What crap. You sound like Camus trying to convince himself life is
beautiful again.

Sure there is nothingness and its negation - being, but by saying
this sums up the human condition you overlook the most important
step in between.

It's fine to make that comment generally, but as soon as you refer
it to a specific example you see the absurdity and contradictory
nature of human creation written all over the meaning we have given
birth to.

Nothingness - meaning. ok, maybe this is not absurd.

But how about,


Nothingness - Justice
Nothingness - Selfish
Nothingness - Tricycle

You clearly need to re-read Nausea.
There is nothing beautiful about the absurd.
Nothing.

Because we are hedonic and generally don't like to feel bad we will
try and forget, or disprove, or push away this human condition of
absurdity, but Sartre argued, that eveyr minute of eveyr day, we
must realise that the things that we hold most dear, the things that
we love and hate with passion and that make up OUR specific life -
are lies - bathed inherently in contradiction - to live a life, is
contradictory. Only from here can we approach the world honestly,
looking it in the eye, and then maybe in some fucked up way speak
about courage.

paul

P.S. I have wondered for a very long time, WHY did Sartre, feeling
what he did about the absurd, bother to get up in the morning? The
explanation he gives in Nausea is weak, and does nothing for the
reader he has just crushed - why fight for social and political
justice? i just can't understand that. In my opinion, the questions
possed to humanity by Sartre are answered by Camus... once again,
inadequately. In summary, there is no answer to this problem - we
are all fucked.

My point is that 'angst' is but one reaction to the human condition, and not an
absolute and unavoidable at that.  Sartre has elevated
his 'negation' to be the ultimate and irreducible feature of the human
condition.  Heidegger had already stated that Da-dein
signified 'care' and 'solicitude'.  And I understand that 'care' to be as much
capable of the awfulness implied by 'angst' as well
as the pure awe signified by 'inspiration' and the 'sublime'.  The
existentialist position toward angst requires atheism as its underlying
conclusion; then, yes - you might have nothing else to say, but as you have
already said-

" there is no answer to this problem - we are all fucked."

Well, you are - but I am not.  I affirm Be-ing through courage, hope and 'leaps'
into faith.  And even if I did not have these, what is
comprehensible in the reductive / analytic surely boister my confidence that
human existencet can is hardly be summed up as
absurd.  The meaning I find is grounded to facticity, a facticity that discloses
itself as having an order to it, a pattern.  If this was not
the case, there could be no 'studies' of anything.  And I imagine that ontology
would have nothing to say at all.

Joe


y= uythethe--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <p.cave@u...> wrote:
> What crap. You sound like Camus trying to convince himself life is
> beautiful again.
>
> Sure there is nothingness and its negation - being, but by saying
> this sums up the human condition you overlook the most important
> step in between.
>
> It's fine to make that comment generally, but as soon as you refer
> it to a specific example you see the absurdity and contradictory
> nature of human creation written all over the meaning we have given
> birth to.
>
> Nothingness - meaning. ok, maybe this is not absurd.
>
> But how about,
>
>
> Nothingness - Justice
> Nothingness - Selfish
> Nothingness - Tricycle
>
> You clearly need to re-read Nausea.
> There is nothing beautiful about the absurd.
> Nothing.
>
> Because we are hedonic and generally don't like to feel bad we will
> try and forget, or disprove, or push away this human condition of
> absurdity, but Sartre argued, that eveyr minute of eveyr day, we
> must realise that the things that we hold most dear, the things that
> we love and hate with passion and that make up OUR specific life -
> are lies - bathed inherently in contradiction - to live a life, is
> contradictory. Only from here can we approach the world honestly,
> looking it in the eye, and then maybe in some fucked up way speak
> about courage.
>
> paul
>
> P.S. I have wondered for a very long time, WHY did Sartre, feeling
> what he did about the absurd, bother to get up in the morning? The
> explanation he gives in Nausea is weak, and does nothing for the
> reader he has just crushed - why fight for social and political
> justice? i just can't understand that. In my opinion, the questions
> possed to humanity by Sartre are answered by Camus... once again,
> inadequately. In summary, there is no answer to this problem - we
> are all fucked.

decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:

<<<What we end up having to embrace is 'our' reaction.  The angst of Sartre is a
reaction, one that he presented as unavoidable and
necessarily the only valid reaction.  I differ with Sartre on this conclusion. 
Once we encounter the incomprehensible character of
be-ing, there is another reaction, at least one as valid as angst and dread. 
That alternative is awe and wonder, one enough to inspire
music, mystery, even hope>>>>

In a world without God there is no rational way in which to distinguish right
from wrong behavior; no authentic or inauthentic social, political and
econonomic agenda. Everything is always relative to something else; it always
comes down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems most reasonable to you
[now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce their own agenda. Personally, I
don't see any way in which to encompass that philosophically except with a fair
degree of angst and dread. It depends, of course, on what your own unique
existential/circumstantial context happens to be at the time you ponder it. If,
contextually, things are going really well for you [your health is good...you
have a great job and financial security...you've just fallen in love and/or are
raising gifted children in a wonderfully supportive family...you have lots of
freinds who love you etc etc etc] who would be surprised at what a boost that
can give to your philosophical perspective. But if your life
  is in the toilet, chances are not much in the way of philosophy is going to
propell you towards a more optimistic or hopeful frame of mind.


<<<Yes, we understand that 'human meaning' is short-sighted and limited, even
given to our folly and
self-exxagerated sense of importance.  Yet, even if we choose the describe Being
as ultimately meaningless and ridiculous to the
core, this need not reduce our reaction to dismal disappointment and despair.>>>

I agree insofar as, in acknowledging that, essentially, human existence is
meaningless and absurd, it allows you to distance yourself from The Absolute
Truth. And to the extent you are able to do this is the extent to which your
existential options increase that much more. In others words, nothing
ontological or teleological ties you down [or persuades to go in just one
direction]; so you a free to explore alternate directions, right? Again, it all
depends on the extent to which, circumstantially, you are or are not able to act
on this knowledge. If the doctor just told you the brain tumor is so far
advanced you won't make it out of her office alive that narrows your options
[and your hopes and dreams] doewn considerably, doesn't it? Everything is always
profoundly situated---existentially. And that certainly includes your
"philosophy of life". Nothing can be nailed down with any degree of finality.
Only the realization that someday you will be dead and gone forever and ever.

<<<<I differ with Sartre's conclusion, for one, is because it
does not admit to the binary opposite which is so charcteristic of the
existential situation.  We have both Being and Nothingness, both
light and dark, both life and death, one thing and it's opposite.  Even the
dialectic assumes this attribute or opposing forces, wherein
one eventually either gets assimilated or defeated.  And I do not imagine that
life, light, hope, and wonder are going to just roll over
and play dead. The incomprehensible character of Being-Here (the mystery of
presence) does not deny abscence (the abscence of
meaning), but only that 'there-is' its equally 'sublime' and fantastical beauty,
and all it's comprehensibility bound to an even great
incomprehensibility.>>>

The difficulty I have with Sartre and Camus and other existentists is the extent
to which they seek to dichotomize the world we encounter from day to day [in our
interactions with others] into "authentic" and "inauthentic" thinking and
behaving; the way in which they speak of "bad faith". What can this possible
mean ultimately in a world without God? I do grasp their motivation for
proposing it, sure, but I just don't think it has any philosophical weight in a
world that is profoundly embedded in the unbearable lightness of being. We all
end up choosing some point of view to weight our "self" down. That
existentialism seems more reasonable [to me] than Christianity or Marxism or
Objectivism or Whaterverism doesn't change the fact that it is just another
point of view. And, in an essentially meaningless and absurd world, all such
points of view are interchangable in the end.

To truly understand what that means respecting the world around us [a world
veritably awash in devastating suffering and horror] is to be brutally
acquainted with anxiety and dread and despair. There is simply no getting around
it. There is only figuring out a way to [realistically] deal with it.

George




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

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

Sounds like you are not interested in pursuing philosophy at all; instead, you
seem to be after Answers.

Are you, in fact, after someone who can tell you What Foucault Meant in the
context of What Sartre Meant in the context of What Nietzsche Meant in the
context of What Human Reality Really Is?

Sorry, but I haven't got an ontological clue.

Leon McQuaid <leonpmcquaid@...> wrote:
I'm tired of this friggin group and there idle chatter about 'real' reality,
about 'existence'.  "Intellectual Contraptions"? what ever dude.  What the
f*ck is a psychological state? A political transaction?  Have you ever read
any Foucault, or Nietzsche?  Because it is Nietzsche that asks the very
question that Foucault wishes to answer: "who speaks?"  Psychobabble and
science double talk does not quell the problem of semantics.  You think that
your jargon is somehow 'true' somehow purely meaningful.  Give me an
argument damn it.

>From: George Walton <iambiguously@...>
>Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
>To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Sartre] Foucault
>Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:56:16 -0800 (PST)
>
>The overman, the lastman, the herd. These are all intellectual contraptions
>that exist only insofar as they convey a tautological reference point. They
>are true, in other words, by definition. There can be no literal overman or
>lastman or member of the herd.
>
>In other words, the paradox embedded in existential reference points is
>that they are often spoken of as though they were, in fact, essential
>reference points. There are no essential refernce points, however,
>respecting human emotional or psychological states...or sociological
>transactions...or ethcial or political interactions. There are only what we
>tell others these words mean to us. And they could easily not mean what
>they do now later. And then we all die anyway and for each of us, one by
>one, these "definitions" become essentially moot.
>
>Foucault, in fact, spent much of his life assigning words like this a value
>that is embedded in the existential reality of power and its relationship
>to actual human interactions out in the real world.
>
>George
>
>Leon McQuaid <leonpmcquaid@...> wrote:
>So I am gearing up to write a paper on Foucault and I was wondering.  It
>seems to me that Foucault has written himslef into the postion of being the
>overman.  What do I mean?  I'm not sure yet, but I think that he sees the
>overman as being post-humanist.  The other part of this idea has to do with
>Foucault seeing Sartre as being the last man, or the one to offer the last
>account of human nature, that man has no nature.  Any thoughts?  Am I full
>of sh*t?
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium
>http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http:/\
/hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>    To visit your group on the web, go to:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/
>
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://\
hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines



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




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

    To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

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

Elaine Phipps-Earl <lizral@...> wrote:

<<<<for many, including Taylor, God is an essential reference point, Taylor
suggesting that without the absolute reference point of "good" as in "God",
one can have no sense of good/evil, right/wrong, or of what is moral.>>>>

The irony, of course, being that folks gave been maiming, mutilating and
massacreing each other for centuries now because it seems rather vital that
their own Good/God be the one that all subscribe to. Yet it is equally true
that, sans God [omniscience and omnipotence] there can be no essential,
objective or universal vantage point from which to differentiate right from
wrong human behavior. So, that being the case how are we to live togrether in a
world where, existentially, there are so many vast and varied and conflicting
and contradictory moral/political agendas?


<<<In
turn, one can have no sense of a direction in life, nothing to strive for,
nothing to desire to become.
I guess the other side of the coin is just allowing oneself to be and
embracing all that is>>>.

We can, of course, have a sense of direction---we just have no way of
ascertaining which one is any more rational or logical or ethical or authenitc
than any other one. And this includes the one proposed by Sartre and the other
existentialists. I happen to believe it is, indeed, the least untrue lie
respecting all of the various philosophical schools of thought I have come upon
so far; but I have no way of demonstrating this to be true beyond my own
existential arguments. And who knows, tomorrow I could be in another philosophy
venue and be persuaded there is, in fact, a more reasonable way to look at
things. I just know for sure [or as sure as I can ever be in a world this
profoundly enigmatic] that one day I will be dead and that, for eternity, all of
this will become utterly moot. At least for me.

So, in that brutally precarious and hopelessly ambiguous context how should I
choose to live?

Damned if I know.

George


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

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

Dear ((((((((((((((George))))))))))))))),

Often i write emails and no one answers. I would be extremely grateful if u
could answer this one and
in doing so continue this conversation ;))))

U wrote > In a world without God there is no rational way in which to
distinguish right from wrong behavior; no authentic or inauthentic social,
political and econonomic agenda. Everything is always relative to something
else; it always comes down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems
most reasonable to you [now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce
their own agenda.

Do u see "Everything is always relative to something else; it always comes
down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems most reasonable to you
[now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce their own agenda"
specifically in relation to the social-cultural systems ?

I know Leon is "tired of this friggin group and their idle chatter about
'real' reality, about 'existence" BUT ................ i personally cannot
escape my own profound sense and understanding of two distinct realities ie
a reality which "is", this reality being the sublime beauty of absolute
order in the World and Cosmos, a Cosmos filled with meaning, where as Plato
proclaimed, the force of good in this order moves us to be orderly and good,
recognition of order bringing order, recognition of the good drawing us
toward it. Then there is the reality man has, in mind, created, a
disenchanted World and Cosmos, filled with angst, dread and ultimate chaos.

U say :- If, contextually, things are going really well for you [your health
is good...you have a great job and financial security...you've just fallen
in love and/or are raising gifted children in a wonderfully supportive
family...you have lots of freinds who love you etc etc etc] who would be
surprised at what a boost that can give to your philosophical perspective.

Yes, but can these be said to be part of the "real" (eternal- real in
present/past/future) ? Any "one" of these circumstances, lets say "health"
could change in an instant and with this change, the collectively gathered
created images of the good are seen to fall into the abyss. If u are told u
have four weeks to live all else seems hopeless and in chaos.

In the following four weeks u experience the absolute tortue of angst, dread
and chaos. However, while facing death, u also experience the outpouring of
"love" from others  BUT ........... u don't die. Instead after several weeks
u are sent home from hospital for the weekend. Filled with a new and
differing sense of optimism and hope u are wheeled out of the sterile world
of the hospital and u "see" a different reality, the blueness of the sky,
bluer than u remember, hundreds of differing colours in nature itself, and
the sublime beauty of the world and the Cosmos.

As the months pass, u are slowly drawn back to the other reality. Slowing
the outpouring of "love" comes to a halt and u are back in a world governed
by the principle "that everything is always relative to something else; it
always comes down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems most
reasonable to you [now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce their own
agenda", where in confronting this reality u once again "feel" a sense of
angst, dread and ultimate chaos.

Having had this experience, i have no doubt that there exists two realities
(1) a reality which "Is", this reality being the sublime beauty of absolute
order in the World and Cosmos, a Cosmos filled with meaning, where as Plato
proclaimed, the force of good in this order moves us to be orderly and good,
recognition of order bringing order, recognition of the good drawing us
toward the good and (2) A man-mind created reality which blinds the eyes,
alters instinctual behavious which in turn renders a disenchanted World
filled with angst, dread and ultimate chaos.

Several years ago, long before having studied Taylor, i had written :-

Nietzsche once said, "Men wear masks to cope with the chaos of Nature, but
the true Master acknowledges he wears a mask and continues to play". Within
Nature I need wear no mask, for Nature knows her own and mirrors the
reflection of my own being, these images allowing me to touch the very core
of "I", my soul. Chaos lies not within Nature, but rather within the mind of
Man.

............................................................................
.....
As the Buddhist says "Nothingness is NOT Nothing". Man, in mind, has given
his own meaning to what he now perceives as a disenchanted world, yet this
temporally constructed meaning has created a reality of angst, dread and
ultimate chaos. However, if man abandons this reality and its meanings, he
may be flung into what he perceives as nothingness, yet as he gives up his
struggle against this nothingness he experiences another reality, the
absolute of sublime beauty, the eternal. We struggle to come into the world,
life appears as a struggle, we struggle to avoid death, BUT.............. as
we refuse to struggle and allow to be, we discover the eternal and it is one
instant's experience of sublime eternal perfection that gives us hope,
dreams and aspirations for that we may not "see", yet know to "be".

Love & Massive Hugs
Elaine

"My point is that 'angst' is but one reaction to the human
condition, and not an
absolute and unavoidable at that."

You can choose whatever reaction you like, but it will always be
absurd.
You can choose whatever colour you like, as long as it's black.

He's pissed on the freedom he revealed.
If you want to be happy and smile about it... great. how is that any
less a deception of yourself than if you never contemplated the
problem, or if you accepted it without a second thought?

Dear (((((((((((((George)))))))))))))),

U wrote :-  I just know for sure [or as sure as I can ever be in a world
this profoundly enigmatic] that one day I will be dead and that, for
eternity, all of this will become utterly moot.

Of course both Nietzsche and Sartre rejected religion and its proclaiming of
importance the life after death, rather than life itself,
Sartre suggesting that one who lived in hope of a life hereafter lived in
"bad faith". However, wasn't he rather saying that it was the abandoning
of this life for the life hereafter which resulted in bad faith? Throughout
the entire history of the human race, man has believed in life beyond
this 3d reality. Christianity did not come up with the notion of eternal
life, it merely gave it the name Heaven.  As i mentioned in the previous
email,
"it is one instant's experience of sublime eternal perfection that gives us
hope, dreams and aspirations for that we may not "see", yet know to "be".

As far as this, well after death, becoming utterly moot, i get the
overwhelming sense, that in eternity, u and i will laugh at all of this. For
us here in this life, this 3d reality, who struggle to define meaning, it
all seems sooooooooooooooo complex, sooooooooooo serious, yet in some
distant future i see us laughing in recognition of the simplicity of it all
and at our own stupidity in making it soooooooooooooo complex.  They say
that there exists a very thin line between genius and insanity, and i say
that there exists a very thin line between the finite and infinite, we need
only take one step to "see" it, to "feel" it, to "embrace" it, as in this
instance u who read these words may "sense" and "feel" my embracing u;)))

The irony, of course, being that folks gave been maiming, mutilating and
massacreing each other for centuries now because it seems rather vital that
their own Good/God be the one that all subscribe to. Yet it is equally true
that, sans God [omniscience and omnipotence] there can be no essential,
objective or universal vantage point from which to differentiate right from
wrong human behavior. So, that being the case how are we to live togrether
in a world where, existentially, there are so many vast and varied and
conflicting and contradictory moral/political agendas?

Does "thinking" create/make "feeling" or "feeling "create/make "thinking" or
both?
If there be two realities, and in the reality of what "is" we abandon our
own temporal meaning
and instead allow the force of the good in itself to move us, then perhaps
it is "temporal meaning"
we must abandon and instead reply on "raw feeling" distinct from our own
constructed meaning to aide in the
resolution of conflict. If we abandon the Chains of Cause and Effect will we
discover freedom ?

Why were they referred to as Chains of Cause and Effects in the first place?

Love & Massive Hugs
Elaine





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

Dear (((((((((((((George)))))))))))))),

U wrote :-  I just know for sure [or as sure as I can ever be in a world
this profoundly enigmatic] that one day I will be dead and that, for
eternity, all of this will become utterly moot.

Of course both Nietzsche and Sartre rejected religion and its proclaiming of
importance the life after death, rather than life itself,
Sartre suggesting that one who lived in hope of a life hereafter lived in
"bad faith". However, wasn't he rather saying that it was the abandoning
of this life for the life hereafter which resulted in bad faith? Throughout
the entire history of the human race, man has believed in life beyond
this 3d reality. Christianity did not come up with the notion of eternal
life, it merely gave it the name Heaven.  As i mentioned in the previous
email,
"it is one instant's experience of sublime eternal perfection that gives us
hope, dreams and aspirations for that we may not "see", yet know to "be".

As far as this, well after death, becoming utterly moot, i get the
overwhelming sense, that in eternity, u and i will laugh at all of this. For
us here in this life, this 3d reality, who struggle to define meaning, it
all seems sooooooooooooooo complex, sooooooooooo serious, yet in some
distant future i see us laughing in recognition of the simplicity of it all
and at our own stupidity in making it soooooooooooooo complex.  They say
that there exists a very thin line between genius and insanity, and i say
that there exists a very thin line between the finite and infinite, we need
only take one step to "see" it, to "feel" it, to "embrace" it, as in this
instance u who read these words may "sense" and "feel" my embracing u;)))

The irony, of course, being that folks gave been maiming, mutilating and
massacreing each other for centuries now because it seems rather vital that
their own Good/God be the one that all subscribe to. Yet it is equally true
that, sans God [omniscience and omnipotence] there can be no essential,
objective or universal vantage point from which to differentiate right from
wrong human behavior. So, that being the case how are we to live togrether
in a world where, existentially, there are so many vast and varied and
conflicting and contradictory moral/political agendas?

Does "thinking" create/make "feeling" or "feeling "create/make "thinking" or
both?
If there be two realities, and in the reality of what "is" we abandon our
own temporal meaning
and instead allow the force of the good in itself to move us, then perhaps
it is "temporal meaning"
we must abandon and instead reply on "raw feeling" distinct from our own
constructed meaning to aide in the
resolution of conflict. If we abandon the Chains of Cause and Effect will we
discover freedom ?

Why were they referred to as Chains of Cause and Effects in the first place?

Love & Massive Hugs
Elaine

"However, wasn't he rather saying that it was the abandoning
of this life for the life hereafter which resulted in bad faith?"

No. He was saying that anyone who doesn't look at life head on, and
whom doesn't start from this point of angst in the face of the
absurd is not living in good faith. God, like everything else, is
just a way to push away angst.

Bingo hotdog!  Yeah, meaning is the matter.  And it seems to be dictated by
time--meanings explication.  And explication seems dictated by respect
something which the intelligent seem to always posses.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://\
hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

> No. He was saying that anyone who doesn't look at life head on, and
> whom doesn't start from this point of angst in the face of the
> absurd is not living in good faith. God, like everything else, is
> just a way to push away angst.

Somewhere in all of these thoughts this morning i was wondering
what "intention" was hidden behind the "philosopher's" proclaiming? or was
it the "powers that
be" that encouraged philosophers to proclaim, that there was no God, no
meaningful order in the Cosmos
and no Eternity? Was it realy only a matter of Scientific discoveries, that
led to the rejection and ultimate overthrowing
of  Religious Authority, to the heralding of the perceived need for man to
define his own meaning, to become his own authority,
which in turn allowed him to have an authentic experience in being?

It seems to me that by promoting the notion of a disenchanted world, where
man no longer "saw " or was "moved" by the force of the good in the Cosmos,
by killing off God and rendering the world to be totally disenchanted, man
was forced to believe that he could not "see" or "feel" the good or order.
By pushing the notion that reality and meaning could only be defined by the
temporal constriction of orders, the masses were roped into accepting merely
another authority, that of the wanna be powers, that now be, whom while
encouraging man to think for himself, bombard and brain wash his mind with
images created to define an imposed collective good and laws, which while i
agree that some are universal, the greater majority enforce the powers that
be's control. Just speak out against the power's that be and see how far u
get lol. Once u open your eyes and examine created reality, believing it to
be real is the greatest absurdity.

Love & Hugs
Elaine

> Once u open your eyes and examine created reality, believing it to
> be real is the greatest absurdity.
>
> Love & Hugs
> Elaine

See, this again i disagree with. And this is the reason Sartre is so
soul destroying. There is no such thing as more or less absurd -
only more or less absurdity. (as in quantity, or depth)

There is no such thing as "greatest absurdity," Sartre flings every
thing and everyone onto the same level - the things we love and hate
with passion are exactly the same.

No matter the field of being the for-itself chooses to manifest
itself in, each specific instance will only highlight absurdity,
contradiction and deception of the self. Even the refusual to be
deceived is a deception - it is a stance we put on a higher plane
than others - "I refuse to be deceived by life," why do you refuse?
Is it somehow better not to be deceived? less absurd? bah.

Yes, George, but I am not so sure that life is meaningless.  Mainly,
I think that the issue of 'meaning' attempts to limit the primal
order to a human scale, where the cogitos (thinking-in-general plus
consciousness) is established as the center unquestioned judge.
But, even if human beings grow silent in the face of the
incomprehensible world, there is still a level of comprehensibility
mentioned by Einstein.  What I image is the case, and I know it is
also a point of view, is that at the level of the incomprehensible
(mystery) is not actually anything as ridiculous as it seems to us,
but an extraordinary high level of non-disclosure.  Repeatedness,
scientific reductionism has uncovered, unconcealed, discovered and
shown that we live is a knowable world.  But are we not angry
impatient seekers, trying at all cost to reduce the universe to
Bubers I-it perspective.  The fact is, we want the universe to fall
under our scrutiny and control, we want to manipulate it, exploit
it, turn it into a profit, name it and claim it with proprietary
ownerism.  I imagine that just beyond the edge of human
comprehension is 'not' a mindless, pointless cosmos, but a
patterned, primordial order, a well gathered collection, a primal
logos; hey that's what I believe.  Therefore, although this is not a
proven, it is where my juncture with 'faith' begins, and to which I
am dedicated to be apologist.

Joe

--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, George Walton <iambiguously@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> decker150 <decker150@y...> wrote:
>
> <<<What we end up having to embrace is 'our' reaction.  The angst
of Sartre is a reaction, one that he presented as unavoidable and
> necessarily the only valid reaction.  I differ with Sartre on this
conclusion.  Once we encounter the incomprehensible character of
> be-ing, there is another reaction, at least one as valid as angst
and dread.  That alternative is awe and wonder, one enough to
inspire
> music, mystery, even hope>>>>
>
> In a world without God there is no rational way in which to
distinguish right from wrong behavior; no authentic or inauthentic
social, political and econonomic agenda. Everything is always
relative to something else; it always comes down to 1] whatever
particular vantage point seems most reasonable to you [now, today]
and 2] who has the power to enforce their own agenda. Personally, I
don't see any way in which to encompass that philosophically except
with a fair degree of angst and dread. It depends, of course, on
what your own unique existential/circumstantial context happens to
be at the time you ponder it. If, contextually, things are going
really well for you [your health is good...you have a great job and
financial security...you've just fallen in love and/or are raising
gifted children in a wonderfully supportive family...you have lots
of freinds who love you etc etc etc] who would be surprised at what
a boost that can give to your philosophical perspective. But if your
life
>  is in the toilet, chances are not much in the way of philosophy
is going to propell you towards a more optimistic or hopeful frame
of mind.
>
>
> <<<Yes, we understand that 'human meaning' is short-sighted and
limited, even given to our folly and
> self-exxagerated sense of importance.  Yet, even if we choose the
describe Being as ultimately meaningless and ridiculous to the
> core, this need not reduce our reaction to dismal disappointment
and despair.>>>
>
> I agree insofar as, in acknowledging that, essentially, human
existence is meaningless and absurd, it allows you to distance
yourself from The Absolute Truth. And to the extent you are able to
do this is the extent to which your existential options increase
that much more. In others words, nothing ontological or teleological
ties you down [or persuades to go in just one direction]; so you a
free to explore alternate directions, right? Again, it all depends
on the extent to which, circumstantially, you are or are not able to
act on this knowledge. If the doctor just told you the brain tumor
is so far advanced you won't make it out of her office alive that
narrows your options [and your hopes and dreams] doewn considerably,
doesn't it? Everything is always profoundly situated---
existentially. And that certainly includes your "philosophy of
life". Nothing can be nailed down with any degree of finality. Only
the realization that someday you will be dead and gone forever and
ever.
>
> <<<<I differ with Sartre's conclusion, for one, is because it
> does not admit to the binary opposite which is so charcteristic of
the existential situation.  We have both Being and Nothingness, both
> light and dark, both life and death, one thing and it's opposite.
Even the dialectic assumes this attribute or opposing forces,
wherein
> one eventually either gets assimilated or defeated.  And I do not
imagine that life, light, hope, and wonder are going to just roll
over
> and play dead. The incomprehensible character of Being-Here (the
mystery of presence) does not deny abscence (the abscence of
> meaning), but only that 'there-is' its equally 'sublime' and
fantastical beauty, and all it's comprehensibility bound to an even
great
> incomprehensibility.>>>
>
> The difficulty I have with Sartre and Camus and other existentists
is the extent to which they seek to dichotomize the world we
encounter from day to day [in our interactions with others]
into "authentic" and "inauthentic" thinking and behaving; the way in
which they speak of "bad faith". What can this possible mean
ultimately in a world without God? I do grasp their motivation for
proposing it, sure, but I just don't think it has any philosophical
weight in a world that is profoundly embedded in the unbearable
lightness of being. We all end up choosing some point of view to
weight our "self" down. That existentialism seems more reasonable
[to me] than Christianity or Marxism or Objectivism or Whaterverism
doesn't change the fact that it is just another point of view. And,
in an essentially meaningless and absurd world, all such points of
view are interchangable in the end.
>
> To truly understand what that means respecting the world around us
[a world veritably awash in devastating suffering and horror] is to
be brutally acquainted with anxiety and dread and despair. There is
simply no getting around it. There is only figuring out a way to
[realistically] deal with it.
>
> George
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul, I am not sure why you give favor to absurdity, when it may as
well be describe as sublime.  I understand the paradox itself that
the absurd presents itself as a universal interpretation, but not
necessarily one exclusive explanation on the interpretation path.
Sartre presents absurdity as a final word, in the tone of an
absolute, as an irreducible/singular utlimate end all.  But this
clearly minimizes the orderliness of the universe-that-is-ordered.
It is this 'order' that I suspect is being under-appreciated by the
use of the word 'absurd'.  For I see in this incomprehensible order,
something that brings to to an awe, not awefulness, dread and
angst.  Sorry, but just consider me blind.

I group sublime and absurd together much like other binary
groupings.  That is not to say that there is no gray area or an in-
between, but that toward the extremes, absurdity is just one path,
one side of the coin, and we need not demand any favortism toward
the absurd, when a state of sublime awe is clearly another path.

Joe

  "Paul" <p.cave@u...> wrote:
> "My point is that 'angst' is but one reaction to the human
> condition, and not an
> absolute and unavoidable at that."
>
> You can choose whatever reaction you like, but it will always be
> absurd.
> You can choose whatever colour you like, as long as it's black.
>
> He's pissed on the freedom he revealed.
> If you want to be happy and smile about it... great. how is that
any
> less a deception of yourself than if you never contemplated the
> problem, or if you accepted it without a second thought?

See, this again i disagree with. And this is the reason Sartre is so
> soul destroying. There is no such thing as more or less absurd -
> only more or less absurdity. (as in quantity, or depth)>
There is no such thing as "greatest absurdity," Sartre flings every
> thing and everyone onto the same level - the things we love and hate
> with passion are exactly the same.


U "see" me sitting on a street corner with my eyes crossed, fingers up my
nose
and laughing and say to yourself "this is an absurd vision. She looks
absurd".

If u walk into the city and see 100,000 people sitting on the ground, eyes
crossed, fingers
up their nose and laughing, U say to yourself "This is the absurdest vision.
Far more absurd than the
vision of one person  sitting on a street corner with their eyes crossed,
fingers up their nose
and laughing. This therefore is the greatest absurdity".

If u "think" about me sitting on a street corner with my eyes crossed,
fingers up my nose
and laughing, u may laugh and say "now that was funny", BUT.............. if
u "see" it,
it appears absurd;)))) And the more people u "see" doing it the more absurd
the vision becomes
and then u may turn to a friend and say " i have now witnessed the "greatest
absurdity" ;)))

Love & Hugs
Elaine

Paul says: "whom doesn't start from this point of angst in the face
of the absurd is not living in good faith. God, like everything
else, is just a way to push away angst."

Joe says:  Yes it is true that we will do anything to put ourselves
out of misery, and it is here you have defined angst as something
human beings 'push away'.  But I have noticed that when I start from
the point of the sublime, in due consideration of this life being
incomprehensible, I feel there is nothing to repugnate about Being
to push away.  Now, that is not to ignore suffering-withiun-this-
world.  We are essentially talking about the human emotion, a
reaction, that has not been able to see past the dark mystery of
life as being anything other than 'lacking' something.  It is not
necessarily a 'good faith' to ignore the possibility that at deeper,
even more profound levels of primordial existence, that greater and
greater levels of order are still concealed.  But, I really am put
off by the one-sided arrogance of pure denial, the kind that refuses
to ponder the equally valid path of affirmation, courage,
acceptance, and any other number of possibilities that acknowledge
someing remotely 'good' about Be-ing here.

Joe

The most adsurd thing has just happened. All morning i have been swinging
between doing housework,
writing and sending emails to the forum and working on an assignment. All of a
sudden a box has appeared
at the bottom of the screen along with Inbox-Outlook Express, and Word- Sources
of the Self. This box is
Word- Additional Text. Of course i had written and filed it, but that was a long
time ago, at least a couple of months.
BUT suddenly here it is, without me having clicked on it and yet as i read these
words they seem not mine and yet are as i have written,
what absurdity is this ??????????? I share this with u know and if u know from
whence these words have come, be it
me or someone else, could u please share it with me ;)) I have been on heavy
narcotics for the past few weeks due to my immune
system attacking my bones and muscles, have i written this ???????

Each man is born with a predisposition to one or the other of these sides of
nature; and it will easily happen that men will be found devoted to one or the
other. EVERY FACT is related on one side to sensation, and on the other to
morals. The game of thought is, on the appearance of one of these two sides, to
find the other: given the upper, to find the under side. Nothing so thin but has
these two faces, and when the observer has seen the obverse, he turns it over to
see the reverse. He has a conception of beauty which the sculptor cannot embody.
Picture, statue, temple, railroad, steam-engine, existed first in an artist's
mind, without flaw, mistake, or friction, which impair the executed models. So
did the Church, the State, college, court, social circle, and all the
institutions. It is not strange that these men, remembering what they have seen
and hoped of ideas, should affirm disdainfully the superiority of ideas. Having
at some time seen that the happy soul will carry all the arts in power, they
say, Why cumber ourselves with superfluous realizations? and like dreaming
beggars they assume to speak and act as if these values were already
substantiated. On the other part, the men of toil and trade and luxury,- the
animal world, including the animal in the philosopher and poet also, and the
practical world, including the painful drudgeries which are never excused to
philosopher or poet any more than to the rest,- weigh heavily on the other side
To the men of this world, to the animal strength and spirits, to the men of
practical power, whilst immersed in it, the man of ideas appears out of his
reason. They alone have reason. The abstractionist and the materialist thus
mutually exasperating each other, and the scoffer expressing the worst of
materialism, there arises a third party to occupy the middle ground between
these two, the skeptic, namely. He finds both wrong by being in extremes. He
labors to plant his feet, to be the beam of the balance. He will not go beyond
his card. He sees the one-sidedness of these men of the street; he will not be a
Gibeonite; he stands for the intellectual faculties, a cool head and whatever
serves to keep it cool; no unadvised industry, no unrewarded self-devotion, no
loss of the brains in toil The abstractionist and the materialist thus mutually
exasperating each other, and the scoffer expressing the worst of materialism,
there arises a third party to occupy the middle ground between these two, the
skeptic, namely. He finds both wrong by being in extremes. But I see plainly, he
says, that I cannot see. I know that human strength is not in extremes, but in
avoiding extremes. I, at least, will shun the weakness of philosophizing beyond
my depth. What is the use of pretending to powers we have not? What is the use
of pretending to assurances we have not, respecting the other life? Why
exaggerate the power of virtue? Why be an angel before your time? These strings,
wound up too high, will snap. If there is a wish for immortality, and no
evidence, why not say just that? If there are conflicting evidences, why not
state them? If there is not ground for a candid thinker to make up his mind, yea
or nay,- why not suspend the judgment? I weary of these dogmatizers. I tire of
these hacks of routine, who deny the dogmas. I neither affirm nor deny. I stand
here to try the case. I am here to consider, skopein, to consider how it is. I
will try to keep the balance true. Of what use to take the chair and glibly
rattle off theories of society, religion and nature, when I know that practical
objections lie in the way, insurmountable by me and by my mates? Let us have a
robust, manly life; let us know what we know, for certain; what we have, let it
be solid and seasonable and our own. A world in the hand is worth two in the
bush. Let us have to do with real men and women, and not with skipping ghosts.

This then is the right ground of the skeptic,- this of consideration, of
self-containing; not at all of unbelief; not at all of universal denying, nor of
universal doubting,- doubting even that he doubts; least of all of scoffing and
profligate jeering at all that is stable and good. These are no more his moods
than are those of religion and philosophy The wise skeptic wishes to have a near
view of the best game and the chief players; what is best in the planet; art and
nature, places and events; but mainly men. Every thing that is excellent in
mankind,- a form of grace, an arm of iron, lips of persuasion, a brain of
resources, every one skilful to play and win,- he will see and judge.

The terms of admission to this spectacle are, that he have a certain solid and
intelligible way of living of his own; some method of answering the inevitable
needs of human life; proof that he has played with skill and success; that he
has evinced the temper, stoutness and the range of qualities which, among his
contemporaries and countrymen, entitle him to fellowship and trust. For the
secrets of life are not shown except to sympathy and likeness. Men do not
confide themselves to boys, or coxcombs, or pedants, but to their peers. Some
wise limitation, as the modern phrase is; some condition between the extremes,
and having, itself, a positive quality; some stark and sufficient man, who is
not salt or sugar, but sufficiently related to the world to do justice to Paris
or London, and, at the same time, a vigorous and original thinker, whom cities
can not overawe, but who uses them,- is the fit person to occupy this ground of
speculation.

There is the power of moods, each setting at nought all but its own tissue of
facts and beliefs. There is the power of complexions, obviously modifying the
dispositions and sentiments. The beliefs and unbeliefs appear to be structural;
and as soon as each man attains the poise and vivacity which allow the whole
machinery to play, he will not need extreme examples, but will rapidly alternate
all opinions in his own life. Our life is March weather, savage and serene in
one hour. We go forth austere, dedicated, believing in the iron links of
Destiny, and will not turn on our heel to save our life: but a book, or a bust,
or only the sound of a name, shoots a spark through the nerves, and we suddenly
believe in will: my finger-ring shall be the seal of Solomon; fate is for
imbeciles; all is possible to the resolved mind. Presently But all the ways of
culture and greatness lead to solitary imprisonment. He has been often baulked.
He did not expect a sympathy, with his thought from the village, but he went
with it to the chosen and intelligent, and found no entertainment for it, but
mere misapprehension, distaste and scoffing. Men are strangely mistimed and
misapplied; and the excellence of each is an inflamed individualism which
separates him more. The final solution in which skepticism is lost, is in the
moral sentiment, which never forfeits its supremacy. All moods may be safely
tried, and their weight allowed to all objections: the moral sentiment as easily
outweighs them all, as any one. This is the drop which balances the sea. I play
with the miscellany of facts, and take those superficial views which we call
skepticism; but I know that they will presently appear to me in that order which
makes skepticism impossible. A man of thought must feel the thought that is
parent of the universe; that the masses of nature do undulate and flow.

This faith avails to the whole emergency of life and objects. The world is
saturated with deity and with law. He is content with just and unjust, with sots
and fools, with the triumph of folly and fraud. He can behold with serenity the
yawning gulf between the ambition of man and his power of performance, between
the demand and supply of power, which makes the tragedy of all souls.

Let a man learn to look for the permanent in the mutable and fleeting; let him
learn to bear the disappearance of things he was wont to reverence without
losing his reverence; let him learn that he is here, not to work but to be
worked upon; and that, though abyss open under abyss, and opinion displace
opinion, all are at last contained in the Eternal Cause:-

Love & Massive Hugs

Elaine


















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

From what I have read about angst, from the standpoint of ones own
conscious reaction to existence is that we do not merely dread
something objective or real, but we have an overall feeling of doubt
and apprehension toward own own uncertain fate.  My take is that
angst, focused directly upon the aspect of nothingness, is
especially directed toward the decisions we are able to make in this
life out of our ownmost freedom.  As Sartre said we cannot not be
free.  But what exoneration is there for one decision over any
other, going left or going right; even to the point of affirming
life or concluding we are all doomed.  Well, here angst is not
indicated as something inherent within facticity itself, but more as
a mere reaction to the fact.  For human reaction and the factual
world around us are together simultaneously the source of angst; not
facticity all by itself.  First of all, we don't have all the
facts.  We cannot, in good faith, truly deny further unconcealments,
eventual disclosures; even Christianity says that one day the sky
will split open.  The choices we make, consciously, is our freedom
to be, and we are demanded upon to make some decision or another all
the time that has no right or wrong to it.  Angst occurs as we are
unable to find any justification in the path of the nothingness and
the choices we are called upon and must make within and during our
be-ing.  Now the issue of faith suggest that an intersubjectivity
(where there is no factual object per se) occurs in a reciprocity
between us and another (Heidegger's being-with-another), that I have
a voice speaking, speaking straight at the power I am facing, saying
something out of my own anxiety, fears and hopes, to a listening
power.  Call it a delusion, I call it faith.  But it is a faith that
does not merely call out from the earth to another mortal, but also
calls out toward the sky for an immortal soul from our
anthropological disposition "Our Father...". (Heidegger's earth,
sky, mortal & divine).

Well, we do recognize that we confront our own freedom of choice,
that we are never free from its outcome, not til death ends the
liberty of our free project; there is gravity to the decisions and
actions we bring about; we also dread our own ignorance and ill-
informed choices.  Angst is grounded in Beings, as me in a given
situation of decision, me facing the unknown and the unknowable.
And it is in whispers of a dialogical cry that one takes up courage
and makes them.

Joe

--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Elaine Phipps-Earl" <lizral@o...>
wrote:
>
>>>Of course both Nietzsche and Sartre rejected religion and its
proclaiming of
> importance the life after death, rather than life itself,
> Sartre suggesting that one who lived in hope of a life hereafter
lived in
> "bad faith". However, wasn't he rather saying that it was the
abandoning
> of this life for the life hereafter which resulted in bad faith?<<<

I am not myself a religious person. But I have reached the point in
life where I see the futility of responding to others in terms
of "authenticity" and "bad faith". In an absurd world such
philosophical adjudications/valuations are essentially meaningless.
Human existence is bursting at the seams with all manner of trials
and tribulations; it's always never nothing; it is awash in
uncertainty and ambiguity and contingency and precarious slips that
can start out small but snowball [re the butterfly effect] into
catastrophes. In that [at times] brutally unnerving context I don't
really care how others devise strategies to make it through the days.

It does, however, comes down to whether or not they are able to
defend their choices in venues like this, right? In other words, are
they reasonable given the manner in which I have come to understand
things? I don't believe that opting for some denominational God is
rational at all. So, in a philosophical venue, I say so. But that [to
me] is not the same thing as being able to condemn the religous
choices others make might [that conflict with my own] as Inauthentic.
Says who? Me? Hardly.

If there is a God...an afterlife...a salvation, then demonstrate this
to be true. That is my point in a philosophy venue. And so far I have
never encountered arguments that convince me this is the case. In
fact, the existential evidence is bleak to say the least.

As for the "chains of cause and effect" this is what is known as an
antinomy in philosophy. We just have no unequivocally Logical or
Rational way of demonstrating categorically whether human autonomy
and free will are not just self-delusions. We have to live our lives,
however, acting as though [while profoundly situated existentially]
our choices are [up to a point] our own.

George

Elaine Phipps-Earl <lizral@...> wrote:


<<<Do u see "Everything is always relative to something else; it always comes
down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems most reasonable to you
[now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce their own agenda"
specifically in relation to the social-cultural systems>>>

There is no way I could ever possibly answer this such that my point of view
would be more than just a particular sum of all the particular parts I happen to
be thinking about now in grappling with something I presume to be a reasonable
response. For me any particular human identity is always hopelessly subsumed
[inextricable and inexpressibly ensnared] in dozens and dozens of conflicting
existential variables/contexts. Thus my point of view will be reflective of my
historical era and my culture and my acculturation as a child and the
experiences I had and the people I met and the books I read and the places I
have been...and the mood I am in, etc etc etc. Thus, concommitantly, there is no
Right Answer to your question; there is only a particular answer [mine, here and
now] that seems reasoanble to me at this point in time. Had I responded to it 10
years ago, my answer would have been very different. And I presume that, 10
years down the road, my answer to a similar question will
  also be very much odds with this one. So, which one is the "right" one? There
is no right one. there is only a point of view that may or may not seem
reasonable to you---now, today.

<<<i personally cannot
escape my own profound sense and understanding of two distinct realities ie
a reality which "is", this reality being the sublime beauty of absolute
order in the World and Cosmos, a Cosmos filled with meaning, where as Plato
proclaimed, the force of good in this order moves us to be orderly and good,
recognition of order bringing order, recognition of the good drawing us
toward it>>>

The reality you speak of here has been broached by philosophers for centuries.
It is the noumenal "transcendental ideal" reality that Kant spoke of. It is said
to be distinct from the empirical, phenomonological reality we interact in from
day to day. Such a reality may exists. I don't think it does. Or if it does and
it is not assessible to human minds, it may as well not exists---for me now,
today. And the bottom line is that the only way folks like Plato and Spinoza and
Leibniz and Berkeley and Descartes and Kant etc have brought it into "existence"
is analytically and linguistically. It is "deduced" into existence a priori.
That means little to me, however. We can "analyze" and "philosophize" a lot of
things into existence inside our heads. But where's the beef? Where is the hard
experiential/existential evidence that would lead me to believe in such a
transendental realm? There is none at all. You can go on and on about what you
"feel"...about what you just know intuitively to
  be true. If that were all it takes to make things true, however, there would be
literally millions and millions of different renditions of True Reality out
there, right? I have been in enough philosophy venues to recognize the manner in
which folks seek to see what they believe rather than believe what they see. If
there is a level of reality above and beyond the existential then I say show us
that it exists such that we do not just have to take your word for it. No one
has suceeded in doing that in any exchange with me. They just shower me with
words that are said to be true by other words that are said to be true by yet
additional words. Serial tautologies as it were.

<<<<Several years ago, long before having studied Taylor, i had written :-

Nietzsche once said, "Men wear masks to cope with the chaos of Nature, but
the true Master acknowledges he wears a mask and continues to play". Within
Nature I need wear no mask, for Nature knows her own and mirrors the
reflection of my own being, these images allowing me to touch the very core
of "I", my soul. Chaos lies not within Nature, but rather within the mind of
Man>>>

Nature is subsumed in existence. Existence is subsumed in...in what? Who really
knows. All I know about Nature is that it doesn't give a rat's ass about us. A
giant asteroid could be oh so slightly deflected by the gravity of Juptier such
that it comes barrelling into Earth---destroying all human life in a nano
second. The tiniest of chance cosmological occurances resulting in the
destruction of all life on earth. What could that possibly Mean?

George




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

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

Elaine Phipps-Earl <lizral@...> wrote:


<<<Do u see "Everything is always relative to something else; it always comes
down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems most reasonable to you
[now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce their own agenda"
specifically in relation to the social-cultural systems>>>

There is no way I could ever possibly answer this such that my point of view
would be more than just a particular sum of all the particular parts I happen to
be thinking about now in grappling with something I presume to be a reasonable
response. For me any particular human identity is always hopelessly subsumed
[inextricable and inexpressibly ensnared] in dozens and dozens of conflicting
existential variables/contexts. Thus my point of view will be reflective of my
historical era and my culture and my acculturation as a child and the
experiences I had and the people I met and the books I read and the places I
have been...and the mood I am in, etc etc etc. Thus, concommitantly, there is no
Right Answer to your question; there is only a particular answer [mine, here and
now] that seems reasoanble to me at this point in time. Had I responded to it 10
years ago, my answer would have been very different. And I presume that, 10
years down the road, my answer to a similar question will
  also be very much odds with this one. So, which one is the "right" one? There
is no right one. there is only a point of view that may or may not seem
reasonable to you---now, today.

<<<i personally cannot
escape my own profound sense and understanding of two distinct realities ie
a reality which "is", this reality being the sublime beauty of absolute
order in the World and Cosmos, a Cosmos filled with meaning, where as Plato
proclaimed, the force of good in this order moves us to be orderly and good,
recognition of order bringing order, recognition of the good drawing us
toward it>>>

The reality you speak of here has been broached by philosophers for centuries.
It is the noumenal "transcendental ideal" reality that Kant spoke of. It is said
to be distinct from the empirical, phenomonological reality we interact in from
day to day. Such a reality may exists. I don't think it does. Or if it does and
it is not assessible to human minds, it may as well not exists---for me now,
today. And the bottom line is that the only way folks like Plato and Spinoza and
Leibniz and Berkeley and Descartes and Kant etc have brought it into "existence"
is analytically and linguistically. It is "deduced" into existence a priori.
That means little to me, however. We can "analyze" and "philosophize" a lot of
things into existence inside our heads. But where's the beef? Where is the hard
experiential/existential evidence that would lead me to believe in such a
transendental realm? There is none at all. You can go on and on about what you
"feel"...about what you just know intuitively to
  be true. If that were all it takes to make things true, however, there would be
literally millions and millions of different renditions of True Reality out
there, right? I have been in enough philosophy venues to recognize the manner in
which folks seek to see what they believe rather than believe what they see. If
there is a level of reality above and beyond the existential then I say show us
that it exists such that we do not just have to take your word for it. No one
has suceeded in doing that in any exchange with me. They just shower me with
words that are said to be true by other words that are said to be true by yet
additional words. Serial tautologies as it were.

<<<<Several years ago, long before having studied Taylor, i had written :-

Nietzsche once said, "Men wear masks to cope with the chaos of Nature, but
the true Master acknowledges he wears a mask and continues to play". Within
Nature I need wear no mask, for Nature knows her own and mirrors the
reflection of my own being, these images allowing me to touch the very core
of "I", my soul. Chaos lies not within Nature, but rather within the mind of
Man>>>

Nature is subsumed in existence. Existence is subsumed in...in what? Who really
knows. All I know about Nature is that it doesn't give a rat's ass about us. A
giant asteroid could be oh so slightly deflected by the gravity of Juptier such
that it comes barrelling into Earth---destroying all human life in a nano
second. The tiniest of chance cosmological occurances resulting in the
destruction of all life on earth. What could that possibly Mean?

George





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

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

decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:

<<<Yes, George, but I am not so sure that life is meaningless.  Mainly,
I think that the issue of 'meaning' attempts to limit the primal
order to a human scale, where the cogitos (thinking-in-general plus
consciousness) is established as the center unquestioned judge.>>>

The "meaning of life" can be understood in two very different ways---essentially
and existentially. My point is that human existence has no essential,
ontological, teleological meaning. Its meaning can only be construed
realistically as existential. It flows, in other words, out of our actual
existing interactions as they are necessarily composed circumstantially [as
Dasein] within a particular historical and cultural context that ceaselessly
evolves and changes over time. And then we die and meaning becomes literally
moot for each one of us for eternity.


<<<But, even if human beings grow silent in the face of the
incomprehensible world, there is still a level of comprehensibility
mentioned by Einstein.  What I image is the case, and I know it is
also a point of view, is that at the level of the incomprehensible
(mystery) is not actually anything as ridiculous as it seems to us,
but an extraordinary high level of non-disclosure.  Repeatedness,
scientific reductionism has uncovered, unconcealed, discovered and
shown that we live is a knowable world.  But are we not angry
impatient seekers, trying at all cost to reduce the universe to
Bubers I-it perspective.  The fact is, we want the universe to fall
under our scrutiny and control, we want to manipulate it, exploit
it, turn it into a profit, name it and claim it with proprietary
ownerism.>>>

It is, however, the part that neither science nor philosophy can know anything
about [essentially] that impales most folks respecting "meaning" in their life.
They want to know "why am I here?", "what is the point of existence?", "is there
a way to know for sure how I ought to live...how I should behave around others?"

No, there isn't any way to know for certain the answer to these questions, is
there. So, they are filled with anxiety in the face of the unknown. In the face
of impending oblivion. At least I am.

<<<I imagine that just beyond the edge of human
comprehension is 'not' a mindless, pointless cosmos, but a
patterned, primordial order, a well gathered collection, a primal
logos; hey that's what I believe.  Therefore, although this is not a
proven, it is where my juncture with 'faith' begins, and to which I
am dedicated to be apologist>>>

But it doesn't really matter what we imagine to be true; it matters only [or far
more] what we can demonstrate reasonably to actually be true. At least in
exchanges like this one. And respecting that age old query regarding the
"meaning of life" it turns out to be "not much at all", right?

George






---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

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

George you say:  "t is, however, the part that neither science nor
philosophy can know anything about [essentially] that impales most
folks respecting "meaning" in their life. They want to know "why am I
here?", "what is the point of existence?", "is there a way to know for
sure how I ought to live...how I should behave around others?"

Joe:  Well, I think it is fair to ask "How then should we live?"
Humanly speaking, socially, we need a practical straight forward
concensus over 'that' question.  I don't think it will be up to minds
stuck in the absurd to decide for humanity as a whole.  I don't think
there is 'one' answer that is universally applicable to "why am I
here?", although there are plenty of universal concerns .  Mainly,
each persons future is their own project, determined by their own
situation and the decisions we must make.  The point of one's
existence unfolds within this free project that is necessary for each
one of us; but the future is always already not-yet-here and
not-yet-known.  Becoming me is an individual free project (within a
deterministic world of limits). I think we will always get into
trouble expecting that we can "know for sure" . . .[certainty].  I
rather think I 'know teneatively' and caustiously, a little bit better
than yesterday.  I live forward in the pursuit of reshaping and
clarifying 'what I know', with my own internal dialectic (arguing with
myself)  From my take, faith does not require meaning, at least not
any thing indepth.  In the face of the incomprehensible mystery of
be-ing, faith comes across as Paul Tillich expressed in 'the courage
to be'.  It is a courage in spite of the fact that our lives are
immersed in an all-immersing mystery; or as they say in the latin -
mysterium tremendum.

+ + + + +

George:  "But it doesn't really matter what we imagine to be true; it
matters only [or far more] what we can demonstrate reasonably to
actually be true. At least in exchanges like this one. And respecting
that age old query regarding the "meaning of life" it turns out to be
"not much at all", right?"

Joe:  Well, I remain more theoretical than applied, so I do not
demonstrate in a real world way.  Regardless, Da-sein is not
catchable, visible or testable, even though beings are to some extent.
  Meaning is more for the intersubjectivity of human concern, toward
our connection to other human beings; so we speak to each other from a
limited perspective, comforting each others with inadequacy of mere
words, expressing the courage we have.  Well, I do.

Joe

Hello everyone, I joined this group today. Im from India. I read
through some of the recent messages. Im interested in world
literature, and Im particularly interested in the works of Sartre,
Freud, Kafka, Nietzche, Kazantzakis, Dostoyevsky, Camus.... Hope to
see you all around.. have a good day.

decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:

<<<<I think it is fair to ask "How then should we live?"
Humanly speaking, socially, we need a practical straight forward
concensus over 'that' question.  I don't think it will be up to minds
stuck in the absurd to decide for humanity as a whole.  I don't think
there is 'one' answer that is universally applicable to "why am I
here?", although there are plenty of universal concerns .  Mainly,
each persons future is their own project, determined by their own
situation and the decisions we must make>>>

I agree, there is no one answer to the question "why am I here?". And the
"universal concerns" necessarily revolve first and foremeost around sustaining
one's biological existence. Only after we have garnered and then figured out a
way to sustain access to food and libations and shelter and protection from
enemies etc. can we grapple with other concerns like morality [respecting social
issues] or aesthetic predilections or other more "practical" aspects of social
interaction. Then we can consider larger "ontological" or "religious" meaning.
Yet they all seem necessarily to become interwined for most of us from day to
day to day. We all try to encompass some perspective that acts to glue all the
existential pieces together into some overall Meaning Of Life. I just don't
believe it is really possible to demonstrate one over another. It generally
comes down to whatever works best for each person. But what then becomes
critical for me is in grappling with what it means to be "I". How
  does a particular human identity unfold existentially? Why do we subscribe to
one set of values rather than another? How much of that is merely an aspect of
acculturation? How much can be ascertained Rationally or Logically? Is this even
calculable in any meaningful or realistic sense? Again, I don't think it can be.
We all take our leaps in the end. And, in the end [the end being the abyss that
is oblivion], any existential choice is essentially interchangable with any
other choice.


<<<I remain more theoretical than applied, so I do not
demonstrate in a real world way.  Regardless, Da-sein is not
catchable, visible or testable, even though beings are to some extent.
Meaning is more for the intersubjectivity of human concern, toward
our connection to other human beings; so we speak to each other from a
limited perspective, comforting each others with inadequacy of mere
words, expressing the courage we have.  Well, I do>>>>

For me, the theoretical must eventually touch down and become a manifestation of
praxis. It is not what words can tell us about other words that count nearly as
much as whether the relationship between concepts have any significant
applicabilty respecting actual human discourese down on the ground. Here it is
always going to be the "intersubjective" that carries the most weight. It is how
I understand the world given my own existential trajectory and experiences and
relationships and how you understand the world given yours. What is there that
seems to overlap? How can we come to some sort of "moderated" compromise such
that we are willing to negociate our differences when it is crunch time and it
is no longer just words but laws and sanctions we are considering. Here I am
convinced that, once again, what really matters is not theory but the practice
of political economy. In other words, what ultimately matters is not the weight
of your argument...but the weight of your muscle. That
  is the way the world has always functioned by and large. Those with the
political and economic and military might are the ones who are going to [by and
large] be able to enforce their own point of view and social agenda. That in my
view is the human condition in a nutshell.

George











---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

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

ok... hold on...

i was perusing KANT at my leisure, and the word sublime popped up
several times. Is this some technical term with some deep and
meaningful significance that i do not know? Or is it some DH
Lawrencian attempt to talk bullshit about the absurd and how fuzzy
it makes you feel? thanks,
paul

Hello, I'm new to this! Interesting input from people
here.. I think I'll just jump right in ;)

------------------------------------------------------

What about starting to think about a life's point
rather than meaning. when we speak of meaning we are
speaking of absurdity. when we speak of a point we are
examining and endlessly questioning our existence as
we are doing right now. I assume that the majority of
whoever's in this group is questioning their existence
in one way or another without knowing why. Although
THAT (knowing why) might give "meaning" to existence.
why did Sartre do that? what is the point? There is no
point? But it's impossible to explain everything in
words and if humans had no language perhaps life
wouldn't have been absurd because we wouldn't have
thought of such a notion. Language... religion are the
two closely tied reasons behind humanity's "saneness"
and "insanness". Religion-our primal creation- is the
cause and reason of meaning. It is what millions live
for, hoping they'd get the good after-life in reward
to their "immaterial" goodness of being. Once you
leave that, you are in another state of mind and you
start questioning your existence. One will maybe come
to the conclusion that "life" has no meaning only
after realizing that there is no life after this one,
"this" one being not only the individual's, but the
human civilization's. But what is meaning? Why do we
look for meaning? And how would meaning change our
"life"? Sure emotions are there and they play the
reason right now. That is why we want meaning..because
we are sure that since we "feel", we have the right to
know. OR else there would be no point in politics and
human rights, order, art and music...etc. I think I
will not go on with my pointless paragraph for now; it
would be interesting to read some answers (and I hope
I do get some from anyone who picks up what I'm
expressing). We read Nietzsche, Sartre, Freud,
Lacan...etc etc etc but we cannot get answers, every
individual has to find a "path" for peace of mind- for
no particular reason except to fulfill the chemical
reactions that cause feelings, and it doesn't matter
what the people I mentioned have said because if there
is a point in this life, we will never know what it is
because we are looking for nothing, and that is what
makes life absurd. If or an individual person, there
is difference between 1) finding out that in a week,
Earth would be hit by a flaming object X and not a
single living organism will stay alive; all of us will
die at the same minute and there will be no "life"
anymore; And 2) finding out that this individual has
one week to live and then will die of a chronic
desease/accident. The impact on feelings of these two
hypothetical situations is vastly different. To know
why that is, is perhaps close to finding meaning to
this life and stopping to think that it is absurd?
In short, yes it is a loophole...and we are fucked...
and it doesn't matter. What seems to matter is
preserving our precious existence, without having a
point to it because we are not immortal. Immortality
might be a sarcastic answer to our questions some
people might argue, and already have. In vain, it is
not...because it "means" nothing to us.


okkay now...i'll stop here.
ZZ

------------------------------------------------------
"I was just thinking...that here we sit, all of us,
eating and drinking to preserve our precious existence
and really there is nothing, nothing absolutely no
reason for existing." ~Sartre


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

Zein Z <zanzoon3@...> wrote:

<<<What about starting to think about a life's point
rather than meaning. when we speak of meaning we are
speaking of absurdity. when we speak of a point we are
examining and endlessly questioning our existence as
we are doing right now>>>

The difficulty here is there is no way to make the meaning of words like
"meaning" and "point" precise or objective. What they might mean to you may well
be at odds with what they mean to others. And there is no philosophical calculus
to reconile them. For me they are too close to call. The "point" of life would
seem to be subsumed in its meaning. But if there can be no essential meaning of
life...what's the point of trying to differentiate them? The point for me is to
live my life from day to day with a minimal of dysfunction.

<<<I assume that the majority of
whoever's in this group is questioning their existence
in one way or another without knowing why. Although
THAT (knowing why) might give "meaning" to existence.
why did Sartre do that? what is the point? There is no
point? But it's impossible to explain everything in
words and if humans had no language perhaps life
wouldn't have been absurd because we wouldn't have
thought of such a notion.>>>

This is largely my own "point": that human language has its inherent
limitations. There are things it can and cannot tell us literally about the
world we live in. The language of natural science, for example, involves a high
degree of universiality. When chemists discuss chemical interactions or
astrophysicists discuss planetary orbits there is not going to be a lot of
squablling about "the point" or "what words mean". But whenever the discussion
revolves instead around moral and political interactions or aesthetic values or
the nature of identity etc. there will always be a lot of conflict. And that is
because there is no way to make the words we exchange line up with any high
defgree of contiguity.


<<<Language... religion are the
two closely tied reasons behind humanity's "saneness"
and "insanness". Religion-our primal creation- is the
cause and reason of meaning. It is what millions live
for, hoping they'd get the good after-life in reward
to their "immaterial" goodness of being. Once you
leave that, you are in another state of mind and you
start questioning your existence.>>>

The problem is that many folks leave religion behind without really questioning
it at all. They merely except Christianity or Islam or Judaism or a hundred
other conflicting and contradictory ontological creeds as the starting point for
questioning everything else. Then the "answers" they come up with are hammered
into the religion. They don't believe what they see so much as see what they
believe. Why? Because it is what they have been brainwashed from early childhood
to believe is true...or because their religious beliefs make them feel good. And
who wants to feel bad, right?

<<<One will maybe come
to the conclusion that "life" has no meaning only
after realizing that there is no life after this one,
"this" one being not only the individual's, but the
human civilization's. But what is meaning? Why do we
look for meaning? And how would meaning change our
"life"? Sure emotions are there and they play the
reason right now. That is why we want meaning..because
we are sure that since we "feel", we have the right to
know.>>>

We don't look for meaning so much as meaning looks for us. In fact, during the
first 10 to 12 years of our lives we are profoundly indoctrintated by all that
is "other" to view the meaning of life pretty much as they do. The only
geniunely interesting question then becomes: what happens when we become more or
less automnomous and can start in on questiong what we have been accultrated to
believe is True. What can we know objectively then?

<<<We read Nietzsche, Sartre, Freud,
Lacan...etc etc etc but we cannot get answers, every
individual has to find a "path" for peace of mind- for
no particular reason except to fulfill the chemical
reactions that cause feelings, and it doesn't matter
what the people I mentioned have said because if there
is a point in this life, we will never know what it is
because we are looking for nothing, and that is what
makes life absurd.>>>

I agree. We will never find the Meaning Of Life. And that, in part, is because
reading Nietzsche and Sartre and Camus etc. is more about figuring out how to
ask more intelligent questions than in deriving The Really True Answers. If only
because, one by one, we all die and for eternity become nothing at all [but
sub-atomic star stuff]. If that is an answer you can live with [for now] at
least you don't commit suicide, right?

George




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

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

Perhaps meaning is something we assign, not something we find.  It's in
the search we grow disappointed, finding more and more reflections of
ourselves.. it's in the coalescing of what matters most to us (if we
would be so brave), individually, that meaning is assigned..

That might take some responsibility.. addressing old indoctrinated
beliefs which might interfere with the probable point in life..

The point of life might be to learn to love.
Anything that makes us feel contracted, alone, painful and absurd is
probably the wrong route../wrong thought.. (a good indicator is the pain
we are feeling).

The right route might be the one that makes us feel expanded, light,
joyous, and inspired.. ideally, in a non-conditional (not depending on
an outside object) way.  At this point.. any joy will do.. and not at
the expense of another.. it wouldn't be joy then.

Joy to the world.
We can't afford one negative thought now...

If it hurts to think a thought, it's a thought we shouldn't be thinking,
ergo, the pain and anger, but that can be addictive too.. for some, the
only indicator that they are alive.

Meaning is something we ultimately assign, not something we find..




-----Original Message-----
From: George Walton [mailto:iambiguously@...]
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 1:09 PM
To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sartre] meaning



Zein Z <zanzoon3@...> wrote:

<<<What about starting to think about a life's point
rather than meaning. when we speak of meaning we are
speaking of absurdity. when we speak of a point we are
examining and endlessly questioning our existence as
we are doing right now>>>

The difficulty here is there is no way to make the meaning of words like
"meaning" and "point" precise or objective. What they might mean to you
may well be at odds with what they mean to others. And there is no
philosophical calculus to reconile them. For me they are too close to
call. The "point" of life would seem to be subsumed in its meaning. But
if there can be no essential meaning of life...what's the point of
trying to differentiate them? The point for me is to live my life from
day to day with a minimal of dysfunction.

<<<I assume that the majority of
whoever's in this group is questioning their existence
in one way or another without knowing why. Although
THAT (knowing why) might give "meaning" to existence.
why did Sartre do that? what is the point? There is no
point? But it's impossible to explain everything in
words and if humans had no language perhaps life
wouldn't have been absurd because we wouldn't have
thought of such a notion.>>>

This is largely my own "point": that human language has its inherent
limitations. There are things it can and cannot tell us literally about
the world we live in. The language of natural science, for example,
involves a high degree of universiality. When chemists discuss chemical
interactions or astrophysicists discuss planetary orbits there is not
going to be a lot of squablling about "the point" or "what words mean".
But whenever the discussion revolves instead around moral and political
interactions or aesthetic values or the nature of identity etc. there
will always be a lot of conflict. And that is because there is no way to
make the words we exchange line up with any high defgree of contiguity.



<<<Language... religion are the
two closely tied reasons behind humanity's "saneness"
and "insanness". Religion-our primal creation- is the
cause and reason of meaning. It is what millions live
for, hoping they'd get the good after-life in reward
to their "immaterial" goodness of being. Once you
leave that, you are in another state of mind and you
start questioning your existence.>>>

The problem is that many folks leave religion behind without really
questioning it at all. They merely except Christianity or Islam or
Judaism or a hundred other conflicting and contradictory ontological
creeds as the starting point for questioning everything else. Then the
"answers" they come up with are hammered into the religion. They don't
believe what they see so much as see what they believe. Why? Because it
is what they have been brainwashed from early childhood to believe is
true...or because their religious beliefs make them feel good. And who
wants to feel bad, right?

<<<One will maybe come
to the conclusion that "life" has no meaning only
after realizing that there is no life after this one,
"this" one being not only the individual's, but the
human civilization's. But what is meaning? Why do we
look for meaning? And how would meaning change our
"life"? Sure emotions are there and they play the
reason right now. That is why we want meaning..because
we are sure that since we "feel", we have the right to
know.>>>

We don't look for meaning so much as meaning looks for us. In fact,
during the first 10 to 12 years of our lives we are profoundly
indoctrintated by all that is "other" to view the meaning of life pretty
much as they do. The only geniunely interesting question then becomes:
what happens when we become more or less automnomous and can start in on
questiong what we have been accultrated to believe is True. What can we
know objectively then?

<<<We read Nietzsche, Sartre, Freud,
Lacan...etc etc etc but we cannot get answers, every
individual has to find a "path" for peace of mind- for
no particular reason except to fulfill the chemical
reactions that cause feelings, and it doesn't matter
what the people I mentioned have said because if there
is a point in this life, we will never know what it is
because we are looking for nothing, and that is what
makes life absurd.>>>

I agree. We will never find the Meaning Of Life. And that, in part, is
because reading Nietzsche and Sartre and Camus etc. is more about
figuring out how to ask more intelligent questions than in deriving The
Really True Answers. If only because, one by one, we all die and for
eternity become nothing at all [but sub-atomic star stuff]. If that is
an answer you can live with [for now] at least you don't commit suicide,
right?

George




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

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




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

Yahoo! Groups Links