in dasein. The objectivists insist that, on the contrary, there is only one objective interpretation and it is theirs.

Let's call this the "psychology of objectivism".

That is NOT true.


Well I guess that settles that then. For example, in your head. Where, I suspect, all of your own dogmatic value judgments are settled.

obsrvr524 wrote: What defenders (all of those you call "objectivists") are saying is that the SCOTUS is to fairly attempt to interpret what was originally intended. If something else is needed it is up to Congress to amend the Constitution.


On the contrary, I'm not arguing that defenders are necessarily objectivists. I'm arguing that those defenders who insist that only their own defense is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with their own are necessarily irrational are objectivists.

In fact I am an advocate myself for the right of American citizens to bear arms. I'm armed myself. It's just that I recognize that others, based on different sets of assumptions regarding what the words in the amendment mean, are also able to make reasonable arguments.

And that depending on whether the blue states or the red states are able to send more representatives to Congress, the legal parameters of "well regulated" are clearly political prejudices. Why on earth do you suppose that cases keep ending up in the courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... ted_States

Instead, I focus on the words "well regulated".

obsrvr524 wrote: As usual your default and derail to "objectivism" has nothing at all to do with any of this.


No, as usual, from my point of view, you presume that your own understanding of all this is the the one and the only understanding that counts.

Consider:

How is this not applicable to you:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview regarding the 2nd amendment.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective on the 2nd amendment expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about the 2nd amendment; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy regarding the 2nd amendment with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about the 2nd amendment with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own views about the 2nd amendment as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original quest for truth regarding the 2nd amendment, has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".


iambiguous wrote:It's not the militia part that some emphasize, it's the part about the right to bear arms being well regulated. Then the part about what it means to regulate those citizens with guns that are not in a militia.


obsrvr524 wrote: Wrong again. It says that the "militia" being well regulated, NOT the citizens.


Again, that's just your interpretation. Others insist that if the part about a well regulated militia wasn't important in regard to a cirizens right to own guns, the amendment would simply have read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

iambiguous wrote:And who would do the regulating if not the federal, state and local government? And how would an understanding of being "well regulated" not be embedded existentially in the political prejudices of each individual?


obsrvr524 wrote: Political prejudices are irrelevant to the right for a "well regulated militia".


Once again, from your own doctrinaire, authoritarian mind, merely asserting it makes it so.

iambiguous wrote:how these political prejudices are rooted in dasein rather than in some "my way or the highway" political dogma.


obsrvr524 wrote: Again - irrelevant. The issue is simply whether the rights exist - NOT who is "objectively" right or wrong.


Same thing. Every single word in the amendment must be understood only as you understand them. And how you came to understand them has nothing to do with the existential trajectory of the experiences, relationships and access to specific information and knowledge you happened upon in regard to gun ownership in America.


In other words, I am less interested in what these objectivist sorts claim to believe "in their head" in regard to their moral and political value judgments, and more fascinated instead with how their lives unfolded existentially to predispose them to embrace one set of political prejudices rather than another.

In fact, I dare him to go there in exploring the extent to which any of us can grasp who we "actually 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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Dec 14, 2020 12:38 am

iambiguous wrote:I have already made the attempt to explore who, what and why obsrvr524 and his objectivist ilk "actually are" here.

"Know thy self" - FIRST!
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 14, 2020 1:07 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I have already made the attempt to explore who, what and why obsrvr524 and his objectivist ilk "actually are" here.

"Know thy self" - FIRST!


Once again, I reduce him down to "retorts" like this...brain farts utterly lacking in substance.

Isn't he even in the slightest embarrassed by this?

But, okay, in regard to the 2nd Amendment above, what does he mean by knowing thyself?

How, given what he "actually is", would he defend himself against the arguments I raise above?
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 22, 2020 9:39 pm

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I have already made the attempt to explore who, what and why obsrvr524 and his objectivist ilk "actually are" here.

"Know thy self" - FIRST!


Once again, I reduce him down to "retorts" like this...brain farts utterly lacking in substance.

Isn't he even in the slightest embarrassed by this?

But, okay, in regard to the 2nd Amendment above, what does he mean by knowing thyself?

How, given what he "actually is", would he defend himself against the arguments I raise above?


Yo, obsrvr524, you're up!
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby Zero_Sum » Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:07 pm

A neo-liberal objectivist that gets his political viewpoints from mainstream media, but constantly pretends to be a nihilist when people start to notice. :-"

There is nothing nihilistic about his writings and it's comical that he himself can't even see that. A sort of philosophical poser and impostor.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Special Commisar Joker
 
Posts: 4099
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: The People's Republic of the U.S.S.A - My pronouns are 'Fuck You'-

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby iambiguous » Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:48 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:A neo-liberal objectivist that gets his political viewpoints from mainstream media, but constantly pretends to be a nihilist when people start to notice. :-"

There is nothing nihilistic about his writings and it's comical that he himself can't even see that. A sort of philosophical poser and impostor.


Again:

I don't come in here the fulminating fanatic that he and his ilk are...lampooning everyone who doesn't think exactly like they do about an issue. Mocking them for actually being stupid enough not to think like they do.

The philosophical equivalent of the circus clown. The buffoon.

The Fool.


As for his "assessment" of me above, I'm sticking with this:

This is merely what I reduce him down to. And if he had any intellectual integrity at all he would at least own up to it. Then perhaps he might -- might -- be willing to actually discuss an issue in a more, say, sophisticated manner? In other words, as something other than this reactionary cartoon character that he plays here.


On the other hand, I am more than willing to discuss what he means by a "neo-liberal objectivist" who merely "pretends to be a nihilist" in a more substantive and substantial manner.

What on earth does he mean by that...given a particular set of circumstances where we can assess our respective moral and political philosophies.

Let's see if he has more intellectual moxie than those like Pedro and obsrvr524 and urwongx1000 and his very own mini-me Wendy when it comes to going there with me.

No huffing and puffing, no personal attacks, no polemics. Just a straight up discussion of how we have come to think about an issue at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political economy.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: who iambiguous actually is

Postby Zero_Sum » Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:54 pm

iambiguous wrote:I don't come in here the fulminating fanatic that he and his ilk are...lampooning everyone who doesn't think exactly like they do about an issue. Mocking them for actually being stupid enough not to think like they do.

The philosophical equivalent of the circus clown. The buffoon.

The Fool.


I only mock those that deserve it, I don't mock everybody. Feel free to respond to my previous post instead of talking about it, by actually doing it instead.

Most people when they see a clown or even a fool they just see the paint and the smiling grin, of course anybody familiar with history along with some more of the abstract unconventional notions that it encompasses there are more things to know about both concerning symbolic metaphors. Everybody is so concerned with surfaces, very few gaze what's underneath. :wink:
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Special Commisar Joker
 
Posts: 4099
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: The People's Republic of the U.S.S.A - My pronouns are 'Fuck You'-

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users