Good News of the Kingdom

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:26 am

Next page:

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Everybody judges one-another by the company they keep.

Honestly I pity anybody who would, knowingly, throw their lot in with the likes of Iamb.



Speaking for myself, I want to associate with those as smart, or smarter, than myself.

But that's just me, obviously.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7798
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:36 pm

Urwrongx1000 But I'll Still Associate With You wrote:Everybody judges one-another by the company they keep.

Honestly I pity anybody who would, knowingly, throw their lot in with the likes of Iamb.



Speaking for myself, I want to associate with those as smart, or smarter, than myself.

But that's just me, obviously.


There's no way, in my view, this guy isn't afflicted with one or another "condition". Narcissism? Megalomania? Authoritarianism? Retardation?

That's the only explanation that makes sense.

He claims that he will only associate with those as smart as he is. But since you are wrong times a thousand if you don't think exactly as he does, being as smart as he is means that.

And no one who does not think as he does can ever be smarter.

Right?

And while he doesn't throw in his lot with me because I dare not to share his own thinking about everything under the sun, what really prompts these caustic declamations from him can only be that a part of him is beginning to realize that if my arguments are more reasonable than his, his very Sacred Fulminating Fanatic Objectivist Self is on the line. He may well be a 1000 times dumber than he thinks he is about everything under the sun.

But first we'll need a context. 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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 45610
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:41 pm

Gloominary wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Go figure, right?

Over and over and over again, he keeps posting shit like this. Giving me yet another opportunity to make a fool out of him.

When have I ever posted shit like this, except for two or three times to you on this thread?

You know, like Satyr. But at least Satyr had enough sense to endure it only over the festive holiday season. This guy never stops coming back for another thumping.

You seemed to enjoy it with Satyr, you spent a whole month shitposting each other, why can't you enjoy it with me for just a bit now?

Let's try these this time:

:violence-stickwhack: :violence-hammer: :violence-smack: :teasing-neener: :obscene-tolietclaw:

Too close to call.

You seem like you're in a real hurry to end this conversation.


Again...

Well, in that case, given a particular context involving a widely discussed and debated "conflicting good" in which liberals have one set of political prejudices and conservatives have another, let's explore the extent to which you either are or ore not "fractured and fragmented" in regard to your own sense of self at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political economy.

Just how close do you come to concluding that liberals either are or are not "morons" and "retards" if they don't share your own value judgments?

Why the right-wing populism and not the left-wing?

And how do philosophers, ethicists and political scientists go about pinning down which moral narrative and political agenda reflects either the optimal, most rational frame of mind or, if not that, encompasses a reflection of the best of all possible worlds.

In other words, a world in which both left-wing and right-wing populists agree that "moderation, negotiation and compromise" is the best path to take. As opposed to the right makes might mentality of those like Urwrong.


...he'll either take me up on this -- given a civil and intelligent exchange -- and dispense with the huffing and puffing or he won't.
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 45610
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:36 pm

Again, all I can do here is attempt to bring this down to earth.

You have noted that in being a "moral person" you are opposed to abortion. Okay, if not "particularly" from Nature and the Goddess, where does this frame of mind come from? If not from dasein, then from what?

You acknowledge that had your life been different you might be in here strongly supportive of abortion. And you acknowledge in turn that given new "dramatic/traumatic" experiences in the future you might be in here still strongly supportive of it.

Or, rather, if I understand you correctly.

On the other hand, no, not really. There is something inside you that would make this not happen. But what? Something genetic from birth? An anti-abortion gene that you came into the world with? Something "mystical" or "magical" rooted in an intuitive, spiritual Self that you just accept without feeling the need to explain it beyond that? You just somehow know that abortion is wrong?

Really, if that's it, there is nothing I or anyone can say to convince you otherwise. Philosophy, logic, epistemology is no match for what you simply insist is what you "feel" intuitively. In a way it's the perfect frame of mind. Nothing that you believe is either moral or immoral goes beyond merely what you think and feel "in your head".

Or, rather, that's how it seems to me.


Maia wrote: Firstly, no, I have never acknowledged that under other circumstances I might be strongly supportive of abortion. I can't imagine any circumstances where that might be the case.


Yes, I get that. On the other hand, it was precisely my own frame of mind before Song Be. I was absolutely adamant [to myself] that I would never be supportive of abortion. Only 12 months later I was. What you can't imagine about your own future "here and now" is exactly my point about the nature of "dramatic/traumatic" experiences. And the brand spanking new epiphanies they can bring about.

And what you did seem to acknowledge is that had your life been very, very different in the past [for any number of dramatic/traumatic reasons], you might be in here in opposition to Paganism and the Goddess. So, how is abortion any different.

Instead [for me] it is this mysterious "intuitive" -- spiritual, soulful -- self of yours that seems to preclude you changing your mind in a world that is no less bursting at the seams with contingency, change and change for you now as it was for me back then.

This part:

On the other hand, no, not really. There is something inside you that would make this not happen. But what? Something genetic from birth? An anti-abortion gene that you came into the world with? Something "mystical" or "magical" rooted in an intuitive, spiritual Self that you just accept without feeling the need to explain it beyond that? You just somehow know that abortion is wrong?

Really, if that's it, there is nothing I or anyone can say to convince you otherwise. Philosophy, logic, epistemology is no match for what you simply insist is what you "feel" intuitively. In a way it's the perfect frame of mind. Nothing that you believe is either moral or immoral goes beyond merely what you think and feel "in your head".


The part that from my frame of mind you don't really explore in depth. At least not [in my opinion] in our exchange. And I respect your intelligence enough to suspect that -- subconsciously? -- you recognize what is at stake if you ever do come a bit closer to the hole I am in.

Ah, but then I am forced to admit just how vast that gap must still be between my understanding of you and your understanding of you.

Maia wrote: I have no doubt that evolution has given us a feeling that it's wrong to kill other people (for no good reason, such as defending your family), and this is something that only mentally ill people lack.


Okay, but what can you possibly know about the evolution of life on Earth next to all that there is to be known? More or less than I do?

Biologically, we all come into the world with the innate capacity to feel. But "killing people" can unfold in any number of vast and varied historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts. You in yours, me in mine. And then those who associate the "mentally ill" with those who don't think and feel as they do.

Maia wrote: A study of history tells us how this innate feeling has played out in society. In early, tribal times, it appears that although this feeling was just as real as it is today, most people seem to have applied it only to members of their own tribe. Human history is the story of how we have gradually extended this to include everyone on earth, a process by no means fully complete yet. The relevance of this to abortion, though, is that even in the most primitive, earliest days, killing one's own children would have been considered to be wrong. The fact that modern society is the only one in history that has not only legalised abortion, but, in effect, actively encouraged it, and pursuaded people into thinking it's ok, says a lot, I think, about modern society and its future. None of it good, sadly. So it's not those who oppose abortion who have to explain themselves, in my opinion, but rather, those who think it's ok to kill unborn babies, and to tell others to do so.


Now, from my frame of mind, this is just another "political prejudice" derived from your own subjective assessment of human history, derived from all the "personal and private" knowledge and information that you came across. Others will come to very different conclusions precisely because their own experiences and access to information and knowledge were not like yours at all. Then the distinction between the objectivists who insist that you must think as they do and those like me who are considerably more "fractured and fragmented" in regard to moral and political value judgments.

As for those who rationalize abortion for either personal or political reasons just Google "defending abortion": https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search

Take your pick of arguments.

But that's my point. Both sides have arguments that the other side can't/don't just make go away.

Then the part where dasein rather than this spiritual "intuitive Self" of yours plays a bigger or a lesser role. Me, I'm still no less "fractured and fragmented" regarding it.

Okay, then, for all practical purposes, what are the existential implications of that? In regard to your own thoughts and feelings about the morality of abortion. All those things in your future that, in fact, really are beyond your capacity to either fully understand or control. What of your intuition when confronted with that?

Again, from my frame of mind, this is why the objectivists among us are either indoctrinated to accept certain things as children or come to "think up" certain things themselves as adults. With God and No God fonts to anchor their Self to. The need to be certain that in this profoundly problematic world there is a foundation they can fall back on to give their lives an essential meaning and purpose. That's why they react to me here with, at times, such hostility. I [and my assessment of dasein] threaten that.


Maia wrote: A lot of women who have had abortions are then wracked with guilt forever after. I know this because I've spoken to them. The implications of this, to me, are that it's always best to follow your intuition, rather than what might seem like the most convenient option at the time.


Okay, but thousands and thousands of other women were not.

And what does that really have to do with the point I make? And the part where women can follow their intuition in defense of abortion as well as in opposition to it. Again, back to how I root this "pro and con" conflagration in dasein; and in my inability to grasp an "intuitive self" that to me is no less embodied in dasein.

Which, from my frame of mind, you need to believe because even though you are not a moral objectivist -- re those like Ichthus, phyllo, gloominary and Adam -- I still see you as wholly committed to your own rendition of the One True Path. Psychologically, it is vital that you convince yourself that your life -- your Self -- is anchored to whatever it is that convinces you things like the morality of abortion are within reach to you.

Or, perhaps, your Soul?

"The animistic aspects of Pagan theology assert that all things have a soul - not just humans or organic life - so this bond is held with mountains and rivers as well as trees and wild animals." wiki on "Modern Paganism".

Is your Soul here then the font that encompasses your moral intuition?

Where the mystery still lies [for me], however, is in how you explain that even to yourself. In contrast, when I think about my own views on the morality of abortion I go back to this...

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

In other words, it is not just something I know "intuitively". Instead, it's profoundly rooted in the actual experiences I had, in the actual philosophy I read that predisposed me to think as I do "here and now". The very embodiment of dasein.

With you, it is something entirely different. And, crucially, something that need be only whatever you think it is. Whatever "works" to sustain your own comforting and consoling sense of being grounded in a reality that even Nature and the Goddess have only so much impact regarding.


Maia wrote: I prefer the term spirit to soul. Mainly because soul is more associated with Christian doctrine, and therefore carries all that baggage. It does seem intuitively right, to me, to say that everything has a spirit, including inanimate objects, but I don't know what this actually means in practice. You may, of course, be right that all my opinions and thoughts about these things are all entirely subjective. No less or more so than yours, though.


Yep, we are basically "stuck". All I can do then is to fall back on the distinction I always make here: the difference between speaking of what you believe of either your spirit or soul, and demonstrating to others that this spirit or soul does in fact exist. And then [for me] how you connect the dots between them and "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then".

For all practical purposes, not just "spiritually" in terms of what you do believe "in your head".

Still, my point remains the same. Something that bad may not happen at all. But there is really no way for you [for any of us] to be certain that it won't happen. Unless, of course, we are able to devise a font to fall back on...one or another Real Me in sync with the Right Thing To Do...that is simply beyond the reach of "contingency, chance and change".

And, ultimately, it is precisely the "ephemeral" nature of the "self" as the embodiment of dasein in the is/ought world that prompts the objectivists to discover or invent a Reality that allows them then to make that crucial distinction between "one of us" [those who "get" it] and "one of them" [those who do not "get" it.]

Whatever It -- the issue -- happens to be.

The part I keep hammering away at.


Maia wrote: I don't regard the "self" as ephemeral. One's opinions may change, but you're still the same person.


Yes, again, this "intuitive" spiritual Maia that is always beyond the arguments of those like me. The True Self Maia that [in my view] is invented or discovered in order to make comfort and consolation possible in a world this fraught with god knows how many trials and tribulations. This "mystical" spiritual Self that exists given whatever the role that nature and the Goddess might or might not play in it all.

Or, rather, so it seems to me given all of my own subjective assumptions ever and always subject to change given yet another "dramatic/traumatic" experience in my own life. I just don't possess this "spiritual Self" to slay all the contingency, chance and change dragons.

Or, sure, maybe I do and someone like you will bring it out in me.

Okay, but we've been over this time and again. It's not a question of relying on others but of recognizing that we are all in the same boat here. We all live unique lives in which, over and again, we are confronted with situations that come to revolve around finding meaning and purpose. In some respects, however, our lives will overlap. So we can share our separate experiences but note things we may or may not be able to communicate that might facilitate a better understanding of the "human condition".

I think you focus on this "go it alone" approach because, again, it is in sync with you being able to justify the things you do choose by steering clear of dasein and just falling back on what you *know*...what you know *intuitively*. The part of you that none of us can touch because it's all "in your head".


Maia wrote: I think, ultimately, we have no choice but to find out for ourselves the answers that work best for us. How can anyone else possibly know what they are? For example, to me your idea of "dasein" as you've described it, is just obvious and doesn't lead anywhere. But to you, it's clearly a profoundly important way of explaining the world.


We will then have to agree to disagree regarding where the emphasis should lie.

And I do agree with you that dasein is an obvious factor in our lives. But we think very differently regarding the "for all practical purposes" existential implications of that. For me in regard to the objectivists among us...or given whatever it is exactly that enables you to stay up out of the hole. Your own individual "one true spiritually comforting and consoling path" that now only has to be sustained "in your head" all the way to the grave.

And it is different because -- re dasein -- we often live lives that are very, very different. So, when we butt heads in regard to things like the morality of abortion -- moral and political value judgments -- we may or may not be able to effectively communicate our own sense of reality.

Then for me the part where some come to insist that their own moral and political value judgments -- their own reality -- had damn well better be yours as well.

Still, your own Reality here [to me] is just more dexterous. There is nothing I [or anyone] can argue that you can't deflect merely by falling back on simply believing what you do. Instead, it can only come down to that "dramatic/traumatic" experience "down the road" that will even knock you for a loop.


Maia wrote: Why would you want to deflect me from how I choose to interact with the world? To me, that is no different from a Christian trying to convert me.


I've explained this. If you can't "argue" me up out of the hole I am in, perhaps I might succeed in "arguing" you down into it with me.

Someone I can at least empathize with empathizing with me.

Win/win, remember?

Indeed, the rest being, as they say, history. Ah, but your own "personal and private" intuitive rendition of that or the one I root far more subjectively in dasein?


Maia wrote: I trust my intuition, you trust your logic. You can't possibly say that one is better than the other without relying on the very thing you're trying to prove.


Logic? No way it is logic I fall back on. Logic is all about the "rules of language". Dasein is all about the limitations of language itself...given "I" in the is/ought world. Very, very, very different things. And better or worse isn't really my point. It's being able to demonstrate what you mean by your spiritual, intuitive Self that make it more or less demonstrable than my subjective, existential "self" given "I" in the is/ought world.

And that would no doubt include any laws pertaining to abortion. He may decree it the right of all women. Or he may decree it a capital offense.

Then each of the Pagans in the community, with absolutely no help from either Nature or the God/Goddess, toes his line...or else.

Just as is the case regarding all other autocratic regimes down through the ages.


Maia wrote: Or they could just leave. Besides, I think the local police might be interested if the person in charge started executing people. They might even send someone in to have a look round.


Yes, "the law" -- "society" -- is almost always a factor to be taken in consideration. The part where what we believe leads to behaviors we choose that have consequences for others. It's not for nothing though that the Wicker Man reality all unfolds on an island of Pagans "apart" from all that.

Now that would be particularly interesting. Keep me informed.

And, indeed, why wouldn't they want you? After all, lots of us here do.


Maia wrote: Not sure how to respond to that last bit!


Well, what I mean here takes us back to this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=197598

Those here wanting you [as I suspect Adam did] given your avatar photograph. But here, of course, "wanting" revolves around desiring you sexually. On the other hand, others might desire you as well given how they intertwine their reaction to you physically with all of the other things they might admire about you...your intelligence, your emotional depth, your self-confidence, your accomplishments, your commitment to do no harm to others.

But the part about sex is what some here see as "creepy". How far in discussing it "personally" is "too far"?

The part that, for some, probably shouldn't be discussed "philosophically" at all. Or, if it must, take it up in the clouds.
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 45610
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:17 am

I miss Ichthus, come baaaack Ichthus!

Just ignore this Iamb; nobody respects that retard around here anyway.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7798
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby Maia » Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:24 pm

+++Yes, I get that. On the other hand, it was precisely my own frame of mind before Song Be. I was absolutely adamant [to myself] that I would never be supportive of abortion. Only 12 months later I was. What you can't imagine about your own future "here and now" is exactly my point about the nature of "dramatic/traumatic" experiences. And the brand spanking new epiphanies they can bring about.

And what you did seem to acknowledge is that had your life been very, very different in the past [for any number of dramatic/traumatic reasons], you might be in here in opposition to Paganism and the Goddess. So, how is abortion any different.

Instead [for me] it is this mysterious "intuitive" -- spiritual, soulful -- self of yours that seems to preclude you changing your mind in a world that is no less bursting at the seams with contingency, change and change for you now as it was for me back then.+++

I think my desire not to kill people is probably even more basic than my Paganism. Still, having said that, I can't really imagine any circumstances where that might change, either. As I've said many times, it's not a belief, but a way of interacting with the world, and this is something that you never seem to pick up on.

+++The part that from my frame of mind you don't really explore in depth. At least not [in my opinion] in our exchange. And I respect your intelligence enough to suspect that -- subconsciously? -- you recognize what is at stake if you ever do come a bit closer to the hole I am in.

Ah, but then I am forced to admit just how vast that gap must still be between my understanding of you and your understanding of you.+++

No, that's not the case. What you call a refusal to explore things is, in fact, just me not agreeing with you.

+++Okay, but what can you possibly know about the evolution of life on Earth next to all that there is to be known? More or less than I do?

Biologically, we all come into the world with the innate capacity to feel. But "killing people" can unfold in any number of vast and varied historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts. You in yours, me in mine. And then those who associate the "mentally ill" with those who don't think and feel as they do.+++

Psychopaths apparently don't care about killing people if they can get away with it, and I think it's fair to say that they're mentally ill.

+++Now, from my frame of mind, this is just another "political prejudice" derived from your own subjective assessment of human history, derived from all the "personal and private" knowledge and information that you came across. Others will come to very different conclusions precisely because their own experiences and access to information and knowledge were not like yours at all. Then the distinction between the objectivists who insist that you must think as they do and those like me who are considerably more "fractured and fragmented" in regard to moral and political value judgments.

As for those who rationalize abortion for either personal or political reasons just Google "defending abortion": https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search

Take your pick of arguments.

But that's my point. Both sides have arguments that the other side can't/don't just make go away.

Then the part where dasein rather than this spiritual "intuitive Self" of yours plays a bigger or a lesser role. Me, I'm still no less "fractured and fragmented" regarding it.+++

From your frame of mind, perhaps. But not mine. To bring society to the point that it is today has taken years of endless propaganda saying that abortion is ok. But here's the problem. If a society thinks it's ok to kill babies simply out of convenience, what else will it think is ok? What message is this giving out, perhaps on a subconscious level, to everyone, about what is, and isn't, acceptable?

+++Okay, but thousands and thousands of other women were not.

And what does that really have to do with the point I make? And the part where women can follow their intuition in defense of abortion as well as in opposition to it. Again, back to how I root this "pro and con" conflagration in dasein; and in my inability to grasp an "intuitive self" that to me is no less embodied in dasein.+++

How do you know that those thousands and thousands of women don't regret it, but have decided, for whatever reason, not to tell anyone? Or, more likely, not to mention something so profoundly personal in public? How can you possibly know what they're thinking?

+++Yep, we are basically "stuck". All I can do then is to fall back on the distinction I always make here: the difference between speaking of what you believe of either your spirit or soul, and demonstrating to others that this spirit or soul does in fact exist. And then [for me] how you connect the dots between them and "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then".

For all practical purposes, not just "spiritually" in terms of what you do believe "in your head".+++

I don't have to demonstrate it, because I'm not trying to convert anyone. I don't even know for sure that it isn't all just subjective, but what I do know for sure is that it works for me. So again, you're ascribing a belief to me that I don't have.

+++Yes, again, this "intuitive" spiritual Maia that is always beyond the arguments of those like me. The True Self Maia that [in my view] is invented or discovered in order to make comfort and consolation possible in a world this fraught with god knows how many trials and tribulations. This "mystical" spiritual Self that exists given whatever the role that nature and the Goddess might or might not play in it all.

Or, rather, so it seems to me given all of my own subjective assumptions ever and always subject to change given yet another "dramatic/traumatic" experience in my own life. I just don't possess this "spiritual Self" to slay all the contingency, chance and change dragons.

Or, sure, maybe I do and someone like you will bring it out in me.+++

You can only bring yourself out of it. I certainly can't.

+++We will then have to agree to disagree regarding where the emphasis should lie.

And I do agree with you that dasein is an obvious factor in our lives. But we think very differently regarding the "for all practical purposes" existential implications of that. For me in regard to the objectivists among us...or given whatever it is exactly that enables you to stay up out of the hole. Your own individual "one true spiritually comforting and consoling path" that now only has to be sustained "in your head" all the way to the grave.

I've explained this. If you can't "argue" me up out of the hole I am in, perhaps I might succeed in "arguing" you down into it with me.

Someone I can at least empathize with empathizing with me.

Win/win, remember?+++

That's not something I would wish to inflict on another, and I would consider it morally wrong to try.

+++Logic? No way it is logic I fall back on. Logic is all about the "rules of language". Dasein is all about the limitations of language itself...given "I" in the is/ought world. Very, very, very different things. And better or worse isn't really my point. It's being able to demonstrate what you mean by your spiritual, intuitive Self that make it more or less demonstrable than my subjective, existential "self" given "I" in the is/ought world.+++

Call it what you wish, then. To me, at least, it's about as useless as logic, for questions like these, and for this reason, I prefer to rely on my intuition.

+++Well, what I mean here takes us back to this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=197598

Those here wanting you [as I suspect Adam did] given your avatar photograph. But here, of course, "wanting" revolves around desiring you sexually. On the other hand, others might desire you as well given how they intertwine their reaction to you physically with all of the other things they might admire about you...your intelligence, your emotional depth, your self-confidence, your accomplishments, your commitment to do no harm to others.

But the part about sex is what some here see as "creepy". How far in discussing it "personally" is "too far"?

The part that, for some, probably shouldn't be discussed "philosophically" at all. Or, if it must, take it up in the clouds.+++

Well, whatever the case, I'm not interested. There's no way I would consider getting involved with anyone who I hadn't met in person first, because without doing so I wouldn't know if I found them attractive. Remember what I said before about pheromones? Or, to put it another way, I'm not into blind dates.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:18 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:I miss Ichthus, come baaaack Ichthus!

Just ignore this Iamb; nobody respects that retard around here anyway.


Indeed, please do come back.

And the first order of business can be a discussion between us regarding whether or not I hit the nail on the head here:

iambiguous wrote:There's no way, in my view, this guy -- Urwrong -- isn't afflicted with one or another "condition". Narcissism? Megalomania? Authoritarianism? Retardation?

That's the only explanation that makes sense.

He claims that he will only associate with those as smart as he is. But since you are wrong times a thousand if you don't think exactly as he does, being as smart as he is means that.

And no one who does not think as he does can ever be smarter.

Right?

And while he doesn't throw in his lot with me because I dare not to share his own thinking about everything under the sun, what really prompts these caustic declamations from him can only be that a part of him is beginning to realize that if my arguments are more reasonable than his, his very Sacred Fulminating Fanatic Objectivist Self is on the line. He may well be a 1000 times dumber than he thinks he is about everything under the sun.

But first we'll need a context. 8)


What say you?

in fact, what say anyone here?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 45610
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:22 am

Maia wrote:Well, whatever the case, I'm not interested. There's no way I would consider getting involved with anyone who I hadn't met in person first, because without doing so I wouldn't know if I found them attractive. Remember what I said before about pheromones? Or, to put it another way, I'm not into blind dates.

I disagree, a brilliant mind with rare ideas attracts others, sometimes even more persuasively and fully than a woman with a beautiful body.

Beautiful minds are rarer than beautiful bodies.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7798
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby Maia » Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:04 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Maia wrote:Well, whatever the case, I'm not interested. There's no way I would consider getting involved with anyone who I hadn't met in person first, because without doing so I wouldn't know if I found them attractive. Remember what I said before about pheromones? Or, to put it another way, I'm not into blind dates.

I disagree, a brilliant mind with rare ideas attracts others, sometimes even more persuasively and fully than a woman with a beautiful body.

Beautiful minds are rarer than beautiful bodies.


You are free, of course, to disagree all you like.

For me, sexual desire is all about smell. Yes, other things come into play, too. But it starts with smell. I really want to make this clear, if I haven't already, just in case there were any lingering questions about it.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:08 am

No, first you have to be close enough to somebody to smell them.

That requires more.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7798
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby Maia » Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:27 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:No, first you have to be close enough to somebody to smell them.

That requires more.


About three or four metres. Any normal social setting will do.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:58 pm

Yes, I get that. On the other hand, it was precisely my own frame of mind before Song Be. I was absolutely adamant [to myself] that I would never be supportive of abortion. Only 12 months later I was. What you can't imagine about your own future "here and now" is exactly my point about the nature of "dramatic/traumatic" experiences. And the brand spanking new epiphanies they can bring about.

And what you did seem to acknowledge is that had your life been very, very different in the past [for any number of dramatic/traumatic reasons], you might be in here in opposition to Paganism and the Goddess. So, how is abortion any different.

Instead [for me] it is this mysterious "intuitive" -- spiritual, soulful -- self of yours that seems to preclude you changing your mind in a world that is no less bursting at the seams with contingency, change and change for you now as it was for me back then.


Maia wrote: I think my desire not to kill people is probably even more basic than my Paganism. Still, having said that, I can't really imagine any circumstances where that might change, either. As I've said many times, it's not a belief, but a way of interacting with the world, and this is something that you never seem to pick up on.


Then around and around we go...

You can't imagine it only because you have not experienced a set of circumstances "dramatic" or "traumatic" enough to precipitate it. Same with me and abortion before Song Be. And "a way of interacting with the world" is [to me] just another way of embracing an intuitive "spiritual" Self that is "somehow" immune to "contingency chance and change". Something that, from my frame of mind, you just *know* about yourself in your head.

You might attempt to encompass it more perspicuously for those who are not in your head. Same with me and moral nihilism.

The part that from my frame of mind you don't really explore in depth. At least not [in my opinion] in our exchange. And I respect your intelligence enough to suspect that -- subconsciously? -- you recognize what is at stake if you ever do come a bit closer to the hole I am in.

Ah, but then I am forced to admit just how vast that gap must still be between my understanding of you and your understanding of you.


No, that's not the case. What you call a refusal to explore things is, in fact, just me not agreeing with you.


Fair enough. After all, who is to really say when one has explored something "enough". But, again, your own explanations [to me] basically come down to this: it's what I believe I know, it comforts and consoles me, there's no way anyone can demonstrate I ought to know something else instead and, hopefully, I can take this frame of mind all the way to the grave.

Okay, but what can you possibly know about the evolution of life on Earth next to all that there is to be known? More or less than I do?

Biologically, we all come into the world with the innate capacity to feel. But "killing people" can unfold in any number of vast and varied historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts. You in yours, me in mine. And then those who associate the "mentally ill" with those who don't think and feel as they do.


Psychopaths apparently don't care about killing people if they can get away with it, and I think it's fair to say that they're mentally ill.


Well, nature, in regard to the human species, is responsible for those mental afflictions. After all, nature creates such conditions in the human brain as schizophrenia. It's not that people don't care but that their brain can direct them --- through voices, hallucinations and such -- to kill others. Or they might have a brain tumor that brings it about. Think Charles Whitman and others like him: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... %20control.

Again, a profoundly amoral nature.

Now, from my frame of mind, this is just another "political prejudice" derived from your own subjective assessment of human history, derived from all the "personal and private" knowledge and information that you came across. Others will come to very different conclusions precisely because their own experiences and access to information and knowledge were not like yours at all. Then the distinction between the objectivists who insist that you must think as they do and those like me who are considerably more "fractured and fragmented" in regard to moral and political value judgments.

As for those who rationalize abortion for either personal or political reasons just Google "defending abortion": https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search

Take your pick of arguments.

But that's my point. Both sides have arguments that the other side can't/don't just make go away.

Then the part where dasein rather than this spiritual "intuitive Self" of yours plays a bigger or a lesser role. Me, I'm still no less "fractured and fragmented" regarding it.


Maia wrote: From your frame of mind, perhaps. But not mine.


Yes, but I recognize how "my frame of mind" here is rooted in dasein...a subjective appraisal derived from political prejudices derived from the life you lived.

Maia wrote: To bring society to the point that it is today has taken years of endless propaganda saying that abortion is ok. But here's the problem. If a society thinks it's ok to kill babies simply out of convenience, what else will it think is ok? What message is this giving out, perhaps on a subconscious level, to everyone, about what is, and isn't, acceptable?


Of course, those on the other side of the issue can argue that the propaganda really revolves around patriarchy and sexism. And how many women really choose abortions strictly out of convenience? Many agonize over it. Many are in situations far more dire than others. Some sought to prevent the pregnancy, but a faulty contraceptive device brought it about. Some have been raped. Some the victims of incest.

What message is society giving out if it forces pregnant women to give birth? If it accuses doctors who perform abortions or women who receive them of first degree murder?

Okay, but thousands and thousands of other women were not.

And what does that really have to do with the point I make? And the part where women can follow their intuition in defense of abortion as well as in opposition to it. Again, back to how I root this "pro and con" conflagration in dasein; and in my inability to grasp an "intuitive self" that to me is no less embodied in dasein.


Maia wrote: How do you know that those thousands and thousands of women don't regret it, but have decided, for whatever reason, not to tell anyone? Or, more likely, not to mention something so profoundly personal in public? How can you possibly know what they're thinking?


All I can do here is to fall back on my years as a political activist, my interactions with women who did choose abortion, the many, many, many news articles I have read in which women have expressed all manner of conflicting reactions to abortion. Their own or others.

Yep, we are basically "stuck". All I can do then is to fall back on the distinction I always make here: the difference between speaking of what you believe of either your spirit or soul, and demonstrating to others that this spirit or soul does in fact exist. And then [for me] how you connect the dots between them and "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then".

For all practical purposes, not just "spiritually" in terms of what you do believe "in your head".


Maia wrote: I don't have to demonstrate it, because I'm not trying to convert anyone. I don't even know for sure that it isn't all just subjective, but what I do know for sure is that it works for me. So again, you're ascribing a belief to me that I don't have.


Okay, but when we come to philosophy venues, the discussions don't usually end with exchanges in which we tell others what we believe "in our head".

We want to know why others believe what they do. Especially when it's not what we believe. And if someone who links their moral convictions to an "intuitive spirit" Self -- demonstrating it only in that this is what they believe "in their head" -- insists this need be as far as it goes, well, that's true. It "works" for them. It anchors their Self to a comforting and consoling psychological path.

Which I react to [subjectively] as follows...

Yes, again, this "intuitive" spiritual Maia that is always beyond the arguments of those like me. The True Self Maia that [in my view] is invented or discovered in order to make comfort and consolation possible in a world this fraught with god knows how many trials and tribulations. This "mystical" spiritual Self that exists given whatever the role that nature and the Goddess might or might not play in it all.

Or, rather, so it seems to me given all of my own subjective assumptions ever and always subject to change given yet another "dramatic/traumatic" experience in my own life. I just don't possess this "spiritual Self" to slay all the contingency, chance and change dragons.

Or, sure, maybe I do and someone like you will bring it out in me.


Maia wrote: You can only bring yourself out of it. I certainly can't.


Why would we be exchanging posts on this thread if we didn't believe that we can learn from others regarding things like this? Or that they might learn things from us.

We will then have to agree to disagree regarding where the emphasis should lie.

And I do agree with you that dasein is an obvious factor in our lives. But we think very differently regarding the "for all practical purposes" existential implications of that. For me in regard to the objectivists among us...or given whatever it is exactly that enables you to stay up out of the hole. Your own individual "one true spiritually comforting and consoling path" that now only has to be sustained "in your head" all the way to the grave.

I've explained this. If you can't "argue" me up out of the hole I am in, perhaps I might succeed in "arguing" you down into it with me.

Someone I can at least empathize with empathizing with me.

Win/win, remember?


Maia wrote: That's not something I would wish to inflict on another, and I would consider it morally wrong to try.


On the other hand, what I would not be inclined to inflict on another is a self-righteous authoritarian frame of mind whereby their behaviors are judged as being either moral or immoral. That judgment then revolving around an objectivist frame of mind/font. Around God or ideology or deontology or a genes > memos Satyrean Nature.

With you, however, you seem basically to share my perspective. But you don't. You still have these "moral convictions" rooted in your entirely "private and personal" "spiritual Self" yet you inflect this "judgmental" connotation in reacting to those who do things that you consider wrong. Like choosing an abortion.

And yet you acknowledge that had your life been very different, you might be here defending abortion.

But, then, no, you couldn't. Your "spiritual Self" just somehow draws the line for you. Not in the manner in which the objectivists draw their lines here...re Gods ideology, deontology and the like...but in a way that you can't even really explain to yourself I suspect. You just *know* certain things about yourself.

Logic? No way it is logic I fall back on. Logic is all about the "rules of language". Dasein is all about the limitations of language itself...given "I" in the is/ought world. Very, very, very different things. And better or worse isn't really my point. It's being able to demonstrate what you mean by your spiritual, intuitive Self that make it more or less demonstrable than my subjective, existential "self" given "I" in the is/ought world.


Maia wrote: Call it what you wish, then. To me, at least, it's about as useless as logic, for questions like these, and for this reason, I prefer to rely on my intuition.


And why wouldn't you? It's your intuition that comforts and consoles you. If that goes away, where are you but down in the hole with me? And, again, having myself gone through confronting experiences that deconstructed my own comforting and consoling security blankets, I know what is at stake for those on are on their own one true paths. Or what others call it.

Well, what I mean here takes us back to this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=197598

Those here wanting you [as I suspect Adam did] given your avatar photograph. But here, of course, "wanting" revolves around desiring you sexually. On the other hand, others might desire you as well given how they intertwine their reaction to you physically with all of the other things they might admire about you...your intelligence, your emotional depth, your self-confidence, your accomplishments, your commitment to do no harm to others.

But the part about sex is what some here see as "creepy". How far in discussing it "personally" is "too far"?

The part that, for some, probably shouldn't be discussed "philosophically" at all. Or, if it must, take it up in the clouds.


Maia wrote: Well, whatever the case, I'm not interested. There's no way I would consider getting involved with anyone who I hadn't met in person first...


I'm glad to hear that. It makes perfect sense to me.

Those we "meet" on the internet may or may not be who they say they are. Their intentions towards you may or may not be what they tell you.

Maia wrote: ...because without doing so I wouldn't know if I found them attractive. Remember what I said before about pheromones?


Pheromones.

With other animals, this almost always revolves around sex...around mating. Or, rather, when I watch nature documentaries, that's what it always seems to revolve around.

How is that different for you? I would think that pheromones would tell you nothing about a person's intellectual breadth, emotional depth, social skills, sense of humor, accomplishments. Or their intentions toward you. Any ulterior motives. There, blind or sighted, we would all seem to be in the same boat.

Maia wrote: Or, to put it another way, I'm not into blind dates.


Wit. That's another thing that pheromones might miss.



Perhaps though you might consider a new user photograph here. Your intentions may well have been to have a bit of fun, but if you could see what I see, you may or may not grasp how some men [or women] might find the photograph you chose to be, well, sexually provocative.
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 45610
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby phyllo » Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:04 pm

Jesus.

A photograph showing two knees and half a thigh is too much for these guys. #-o
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:24 pm

phyllo wrote:Jesus.

A photograph showing two knees and half a thigh is too much for these guys. #-o


For some guys. That's the part rooted in dasein. 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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 45610
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby phyllo » Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:30 pm

You in particular since you are the one writing about this.
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:49 pm

phyllo wrote:You in particular since you are the one writing about this.


Yeah, I noted my own reaction to the photograph above. My own "private and personal" subjective reaction rooted in dasein. The one that some would call "creepy" while others might be willing to discuss conflicting reactions to it "intelligently and civilly" in a philosophy venue. And even to connect the dots between that and their own "Kingdom of Ends" relating to human sexuality.

You know, as you yourself might done years ago here. :lol:
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 45610
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:41 am

Maia wrote:About three or four metres. Any normal social setting will do.

Metres? WTF are metres? You mean yards? C'mon, aren't you British?

You missed the point though...

Human perception is based on: 1) sight, 2) sound, 3) smell, 2) taste, then 1) touch.


Since you are blind and lack #1, you miss out on a fundamental method of sexual attraction. People feast in lust and appetite with eyes and sight first.

We covet what we see. Then, and only then, do we move closer. Then we hear. Then we smell. Then we taste (kiss), which is also a touch.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7798
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby Maia » Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:53 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Maia wrote:About three or four metres. Any normal social setting will do.

Metres? WTF are metres? You mean yards? C'mon, aren't you British?

You missed the point though...

Human perception is based on: 1) sight, 2) sound, 3) smell, 2) taste, then 1) touch.


Since you are blind and lack #1, you miss out on a fundamental method of sexual attraction. People feast in lust and appetite with eyes and sight first.

We covet what we see. Then, and only then, do we move closer. Then we hear. Then we smell. Then we taste (kiss), which is also a touch.


We learnt both metric and Imperial at school. Some types of measurement use one, and some the other.

Well, I do it differently. For me, smell comes first, in terms of sexual attraction, and it's always the first thing I notice about a person. Then sound, that is, voice.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:01 am

Maybe it's a subconscious thing, people don't realize how much sound, voice, or something like music, affects them.

Anyway, I think that's enough derailing from me in this thread...

Hopefully Icthus returns.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7798
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:28 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:You in particular since you are the one writing about this.


Yeah, I noted my own reaction to the photograph above. My own "private and personal" subjective reaction rooted in dasein. The one that some would call "creepy" while others might be willing to discuss conflicting reactions to it "intelligently and civilly" in a philosophy venue. And even to connect the dots between that and their own "Kingdom of Ends" relating to human sexuality.

You know, as you yourself might done years ago here. :lol:
Maybe you ought to ask Maia if she wants to be sexualized in this way. Ask if she wants to discuss it and discuss it in the manner that you are doing it.

Cause a couple of her responses seemed to indicate that she felt uncomfortable.
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby Maia » Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:08 pm

+++Then around and around we go...

You can't imagine it only because you have not experienced a set of circumstances "dramatic" or "traumatic" enough to precipitate it. Same with me and abortion before Song Be. And "a way of interacting with the world" is [to me] just another way of embracing an intuitive "spiritual" Self that is "somehow" immune to "contingency chance and change". Something that, from my frame of mind, you just *know* about yourself in your head.

You might attempt to come encompass it more perspicuously for those who are not in your head. Same with me and moral nihilism.+++

I've been trying to describe and explain it for quite some time now. But it seems like I can't. And that's ok.

+++Fair enough. After all, who is to really say when one has explored something "enough". But, again, your own explanations [to me] basically come down to this: it's what I believe I know, it comforts and consoles me, there's no way anyone can demonstrate I ought to know something else instead and, hopefully, I can take this frame of mind all the way to the grave.+++

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

+++Well, nature, in regard to the human species, is responsible for those mental afflictions. After all, nature creates such conditions in the human brain as schizophrenia. It's not that people don't care but that their brain can direct them --- through voices, hallucinations and such -- to kill others. Or they might have a brain tumor that brings it about. Think Charles Whitman and others like him: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... %20control.

Again, a profoundly amoral nature.+++

Indeed. I have never said otherwise.

+++Yes, but I recognize how "my frame of mind" here is rooted in dasein...a subjective appraisal derived from political prejudices derived from the life you lived.+++

Are you saying that because you recognise it, your frame of mind is better than mine?

+++Of course, those on the other side of the issue can argue that the propaganda really revolves around patriarchy and sexism. And how many women really choose abortions strictly out of convenience? Many agonize over it. Many are in situations far more dire than others. Some sought to prevent the pregnancy, but a faulty contraceptive device brought it about. Some have been raped. Some the victims of incest.

What message is society giving out if it forces pregnant women to give birth? If it accuses doctors who perform abortions or women who receive them of first degree murder?+++

I've heard the argument from pro-abortionists that I'm perfectly free to not have an abortion myself, but have no right to try and tell others what to do. This is a ridiculous and dishonest argument, I think, because all you have to do is swap abortion for murder, for example, to realise that it doesn't work. Is murder a matter of personal choice, or does society have the right to tell its members not to do it? And this deals with the other main pro-abortion argument too, namely, that it's always happened anyway, in secret. Well, so has murder.

+++All I can do here is to fall back on my years as a political activist, my interactions with women who did choose abortion, the many, many, many news articles I have read in which women have expressed all manner of conflicting reactions to abortion. Their own or others.+++

Can you think of any reason why those women might have been unwilling to discuss their innermost feelings with you?

+++Okay, but when we come to philosophy venues, the discussions don't usually end with exchanges in which we tell others what we believe "in our head".

We want to know why others believe what they do. Especially when it's not what we believe. And if someone who links their moral convictions to an "intuitive spirit" Self -- demonstrating it only in that this is what they believe "in their head" -- insists this need be as far as it goes, well, that's true. It "works" for them. It anchors their Self to a comforting and consoling psychological path.+++

You keep saying this as if your path is somehow less subjective.

+++Why would we be exchanging posts on this thread if we didn't believe that we can learn from others regarding things like this? Or that they might learn things from us.+++

In truth, I doubt very much that I'll either learn anything or convey anything on these matters.

+++On the other hand, what I would not be inclined to inflict on another is a self-righteous authoritarian frame of mind whereby their behaviors are judged as being either moral or immoral. That judgment then revolving around an objectivist frame of mind/font. Around God or ideology or deontology or a genes > memos Satyrean Nature.

With you, however, you seem basically to share my perspective. But you don't. You still have these "moral convictions" rooted in your entirely "private and personal" "spiritual Self" yet you inflect this "judgmental" connotation in reacting to those who do things that you consider wrong. Like choosing an abortion.

And yet you acknowledge that had your life been very different, you might be here defending abortion.

But, then, no, you couldn't. Your "spiritual Self" just somehow draws the line for you. Not in the manner in which the objectivists draw their lines here...re Gods ideology, deontology and the like...but in a way that you can't even really explain to yourself I suspect. You just *know* certain things about yourself.+++

I do indeed know certain things about myself, and this, in my opinion, is no bad thing.

+++And why wouldn't you? It's your intuition that comforts and consoles you. If that goes away, where are you but down in the hole with me? And, again, having myself gone through confronting experiences that deconstructed my own comforting and consoling security blankets, I know what is at stake for those on are on their own one true paths. Or what others call it.+++

Thankfully, it's not going away.

+++I'm glad to hear that. It makes perfect sense to me.

Those we "meet" on the internet may or may not be who they say they are. Their intentions towards you may or may not be what they tell you.+++

I think I'm a pretty good judge of character, but yes, you're absolutely right, of course.

+++Pheromones.

With other animals, this almost always revolves around sex...around mating. Or, rather, when I watch nature documentaries, that's what it always seems to revolve around.

How is that different for you? I would think that pheromones would tell you nothing about a person's intellectual breadth, emotional depth, social skills, sense of humor, accomplishments. Or their intentions toward you. Any ulterior motives. There, blind or sighted, we would all seem to be in the same boat.+++

Pheromones bring about sexual attraction. The rest comes later.

+++Wit. That's another thing that pheromones might miss.



Perhaps though you might consider a new user photograph here. Your intentions may well have been to have a bit of fun, but if you could see what I see, you may or may not grasp how some men [or women] might find the photograph you chose to be, well, sexually provocative.+++

It's just my work uniform at the leisure centre. It might be many things, but I assure you that sexually provocative is not one of them.

As Phyllo has pointed out, it's only you who seem to have sexualised my pic in this way, and you've asked me about sexual matters a number of times, too, despite me telling you that I didn't really want to go there.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:35 pm

phyllo wrote: You in particular since you are the one writing about this.


iambiguous wrote: Yeah, I noted my own reaction to the photograph above. My own "private and personal" subjective reaction rooted in dasein. The one that some would call "creepy" while others might be willing to discuss conflicting reactions to it "intelligently and civilly" in a philosophy venue. And even to connect the dots between that and their own "Kingdom of Ends" relating to human sexuality.

You know, as you yourself might done years ago here. :lol:


phyllo wrote: Maybe you ought to ask Maia if she wants to be sexualized in this way. Ask if she wants to discuss it and discuss it in the manner that you are doing it.


Please. Maia has made it abundantly clear on both threads that she had no intention of "sexualizing" herself. But she can't see what I suspect some men see. Though, sure, in this sexually charged culture that we live in my own reaction is just another subjective conjecture rooted in dasein.

I don't doubt that I might be completely wrong here. But I don't doubt that you might be completely wrong as well. And with Maia of course it becomes all the more problematic because she can't see the photograph herself.

phyllo wrote: Cause a couple of her responses seemed to indicate that she felt uncomfortable.


Which only brings me back around to why some are uncomfortable discussing things relating to sexuality while others are not. The thing about human beings that most fascinates me. The thing that brought into existence this thread: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197598

Exploring male/female exchanges here. And that is derived at least in part from the stalking incident she had with Adam. Did he see the photograph?
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 45610
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:13 pm

Unless you are part of a religious group which requires all part of the female body to be covered, there is nothing in that photograph which does not conform to community standards.
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:28 pm

phyllo wrote:Unless you are part of a religious group which requires all part of the female body to be covered, there is nothing in that photograph which does not conform to community standards.


And this has exactly what to do with how individual men might respond to the photograph?

Like all of us here reside in precisely the same community where sexual standards have been pinned down objectively. And, by those standards, this photograph is entirely chaste.

All I can do is to speculate that some might find it sexually provocative. And they may or may not be of the stalker sort.

It was only a suggestion on my part given her own personal experience with the stalker sort.
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 45610
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Good News of the Kingdom

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:57 pm

Then around and around we go...

You can't imagine it only because you have not experienced a set of circumstances "dramatic" or "traumatic" enough to precipitate it. Same with me and abortion before Song Be. And "a way of interacting with the world" is [to me] just another way of embracing an intuitive "spiritual" Self that is "somehow" immune to "contingency chance and change". Something that, from my frame of mind, you just *know* about yourself in your head.

You might attempt to come encompass it more perspicuously for those who are not in your head. Same with me and moral nihilism.


Maia wrote:I've been trying to describe and explain it for quite some time now. But it seems like I can't. And that's ok.


Yes, I agree. It is entirely okay. Same with me explaining myself to others here. Ironically, that's why I persist in trying over and again. Maybe the next time with the next person my frame of mind will sink in. And they will either have an argument that deconstructs mine and I'm up out of the hole or my argument will deconstruct theirs and they are down in the hole with me. Win/win. What can be better than that?

Fair enough. After all, who is to really say when one has explored something "enough". But, again, your own explanations [to me] basically come down to this: it's what I believe I know, it comforts and consoles me, there's no way anyone can demonstrate I ought to know something else instead and, hopefully, I can take this frame of mind all the way to the grave.


Maia wrote:You say that as if it's a bad thing.


Well, if you are able to think yourself into believing that, in a philosophy venue, what counts most is that which brings you the most comfort and consolation all the way to the grave, sure, stop right there. On the other hand, others won't just let you stop there. They will be more interested in how you demonstrate even to yourself that what you believe is true.

After all, there are any number of a God, the God, my God sorts here who will insist that if you are really after comfort and consolation you should opt for their One True Path. Why? Because the comfort and the consolation doesn't just stop at the grave.

Well, nature, in regard to the human species, is responsible for those mental afflictions. After all, nature creates such conditions in the human brain as schizophrenia. It's not that people don't care but that their brain can direct them --- through voices, hallucinations and such -- to kill others. Or they might have a brain tumor that brings it about. Think Charles Whitman and others like him: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... %20control.

Again, a profoundly amoral nature.


Maia wrote:Indeed. I have never said otherwise.


Yes, but if the reason some people kill is entirely as a result of nature itself, that they do not care about what they are doing is basically moot.

Yes, but I recognize how "my frame of mind" here is rooted in dasein...a subjective appraisal derived from political prejudices derived from the life you lived.


Maia wrote:Are you saying that because you recognise it, your frame of mind is better than mine?


No, I am only suggesting that, in my own opinion, I am explaining my own frame of mind better that you are explaining yours. On the other hand, since so much of your own "sense of self" seems rooted in things you just *know* about yourself intuitively, that puts you in a position where, even in a philosophy venue, you don't need to explain yourself at all. You merely have to believe what you do "in your head". Again, to my way of thinking, the "perfect philosophy" in some respects.

Of course, those on the other side of the issue can argue that the propaganda really revolves around patriarchy and sexism. And how many women really choose abortions strictly out of convenience? Many agonize over it. Many are in situations far more dire than others. Some sought to prevent the pregnancy, but a faulty contraceptive device brought it about. Some have been raped. Some the victims of incest.

What message is society giving out if it forces pregnant women to give birth? If it accuses doctors who perform abortions or women who receive them of first degree murder?


Maia wrote: I've heard the argument from pro-abortionists that I'm perfectly free to not have an abortion myself, but have no right to try and tell others what to do. This is a ridiculous and dishonest argument, I think, because all you have to do is swap abortion for murder, for example, to realise that it doesn't work. Is murder a matter of personal choice, or does society have the right to tell its members not to do it? And this deals with the other main pro-abortion argument too, namely, that it's always happened anyway, in secret. Well, so has murder.


Again, in my opinion, you completely avoid the point I am making here. You have no effective argument against this:

What message is society giving out if it forces pregnant women to give birth? If it accuses doctors who perform abortions or women who receive them of first degree murder?


Instead, no matter what the circumstances are that result in an unwanted pregnancy, if the woman isn't forced to give birth and chooses abortion that makes her a murderer.

Then it only comes down to the extent to which she is a murderer [a legal term] because she is deemed in turn to be inherently immoral. Even though "intuitively" she may herself deem this behavior to be moral.

It's one thing to argue that you are free not to have an abortion yourself, and another thing altogether to argue that you must give birth. Or be charged with first degree murder. And then perhaps given a death sentence. Then we can argue over the conflicting "intuitive" assessments of capital punishment as a moral issue.

All I can do here is to fall back on my years as a political activist, my interactions with women who did choose abortion, the many, many, many news articles I have read in which women have expressed all manner of conflicting reactions to abortion. Their own or others.


Maia wrote: Can you think of any reason why those women might have been unwilling to discuss their innermost feelings with you?


Sure, tons of reasons. But that is no less rooted in dasein from my own perspective. And what personal experiences have you had being around women who chose an abortion?

Okay, but when we come to philosophy venues, the discussions don't usually end with exchanges in which we tell others what we believe "in our head".

We want to know why others believe what they do. Especially when it's not what we believe. And if someone who links their moral convictions to an "intuitive spirit" Self -- demonstrating it only in that this is what they believe "in their head" -- insists this need be as far as it goes, well, that's true. It "works" for them. It anchors their Self to a comforting and consoling psychological path.


Maia wrote: You keep saying this as if your path is somehow less subjective.


Note what you construe to be the most succinct examples of me doing this. No way would I argue that in regard to my own fractured and fragmented value judgments my frame of mind is less subjective. In fact, that they are fractured and fragmented in the first place speaks volumes regarding the extent to which "I" am drawn and quartered here.

It's just that in regard to my own views on the morality of abortion I take people step by step through my own life in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

With you, however, it still comes down [from my frame of mind] to you just somehow *knowing* what you do about it. Without really addressing the arguments of those on the other side.

Or, again, so it still seems with me.

Why would we be exchanging posts on this thread if we didn't believe that we can learn from others regarding things like this? Or that they might learn things from us.


Maia wrote: In truth, I doubt very much that I'll either learn anything or convey anything on these matters.


Yes, that's why I noted that, in all likelihood, only a truly "dramatic/traumatic" experience is likely to bring you around to another frame of mind.

On the other hand, what I would not be inclined to inflict on another is a self-righteous authoritarian frame of mind whereby their behaviors are judged as being either moral or immoral. That judgment then revolving around an objectivist frame of mind/font. Around God or ideology or deontology or a genes > memos Satyrean Nature.

With you, however, you seem basically to share my perspective. But you don't. You still have these "moral convictions" rooted in your entirely "private and personal" "spiritual Self" yet you inflect this "judgmental" connotation in reacting to those who do things that you consider wrong. Like choosing an abortion.

And yet you acknowledge that had your life been very different, you might be here defending abortion.

But, then, no, you couldn't. Your "spiritual Self" just somehow draws the line for you. Not in the manner in which the objectivists draw their lines here...re Gods ideology, deontology and the like...but in a way that you can't even really explain to yourself I suspect. You just *know* certain things about yourself.


Maia wrote: I do indeed know certain things about myself, and this, in my opinion, is no bad thing.


Well, it's certainly not a bad thing if the things that you think you *know* about yourself enable you to sustain your own comforting and consoling frame of mind all the way to the grave.

But how well do you really *know* them when basically you are acknowledging even to yourself that you can't really explain why and how you do know them? You just *do*.

Or, again, so it seems to me. But, again, that's okay with you because what things seem to me [even in a philosophy venue] are ultimately moot.

Nothing can perhaps be better as a moral narrative then to merely fall back on what you think is true "in your head". That makes it impervious to any and all criticism.

Thus [from my own subjective rooted-in-dasein vantage point]:

And why wouldn't you? It's your intuition that comforts and consoles you. If that goes away, where are you but down in the hole with me? And, again, having myself gone through confronting experiences that deconstructed my own comforting and consoling security blankets, I know what is at stake for those on are on their own one true paths. Or what others call it.


Maia wrote: Thankfully, it's not going away.


Again, you note this while acknowledging in turn that you have no idea what truly "dramatic/traumatic" experiences await you "down the road". Back again to the Intuitive Spirit Self that is completely immune to contingency, chance and change.

I'm glad to hear that. It makes perfect sense to me.

Those we "meet" on the internet may or may not be who they say they are. Their intentions towards you may or may not be what they tell you.


Maia wrote: I think I'm a pretty good judge of character, but yes, you're absolutely right, of course.


Yes, you strike me that way as well. But never underestimate the "will" of those who have "ulterior motives" in regard to you. Especailly on line where we can be whomever we want others to think that we are.

Pheromones.

With other animals, this almost always revolves around sex...around mating. Or, rather, when I watch nature documentaries, that's what it always seems to revolve around.

How is that different for you? I would think that pheromones would tell you nothing about a person's intellectual breadth, emotional depth, social skills, sense of humor, accomplishments. Or their intentions toward you. Any ulterior motives. There, blind or sighted, we would all seem to be in the same boat.


Maia wrote: Pheromones bring about sexual attraction. The rest comes later.


Again, admittedly, what can I possibly know about that? To the best of my knowledge -- consciously -- I don't think that smell has ever played a big role in my own romantic relationships. But if you do find yourself drawn to another sexually through pheromones, will "all the rest" make or break the relationship?

Wit. That's another thing that pheromones might miss.

Perhaps though you might consider a new user photograph here. Your intentions may well have been to have a bit of fun, but if you could see what I see, you may or may not grasp how some men [or women] might find the photograph you chose to be, well, sexually provocative.


Maia wrote: It's just my work uniform at the leisure centre. It might be many things, but I assure you that sexually provocative is not one of them.


Well, for some, a mini skirt is very much sexually provocative. As is how you were posed in it. But how can I communicate my own reaction to the photograph to someone who is not only not seeing what I do but does not even associate sexual attraction itself with sight.

Maia wrote: As Phyllo has pointed out, it's only you who seem to have sexualised my pic in this way, and you've asked me about sexual matters a number of times, too, despite me telling you that I didn't really want to go there.


First of all, what brought sexuality into our exchange in the first place was you mentioning to me [here at ILP or in our email exchange] about the commitment you made to the Goddess to be celibate for literally *years*. Then the part where in our email exchange you noted that Adam/Urwrong had stalked you sexually. Yet you continue to interact with him to this day.

All that sort of stuff fascinates me because, above all else, I am fascinated with why some individuals embrace sets of behaviors that others find appalling. The part embedded in dasein.

And sexuality is dynamite here because it brings into clear [or muddled] focus the stuff that those like Satyr always reduce it down to: genes vs. memes.

And the fact that, in my view, this cannot be explored philosophically to any great extent until philosophers themselves are willing to "get personal".

I'm not in the least bit uncomfortable going there. And given the extent to which sexuality does saturate so much of our interactions in this postmodern world, the last thing we need are mentalities rooted in what those such as Wilhelm Reich explored.

Sexual repression among other things. Sexual repression and conservative political narratives/agendas in particular.

But that's just me. If others wish to argue that it's all just "creepy", so be it.
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 45610
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users