What is Dasein?

[The Eternal Warrior]

I really have nothing to agree or disagree on in particular in response to the posts in this thread. There either is or is not a practical approach to the concept of Dasein. I suppose it's a matter of understanding it, except to those who don't but do it anyway and it's kind of beat-around-the-bush but right-to-the-point style of just BS'ing, fluffing, like some people do on tests in school when they don't know the answer, but with purpose beyond just BS'ing. It could be claimed to be paradoxical due to these dichotomies, like so many other concepts and theories, but it is different all the same.

I mostly have felt the slight urge to respond to this thread for a while now, but haven't really had anything to contribute. Suddenly, today, I had the slight urge, but something to contribute. I feel that I'm making progress in this concept, except no progress whatsoever at the same time, but in a good way instead of a bad way even though it could be viewed as a bad way instead of a good way; or to some, vice versa. I wonder if it's possible to share concepts with those who approach it for different reasons or if it, like other groups who think around a concept, has it's own inner turmoils about the different reasonings behind different perception-bearers approach to the concept, kind of like it's own little bickering and war and politics, but, of course, nothing at all similar to what we know those concepts to be. But, then of course, this still doesn't really explain what Dasein is; I'm still an amateur in it and barely making progress or learning much about what it entails. I don't even feel left behind the rest of you, though, oddly enough. But then again, I don't feel ahead of you, either. It's an odd fluxuating concept from what I've seen, if it can even be labeled by those concepts of odd or fluxuating or even a concept.

Is it a theory or has it been proven yet? If the theory of Dasein has been proven, or even if it has not, is it still dasein?

[iambiguous]

I guess we're stuck then. I won't go up there and you won't come down here. At least not in the manner in which [in our own way] we have come to understand the distinction.

And unless we can figure out a way to meld the two approaches, I suspect we will just go on spinning our wheels.

The above in a way summarize our distinct and opposite views.

I believe your views are very pessimistic, i.e. humanity is stuck in a whirlpool and doldrums and there is no possibility of change and progress in the future. You are always stuck in the present state of problems. Not only that somehow you are really good [an expert] in making sure problems are stuck.

On the contrary, there is very little probability that my frame of mind reflects the optimal [let alone the only] rational frame of mind about these things. I merely argue it is embedded by and large in the manner in which I have have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And even here only in the is/ought world.

But it is no less an existential contraption than yours. And it is basically the extent to which you do not believe that your own value judgments are in turn just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy that I am curious to explore how [from your frame of mind] you construe yourself as not being entangled in my dilemma above.

Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don't live in the future.

OTOH, I am very optimistic change and progress are very possible in the future, not because I wish it to be so, but my hopes are based on the empirical and evident streak of trends of positive progress that has been going within the history of mankind...

Of course you are. After all, from my vantage point, "positive progress" revolves almost entirely around your own tautological assessment of conflicting human interactions. And as an idealist it appears. And then to boot all of this will only come to fruition "in the future".

And we can predict anything about that, right?

And then [as I see it] another "intellectual contraption" expressing yet another "genral description" of human interactions:

1. All humans has an inherent drive for continuous improvement
2. Loads of examples of the above drives
3. The exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology

I believe the exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology is very obvious and there should be no disputes on this?
Where there are cons in this trend, it is handed and curtailed by progressive morality.

And then, to back this up, you focus the beam on the one and the only example you seem able to fall back on:

I have given one example of where we have progressed in terms of morality, e.g. moral progress in chattel slavery since 1,000 years ago to the present of the total abolishment of chattel slavery by all Nations in the legal perspective.

But where is your reaction to the points that I brought up above:

Yes, time and time again the moral objectivists tend to come around to slavery in order to prove that moral progress is possible. But, laws or no laws, slavery is still rationalized around the globe. As is "wage-slavery" in the form of one or another sweatshop.

Historically, slavery withered as capitalism came to prevail. Why? Because capitalism is a form of exploitation that did not actually involve owning people. After all, when you own them then you are responsible for feeding and sheltering and caring for them. Now you can exploit their labor; but other than that they are on their own.

So, is the withering away of capitalism also part of your "progressive" assumptions about the future? What of the conflicting goods here?

And what about all those other issues I noted above? Issues in which there are any number of arguments that can be raised either pro or con particular behaviors? Issues in which there does not appear to be any historical consensus?

Then [from my frame of mind] back up into the clouds:

To meld your views and mine, the way out is for you to adopt the Generic Problem Solving Technique for life to break out of the loop.
This is why you need to apply the Right View, Right Thought, Right Actions and the other 'Rights' of the Noble Eightfold Paths to shift into the effective paradigm from the current one that paralyze your thinking.

What is this other than a Capital Letter Intellectual Contraption? In other words, in your head, everything is Crystal Clear.

That is why I suggest [time and again] that you intertwine/integrate this "analysis" by way of noting it's relevence [here and now] to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with.

I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more 'hygienic' and more healthier.

Of course they are. You basically follow the objectivist script. And this revolves around insisting that, above all else, what matters is that we all agree that there is an optimal frame of mind. And an optimal assessment of human behaviors. You offer your agenda, others offer theirs. But make no mistake about it: only one of them can be right.

Your own.

Then I come along noting the dilemma I am entangled in. Entangled because in a world sans God there does not appear to be an essential/objective/transcending font mere mortals can all turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods.

There is only the existential "I" coming to embody a particular set of political prejudices out in a particular world historically and culturally. Human interactions such that what ultimately counts is who has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors out in any one particular human cummunity.

[Prismatic567]

The above in a way summarize our distinct and opposite views.

I believe your views are very pessimistic, i.e. humanity is stuck in a whirlpool and doldrums and there is no possibility of change and progress in the future. You are always stuck in the present state of problems. Not only that somehow you are really good [an expert] in making sure problems are stuck.

On the contrary, there is very little probability that my frame of mind reflects the optimal [let alone the only] rational frame of mind about these things. I merely argue it is embedded by and large in the manner in which I have have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And even here only in the is/ought world.

But it is no less an existential contraption than yours. And it is basically the extent to which you do not believe that your own value judgments are in turn just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy that I am curious to explore how [from your frame of mind] you construe yourself as not being entangled in my dilemma above.

Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don't live in the future.

You missed this point which I think is very pertinent to get out that ruminated loop;

To get on the Right View, I would suggest you first read up on Martin Seligman's books on 'Learned Optimism' and 'Learned helplessness', then to others.

Pessimism can have very unhealthy effects on the individual.

If given the chance Seligman and I would vote for optimism. Consider the
following:

• Pessimism encourages depression, therefore is associated with a weak
immune system.
• Pessimism feels down—blue, sad, worried or anxious.
• Pessimism can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Because pessimists tend
not to create or face challenges, they fail more frequently—even when
success is possible.

Seligman says, “The best thing one can say about a pessimist is that his fears
were founded.”

• Optimism encourages happiness, therefore is associated with vitality.
• Optimism feels up—hopeful, confident and cheerful.

I say, “The best thing one can say about an optimist is that she enjoyed the
challenge regardless of the outcome.”

https://solutionsforresilience.com/wp-c ... timism.pdf

I am not entangled in your dilemma because I have the tools to get out of it, e.g. the Generic Problem Solving Technique I had presented.

Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don't live in the future.

I find your response rather odd.

Note the typical saying'
1. If you failed to plan, you have planned to fail.
The above planning [is always for the future] in an inherent drive within humanity and this is why humanity have come this far rather than being the dodo.

2. Be Prepared
If humanity had not anticipated the future [given humans has this capacity], humanity could have been wiped out by some epidemic flu, ebola, etc.

Thus even if we [the individual] will not live in the far future, the individual must collectively plan for the far future and the near future in the most optimal path.
If everyone were to accept your theory, humanity will be doomed.
I agree not everyone will be able to adopt and practice what I proposed but at least a percentile and hopefully a large number will do so for humanity sake.
Thus even if you personally is not inclined for various reason, you should not try to stop others from hopping onto the continuous improvement for net-positive progress bandwagon [examples re morality, knowledge, etc. given below].

OTOH, I am very optimistic change and progress are very possible in the future, not because I wish it to be so, but my hopes are based on the empirical and evident streak of trends of positive progress that has been going within the history of mankind...

Of course you are. After all, from my vantage point, "positive progress" revolves almost entirely around your own tautological assessment of conflicting human interactions. And as an idealist it appears. And then to boot all of this will only come to fruition "in the future".

And we can predict anything about that, right?

Note the above point why humanity must take note of the future.
Perhaps as an individual you may not care about the future, but you cannot enforce your views on the whole of humanity which will naturally flow with the trends from the past, i.e. progress optimally.

And then [as I see it] another "intellectual contraption" expressing yet another "genral description" of human interactions:

1. All humans has an inherent drive for continuous improvement
2. Loads of examples of the above drives
3. The exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology

I believe the exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology is very obvious and there should be no disputes on this?
Where there are cons in this trend, it is handed and curtailed by progressive morality.

And then, to back this up, you focus the beam on the one and the only example you seem able to fall back on:

I have given one example of where we have progressed in terms of morality, e.g. moral progress in chattel slavery since 1,000 years ago to the present of the total abolishment of chattel slavery by all Nations in the legal perspective.

But where is your reaction to the points that I brought up above:

Yes, time and time again the moral objectivists tend to come around to slavery in order to prove that moral progress is possible. But, laws or no laws, slavery is still rationalized around the globe. As is "wage-slavery" in the form of one or another sweatshop.

Historically, slavery withered as capitalism came to prevail. Why? Because capitalism is a form of exploitation that did not actually involve owning people. After all, when you own them then you are responsible for feeding and sheltering and caring for them. Now you can exploit their labor; but other than that they are on their own.

So, is the withering away of capitalism also part of your "progressive" assumptions about the future? What of the conflicting goods here?

And what about all those other issues I noted above? Issues in which there are any number of arguments that can be raised either pro or con particular behaviors? Issues in which there does not appear to be any historical consensus?

My example re Morality previously was confined to 'Chattel Slavery' and not to slavery in the broadest sense.

In the above, I was pointing to progress re continuous improvements in all faculties of knowledge, philosophy, technology and whatever.

The essence is 'net-positive progress' and this applies to whatever necessary including politics.

Then [from my frame of mind] back up into the clouds:

To meld your views and mine, the way out is for you to adopt the Generic Problem Solving Technique for life to break out of the loop.
This is why you need to apply the Right View, Right Thought, Right Actions and the other 'Rights' of the Noble Eightfold Paths to shift into the effective paradigm from the current one that paralyze your thinking.

What is this other than a Capital Letter Intellectual Contraption? In other words, in your head, everything is Crystal Clear.

That is why I suggest [time and again] that you intertwine/integrate this "analysis" by way of noting it's relevence [here and now] to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with.

This is why I have given you the case of progress in morality e.g. chattel slavery and there are many others [not mentioned yet].
In terms of progress in spirituality, note the introduction of monotheism from animism and non-theistic Buddhism from theism, etc.
In terms of knowledge, note the advancement of Scientific knowledge and other fields of knowledge.
I can list the progress from the past to the present and what is optimistically possible in the future re the whole spectrum of life but that is too tedious.

I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more 'hygienic' and more healthier.

Of course they are. You basically follow the objectivist script. And this revolves around insisting that, above all else, what matters is that we all agree that there is an optimal frame of mind. And an optimal assessment of human behaviors. You offer your agenda, others offer theirs. But make no mistake about it: only one of them can be right.

Your own.

It is not a matter of 'right' per se but a matter of fact which is what is constant is change and there will be continuous improvement of net-positive progress as evident from observation of past facts.
There are of course failures but humanity has always attempt to improve on these failures in the best they can.

Then I come along noting the dilemma I am entangled in. Entangled because in a world sans God there does not appear to be an essential/objective/transcending font mere mortals can all turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods.

There is only the existential "I" coming to embody a particular set of political prejudices out in a particular world historically and culturally. Human interactions such that what ultimately counts is who has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors out in any one particular human cummunity.

Btw what do you meant by 'font'?

I have always presented the point of an inherent unavoidable existential dilemma which is very primal and I believe this is the mother of all dilemmas including the one [a subset] your are entangled in.

As I had pointed out, your 'dilemma' arise from an illusion and impossibility you have set for yourself, i.e. "ALL (100%) that is needed to be known .." which paralyze you from progressing forward. If you can move away from this illusion and impossibility, you will probably be able to get out of its ruminating loop.

[iambiguous]

The above in a way summarize our distinct and opposite views.

I believe your views are very pessimistic, i.e. humanity is stuck in a whirlpool and doldrums and there is no possibility of change and progress in the future. You are always stuck in the present state of problems. Not only that somehow you are really good [an expert] in making sure problems are stuck.

On the contrary, there is very little probability that my frame of mind reflects the optimal [let alone the only] rational frame of mind about these things. I merely argue it is embedded by and large in the manner in which I have have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And even here only in the is/ought world.

But it is no less an existential contraption than yours. And it is basically the extent to which you do not believe that your own value judgments are in turn just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy that I am curious to explore how [from your frame of mind] you construe yourself as not being entangled in my dilemma above.

Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don't live in the future.

You missed this point which I think is very pertinent to get out that ruminated loop;

To get on the Right View, I would suggest you first read up on Martin Seligman's books on 'Learned Optimism' and 'Learned helplessness', then to others.

Pessimism can have very unhealthy effects on the individual.

Again [and again and again and again]: What on earth are you talking about? How are Martin Seligman's Capital Letter Words applicable to conflicting human interactions derived from particular sets of conflicted goods? Here's a guy who argues that “pessimistic labels lead to passivity, whereas optimistic ones lead to attempts to change”. Okay, fine, but what specific change in what specific context based on what specific assumptions? And my own pessimism is rooted philosophically in the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of these words:

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.

Thus, only when folks like Seligman are willing to take their "general description" abstractions down off the skyhooks, and engage in the sort of discussion that I am aiming for, will the arguments become considerably more substantive.

You claim this:

I am not entangled in your dilemma because I have the tools to get out of it, e.g. the Generic Problem Solving Technique I had presented.

Yet [in my own opinion] you refuse to demonstrate this in an exchange revolving around a particular context in which particular value judgments come into conflict. Instead you have constructed this far more "progressive" world that may or may not actually unfold "in the future".

In other words, "here and now" it's all in your head.

And then we get to what I argue are basically intellectual contraptions like this:

Note the typical saying'
1. If you failed to plan, you have planned to fail.
The above planning [is always for the future] in an inherent drive within humanity and this is why humanity have come this far rather than being the dodo.

2. Be Prepared
If humanity had not anticipated the future [given humans has this capacity], humanity could have been wiped out by some epidemic flu, ebola, etc.

Thus even if we [the individual] will not live in the far future, the individual must collectively plan for the far future and the near future in the most optimal path.
If everyone were to accept your theory, humanity will be doomed.
I agree not everyone will be able to adopt and practice what I proposed but at least a percentile and hopefully a large number will do so for humanity sake.
Thus even if you personally is not inclined for various reason, you should not try to stop others from hopping onto the continuous improvement for net-positive progress bandwagon [examples re morality, knowledge, etc. given below].

Perhaps you are right about me. But I can only conclude the things that I do based on what I construe to be a reasonable frame of mind. And my dilemma above seems reasonable given the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of the components of which it consist: dasein and conflicting goods in a world sans God.

Sure, your "optimism" is always going to be more palatable for "humanity". But sooner or later actual rules of behaviors will be legislated. And then enforced. Should they be more in sync with the "liberals" or with the "conservatives", with the "capitalists" or with the "socialists", with the "individualists" or with the "collectivists", with the "big government" folks or with the "small government" folks?

Now, you have that all worked out in your head. Another ideal Republic perhaps. But what of those who share your craving for optimism but insist the Republic must go in an entirely different direction?

The parts that unfold out in the real world that has [time and again] been grimly, grusomely unfolding for thousands of years.

I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more 'hygienic' and more healthier.

Of course they are. You basically follow the objectivist script. And this revolves around insisting that, above all else, what matters is that we all agree that there is an optimal frame of mind. And an optimal assessment of human behaviors. You offer your agenda, others offer theirs. But make no mistake about it: only one of them can be right.

Your own.

It is not a matter of 'right' per se but a matter of fact which is what is constant is change and there will be continuous improvement of net-positive progress as evident from observation of past facts.
There are of course failures but humanity has always attempt to improve on these failures in the best they can.

Note to others:

What "on earth" do you suppose he means by this? In other words, given your own interactions with others. Interactions in which conflicts occured over incompatable value judgments.

Is there a way in a Godless universe for philosophers to prescribe and proscribe behaviors deemed to the optimal or the only rational manner in which to interact?

That's the discussion I can't yank out of him. At least not so far.

I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:

Then I come along noting the dilemma I am entangled in. Entangled because in a world sans God there does not appear to be an essential/objective/transcending font [foundation] mere mortals can all turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods.

There is only the existential "I" coming to embody a particular set of political prejudices out in a particular world historically and culturally. Human interactions such that what ultimately counts is who has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors out in any one particular human community.

[iambiguous]

I really have nothing to agree or disagree on in particular in response to the posts in this thread. There either is or is not a practical approach to the concept of Dasein. I suppose it's a matter of understanding it, except to those who don't but do it anyway and it's kind of beat-around-the-bush but right-to-the-point style of just BS'ing, fluffing, like some people do on tests in school when they don't know the answer, but with purpose beyond just BS'ing. It could be claimed to be paradoxical due to these dichotomies, like so many other concepts and theories, but it is different all the same.

I mostly have felt the slight urge to respond to this thread for a while now, but haven't really had anything to contribute. Suddenly, today, I had the slight urge, but something to contribute. I feel that I'm making progress in this concept, except no progress whatsoever at the same time, but in a good way instead of a bad way even though it could be viewed as a bad way instead of a good way; or to some, vice versa. I wonder if it's possible to share concepts with those who approach it for different reasons or if it, like other groups who think around a concept, has it's own inner turmoils about the different reasonings behind different perception-bearers approach to the concept, kind of like it's own little bickering and war and politics, but, of course, nothing at all similar to what we know those concepts to be. But, then of course, this still doesn't really explain what Dasein is; I'm still an amateur in it and barely making progress or learning much about what it entails. I don't even feel left behind the rest of you, though, oddly enough. But then again, I don't feel ahead of you, either. It's an odd fluxuating concept from what I've seen, if it can even be labeled by those concepts of odd or fluxuating or even a concept.

Is it a theory or has it been proven yet? If the theory of Dasein has been proven, or even if it has not, is it still dasein?

Note to others:

Should I even bother to read this?

[telos]

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.

[Prismatic567]

I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:

When one has sunk into a hole so deep, it is not easy for them to get out of it.

In such a situation I don't believe anyone can yank you out of that hole.
I believe I have participated and contributed/suggested clues/recommendations and the only one who can get you out is yourself.

Often this 'stuck' thingy is due to a ruminating loop in the brain that keep going on the same groove like a broken record, repeating the same "I can't get out" million of times.
This is the same with those victims with a suicide loop, once they are into it there is no way to stop them committing suicide. If they are prevented in one instance, they will look for other ways to commit suicide.
It is the same with drug addiction and other compulsive disorders.

It is not going to be easy as many cannot go through the "cold turkey" phase. Best of luck to you and I hope you will encounter something that will break that chain/loop you are caught up with and take you off to another tangent.

Note this;
https://www.unstuck.com/advice/how-to-b ... you-stuck/
How to break the habits that get you stuck

[MagsJ]

Recently approved post:

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.

[The Eternal Warrior]

I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself

I don't know how to help you with that. I'm not the young idealistic fool that prismatic is, though. Their youthful energy in response to this non-problem problem is problematic all its own, but I won't delve into that. Instead, I'll find relatable material so that you know you're not alone with your situation:









As you can see, others also have a habit of digging holes.

As for the help with yanking you out of them...



now, this didn't seem too helpful to me, either, so I kept searching.

I didn't read it so I don't know how comprehensive it is, but at the point of not finding anything about getting you out of the hole you dug for yourself, I did find a guide on how to dig graves, which seemed much more solid help:

https://www.npr.org/2014/02/17/27592489 ... o-easy-job

[Karpel Tunnel]

I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:

There are some odd assumptions in here, and that's good. Since you are in a hole, at least emotionally, I assume, and have not gotten out while searching for 'frames of mind' capable of yanking you, perhaps the assumptions involved in seeing frames of mind as the solution are not correct. Depressives often use a lot of truth to justify problematic lifestyle choices, so do manics. Fixation on frames of mind is a pathology, or at least, it can be. Perhaps a look at the secondary gains one gets from being in the hole need to be looked at. Why is it appealing? It may be disturbing to look at that, but it presents an approach not dependent on frames of mind finding. There are others. All the objectivists may well be threatened by the brave thinking of non-objectivists. Let's assume that. Let's assume the bravery of the non-objectivist. Looking out at those one thinks one is braver than is then no longer a brave act. Searching for frames of mind, no longer brave, now a habit. How about now turning that bravery inward and see why the hole is so appealing. If the urge is now to say 'OH, no, I really want to get out of the whole, just no one has proved....' Consider that this may be as fear driven as the objectivists you think are afraid to notice how much braver you are.

[phyllo]

The big advantage of the dasein hole, is that nothing you do or think can be "wrong". Your acts and thoughts are the result of your environment and they cannot be anything other than what they are/were - always correct.

That's a very pleasant idea.

Determinism has the same appeal. Another of Iambig's favorite subjects.

[iambiguous]

I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:

When one has sunk into a hole so deep, it is not easy for them to get out of it.

In such a situation I don't believe anyone can yank you out of that hole.
I believe I have participated and contributed/suggested clues/recommendations and the only one who can get you out is yourself.

On the other hand, I can still recall vividly a time when I actually believed that others were down in the holes. Why? Because as a committed Christian or Unitarian or Marxist or Trotskyist or Democratic Socialist or Social Democrat or Liberal, I understood the way things really were. And they didn't. The only way they could be yanked up out of their own holes was to reach up and let me [and all those like me] pull them out.

Then I bumped into John and Mary. And then William Barrett. William Barrett with his "rival goods". Barrett in particular propelled me to existentialism. And that eventually drew me to one or another of the "post-modern" narratives: deconstruction, semiotics, post-structuralism.

All mangled together with the thinking of folks like Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Richard Rorty.

On the other other hand, might I suggest that a concern of yours may well be that I yank you down into a hole more or less analogous to my own?

You resist mightily of course because you have so much invested psychologically in your own objectivist/idealist intellectual concoction.

Indeed, it took me years and years to finally abandon my own rendition of this frame of mind.

I thought at first that I was liberating myself from both philosophical realism and political idealism. And up to a point I was. But as I get closer and closer to the abyss, I become increasingly more aware of the price one pays for that.

And here I am all but paralyzed in confronting things like Trumpworld.

Instead [running out of time] I'm now left with two options:

1] finding folks who are down in the hole with me -- commiseration
2] finding folks who can yank me the hell up out of it -- something analogous to the "comfort and consolation" that they sustain

[Prismatic567]

I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:

When one has sunk into a hole so deep, it is not easy for them to get out of it.

In such a situation I don't believe anyone can yank you out of that hole.
I believe I have participated and contributed/suggested clues/recommendations and the only one who can get you out is yourself.

On the other hand, I can still recall vividly a time when I actually believed that others were down in the holes. Why? Because as a committed Christian or Unitarian or Marxist or Trotskyist or Democratic Socialist or Social Democrat or Liberal, I understood the way things really were. And they didn't. The only way they could be yanked up out of their own holes was to reach up and let me [and all those like me] pull them out.

Then I bumped into John and Mary. And then William Barrett. William Barrett with his "rival goods". Barrett in particular propelled me to existentialism. And that eventually drew me to one or another of the "post-modern" narratives: deconstruction, semiotics, post-structuralism.

All mangled together with the thinking of folks like Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Richard Rorty.

On the other other hand, might I suggest that a concern of yours may well be that I yank you down into a hole more or less analogous to my own?

You resist mightily of course because you have so much invested psychologically in your own objectivist/idealist intellectual concoction.

Indeed, it took me years and years to finally abandon my own rendition of this frame of mind.

I thought at first that I was liberating myself from both philosophical realism and political idealism. And up to a point I was. But as I get closer and closer to the abyss, I become increasingly more aware of the price one pays for that.

And here I am all but paralyzed in confronting things like Trumpworld.

Instead [running out of time] I'm now left with two options:

1] finding folks who are down in the hole with me -- commiseration
2] finding folks who can yank me the hell up out of it -- something analogous to the "comfort and consolation" that they sustain

As I had mentioned in the other post, it may have taken you years but you have jumped into and is stuck in a different hole and still in the same shaky paradigm.
You gotta to shift out of this shaky paradigm.

I have put in a lot of effort to stabilize my "I-ness" and that is to ensure I will not be influenced by Dark-Matters from you or anywhere.

There are not many people re type (1) above in philosophical forums as they are busy digging deeper holes.
As for (2) no one can yank you out your hole except yourself. The most others can do is to throw in various ideas and views.

All mangled together with the thinking of folks like Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Richard Rorty.

Each of these philosophers provide specific narrow windows of insight but as a holistic view, they are very half-cooked. Schopenhauer toyed with Hinduism and Buddhism but got nowhere [not his fault as the relevant materials during his time was scant].
Philosophers like Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and others changed boat in mid-stream.
For full thorough holistic philosophy I would suggest adding Kant [proper reading], Buddhism and others.

[The Eternal Warrior]

maybe the path forward isn't out of the rabbit hole, but further in and through the other side? You can only go so far into a dark forest or desolate wasteland before coming out the other side.

ooooo, but that's just me doing what you called as 'The most others can do is to throw in various ideas and views.'

[iambiguous]

I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:

There are some odd assumptions in here, and that's good. Since you are in a hole, at least emotionally, I assume, and have not gotten out while searching for 'frames of mind' capable of yanking you, perhaps the assumptions involved in seeing frames of mind as the solution are not correct.

I'm in the hole emotionally only because I think it is reasonable to believe that this is true:

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.

That's a "frame of mind". It's a way of thinking about the world such that it motivates behaviors. And it is human behaviors that precipitate actual consequences.

But: Is it reasonable to believe that this is true? All I can do here is to ask others if it seems reasonable to them. And, if it does not, to suggest that we move on.

To this: "Okay, let's bring it all down to earth by exploring the existential parameters of human interactions in which clashes occur as a result of value judgments out of sync."

In three parts:

1] The part about conflicting goods
2] The part about dasein
3] The part about political economy

Depressives often use a lot of truth to justify problematic lifestyle choices, so do manics. Fixation on frames of mind is a pathology, or at least, it can be.

I'm not depressed. I'm not manic. I'm in a hole [derived philosophically] such that I believe "I" live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblivion.

Can I find a way to not think like this? Maybe. But I can't just "will" myself to abandon what [here and now] seems reasonable to me.

As for the part about bravery, I don't congratulate myself for having the "courage" to accept this brutally bleak assessment of the "human condition". And its only appeal is that in rejecting objectivism as a frame of mind I am afforded considerably more options. Why? Because I don't have to align my behaviors with the "right thing to do".

But not believing that there actually is a right thing to do [and that "I" here is largely an existential contraption] has its own rather stark consequences.

[iambiguous]

The big advantage of the dasein hole, is that nothing you do or think can be "wrong".

But what doesn't change of course is that others will still judge your thoughts and your behaviors as either in sync or out of sync with their own.

And then the part about laws.

Your acts and thoughts are the result of your environment and they cannot be anything other than what they are/were - always correct.

That's a very pleasant idea.

Your acts and your thoughts are always going to be an enormously complex intertwining of genes and memes out in a particular world historically and culturally; and ever awash in contingency, chance and change.

And my point is not about being "correct". On the contrary, it is a suggestion that correct is just one more existential contraption. A fabricated and ever refabricated "I" rooted in dasein and entangled in both conflicting goods and political power. If only all the way to the grave.

And it's "pleasant" only until it's not.

Determinism has the same appeal. Another of Iambig's favorite subjects.

Yes, if your life is in the shithole it is rather comforting to believe there really wasn't anything that you could have done to change it. Why? Because there was never anything that you could have done of your own free will. Period.

On the other hand, such thinking can only be appalling to those who deem themselves, among other things, masters of the universe. The ubermen. After all, their great success was just "fated" to be; and going all the way back to the Big Bang.

Whatever that means.

[iambiguous]

As I had mentioned in the other post, it may have taken you years but you have jumped into and is stuck in a different hole and still in the same shaky paradigm.

No, I didn't jump into it. I tumbled down into it over the years. And paradigms of this sort [in the is/ought world] are shaky only from a point of view.

I have put in a lot of effort to stabilize my "I-ness" and that is to ensure I will not be influenced by Dark-Matters from you or anywhere.

Indeed, but my argument is that this effort revolves more around an intellectual contraption that, in my opinion, is a psychological defense mechanism.

As for (2) no one can yank you out your hole except yourself. The most others can do is to throw in various ideas and views.

All I can note here are the many times in the past I was able to abandon one objectivist frame of mind only when others were able to convince me to embrace their own. And we always saw those who did not share our own righteous cause as in a hole all their own.

But this hole is nothing at all like them.

And, who knows, if I am finally able to yank you down into it with me, maybe you too will see the light.

That isn't there.

[Prismatic567]

As I had mentioned in the other post, it may have taken you years but you have jumped into and is stuck in a different hole and still in the same shaky paradigm.

No, I didn't jump into it. I tumbled down into it over the years. And paradigms of this sort [in the is/ought world] are shaky only from a point of view.

Very unfortunate for you.
As I had suggested you need to strive to reframe your philosophical position on this by your own self.

I have put in a lot of effort to stabilize my "I-ness" and that is to ensure I will not be influenced by Dark-Matters from you or anywhere.

Indeed, but my argument is that this effort revolves more around an intellectual contraption that, in my opinion, is a psychological defense mechanism.

I have mentioned it is critical for 'knowing' to be complemented with 'doing'. I have done extensive research, i.e. secure solid wide and deep intellectual foundations [not contraption] and spent years practicing to reinforce the neural circuits in my brain to modulate the inherent existential impulses and other potential deviations to sustain an optimal state for my well being.
This is why I am very optimistic and moving forward in contrast to you wallowing in your muddy pool of pessimism.

As for (2) no one can yank you out your hole except yourself. The most others can do is to throw in various ideas and views.

All I can note here are the many times in the past I was able to abandon one objectivist frame of mind only when others were able to convince me to embrace their own. And we always saw those who did not share our own righteous cause as in a hole all their own.

But this hole is nothing at all like them.

And, who knows, if I am finally able to yank you down into it with me, maybe you too will see the light.

That isn't there.

I am well aware there are many psychological, existential holes and the mother of all 'holes' in life and I have always taken the effort [knowledge and 'spiritual' practices] to ensure I don't fall into them [I have preference for a certain one though].

[iambiguous]

As I had mentioned in the other post, it may have taken you years but you have jumped into and is stuck in a different hole and still in the same shaky paradigm.

No, I didn't jump into it. I tumbled down into it over the years. And paradigms of this sort [in the is/ought world] are shaky only from a point of view.

Very unfortunate for you.

Indeed, and rather fortunate for you in that you have been able to think yourself into a frame of mind that allows you obviate an essentially absurd and meaningless world by subsuming "I" in what I construe to be but one of many whollistic intellectual scaffoldings.

They abound here, at KT and in many other venues devoted to philosophical, political and/or religious discussion.

It is then only a matter of whether you come to recognize [as I once did] the psychological nature of these basically didactic mindsets.

"I" is anchored to a way of understanding the world such that the crucial distinction can then be made between "one of us" [who get it] and "one of them" [who don't get it].

On the other hand, I have what might be called a more enviable frame of mind. I may well be right regarding my own dilemma above; but I am always hoping that someone will come along able to convince me that I am wrong.

As I had suggested you need to strive to reframe your philosophical position on this by your own self.

And, from my vantage point, you need to recognize the extent to which, in offering this advice to others, you are arguing that only when they come to share your own set of technical assumptions, have they reframed their philosophical position to be in sync with what is in fact true for all of us.

Okay, I then note, but in what particular context regarding what particular conflicting behaviors?

Instead [over and over and over again] we get "analysis" like this:

I have mentioned it is critical for 'knowing' to be complemented with 'doing'. I have done extensive research, i.e. secure solid wide and deep intellectual foundations [not contraption] and spent years practicing to reinforce the neural circuits in my brain to modulate the inherent existential impulses and other potential deviations to sustain an optimal state for my well being.
This is why I am very optimistic and moving forward in contrast to you wallowing in your muddy pool of pessimism.

And then, when, in exasperastion, I ask, "what on earth does that mean?!", you simply reconfigure the words into yet another "general description".

I am well aware there are many psychological, existential holes and the mother of all 'holes' in life and I have always taken the effort [knowledge and 'spiritual' practices] to ensure I don't fall into them [I have preference for a certain one though].

All I can surmise here is that you accomplish this by refusing to substantiate your "analyses"/"arguments" above. In other words, in an exchange that probes human interactions we are all familiar with such that the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, are grappled with [by you] existentially.

[Prismatic567]

On the other hand, I have what might be called a more enviable frame of mind. I may well be right regarding my own dilemma above; but I am always hoping that someone will come along able to convince me that I am wrong.

Actually the point I got from you is you have dug a hole so deep [presumably with lots of snakes and terrible vermins] you cannot yank yourself out of it.
So I provided suggestions how you can get out of it and stated only you can do the climbing out yourself.

Now if you think you are right about your dilemma and accept it as a fact of life, then so be it.
I am not interested in proving you are wrong as long as you do not kill, harm or oppress me and others who do not agree with your views. As such there is no issue and no need for anyone to convince you to change your mind.

As I had suggested you need to strive to reframe your philosophical position on this by your own self.

And, from my vantage point, you need to recognize the extent to which, in offering this advice to others, you are arguing that only when they come to share your own set of technical assumptions, have they reframed their philosophical position to be in sync with what is in fact true for all of us.

What I have suggested is a typical solution is solving any persistent problem if any, i.e. reframing the question appropriately not necessary to another's point of view.

Okay, I then note, but in what particular context regarding what particular conflicting behaviors?

Instead [over and over and over again] we get "analysis" like this:

I have mentioned it is critical for 'knowing' to be complemented with 'doing'. I have done extensive research, i.e. secure solid wide and deep intellectual foundations [not contraption] and spent years practicing to reinforce the neural circuits in my brain to modulate the inherent existential impulses and other potential deviations to sustain an optimal state for my well being.
This is why I am very optimistic and moving forward in contrast to you wallowing in your muddy pool of pessimism.

And then, when, in exasperastion, I ask, "what on earth does that mean?!", you simply reconfigure the words into yet another "general description".

How else?
As I had stated, all problems must start with intellectual questioning and suggested solutions.
The only actions is you have to decide what to do with it.

I am well aware there are many psychological, existential holes and the mother of all 'holes' in life and I have always taken the effort [knowledge and 'spiritual' practices] to ensure I don't fall into them [I have preference for a certain one though].

All I can surmise here is that you accomplish this by refusing to substantiate your "analyses"/"arguments" above. In other words, in an exchange that probes human interactions we are all familiar with such that the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, are grappled with [by you] existentially.

What is critical is I [unlike you] don't dig holes for myself to fall in and cannot get out of it.

All I can surmise here is that you accomplish this by refusing to substantiate your "analyses"/"arguments" above.

You keep repeating this statement which I don't understand and I don't think is applicable to me at all.

The fact is you are lacking in the depth and width of knowledge of the variables you yourself are entangled with in that hole you have dug for yourself e.g. re the Philosophy of the Self and others.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, I have what might be called a more enviable frame of mind. I may well be right regarding my own dilemma above; but I am always hoping that someone will come along able to convince me that I am wrong.

Actually the point I got from you is you have dug a hole so deep [presumably with lots of snakes and terrible vermins] you cannot yank yourself out of it.

My point is that I can't just will myself out of it. I can't just think, "gee, this is a shitty way to look at things, so I guess I'll look at things another way".

Instead, I have to come up with a point of view that convinces me that my dilemma is not a reasonable way in which to construe human interactions in the is/ought world. With or without contributions from others.

So I provided suggestions how you can get out of it and stated only you can do the climbing out yourself.

And I appreciate any and all suggestions that any and all folks are willing to offer.

But they either will or will not nudge me in another direction. Again, I'm not arguing that because they don't they are wrong. The problem may well be that I just don't understand how they are able to experience conflicted interactions with others and not be entangled in my dilemma.

But here I need them to note how they actually accomplished this by taking their arguments/analyses and situating them "out in the world": in contexts we are likely to be familiar with. Some [like you] claim to have accomplished this. But clearly we do not understand this in the same way.

[Prismatic567]

On the other hand, I have what might be called a more enviable frame of mind. I may well be right regarding my own dilemma above; but I am always hoping that someone will come along able to convince me that I am wrong.

Actually the point I got from you is you have dug a hole so deep [presumably with lots of snakes and terrible vermins] you cannot yank yourself out of it.

My point is that I can't just will myself out of it. I can't just think, "gee, this is a shitty way to look at things, so I guess I'll look at things another way".

Instead, I have to come up with a point of view that convinces me that my dilemma is not a reasonable way in which to construe human interactions in the is/ought world. With or without contributions from others.

So I provided suggestions how you can get out of it and stated only you can do the climbing out yourself.

And I appreciate any and all suggestions that any and all folks are willing to offer.

But they either will or will not nudge me in another direction. Again, I'm not arguing that because they don't they are wrong. The problem may well be that I just don't understand how they are able to experience conflicted interactions with others and not be entangled in my dilemma.

But here I need them to note how they actually accomplished this by taking their arguments/analyses and situating them "out in the world": in contexts we are likely to be familiar with. Some [like you] claim to have accomplished this. But clearly we do not understand this in the same way.

Note my points raised in the other thread.
viewtopic.php?p=2691744#p2691744

I believe you have leaped out of a real psychological anchor of theism [flimsy but nevertheless exists] into existentialism but without developing any real psychological anchor to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential angst.

Generally I would not recommend the average theists to get out of theism unless they have an alternative that provide them real psychological security or anchor to deal with the very desperate inherent unavoidable existential angst.
I was once a pantheist and panentheist for a very long time.

It is very shaky to jump out of theism merely based on intellectual arguments. The exception is only for the very strong intellectuals who are supported by other rational elements or those who have suffered traumatic experiences from theism due to various reason. Even then some of them could neurally and psychologically collapse into theism, note the once very notable atheists, Anthony Flew and Sartre who had to cling to theism in the later part of their lives when their intellectual capacities failed due to natural atrophy.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The big advantage of the dasein hole, is that nothing you do or think can be "wrong". Your acts and thoughts are the result of your environment and they cannot be anything other than what they are/were - always correct.

That's a very pleasant idea.

Determinism has the same appeal. Another of Iambig's favorite subjects.

I think that is appealing to some people, I am not sure it is appealing to him. He does seem to judge people as being wrong, and morally, not just epistemologically. He sees this as simply something he cannot control but not really what he believes. To me it seems systemic, that the hole allows him to judge more absolutely. The objectivists are wrong to hold moral opinions, period. This slides past any need to point out what is wrong with any particular moral stance. One need not get into the abortion debate and try to demonstrate why abortion is OK or not. A complicated debate to say the least. But with the dasein critique of having moral stances one has a tool in practice morally judge especially the right - since he is on the left - without getting into the muck of specific issues. Now I don't think he is only doing this disingenously. I do believe that he does sit there and think that there are no objective supports for leftist values also. I am sure he does have those moments. But the pattern of behavior and how the hole functions allows a purity of focus and moral attack. He can always put the other person in the position of proving something. Give them the onus. Give them the hoops to jump through. There are secondary gains galore in that.

If he believes in determinism, then it gets even funnier.

Because then the is/ought dichotomy means nothing. If we are all absolutely compelled to believe what we believe, how can any individual be confident they can believe set X on objective grounds? or even trust their memory about how they or anyone else arrived at their conclusions?

[iambiguous]

I believe you have leaped out of a real psychological anchor of theism [flimsy but nevertheless exists] into existentialism but without developing any real psychological anchor to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential angst.

Existentialism often revolves around the idea of "authenticity". Many existentialists argue that one lives "inauthentically" through one or another rendition of objectivism. In the is/ought world. Hell is other people not because they can make your life miserable, but because they objectify you. They refuse to interact with you subject to subject. I merely probe the existential parameters of the "subject" -- "I" -- by focusing the beam on the points I raise in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Then I tap folks like you on the shoulder and ask them to note how this is not applicable to them. With respect to their own interactions in the is/ought world.

Sans God, in other words, "authenticity" becomes just one more existential contraption. And, by and large, rooted in dasein.

In other words, from my frame of mind there is no "psychological anchor". At least not for me.

Consequently, your own intellectual contraptions above [and elsewhere] are [from my frame of mind] just another attempt to replace God with one or another secular rendition of a moral/political font.

Why? Because [ironically enough] this affords you the same sort of psychological comfort and consolation that the theists embody through God. It's just that, unlike them, you scratch the part about immortality and salvation.

So, you are able to convince yourself that we do not live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world. But then there's this part:

"They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more."

You can't help but wonder then what Samuel Beckett might have made of this exchange.

[iambiguous]

The objectivists are wrong to hold moral opinions, period. This slides past any need to point out what is wrong with any particular moral stance. One need not get into the abortion debate and try to demonstrate why abortion is OK or not. A complicated debate to say the least. But with the dasein critique of having moral stances one has a tool in practice morally judge especially the right - since he is on the left - without getting into the muck of specific issues.

Sure, that's one way to look at it. But is that the only way to look at it? Unlike you, I suspect the sheer complexity of the interwining variables that encompass the motivation/intention [re genes and memes] of any one particular individual in any one particular context, may well be beyond the capacity here of any one particular "I" to grasp.

All I can do is to note my dilemma above and to ask those convinced that they are not entangled in it themselves, to describe actual contexts in which they were in fact able to demonstrate that their own moral/political narrative reflected the optimal or the only rational frame of mind. Meaning [for some] the optimal or the only virtuous set of behaviors.

What I recognize about myself is this: that if I choose to interact with others, I am going to come upon contexts in which value judgments come into conflict. I will be expected to choose sides. But: to what extent can my choice be more than just a political prejudice rooted in dasein?

Instead, it is back up into the clouds of abstraction:

Now I don't think he is only doing this disingenously. I do believe that he does sit there and think that there are no objective supports for leftist values also. I am sure he does have those moments. But the pattern of behavior and how the hole functions allows a purity of focus and moral attack. He can always put the other person in the position of proving something. Give them the onus. Give them the hoops to jump through. There are secondary gains galore in that.

Pertaining to what particular context? Provide us with one of your own.

If he believes in determinism, then it gets even funnier.

Actually, my point here is to note the gap between what I think I know about determinism here and now and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to know for sure.

I merely speculate that this is almost certainly true of yourself as well.

Unless, of course, you can encompass the definitive assessment of what is popularly described as "free will".