I think I understand the rest of what you say. But this suggests to me that applying any entity having the characteristics of Dasein will cause that entity to exist. ??? — Ludwig V

Existence is constitutive of Dasein much as roundness is constitutive of a circle. You cannot add existence to Dasein any more than you can add roundness to a circle. Existence belongs to Dasein much as roundness belongs to a circle. Dasein is a unitary phenomenon rather than a collection of parts. Any entity to which you could apply the characteristics of Dasein is already a Dasein and any entity that is already a Dasein is already existing or it would not already be a Dasein. There is no wiggle room.

acknowledges only three modes of being, one of which is true of everything that is. (Is that the right word to use here?
That's makes it all clear enough. Take it or leave it. — Ludwig V

I am not really certain of what you mean by that. Unlike Descartes, Heidegger is not describing a substance ontology. Heidegger is making no claim to the self-sufficiency of any of the three modes of being. Instead, he is describing the manner (the modes) in which being comes at us, the manner (the modes) in which we experience entities. We experience (encounter?) our own existence, we experience (encounter?) entities that are ready to hand, and we experience (encounter?) entities that are present to hand.

I am confident Heidegger intended the three modes to be inclusive of every manner in which we encounter entities, including our own existence. But he was relatively young when he wrote Being and Time and the later Heidegger made no claims to having gotten it all right.

Assuming we allow every other philosopher the same license, it seems that each philosophy exists in its own silo. How does an outsider choose between them? On grounds of internal consistency? Is that enough? — Ludwig V

Interesting question. Every philosopher already has the same license and the greatest of them have made good use of it. And the question itself neither begins nor ends with Heidegger. But Heidegger did choose the phenomenological method because it is descriptive. You can decide whether you agree with Heidegger by looking at the description he gives to the phenomena he describes. For example, it you examine his description of Dasein and recognize yourself in it, then why in the world would you not keep going?

Nobody has to choose between philosophers. And being internally consistent does not make a philosopher any more or less correct than any other philosopher. But it does make it easier to understand what they are saying.

And besides, it is more important to understand what Heidegger has to say than it is to agree or disagree with him. And as difficult as it may be, it is worth understanding what Heidegger has to say.

Firstly, I sincerely admire your writing, at least in this particular response. And whether I fully understand/follow/agree or not, it is inspiring in a way which transcends the topics being discussed. There are others like you in this forum, but it merits mentioning. I'll read your response more thoughtfully (likely a few times) and will let you know if I have any comments relating to this post. — ENOAH

Thank you! And that is awesome to hear and ... things get interesting. I am trying to make my tack a polished thing and that is not easy when one is trying to make a case, present for propriety amid truth. And then make sure that this presentation is in no way a deception, apart from pointing at it and saying, 'yes this is a stretch here, but it seems like the BEST stretch I can think of right now.'

But for now:

determinism is wrong. Free will is the only possible final perfection
— Chet Hawkins

Is it possible that this interconnectedness of all things "idea" which inspires my submission that, to keep it simple, there is nowhere a real burden of choice, but only the illusion that a deliberate being is deliberately choosing (and the suffering which is concomitant with that illusion)...is it not possible that that is not determinism, but only seen as determinism from a perspective which also sees free will and the burden of choice. — ENOAH

I admit quite easily to this possibility, and you are direct and fair-minded to present it.

Now I get to do that famous 'but' part. Amid all motivation, the seed of that truth, free will, we see clearly people who choose to suffer more for the wrong reasons and the right reasons, assuming of course a base scope of 'wrong' and 'right'. And we see people who opt instead for less suffering for the same wrong and right reasons. What of it? Well, the triggers DO NOT MATTER. The spread is determined, to use that poisonous word, by that same law of nature. Does this REALLY imply that choice is meaningless? I think not.

Further argument in favor of choice vs determinism is that it's clear we are on a kind of cresting of some wave of emotive actuation. That means that there must be and are then discrete points of greater moment or contest in the overall 'combat' or 'war' of ... well ... GOOD vs evil, if you will. There are critical points where failure is more likely but success is as well, if and only if enough choosers opt to aim high. Raw determinism, and even your modification to it which I find more plausible, as stated, would see no difference in these moments. Ultimately, that is satisfying to an orderly perspective only. The raw truth of emotive balance though does not agree, and that would include then the POV of both desire and anger, fully 2/3s of the soup. Now it is not that clear. There are splitters to the 'People's Popular Front' even among the crack suicide squad. But those tend to equal out on all sides.

It's the power of the structure and ramification of the discrete moment, the addressing of the problem at hand, that really swings the balance one way or the other. This may indeed be an argument for your suggestion and why I easily agreed to it in part. But it reckons without the effect of the structure and inertia of that situation itself. And then to permutate backwards it reckons without how we got there, by choice.

One seeming vague example is the bizarre situation amid humanity that we have so far resisted the hive mind effect in large part. A significant number of people resist enough elements of indoctrination so as to defy their being easily categorized or grouped. The state complexity of the choice scope is too profound. As chaos increases, this scope increases and or the experience of living within 'the world', 'the universe' steps up in awareness and freedom and the orderly structures cannot cope for a while and strive to understand how to control it. This is shown by things like cannon and the internet, and even Christianity (as opposed to just Monotheism). Sadly, I might say that gummies and porn are the new REAL wave I see that is bizarre. They are both order and chaos oriented. That should give anyone pause.

So the truth that WAS coming to light in the world was self interest, chaos, and a break with the traditions of all nations. It was a bid for a more world oriented way, unity. It is still quite strong based mostly on the inertia of the loosely defined 'freedom' to pursue self interest. Desire is quite strong. This is why we have Indian leaders asking for the freedom of political prisoners opposed to Modi, saying 'Nothing can stop this ...' as they are appealing to the raw force of desire (chaos).

But the human animal is more complex than just the silliness of raw desire can reveal. The wild thing about desire is that as this 'it can be that way' feeling overwhelms a populace, even the orderly types get with it because each sub order sees the chaos as an opportunity, and the most powerful fallout groups of order are the ones that build a great consensus within the chaotic mass. This is effectively a kind of self correcting problem in evolution. The ONLY guiding light is literally that. It is the genuine happiness that is coming only from greater alignment with objective moral truth. That force slowly ekes out its aims. If you follow, the worst thing is concentrations of power that threaten an ability to control the mass from the top without letting the 'wisdom of the masses' unfold on its own. Order is a prison. And the final order of the metaverse, truth, is the greatest prison of all. But, in theory, that prison is perfect, correct; so the final statement is we need not fear it, and yet, of course we do.

Hopefully, all that was not just blather. I'm suffering a fair headache this afternoon.

Again, to keep it simple. When x triggers y triggers z triggers suicide, the suicide was not predetermined. X could have triggered b instead, and y could have triggered quitting one's job. "Choice" is built into that process, but it is an illusion, in that the "choice" was triggered. — ENOAH

And an examination of each chooser would reveal more to this equation. The various motivations impact each other in a complex pattern. With some choosers that tend to have no power, what they had for breakfast can be the deciding factor. With others that tend to have power, their life thrust and belief set is perhaps an almost tyrannical deciding factor. That is chaos and order respectively. But then we have to consider the state, the times, etc. The interweave cannot easily predict which specific motivation will rise to the top in any state. It can be surprising.

I suggest then that order is reactive, not active. It is a known thing. As the Dothraki women say, 'It is known'. Chaos chooses more often and readily by its very nature, desire. The greater energy it has as well is India's 'unstoppable force'. Perfection calls to us. Desire is its consequence.

Reactive order can respond to all the triggers it fears. But the system itself, the nature of reality, is balanced. That means that order that is wrong, that is immoral, is LATE and chaos scores a hit. This will continue. It may take Eons. Vast and well constructed order will possibly survive for a long long time. But the conflict with chaos will wear even that down. Until the order is made perfect by choice, many choices, which may seem like determinism, the system cannot arrive at perfection and thus the non-perfect states will explode or implode by turns, by definition.

If you want to say, 'I prefer to depend on order and I like the idea of determinism', will you be on the right side of this effort all along? Or, must you say 'I prefer to depend on balance, and I like the idea of free will'; which is NOT to say, 'I prefer to depend on chaos and I like the idea of self-indulgence (oh and sure that makes me say yay free will to)' I think that result set is ... well ... rather obvious. Wisdom embraces the risk of free will. Fear chooses determinism. And Desire alone chooses just chaos, but still free will.

Indeed there are a few percentage points that willfully choose chaos in the purist sense. But suicide is not actually painless.

Sure call that chaos, call it meaningless. But is it not possible that from the perspective of the "order" we have constructed; a thing necessarily working with/making meaning, things like meaning, order, balance, and perfection matter. While really, Nature is before/beyond that "order" and (only because we have to assess its function do I say this:) it "functions" as a whole--not with design or predetermination--where each part has an effect upon the other(s) including, ultimately, that whole. — ENOAH

And here we disagree entirely. No, it is NOT possible. Were fundamental balance not the truth, the universe would self destruct instantly. It would take an amount of time that is the smallest possible unit of time. That fundamental imbalance would be the most catastrophic truth in existence. Instead the 'bargain' made is that imbalances can exist temporarily. THAT IS CHOICE.

Being before/beyond the order (human Mind) of course we will impose order upon it as part of our dominion over Nature. That is, as part of human Mind displacing Reality. — ENOAH

This is ... not nearly so well crafted as it must be to be meaningful. Order is present already. In fact I define fear and thus order ENTIRELY as an excitable state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past. On any level within reality, order is only tied to the past. It seems compelling. All awareness is order, clearly. All readiness is order. Joy as a decision, is orderly. And joy and happiness are NOT the same things.

Nature's order is already baseline superior to ours. We are higher level moral agents and so we can be wrong in a stronger way than nature can overwhelm in some senses. Until a comet comes that's big enough and fast enough. Was it all for nothing? No! Every choice for the GOOD affects the whole universe, instantly. And the law of nature that is evolution and the GOOD will rise again on countless worlds and in countless ways. Fear is delusional. (So is desire). Balance is delusional when affected too heavily by fear, or desire; and also the sin of anger, laziness.

Anyway, I fear tge complexity of my thoughts about this far exceed my capacity to express it briefly in this forum. I find, the best I can do is offer morsels with the hope, not just that someone bites, like you; but that someone is able to digest it, that's my biggest challenge. Do not, from that, feel obligated to continue biting. I do appreciate your input already. — ENOAH

Et tu Brute? I agree entirely. I feel so embarrassed to have expressed myself so poorly here. These issues of philosophy require a virtuoso. I am not equal to that task. But I am called to it. So, on-on!

You counsel from the path of mind alone
— Chet Hawkins

Actually, I submit Body alone. Mind, though it exists, is a system of empty signifiers displacing the Body with its empty Fiction.
But
— Chet Hawkins — ENOAH

Ouch! The false humility of mind is easily seen here. And I am not just attacking you there. That is a real thing in the world. The restraint of order is a first order humility, cowardice. From that destroyed ego the fearful observe and plan and experience joy with humility. It is wise in a grand way, perhaps the best way to face uncertainty and such, hard times.

But the word empty is tragic and wrong. There is nothing empty in any pattern. There is beauty and that means mystery meets order. "I dig that, man!'

your happenstance name
— Chet Hawkins

It happily amuses me that you think my name has any relation to the Ark builder. That's part of what i meant by your writing having an inspirational tone. I am tempted not to correct you. But alas, no. — ENOAH

I mean, clearly I know that. But it's fun to point out circumstance and make overmuch of it. It can weave a web of connection where it might seem that none is present. And that is the point.

The need for certainty is only fear. Cowardice is no way to face the world's mystery.
— Chet Hawkins

Perhaps, now you see I am not purporting a predetermined reality; but an interconnected one where even our "choices" have been triggered, even by structures of Reasoning and logic autonomously arising to the task, having been input into our minds at some point(s) in our local and universal history. — ENOAH

I mean you and I can mostly agree here, as mentioned. But the final mover, the truth, remains balanced and supportive of the only real law, free will.

The attitude you espouse comes from the happenstance that order is not yet powerful enough to contain chaos. Amid this humility, like a Nihilist, the order defends its weak ego, its weak stance, with quibbling on fine points. And being detail oriented order can make many convincing arguments. And being possessed of many accolades in order obtained, order can betray the universe and specify or choose a lesser wrong order than the GOOD. Gaius Baltar will squirm and protest. He will betray humanity. Even a cylon might suggest a higher order to the universe than he acknowledges. And if she looks like 6 we are tempted to let that suggestion wash over us with all its glory.

So the point is order is always struggling to answer the question and get the pattern right, but, it tends to crave certainty and comfort and DECLARE that it knows now. That is its sin, cowardice, eg, not facing up to the balanced truth.

In fact, my intuition is that those who push free will do so out of fear and wishful thinking; a conceited desire for our constructions to be real etc. — ENOAH

No instead, this is a lack of faith from order towards the precarious requirements of balance. Rather than face the truth of the difficulty, the orderly type, seeing this ahead of the chaos types, despairs of ever being able to do it. That fear sends them demanding down branches of false order, like determinism. It's predictable. It's sufferable.

What will it want? If it's a noble thing, maybe not much. But the most of us, of them, get all 'busy' interacting by choice. Notice I did not put choice in quotes.
— Chet Hawkins

This is nice. Like you, I like to think about the possibilities of morality or nobility of an atom. But.

You mention "desire" a few times but I'm unsure of its role. For me, there are drives, and feelings, but desire is like meaning, order, and choice: constructs of the Mind which superimposes itself on Nature and displaces it with Narratives. Desire evolved in the system of Mind (not by design or predeterminedly, but by chance) to keep the Signifiers growing and constructing. — ENOAH

No, desire is no illusion. It is a primal force. Fear and anger are the only other two equal forces. Everything permutates from the interaction of those three.

Its role? It could be said to be the standing truth of perfection's existence in the universe. Plato's realm of forms is it in some ways. This sensed perfection is not instantiated. We must 'get back' to it or 'move forward' to it. This causes the delusion of time. We self assess and we are not perfect. Any doubt at all proves this. But does it?

My model suggests that there is a maximal fear, a maximal anger, and a maximal desire; all three. And wisdom and the GOOD exist at the end of these forces, their maximal point is perfection. The concept is embedded in each of us. We DO sense it. Our sense of imperfection is based on desire. In other words we want only because we are not perfect. This reflects worthlessness upon us and thus we strive towards perfection inevitably. If you wish to call this determinism, I think you rob the beauty of truth. The beauty is that it can ONLY be chosen. In no other way is progress made.

And morality gets harder and harder from more and more moral states. It's so worthy though that 'No force in the world can stand against it.' False imperfect order and lazy balances will fail. Desire will break them. On-on!

Ah, here I am again. Far too much to say, to little room to elaborate.

I am interested in how desire fits in for you as used in your reply above. — ENOAH

I explained it. Hopefully that can at least be informative of my stance.

I don't quite follow you. As I read them, Kierkegaard and Sartre are existentialists (i.e. commitments which manifest an 'essence') and Camus is an absurdist (i.e. striving against both 'having an essence' (idealism) and 'not having an essence' (nihilism)) – none, however, are nihilists (i.e. 'not having an essence', (therefore) 'no commitments' (i.e. arbitrarily riot for the sake of rioting, obey for the sake of obeying, f*ck for the sake of f*cking, belief for the sake of believing, kill for the sake of killing, etc)).

I note, without judgement, that your responses to these questions are entangled with matters like "wrong" and "right" and suffering. I can only presume--having, at best, modest familiarity, lacking expertise--that you are expressing an existential(ist) perspective, and given this post, rightly so. But as I trust that I might eventually communicate my thoughts sufficiently, I'll leap to, as you poetically say, carry "on-on!" with faith and a teleological suspension of Reality (which is that both positions are false).

I perceive the existential as the very product of the Fiction, which fiction is the interconnectedness of all things constructed and moving autonomously within human consciousness. I.e., hence there is ultimately no burden of choice. The burden can be negated by the realization that it is not, predetermined but, an autonomous system of triggers.

Does this REALLY imply that choice is meaningless? I think not. — Chet Hawkins

Choice is meaningful. That is my submission. But meaningful and choice are constructions. They too
follow an autonomous chain of triggers. It is only with Mind that choice and meaning have "meaning" (or not; I.e., whether anything has meaning or not). In Reality, for the unaffected Body, there is no meaning; not life is meaningless! Meaning is meaningless. Let the meaning in Mind flourish, but accept that you are constructing it. Or rather, It is. The you in It's case not being the Body, but rather, the construction "you."

Further argument in favor of choice vs determinism — Chet Hawkins

Each of your captivating words which followed, mean one thing (if they support your position that life or at least we have the burden of choice), and another (if they support my claim that when we try to apply them to Ultimate Reality, that's where words fall apart and their empty fleeting Nature is revealed, and so too for all that they purport to represent that is, that they are art and their artful persuasion is no coincidence).

I take the latter position. I say you are compellingly using fiction, describing the way existence is for that one species infected with Mind. Courage, right, wrong, freedom and choice. And burden.

I know I, as a human being post-pre-history engage in a process whereby I arrive at a resolution followed usually by a feeling or action which we conventionally refer to as choice. But I also am relieved of the burden because I know it is a process. This is not fear talking, just an insight reflected in the works of many orthodox philosophers, from Socrates to Heidegger and Sartre. Beyond, but since we speak of existential.

Also if you concentrate any any choice, even to get a glass of water, you can see the chain of triggers. But focus in. And don't skip any steps.

I tire for now but with no expectations, I'll read through the rest of your response, because they are edifying, and take the liberty if I have more to say.

One seeming vague example is the bizarre situation amid humanity that we have so far resisted the hive mind effect in large part — Chet Hawkins

My friend. We are the hive mentality. History moves as one. It always has and always will. Never-ending the minor variations. Mind Universal is History. But even if I'm wrong, 1. You admit not only the possibility, but probability of the hive; and, 2. Resisting endocrination is a choice, by its conventional use. But wat is choice? A settlement in mund, leading to feeling/action in Body, following a chain of necessarily structured signifiers leading to the choice; sometimes but not necessarily initiated by a natural drive in Body.

Desire is quite strong. This is why we have Indian leaders asking — Chet Hawkins

Chance to clarify. I'm not saying desire doesn't exist, but it is a mechanism in the Narrative process of Mind. Nature or Reality has no relationship with desire. Drives evolved and continue to evolve for survival. Desire evolved in Language to promote the latter's prosperity too. But both desire, and the latter, are an emergence of empty Signifiers, lacking both matter, and any essence. I daresay, the very Dasein itself, is a creative construction of human Mind using the resources of human Mind. In the end, fleeting fiction. Functional, yes! Beautiful, of course. Meaningful? That's exactly what it's business is, and it is accomplished. But it, Dasein, is not a discovery by MH of Reality. It is a construction by History of more History.

sees the chaos as an opportunity, and the most powerful fallout groups of order are the ones that build a great consensus within the chaotic mass. This is effectively a kind of self correcting problem in evolution. — Chet Hawkins

You are unwittingly (sorry, I realize how that might be taken. But let me assure you, we all unwittingly) describing the dynamics by which the Fictional constructions of History proceed. Dialectically, a back and forth of Signifiers, driven by desire to be heard, binding with other Signifiers, surfacing in the Narrative form, as human experience. Yes, self correcting, autonomously moving to manifest in the fittest form. That is choice. Choice is the final Signifier, the one triggering the Reality, Body into feeling or action

It can be surprising. — Chet Hawkins

It can be. In Mind, that is the surfacing form triggering a feeling which Signifies, the Signifier "surprise." But I wont dare elaborate. What really merits saying is that it is actually all "surprising" to the Body which has since the dawn of history gradually ignored its drives and sensations entirely, displacing them with Minds desires and perceptions, constructions in the Narrative form, constructions which include the illusion of choice, at the instant before the Body reacts to the final trigger.

imbalances can exist temporarily. THAT IS CHOICE. — Chet Hawkins

I appreciate the beauty of this. It moves me. But, as much as I wish otherwise, it is because the words triggered feelings which they evolved over time, my locus, and human history, to trigger.

Fear is delusional. (So is desire). — Chet Hawkins

How can I not agree?

There is nothing empty in any pattern. There is beauty and that means mystery meets order. — Chet Hawkins

Do you mean not empty in the, say, sense of it has essence, substance and is ultimately Real? Not rhetorical question.

So the point is order is always struggling to answer the question and get the pattern right, but, it tends to crave certainty and comfort and DECLARE that it knows now. That is its sin, cowardice, eg, not facing up to the balanced truth — Chet Hawkins

Again, not rhetorical. When you--or Hegel, Heidegger especially, and so on--speak like that, I.e., "Order wants to get it right, etc." are you being metaphorical? Or are you meaning Order is a being which acts with an aim etc. Like when a plant wants to move to ghe light and we can accept that we are describinga real being? Or is it in between, like when we say positive wants to bind with negative?

.. and H. acknowledges only three modes of being, one of which is true of everything that is. (Is that the right word to use here?
That's makes it all clear enough. Take it or leave it. — Ludwig V

I am not really certain of what you mean by that. — Arne

My summary was badly expressed, so my meaning was entirely obscured. There are the modes of being, so we need to understand, not only the three modes, but what they are modes of. We have existence, ready-to-hand, present-at-hand and being. The last of these is common to the other three, perhaps in the way that colour applies to all the colours, and yet every colour is a specific colour, or perhaps in the way that wood is common to everything that is made of wood, and yet every wooden object is a specific object or something else?

Existence is constitutive of Dasein much as roundness is constitutive of a circle. You cannot add existence to Dasein any more than you can add roundness to a circle. Existence belongs to Dasein much as roundness belongs to a circle. Dasein is a unitary phenomenon rather than a collection of parts. — Arne

"Constitutive" is an interesting idea here. Aristotle draws a distinction (I don't have a reference ready to hand) between components of something that have an independent existence and can actually be separated out - laid on a bench beside each other, for example - and components that cannot be separated out, except "in thought". So, we can think of a single shape as both convex or concave, and we cannot think of a concave shape, without also thinking of a convex shape. I can see the relationship between existence and Dasein in the latter way rather than the former. Does that capture what you are saying?

For example, it you examine his description of Dasein and recognize yourself in it, then why in the world would you not keep going? — Arne

Because Dasein seems more like a point of view than a subjective view. A point of view is impersonal and objective. Yet it can be occupied or adopted by an individual, but in now way recognizes individuals as such. Recognizing myself just means recognizing the possibility of adopting that point of view. I can, as it happens, recognize Dasein as a possible point of view, but not myself in it.
What I find much more helpful is his conceptions of Ready-to-hand and Present-at-hand and some of his remarks about rivers, bridges, temples in a landscape. Yet even there, I have difficulty. I don't quite see why everything that exists must be one or the other.

But Heidegger did choose the phenomenological method because it is descriptive. You can decide whether you agree with Heidegger by looking at the description he gives to the phenomena he describes. — Arne

Many philosophers would complain that because he does not indulge in argument as such, he is dictatorial, or rather oracular (echoes of Popper's Open Society. But I don't dismiss him on those grounds. Wittgenstein is not dissimilar, in that he presents examples and comments, leaving it up to his reader to think through what they mean. (It is an idea that is found in a few other philosophers at the time, such as Anscombe)
Nonetheless, if you describe what Heidegger presents as a description, you allow the question of truth or falsity to arise. I suggest it would be more helpful to describe him as presenting an interpretation, which avoids the question of truth, since variant interpretations may be valid or appropriate at the same time. Of course, it demands a wider tolerance of variant views than philosophers are comfortable with. But it may be more realistic for our actual situation.

Nobody has to choose between philosophers. And being internally consistent does not make a philosopher any more or less correct than any other philosopher. But it does make it easier to understand what they are saying. — Arne

In one way, you are right. But in another way, we all make choices in everything we do. No-one can read everything, and so we must decide what we pay attention to. That decision is much more difficult than it seems, because it must be made without knowing what we will find when we pay attention to something. Our choices are dictated by the environment we find ourselves in and how we respond to that we find there.

And besides, it is more important to understand what Heidegger has to say than it is to agree or disagree with him. And as difficult as it may be, it is worth understanding what Heidegger has to say. — Arne

I agree with that. Not that there is ever a point at which I can sit back and say that I have now understood Heidegger or Wittgenstein or .... Perhaps it is enough, given that we cannot find the end of philosophy, to understand the answers that have been found worth taking seriously.

There's a lot here I can agree with. But pursuing all that would result in scattering of time and attention. So I've tried to identify what is at the heart of what you say.
But I can't resist answering your question:-

And this (fool) very educated man deigns to suggest that it's enacting is easy? — Chet Hawkins

No, he certainly did not. He found it all very difficult indeed, and didn't make things particularly easy for his readers. His early work certainly emphasized analysis, logic and structure. But he changed his mind! (Shock! Horror!) His later work moved away from all of that.

Three quotations seem to set out your map:-

Fear is all order, all thought, all analysis, all logic, all structure. I am not saying it represents those things. It literally IS those things. Likewise, desire is all freedom, chaos, becoming, etc. — Chet Hawkins

The axis of good and evil is unlike the other one. With order and chaos, balance is the right way. That is ... understanding, wisdom. But there is no BALANCE in the axis of GOOD and evil. It is actually only rising amounts of GOOD, so evil is nothing special, only less GOOD. — Chet Hawkins

Anger demands you stand to the mystery. Desire pulls you towards perfection and only a living universe can respond, so it is alive, and it does. Evolution towards greater moral agency is a law of the universe. — Chet Hawkins

All very neat and tidy. But it looks to me like a large-scale sketch - too large scale and too sketchy to be much help. Possibly you have more to say, but you seem to be in a great hurry to get everything settled.
I'm saying that concepts here are much more complicated and ambivalent than you recognize.

Fear can underlie the search for order and certainty. But it can also produce panic and chaos. What it means to say that "anger demands you stand to the mystery" is not clear to me. Desire certainly can pull you towards perfection, but it can also pull you in the opposite direction - even against your better judgement. Order can be oppression and restriction, but it can also be opportunity and freedom. I can understand evil as the absence or opposite of good, but what is good or evil depends on the context; the same is true of perfection. (And perfection can oppress and imprison just as surely as it can liberate). From where I sit, the universe is completely indifferent (not hostile, I grant you) to my desires and emotions. I'm not at all sure that wisdom, understanding and intelligence, though admittedly related, are clearly enough defined to be of use in whatever you are trying to say about them.

You remind me of Plato's journey of the soul. But he gave huge importance to love, which seems to be missing from your sketch. I miss it.

From where I sit, the universe is completely indifferent (not hostile, I grant you) to my desires and emotions. — Ludwig V

I think the criteria of successful construing of the universe is the inverse of the direct realist slogan that the ‘facts don't care about our feelings'. The arbiter of validation is not the raw, independently existing facts of the world, but affectivity, in the sense that empirical truth and falsity is a function of whether and to what extent events are construed as consistent with our anticipations, which defines our purposes and values, and our knowing of this relative success or failure is synonymous with feelings such as anxiety, confusion and satisfaction. Validational evidence is just another way of describing the affectively felt assimilative coherence of the construed flow of events and therefore it is synonymous with feeling valence. Validated construing is neither a matter of forcing events into pre-determined cognitive slots, nor a matter of shaping our models of the world in conformity with the presumed independent facts of that world via the method of falsification. Rather, it is a matter of making and remaking a world; building, inhabiting, and being changed by our interactive relations with our constructed environment. It is our feelings which tell us whether we get it right or wrong, and by what criteria.

I don't quite follow you. As I read them, Kierkegaard and Sartre are existentialists (i.e. commitments which manifest an 'essence') and Camus is an absurdist (i.e. striving against both 'having an essence' (idealism) and 'not having an essence' (nihilism)) – none, however, are nihilists (i.e. 'not having an essence', (therefore) 'no commitments' (i.e. arbitrarily riot for the sake of rioting, obey for the sake of obeying, f*ck for the sake of f*cking, belief for the sake of believing, kill for the sake of killing, etc)). — 180 Proof

That helps a lot. The point about commitment is that it is authentic and so part of my essence. (Am I free to abandon my commitments? If so, how are they authentic and essential? If not, how am I free?
I'm not even clear what is wrong with being inauthentic, if that's what I choose to be sometimes. The idea of bad faith suggests a reason, but a moral one, which means it can be a choice. On the other hand, it seems that what is authentic is to be discovered, so not chosen, so a restriction on freedom.
I'm sure I'm just muddled and would appreciate being set straight.

Am I free to abandon my commitments? — Ludwig V

IIRC, an existentialist would say you're not committed if you remain able to "abandon" them afterwards.

If so, how are they authentic and essential?

They are not commitments in the existential (e.g. "leap-of-faith") sense.

If not, how am I free?

You are free to "leap" but not free of the consequences (i.e. falling).

I'm not even clear what is wrong with being inauthentic, if that's what I choose to be sometimes.

This is called "passive nihilism" or "bad faith".

The idea of bad faith suggests a reason, but a moral one, which means it can be a choice.

IIRC, one cannot "choose" bad faith since bad faith consists in the denial of free choice (i.e. commitment) such as "What can I do? Shit happens. I can't do anything about this" etc ... Bad faith means conformity, or banality, and passivity over agency – not a "reason" or "choice" but rationalization instead.

There are the modes of being, so we need to understand, not only the three modes, but what they are modes of? — Ludwig V

Yes.
1. Existence is the mode of being of Dasein. It is my mode of being. It is your mode of being.

2. Ready-to-Hand is the mode of being of such entities as lamps, stereos, keyboards. If I look around my office, most of the entities I see are entities that I use in my regular and ongoing involvements such as turning on the lamp so I can turn on the stereo and then grab my keyboard in order to respond to Ludwig V on thePhilosophy Forum.

3. Present-to-hand is the mode of being of entities that are generally not used in a Dasein’s regular and ongoing involvements in the world. If I sit on my front porch and look around I see trees, rocks, grass and other entities that are just sort of present.

We have existence, ready-to-hand, present-at-hand and being. The last of these is common to the other three — Ludwig V

Not really. Had Kant said “being” (instead of existence) is not a real predicate, Heidegger may have agreed. Additionally, just as it would be odd for a Cartesian to assert there is thinking substance, extended substance, and being, so too would it be odd for a Heideggerian to assert there is existence, ready-to-hand, present-to-hand, and being. You need not think of the modes of being and being any more than you need think of Dasein and being or being-in-the-world and being. and being adds little, if anything, to the understanding of Heidegger's modes of being.

"Constitutive" is an interesting idea here. Aristotle draws a distinction (I don't have a reference ready to hand) between components of something that have an independent existence and can actually be separated out - laid on a bench beside each other, for example - and components that cannot be separated out, except "in thought". So, we can think of a single shape as both convex or concave, and we cannot think of a concave shape, without also thinking of a convex shape. I can see the relationship between existence and Dasein in the latter way rather than the former. Does that capture what you are saying? — Ludwig V

Yes. Heidegger is big on Aristotle.

What I find much more helpful is his conceptions of Ready-to-hand and Present-at-hand and some of his remarks about rivers, bridges, temples in a landscape. Yet even there, I have difficulty. I don't quite see why everything that exists must be one or the other. — Ludwig V

Heidegger’s modes of being are not intended for organizing the universe. Instead, they are intended to capture the manner by which entities come at us. If I am on my morning walk and I look down and happen to see a stone, then the stone is coming at me as a present-to-hand entity. On the other hand, if a skunk is coming my way and I see that same stone, it might come at me as a ready-to-hand entity that I can throw toward the skunk in the hope he scurries off.

Nonetheless, if you describe what Heidegger presents as a description, you allow the question of truth or falsity to arise. — Ludwig V

Even if true, that is as it should be. . . However, I disagree. The appropriate standard for a phenomenological description is accuracy. And Heidegger is not asking anyone to take his word for the accuracy of his descriptions. Instead, all you need do is look at the phenomena described. And when I look at the phenomena, I find Heidegger's descriptions to be generally accurate.

We have existence, ready-to-hand, present-at-hand and being. The last of these is common to the other three
— Ludwig V

Not really. Had Kant said “being” (instead of existence) is not a real predicate, Heidegger may have agreed — Arne

It’s true that for Heidegger, Being (as opposed to ontic beings) is not a predicate. And yet, there is no existence, no present to hand or ready to hand without Being.

And yet, there is no existence, no present to hand or ready to hand without Being. — Joshs

No doubt. All of Being and Time is articulated within the context of the being of being.

And yet, there is no existence, no present to hand or ready to hand without Being. — Joshs

This morning I went for a walk with my dog and being. Neither my dog nor I could have went for a walk without it. :smile:

I suggest it would be more helpful to describe him as presenting an interpretation — Ludwig V

Heidegger would have no issue with that. Heidegger is big on hermeneutics. But then interpretations, like descriptions, are judged by accuracy rather than truth. And just as with descriptions, the accuracy of interpretation is checked against the phenomenon. Heidegger is asking no one to accept as truth either his descriptions or interpretations.

But I think "interpretation" carries more terminological baggage than "description."

I think of Being and Time as describing how Dasein interprets being-in-the-world.

Heidegger’s modes of being are not intended for organizing the universe. Instead, they are intended to capture the manner by which entities come at us. If I am on my morning walk and I look down and happen to see a stone, then the stone is coming at me as a present-to-hand entity. On the other hand, if a skunk is coming my way and I see that same stone, it might come at me as a ready-to-hand entity that I can throw toward the skunk in the hope he scurries off. — Arne

Assuming MH takes the position above, including the example about stone, lets make it his own, why is it we must view MH as describing the Reality (of) such entities; I.e. a stone coming at me as present to hand or ready to hand, as if these are the Real natures of the stone?

Why is it not obvious, wittingly or unwittingly, MH was describe the Signifier stone and how it functions in human Mind to trigger a response. Stone alone, the most fitting Signifier Structure/effect, one thing; stone simultaneously with that other Signifier, skunk, the most fitting Signifier Structure/effect, another thing.

All of his descriptions are not disclosing Truth, but like Aristotle, Hegel, Kant before him, organizing experience in ways convenient to discourse. Why? Because that is how History moves. Through the most functional dialectic and the most fitting settlements upon belief.

Until the next one comes along

Assuming MH takes the position above, including the example about stone, lets make it his own, why is it we must view MH as describing the Reality (of) such entities; I.e. a stone coming at me as present to hand or ready to hand, as if these are the Real natures of the stone? — ENOAH

Heidegger is not describing the "nature" of the stone. Instead, Heidegger is describing how the stone shows up for Dasein as ready-to-hand or present-to-hand. Had Dasein not already had an understanding of the "nature" of the stone as hard and as dense and as weighty enough to be tossed the appropriate distance, then the stone would not show up as ready-to-hand for the purpose of tossing toward the skunk in order to divert the skunk from its apparent path.

Had the stone been a feather, then the feather would not have shown up for Dasein as ready-to-hand. Indeed, it is possible the feather would not have "shown up" at all.

Heidegger is happy to leave your idea of the "nature" of the stone to science.

Heidegger is describing how the stone shows up for Dasein as — Arne

Thank you.

And this next question is not argumentative, just as my first question wasn't. So I appreciate you taking the time etc. And forgive me for my plain English, I try to stick to the latter when i lack confidence in the terminology.

Is Dasein a pre-human "thing" ("thing" in the most respectful ontological terms necessary) which is inherent in, pervades, constitute the True Being, substance etc. of the Universe, Reality, etc? Or is Dasein particular to the human experience? I have no planned follow up, so if you would explain that, I'll leave it, knowing I might be side tracking.

All very neat and tidy. But it looks to me like a large-scale sketch - too large scale and too sketchy to be much help. Possibly you have more to say, but you seem to be in a great hurry to get everything settled. — Ludwig V

Anger is indeed impatient, and that is my born-in failing, I'm afraid. Challenge and impatience. Socrates, my brother from another mother, would relate I think. 'Men of Athens ...'

I'm saying that concepts here are much more complicated and ambivalent than you recognize. — Ludwig V

No, indeed, quite the opposite. I am the one saying they are in fact so multivalent that fear and logic alone, our chosen religion of the day, IS NOT, and never really was, the key way. I in fact underscore the three paths that together must be balanced to yield the fourth way, wisdom. And as this is a philosophy site, where lovers of wisdom ostensibly congregate, I am hoping to find resonance.

It just turns out that many and most practitioners of philosophy find their only home in academia, a citadel in service to fear alone. That is decidedly unwise and will remain so for all time. I appeal to you all in this nonsense, be about the business of real wisdom and admit to the other two paths and then the final fourth way, the real goal. If that's too complicated to understand then I sympathize.

Faith is not easy. And faith is part of it, and I do not mean religion. Faith is required because we cannot know and the dread certainty required by most fear types is ... well ... not to put too fine a point on it, quite absurd. Faith is a consequence of courage, the path of anger melded with the desire towards perfection that understands the pettiness of fear and order as the 'faith of the day', the anti-faith. Atheists everywhere make fools of themselves making fun of faith and they foolishly consider themselves wise in this endeavor. I am one such in many ways, an atheist. God is an unnecessary delusion after all. But objective moral truth, the GOOD, is not a delusion at all.

Fear can underlie the search for order and certainty. But it can also produce panic and chaos. — Ludwig V

Well, yes, meaning proceeds endlessly from meaning. Circular logic is all that there really is, after all. The beauty of that truth escapes the fear oriented though in many cases. That whole asymptotic thing leaves them scrambling for the nearest exit, a short-cut. Surely we are smart enough to beat objective truth, or at least those wise sages that counsel working with confidence and not the Crimson Permanent Assurance! What was that about hats again?

What it means to say that "anger demands you stand to the mystery" is not clear to me. — Ludwig V

Only a non anger type would ever deign to say such a thing as you just said.

It takes courage to stand up each morning. Default courage is essence, mass, the body. It takes the blow. It's designed with fear patterns instantiated over time as those that from the past made sense to imbue. But mistakes were made and will be made and on we go.

Mystery is the future, yes? The Unknown yawns before us in the days ahead. Anger stands up to face it and does not cower always plotting to be safer and more secure BEFORE life is lived. Cowardice in over expression is tedious, unseemly, weak. Stand up and face the future!

Desire certainly can pull you towards perfection, but it can also pull you in the opposite direction - even against your better judgement. — Ludwig V

If you mean to say, well my dear fellow, precisely what I am saying in a less cool way (ha ha), you are there. That is to say DUH we need to use fear and anger to balance those pesky immoral desires. Self-indulgence is no way to go through life. Greed, more more more; money, power, and children! MOAR!

There is a point to more but more GOOD is the only real point of more.

I am warning this forum's population (in general) of fear types that fear is their prison, their trouble, their strength, and their failure. We need more anger at least up in here. I shudder to say more desire, for the external community this one should serve is already chock full of over expressed desire. But more desire here will serve them there better as well.

Order can be oppression and restriction, but it can also be opportunity and freedom. — Ludwig V

No it cannot. Order is NEVER freedom. It is quintessentially NOT freedom, so you are wrong there. Order is by definition a restriction, a law. If you mean to say that GOOD order ENABLES freedom, ok, then please start saying what you really mean. These halfway truths are the FAILED wisdom of the past. Better speech and writing on this THE MOST IMPORTANT issue of any day, is ... well ... a GOOD idea. Don't you agree?

I can understand evil as the absence or opposite of good, but what is good or evil depends on the context; the same is true of perfection. — Ludwig V

No, again, this is precisely incorrect. Moral truth, the GOOD, is objective. Thankfully that is the case. If it were not the universe would self-destruct in the smallest fraction of time it allows for. But, if you are right, and morality is subjective, then that is my 'Brevity model'. That model states that within that smallest possible time, is where we are. But even in THAT case, the only reason you and I can speak this way now is because right now, and since the dawn of time, morality has been objective. So, really, the no leg to stand on idea permutates all the way back to objective morality. On we go taking rank advantage of the relative stability of this universe and immorally pretending to subjective morality. Sigh ...

No! The context, of course, does not matter at all, not one whit. What is GOOD was objectively so since the dawn of time and will remain so at least until the end of this brevity bubble we are clearly in right now. If you can survive long enough to wait out the end of the universe, perhaps you will be right at that time.

(And perfection can oppress and imprison just as surely as it can liberate). — Ludwig V

Oh, I like that one! It's tricky! Look at you!

Yes, perfection imprisons. But, it is guaranteed by being objective to be a GOOD prison (the only one). As such, it provides for the burden of choice (as mentioned in ... well ... probably every post I ever posted within reason). We are free to choose not GOOD within perfection (the system). And in doing so this tyrannical truth thing, this oppressive prison of perfection, allows us all to choose not GOOD. Perhaps you advise to the contrary? The prison should be more thorough then? But that would not be GOOD, do you understand?!? Instead, the oppressor IS NOT the GOOD. Amid natural law there IS a GOOD, objective and properly ... GOOD. But there is only one fool that choose not GOOD, and it is all of us, that fool. It is those that oppress us all with their failure of effort and thought and desire for that which is objectively GOOD, the hardest choice of all in the universe to make.

But in the worldly sense, no, the burden of choice is infinite choice, not infinite imprisonment. You can muddle the two in a sense I suppose. But that comes of lack of proper faith, not the GOOD.

This is why fear is so weak. It does not understand that death is preferable to immorality. And you call that a prison? The prison of the MERE need to survive.

From where I sit, the universe is completely indifferent (not hostile, I grant you) to my desires and emotions. — Ludwig V

How foolish a statement is this nonsense!? Please, you're well past the point of embarrassment!

Of course it is all hostile! Anger demands that you stand against the entire universe. All aspects of it partake of immorality, imperfection. The finish line is objective. War is the central truth of reality. Peace is a delusion of and for fools. Peace is the sin of anger, laziness. I declare war on everything but the GOOD. And there will never be a truce. I guarantee it. It is a law of nature. Delude yourself to the contrary to assuage your fears and desires but anger knows at least that.

I'm not at all sure that wisdom, understanding and intelligence, though admittedly related, are clearly enough defined to be of use in whatever you are trying to say about them. — Ludwig V

Me either! Seems like it takes a little something past certainty to live right here.

That something is anger and a willingness, the SPINE, to try to aim at the GOOD and fight hard against all imperfection, all immorality, for the latter two are the SAME THINGS.

You remind me of Plato's journey of the soul. But he gave huge importance to love, which seems to be missing from your sketch. I miss it. — Ludwig V

Love is nothing more than the system including all of this.

Perfection is love is God is ALL. Choose your illusion. Amid love, amid perfection, there is nothing but the emotions, fear, anger, and desire; combined into various formations and roiling with the need to arrive again at that blissful and eternally distant perfection yet again.

I think the criteria of successful construing of the universe is the inverse of the direct realist slogan that the ‘facts don't care about our feelings'. The arbiter of validation is not the raw, independently existing facts of the world, but affectivity, in the sense that empirical truth and falsity is a function of whether and to what extent events are construed as consistent with our anticipations, which defines our purposes and values, and our knowing of this relative success or failure is synonymous with feelings such as anxiety, confusion and satisfaction. Validational evidence is just another way of describing the affectively felt assimilative coherence of the construed flow of events and therefore it is synonymous with feeling valence. Validated construing is neither a matter of forcing events into pre-determined cognitive slots, nor a matter of shaping our models of the world in conformity with the presumed independent facts of that world via the method of falsification. Rather, it is a matter of making and remaking a world; building, inhabiting, and being changed by our interactive relations with our constructed environment. It is our feelings which tell us whether we get it right or wrong, and by what criteria. — Joshs

:up: I find this frame particularly rich and interesting.

:up: I find this frame particularly rich and interesting. — Tom Storm

I mean, as long as there is a vomitorium nearby and I can hurl up the remains of any brief attempt at digesting that word salad, and then teams of well weaned soothsayers sift and arrange the remains of that effort into a new faith that we then ignore, ... I agree.

I do actually agree, although the word 'valence' is used in no way that I can comply with.

Effectively he is explaining that feelings don't care about facts. And why indeed would they? Facts are only beliefs and all beliefs are partially wrong. But saying things clearly and plainly is not apparently a part of his aims. Exit stage left to the vomitorium.

Intuition and passion are every bit as useful as guides to truth as reason is. Anger, desire, and fear; all equals. Say it simply!

I think the point is somewhat sharper than this. I've been interested in the role emotion and aesthetics play in our sense making and values. People tend to see themselves as creatures of rational decision making but...

The arbiter of validation is not the raw, independently existing facts of the world, but affectivity, in the sense that empirical truth and falsity is a function of whether and to what extent events are construed as consistent with our anticipations, which defines our purposes and values, and our knowing of this relative success or failure is synonymous with feelings such as anxiety, confusion and satisfaction. — Joshs

This is something I'll mull over. Notice that in this account the truth isn't just about what's objectively real. It's also about how we feel about and intuit events. If something matches our expectations and values, we accept it as true. And our feelings, such as apprehension or satisfaction, signify whether things are in line with what we believe. I think this circle of interpretation is helpful to consider in the ceaseless debates about gods or politics.

What it says about existentialism I can't tell you as I find Sartre unreadable.

This is something I'll mull over. Notice that in this account the truth isn't just about what's objectively real. It's also about how we feel about and intuit events. If something matches our expectations and values, we accept it as true. And our feelings, such as apprehension or satisfaction, signify whether things are in line with what we believe. I think this circle of interpretation is helpful to consider in the ceaseless debates about gods or politics.

What it says about existentialism I can't tell you as I find Sartre unreadable. — Tom Storm

OMG you call Sartre unreadable and you ... repeated the vomitous word salad of Joshs? What?

The thing to realize is IT IS JUST about what is objectively real. If you want to 'credit' inaccurate feelings that is hopefully not what anyone is talking about. That is JUST the licentiousness of over expressed desire. We do seem to live in a culture in the West these days more than ever before where every ridiculous desire is given credence. No! That's a horrible idea and again, hopefully not what even someone so pointlessly verbose and affected as Joshs is means.

He is saying instead and I hope (properly) that objective truth in fact DOES inform our feelings ... equally to our mere logic and the resulting facts that logic can and usually does draw. These 'facts' are taken then as conclusions and they are anything but.

There is only one conclusion in the metaverse and that is love, the whole system, perfection, etc. No matter the path you take to it, its perfection is finally the only thing that INFORMS choice. Choices, Choice, can foolishly partake of only one of these paths or some of each path but to the wrong degree. Such imbalances strike the missing emotions as wrong. That results in such things as he mentions, anxiety, confusion and satisfaction, all states or consequences of immoral actions and beliefs.

Seems like you don’t understand the point made. No matter. I can’t speak for him but Josh’s does not subscribe to notions of ‘objective truth’ and I would be sympathetic to this. I certainly don’t believe in perfection.

Seems like you don’t understand the point made. No matter. I can’t speak for him but Josh’s does not subscribe to notions of ‘objective truth’ and I would be sympathetic to this. I certainly don’t believe in perfection. — Tom Storm

I do very much understand what he is saying. It seems to be a trend these days that if people do understand and disagree then others claim they just don't understand. I get that such a position would be tempting.

But, I responded in a way that showed that I do understand. Not everyone does that.

His quote says that 'the truth isnt about what is objectively real.' Then he goes on to explain that feelings (other than facts) are not informed or perhaps not just informed by objective reality.

And your statement is incomprehensible as well. If we are not motivated by perfection, by truth; ideas which are synonymous, then what is the source of these motivations? It cannot JUST be internal. There has to be resonance with the external. I would likewise say it cannot just be external.

But Joshs seems to insist that objective reality, that which truly is, should be destressed. That is precisely backwards and nonsensical. It gives credence to choices that are NOT based in truth. In other words he is advocating for immorality, for error. It's actually quite clear. Does he mean that? I doubt it. But it IS what he finally said. And again I would ask him or you, since you seem enamored of his idea enough to quote the SAME quote, or parts of it, twice in a row, what the heck are these feelings based on?

For me the answer is that they are ONLY based on objective truth, perfection, and, DESPITE that, moral agents like people are free to choose amid the guarantee of free will and they so often choose wrongly and thus immorally not to source their feelings OR FACTS in objective truth, but instead on their cowardice, self-indulgence, and laziness.

At this point I am just trying to clarify.

And your statement is incomprehensible as well. If we are not motivated by perfection, by truth; ideas which are synonymous, then what is the source of these motivations? It cannot JUST be internal. There has to be resonance with the external. I would likewise say it cannot just be external. — Chet Hawkins

I have long suspected that we embrace ideas which appeal to us aesthetically and emotionally but we take them as facts. Sounds like you relish notions of perfection and objectivity, two ideas I don't find convincing. I recognize that humans love their absolutes and their god surrogates. No point arguing further since there's no common ground. :wink:

I have long suspected that we embrace ideas which appeal to us aesthetically and emotionally but we take them as facts. Sounds like you relish notions of perfection and objectivity, two ideas I don't find convincing. I recognize that humans love their absolutes and their god surrogates. No point arguing further since there's no common ground. :wink: — Tom Storm

In a way, I agree. But the way I agree is expressed well enough by Milton for me to allow him to make my argument here for or with me:

"Let truth and falsehood grapple. Truth is strong!" - Milton

In fact, I will add that truth is PERFECTLY strong.