Dave’s Comments and Insights

A page to capture comments and insights.

22 Responses to Dave’s Comments and Insights

  1. Dave says:

    Actual conversations trigger responses out of my seemings – out of my seemings “I” react with saying.

    Theoretical seemings rarely make a difference – only if something new is actually said.

    What are the rights of institutions and instituitonal cultures?

  2. Dave says:

    Dollar store transformation: Brand X, Generic.

    Disappearance as deworlding: process, theory, interpretation in est, LEC, Scientology and talk therapy.

    Superstitions as seemings – appearances.

    Occurring realities dancing with unarguable actuality.

    The worldedness of our culture as that which already holds the superstitions in place. Our structures of habitus.

    Reality as constituted by the appearance of beings; in the open of seeming against the background of the word matrix of distinguish-ability. For us now: being as presence, unarguable actuality, machination, technicity, and lived experience. But no possibility of being – but instead the complete abandonment of being.

    Seeming as the openness of mood.

    Who Human Being already is for us: Enlightened Liberal Individual. First owned, then not overcome but transformed. No access is available from the world of undistinguished superstition.

    Being as thrown projected open.

    Enowned by be-ing.

    How do we transform the reality that a whole culture lives within? We transform the understanding – like who we are – that being is.

  3. Dave Allcott says:

    We can determine the horizon upon which the projections that constitute the (our) social matrix are intelligible.

    What’s the actual phenomenon we are talking about? Not just what our cognitive “style” allows us to see at first glance. How important issues, concerns get covered up and ignored. Distinctions that cover-up. Common problems. The phenomenon of practice and play. The predominating cultural superstitions. The enthtrallment of conversation /performance how it works.

    How the error in thinking that results from the dogmatism of the ontological proof impacts our culture – the faulty logic we are forbidden to correct.

    Even though we lack the whole concept of a being, we blithely assume/act/think/rely on/’are that’ the being we discuss in fact actually exists.

    This requires incremental organization 1’s to 2’s, to 5’s. Leave the 5’s to the end. Incremental transformation of a concept in a community.

    How “why” works: the phenomenon of effectiveness.

    Contributing to powerfully coping with the complexity of being in the world includes powerfully relating to already existing cognitive resources.

    Mere declaration is not equivalent to having a transparent concept. This errant thinking is what makes possible HB as “rational liberal person”. Does liberalism fundamentally require technicity, machination and commitment to live experience, or are these just the current expressions. HB as personality.

  4. Dave says:

    Distinguishing the horizon upon which the projections that constitute the social matrix are intelligible.

    Our interpretation / understanding of being as presence rebbots the projections that keep our culture in place.

    The horizon of understanding that our interpretation projects.

    Our cultures interpretation of what “a being is” is constantly entrancing us into projecting our people’s tradition.

    The probable almost certain future of our culture is now what it has been.

    This interpretation is accessible:
    1. Use the enthrallment of conversation to
    2. alter the interpretation
    3. so what is projected by the new interpretation
    4. reveals *that* as what
    5. you wish to be revealed.

    Listening as constituted by concerns. Concerns are analyzable using the care structure; mapping the befindlichkeit of the “moodiness” of the particular concerns. Of course this is ontically implemented in human beings and is the ontic foundation of Dasein’s comportments of primordial temporalizing. For a set of particular concerns in a situation this analysis provides an access to transforming the occurring world.

    Tone color itself is like a melody – we find the words that fit the melody.

    It’s all about the tone color memes. Sonic memes htat evoke mood and presence concern. Mood evoking is the temporality. Each mood is a temporalizing. The temporalizing reveals the *that* – the naked uninterpreted extant. This *that* contextualized in the logos *as what* (essentially) the *that* (existence) is. In other words, the “disclosedness” of the being is opened by the intuition, mood, befindlichkeit. The extant entity is discovered, revealed, uncovered, as what the extant entity essentially is.

  5. Dave says:

    Transforming our Relationship to Time: the Past.

    What concerns us often show up in the apparency that the past is.

    Who we are can be characterized as a set of concerns. Concern as specific instances of who we as Dasein are as care.

    Concerns always show up against some background. The background is that upon which concerns as projected are intelligible. How we make sense of them.

    The apparency that the past is for us, is such a background.

    The background upon which what-is-said is intelligible is called “listening”. Similarly the background upon which what is written is intelligible is called reading.

    We almost never listen from the future; We almost always listen from the past.

    It’s like worrying about what groceries we should buy for last week. Please note that it’s not the past itself, it’s the future projected from the past that gives us our experience, and actually who we are, in that moment. In this case we are standing in the past, last week. We are worried about what to buy for dinner, a future occurrence. In this thought experiment we are concerned for the past’s future [dinner plans for last Tuesday], which has already happened. This is clearly a silly thing to do.

    We take note that last Friday’s dinner has already happened. That which was in my future is no longer

    But we make similar mistakes with time regarding the concerns of our lives. We live into “inautthentic futures”.

    Resolving this has to do with our ability to manage our comportments towards time.

  6. Dave says:

    A Root Causes of our Ineffectiveness

    Our actions are often determined by undistinguished commitments to avoid unpleasant experiences.

    Certain unpleasant experiences are inevitable.

    Our effectiveness is based on our capacity to be with, to cope with the experiences of everyday life. We can use a psychological approach. Vaillant has an excellent psychological analysis of these issues.

    Psychology is the science that deals with the the phenomenon of ego, personality, behavior.

    It is possible to address these issues by understanding our cultural mythology of how time works. This is more difficult because it confronts our deeply held superstitions about how time works.

    So, at a deeper level than characterizing these “activities of avoidance” as a root cause, the temporal superstitions we hold and by which we guide our behaviors, are even more fundamental. These superstitions are more fundamental the same way physics is more fundamental than chemistry, and chemistry is more fundamental that biology.

    My assertions are that: the fundamental temporal comportments of western civilization are organized and actively managed by a mythology of time.
    … in this mythology technicity, machination, and concern with live experience rule the day.
    … this mythology is the root of authoritarianism.
    … it is possible to alter/transform the conversation of time that we define ourselves by.
    … we can develop a platform for democratizing transformation.

  7. Dave says:

    Our Inauthentic Basis for Being with Others

    Who we are as human beings includes being with other people. Being with others is an existential constituent of who we are. Heidegger calls these ways of being toward others ‘Fursorge’, ‘solicitude’ in the M&R translation, and is described in S&Z pp 121-126.

    Our inauthentic, always already, ways of comporting can be characterized by roles we play in relationships. From our earliest childhood, we are biologically and sociologically inculcated into these roles and relationships. These roles and relationships which were formed early in our lives when our capacities for moral, cognitive, and psychological behavior was limited. Even so they continue to form the basis for our later life relationships. In the vocabulary of the LEC Wisdom Course, they are core young conversations that present an opportunity to be upgraded.

    Who we are as these roles in these early relationships fundamentally determines the listening we can bring to our conversations with the people in our lives.

  8. Dave says:

    There are dominance hierarchies in Religious, Military, and Corporate culture, which are based in structures that dominate subjects by institutionalizing the universal childhood experiences of capitulation to superior knowledge, submission to physical force and dependency on the adult for survival.

    The government is one of my partners, not my parent. Governments’ legitimate power over us is based on what we all say, we the people. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Not from God.

    I’m willing to trust my life to the unanimous decision of a jury of my peers, but not to the decision of any government body. As citizens we must face the duty and responsibility we have for making life and death decisions for each other. But most of us would rather delegate these confronting unpleasant decision to others, or completely ignore the responsibility. Sometimes budget decisions are life and death.

    We have fought wars and martyred people over ontological interpretations. (Early Catholic church.)

    In the history of western civilization, there have been shifts in how we understand being and who we understand ourselves to be. Often religions have played a major role in transmitting and enforcing core ontological interpretations.

    The ontology of Christianity has provided a unified ontological foundation for western cooperation and progress.

  9. Dave says:

    The orangutan at the top determines the dominance hierarchy. The top ape’s ‘leadership style’, his policies of enforcement order the society.

    American society has established “the free market” as a god in it’s own right in the American pantheon.

    If the top ape leaves or looses authority, social order – at least the whole dominance hierarchy breaks down.

    American government is being taken over by a cadre of businessmen. If they get in charge of the government you won’t have a seat at the table.

  10. Dave says:

    One could design an infectious way of being.

    Ways of being are composed of ‘temporal comportments’, our ability, skill for manipulating how the phenomena in time occur for us. These temporal comportments are the “atoms” in “molecular” ways of being.

    Heidegger writes of “Seinskonnen”, our ‘ability to be’, our skill with being, potentiality-for-being. I say there is also Temporality-konnen our ability to temporalize time, or by analogy for coping with objects, an ability to “cope with”, or “manage” time.

    Just as there is a possibility of transformation in human being at the level of being, there is also the possibility of a radical transformation of human being at the level of time.

  11. Dave says:

    Something new to say in a political argument:
    Are you genuinely naive and upset at a perceived insult, and so reversing and amplifying the perceived insult? Or, are you responding to a threat that I will expose some embarrassing secret [like you really don’t know what you are talking about], and using your anger and upset to deflect the potential disclosure.

  12. Dave says:

    Being Authentic about an Inauthenticity and Declaring A New Possibility

    The in-authenticity:
    I have been relating to myself as a:
    to endure distress
    to produce

    Examples: preparing to lead, practicing for and doing auditions, clearing out my back yard debris, often assisting and volunteering, lots of places and times…

    The impact: I suffer, limit myself, impose my self as a martyr on others, complain, and am often ineffective, and when even effective I am left with relief rather than acknowledgement.

    The possibility I am inventing for myself is the the possibility of: Joyful Self Expression.

    p.s. Action is just a structural conversation.

    Other than simply distinguishing the in-authenticity and declaring a new possibility some of the other ways I could do this:
    Distinguish the Probable Almost Certain Future, get present to the occurring world, uncollapse the meaning I add to what happens, take the complaint apart as a racket and distinguish the costs and payoffs, get some coaching, collage the seeming it is, notice and put aside my already always listening, when a thought comes up-just don’t go with it, declare a breakdown and take action consistent with the possibility in the background, take the “but” out and realize that the parts of the ‘problem’ are really not connected to each other, choose what’s so, bring empty and meaningless to it,

  13. Dave says:

    Engaging with the presence of physical objects begins to reveal the invented distinction between the structure and content of experience.

    Persistence is grounded in worldhood. Worldhood is grounded in Temporality.

  14. Dave says:

    Scrawny Progressives and the Republican Pretense of Status

    We scrawny progressives can cop-opt the republican “ways of being”: attitudes, vocal intonation, pickup-truck style, macho-ism, stubbornness, etc. We could start behaving badly, rudely, spew bile and drip contempt with the best of them.

    But we’d of course replace their messages with our socially responsible ones.

    We progressives have been self enforcing a kind of wimpy attitudinal correctness. There is no place in the the democratic party for angry, self expressed, IN YOUR FACE, progressives. Our leaders have kept us in a box; and we keep ourselves in a box. A few nights every four years they let us out of the box.

    Our outrage has become atrophied; Some of of can barely muster up smugness.

    How long are we gonna let them kick sand in our face?

    Take for example the wall street fiasco and lack of accountability. We’re not complaining about capitalism and return on investment; we’re talking about windfall profits, market manipulation and extortion. If we can’t prevent these behaviors, we should at least tax the hell out of them.

    These kings of the capital markets avoid taxes by paying their “Elite Republican Club” membership dues”. Middle class republicans – small business owners imagine that they are already in the elite club. Poor republicans are just begging for a job cleaning toilets, anything to get in the door. Poor suckers, you are not a members of the club, and they’re not gonna let you in.

    If you are a minority, their may be hope: you might win the “token lottery”. Organizations manage the public face of their membership. By being a token, like the token black guy at the country club, can be a pretty good deal. You get most of the benefits of membership – or at least most of the visible ones. But remember, and you will be reminded, you are not “really” a member. You are just there to show outsiders that the club is not bigoted, and nobly dedicated to it’s showcased values, which you must be a paradigm example.

    But token memberships are limited and rare. Too many token blacks, women, or Jews undermines the hierarchy and advancement mythology that elite members use to exploit their underlings. And where you are on the pathway to the top is what keeps you compliant and demonstrates your superiority to those below you in the social hierarchy.

    That pretense of status is enough for a fool to vote republican.

  15. Dave says:

    Saying something different in politics. Identity politics is currently the vogue for American. Recall Sarah Palin’s soccer mom identity value was enough to have her be the VP pick.

    To say something different, display your message coming out of the mouths of paradigm exemplars of the other party. Rush Limbaugh is a total propaganda tool. He speaks to angry white guys who have been screwed by the system. He blames the national progressive agenda.

    The angry white guys who have been screwed by the system are OUR FOLKS!

  16. Dave says:

    “Context is decisive” does not say “re-framing is legitimate”. We must not tolerate hearing “being one’s word” as a form of Hobbesian nominalism.

    Being cautious and deferring has us retreat into defensive nominalism, representative rather than generative discourse. Representative propositions don’t call for action.

    Collapsing of “context” with “tenable re-framing”. “Context is decisive” does not say re-framing is legitimate.

    The issue of freedom and participation: partners, teams cults, states, societies.

    Dominance contrasted with enrollment and registration.

    Domination in education: I might believe what I’ve been told but I know what I’ve seen.

    “I’m going to tell you how education works” vs. “I’m going to show you how education works.”

  17. Dave says:

    The phenomenology of temporality: the importance of religious beliefs.

    The existence and significance of religious beliefs establishes models of temporal (including existential and essential) comportments that are realized and concreted in social behavior, thinking, speaking, and acting.

    The conversations of religion establish and enforce the ontological comportments of a society. What structures are at stake in religious wars.

    Construct a set of orthogonal values for decision making. Similarly sets of orthogonal contributing factors determine the relevance and importance of entities and more fundamentally allow them to show up existentially as well as essentially.

    The temporal horizons opened by and established by various Befindlichkeits provide the background for existence of entities. These can be analyzed at the level of micro-temporal-comportments. How we exactly and specifically temporalize temporality. I’m calling these temporal-micro-instructions.

  18. Dave says:

    We make decisions to be X (some way of being). The apparent legitimacy of inauthentic claims that “I forgot” or “I don’t remember making that decision” is grounded in the interpretation we are as identity and the common interpretation of time we are tacitly committed to.

    The publicness of time: While we don’t have the experience that what is in this room is fully public, we do have the viewpoint that time itself somehow ‘transcends the room’ and is publicly objectively accessible for everyone. We each of us are that everyone, everywhere ‘agrees with’ my “now” when I say “now”.

  19. Dave Allcott says:

    Speaking the radical progressive transformation

    The wealthy speak publicly about how they achieved individual success; actually they are more often managers of large exploitive/predatory organizations and social systems. Organized subgroups exploit and predate others members, groups and the whole.

    How do dominance hierarchies work in exploitive organizations?

    Modes of solicitude: Exploitation – you get what you want from them, and keep them around for future needs. Predatory – you get what you want from them and you get rid of them.

    If you don’t have a word for the contemptible behavior its difficult to communicate contempt for it.

    Jorge’s birthday party choice: rich friends or poor friends. A space of authentic communication allows you to see yourself in others.

    My declarations: I’m not going to play politics.
    As a result of my commitment to the declaration, I have instituted language, structures and behaviors that persist and fulfill the original intention.
    We all do this all the time but we rarely see that that is what we are doing.

  20. dallcott says:

    As we speak language expresses itself and creates time – not only temporalizing a present, but also temporalizing future (as possibilities) and past (as always-already).

    We are one in the magical counting of guest cards.

    Language (in the broader sense) is the mechanism whereby temporality temporalizes temporality. Speaking (language in the narrower sense) opens a space for a disclosive discovery of common time past and future.

    Notes on Being and Time pp. 24-5
    Treating what “exists in language” as distinct from from reality as presence physicalness is just a flavor of Cartesian-ism. My occurring world really is my occurring world. It’s not pretending how the world occurs, it’s not my interpretation/worldview/model. It is that which is actually disclosed and discovered, pointed out by, the interpretation/understanding that the language provides that as.

  21. dallcott says:

    Say we more than chatter?

    There is always – as who we are essentially – to share with others that what we share/say/create/disclose is real for them too. And also in that sharing we – as who we are in the matter – the care/concern/commitment – becomes real for them too.

    Dancing with the driving force of their self expression; answering the call “Mommy watch this!”; taking them seriously.

    Being with others, they want us to get:
    What they share + Who they are
    I give you me getting what you share + who you are.

    We could have a program that listens for authenticity.

  22. dallcott says:

    Who gets to say?

    Who gets to say how it goes?

    Corporate capitalism: people who put money in get to say. People who put labor in don’t get to say.
    Socialism: people who work and society as a whole get to say.

    In Mutual funds even people who put money in don’t get to say. Of course they get to say whether they put their money in.

    In democracy everyone gets a say. To the extent everyone gets the same say, democracy is socialist.