JANUS HEAD 5.1

SPRING 2002

KNOWING SUBJECTS:
HUMAN LIVES, HUMAN WORLDS

Selected essays from
The George Washington University's
7th Annual Conference in the Human Sciences

EDITORIALS

Brent Dean Robbins, Co-editor
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/Editorial1.cfm

Andrea Custodi, Conference Organizer
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/Editorial2.cfm

ESSAYS

Lewis R. Gordon:
"Making Science Reasonable: Peter Caws
on Science Both Human and 'Natural'"
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/Gordon.cfm

David Theo Goldberg:
"Post-Racial States"
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/goldberg.cfm

Virginia Held:
"Feminist Moral Inquriy: The Role of Experience"
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/held.cfm

Jonathan D. Moreno,
"Fiduciary Knowledge and Moral Consensus in Bioethics"
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/moreno.cfm

John R. Wright:
"A Plea for Acknowledgment:
Reflections on Finding Human Reasons for Moral Action"
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/wright.cfm

Linda Belau:
"The Hermeneutics of Psychoanalysis
(Trauma, Repetition, and the Signifier)"
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/belau.cfm

Brent Dean Robbins:
"Lacan: The Limits of Love and Knowledge"
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/robbins.cfm

Julie Reiser:
"The Autobiography of Consciousness and
the New Cognitive Existentialism"
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/reiser.cfm

Kristana Arp:
"Founding an Existential Ethics:
Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism Revisited"
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/arp.cfm

Stuart Umpleby:
"Should Knowledge of Management Be
Organized as Theories or as Methods?"
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/umpleby.cfm

John Rudisill:
"Towards a Reclamation of Substantive Liberalism"
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/rudisill.cfm

Contributor Biographies
http://www.janushead.org/5-1/contributors.cfm

~*~*~*~

COMING IN FALL 2002

Janus Head 5.2,
A special issue on Magical Realism
featuring the work of Michael Wood, Lois Parkinson-Zamora,
Wendy B. Faris, and many others.

~*~*~*~

CALL FOR PAPERS:

Janus Head is now accepting submissions for the Fall 2003
edition (6.1), which will be an open issue.

For guidelines, see the "Submissions" page:
http://www.janushead.org/jhguidelines.cfm

~*~*~*~

JANUS HEAD RECOMMENDS

Two new publications by Robert D. Romanyshyn:

WAYS OF THE HEART:
Essays Toward an Imaginal Psychology
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971367116/janushead

"Each of the essays of this book explores the intricacies of
the currents of the heart, developing the vocabulary for one's
own voice rather than the speaking for soul that characterizes
most psychology. The life of the soul in this book shines through
the intersecting labyrinths of phenomenology, depth psychology,
and poetry. Perhaps the most important of the disciplines for
this work is phenomenology because it assures that our author
never falls into theorizing about the world but is committed to
letting the inner qualities of the things of the world speak for
themselves. The fundamental tenant of this book is that we are
here to learn to listen."

Robert Sardello, Director, The School of Spiritual Psychology

"Every time I read the work of Robert Romanyshyn I am
touched by his honesty, imagination, originality and depth of
vision. His psychological insight and poetic sensibility
resonate with the force and profundity of a man who lives
a full and soulful life."

Stanton Marlon, Ph.D., ABPP
Director, C.G. Jung Institute Analyst Training Program
of Pittsburgh, and Author and editor of
"Salt and the Alchemical Soul" and
"Fire in the Stone: The Alchemy of Desire"

MIRROR AND METAPHOR:
Images and Stories of Psychological Life
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971367108/janushead

"This brilliant and lucid book, now available in the second
edition, takes us into genuinely new territory. It revises our
ideas of psychology and science, and it offers original thoughts
on metaphor. It is a text thwich anyone seriously itnerested in
the broader reaches of psychology should read, and from
which every reader will profit."

Edward S. Casey,
Professor of Philosophy, SUNY at Stony Brook

"In this provocative book, Robert Romanyshyn writes of
metaphor with the precision and sensitivity of both philosopher
and poet. His argument for the essentially paradoxical nature
of experience is a powerful antidote to the literalism of our
day."

Louise Cowan,
Professor Emeritus of Literature, University of Dallas

"There are less than a handful of individuals who have the
capacity to bring truly creative thought to the field of
psychology and whose writing on the subject is both original
and therapeutic. Robert Romanyshyn is one of those
individuals. His writing keeps soul open, flexible, mobile, and
able to resonate with depth."

Robert Sardello,
Author of "Love and the World"

"Romanyshyn explores the assumptions regarding person,
others, body, and world, that are the cornerstones of
scientific psychology, and he compellingly dissolves these in
terms of the metaphors of our cultural history. In doing so he
articulates the irreducibly metaphorical character of
psychological life and opens the possibility of a
phenomenological depth psychology. This little book is a
classic in phenomenological psychology and metabletics;
it is essential reading for anyone concerned with the meaning
and direction of psychology."

Roger Brooke, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Duquesne University,
and author of "Jung and Phenomenology"

~*~*~*~

Thank you,
The Editors

>>> The existentialist R.D. Laing who was greatly influenced by Sartre
proclaimed that man's greatest fear was derived from his mistrust of other
human beings, of being perceived as an object rather than a complete being.<<<


>>> Elaine<<<


>>>Did Laing deal mainly with troubled minds or was he concerned with
the so-called adjusted people as well.  My feeling is that any
attempt to blame others or the world for what has happened to the
individual might be another outlet for bad faith,<<<

I've been reading Laing off & on for about 15 years, & my impression is that
he wasn't concerned with minds at all.  "Mind" is a metaphor.

In Sanity, Madness & the Family, he & colleagues interviewed several
families,
including the selected "patient" member. The endless denials, injunctions, &
diversions
among family members led Laing et al. to conclude that mental illness,
especially what we call schizophrenia, was a project that a family member
engaged in to cope with the untenable situation of being (or believing
oneself to be) to the selected victim. Of course, either or both parents
would deny that anybody was a victim.

In re Sartre, Laing et al. distinguished betw. praxis (the concerted efforts
of each family member) & process, which is how we view the family as a whole.
Moreover, these concerted efforts, especially when they were of the
manipulative or [sorry, can't remember the word I wanted here] kind, were
frequently unknown to the family members; in other words, the effort to
punish any one family member by denials, accusations, & injunctions was not
deliberate, although, as Laing noted in Self & Others, deliberate occasions
happen more often than we can imagine.

BTW, Laing et al. also conducted the same kind of work with so-called
adjusted or normal families. Although that material was never published,
Laing later insisted that the same kind of activity was occurring; the
difference was that no one yet had been selected the "victim." "Normal"
families were just schizophrenic families without the "patient."

I think it's important to note that the notion of "blame" didn't arise,
either with patients or with the doctors. In fact, Laing et al. found that
what could easily drive the child insane (or keeping the child insane) was
the ceaseless efforts to defend, alternatively, one parent or the other. BTW,
in Sanity, Madness, & the Family, all the patients were female, and only very
rarely were parents & daughter interviewed together. Usually, parents, mother
& daughter, & daughter alone. Considering the standard therapeutic practice
of almost NEVER seeing a family together, is it any wonder that someone might
be driven crazy?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Please unsubscribe me

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Please unsubscribe me too.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

praxistence wrote:  "Normal" families were just schizophrenic
families without the "patient."

Joe says:  Is that to say everyone is schizophrenic?  Chris, Elaine,
Joe? How about you?  The people who are helping the patients?

If so, please specify how and why that is a valid conclusion?

Thanks - Joe

Joe,
   This is a good point. Have you read Thomas Kuhn's book? I think his
study into the structure of science also applies to philosophy.
Repetively starting with the Greeks the same cycle ending in denial
(the Skepits) has been repeated.

Empiricle data seems to trickle through greater refinement and
further exploration in slowly creating a rift in existing "maps" of
reality. Eventually the rift is large enough to allow a paradymn
shift, a switch of the map, to explain reality. Often the period
between the new maps can last decades or even centuries. During these
periods seekers of truth (religion, science, philosophy) seems to
fall back on the position that there is no map. That is, that reality
can be described not explained (i.e. Bohr's philosophy on Quantum
Mechanics.)

Anyway, I was a bit long winded, but what I was trying to say is very
good point.  I think you're right. Sartre basically is saying you
only can experience/describe reality not explain it, so deal with it.

It probably will continue until a more acurate map is found.

Thanks,
Daniel

--- In Sartre@y..., "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
> Chris said: You (joe) are a Kantian and you are to act as if the
maxim
> of your action should conform to a universal law. Or act only on
that
> maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
> universal law.
>
> Joe:  Well, that would be a universalization, trying to come up
with a
> piece of advise for one single individual that is supposed to apply
to
> everyone; a communal maxim.  No. I'm not talking about universal
> imperatives or a rule of conduct for everyone.  That's not what I
mean
> when I ask 'how am I to be?" or 'how am I to act?"
>
> My freedom is 'my' unique capacity to act or not to act, I choose
> without any external rule at all.  If I am Kantian, it would be
more
> along the lines of his hypothetical imperative, such as: If you
want
> to be an intelligent philospher, by your own free will, according
to
> your own selected interest, then study other great philosophers.
Now
> that's advise that applies to one specific person who has a
specific
> interest.  The conduct is personal and voluntary - an if-then
> proposition.  That is, the imperative is a conditional opportunity
for
> me to be a good philosopher, but is neither one in which I 'ought
to'
> nor am I command to do, much less is the whole world wrong for not
> doing as I should.
>
> Being-for-itself is in the process of becoming and is in a state of
> hypothetical possibility; and it is here, in any particular
individual
> that has to decide for themself, what am I to be, what am I to do.
So
> the existential guidance is not a Kantian moral universal or duty
to
> arbitrarily regulate mine and everyone else's actions.  And I think
> that is what a maxim does.  So - no - I am not looking for the
> rightness or wrongness of being or doing, but more for what is
> satisfying for one person alone, if I wish to experience what I
alone
> or few like me are perhaps interested in.
>
> It is more of a creative concern rather than a moral one which the
> maxim implies.  That would take us back to some grand universal
truth,
> when all I am seeking is a particular prescription; what might only
be
> true about me.
>
> So it's not right action or ethical command, but self-interest in a
> creative vain.  Could there be a moral ramification? Yes.
>
> Lastly, regarding Sartre's non-attempt to offer such advice for
anyone
> specifically, it consequently becomes difficult for his grand
> narrative to turn practical through anyone person's specific
action.
> He has not given any specific advise, that is all I meant to convey.
>
> But the real point is, this is where some people stand in an
> existential vacuum, in general, where they are at, in need of
> practical advise.
>
> Joe

all discussion of mind,science and freedom is ultimately irrelevant w/out a
serious consideration of social context and social practice. No one really lives
their lives starting from scratch, making it all up as they go along. The
biggest myth is the myth of the artificial social utopia that some malcontent
intellectual (a la) Marx,Lenin, Rousseau or whatever can construct from pure
reason or imagination..How is conditioned consciousness..ie: the everyday blue
collar Catholic in Boston who watches the Super Bowl praying for the Patriots to
win, different from his Brahmin "neighbor" graduate of Harvard Law calculating
the cost of the summer share in Martha's Vineyard?
   daniel_needles <Daniel.Needles@...> wrote: Joe,
This is a good point. Have you read Thomas Kuhn's book? I think his
study into the structure of science also applies to philosophy.
Repetively starting with the Greeks the same cycle ending in denial
(the Skepits) has been repeated.

Empiricle data seems to trickle through greater refinement and
further exploration in slowly creating a rift in existing "maps" of
reality. Eventually the rift is large enough to allow a paradymn
shift, a switch of the map, to explain reality. Often the period
between the new maps can last decades or even centuries. During these
periods seekers of truth (religion, science, philosophy) seems to
fall back on the position that there is no map. That is, that reality
can be described not explained (i.e. Bohr's philosophy on Quantum
Mechanics.)

Anyway, I was a bit long winded, but what I was trying to say is very
good point. I think you're right. Sartre basically is saying you
only can experience/describe reality not explain it, so deal with it.

It probably will continue until a more acurate map is found.

Thanks,
Daniel

--- In Sartre@y..., "decker150" wrote:
> Chris said: You (joe) are a Kantian and you are to act as if the
maxim
> of your action should conform to a universal law. Or act only on
that
> maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
> universal law.
>
> Joe: Well, that would be a universalization, trying to come up
with a
> piece of advise for one single individual that is supposed to apply
to
> everyone; a communal maxim. No. I'm not talking about universal
> imperatives or a rule of conduct for everyone. That's not what I
mean
> when I ask 'how am I to be?" or 'how am I to act?"
>
> My freedom is 'my' unique capacity to act or not to act, I choose
> without any external rule at all. If I am Kantian, it would be
more
> along the lines of his hypothetical imperative, such as: If you
want
> to be an intelligent philospher, by your own free will, according
to
> your own selected interest, then study other great philosophers.
Now
> that's advise that applies to one specific person who has a
specific
> interest. The conduct is personal and voluntary - an if-then
> proposition. That is, the imperative is a conditional opportunity
for
> me to be a good philosopher, but is neither one in which I 'ought
to'
> nor am I command to do, much less is the whole world wrong for not
> doing as I should.
>
> Being-for-itself is in the process of becoming and is in a state of
> hypothetical possibility; and it is here, in any particular
individual
> that has to decide for themself, what am I to be, what am I to do.
So
> the existential guidance is not a Kantian moral universal or duty
to
> arbitrarily regulate mine and everyone else's actions. And I think
> that is what a maxim does. So - no - I am not looking for the
> rightness or wrongness of being or doing, but more for what is
> satisfying for one person alone, if I wish to experience what I
alone
> or few like me are perhaps interested in.
>
> It is more of a creative concern rather than a moral one which the
> maxim implies. That would take us back to some grand universal
truth,
> when all I am seeking is a particular prescription; what might only
be
> true about me.
>
> So it's not right action or ethical command, but self-interest in a
> creative vain. Could there be a moral ramification? Yes.
>
> Lastly, regarding Sartre's non-attempt to offer such advice for
anyone
> specifically, it consequently becomes difficult for his grand
> narrative to turn practical through anyone person's specific
action.
> He has not given any specific advise, that is all I meant to convey.
>
> But the real point is, this is where some people stand in an
> existential vacuum, in general, where they are at, in need of
> practical advise.
>
> Joe



To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Everyone is potentially schized out. I for one think that if one personality
does not know what the other personality is doing then that is grounds for
psychic divorce. But I am conscious of all my personalities, or
'characters', John is an interesting 'bunch of fellows'...I'm still married
to 'me'...

I think Sartre was looking at this by reflecting on the 'lack value' which I
addressed recently as the consciousness of the lack of being in an
transcendental encounter with the supreme value. The supreme value lacks
being, but not all being, not entirely. The supreme value according to
Sartre is 'beyond being' and therefore is a function, or a orienting
function, in essence 'feeling' or 'valuation' itself, and what more
axiomatic are those supreme values than 'love', 'the good' and 'the
truth'.....

Similarly it was Marx who also reflected on ideology and indicated that the
supreme value was also the most positive, the simple 'lack value'. If you do
not believe me, then why would humans get all lathered up and start
revolutions? and rebel against their oppressors who don't want them stepping
on the twigs and eating the pheasants in their rich estates guarded from
darker souls.

The supreme value, the one we long for is really not our own, but even more
stranger than strange: it is to long for the fulfillment of longing in
others....[S.K., The Works of Love].....even Kant would admit a strange,
perhaps uncanny love and appreciation for the thoughts and perceptions and
imagination of E. Swedenborg....as if 'reason were impartial'....


"Eye not seen nor ear hath heard, nor has it been prepared for in the hearts
of men, the things that are to come." Desert sage, Jeremiah.

avec tendresse

John Foster, MSc



----- Original Message -----
From: "decker150" <decker150@...>
To: <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 10:05 AM
Subject: [Sartre] Re: A world in force


> praxistence wrote:  "Normal" families were just schizophrenic
> families without the "patient."
>
> Joe says:  Is that to say everyone is schizophrenic?  Chris, Elaine,
> Joe? How about you?  The people who are helping the patients?
>
> If so, please specify how and why that is a valid conclusion?
>
> Thanks - Joe
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

No, that is not to say "everyone" is schizophrenic. I don't think you can
make that generalization, except if you're convinced that personal experience
is everyone's experience, i.e., produces a generalized structure of
experience.  However, this is what passes for common Western civ. reason:
deductive reason, specific to general.  After all, what the DSM-xxx but a
series of generalizations about specific individuals, applicable to everyone,
i.e., people confronted with psychiatrists?

Personally, I think Sartre's primary contribution to Western philosophy
(remember, he wrote philosophy did not exist) was to distinguish betw. praxis
(deliberate effort) & process (generalization of that effort). As far as
Laing et al. were concerned, their work was more comparable to that of a
detective (one case at a time) than that of the sociological generalist
(culmination of cases equals generalist deduction).

See ancient PBS series, "Madness." Italian psychiatrist Rotello said it's the
dream of humankind to simplify problems. Sartre & progeny said, no, we can't
do that. If we do, & we KNOW we're doing it, then that's "bad faith."



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Please unsubscribe me.

The Thought Collective Craves You.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thethoughtcollective/

No matter who our biological parents are we are the children of
thought (information), legacy is passed on through thought not by
flesh and blood, long after many have died the thoughts that inspired
them, lives on in others. Even if one does not pass on their genetics
to be called parent, through the seed of their thoughts into the womb
of the minds they will have been the mother or father of many.  All
thoughts collect into a collective consciousness. The most powerful
computer is still the mind just not as focused, before humans
developed technology to collect thought (internet), they would
meditate and gather it from the thought collective. All things are
connected just all things are not at the same level of awareness, if
you knew everything  you could not be you, or could You?  We are as
responsible for the thoughts we think as the air that we breath., we
collect it to survive. Like air thought is natural, but due to wide
spread  ignorance humans continue to Bottle, pollute, copyright  and
sell natural resources to each other. The collective explains how
different people can have the same idea /invention  but  history will
only record which person of these thoughts  had the time, money,
connections to follow through  with the Idea.  History does not tell
all and  the importance of each and everyone of us  is left out. You
do not exist if you are not remembered, you are remembered for what
thoughts you were able to gather from the collective and place your
name beside it as its newest pioneer or predecessor. A single thought
could change the world like a ripple in a pond, let this be another
place for your thoughts to collect, let yourself be remembered
somewhere let history pass on your legacy, no thought to great or too
small opinion or understanding ,inventions, poetry , complaints,
desires,  answers, questions, personal, private, quotes, thoughts
old, thoughts new, thoughts about thoughts and more.  All thoughts
about all subjects are craved here.

Search the BOOK MARKS for other websites and forums about Collective
Consciousness.
This group functions primarily as a collective not as a discussion
group,  not a battle ground of thought.
  No matter what is posted it is just thought, and should just be
considered as thought , feelings are not thoughts fire is not water
they are elements  part of and expressed by nature just as thought
and emotion are part of us and an expressed by us. If you have
emotion from what is read, the problem lies with your lack of
discipline and understanding , for the reason that many emotional
illogical people exist and feel they must comment about others
thoughts with emotional prejudice, please discuss post or person
posting outside the group please do not abuse its unmoderated
atmosphere.

I have not read Thomas Kuhn, and thanks for the reference, it sounds
interesting.  I will check it out.  I do like the terminology 'maps'
of reality and I think your right about how they shift from one to
another, that is, the narratives.

And you know, it strikes me that having some kind of map is better
than no map at all; this is humanities situation, to struggle with
the best map available at any one time.

Warm regards - Joe

--- In Sartre@y..., "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...> wrote:
> Joe,
>   This is a good point. Have you read Thomas Kuhn's book? I think
his
> study into the structure of science also applies to philosophy.
> Repetively starting with the Greeks the same cycle ending in denial
> (the Skepits) has been repeated.
>
> Empiricle data seems to trickle through greater refinement and
> further exploration in slowly creating a rift in existing "maps" of
> reality. Eventually the rift is large enough to allow a paradymn
> shift, a switch of the map, to explain reality. Often the period
> between the new maps can last decades or even centuries. During
these
> periods seekers of truth (religion, science, philosophy) seems to
> fall back on the position that there is no map. That is, that
reality
> can be described not explained (i.e. Bohr's philosophy on Quantum
> Mechanics.)
>
> Anyway, I was a bit long winded, but what I was trying to say is
very
> good point.  I think you're right. Sartre basically is saying you
> only can experience/describe reality not explain it, so deal with
it.
>
> It probably will continue until a more acurate map is found.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
> --- In Sartre@y..., "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
> > Chris said: You (joe) are a Kantian and you are to act as if the
> maxim
> > of your action should conform to a universal law. Or act only on
> that
> > maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become
a
> > universal law.
> >
> > Joe:  Well, that would be a universalization, trying to come up
> with a
> > piece of advise for one single individual that is supposed to
apply
> to
> > everyone; a communal maxim.  No. I'm not talking about universal
> > imperatives or a rule of conduct for everyone.  That's not what I
> mean
> > when I ask 'how am I to be?" or 'how am I to act?"
> >
> > My freedom is 'my' unique capacity to act or not to act, I choose
> > without any external rule at all.  If I am Kantian, it would be
> more
> > along the lines of his hypothetical imperative, such as: If you
> want
> > to be an intelligent philospher, by your own free will, according
> to
> > your own selected interest, then study other great philosophers.
> Now
> > that's advise that applies to one specific person who has a
> specific
> > interest.  The conduct is personal and voluntary - an if-then
> > proposition.  That is, the imperative is a conditional
opportunity
> for
> > me to be a good philosopher, but is neither one in which I 'ought
> to'
> > nor am I command to do, much less is the whole world wrong for
not
> > doing as I should.
> >
> > Being-for-itself is in the process of becoming and is in a state
of
> > hypothetical possibility; and it is here, in any particular
> individual
> > that has to decide for themself, what am I to be, what am I to
do.
> So
> > the existential guidance is not a Kantian moral universal or duty
> to
> > arbitrarily regulate mine and everyone else's actions.  And I
think
> > that is what a maxim does.  So - no - I am not looking for the
> > rightness or wrongness of being or doing, but more for what is
> > satisfying for one person alone, if I wish to experience what I
> alone
> > or few like me are perhaps interested in.
> >
> > It is more of a creative concern rather than a moral one which
the
> > maxim implies.  That would take us back to some grand universal
> truth,
> > when all I am seeking is a particular prescription; what might
only
> be
> > true about me.
> >
> > So it's not right action or ethical command, but self-interest in
a
> > creative vain.  Could there be a moral ramification? Yes.
> >
> > Lastly, regarding Sartre's non-attempt to offer such advice for
> anyone
> > specifically, it consequently becomes difficult for his grand
> > narrative to turn practical through anyone person's specific
> action.
> > He has not given any specific advise, that is all I meant to
convey.
> >
> > But the real point is, this is where some people stand in an
> > existential vacuum, in general, where they are at, in need of
> > practical advise.
> >
> > Joe

Hi novicegod:

For your enjoyment, you may wish to check out

http://www.memecentral.com/

Richard Brodie wrote a book entitled Virus of the Mind and deals with
the whole subject of 'memes'

Joe

unsubscribe
--- Tommy Beavitt <tommy@...> wrote:
> Hi Elaine,
>
> Welcome to the group. It sounds as if you will have
> lots of
> interesting points to bring to our group. I am
> particularly
> interested in hearing what you have to say about
> Laing, who was
> profoundly influenced by Sartre. I have read his
> Self and Other twice
> and often use it in discussions.
>
> Love and hugs are on topic to Sartre (as long as
> they are combined
> with discussions about Sartre's existentialist
> philosophy)!
>
> Tommy Beavitt
>
>
> >My name is Elaine and i live in Brisbane, Australia
> with my four children
> >(12 to 17), have just completed a tripple major in
> Literature, Philosophy,
> >Theology with minors in Psychology, Environmental
> Ethics and Peace studies.
> >Am sending off my last assignment on Jung's concept
> of Self today ;))))  My
> >first unit in Honours in Philosophy will be on R.D.
> Laing and i am soooooo
> >looking forward to it;))
> >Given as I am an external student and mother to
> four children, I have been
> >starved of adult intellectual communication.
> Consequently, i look forward to
> >great discussions with u all. I tend to write long
> and often ;))
> >
> >Love & Hugs
> >Elaine
> >p.s. hope my love and hugs do not offend u. I enjoy
> giving and receiving.
> >
> >>
> >>  Christopher said
> >>  >
> >>  > Why do you see science and existentialism as
> two world views at
> >>  odds with one another?  Isn't it a lot easier to
> reconcile them and
> >>  to regard them as complementary rather than to
> regard them as
> >>  competing with one another?
> >>  >
> >>  >Joe: Well, I think they could work as
> complementary, but in general,
> >>  existentialism places an emphasis mainly upon
> reasoning skills, is
> >>  language driven and mainly explanatory, whereas
> natural science
> >>  places more emphasis upon demonstration,
> objective proofs, and
> >>  emperical application.
> >>
> >>  Joe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/
> >>
> >>  To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> Sartre-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> >>
> >>  <A
>
>HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+S
> >artre&tag=donaldrobertson">Click here to purchase
> books by Jean-Paul
> >Sartre -in association with Amazon (US).</A>
> >>
> >>
> >>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/
> >
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> Sartre-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> >
> ><A
>
>HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+Sart\
re&tag=donaldrobertson">Click
>
> >here to purchase books by Jean-Paul Sartre -in
> association with
> >Amazon (US).</A>
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====
Brenda L. Haak

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Dear friend,
I'm sorry for this very-very late response on your mail. First of
all, i must agree with you that each system (capitalism vs
Socialism/communism)have problem and the problem is concerning
democracy. that is my friend, i think the main reason that sartre
wrote his "Critique of Dialectical Reason". but in his "Critique" he
offered us a knife to analyze situations so that we can deny any
abuse of power in the name of democracy, namely a group that becomes
the Other. you can have the detail about this in the book. Second, i
disagree with your statement that sartre based his egalitarian state
on a such Kantian ethic (i.e. good will, honesty, and especially
humanity etc.). on contrary he based his egalitarian system on common
interest which arose from necessity and condition of not-free
(lackness and scarcity) and common-goal (to be free from and free to).
humanity isn't based on pre-establish value outside human itself. the
idea of humanity is not an end in it self. it is forged within human
relation with each other and with material world.
I really hope you give a respond on this so that the discussion will
continue

Get your Free E-mail at http://erraticimpact.zzn.com
____________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE Web and POP E-mail Service in 14 languages at
http://www.zzn.com.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It seems that Sartre understood value as what the for-itself does
in the face of lack. (strictly instrumental) In other words, human
beings desire what they lack specifically. For example; one man may
see a particular woman as desirable and feel that not to have her for
himself would be lacking.  Thus, what he lacks is what he also
desires.  Consequently he sees some value in the woman.

But is value strictly 'desire & lack' based.

The woman is viewed as an object of desire, seemingly neccessary for
the man to be himself; complete and happy.

However, this particular view of value interprets the woman as a
meer object of desire, a means to an end [the man's fulfillment] and
does not recognize that the woman is an end in herself or has value in
and of herself - without the man's desire / lack / value.

The key point that I am making about value is that it is not strictly
bound in the for-itself as a desire for an object in order to pursue
it's own lack, in order to be itself (completed). Although value is
expressed as 'interest' and therefore rooted in a conscious mind, that
interest is not specifically limited to ones own mind, but expressed
as an acknowledgement of the others detached interest,
individual consciousness and inherent worth, existing within them
alone.

If I see this hypothetical woman as a means to my own fulfillment,
then I have viewed this woman as having only an instrumental value
determined by me.  If I see this woman as an end in herself, having
value within the context of her own freedom, then I have viewed this
woman as having an intrinsic value determined by or within herself
alone.

No true mutual respect between people is possible without
acknowledging the intrinsic value of the other.

Joe

Hi all!
  I am a new member to the group.  Currently, I am a college senior,
albiet non-traditional because I have two teenage daughters! My major
in college is English with a minor in psychology. I am wildly
interested in philosophy and I plan to take a philosophy of religion
class in the fall as a graduate student. I have taken Existential
Psychology and Logic. I am glad to find this group and I hope to
contribute and learn from it.

I continue to think about Sartre's unique phraseology;
being-in-itself and being-for-itself, the two most basic phrases.  I
believe that my awareness of his usage increases as I try to find
meaningful applications in my everyday life.

It is amazing to me how such a short phrase 'being-in-itself' is, yet
I keep sensing that there is more to realize in these few short words.
  I think Sartre took his cues from earlier philosophers and began
concocting his own similar phrases.  For example, Immanual Kant had
already put into use the expression 'thing-in-itself'.  And Heidigger
already used the phrase 'being-in-itself' as well.

But Sartre doesn't just use the preposition 'in' alone, but found that
the term 'for' also expressed a relationship between the subject
matter as expressed in the noun 'being' and the pronoun - 'itself'.
Both being-in-itself' and 'being-for-itself' are demonstrating a
relationship between the two emphasis; being and itself.  Why not just
say 'being-itself' and eliminate the preposition 'in' and 'for'?
Well, since being is more that just a 'thing-in-itself', the
preposition 'for' best expresses that difference.

And the term 'itself' is really about the same as saying 'it' which
basically means you really don't know what to call it, so you
label it as an 'it'.  And existence is like that, full of dimensions
that are unnamed, ill-defined so we have to refer to existence as a
'thing' or 'it' or an 'itself' in some reflexive form; and connected
by such terms as  (it, for, of, from, after or by); just to clarify
some unique aspect of the subject matter - being.

But maybe Sartre was a little short sighted, because these other good
prepositions easily make for a good topic on the ambiguities and
unnamed aspects of being.  Why not the solitary expression of
'being-by-itself' or 'being-by-itself-alone' to expressed the autonomy
of being.  Well, who knows why Sartre did not find in them as much to
write about. How could we look at being on-of-after or from-itself;
and not just be stuck on 'in' and 'for' itself?  Are these so
irreducible, so fundamental?

It occured to me as I thought more about the language aspect that the
subject matter of existentialism is much clearer to me now.  As Sartre
said, "man is the being who's being is in question."  I realized today
that part of the reason why the meaning of existentialism has such a
strong mystique and is so difficult for many, is because even the word
itself <<< being >>>' is not something one can easily define.  I mean,
it's a word with vague qualities.  The word has a greater sense of
familiarity when used with other words like human being, living being,
inner being, physical being, being together, invisible being, divine
being, being happy, being in love, being free, being here on earth,
etc.

Nonetheless, the main subject matter of existentialism is
still 'being', thus in the case of a human being specifically, we have
a general field of study.  It has became possible to make 'being' a
matter for discussion, description, and a vital topic for intelligent
consideration.

And this is the way it goes.  If existence (human and otherwise) is a
valid subject matter, then people will sooner or later think about it,
discuss it and pursue it as a serious and worthwhile field of study.

Joe

I am glad to see the subject of "being-in-itself" and "being-for-
itself" addressed in this post.  From what I understand about these
phrases is that Sartre is addressing the two types of reality that
humans encounter in the world.  The For-Itself refers to the
conscious being and the In-Itself refers to things outside of the
conscious being.  I can only experience myself as a "For-Itself"
because I cannot experience another's consciousness.  The concept of
The "Other" (Being-for-others)arises out of the idea that I am an
object to others.  Incidentially, the "Other" appears to me as a
thing.  Therefore, I relate to the "Other" in relation to my meaning
or goals.  Each person's meaning is different from mine.
--- In Sartre@y..., "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:



> I continue to think about Sartre's unique phraseology;
> being-in-itself and being-for-itself, the two most basic phrases.
I
> believe that my awareness of his usage increases as I try to find
> meaningful applications in my everyday life.
>
> It is amazing to me how such a short phrase 'being-in-itself' is,
yet
> I keep sensing that there is more to realize in these few short
words.
>  I think Sartre took his cues from earlier philosophers and began
> concocting his own similar phrases.  For example, Immanual Kant had
> already put into use the expression 'thing-in-itself'.  And
Heidigger
> already used the phrase 'being-in-itself' as well.
>
> But Sartre doesn't just use the preposition 'in' alone, but found
that
> the term 'for' also expressed a relationship between the subject
> matter as expressed in the noun 'being' and the pronoun -
  'itself'.
> Both being-in-itself' and 'being-for-itself' are demonstrating a
> relationship between the two emphasis; being and itself.  Why not
just
> say 'being-itself' and eliminate the preposition 'in' and 'for'?
> Well, since being is more that just a 'thing-in-itself', the
> preposition 'for' best expresses that difference.
>
> And the term 'itself' is really about the same as saying 'it' which
> basically means you really don't know what to call it, so you
> label it as an 'it'.  And existence is like that, full of
dimensions
> that are unnamed, ill-defined so we have to refer to existence as a
> 'thing' or 'it' or an 'itself' in some reflexive form; and
connected
> by such terms as  (it, for, of, from, after or by); just to clarify
> some unique aspect of the subject matter - being.
>
> But maybe Sartre was a little short sighted, because these other
good
> prepositions easily make for a good topic on the ambiguities and
> unnamed aspects of being.  Why not the solitary expression of
> 'being-by-itself' or 'being-by-itself-alone' to expressed the
autonomy
> of being.  Well, who knows why Sartre did not find in them as much
to
> write about. How could we look at being on-of-after or from-itself;
> and not just be stuck on 'in' and 'for' itself?  Are these so
> irreducible, so fundamental?
>
> It occured to me as I thought more about the language aspect that
the
> subject matter of existentialism is much clearer to me now.  As
Sartre
> said, "man is the being who's being is in question."  I realized
today
> that part of the reason why the meaning of existentialism has such
a
> strong mystique and is so difficult for many, is because even the
word
> itself <<< being >>>' is not something one can easily define.  I
mean,
> it's a word with vague qualities.  The word has a greater sense of
> familiarity when used with other words like human being, living
being,
> inner being, physical being, being together, invisible being,
divine
> being, being happy, being in love, being free, being here on earth,
> etc.
>
> Nonetheless, the main subject matter of existentialism is
> still 'being', thus in the case of a human being specifically, we
have
> a general field of study.  It has became possible to make 'being' a
> matter for discussion, description, and a vital topic for
intelligent
> consideration.
>
> And this is the way it goes.  If existence (human and otherwise) is
a
> valid subject matter, then people will sooner or later think about
it,
> discuss it and pursue it as a serious and worthwhile field of study.
>
> Joe

Hi "scribbling_woman", and thanks for your reply.  Welcome to the
discussion group.  The thing I see is that these concepts are cast
within a formal / philosophically disciplined / impersonal language,
but I find personal value in how they are actually assimilated and
experienced through my own life and being specifically.  I think
people often like to discuss things in a universal context, but miss
the value there is by seeing these concepts in their own particular
life.  I don't know if Sartre ever intended to write a piece on self-
realization, but his material helps me like a personal guide book or
instructional.

The individual, unaware of the significance of being, is in effect,
unaware of that aspect in their own being.  So instead of working
with an impersonal concept (being-for-itself) as some detached
universal notion of consciousness, I see myself-as-personally-being-
conscious in particular, which really directly benefits me with self
understanding, especially my own conscious attention that I
experience and meaning-based interest that are the quintessential
characteristic of my own humanness and that makes uniquely <<< me >>>.

I am eager to continue discussing any specific areas of being that
interest you, especially topics you have some regard for or that
might benefit you in the private psyche; that might transform the
impersonal concept into a personal subject for-you-as-a-being

Existentialism is an over-arching and general heading for several
specific branches or sub-topics that the individual might face in the
quest for self-realization. (IMHO)

Joe

--- In Sartre@y..., "scribbling_woman" <debbycoley@y...> wrote:
> I am glad to see the subject of "being-in-itself" and "being-for-
> itself" addressed in this post.  From what I understand about these
> phrases is that Sartre is addressing the two types of reality that
> humans encounter in the world.  The For-Itself refers to the
> conscious being and the In-Itself refers to things outside of the
> conscious being.  I can only experience myself as a "For-Itself"
> because I cannot experience another's consciousness.  The concept
of
> The "Other" (Being-for-others)arises out of the idea that I am an
> object to others.  Incidentially, the "Other" appears to me as a
> thing.  Therefore, I relate to the "Other" in relation to my
meaning
> or goals.  Each person's meaning is different from mine.

Thanks Joe for the reply!  I must admit that I am a mere neophyte in
the discipline of philosophy and thus I find it so endlessly
fascinating.  One concept that has made a huge impression on me is
Sartre's concept of "facticity".  In effect, this is me, my genetic
heredity, enviromental influences, etc. I am the sum of all I've
seen, to paraphrase Odysseus.  But what is even more exciting is the
sister concept of transcendence of our facticity.  What this means to
me on a personal level  is that I have the ability to work with or
work past what has happened to me or what disabilities, etc I was
either born with or acquired (such as negative attitudes, etc not
just physical disabilities although this would surely involve those
too).  This concept also ties into a major Sartrian theme of
responsibility and freedom.  I am ultimately responsible for myself,
yes ME!  I can decide how to react or act in a given situation.  Of
course, I cannot control outside events, per se, but I can control my
action in response to them in most cases. Here I can appreciate
freedom more fully. This rids me of acting in
bad faith because I am no longer blaming others for my choices.

Thanks for letting me ramble!

Well, please ramble as much as you wish, that is all most of us are
doing here.  I like your comments on facticity.  I recall Sartre
saying that meaning had three unique variations, the first had to
do with the fact that we are born into a world in which meaning is
already there, already present before you or I as individuals had any
opportunity to shape or supply these meanings for ourself.  Meanings
that have been established by others before our arrival.  In other
words, pre-existening instrumental complexes.

As we live our life out, over its course, we add meaning to the world,
helping to shape the prevailing meanings that also shapes our lives.

The second expression of meaning had to do with facticity.  I am a
male.  I am my age.  I have a particular genetic arrangement.  I live
in given city, within a specific time frame, etc.  These are aspects
of my own historical facticity, out of which my unique meaningfulness
arises and becomes solidified.

The third expression of meaning, according to Sartre, refers to other
beings to whom meaning and meaningfulness is directed toward.  Well,
we live in a shared world, right?  One example of how the other is a
basic element in meaning is dialogue; we are communicating beings.
From one mind to another mind, words are hurled and flung about,
between mouths and ears, the printed page and eyes, through which
meaning is constantly being released into the world.

Regarding factiicity, especially from a personal viewpoint, what do my
own factual realities mean to me as the carrier of them.  For example,
how has being a female / mother impacted your life, what do you think
about it, what significance do you see at work with the context of
your (personal / particular) actual conditions of being? (Rhetorical
question).

Keep the fire burning - Joe





--- In Sartre@y..., "scribbling_woman" <debbycoley@y...> wrote:
> Thanks Joe for the reply!  I must admit that I am a mere neophyte in
> the discipline of philosophy and thus I find it so endlessly
> fascinating.  One concept that has made a huge impression on me is
> Sartre's concept of "facticity".  In effect, this is me, my genetic
> heredity, enviromental influences, etc. I am the sum of all I've
> seen, to paraphrase Odysseus.  But what is even more exciting is the
> sister concept of transcendence of our facticity.  What this means
to
> me on a personal level  is that I have the ability to work with or
> work past what has happened to me or what disabilities, etc I was
> either born with or acquired (such as negative attitudes, etc not
> just physical disabilities although this would surely involve those
> too).  This concept also ties into a major Sartrian theme of
> responsibility and freedom.  I am ultimately responsible for myself,
> yes ME!  I can decide how to react or act in a given situation.  Of
> course, I cannot control outside events, per se, but I can control
my
> action in response to them in most cases. Here I can appreciate
> freedom more fully. This rids me of acting in
> bad faith because I am no longer blaming others for my choices.
>
> Thanks for letting me ramble!

When looking at the relationship between facticity and meaning I
believe that Sartre would dispute the notion that meaning is "already
there" when we are born into the world.  This idea of meaning being
already there is more of a ancient Greek or Christian notion that the
moral construct of the universe is "out there" and we have to find
out about it either through the use of reason or attention to
revelation.  Satre wholeheartedly rejects this notion of preexistent
meaning.  The preexistent meaning that Sartre does endorse is tied
into the idea of "being for others".  Others impose their meanings on
us so meaning in this sense is a kind of restraining force.

William Thomas
Kansas City, KS

BTW, the audiotape series on existentialism sold by The Teaching
Company contains an excellent explication of this "being for others"
idea

Agreed.

--- In Sartre@y..., "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
> I have not read Thomas Kuhn, and thanks for the reference, it
sounds
> interesting.  I will check it out.  I do like the
terminology 'maps'
> of reality and I think your right about how they shift from one to
> another, that is, the narratives.
>
> And you know, it strikes me that having some kind of map is better
> than no map at all; this is humanities situation, to struggle with
> the best map available at any one time.
>
> Warm regards - Joe
>
> --- In Sartre@y..., "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...> wrote:
> > Joe,
> >   This is a good point. Have you read Thomas Kuhn's book? I think
> his
> > study into the structure of science also applies to philosophy.
> > Repetively starting with the Greeks the same cycle ending in
denial
> > (the Skepits) has been repeated.
> >
> > Empiricle data seems to trickle through greater refinement and
> > further exploration in slowly creating a rift in existing "maps"
of
> > reality. Eventually the rift is large enough to allow a paradymn
> > shift, a switch of the map, to explain reality. Often the period
> > between the new maps can last decades or even centuries. During
> these
> > periods seekers of truth (religion, science, philosophy) seems to
> > fall back on the position that there is no map. That is, that
> reality
> > can be described not explained (i.e. Bohr's philosophy on Quantum
> > Mechanics.)
> >
> > Anyway, I was a bit long winded, but what I was trying to say is
> very
> > good point.  I think you're right. Sartre basically is saying you
> > only can experience/describe reality not explain it, so deal with
> it.
> >
> > It probably will continue until a more acurate map is found.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel
> >
> > --- In Sartre@y..., "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
> > > Chris said: You (joe) are a Kantian and you are to act as if
the
> > maxim
> > > of your action should conform to a universal law. Or act only
on
> > that
> > > maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should
become
> a
> > > universal law.
> > >
> > > Joe:  Well, that would be a universalization, trying to come up
> > with a
> > > piece of advise for one single individual that is supposed to
> apply
> > to
> > > everyone; a communal maxim.  No. I'm not talking about
universal
> > > imperatives or a rule of conduct for everyone.  That's not what
I
> > mean
> > > when I ask 'how am I to be?" or 'how am I to act?"
> > >
> > > My freedom is 'my' unique capacity to act or not to act, I
choose
> > > without any external rule at all.  If I am Kantian, it would be
> > more
> > > along the lines of his hypothetical imperative, such as: If you
> > want
> > > to be an intelligent philospher, by your own free will,
according
> > to
> > > your own selected interest, then study other great
philosophers.
> > Now
> > > that's advise that applies to one specific person who has a
> > specific
> > > interest.  The conduct is personal and voluntary - an if-then
> > > proposition.  That is, the imperative is a conditional
> opportunity
> > for
> > > me to be a good philosopher, but is neither one in which
I 'ought
> > to'
> > > nor am I command to do, much less is the whole world wrong for
> not
> > > doing as I should.
> > >
> > > Being-for-itself is in the process of becoming and is in a
state
> of
> > > hypothetical possibility; and it is here, in any particular
> > individual
> > > that has to decide for themself, what am I to be, what am I to
> do.
> > So
> > > the existential guidance is not a Kantian moral universal or
duty
> > to
> > > arbitrarily regulate mine and everyone else's actions.  And I
> think
> > > that is what a maxim does.  So - no - I am not looking for the
> > > rightness or wrongness of being or doing, but more for what is
> > > satisfying for one person alone, if I wish to experience what I
> > alone
> > > or few like me are perhaps interested in.
> > >
> > > It is more of a creative concern rather than a moral one which
> the
> > > maxim implies.  That would take us back to some grand universal
> > truth,
> > > when all I am seeking is a particular prescription; what might
> only
> > be
> > > true about me.
> > >
> > > So it's not right action or ethical command, but self-interest
in
> a
> > > creative vain.  Could there be a moral ramification? Yes.
> > >
> > > Lastly, regarding Sartre's non-attempt to offer such advice for
> > anyone
> > > specifically, it consequently becomes difficult for his grand
> > > narrative to turn practical through anyone person's specific
> > action.
> > > He has not given any specific advise, that is all I meant to
> convey.
> > >
> > > But the real point is, this is where some people stand in an
> > > existential vacuum, in general, where they are at, in need of
> > > practical advise.
> > >
> > > Joe

This is an interesting exploration into value of an object with which
interactions are based. One way to frame it is through the use of
models or structures.

Borrowing from Plato's "forms" we can represent the intrinsic value o
the woman as the universal "form" or model of forms she can take in
all past, current, and future instances.

The current form is then simply an expression of that model.

Anyway, could you continue with your line of thought? I was unclear
where you were going with it but I found it intriguing.

Thanks,
Daniel

--- In Sartre@y..., "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
> It seems that Sartre understood value as what the for-itself does
> in the face of lack. (strictly instrumental) In other words, human
> beings desire what they lack specifically. For example; one man may
> see a particular woman as desirable and feel that not to have her
for
> himself would be lacking.  Thus, what he lacks is what he also
> desires.  Consequently he sees some value in the woman.
>
> But is value strictly 'desire & lack' based.
>
> The woman is viewed as an object of desire, seemingly neccessary
for
> the man to be himself; complete and happy.
>
> However, this particular view of value interprets the woman as a
> meer object of desire, a means to an end [the man's fulfillment]
and
> does not recognize that the woman is an end in herself or has value
in
> and of herself - without the man's desire / lack / value.
>
> The key point that I am making about value is that it is not
strictly
> bound in the for-itself as a desire for an object in order to
pursue
> it's own lack, in order to be itself (completed). Although value is
> expressed as 'interest' and therefore rooted in a conscious mind,
that
> interest is not specifically limited to ones own mind, but
expressed
> as an acknowledgement of the others detached interest,
> individual consciousness and inherent worth, existing within them
> alone.
>
> If I see this hypothetical woman as a means to my own fulfillment,
> then I have viewed this woman as having only an instrumental value
> determined by me.  If I see this woman as an end in herself, having
> value within the context of her own freedom, then I have viewed
this
> woman as having an intrinsic value determined by or within herself
> alone.
>
> No true mutual respect between people is possible without
> acknowledging the intrinsic value of the other.
>
> Joe

> Both being-in-itself' and 'being-for-itself' are demonstrating a
> relationship between the two emphasis; being and itself.  Why not >
just
> say 'being-itself' and eliminate the preposition 'in' and 'for'?
> Well, since being is more that just a 'thing-in-itself', the
> preposition 'for' best expresses that difference.

Because perhaps the emphaisis is on the relationship, the relative
nature not the parts at the end of the relationship.

For example, he argues that Descarte's was wrong when he said

"I doubt therefore I am."

He claimed it was more correctly stated as:

"I am aware that I doubt, therefore I am."

Here you have a single object "I", with two defined relationships.
Each relationships modifies "I" by its role: observer, reader, writer.

Thanks,
Daniel

-I looked in my copy of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" in the back
section deemed Key to Special Terminology and found the following
definition of facticity: "The For-itself's necessary connection with
the In-itself, hence the world and its own past.  It is what allows
us to say that the For-itself is or exists.  The facticity of freedom
is the fact that freedom is not able not to be free"(802).  I like
this description because it gets down to the fundamentals.  Freedom
is not able not to be free.

osopher" <quasiphilosopher@n...> wrote:
> When looking at the relationship between facticity and meaning I
> believe that Sartre would dispute the notion that meaning
is "already
> there" when we are born into the world.  This idea of meaning being
> already there is more of a ancient Greek or Christian notion that
the
> moral construct of the universe is "out there" and we have to find
> out about it either through the use of reason or attention to
> revelation.  Satre wholeheartedly rejects this notion of
preexistent
> meaning.  The preexistent meaning that Sartre does endorse is tied
> into the idea of "being for others".  Others impose their meanings
on
> us so meaning in this sense is a kind of restraining force.
>
> William Thomas
> Kansas City, KS
>
> BTW, the audiotape series on existentialism sold by The Teaching
> Company contains an excellent explication of this "being for
others"
> idea

William said:  When looking at the relationship between facticity and
meaning I believe that Sartre would dispute the notion that meaning
is "already there" when we are born into the world.

Joe says:  In Part Four of Being And Nothingness, Section II Freedom
And Facticity: The Situation, Section D. entitled My Fellowman, page
654 of Hazel Barnes translation. (paperback), it reads as follows

"To live in a world haunted by my fellowman is not only to be able to
encounter the Other at every turn of the road; it is also to find
myself engaged in a world in which instrumental complexes can have a
meaning which my free project has not first given to them.  It means
also that in the midst of this world already provided with meaning I
meet with a meaning which is mine and which I have not given to
myself, which I discover that I "possess already."

Both Sartre and I are refering to the "instruments which are already
meaningful."

William said:  This idea of meaning being already there is more of a
ancient Greek or Christian notion that the moral construct of the
universe is "out there" and we have to find out about it either
through the use of reason or attention to revelation.  Satre
wholeheartedly rejects this notion of preexistent meaning.

Joe said:  Right, I am not refering to a logos or an intrinsic cosmic
meaning.  However, Sartre is talking about three layers of reality,
the 1st being "instruments which are already meaningful (a station, a
railroad sign, a work of art, a mobilization notice), the meaning
which I discover as already mine..."

Joe

Hi Daniel.  I guess I'm merely saying that the interest that arises
in the other, transcends whatever instrumental value I attempt to
impose upon them through my own desire / lack.  It simply is not true
that the other has any final word on defining the value of my
person.  I have value, you have value, in and of yourself, without
any approbation by others.  And that value is upheld by the
individual toward him or herself by the force of their own
conclusion / interest.  The intrinsic value I have as a person arises
from my own affirmative interest.

Joe

  --- In Sartre@y..., "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...> wrote:
> This is an interesting exploration into value of an object with
which
> interactions are based. One way to frame it is through the use of
> models or structures.
>
> Borrowing from Plato's "forms" we can represent the intrinsic value
o
> the woman as the universal "form" or model of forms she can take in
> all past, current, and future instances.
>
> The current form is then simply an expression of that model.
>
> Anyway, could you continue with your line of thought? I was unclear
> where you were going with it but I found it intriguing.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
> --- In Sartre@y..., "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
> > It seems that Sartre understood value as what the for-itself does
> > in the face of lack. (strictly instrumental) In other words,
human
> > beings desire what they lack specifically. For example; one man
may
> > see a particular woman as desirable and feel that not to have her
> for
> > himself would be lacking.  Thus, what he lacks is what he also
> > desires.  Consequently he sees some value in the woman.
> >
> > But is value strictly 'desire & lack' based.
> >
> > The woman is viewed as an object of desire, seemingly neccessary
> for
> > the man to be himself; complete and happy.
> >
> > However, this particular view of value interprets the woman as a
> > meer object of desire, a means to an end [the man's fulfillment]
> and
> > does not recognize that the woman is an end in herself or has
value
> in
> > and of herself - without the man's desire / lack / value.
> >
> > The key point that I am making about value is that it is not
> strictly
> > bound in the for-itself as a desire for an object in order to
> pursue
> > it's own lack, in order to be itself (completed). Although value
is
> > expressed as 'interest' and therefore rooted in a conscious mind,
> that
> > interest is not specifically limited to ones own mind, but
> expressed
> > as an acknowledgement of the others detached interest,
> > individual consciousness and inherent worth, existing within them
> > alone.
> >
> > If I see this hypothetical woman as a means to my own
fulfillment,
> > then I have viewed this woman as having only an instrumental
value
> > determined by me.  If I see this woman as an end in herself,
having
> > value within the context of her own freedom, then I have viewed
> this
> > woman as having an intrinsic value determined by or within
herself
> > alone.
> >
> > No true mutual respect between people is possible without
> > acknowledging the intrinsic value of the other.
> >
> > Joe

Joe,
   Forgive me if I repeat myself. I can't remember if I mention
Daoism. Your ideas mirror many of their thoughts. You might want to
check them out.

Thanks,
Daniel


--- In Sartre@y..., "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
> Hi Daniel.  I guess I'm merely saying that the interest that arises
> in the other, transcends whatever instrumental value I attempt to
> impose upon them through my own desire / lack.  It simply is not
true
> that the other has any final word on defining the value of my
> person.  I have value, you have value, in and of yourself, without
> any approbation by others.  And that b>
> Joe
>
>  --- In Sartre@y..., "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...> wrote:
> > This is an interesting exploration into value of an object with
> which
> > interactions are based. One way to frame it is through the use of
> > models or structures.
> >
> > Borrowing from Plato's "forms" we can represent the intrinsic
value
> o
> > the woman as the universal "form" or model of forms she can take
in
> > all past, current, and future instances.
> >
> > The current form is then simply an expression of that model.
> >
> > Anyway, could you continue with your line of thought? I was
unclear
> > where you were going with it but I found it intriguing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel
> >
> > --- In Sartre@y..., "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
> > > It seems that Sartre understood value as what the for-itself
does
> > > in the face of lack. (strictly instrumental) In other words,
> human
> > > beings desire what they lack specifically. For example; one man
> may
> > > see a particular woman as desirable and feel that not to have
her
> > for
> > > himself would be lacking.  Thus, what he lacks is what he also
> > > desires.  Consequently he sees some value in the woman.
> > >
> > > But is value strictly 'desire & lack' based.
> > >
> > > The woman is viewed as an object of desire, seemingly
neccessary
> > for
> > > the man to be himself; complete and happy.
> > >
> > > However, this particular view of value interprets the woman as
a
> > > meer object of desire, a means to an end [the man's
fulfillment]
> > and
> > > does not recognize that the woman is an end in herself or has
> value
> > in
> > > and of herself - without the man's desire / lack / value.
> > >
> > > The key point that I am making about value is that it is not
> > strictly
> > > bound in the for-itself as a desire for an object in order to
> > pursue
> > > it's own lack, in order to be itself (completed). Although
value
> is
> > > expressed as 'interest' and therefore rooted in a conscious
mind,
> > that
> > > interest is not specifically limited to ones own mind, but
> > expressed
> > > as an acknowledgement of the others detached interest,
> > > individual consciousness and inherent worth, existing within
them
> > > alone.
> > >
> > > If I see this hypothetical woman as a means to my own
> fulfillment,
> > > then I have viewed this woman as having only an instrumental
> value
> > > determined by me.  If I see this woman as an end in herself,
> having
> > > value within the context of her own freedom, then I have viewed
> > this
> > > woman as having an intrinsic value determined by or within
> herself
> > > alone.
> > >
> > > No true mutual respect between people is possible without
> > > acknowledging the intrinsic value of the other.
> > >
> > > Joe