Desperate Degenerate Support Group

[iambiguous]

I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself.

Unknowingly, you are here showing yourself as an objectivist.

Well, sure, Kid, you and I may have a different understanding of what it means to be an objectivist. My own criteria revolves around any particular "I" out in the world of conflicting value judgments arguing that his or her own moral and political values reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which [here] the serious philosopher is obligated to think and feel in turn.

So, by what criteria do you propose that I'm an objectivist?

Instead, in my view, all you are able to fall back on are intellectual contraptions of this sort:

By postulating, as objective fact, as unquestionable fact (the doubting of which is inconcievable in the literal sense), that the object of wisdom is to know all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself.

Beyond any other claimed issue, this is the point of contention you submit.

Note to others:

Can you believe this?!

What do you think he means by it in relationship to how I have thus far responded to σάτυρος and others in regard to being a desperate degenerate. Given a discussion that revolves around a particular set of circumstances. I suggested one relating to human sexuality but, sure, let him choose his own.

[iambiguous]

:
All I'm asking you is to broach the question of the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do" in regard to a particular context in which your value judgments precipitated behaviors that came into conflict with another's.

So you're going to ignore the entire post I made, and ask the same shit again?
And you expect to be taken seriously?

Note to others:

Does she have a point? If so, then please explain it to me.

All I want is for her to take the point of that "entire post" and ground it in a set of circumstances so that we can discuss σάτυρος's accusations regarding what it means to be a desperate degenerate -- given that situation. If that's just "shit" to her then who am I to try to disillusion her.

That way you can describe in much more detail what, for all practical purposes, you mean by the "real me". By "identity".

I mean your psyche.

And how is one's "psyche" different from one's "identity" given one's reaction to σάτυρος's description of the desperate degenerate?

Given a particular context. One of her own choosing.

Substantiate the extent to which you can know who you are when challenged regarding the aspect of "I" that I ascribe to dasein in my signature threads. Note how is this not applicable to you.

Only you are capable to explore the depths of who you are, and how deep that goes depends on you.

On the contrary, my point is that given all of the countless variables -- genetic, memetic -- that come to be interwined existentially as "I" over the years from the day that you are born, there is almost no likelihood that anyone can truly understand his or her own motivations and intentions -- self -- with any real degree of sophistication.

And, even to the extent that they can, "I" in the is/ought world is no less ceaselessly, constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed in a world awash in contingency, chance and change; and given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas.

In other words, the part that is particularly disturbing to those objectivists who have managed to think themselves into believing there is a real me able to be in sync with the right thing to do. And, let's be honest, many of these variables [particularly as a child] are often well beyond your complete understanding of or control over.

Then this:

Stop coming to this goddamn forum. Read novels. Read history. Spend time looking at art and taking mental notes on how it makes you FEEL.

Your feelings are a sense, much like sight, hearing, and touch. Learn to listen.

Decide for yourself if this tells us more about her, than me.

But, okay, in the course of her day, she comes upon someone who does all these things [just like her] and the discussion gets around to σάτυρος's contentions regarding the desperate degenerates. But they fiercely disagree about his conclusions.

Then what?

[phoneutria]

And how is one's "psyche" different from one's "identity" ...

Can you do everyone on this forum a BIG favor and just focus on this one little piece?
Please, ignore everything else for a day or two, forget about satyr, forget about dasein, and just google up a bunch of stuff about psyche and about identity. Define those two things, and try to answer that question for yourself.

how is one's psyche different form one's identity?

[iambiguous]

And how is one's "psyche" different from one's "identity" ...

Can you do everyone on this forum a BIG favor and just focus on this one little piece?
Please, ignore everything else for a day or two, forget about satyr, forget about dasein, and just google up a bunch of stuff about psyche and about identity. Define those two things, and try to answer that question for yourself.

how is one's psyche different form one's identity?

Psyche: the human soul, mind, or spirit.
Identity: fact of being who or what a person or thing is.

That works for me. If you start with a dictionary definition.

But my point is to take definitions of this sort, intertwine them with what we construe psyche and identity to mean "personally" and take both out into the world where given a particular context we can explore the meaning of such words as that relates to our reaction to σάτυρος's contentions regarding desperate degenerates. With respect to human sexuality. Or gender, or race, or any number of other conflicted value judgments that have rent the species now for centuries.

From my frame of mind there are any number of demographic and circumstantial facts about me that I and others are able to demonstrate are in fact true objectively. For example, the fact that σάτυρος claims I am a desperate degenerate. The fact of this exchange.

But what can in fact be known about our psyche and our identity when they come into conflict with others over σάτυρος's contentions above? Or when our moral and political value judgments come into conflict?

What is the one and the only correct manner in which to define them?

Again, note this for us. Pick a context. Note the manner in which you construe the meaning of psyche and identity when, in particular sets of circumstances, you do come into conflict with others in regard to right and wrong behaviors. Note how your own value judgments are not the embodiment of the way in which I construe the meaning of dasein in my signature threads.

[phoneutria]

I asked you to spend a couple of days researching those themes.
You googled dictionary definitions and went right back to your neurosis.
You didn't bother to spend 2 minutes on what I asked.
Why should I give you any more of my time?

[iambiguous]

I asked you to spend a couple of days researching those themes.
You googled dictionary definitions and went right back to your neurosis.
You didn't bother to spend 2 minutes on what I asked.
Why should I give you any more of my time?

More to the point why should I waste any more time giving you mine?

Note to others:

As I say, like shooting fish in a barrel.

Though, sure, there's still this part:

Pick a context. Note the manner in which you construe the meaning of psyche and identity when, in particular sets of circumstances, you do come into conflict with others in regard to right and wrong behaviors. Note how your own value judgments are not the embodiment of the way in which I construe the meaning of dasein in my signature threads.

Fat chance, eh?

[phoneutria]

Are you fucking kidding me?
You derail every thread with this high school level argument, and when someone is finally willing to humor you, you don't think they are worthy of YOUR time?

Bye, thank you, and go fuck yourself.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself.

Unknowingly, you are here showing yourself as an objectivist.

Well, sure, Kid, you and I may have a different understanding of what it means to be an objectivist. My own criteria revolves around any particular "I" out in the world of conflicting value judgments arguing that his or her own moral and political values reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which [here] the serious philosopher is obligated to think and feel in turn.

So, by what criteria do you propose that I'm an objectivist?

Instead, in my view, all you are able to fall back on are intellectual contraptions of this sort:

By postulating, as objective fact, as unquestionable fact (the doubting of which is inconcievable in the literal sense), that the object of wisdom is to know all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself.

Beyond any other claimed issue, this is the point of contention you submit.

Note to others:

Can you believe this?!

What do you think he means by it in relationship to how I have thus far responded to σάτυρος and others in regard to being a desperate degenerate. Given a discussion that revolves around a particular set of circumstances. I suggested one relating to human sexuality but, sure, let him choose his own.

Sexuality?

Okey-dokes.

Anyway, this is why you are satir. You are both hardcore objectivists seeking above all to hide that fact. Both lash out violently to any that questions the bases of their objective ideals because, obviously, any bases would mean it is not objective, rather it has been subjectively determined.

[Pedro I Rengel]

"I am a serious thinker, seeking to unmask unserious thinkers."

"You are an objectivist."

"You are gay."

"Okay."

If this isn't the exact same roadmap as satiri, I will be goddamned.

[Pedro I Rengel]

In both cases, it boils down to: "I know all theories of objectivity are wrong. Because I already know the right one."

How else do you explain the constant recourse to insults?

[Pedro I Rengel]

I feel dirty now.

These fucking objectivists.

[iambiguous]

Are you fucking kidding me?
You derail every thread with this high school level argument, and when someone is finally willing to humor you, you don't think they are worthy of YOUR time?

Bye, thank you, and go fuck yourself.

Perfect!!!

Oh, yeah, almost forgot

[MagsJ]

I've literally had that guy on ignore for 7 years. 6 of them while I wasn't even here. A day or 2 ago I flipped the reveal tab on one of his undisplayed posts, thinking - "ok, it's been yonks, maybe he's turned into a normal person by now..."

But no, exactly the same old useless prattle as he was writing all that time ago. The deal with philosophy or just thinking about life etc. is to go somewhere with it, to change, work things out, move on, a little dynamic flow. Grow. If you don't or can't, then what do you really know anyway, and what business have you trying to tell people to follow you..?

Anyways. Since I can't see his posts magsj - what is it you agree with him about..?

The film ‘Great Expectations’ comes to mind, here.. for me, it’s not about agreeing with Iam, or anyone, but about not having expectations of anyone. We are here through personal choice, not obligation.. after-all.

This is classic KT. The problem [as always] is me.

Why do others have a problem with You?

What is it about You, that causes a problem, in Others? You don’t in me, but why, in Them/Others.

Actually, I have since encompassed that in what zinnat calls one of my "groots":

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick more and more to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

But, in regard to the moral and political objectivists among us, this one in particular:

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

The part, in other words, encompassed in my signature threads.

And, for some in particular, it pisses them off that I won't allow them to sustain their arguments up in the stratosphere of intellectual contraptions. Worlds of words intent on generating "general descriptions" of human interactions in what I construe to be "serious philosopher" mode.

So.. does the above points always dictate how you interpret, and reply, to others? so a filtering process of data received, which generates a generic output every time.. or so it sounds like.

[iambiguous]

Sexuality?

Okey-dokes.

Anyway, this is why you are satir. You are both hardcore objectivists seeking above all to hide that fact. Both lash out violently to any that questions the bases of their objective ideals because, obviously, any bases would mean it is not objective, rather it has been subjectively determined.

Any doubt now as to why I call them Kids?

[iambiguous]

"I am a serious thinker, seeking to unmask unserious thinkers."

"You are an objectivist."

"You are gay."

"Okay."

If this isn't the exact same roadmap as satiri, I will be goddamned.

Now do you have any doubt?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Lol, now tell us about Flux.

[iambiguous]

Why do others have a problem with You?

What is it about You, that causes a problem, in Others? You don’t in me, but why, in Them/Others.

Actually, I have since encompassed that in what zinnat calls one of my "groots":

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick more and more to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

But, in regard to the moral and political objectivists among us, this one in particular:

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

The part, in other words, encompassed in my signature threads.

And, for some in particular, it pisses them off that I won't allow them to sustain their arguments up in the stratosphere of intellectual contraptions. Worlds of words intent on generating "general descriptions" of human interactions in what I construe to be "serious philosopher" mode.

So.. does the above points always dictate how you interpret, and reply, to others? so a filtering process of data received, which generates a generic output every time.. or so it sounds like.

Well, if the first point is true, I have no way of definitively determining if I have any choice in the matter. As in being able to freely interpret and reply other than as nature compels me to.

Just like you and everyone else here.

And how can anyone doubt that the second point is true? Do you?

On the other hand, assuming some measure of human autonomy, and living with the gap between "I" and all there is, it's the third point that generates reactions to me of folks like Saytr, phoneutria and Pedro.

With regard to their precious moral and political values, they refuse to even consider the possibility that the arguments I make in my signature threads are applicable to them. I know because I was once them myself.

Really, for each of us, in my view, it all basically revolves around the extent to which we have managed to think ourselves into believing that there is in in fact a real me able to be in sync with the right thing to do.

Otherwise it's 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.

Now, in regard to desperate degenerates or to human sexuality or to abortion or to Brexit or to any other context in which values/behaviors come into conflict, you either think like this or you don't.

And, if you don't, I invite you to explore such conflicts given the components of my own moral philosophy: identity, conflicting goods and political economy.

And I always let the objectivists choose the context. Which almost invariably they avoid like the plague.

[Pedro I Rengel]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Tab]

If you think that someone's an asshole, they probably are.

If you think everybody is an asshole, then it's probably you who's the asshole.

[iambiguous]

Lol, now tell us about Flux.

Okay, this is just The Sandbox. And this thread is by and large just tongue in cheek.

But, still, is that any excuse for this? Is the Kid just trying to be...clever?

A little help with this one please.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Just some fun iam.

I get a kick out of predicting you.

[iambiguous]

If you think that someone's an asshole, they probably are.

If you think everybody is an asshole, then it's probably you who's the asshole.

Ah, the deeply shallow bloke who has banned me from his mind.

Just for the record, I do not think that everybody is an asshole. It just seems that way to those I am making a fool of. And here it's just the objectivists and the Kids.

While, among other things, waiting for godot.

[promethean75]

A little help with this one please.

i am aware of three possible kinds of 'flux', one of which he may have meant. i will now disclose this knowledge.

there is the 'flux' that the mystic bumbler heraclitus meant when he advanced a thesis about the entire universe after stepping into a river. yeah you heard that right. thesis about the entire universe after stepping into a river.

there is the 'flux capacitor', which was a necessary component needed by a special modified delorean so that it could travel back in time.

there is 'aeon flux', an impossibly gorgeous female anarchist assassin who's in a fucked up love/hate relationship with trevor goodchild, and evil genius.

[phoneutria]

Save yourself time, just put iamabiganus on ignore. Worked for me.

I just did that, and now the forum reads much cleaner.

I am inclined to think he has some form of mental retardation.
Trauma, maybe.

[iambiguous]

Save yourself time, just put iamabiganus on ignore. Worked for me.

I just did that, and now the forum reads much cleaner.

I am inclined to think he has some form of mental retardation.
Trauma, maybe.

Now she can go about the business of sustaining the comfort and the consolation that comes with not doubting that she is in sync with her "soul". And, perhaps, with immortality and salvation?

But I know this frame of mind well. For years and years I was in and out of objectivist communities myself. Both God and No God. I know first hand what happens when it all comes crashing down. When "I" is no longer able to be anchored to one or another "real me".

Though, sure, the points I make about others are no less applicable to myself. Who am I to deny that, given "new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas", I might reconfigure my own sense of identity [once again] down the road. It's just that I am running out of time; and I still believe "in my head" that oblivion is almost certainly the final solution.