Following this quotation, H says:

"Thinking about the beginning of the history of be[ing] that reveals itself in the thinking of the Greeks will show that the Greeks early on experienced the be[ing] of be-ing as the presence of what is presenting itself.
[...]
For εναι means [to] make present. The essence of making present is buried deep in the original name for be [ing]. For us, however, εναι and οσία [(a) being] (as παρ- and ἶὐ ἀπουσία) already say the following: in making present, the present and lasting, unthought and hidden, are at work; time is present. Accordingly, be[ing] as such is born of time. Thus time is referred back to emergence, that is, [to] the truth of be[ing]."

I've been taking this to mean that if being is in any way or commonly thought as "persisting presence," or if it has been, time in some way would seem to be already itself present as the "horizon of the understanding of being" (Being and Time).

He goes to say in Being and Time:

"'Time' has long served as the ontological or rather ontic criterion for naively distinguishing the different regions of beings. 'Temporal' beings (natural processes and historical events) are separated from 'atemporal' beings (spatial and numerical relationships)."

I'm sure Arne, Mikie or Joshs can respond to this better, but my understanding here was that Heidegger wanted to emphasize that "being in the world" in the sense of a subject confronted with objects, or a mind and body in objective space, was a derivative or secondary mode of thinking about ourselves, and in our everyday dealings with the world, we are always already enmeshed in a constellation of relations such that Da-sein essentially 'is' its "being-in-the-world."

The hyphenations of Da-sein and "being-in-the-world" I took to be an emphasis that they are unitary despite the fact that we cannot help but divide phenomena in order to analyze or interpret them at all. Thinking of oneself as "being in 3 dimensional space" would be a derivative mode or secondary mode of being in that we would not normally think of ourselves in that way unless, say, we misplaced our keys and analyzed the "world" from the standpoint of an analysis of objective presence and retraced our footsteps and actions looking for them.

This is what I take to be another facet of the "phenomenological" aspect of "being-in-the-world," or "what shows itself as it shows itself" for Heidegger.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Forgive me - interesting article, but I'm not fully understanding the scam...Citadel buys orders from RH, RH offers commission free or "commission free" trades with funding from Citadel, then - I got lost.. -?

McMaster, Cheney, and Panetta have all mused Israel might attack post nuclear deal, and another article suggested there is reason for Israel to act before a Biden admin can take effect. A bomber was also flown out to "reassure allies." Foreign advisory "purge" also seems peculiar.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1IB08E

"Knowing that a Biden victory is a strong possibility, Israel may decide to act in its national interest and attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure sooner rather than later, before Biden could be in office to stop it."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/will-israel-strike-iran-639911/amp

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2020/11/24/b-52-bombers-just-sent-a-message-to-iran-dont-build-nuclear-weapons/?sh=1ca1413531f7

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/25/pentagon-purges-leading-advisors-from-defense-policy-board/

Here is an article authored by Blinken and Kagan from last year on American foreign policy:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/01/04/america-first-is-only-making-the-world-worse-heres-a-better-approach/

I think the "permanent campaign mode" is one of the bigger problems - along with unlimited money. Read recently there are laws/restrictions on this in Europe - perhaps others here can comment - but in the US, by now the next campaign starts the day after inauguration day (or sooner?) - and the bid for 2024 is perhaps already underway. This seems to me to favor those that can afford such a thing.

Electoral college/supreme court involvement still seem like possible intrusions on whatever popular vote is, no?

For "mercifully short" reads that pack enough punch to recall again and again on their own merit, to help unravel other passages in Nietzsche's writings, and as much for references to them by later philosophers:
"On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense"
"On the Abuse and Disuse of History For Life"

Chomsky's thoughts on LEV back in 2016 (thought some here might find interesting):

1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.

2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.

3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.

4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.

5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve. — Chomsky

There's a "preamble" I didn't copy/paste:
https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/

That's why I'm not voting for Biden. — Hanover

While I agree with the concerns, on the assumption of various accusations somewhat cancelling each other out (lacking the ability to continue to follow up indefinitely on every meme or report that gets out there), I've rather been thinking of the vote as 1) a vote for Harris-Biden versus Pence-Trump, especially with the two dudes aging, 2) a vote for Harris or Pence supposing their age increases the probability of their already apparent incoherence and ineffectiveness, 3) a vote for the ideas and backing of either supposing the ever-present stooge factor (and keeping in mind these are often the same forces), 4) a vote for the more everyday base of which they seem to represent - however ridiculously or imperfectly or even grotesquely - and 5) as 180 put it above, thinking of the vote as well as a "referendum on the incumbent."


With all of these in mind, supposing a degree of mutual cancellation, and not really thinking of the vote as an endorsement of either individual other than nominally, personally my vote goes to a Harris Administration.

Shot in the dark question here: anyone read/handled the 800 page Routledge paperback edition of Popper's Open Society? If so, at 800 pages for a paperback, would you recommend it or recommend looking for older split 2-volume editions?

That's fair.

I've always taken notes on a separate sheet of paper if I thought a book worth highlighting or making margin notes - mostly to preserve the condition, I guess, and because having read some of my old notes on first reads of a work from years ago - realizing a question to have been dumb, I was glad it was not permanently tattooed on a page. Also for books with good reread value - I end up noticing new things every read such that old highlights might detract from new observations and/or if the whole book ends up worth highlighting I'd just end up highlighting nothing or underlining on top of highlighting.

That's funny - considering many conspiracy theories appear to revolve around bankers manipulating masses.

This is exactly what it's come to.
If Trump is encouraging white supremacists he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If Trump doesn't really support white supremacists but he's just so like himself, gets carried away and sometimes people interpret him that way - white supremacists too - even though he didn't mean it that way - then he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If Trump is sending 'dog whistles' then he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If Trump doesn't know what standby means or otherwise behaves in such a way that elicits debates among folks over whether Trump knows what 'standby' means or in any case what he really meant to say then he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
The fact that it's been fours years and people are still having debates like this makes Trump a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If I can only see the inner truth of Trump by doing another 4 years of research and debate over this, maybe watching 4 more years of Breitbart to get the real story, then Trump is a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.

Now you appear to no longer be talking about any specific point. Also not worth further research.

Nope. The failure at the debate was acknowledged by yourself. You simply downplay the significance. We are repeating ourselves now.

You have already acknowledged the failure with your "Big Deal" comment.

Again, debating the 'ratio' is ridiculous.

Trying to figure out if it is or is not is not worth more time. It shouldn't even be a question. And yet it is. An implicit debate here seems to be "how many times should a leader condemn white supremacists to make it justifiable for him to give mixed messages or endorsement of the same group or of others that are of a similar bent?" This is ridicuous. That such things are unclear is a failure of Trump's. He was given the opportunity to clear any ambiguity. Any misunderstanding. He did not. Intentionally or not makes no difference. He failed.

Nope. Not worth researching all those 'many times' then comparing then debating. That's a loser of a leader.

He did not. He avoided a direct answer from the start. He instead asked for a name. Then said "stand back and stand by.". He did not go on to condemn. He let it go at that and later told whoever was listening to 'watch the polls.'. He left it open to ridiculous discussion such as we are having now about it. His loyalties and position are not clear to me at all. In any case as a leader, that's a big fat loser. Time to go.

I think rather the problem is that 'the everything that comes out of Trump's mouth' is not worth researching if the man can't not say something like 'stand back and stand by' when everyone is watching.

I'm in the space coast - any specific recommendations, within a couple hours?

Trump's reaction (lack thereof) to "dogwhistles" was interesting.

I'd prefer it if everyone in my life was happy. :-)

This is what I took you to be asking.

I don't know the answer. Koch Bros and Robert Mercer have been cited as interconnections of "American Capital," and Craig Unger's book, House of Trump, House of Putin, makes a compelling case for overlapping circles with Russian interests (but I only read half the book and it didn't, so far as I can tell, touch on the specific question of election meddling).

Jane Mayer's book, Dark Money has some interesting notes on the Koch Bros, and the documentary, Trumping Democracy, has some interesting notes on Mercer and Cambridge Analytica.

Bannon was involved with CA and Breitbart, and now appears associated with the conspiratorial-seeming, "The Epoch Times." Bannon is also a former Goldman Sachs man. Goldman Sachs appears to have had a heavy presence in the past three or four administrations.

Also, the Council on National Policy (I think) has been cited as another circle of influence (I'm forgetting where I read this, though - Edit: I think this was in Mayer's book too) while other connections can be found to think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute (DeVos, for example).

So for me these may point to the general nexus of ideology and financial interests one can suppose have had an influence on his administration. Pompeo hails from some circles overlapping with Koch interests as well, and Tillerson was an oil guy.

It's very simple... — Maw

Maybe it's contagious.

That's fair. I'll have to get back to you on that tomorrow.

Yeah, well - I'm drunk also. Cheers.

I'll fold - not sure why. I'm up?

If you actually look at my post - most of it was quotes already posted with my effort at some commentary. Unless I formatted incorrectly or it displayed wrong - this should be completely readable.

I interspersed quotes with comments - I was trying to be brief for reasons I thought would be obvious.

We could spend twenty pages, get more involved arguing over such things - or we could just look more closely at what has already been said. That was my thought.

My summary:

I do not think your view and Tim's are as divergent as you and StreetlightX say with comparisons to Qanon.

And/in other words:

I just think your supposition that individuals aren't "all powerful" and that, this being the case, the question of their influences makes the questioners akin to Qanon - is at odds with itself — Kevin

Edit: I do use hyphens a lot. *shrugs*

My Qanon spell must be working.

Lol. Agree to disagree. I think it's readable.

Near as I can tell, Trump would have to be his own kind of Superman to be screwing with and screwing up as many things as the news is reporting that his administration is screwing up. Granted in some cases and areas the GOP has been practicing for years, but I feel the presence of master hands. But who? The only reasonable explanation that occurs to me is that he gets advice and suggestion from Russia. Not orders, because probably that wouldn't work. But suggestions the substance of which he follows. And of course this implies that he is not alone.

Does anyone have an alternative explanation that makes more sense? Since coming into office he has been working to corrupt, ruin, spoil, incapacitate every federal agency beyond ordinary rhyme or reason. And who but an implacable enemy would want that? — tim wood

This shit is becoming qanon for liberals. — Maw

So in your view(s), Trump may be viewed essentially as without 'masters,' leverage, or otherwise outside influences and any other supposition would lead to a conspiracy nut? — Kevin

This isn't what was originally stated. What was originally stated and implied was that "Russia" was pulling Trump's strings. Putin isn't some all powerful puppet master. This is just an unhinged liberal explanans for Trump's election, the actions of his administration, and the overall disaster that has been the last 4 years. — Maw

I read this as one possibility considered:

Granted in some cases and areas the GOP has been practicing for years — tim wood

So we've got the GOP named as logical body to which Trump is beheld. Sounds reasonable. But:

I feel the presence of master hands. But who? — tim wood

So we're not positive the GOP is the best explanation for Trump.

The only reasonable explanation that occurs to me is that he gets advice and suggestion from Russia. — tim wood

Here's one candidate supposedly. Putin hasn't been referenced yet. But Russia has. I also think it's fair to say that sometimes when people reference a leader - especially casually - and even in a "philosopy forum" - they may conflate things like the individual, an individual's circle, an individual's influences, an circle's influences, etc. You seem to me to have conflated Russia with Putin. And then went on to ask:

This isn't what was originally stated. What was originally stated and implied was that "Russia" was pulling Trump's strings. Putin isn't some all powerful puppet master. This is just an unhinged liberal explanans for Trump's election, the actions of his administration, and the overall disaster that has been the last 4 years. — Maw

So you agree implications can take place - but you don't think the logic you suppose for Putin holds for Trump - compare:

Putin isn't some all powerful puppet master. — Maw

With:

Near as I can tell, Trump would have to be his own kind of Superman to be screwing with and screwing up as many things as the news is reporting that his administration is screwing up. — tim wood

A reasonable comparison?

Keep in mind: I'm not saying Putin-Russia is behind Trump. I just think your supposition that individuals aren't "all powerful" and that, this being the case, the question of their influences makes the questioners akin to Qanon - is at odds with itself. Let's continue:

Not orders, because probably that wouldn't work — tim wood

Sounds reasonable.

But suggestions the substance of which he follows. And of course this implies that he is not alone. — tim wood

Well you and Tim seem to agree on this, no?

Does anyone have an alternative explanation that makes more sense? — tim wood

This seems to me a reasonable question. Agree to disagree I guess on the supposition that this is on par with Qanon.

Since coming into office he has been working to corrupt, ruin, spoil, incapacitate every federal agency beyond ordinary rhyme or reason. And who but an implacable enemy would want that? — tim wood

Ermergerd.

So in your view(s), Trump may be viewed essentially as without 'masters,' leverage, or otherwise outside influences and any other supposition would lead to a conspiracy nut?

I live in a little place in Florida with some silly nude beach between Daytona and Cape Canaveral. My observations of the local 'wildlife' here are going to lead me to be fairly unphilosophical, unthoughtful, un-self-critical...I just have zero interest in seeing the locals naked. I'll leave my prejudices up for the experts - just please don't 'Clockwork Orange' me.

Interesting points. Side note: I do find it interesting Clinton ends up fairly well-received even by otherwise Republicans and Trump supporters (among a few I know anyway - no idea if it's a more generally held view).

I was taking your post and Michael's together - as considered together they seemed to me to raise this question.

Let me attempt a rephrasing/reframing:

Michael's post indicates that:

And it's a simple fact that barring extreme cases like financial crises and pandemics, the GDP increases over time. The GDP under every President is going to be better than it was under the previous President. — Michael

If this is true, and if it is also true that Trump inherited a good economy from Obama, one implication - or possible implication - might be that neither Trump himself, nor Obama himself, can be directly credited with the trend - or alternatively, if you like, how much of an effect each individual had seems a reasonable question.

I meant to combine this also with the supposition that Obama inherited a terrible economy - and presumably a case can be made that with some economic trends, others will be more probable (for example, wild swings in unemployment may in general lead to an eventual upswing albeit timing a question, in what way, etc).

Thus, to recapitulate, there is a sense (not being an economist myself not having studied at length the economic policies of each of these administrations) that if the above generalities are true, a reasonable question to ask is whether this or that president can take credit for this or that economy generally.

In the case of Bush, I think his administration contributed to the housing bubble enormously and can take credit for the downturn. Whether Obama can take credit for the subsequent upswing - I do not know. I'm not saying he can't. I just wondered your take.

I wasn't really arguing a point. Just wondering out loud.

with economic factors like GDP, the stock market, or employment — Kevin

also worth considering the effect that certain GDP-boosting policies might have. — Michael

Edit: Also acknowledging this, as well as an indefinite number of variables bound up with metrics such as the stock market, GDP, and employment levels (how they are measured, at what other costs, etc), such measures have always struck me as dubious as to their usefulness, despite common talk about them.

On the supposition that both 1) Trump inherited a good economy that then went south, and 2) that the dot com and financial crisis bubbles lead to downs and subsequent reactive ups, in your view, can any of these presidents- say from Clinton to Trump be themselves credited much with economic factors like GDP, the stock market, or employment - or are they more incidental to the broader trends? Or - if you view one individual as having more impact than others - which ones?