Why do we call down the poets?  What Platonic/christian sickness is this?
Was Nietzsche lesser for writing with beauty rather than with the contempt
for self that is the public forum?  To write with beauty is to show a
cherrishment over the topic; to honor it completely would be to not speak of
it at all.  We speak of 'breaking from reality' but how is that possible in
any real sense?  I feel that the only type of break from reality is
aseticism, in the negation of self, when we pretend that we are part of some
public greatness.






>From: "decker150" <decker150@...>
>Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
>To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Sartre] Break from reality
>Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:19:31 -0000
>
>What keeps 'language' itself and all mental activity from being
>considered a break from reality.  Is the normally functioning
>person, well-adjusted, working, making money, shopping,
>traveling, watching football, daydreaming about his favorite food  -
>really in touch with the meaning of Being?  Most people could care
>less about the question, what is the meaning of Being?  They aren't
>sitting around wondering what alienation means?  Do they care about
>labor power or whether the means of production are owned by the state
>or private enterprise?
>
>Heidegger was right, the herd mentality is just so lost in 'the-they',
>barely ever having a serious concern over the unasked
>question areas and the unsaid thoughts.  Yet Heideggers term 'Being'
>is about as ambiguous as 'God' and I think in the later years of his
>life, he turned in defeat (not victory) to poetry of the gods and the
>'foursome'; earth, sky, mortal and divine.  To the mysticism of
>private poetry.
>
>And prayer is what I turn to, throwing myself upon the impossible.
>
>Joe
>


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Theology is concerned with the subject of God.  However, for many
existentialist, the concept of God is merely devoid of reality, and
has been reduced to a 'mythos', thus to mythology.  But even if God
is a myth, that does not mean that every concern within a holy
writings in support of those myth are necessarily pointless or
valueless exaggerations.  Drop the 'theos' and add the 'ontos' and
you have the rudimentary formula for maintaining an ongoing and
productive '-ology'; the leftover structure of theology, striped of
its God and focused exclusively upon the new operant mystery now
called 'Being'.  But Heidegger did not really get rid of the mystery
itself.  Ontology serves well to preserve and set forth those
existential aspects of theology which have been tossed out, and
those that still have value after the de-mythologized workdown.

The problem is with the bathwater ... not the baby.  Ontology has
primarially grounded itself to the immanent, to those things which
are the nearest to us.  This has not eliminated the aspect of the
transcendent, which surrounds us as the past and the future, but
especially the psychic possibilities within. The quest
philosophically should at least be towards some kind of adjusted
belief system that allows one to live as fully as they were
previously able to do, by hoax or truth, when they communed with the
divine.  The deep appeal of Heidegger, although he approached his
philosophy from an immanent-ontological-atheistic frame still has
considerable respect among theologians, mainly because his message
does not throw the baby out with the bath water.  The numinous,
glorious and astonishing depth of what was the divine experience,
that resulted in inspiration, heights of great imagination, tales of
miracles, foresight, sacrifice and deep conviction has been driven
out and subverted by the bare naked and modern state of mind
glancing out over the opaque universe now devoid of all divine
mystery.  I am not saying that there is no astonishment for those
without faith, but whatever drove Heidegger to give his all to the
meaning of Being inspired him and later defeated him.  I don't
believe he succeeded in truly satisfying his own expectations in the
explication of Being.  And, IMHO, Sartre did no better when
modulating Heidegger's seminal ideas into French culture and
language.

However, what enables us today to grasp our own inner experience, to
differentiate it's possibilities, to seperate thought from intent,
essence from existence, appearances from superimposed propoganda,
the idea from the real, that springs from within and issue
conviction of a deep inner 'ought-to', what guides and directs us to
become better more enlightened people?  I do not see this as
possible with mere scientific positivism, rationalism, technologism,
capitalism, or even existential ideas.  Even here the existentialist
discussion group can't get off the ground with a solid ethical
foundation, clearly not from a Sartrian position.  The best we
conclude is not to let bad faith lead you into self-deception.  Is
that the primo-conclusion?

But, how is one lead into good faith?

Heidegger appreciated the numinous, retained his own astonishment
with Being.  I am with him, I can not let go of the
mystifying 'isness' of 'the-Is'.  Dasein, limited by Heidegger to
the knowable and immanent domain of human experience, (pretty small
and seperated from ethical concerns and theology) is not for me a
forgone conclusion, but only a forced reduction made by being
indifferent to the transcendent difficulties that reason failed in
and faith still attempts to praise.  Because I am not a professional
philosopher, I do not have to gaurantee that reason is felt to be
the superior ground.  It is in faith that both the subject and
resulting experience of 'faith' that I find a particular astonishing
and ineffable quality to Being which I do not hear much about in a
respectful way.  In my own experience, faith has added something
profoundly obvious at the mystical level.  There is, the concealed
aspects of Being which Heidegger knew was-there.  For me, what seems
unconcealed by faith not only as numinous and astonishing, but
functional in some desirable and effective everyday way.  The early
prophets and believers found this to be 'walking with God'.  I get
something out of faith which has sunk into modern oblivion without
faith.  Willaim James wrote Variety of Religious Experiences which
told how deeply impacted some people were by their religious
experience.  Maslow dealt with it as Peak experience.  There is a
magical, quasi-miraculous quality to the brain/mind dynamic.  It is
when this becomes clearer by faith through it's various
manifestations.  For me, the supreme Being is not automatically
tossed out of Ontology; but can still invite everything that is the
fartherest from us, to come closer.  Once the supreme Being of our
Being was the source of wisdom, the provider of truth, the giver of
knowledge, manifesting miracles, guiding the seer, supporter of
faith, source of hope. Where has all this gone to?

I am still given to faith.

Joe

There is a tautology in Heidegger which seems essential for his
undertaking, to explain the meaning of Being.  However, the 'Being' of
Beings does not appear to exist.  I understand that beings such as a
chair or rock are specific instances of Be-ing related to
actual presence and appearance, but is the is-thereness
of Dasein utterly dependent upon these objective forms (concretion)?
In other words, if a chair is concretely present, then subsequently
Being-in-itself is-there and comprehensible as Dasein.  Heidegger was
intrigued with the question, why is there something rather than
nothing at all; from there Sartre took up the theme of nothingness.
It seems that in Heidegger that Being-in-itself while never present in
the sense of actually-appearing-there has this almost ghost like
quality. Does someone have a explaination as to how we philosophically
discuss something that is not actually there?  Is this not the
condition of faith and the spirituality of religion?

If the Being of our being is not actually there, but turns out to be
a major concern of existentialism, how is it that this ghost like
dimension (the meaning of Being) has been raised to the
attribution of being-there?  I suspect that when I say "I am a man", I
am not merely refering to the blood, bones, water, guts, organs and
brain, but to this quinessential dimension of (Dasein) that is
considered to be-there in an almost ghost-like way.  The
meaning of Da-sein includes this indefinable aspect as if it falls
under the rubric of existentialism.  It certainly did especially as
the concept of essence, which was expounded by Sartre to be the one we
create by the choices we make in the unfolding the future and
encountering our own possibilities.  Yet, even if this is so, that we
are constructing our own essence as experiences unfold and permit,
this still does not clarify what the essence 'is' of Dasein and it's
strange dynamic capacity to achieve a-priori process and novelty in
which one essence pairs up and gains a relational pathway to all
the other essences; for example, out of 600,000 words, how can it be
spontaneoulsy gathered in a rhapsodic variety of syntax possibilities
and come together by the power of will to form coherent meaningful
structures?  And then change again in a thousand other viral forms to
create and recreate new movements within the cogitos?  Why is meaning
so important to Dasein, such that 'meaning-itself' charges and excites
even the philosophers quest.  Where would we be without meaning-itself
and all these infinite reconfigurations possible as a-prior
creations?  Certainly, had we not expounded the 'meaning of Being' as
Heidegger and Sartre, the whole culture might have ended up stupified
like a rock.

I am of the opinion that one cannot set out to explain the meaning of
Being, by taking meaning-itself for granted.  Another tautology; what
is the meaning of meaning (theory of meaning)?  Nor do I think that
meaning is thrown off to linguistic studies or lexical semantics.
Descartes Cosgitos Ergo Sum started by its primary focus upon the
cogitos, which was reversed by the existential movement to prioritize
the 'Sum' before all else.  Thinking and meaning has been minimized as
the superfulous activity of the existential condition, which is why
all things having to do with meaning are cast into
secondary status.  Existentialism grounds itself mainly in the
'immediacy perception' where as the powerful tide of the cogitos
(thinking in general - the philospophers general preoccupation))has
been thrown toward 'meaning perception'.  We may philosophize about a
hammer, but the hammer is not spirited away by us.

Joe

> Andrew:  Seems to me if anyone is guilty of an arbitrary and
overactive
> imagination it is those people who dream up souls that survive our
bodies
> after death, and which have an eternal afterlife characterized by
beauty and
> light and long-lost friends, and maybe even a cherub or two.
There is
> absolutely no logical, scientific basis upon which to base the
idea that we
> survive our own deaths.  It flies in the face of all that we do
know and have
> observed down through history.  Therefore, the person who believes
in the
> afterlife is making an unfounded speculation based upon wishful
thinking.  It
> is this person who is making a claim (an unfounded one at that).
The person
> who does not believe in the afterlife is not being dogmatic; he is
simply
> saying that he abides by all the evidence, as well as common
sense, until
> such time as someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
>
> Atheism, at bottom, is not a belief.  It is, rather, the absence
of the
> theist's belief(s).  The theist is the one making the extravagent
claims;

I think you are confusing atheism and agnosticism here.  Also,
riddle me this batman: how/why is it any more "dogmatic" to believe
in some kind of "life after death/soul" than it is to believe in
one's own immortality?  Basically - from an epistemic standpoint -
one could very well doubt that their "death" can/will ever even
occur.  True, empirical evidence based on induction suggests
otherwise (i.e. the "death" of all other human beings, and my
apparent inclusion in this group), but any Humean knows that
induction is open to serious objections.  And your appeal to "common
sense" hints of that same dogmatic odour of the Enlightenment (i.e.
the desire for a deterministic world encouraged by scientific
calculation/observation) but forgets that philosophy is suppossed to
provide for/justify the foundation(s) of science - not vice
versa.  "Common sense" has no place in a philosophical vernacular.
Now, I'm not suggesting we all run for the razor blades (I sure as
hell won't), but epistemically speaking, you don't know that your
death will occur, or even if it is "possible" (i.e. it is an "empty"
concept, just as "life" prior to birth).  Thus, you should more
closely examine your own "beliefs" (as oppossed to the KNOWLEDGE you
think you have) before trying to cast doubts into the minds
of "believers" - even though I am not one personally.


- B.H.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

B.H. wrote:  "Riddle me this, Batman.  How/why is it any more dogmatic to
believe in some kind of life after death/soul than it is to believe in one's
own immortality?"

Batman (Andrew) responds: Did you mean 'mortality'?  Otherwise, they're both
the same.  Dogma is defined as a doctrinal system comprised of various (and
often rigid) tenets believed to be true.  In my opinion the existence of a
providential god, souls, resurrections, life after death, etc. are tenets of
a dogmatic ediface built on faith in those tenets (which is circular) and
which people choose to believe for many personal reasons, which I won't
presume to list.

I do not believe in god or the afterlife or even the soul if it is defined as
something separate from the body.  I cannot be certain of this because it
evades proof.  I have not erected a system of belief on my atheism; rather, I
have drawn conclusions (or agreed with the conclusions of others) that are
implied by the absence of theistic tenets; for example, the lack of universal
values.  I reject being labelled an agnostic, for I reject theism, which is
something agnostics (or at least the ones I have known) are not willing to
do.

B.H. wrote: ""Common sense" has no place in a philosophical vernacular."

Andrew writes: I disagree.  I'm reminded of Johnson's wry comment, referring
to philosophers such as Berkeley, the solipsists, and even Plato, when he
said "I've never stubbed my toe on the idea of a rock."  Even Hume, who
basically demolished philosophy to that point, admitted the reality and
importance of what he called "instinctive knowledge", i.e., common sense. If
philosophy purports to have any connection with life, then it must
incorporate common sense, for we all of us rely on common sense in numerous
ways every single day.  Again, referring to Hume, we can not know for a fact
that the sun will rise tomorrow and that there will be another day, but
common sense tells us so.  If philosophy wishes to dispense with common sense
then it will swiftly back itself into the same corner Wittgenstein backed
himself into when he asserted that questions about meaning in life, or the
nature of time, or the existence of god, were all meaningless, and that
philosophy, if it exists at all, is simply an intellectual game in logic.






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

--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, anjo3jantz@a... wrote:
> B.H. wrote:  "Riddle me this, Batman.  How/why is it any more
dogmatic to
> believe in some kind of life after death/soul than it is to
believe in one's
> own immortality?"
>
> Batman (Andrew) responds: Did you mean 'mortality'?  Otherwise,
they're both
> the same.

"Life after death" and "immortality" are not the same.  The former
implies some different type/mode of existence after some kind
of "death," whereas immortality implies the continuation of our
present mode of existence ad infinitum...  like Highlander.  Also,
you didn't really respond to this point.


> I do not believe in god or the afterlife or even the soul if it is
defined as
> something separate from the body.

Check out Schopenhauer's "The World As Will and
Representation/Idea."  Perhaps you'll realize that your beliefs
about your "body" are arguably as dogmatic as other's beliefs about
their "soul."


> I cannot be certain of this because it
> evades proof.  I have not erected a system of belief on my
atheism; rather, I
> have drawn conclusions (or agreed with the conclusions of others)
that are
> implied by the absence of theistic tenets; for example, the lack
of universal
> values.

Are you implying that without God/religion, there are no universal
values?  Camus's position on murder/suicide in "The Rebel" could
help you here as well:  "From the moment that life is recognized as
good, it becomes good for all men.  Murder cannot be made coherent
when suicide is not considered coherent."  Also, Nietzsche was an
atheist.  But don't you think the doctrine of Will to Power contains
universal values?


> B.H. wrote: ""Common sense" has no place in a philosophical
vernacular."
>
> Andrew writes: I disagree.  I'm reminded of Johnson's wry comment,
referring
> to philosophers such as Berkeley, the solipsists, and even Plato,
when he
> said "I've never stubbed my toe on the idea of a rock."

You're right.  I should have written:  "Common sense" has no place
in a phenomenological vernacular.  But then again, I equate
philosophy with phenomenology...


- B.H.

BH wrote:  > "Life after death" and "immortality" are not the same.  The
> former implies some different type/mode of existence after some kind of
> "death," whereas immortality implies the continuation of our present mode
> of existence ad infinitum..."

Andrew writes:  I think you will agree that most people, when using the term
"immortality", do not use it to mean that we live forever in our "present
mode of existence",  (which implies that we never die) but that our soul
survives our death and lives on eternally.

BH wrote: "Are you implying that without God/religion, there are no universal

values?"

Andrew writes: Yes, I most definitely am.  In my opinion, values are human
constructs, and humans are not universal, but quite finite.  Therefore,
values are not universal.  I believe that if man ceased to exist, so would
his "universal" values.

I am curious.  In commenting on my views, you have said little of your own.
Are you a closet theist/atheist hiding behind the view that we can't know
anything for certain and therefore can't make a stand?  Life is full of
uncertainties, but we all make stands in the face of them.  In my opinion, thi
s is no different.


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

At 9:06 pm +0000 8/4/03, jpsartrean wrote:
>  Camus's position on murder/suicide in "The Rebel" could
>help you here as well:  "From the moment that life is recognized as
>good, it becomes good for all men.  Murder cannot be made coherent
>when suicide is not considered coherent."

That is an interesting quote. But it is not true. If my life is good
then I can assume that the life of my child, my brother, my
neighbour, my friend, my fellow-countryman is good. But what about
the life of the Other, the enemy who hates me, whose world view is
antagonistic towards mine? Is his life good too? Then why am I trying
to kill him? Why is he trying to kill me? Does the Other exist? If
so, how can I know it?

But I agree with the latter sentiment. Suicide is coherent BECAUSE
murder is considered so.

Tommy
--
-
http://www.scoraig.com

Aite nan Easgann, Achmore, Dundonnell, Ross-shire, IV23 2RE

UK Orange mobile +44 (0)7966 294458; UK Vodafone +44(0)7787 158073
If calling from a UK or international landline  please ask me to call you back

>>>There is absolutely no logical, scientific basis upon which to base the
idea that we survive our own deaths.  It flies in the face of all that we do
know and have observed down through history.<<<

Moreover, there is absolutely no logical, scientific basis for looking for
logical, scientific bases: remember, logical & scientific people dreamed up
that so-called war in Iraq. Logic & scientism are senseless albeit popular
weapons in combatting the inexplicable.


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

Hey if any of you are in the Portland Oregon area, I am directing
No Exit as my thesis for my degree. It is going up next week.

Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit
April 16th-20th
Sat 7:30 p.m.
Sunday- 2:30 p.m.
Pacific University
Tom Miles Theatre
Forest Grove, Oregon
box office (503)-352-2918
$3.00 students
$5.00 adults

Directed by Matthew T. Davis

Produced by special arrangement with Samuel French,Inc.

Joe -- Just got around to reading your comments.

Certainly it is your right to have faith, and to value the transcendent
aspects of faith as they relate to the narrower definition of being.  I think
the choice to believe, or not to believe, is profoundly personal, and should
be respected by others who disagree.

I haven't really read Karl Jaspers, but what little I have read about him
makes me think that he had a lot to say about transcendence, and that he
framed it in a way that is outside the context of religious faith, or the
lack thereof.  If you haven't already read him, it might be of interest to
you.  I'd like to read him myself, and just haven't gotten around to it yet.

One thing I have to question you on though is when you said: "what guides and
directs us to become better more enlightened people?  I do not see this as
possible with mere scientific positivism, rationalism, technologism,
capitalism, or even existential ideas."  I think it is unfair to claim that
if people do not have faith, they have nothing to compel them toward being
better and more enlightened people.  I am an atheist, but I do genuinely try
to be a better person, and I study and think and observe so that I can become
a more enlightened person.  Just because I do not believe in universal values
does not mean that I don't have values, or that man can have no values.  I
think that would be, as you say, throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I do believe that there are legitimate (but not strictly universal) values,
such as freedom, authenticity, love, and the respect for life, which are
central to, and crucial to, human existence, and which can lead us to being
better and more enlightened people.

Regards,
Andrew


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

Andrew, brilliantly and thoughtfully stated.  From my perspective, it
is not values that need to be universal or absolute, but rather the
source of those values, which is Being.  Being is the most common
universal condition; it permeates everything, everywhere, even to the
outer edges of the cosmos.  Wherever you are, there is somethere
'there' (Da), and the fact that it 'is' (Sein) directs us to the
universal status of Da-sein.  The central core value of that universal
state is to remain there as opposed to being obliterated,
anilihilated, destroyed.  Of course; yes, there are moments with
destruction is a means to betterment, and the universal contains
transformations of a destructive end.  However, in the end, Dasein
prevails and something is-still-there, rather than nothing.  Absolute
Nothingness, now that would be for Dasein, undesireable.

If anyone has something meaningful to say about Nothingness that
does not result in self-annihilation; let me know.

To destroy the cosmos would be the ultimate aim of nonbeing, which
fortunately is incapable of consciously striving for sinse it
'is-not-there'.  All consciousness is supported by Being, which would
seem to be something of a sheer folly to destroy itself.  The
propensity of Da-sein is to protect and sustain itself against the
absurdity and horror of nothing.  The universal 'is' Da-sein and those
values which adher to and support that universal are appropriate.

Thank you for your points and your Da-sein.

Joe

--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, anjo3jantz@a... wrote:
> Joe -- Just got around to reading your comments.
>
> Certainly it is your right to have faith, and to value the
transcendent
> aspects of faith as they relate to the narrower definition of being.
  I think
> the choice to believe, or not to believe, is profoundly personal,
and should
> be respected by others who disagree.
>
> I haven't really read Karl Jaspers, but what little I have read
about him
> makes me think that he had a lot to say about transcendence, and
that he
> framed it in a way that is outside the context of religious faith,
or the
> lack thereof.  If you haven't already read him, it might be of
interest to
> you.  I'd like to read him myself, and just haven't gotten around to
it yet.
>
> One thing I have to question you on though is when you said: "what
guides and
> directs us to become better more enlightened people?  I do not see
this as
> possible with mere scientific positivism, rationalism, technologism,
> capitalism, or even existential ideas."  I think it is unfair to
claim that
> if people do not have faith, they have nothing to compel them toward
being
> better and more enlightened people.  I am an atheist, but I do
genuinely try
> to be a better person, and I study and think and observe so that I
can become
> a more enlightened person.  Just because I do not believe in
universal values
> does not mean that I don't have values, or that man can have no
values.  I
> think that would be, as you say, throwing out the baby with the bath
water.
> I do believe that there are legitimate (but not strictly universal)
values,
> such as freedom, authenticity, love, and the respect for life, which
are
> central to, and crucial to, human existence, and which can lead us
to being
> better and more enlightened people.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You're the most recent in a fine theatrical lineage: American writer Paul
Bowles translated the play for the stage (giving it the name "No Exit") &
John Huston directed.


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

In a message dated 4/11/2003 2:35:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
praxistence@... writes:
Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



> Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>



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

... are not the same thing.

John Paul Sartre spent his entire philosophical career developing a
line of thought that began with Descartes' "I think therefore I am"
view of the Self and its relationship with the external world,
through the idealism of Kant and into the 20th century with the
writings of Heidegger, Buber and Laing. Sartre's existentialism took
all of these points of view on board and came up with an ontology
that distinguished between beings-in-themselves (objects, things that
just 'are', ie. collections of molecules in the material world) and
beings-for-themselves (beings that in a sense construct themselves as
well as the world around them using consciousness, language,
purposiveness). According to Sartre, the tendency of
beings-for-themselves (Self) to interpret the world around them and
objects within it as tools for use to further the projects of Self
meant that instrumentality was a primary characteristic of human
relations. For example, according to Sartre, I view you, the reader
of this email, as a tool to further my project, of developing a
philosophy that attempts to find a basis for ethics in communication
rather than survival.

Actually, Sartre wasn't all that interested in communication.
Although he accepted that by viewing the Other as an object, a
being-in-itself, a tool for the furthering of Self's projects was
problematic in that it is clear that this could be reversed, that
Other could in turn view Self as a tool for ITS projects, this didn't
suggest to him the immediacy of an approach that might be called
intersubjectivity, the idea that relations are characterized by a
continuous feedback of communication between Self and Other that
constantly reinforces the mutuality of subject-object relations to
the extent that it can be transcended.

Sartre liked the elegance of the instrumental approach to human
relations and couldn't ever quite escape from their attractiveness to
his mind.

Although I think I am justified in thinking Sartre probably the
greatest philosopher of the 20th century, I think that one aspect of
his greatness is not so much what he achieved philosophically as what
he didn't achieve. Although he is quite "right" with regard to the
instrumental nature of perhaps the majority of human interactions
(for example, economics) he can't quite get away with this mutual
subject-object approach for all human relations. For example, with
regard to his relationship with Simone de Beauvoir, could he entirely
describe that relationship in terms of the mutual uses de Beauvoir
and he made of each other according to their respective projects?

Verbal language provides a clue here in that we are taught at an
early age that a sentence always consists of something (subject)
doing something (verb) to an object. I was teaching this rule of
grammar to my five-year old son the other day and he quite quickly
picked up on this.

In this sense we are all trapped by mutual subject-objectivity. If I
make a sentence in which I am the subject and you are the object then
we both are trapped by my use of that sentence. You can, of course,
refute my sentence and this gives rise to conflict. Perhaps it is
true that conflict characterizes human relationships and that this is
not in itself a "bad" thing.

But it is also true that conflict characterizes much of what IS bad
about human relationships, particularly when that conflict (of me
resisting your uses of me as an object within the sentence
constructions that describe your projects, and vice versa) results in
one of us killing or annihilating the other because mutual
subject-objectivity has broken down, resulted in a fundamental
disagreement whereby both are justified in viewing the Other as an
implacable enemy intent on annihilating Self if he/she can.

This kind of breakdown in mutual subject-object relations is ugly
because it results in war and death but it is particularly obnoxious
to philosophers who prize truthfulness above all other qualities
because truth, as the saying goes, is the first casualty of war. This
is because in order to proceed with the project of annihilating Other
(because, apparently, Other is engaged in the project of annihilating
Self) it is first necessary to proceed with the deliberate blinding
of Self to the perspective of Other. Otherwise the survivalist
ethical system that governs our own behaviour with respect to family,
community and State breaks down because we cannot distinguish between
friend - whose perspective and 'otherness' we see and respect and
whose survival we accord a value - and enemy with regard to whom
these things are not true.

A direct translation into English of the standard Kalahari Bushman
greeting is "I see you, I truly see you".

A few days after the sentence construction lesson I taught to my five
year old I was thinking about the issues it raised. And I thought,
hang on a minute. Who said that the subject is always doing something
to an object? Why is it assumed that this is automatically so. You
can as easily phrase it: "a sentence always contains a subject/object
EXPERIENCING another subject/object". All we have to do in order for
this principle to be universalizable is to attribute experientiality
to all objects in the world.

When I say "I do this to you" what I am actually saying is "you
experience me making the construction that I am doing this to you"
and/or "I experience the effect on my consciousness of my action
having the result of changing some aspect of you (as it appears to my
consciousness)" . When I say, "the hammer falls onto the anvil" what
I am actually saying is "the anvil experiences the blow of the hammer
as an impact to its surface" and/or " the hammer experiences the
surface of the anvil as a barrier to its continued trajectory past
the plane on which the anvil exists". In order for one construction
to be true the other has to be implicit.

I am beginning to see that this approach could be termed
intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity is not the same as mutual
subject-object relations because it is accepted that mutuality of
instrumentality is not just a theoretical possibility but is in fact
built into every sentence construction (and therefore - to the extent
that our reality is a function of our sentience - it is built into
every world). It is unreasonable not to say solipsistic to limit the
world to "all objects that are capable of functioning as tools for
the furthering of my projects".

All we have to do to universalize intersubjectivity is to extend the
ability to experience into every object that exists. Since we are
aware that we are capable of functioning as an object ("Tommy is a
project manager") it therefore follows that, since we are both an
object and capable of having an experience,  other objects are
(theoretically) capable of having an experience.

It is not sufficient to rely on a distinction between human and
non-human beings because, as we have seen, to be human is not the
same as being genetically a human. This attempt (humanism) fails
because it leads on the one hand to racialism and on the other hand
to exploitation of animals. Both of these constructions are
controversial and for a very good reason. The genetic definition of
human as the basis for (humanistic) ethics will not stand.

Only an ethical approach which relies on universal intersubjectivity
can ever be worthy of interest by the philosophically minded.

Tommy
--
Join us at Communicationalism, the attempt to find a basis for ethics
in communication rather than survival
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/communicationalism/

At 3:58 pm +0000 11/4/03, decker150 wrote:
>The central core value of that universal
>state is to remain there as opposed to being obliterated,
>anilihilated, destroyed.  Of course; yes, there are moments with
>destruction is a means to betterment, and the universal contains
>transformations of a destructive end.  However, in the end, Dasein
>prevails and something is-still-there, rather than nothing.  Absolute
>Nothingness, now that would be for Dasein, undesireable.
>
>If anyone has something meaningful to say about Nothingness that
>does not result in self-annihilation; let me know.

In other words, that which is resists change. But change occurs
continuously. It is the only constant. If I construct the fact of
'my' existence to be such-and-such a thing, is this construction
necessarily of that which resists change? Can I alternatively make
myself the same thing as Change itself? Assuming that this is
possible, is being the same thing as Change itself the same thing as
becoming identical with Power? If so, in doing this have I become
that-which-changes rather than that-which-is-changed?

It seems to me that Power, for the first time since 1945, has become
once again accepted as the chief force governing human affairs (I
quote: "It is not a question of authority, it is a question of will"
George W Bush, 18th March). This means that we as beings have a very
clear choice: we can become that which effects change (allied with
the USA) or that which is changed (opposed to the USA).

Of course this is only a human version of Power. Not even GWB can
counter the ageing process - or at least, his ability to do so is
limited by the limits of medical technology.

I tend to concur with Confucius, who said: the strongest thing is
grass because it bends with the wind. Of course, he was not being
literal.

We, as Dasein, have to accept that Absolute Nothingness, as you put
it, is, for ourselves, something which will happen. To the extent
that I am I will [at some point in the future] no longer be. "I"
experience change as that which changes even
that-which-experiences-change. The biggest change that I will
experience is my loss of Self. To the extent that I have prepared
myself for this I have already lost it. You can call this
self-annihilation if you like. I call it honesty.

Tommy
--
-
http://www.scoraig.com

Aite nan Easgann, Achmore, Dundonnell, Ross-shire, IV23 2RE

UK Orange mobile +44 (0)7966 294458; UK Vodafone +44(0)7787 158073
If calling from a UK or international landline  please ask me to call you back

From:tommy@...

>>>an ontology that distinguished between beings-in-themselves (objects,
things that  just 'are', ie. collections of molecules in the material world)
and beings-for-themselves (beings that in a sense construct themselves as
well as the world around them using consciousness, language, purposiveness).
According to Sartre, the tendency of
beings-for-themselves (Self) to interpret the world around them and
objects within it as tools for use to further the projects of Self
meant that instrumentality was a primary characteristic of human
relations.<<<

However, once we interpret those objects (matter) as tools to further
projects, then those objects are no longer just collections of molecules in
the material world but are forever mediated by man for construction,
destruction, or even annihilation.

>>>Actually, Sartre wasn't all that interested in communication. Although he
accepted that by viewing the Other as an object, a being-in-itself, a tool
for the furthering of Self's projects was problematic in that it is clear
that this could be reversed, that Other could in turn view Self as a tool for
ITS projects,<<<

There is a nice citation in Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason, wherein
he quotes from Lewis Mumford's Technics & Civilization (to the effect that
since steam engines required constant attention by persons, they were better
suited for operating large units, i.e., factories, than small ones) & then
notes the "strange language," which
is that "a single proposition links finality to necessity so indissolubly
that is impossible to tell any longer whether it is man or machine which is
practical project."

>>>he can't quite get away with this mutual subject-object approach for all
human relations. For example, with regard to his relationship with Simone de
Beauvoir, could he entirely describe that relationship in terms of the mutual
uses de Beauvoir and he made of each other according to their respective
projects?<<<

But their respective projects also entailed mutual uses of material objects,
correct?

>>>But it is also true that conflict characterizes much of what IS bad about
human relationships, particularly when that conflict (of me resisting your
uses of me as an object within the sentence constructions that describe your
projects, and vice versa) results in one of us killing or annihilating the
other<<<

My impression from reading Sartre is that mutual mediation of matter produces
conflict; hence, conflict is neither bad nor good but a fact of mutual
mediation of matter by men (people). Moreover, conflict may not even be
recognized as such; Sartre's example in CDR, Vol. 1, is the deforestation by
Chinese peasants to produce arable land. Lack of trees wasn't recognized as
such until endless flooding, brought on in part by lack of trees, washed away
the crops grown for use & profit on the deforested land.

With this in mind, one unimagined scenario for our US of A warlords is the
value the Iraqi people place on the untapped "oil reserves" (reserves,
because something unknown & unseen has already been mediated by people for
use). The notion that the Iraqis will be happy with the destruction of the
Hussein regime & will be passive when U.S. agents start in on those untapped
reserves reiterates this proposition linking finality to necessity so
indissolubly. I think the sincere belief among the U.S. officials & companies
ready to move in on those untapped reserves is that the Iraqi people will
magically disappear from the scene, once they get tired of looting & the
novelty of life wthout Saddam Hussein has worn off. The notion of mutual
mediation of that matter (oil) has never occurred to the planners of the war.
Hence, conflict resumes, even further war.


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

One of the key ideas that helped me define the difference between
being-in-itself (the object) and being-for-itself (the human) is that
we have a "priviledged access" to our own being.  George Steiner who
wrote a book on Heidegger stated that we have this "unique access"
which enables us to not only construct the meaning of our projects,
but also to be the self that is aware of itself; to be the Being whose
own Being comes powerfully into focus as Being. (sorry - tautology out
the ass)

I imagine that within an existential framework, something like
spiritual growth occurs when one awakens to this aspect of their
Being.  Perhaps this produces a shift in consciousness where one moves
from the reactive mode (victum of the world) to a fuller life, one of
a more proactive design.  The potentiality-of-being is expressed in
the activities of one's everyday experience, one where the individual
is more aware, more in touch with their unique and priviledged access
that makes the whole dynamic of Being (presence, thought, word,
action, body) more integrated, more intentional as they find the
freedom to harness their own totality to pursue the vaste array
of possibilities.  The 'can' and the 'may' all come together where one
no-longer needs the permission from others to-Be-(t)here.

Joe

Correct me if I am wrong (go on be a dear) but I
thought Sartre refuted the claim that we have
privileged access to the self.  For Hegel self
consciousness is possible only because of the
exclusion of another consciousness.  We know that
others exist at the same time as we know that we
exist.  For Sartre the question is one of being rather
than of knowledge.  Still, we are certain that other
minds exist in an ontological sense.  Other minds
exist even before we have a chance to reflect on the
matter, they are as self evident as my own existence
which is why he claims to have found a second cogito.
I may not have direct access to the other's perceptual
experience but I do have access to the other's being.
It's not that we need other's permission to be here,
we just need them to be unwilling to kill us.  Our
awareness of ourselves and others brings love, sex,
violence, fear, anger and empathy into play.  But I'm
not sure about the spiritual shift thing, it's
something continuous throughout life.
lost kt
P.S. What do you mean by moving from a reactive mode
to a fuller life?  Are you talking about the move from
subjectivity to objectivity as discussed by Strawson's
Freedom and Resentment paper?

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

When one starts to reduce Sartre to the self and relations with the external
world, one does a severe in justice to the other and the other. First, there's a
removal from the idea of Being in the world. Sartre sees little other free
choice than Being in the world. Second, there's this focus on self. I don't see
Sartre focusing on self and rather he focuses on the potential, projecting
possibility of Being. Sartre will and does vomit on the idea of the self as
coming out of George Herbert Mead and the pandering sociologists in the United
State who support the self-idea to bolster the defects in the capitalist system.
The third point is on relationships. Sartre is of no interest in relations and
actually feels I own no relations and relations are impossibility. Sartre is
saying I'm in the in its there-alone as Heidegger is stating. In his small book
on Intimacy, Sartre gives us six illustrations on relations and they all end in
nihilism. Relations assume some sort of agreement where none does exist and it
assumes some sort of care and concern where none does exist. Do you think Ariel
Sharon in his policy of genocide and omnicide cares about anyone who's [a] poor,
[b] young, [c] old, [d] hungry, [e] illiterate, or [f] sick. When one deals with
the self and relations one can't do more than observe and never encounters the
conditions and the considerations maintaining the considerations and conditions
limiting the potential, projecting possibility of Being in the world.



Sartre doesn't focus on the external world and he focuses on Being in the world.
Descartes is a traitor to the working class and to his God focuses trying to
take reifications and make them appear as real. Sartre in no way supports such a
betrayer of Being. Descartes enables a person such as Cardinal Law in Boston to
exist and to escape a prison sentence and death in the electric chair. Sartre
would not support a Cardinal Law.



It's not a tendency of Being, as you suggest. It's Being in the world. Adding of
the predicate, 'themselves' confuses the situation instead of giving us a
clarification. It's not I interpret the world and it's I create the world out of
the [a] the animal, [b] the vegetable, and [c] the mineral in the world. The
creating I do is out of the care and concern I experience in the flesh and blood
in body. Your focus is the denial or the not consideration of  the flesh and
blood in body. Sartre is arguing against the instrumentality you are offering
us. You don't support the revolution and thus take refuge in [a] self, [b]
relations and deny your own future. Sartre is stating let us get back to the
primordial nature of the labor power of the Being in the world. His first
consideration is how this is turning Being into a commodity or deification. In
this sense, it's his first argument about the absurdity of relationships. It's
the absurdity of the self. I still exist as 100% responsible for my Being in the
world no matter how you view me. You choose not to be 100% responsible as you
every night wish one to kiss the right foot big toe of your Queen who's corrupt
and practices genocide. If this is your idea of [a] the self, [b] relationships,
so be it. This isn't Sartre and it's not Heidegger. How can one interpret Sartre
unless one can consider the [a] atheist, [b] the Marxist, or [c] the Maoist
experience?



There's no ethics in communication as there's no flesh and blood in the body in
it. It's taking the reifications of ethics and communications and trying to make
them real. This is trying to turn lead into gold. This is saying to the aging
and dieing person if you believe in God I will make you well and at the same
time owning a funeral home. Sartre's interest is in intimacy and perhaps deeper
than the care and concern of Heidegger. I shudder when you reduce this all to
ethics and communications. The body of flesh and blood and the other's body of
flesh and blood encounter each other with out the need of ethics and
communications. I argue ethics and communications just drive the two away from
the use of the ready at hand and potential, projecting possibilities. The
inability to grasp this is the requirement for creating the reifications of [a]
the self, and [b] the relationship or the agreement. This is the start of the
Descartes dualism of the brain is more important than the flesh and the blood in
body. How do communications transcend the flesh and blood in body? I'm sure in
Israel more than one person is telling Ariel Sharon what he's doing is genocide
and omnicide. The feedback loops are there. The mutual reinforcements are there.
The language is there. The Rabbis are stating the ethics. The court system is
aware. The purchases of the means of mass destruction occur. I believe the Queen
of England communicates to him and sends him A Christmas Card each year offering
here support. We all know the ethics of the Queen. I guess I can conclude the
Queen is a failure at transcending. Can I make this a national crime?



It isn't Sartre likes the instrumental approach, but he's unfolding the evils of
Capitalism and the need to get rid of the House of Lords and the Queen of
England in exploiting the labor power of the people. The Queen in her defense of
the Church of England denies to the people the potential, projecting
possibilities in their Being in the world. You are blind. Sartre isn't the
greatest philosopher of the 20th century and it's Chairman Mao for putting
Sartre's work into practice through the long march. I feel sorry for your son
and I don't even know him or will I. I'm only in a trap if I choose in my free
choice to remain in one and I don't consider me as 100% responsible for my
potential, projecting, possibilities. Conflict doesn't characterize relations or
the self. There's a care and concern in the flesh and blood in body and I call
this irritation or rapture to steal from Nietzsche and in this I choose to make
some sort of creative change and at times this allows life and others it's my
life, but this is my will to power or the freedom of choice.



Our annihilating or killing of the other comes out the categories and
classifications you people who write sentences containing subjects and verbs
create for our exploitation and suppression. Then you faint surprise and shock,
I own a freedom of choice to eliminate you. This isn't a failure of ethics and
communication and is only the flesh and blood in movement. Go see Clockwork
Orange again. Study the movement of the body and not the communication of it.
It's not a question of survival and it's the how and what of movement. There's
no breakdown in subject object relations and none ever exists. If you oppose
annihilation and killing how is it, you don't advocate getting rid of the queen
and Ariel Sharon. I would argue you would need to get rid of fathers and mothers
to prevent further annihilation and killing. To look at object and then subject
instead of subject and object is just warm piss and nothing else. If you want to
talk about hammers, go back and read Heidegger. How does put a reification of
intersubjectivity into an object and stay Being in the world at the same time.
It seems you are denying the existence of [a] animal [b] vegetable, and [c]
mineral and denying Being is in flesh and blood in the body. You really are
sucking off on good Descartes. Go see a movie.
Copyright April 15, 2003, by Richard Radandt at harriet824@... page one of
one


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

Hi Katy.  Thanks for your interaction.  I don't exactly have a
justification for every opinion, just impressions.  But I would like
to comment on your points.

kt said: Correct me if I am wrong but I thought Sartre refuted the
claim that we have privileged access to the self.  For Hegel self
consciousness is possible only because of the exclusion of another
consciousness.  We know that others exist at the same time as we know
that we exist.  For Sartre the question is one of being rather than of
knowledge.

joe: He may have, I would be interested in what he wrote.  I mean
priviledged access, meaning that neither the world nor anyone I am
with has access to the potentiality of my being - as I alone do.  I
use the phrase 'priviledged access' to express the simple realization
of a developed introspection; an ability to work with our unique
mental content, i.e., accessing my own thoughts, memories,
imagination, meanings.  I can not experience your experience or think
your thought.  I have no access at all, except for what you may share
in communication, after you have accessed them for yourself first.

This is certainly not an exclusive context as you well pointed out,
since the content of our minds are by-products of the shared
experience from day one.  The fundamental dominate condition is that
we are beings in-the-world-together and the 'self' emerges from this
foundational / eqiprimordial context.  The condition of the new born
mind doesn't have much 'access' per se, but the
potential for being accessed throughout growth.  I imagine that I
mean't the phrase to apply more to developed mentalities.

kt said:  But I'm not sure about the spiritual shift thing, it's
something continuous throughout life.

joe:  From my personal experience, the many spiritual shift(s), were
growth realizations that 'new meanings' provided me as the
potentiality-of-my-being unfolds.  Along the lines of Parmenides who
said "for being and thinking are the same." Knowledge may not have the
same concreteness as my toenails, but nontheless belongs to the
structure of Da-sein (which at all time is mine and not mine) as my
act of thinking 'is-existentially there' (present) - not absent,
nothing or nonbeing.

Wherever Dasein is acknowledged, even as thought,  there-is something
there rather than 'nothing'.  Knowledge and thinking is not a nothing.
  Our minds are not merely vaccums of emptiness, there-is at least some
variation of fluctuating fields and particles.  Henning Genz who wrote
Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space" said "there is no such thing
as absolutely empty space".

kt:  "What do you mean by moving from a reactive mode to a fuller
life?  Are you talking about the move from subjectivity to objectivity
as discussed by Strawson's Freedom and Resentment paper?

joe: No, more like 'an integration' between the subjective and
objective where subjectivity-itself is empowered to
act-within-the-concrete-world and beyond recognizing itself as
seperate.  Well, of course, we always maintain our reactive responses.
  But there is a sense in which some people spend more of their
energies being bounced around by situations and circumstances and
never live 'on purpose' or as deliberately as they could.  The
difference does not free oneself from being-in-the world or
being-with-others, but discovers the meaning and power of
freedom-as-it-is-my-Dasein; to explore and access our privately
constructed can-be's.  But even here one should not be dogmatic about
the meaning 'privately' constructed, because we gather our base
material from the shared context.  The private construct occurs more
along the lines of Kant's a priori reason, where something novel
emerges in a way not provided either directly from the world or
others, but from the movement of ones own imagination.  The reactive
person lacks the essential comphrehension, assertiveness and
deliberate impulses that the authentic and freedom-aware individual
strives to possess and who perhaps feels more satisfied by the life
they live for this one reason; instead of merely being the end result
of a set programming or overbearing external stimulus, their own
subjectivity takes on a creative function, by having identified the
potentiality-of-their-being and are able to explore their own imagined
possibilities and ultimately to throw themselves into these novel
and deliberately chosen projects.  I see this as "the empowerment of
the subjective upon the objective".  Does this free anyone from being
in the world?  No. Does this free them from being-with-others?  No.
Rather is does free them from the badfaith message (basically a lie
told to oneself) - "there isn't anything I can do" or "I am just a
poor and helpless victum of everything".  Fact is, what is concealed
from the victum of badfaith in the Heideggerian sense of truth, is
those subjective-aspects-of-their-being which are hidden from
them.  (ignorance)  Once the individual has unconcealed
that-which-is-there-within-their-own-being, freedom is supercharged
and brought to the forefront of their own consciousness.  Like a light
switched on.  It was for me, definitelty a shift in my private
awareness-of-being.  And no one can know what this freedom is like
except the individual himself.

The potentiality-of-being, while developed, nontheless signifies in my
mind that such things as inspiration, imagination, fascination,
motivation are not 'nothing' but Da-sein at it's finest - the
Being-for-itself.

Joe

At 1:04 pm -0700 15/4/03, Richard Radandt wrote:
>You don't support the revolution

Which revolution?

Tommy
--
-
http://www.scoraig.com

Aite nan Easgann, Achmore, Dundonnell, Ross-shire, IV23 2RE

UK Orange mobile +44 (0)7966 294458; UK Vodafone +44(0)7787 158073
If calling from a UK or international landline  please ask me to call you back

Wow.

I think you and Ariel Sharon should get together and play some
Yahtzee.  You can come on over to my house... I'll make some
lemonade, and we'll have the Queen bake some cookies - as well as
sew a flag.  We can start our own "New Palestine" in my backyard...

Also, stop quoting Nietzsche - you clearly don't understand him,
especially if you are interpreting Will to Power as a doctrine that
leaves any room for freedom in that "flesh and blood" to which you
so often refer.  Sartre would say:  You are as responsible for Ariel
Sharon as much as I am for choosing to waste my time by responding
to you.

Copyright April 2003, by someone who thinks their insane ramblings
are in need of copyright.

Wow.

I think you and Ariel Sharon should get together and play some
Yahtzee.  You can come on over to my house... I'll make some
lemonade, and we'll have the Queen bake some cookies - as well as
sew a flag.  We can start our own "New Palestine" in my backyard...

Also, stop quoting Nietzsche - you clearly don't understand him,
especially if you are interpreting Will to Power as a doctrine that
leaves any room for freedom in that "flesh and blood" to which you
so often refer.  Sartre would say:  You are as responsible for Ariel
Sharon as much as I am for choosing to waste my time by responding
to you.

Copyright April 2003, by someone who thinks their insane ramblings
are in need of copyright.

"I feel sorry for your son and I don't even know him or will I."

"You are blind."

"You really are sucking off on good Descartes. Go see a movie."

As I understand it, this web ring is for the friendly exchange of ideas.
There's no call for condescending personal attacks such as these.

Andrew


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

Thanks for your concern, Andrew. Richard can be quite personal and
rude but then I have been rude to him on occasion in the past.

It is possible to moderate posts or even unsubscribe members but on
balance I feel that Richard's rather extreme Marxism/solipsism is an
interesting perspective to have on this board. It does, in my
opinion, show up some particular issues in some of Sartre's lines of
enquiry.

The only criterion I use to moderate this group is topicality.
Offensiveness is ok as long as it is topical (most offensiveness is
not topical!)

We have been doing very well here lately if a little quiet. Not too
much boring moderation interference required.

Tommy

--
-
http://www.scoraig.com

Aite nan Easgann, Achmore, Dundonnell, Ross-shire, IV23 2RE

UK Orange mobile +44 (0)7966 294458; UK Vodafone +44(0)7787 158073
If calling from a UK or international landline  please ask me to call you back

The question is which revolution. In the idea of Sartre, the response is it
depends on your freedom of choice. In the idea of Heidegger, the response
depends on your potential, projecting possibility and in this case it becomes
one of how the revolution and not which revolution. My feeling is the deeper and
more evolving question is the how the revolution and not the Tommy version of
which revolution. Carrying this a step into getting out of nihilism and the
which revolution is nihilism, is to consider Nietzsche. He's the revolution in
he gives us the support to a [a] consider atheism, [b] homosexuality, [c]
Marxism, [d] getting back to the primordial state of Being, [e] how the use of
art as escapism from nihilism isn't a good choice. Nietzsche touches on
insanity, surrealism, and anarchy in his sense of rapture and it enables one to
deal with the which revolution and the how the revolution potential, projecting
possibilities at the same time and space. Nietzsche is quite well aware of
Heidegger's concept of time as Heidegger lifts it from Nietzsche at least as one
source. The which revolution doesn't take into consideration Heidegger's concern
with time and this is a major defect in the philosophy of both Tommy and Decker.
However, if one supports the genocide and the omnicide of Ariel Sharon, or the
mass weapons of destruction at one billion dollars a day of George Bush, or
makes the choice to live under a Queen such as in the United Kingdom the ability
to answer the which question or the how question I think is rather difficult. 
Chairman Mao of the great philosophers does a good job at asking and answering
the how the revolution. Of course, many people betray Mao, the revolution, and
China, and many of these people are now millionaires living in the United States
coming from China. Many are wealthy Chinese still living in China.

Copyright April 17, 2003 by Richard Radandt at harriet824@... page one of
one.



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

There is in the systematic development of existentialism an allusion
of "rightness".  All the ranting about the negativity of the human
condition; namely - anguish, rootlessness, dehumanizing effects
of technology, alienation from one's ground of Being, theyness,
everydayness, one-dimensionality, the erosion of personal autonomy,
fallenness, spiritless people, standardization of human behavior,
inauthenticity, materialism, merchantile imperialism,
rationalistic-determinism - all these suggest or presupposes an
alternative - some better way or more original way.

This alternative is the boundary from which the ethical spark ignites
and implies that the better way has the structure of 'rightness' to
it; especially when compared to the whole ranged and ill effects of
modern alienation - and turns out to clearly suggest a 'right way'.

I find myself wanting to ask the question "so, then - how are we to
live?  What is the best way to achieve authenticity, full humaness,
harmony to the ground of my Being, uniqueness, the full impact of
life's mystery.  How might we overcome this modern mediocrity?  Do
existentialist pursue excellence-in-Being? Does one become a poet?
Are some careers anti-Being? What is the answer?  How can I embrace
Being with everything I am and do?  How should one live?

To answer this, even by providing a loose/flexible model, is to move
towards a practical ethical discussion.

Personally, I feel that building a ethical system around Sartre is
short sighted.  He is hardly the preminent voice of existentialism,
only one voice.  George Steiner's book entitled Martin Heidegger said
"Sartre's philosophic writings are, in essence, commentaries on Sein
und Zeit.  The entire repertorie of "engagement," "commitment."
"taking upon oneself," "freedom of being," "authenticity," "the
inalienability of one's death," in Sartre, Camus, and their
innumerable epigones is Heideggerian in root and branch."

I think it would be better to encompass the whole history of
existential writers and historical ontology; with all the voices being
considered.

Joe

Richard -- This question has nothing to do with existentialism, but your
comments past and present about Mao prompt me to ask anyway.  Why do you
venerate Mao so much?  Was he not a far worse tyrant than you accuse Bush,
Blair and the Queen of being?  After all, he murdered millions of his own
people through forced famines and in such noble-sounding blood-baths as the
Great Cultural Revolution.  And what about the rape of Tibet, a peaceful
country, which has resulted in the deaths of well over a million Tibetans?
If Mao was a believer in the loftier ideals of Marxism, certainly his actions
were a complete bertayal of those ideals.  If anyone ever betrayed China, it
was he. His legacy is a totalitarian regime every bit as brutal as Stalin's
ever was.

Andrew


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