Bill, It was less than two years ago, and I was at war with many of
you here at existlist.  Used to say that the list was unaware of its
strongly North American identity.  Now I'm more hopeful that
existentialism will emerge from its historical and academic
straitjackets, that yet more voices will swell our chorus, Eastern
European, Indian, Antipodean, Oriental, African.  I don't have a plan,
beyond the basic attempt to live with integrity, nor do I exactly have
a dream.  Intuitions come and go, the old library continues to bring
inspiration.  If it were all nostalgia simply, I wouldn't have the
heart to take the books down from the shelf.  What is there to say?  I
live, therefore I post.  Louise

Thank you for your kind comments. I know I come off a little
naive....but I guess I am always looking for those more wise than I. I
came to existentialism through readings of Fromm, May, Rogers, and
then met Buber, Camus. I am still searching but find fertile ground in
existentialism, where I am rooted firmly, along with humanism, etc.

Gerald

I have Philosophical Fragments, Fear and Trembling/Repitition, The
Sickness unto Death, The Concept of Anxiety, and Concluding
Unscientific Postscipt Part 1?

Do I need Either/Or, part 1 and 2, Stages of Way of Life, Concluding
Unscientific Postscipt Part 2? --- to understand the ins and outs of
Kierkegaard??

Gerald

I have been honest about my rationalism from the very beginning. I
will not retract any statement that I have made regarding
existentialism and anarchism, nor will I retract any statement that I
have made regarding existentialism and narcissism. I believe I have a
right to express my opinion, even if that opinion is harshly critical
of accepted existentialist dogmas, as long as I am in compliance with
the established rules of discourse set forth by the moderators of
this list. If I have violated any of these canons of discourse I am
willing to stand corrected and to eat my crow accordingly. I accept
my responsibility to back up my opinions with good reasons too. If my
statements are taken personally, that is not really my problem. I
cannot control how people feel about the things I say. They are not
intended to be personal attacks. I do, not recall ever having
specifically called any member an anarchist, although, to be sure, I
have on occasion characterized existentialism, as a philosophy, in a
very disengenuous manner, mainly through the use of the
epithet "narcissism."

Hb3g

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...>
wrote:
>
> It would be more  than two hundred years ago and prostestants would
> be at war with catholics. Intellectuals  of the enlightenment would
> be at the forefront as men of letters. Protestant theologians were
> the men of moral authority.  Yes this was their time but  that is
> not  now and I debase their authority not as an anarcist but as an
> individual.
>  Herman has exposed himself as a philophical  outsider.
>  He has called members of this group anarcists. I very personally
> reject that nomination and ask that he dismiss it from the record.
>  It seems Herman wishes to use some  past authority to rule as if
he
> was still enrolled in the saftey of the  seminary. His exposition
of
> the thoughts of Kant have been interesting as history but now
> resolve themselves  in some other guise. Will to power often comes
> from the past in that  actual innovaters are  few. Dogmatic
> prostestantism struggles for its survival and  a few quixotic
> knights of  the reasonable power still attempt to rule by logic.
> This , however is the  home of the philosophical movement that
> replaced that epoc. We are not the rationallist, this is existlist.
> We are in the process of replacing some of what was avante gard but
> preaching from a reationalist power position will be opposed and
put
> down.
>  The  excuse of public saftey will not be dragged out to dismiss us
> as social misfits and dangerous people. Remember, we deposed
> rationalism in a bloodless coup of ideas.I do not call you a
> criminal because you belong to a mystical organisation of faith.
But
> I do oppose you as you try to  approach out of uniform in an
attempt
> at infiltration.
>  If rationalism was existentialism you would be in charge by merit
> of working ideas and could wear your  colors with  integrity. We
do,
> and you could too if you would  end the guise and open your
thinking
> to more  current thinkers.
> So  rationalism is not and never will be existentialism. Explaining
> to us what we are not will leave you in an undesirable situation .
> As Bob Hope use to say, "Thanks for the Memories" Bill
>

Herman,  I am not the least offended by your opinions.  Don't worry
about Bill - he just does gruff better than anyone else, and always
to good purpose.  If you look at what you wrote below, however,
there's strong implication that many of us are clumped together in
your mind, in that phrase, 'bunch of existential anarchists'.  I am
not an anarchist, nor have I ever met an individual who truly fitted
that description.  For many, claim to such an ethos might provide
convenient mask, behind which to conduct hedonistic strategies, with
varying degrees of conscious intent.  Existlist does attract
thinking individuals, fact which ensures that self-serving anarchism
and heedless hedonism alike may be rigorously questioned here.
Those who don't like the heat tend to leave the kitchen fairly
promptly.  If there is a big elephant in here, I haven't noticed
yet.  Your own rational powers seem far too substantive to bear the
metaphor of gadfly, which famously Socrates took upon himself.
Hadn't realised, before, that it's quite a Homeric image.  In the
Iliad, for instance, it is no disgrace for a warrior to be compared
with an insect, any more than with a mountain lion or a wolf.  Life
persists, in great specificity.  Poets notice this.  Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "hermanbtriplegood" <hb3g@...>
wrote:
>
> Mister (Miss?) Dasein:
>
> In all probability, the most appropriate manner in which to try
and
> fit me into your picture of what goes on here is to imagine a
great
> big elephant in the room that everybody in the room is doing their
> level best to try and ignore. I am the gadfly here, often
> persistently irritating, sometimes out of element, perhaps a freak
of
> nature, a reason lover, a rationalist and moralist, in the midst
of a
> bunch of existential anarchists. I keep saying, but being
reasonable
> is existential too! Besides, since the very basis of
existentialism
> is no-rules, I feel quite justified in inviting myself to be here
in
> my capacity as a glaring instance of the breaking of the no-rules
> rule.
>
> Welcome aboard.
>
> Hb3g
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "dasein512" <gghumanistic@>
> wrote:
> >
> > So I am an existentialist!!!
> >
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "two_owl_night"
<two_owl_night@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > First, packaged and pre-cooked Existentialism is not what we
> offer
> > > here, so we're not obliged to respond. And secondly, you must
be
> an
> > > existentialist for the Existentialist Code to apply, and
you're
> not.
> > > And thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines"
than
> > > absolutes. Welcome aboard the ghost ship, "No Exit", Mr.
> > > Gerald.[1]
> > >
> > > In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "dasein512" <gghumanistic@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > <You are not sure if you believe in "existence precedes
essence" I
> > > think that there is some biology/genetics that makes the
person
> who he
> > > is, and I'm not saying height, weight, etc. That our
> personalities are
> > > shaped partly by biology. Am I still an existentialist? Thanks
> for
> > > the insight. Gerald>
> > >
> > > You bet your ducats! Some angst is alleviated by knowledge of
> > > biology, specifically genetics, but not all. We can compromise
> and
> > > say that our existence is a ship, designed according to
> blueprint,
> > > though not perfectly. It will be outfitted, though not for
every
> > > possible contingency. The ship is launched and experiences the
> > > vicissitudes of storms, doldrums, and halcyon seas. So then,
> living
> > > out our lives in all these situations forms our essence, which
as
> > > Trinidad points out can never be a whole. Sartre and Beauvoir
> were
> > > sailing the trades, so to speak. But they didn't comprehend
> > > shipbuilding or meteorology. Our own Captain William adeptly
> > > navigates for us under these sidereal realities.
> > >
> > > You see, it was not by accident that ships were once named for
> women,
> > > though it was bad luck to have them onboard. Even the best
> helmsman,
> > > for all his scientific knowledge, must bring the ship back to
> safe
> > > harbor from time to time. And like the fat lady sang, "You've
> gotta
> > > make your own kind of music, sing your own special song, make
> your
> > > own kind of music, even if nobody else sings along."
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > [1]"First, your return to shore was not part of our
negotiations
> nor
> > > our agreement, so I must do nothin'. And secondly, you must be
a
> > > pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not. And
> thirdly,
> > > the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual
rules.
> > > Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner," says Barbossa" -
> > > Pirates of the Caribbean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- >
> > >
> >
>

"only the truth that edifies is truth for you."

is this all ye need to know ...

oh, pastiche, that english vice.

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "dasein512" <gghumanistic@...> wrote:
>
> I have Philosophical Fragments, Fear and Trembling/Repitition, The
> Sickness unto Death, The Concept of Anxiety, and Concluding
> Unscientific Postscipt Part 1?
>
> Do I need Either/Or, part 1 and 2, Stages of Way of Life, Concluding
> Unscientific Postscipt Part 2? --- to understand the ins and outs of
> Kierkegaard??
>
> Gerald
>

Existentialism is living within the limitation of what things seem to
mean. The existentialist does not need to know "what things mean",
only what they "seem" to mean in an instant of existence. There is no
always to meaning or being in existence, just suspecting and
intuiting, and having to choose an action. The responsibility for that
action is with the one acting, precisely because the action is based
only on what "seems" to be. This view does not seperate emotion and
thought, and is actually rational in a truer (authentic) sense than
the dualist rational view. There is no view more rational than the
existentialist's. The deconstructionist and anti-representational view
of epistemology have spun out of existentialism, not vice versa. There
is a difference. For the existentialist epistemology is always
representational, (even in religious or teleological epistemology) but
it can only argue for what seems to be within time and physical
circumstances that themselves only seem to be. Existentialism in its
limited view increases the scope of its view above any other
philosophic praxis: by accepting a limitation to its human potential
to view, by placing facticity in a rationally limited circumstance,
and by thus opportuning truer (more authentic) activity within its
limited view. Existentialism only seeks solidarity based upon these
specific limitations in view. For the existentialist other is always
conflict because human beings are within that "liberating constraint"
of view - the "what seems to be." There is no constant "is" to
existentialism, just possibilities for action.

Trinidad Cruz

Right on the mark, and rational to boot! Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
wrote:
>
> Existentialism is living within the limitation of what things seem
to
> mean. The existentialist does not need to know "what things mean",
> only what they "seem" to mean in an instant of existence. There is
no
> always to meaning or being in existence, just suspecting and
> intuiting, and having to choose an action. The responsibility for
that
> action is with the one acting, precisely because the action is based
> only on what "seems" to be. This view does not seperate emotion and
> thought, and is actually rational in a truer (authentic) sense than
> the dualist rational view. There is no view more rational than the
> existentialist's. The deconstructionist and anti-representational
view
> of epistemology have spun out of existentialism, not vice versa.
There
> is a difference. For the existentialist epistemology is always
> representational, (even in religious or teleological epistemology)
but
> it can only argue for what seems to be within time and physical
> circumstances that themselves only seem to be. Existentialism in its
> limited view increases the scope of its view above any other
> philosophic praxis: by accepting a limitation to its human potential
> to view, by placing facticity in a rationally limited circumstance,
> and by thus opportuning truer (more authentic) activity within its
> limited view. Existentialism only seeks solidarity based upon these
> specific limitations in view. For the existentialist other is always
> conflict because human beings are within that "liberating
constraint"
> of view - the "what seems to be." There is no constant "is" to
> existentialism, just possibilities for action.
>
> Trinidad Cruz
>

I see yet again that the regime is pulling out their tired old package
of first amendment violations to put some wind under a lame duck.
Surely there must be more important causes. God forbid we have a
populace that chooses to exercise the freedoms that millions have given
their lives to protect. Mary

On Jun 01, 2006, at 8:49, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

> and one man can deliver thousands of votes. Companies are still
> practicing capitalism when seeking to buy government advantages.
> Bribery and pandering are capitalist activities. A capitalist is not
> compelled to moral or ethical claim and arguments to that effect are
> silly.

Actually, it is not "silly" to call upon the moral imperatives Smith
and others said were necessary for true capitalism to survive. Once you
lose the moral obligations to society and to whatever moral compass you
have (admitted for Smith and his colleagues this was a Christian
ethic), then anything becomes possible.

The loss of morality / ethics is evident, as you admit, in all social
systems. I certainly would not present any current world leader or
government as a model of perfection. Ethics are stuck in some
soft-n-chewy (not my quote) postmodern relativism that refuses to seek
clarity but rather strives to show how no ethical system is valid
because all are valid.

Capitalism is not Enron, unless you consider the notion that Smith was
correct when he suggested the courts might be the final solution when
morality and social ethics fail. At least some stockholders are
starting to use their ownership to challenge executive hubris.

> I love the mixers. I loved Drexel back in
> the day, and I like Chavez and Citgo selling heating oil for
> forty-five percent of the market price to designated poor communities
> in the US.

I consider Chavez incredibly dangerous, and increasingly so do his
neighbors. Unfortunately, generations of corruption supported by the
Cold War have ruined the political systems of Latin America. The United
States and Soviet Union did their best to dominate the puppet states,
depriving the residents of self-determination.

Now, anyone promising a better life can win for a cycle or two. That
Caracas is the "most dangerous city in the hemisphere" (Amnesty
International) doesn't seem to register with Chavez supporters. He will
eventually use the high crime rate to justify some manner of
power-grab. We've seen this in Chile, Columbia, and Brazil.

> concise turn on it.If we would really consider capitalism as a
> philosophical theory it would line up rather neatly with a lot of the
> anarchist view; but in the end capitalism is actually not a
> philosophy, actually not a way of life, or even a way of living, just
> a system of counting.

No philosophy works, under this strict notion that you can actually
implement a pure version of the political or economic. Human nature
will always interfere. This is why the libertarians and anarchists try
to limit government -- it has the ultimate power, and the people in
charge are just people. I don't trust people to do the right thing
without some manner of public way to cause shame or even humiliation.
In capitalism, competition is the balancing force, along with the
notion of complete and honest contractual obligations.

In "corporatism" (internationalism, or whatever you wish to call it),
we approach the unholy alliance of government and industry, as was the
case with fascism and Soviet-style "Communism" we see morphing under
Putin. China is a more extreme example, but I'm not certain where it
will evolve. When the government and industry are one, there are no
checks on power. The leaders of one are the leaders of the other.

This concerns me right now because when we allow power to become
centralized, new ideas and even radical rejections of current ideas
become nearly impossible. No "philosophy" except self-focused,
inner-peace type solutions become viable when the individual is
stripped of power.

Then, you have the existentialism of Frankl or the absurdism of Camus.
This is where I often turn for reading, and see no conflict with their
notions and my dream of an individual-based society. I know it is a
dream because most people... we know what they are like. They aren't
about to go without handouts or leaders to follow.

- C. S. Wyatt
I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
that I shall be.
http://www.tameri.com  - Tameri Guide for Writers
http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist  - The Existential Primer

I would like to see more activity on the Existential Primer Forums. The
forums are hosted directly on my server, which gives me a bit more
control over how they function. The forums are intended to be a bit
more of the traditional "academic" discussion, but I know that it
seldom remains that way online without active moderation.

At least consider the forums as a supplement to the mailing list.

- C. S. Wyatt
I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
that I shall be.
http://www.tameri.com  - Tameri Guide for Writers
http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist  - The Existential Primer


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

I am deeply disturbed to see the President getting squarely behind the
idea of creating a constitutional amendment that sanctions only
heterosexual marriage. It is as if our civil society has gone insane
here in America. The situation is pretty much out of control. Where has
the spirit of liberalism upon which this country was founded gone?

Hb3g

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "two_owl_night" <two_owl_night@...>
wrote:
>
> I see yet again that the regime is pulling out their tired old
package
> of first amendment violations to put some wind under a lame duck.
> Surely there must be more important causes. God forbid we have a
> populace that chooses to exercise the freedoms that millions have
given
> their lives to protect. Mary
>

Has civil society not gone insane in many Western countries?  This
is why I vote for discussing philosophy here, not politics.  Without
sound philosophy, existentialism is powerless to change anything.  I
happen to want change.

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "hermanbtriplegood" <hb3g@...>
wrote:
>
> I am deeply disturbed to see the President getting squarely behind
the
> idea of creating a constitutional amendment that sanctions only
> heterosexual marriage. It is as if our civil society has gone
insane
> here in America. The situation is pretty much out of control.
Where has
> the spirit of liberalism upon which this country was founded gone?
>
> Hb3g
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "two_owl_night" <two_owl_night@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I see yet again that the regime is pulling out their tired old
> package
> > of first amendment violations to put some wind under a lame
duck.
> > Surely there must be more important causes. God forbid we have a
> > populace that chooses to exercise the freedoms that millions
have
> given
> > their lives to protect. Mary
> >
>

> Has civil society not gone insane in many Western countries?  This
> is why I vote for discussing philosophy here, not politics.  Without
> sound philosophy, existentialism is powerless to change anything.  I
> happen to want change.
> Louise

of course if you're a Frankfurt School fan or just generally someone who
doesn't think soft values count against hard ones, why bother with
any philosophy other than realpolitic?  how much good did the ghost
dance do for the Plains Native Americans, or the various cargo cults
throughout the world?  or today, aim a nuclear missile at a small people,
and you wipe them out forever no matter what their values, souls, or
philosophies.

aija

CSW,

Sorry I've misplaced my login for Inklings, but of course Gump is a
movie of existential themes. On the surface Gump is a recent American
Siddhartha, but because he is a simpleton he is even moreso the
existentialist. He acts within the limitations of what seems to be for
him and stumbles through modern American history without any personal
ideology other than what he is. "I'm not a smart man." Who is?
Definitely not the existentialist. The main theme of the movie is the
positivistic view of absurd action. If anything it seems to be
disappointed that Bobby Seal became a chicken joint operator, while
encouraging the new existentialist, the naïve viewer to act. "You
never know what you're gonna get." The end of the running scene in
monument valley, is universally American: tied to Ford and Wayne
westerns, and the last scene of "Electraglide in Blue." There is no
escape from death even for the moral or ethical man (Blake's
character), and in fact that death and the life before it are likely
to be absurd in the end. The movie is a take on modern American
existentialism. The movie does not question the existence of ideology
or even teleology (religion is absurd in it as well Black
Christianity) but rather defies that they have any importance
whatsoever to the individual in action. In fact it argues that the
action of the simplest individuals among us has lasting effect on the
ebb and flow of civilization, but that in the end it is the absurd
interaction between the individual's actions and civilization that
effects the quality of life for the American individual. A child is
born. Smarter than me. Is that better for him? For us? Love in the
movie is even absurd. One could write a book on the existentialist
themes in this film. The most important of course is that active
existentialism is positive though absurd and has no academic
prerequisite.I have to go to work. No time for a book now, but it
amazes me that anyone could take this movie as not having
existentialist themes.

Trinidad

> Bookdoc, I find it  most interesting that an absurdist holds faint
> praise for the present. Damning is often the result of utter
> frustration but you are supposed to say nothing.

Bill, If I read you rightly, I read you wrong. As absurd as I am I
do find the time to dabble in reality -- or what I believe that to
be -- and admit fully that I sometimes get lost in it. My praise for
the present, I think, is merely that I perceive myself to be in it,
and, well, whether I have developed a philosophy to fit my thinking
or vice-versa, the past has often been a boring subject to me, and
quite staunchly removes responsibility of the present to be its own
entertainment and :: INTEREST ::

I can't help but be interested in present as that is the driver. I
can't help but be bored with the past as it is a series of fictional
constructs of the worst sort: people tout them as true. So perhaps I
damn the past out of my frustration for it being perceived as more
valuable than the present -- especially to scholars. There is
perhaps joy in looking hback at a yearbook and resolving to discover
memories, but I don't know that I would return to that time as
favorable in my intellectual climate. I far prefer the mistakes I
make now.

Forgive me if I botch my branding...I would never scotch my brandy.
Now that I've won awards for brewing, it would be unseemly--like
rubber pants.

Perhaps this young/old absurdist (for how does one judge age with no
past?) retains optimism like a child holds on to a balloon--it is
useless, but looks a happy sight, and I'll be damned if I let it go -
- and so will all the people within earshot.

So I sweep by numbing the cochlear.

Titanic Events, Crispy Cinders, and Chamomile Lies, PC

For some of you I would prescribe drugs of various imaginary sorts, if
only I were a clever doctor. Beside feasting upon the native complex,
one might cure the dis ease of appearing self conscious and at the
same time stop striking out when playing a simple game of t-ball. Woe
to the gorging feast upon the immaculate word so clean they scour your
insides, and kill you with sterility. So some whom I see tell
themselves they walk on water, and think the popping and fizzing
noises are all from clever words, when really the ice is cracked and
once below the current and swept to where the ice is thicker no one
will hear the voice as you drown.

Riddling Sphinx

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Knott wrote:

> I can't help but be bored with the past as it is a series of fictional
> constructs of the worst sort:

> I would never scotch my brandy. Now that I've won awards for brewing, it
> would be unseemly--like rubber pants.

how would you know not to scotch your brandy now if hadn't won awards for
brewing in the past?

aija

> how would you know not to scotch your brandy
> now if hadn't won awards for
> brewing in the past?

Well, I don't know that I can blame my memory on anything but that it
is subject to my hallucinations anyway, so if I had branied my scotch
and just not remembered, I might have imagined that I won the awards,
and so there you have it...all a farce, or not. I perhaps should have
said "in my current state of perception, and having experienced the
thrill of both brandy and scotch, I would not likely want to use one
as a mixer for the other." All a personal preference of course. As
Donkey says in Shrek: "Everybody loves parfait!" Yet certainly I don't.

Knottaste Attall

A message from Knott on 6-6-06 day  seems a wonderful gift. The
prince of darkness speaks as enigma, as ever . I have come home from
voting and am  wondering what that was all about. I was the only one
there besides the pol workers. Most of the candidates were unapposed
incumbants. Since we are in the midst of a   disgusting scandle that
centers on my district, nearly my precinct,  you would think
opposing activity would be heavy. The machine wooks and opposing the
powers that be would probably be a mistake. When the footprints are
soo deep  one can figure something heavy is afoot.
  What I just did was absurd, I just voted for candidates who are
icons with little or no supervision. That probably is why we have
found many of the city, county and state executive boards are very
corrupt. Interlocking boards do share risk because everybody
abscounds with  this or that so nobody tells. It takes years to
build such clever conspiracies. I think it a powerful thing to get
another politician to sign off on a credit card for your  whore.
That is planning to feel better and like bookdoc these dudes live in
the present. I live in awe, I thought  these political people were
low salary functionaries. I now realise they act as executives and
demand  that life position, one way or another.
  So, what if they are worth what they take? I do not know what to
record as County Recorder. What do you do on a raceing board if not
to ride around in an armoured lemo? Nobody wants those jobs because
they present personal danger both physical and financial.
  Maby voting for these old , machine polls is absurd but they seem
to make it carry on. I feel like a maniac screaming in a Camus
play, "You can~t stop, You can`t stop". The catholic priests made me
wear "6" and I played the part so now I recognise talent from the
dark side. Bookdoc, Dirty Harry and the Pols who build the gutters
interest me. And Bookdoc showed up with a little flower in his
lapel, very dapper. Bill

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:

"Woe to the gorging feast upon the immaculate word so clean they scour
your insides, and kill you with sterility."

Aw hell, I tried, I really did try, but I just can't resist. It's like
ice cream. I'm thinking you have been self-prescribing a bit. Woa up
dude! Anti- anti- representationalist are we? I thought the clams
could be whatever color you liked. Don't be scared. Cheap sunglasses
'll calm ya down. Write in red ink, or in Chinese, or just plagiarize.
Everybody else does. Read some Michener. Decode Picasso (Da Vinci's
already a movie).

"So some whom I see tell themselves they walk on water, and think the
popping and fizzing noises are all from clever words, when really the
ice is cracked and once below the current and swept to where the ice
is thicker no one will hear the voice as you drown."

Sorry, there is no 100% to anything. There is always that
non-sequitur. Hell I talk to Bob Marley regularly and I know he's
dead. I don't think we disagree, I just think you're a placidly
detached racist, and really kind of middling in view, so
understandably a little short on material, and not likely to make
Oprah like Tony did. Clams are gray or grey doc, just like everything
else (except sometimes people in each other's view), so you're on the
right track. ?

If we could actually find something teleological in existentialism,
what would it be? I'm thinking: stupid actions. Wadaya think there
doc? I'm the idiot. Hell I'll write something for you. You can sign
your name. I haven't made any money at it in years. Although I have to
say, "the immaculate word" did put a smile on my face son, and give me
a chuckle today, and I'm thanking you for that. Wow. Wassup widat?

I've got other issues myself. I want Condie. I want Condie. Du du du,
du du du, du du dudu. I'm just not androgynous enough. Too dark. Too
big. Too free. Anyway wassup with sterility and scoured insides and
popping ice and unheard drownings? Been secretly reading Kerouac?
Thank God it wasn't Joyce. We would have unheard shittings. Oh just go
ahead and rage against the dying of the light or the unheard
immaculate crapping. It's all good. Remain calm.

happy Damien day
tc

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...>
wrote:

<That probably is why we have found many of the city, county and state
executive boards are very corrupt. Interlocking boards do share risk
because everybody abscounds with this or that so nobody tells. It takes
years to build such clever conspiracies. I think it a powerful thing to
get another politician to sign off on a credit card for your whore.
That is planning to feel better . . . I thought these political people
were low salary functionaries. I now realise they act as executives and
demand that life position, one way or another. So, what if they are
worth what they take? . . . ride around in an armoured lemo? Nobody
wants those jobs because they present personal danger both physical and
financial.>

Bill, I've always considered this political environment about the same
as the corporate environment, which is about the same as the insurance
company environment, which is about the same as the organized crime
environment. Interlocking boards of directors, the movers and shakers,
have legitimized racketeering. And let's not even discuss the judicial
system. For me, this is the absurd which leads one to join in the fun,
go your own nihilistic/anarchistic way, or laugh madly. Here is where
cynicism kills hope. Little beltways and unsolved mysteries. Mary

thinking makes it so.  that is, suppose being alive, sensation,
feeling, comes to the forefront, for you, the breathing subject.
when you think on this, accordingly, existence precedes essence. "i
am the experience of my life.  this is what it's like."  if,
however, primary explanations, the ground of being, the why of
suffering or origins, demand first attention, essence, whether
transcendent or immanent, gains an enfolding significance.  "the
Supreme, the Prime Cause, the Godhead, the One, provides in my mind,
for my soul, the context whereby i act".

now, having written that, i think it's rubbish, actually.  an
example of earnest internet discourse, chucking together concepts
that span thousands of years and thousands of miles.  what have good
and bad got to do with true or untrue, anyway?  we need to tolerate
one another's foibles, learn to enjoy each other's company, and
speak about what we know.  another redundant statement.  love is
simple.   how to secure its best conditions?

louise
... still looking for a byline to call my own

On Jun 05, 2006, at 22:41, hermanbtriplegood wrote:

> here in America. The situation is pretty much out of control. Where has
> the spirit of liberalism upon which this country was founded gone?

Exactly when were the Puritans liberal? People mistake the "classical
liberalism" of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for today --
and yet, "liberal" and "tolerant" have definitely evolved over time.
Thankfully.

However, I also think the entire debate reveals the divide between
America and its Western allies. We are not European; I do not know that
we can expect the best of both America and Europe to merge in time. I
read a study today that revealed racist attitudes actually run deeper
in Europe. So, we would trade one form of bigotry for another?

The US, Canada, and other nations of the Americas, have an interesting
religious heritage. In the Central and Southern Americas, I suppose the
Catholic Church has left quite the residue of morality, but I am not
sure. (Also, a taste of Catholic cruelty and persecution of native
residents.)

Canada is less fanatical than the U.S., but surveys do reveal a
stricter morality than in Europe. I wonder why this is, since I lack a
knowledge of Canadian history.

So, we're stuck being Puritanical. That's our history. Evolution will
occur.

- CSW

I have Maslow's posthumous edition of Motivation and Personality 1987.
Now I have looked over the table of contents of his first editon 1954,
and second edition of 1970. I was wondering is there drastic revision
happening with each different edition???

Thanks!
Gerald

I think Herm was probably referring to our framers. You know, the
ones who were trying to separate state and church? Bill of Rights,
etc.? Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
<existlist1@...> wrote:
>
> On Jun 05, 2006, at 22:41, hermanbtriplegood wrote:
>
> > here in America. The situation is pretty much out of control.
Where has
> > the spirit of liberalism upon which this country was founded gone?
>
> Exactly when were the Puritans liberal? People mistake
the "classical
> liberalism" of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for today --

> and yet, "liberal" and "tolerant" have definitely evolved over
time.
> Thankfully.
>
> However, I also think the entire debate reveals the divide between
> America and its Western allies. We are not European; I do not know
that
> we can expect the best of both America and Europe to merge in time.
I
> read a study today that revealed racist attitudes actually run
deeper
> in Europe. So, we would trade one form of bigotry for another?
>
> The US, Canada, and other nations of the Americas, have an
interesting
> religious heritage. In the Central and Southern Americas, I suppose
the
> Catholic Church has left quite the residue of morality, but I am
not
> sure. (Also, a taste of Catholic cruelty and persecution of native
> residents.)
>
> Canada is less fanatical than the U.S., but surveys do reveal a
> stricter morality than in Europe. I wonder why this is, since I
lack a
> knowledge of Canadian history.
>
> So, we're stuck being Puritanical. That's our history. Evolution
will
> occur.
>
> - CSW
>

> I just think you're a placidly
> detached racist

Really...and what color am I? I think you assume everyone who doesn't
agree with you is a racist. What color am I? I just don't have  your
crappy victim attitude.

> Clams are gray or grey doc, just like everything
> else

Not where I've lived. I've seen red and blue, gray and white...and
those were just what I've eaten on the halfshell.

> Hell I'll write something for you. You can sign
> your name.

Why would I sign my name to the junk you write, I wouldn't even sign
it to my own, and I have self respect.

> I haven't made any money at it in years.

Surprise me. Who would pay you?

> popping ice and unheard drownings? Been secretly reading Kerouac?
> Thank God it wasn't Joyce.

I've read most of both (did you ever read the one about the pasta
fazoule that Joyce wrote to insult a distant cousin?), and I haven't
made a secret about it. I don't think I understand it like you or
other critics do.

I bet you think that song was about you.


Carly Simon

They still give me a report, in writing, and this one was very
philosophical. When I recieve something from a quasi intelligence
source I immediately think disinformation. This report was actually
straight forward and documented by other pentagon studies.
   It seems a  Maj. has deduced that in the present state of
hostilities with our arab adversaries predictive intelligence
planning is useless.
  The Maj. did the obligatory homage to  the polish count and Sung
Soo but only to separate them from the present situation. He
evaluates the present adversaries as so diffuse, so separatist as to
have no central planning, no universal cadre, and no active
control   toward an ordered outcome.
  It is difficult to imagine for a modern military thinker but this
man has looked through tradition and doctrine and seen an enemy with
only the most thinly defined things to die for. This officer has
begun to understand his enemy. He sees a ragged and ignorant
religous zealot who prefers paradise to the hell he inhabits. All
strategy is local and  immediate and a land swimming in weapons and
targets presents a perfect battleground for the jaahadi hosts.
  This young  officer says the choatic  world of Talaban and El Quida
cannot be expected to provide any planning or cohesive control
because it does not exist. To look for it is to waste time and to
plan because of it is deadly foolishness.
  For those of you a unaffected by military intelligence thinking
this seems rational, even expected. This is a sea change that will
affect  not only the career of one officer but perhaps all of us.
  He no longer wishes to  penetrate and interdict attacks because
they are not planned but are organic to situation. He thinks we
should stop trying to outguess an irrational enemy. We should
estimate his maximum ability to strike with  explosives and small
arms. Then our battlefield commanders  should be given rules of
engagement that  are justified by situation rather than doctrine.
Sound like something we might have contacted, some way we have
lived? It supposes that mad religous zealots  have already
sacrificed themselves  long before they have triggered their  bomb.
They have left the species when they joined the army of allah. I
think our enemies will think this approach no more than the way of
the warrior.
  I think we finally have a clearer way that will be buffeted and
reviled by the traditionalists in military and government. It is a
bloody, existential approach which we may not be able to  tolerate.
Yet it  has been said by someone sworn to understand. We have at
least one soldier doing his duty and it always starts with a fellow
with an idea. Bill

They still give me a report, in writing, and this one was very
philosophical. When I recieve something from a quasi intelligence
source I immediately think disinformation. This report was actually
straight forward and documented by other pentagon studies.
   It seems a  Maj. has deduced that in the present state of
hostilities with our arab adversaries predictive intelligence
planning is useless.
  The Maj. did the obligatory homage to  the polish count and Sung
Soo but only to separate them from the present situation. He
evaluates the present adversaries as so diffuse, so separatist as to
have no central planning, no universal cadre, and no active
control   toward an ordered outcome.
  It is difficult to imagine for a modern military thinker but this
man has looked through tradition and doctrine and seen an enemy with
only the most thinly defined things to die for. This officer has
begun to understand his enemy. He sees a ragged and ignorant
religous zealot who prefers paradise to the hell he inhabits. All
strategy is local and  immediate and a land swimming in weapons and
targets presents a perfect battleground for the jaahadi hosts.
  This young  officer says the choatic  world of Talaban and El Quida
cannot be expected to provide any planning or cohesive control
because it does not exist. To look for it is to waste time and to
plan because of it is deadly foolishness.
  For those of you a unaffected by military intelligence thinking
this seems rational, even expected. This is a sea change that will
affect  not only the career of one officer but perhaps all of us.
  He no longer wishes to  penetrate and interdict attacks because
they are not planned but are organic to situation. He thinks we
should stop trying to outguess an irrational enemy. We should
estimate his maximum ability to strike with  explosives and small
arms. Then our battlefield commanders  should be given rules of
engagement that  are justified by situation rather than doctrine.
Sound like something we might have contacted, some way we have
lived? It supposes that mad religous zealots  have already
sacrificed themselves  long before they have triggered their  bomb.
They have left the species when they joined the army of allah. I
think our enemies will think this approach no more than the way of
the warrior.
  I think we finally have a clearer way that will be buffeted and
reviled by the traditionalists in military and government. It is a
bloody, existential approach which we may not be able to  tolerate.
Yet it  has been said by someone sworn to understand. We have at
least one soldier doing his duty and it always starts with a fellow
with an idea. Bill

Prof CSW:

I guess just because there were liberal ideas written into the
constitution does not mean that as far as the society in general goes
it was all that liberal. The spectre of American parochialism, the
Ugly American syndrome, still rears its head to this very day.

Interesting thought I had not considered until recently: Why was
separation of church and state written into the constitution? Was it
to protect the state from the church? Or, was it to protect the
church from the state? I tend to think the latter was the deeper
motive. In any case, keeping those two things separate in the
constitution was a good idea. However, they inevitable merge through
the culture at large, and it was, after all, mainly Puritans who came
over back in the seventeenth century to get away from forced
subservience to the dominant religious culture back in Englnad. I
can't really remember my history on that point. Was it both the
Protestants and the Anglicans who ganged up on the Puritans?

Hb3g

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
<existlist1@...> wrote:
>
> On Jun 05, 2006, at 22:41, hermanbtriplegood wrote:
>
> > here in America. The situation is pretty much out of control.
Where has
> > the spirit of liberalism upon which this country was founded gone?
>
> Exactly when were the Puritans liberal? People mistake
the "classical
> liberalism" of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for today --

> and yet, "liberal" and "tolerant" have definitely evolved over
time.
> Thankfully.
>
> However, I also think the entire debate reveals the divide between
> America and its Western allies. We are not European; I do not know
that
> we can expect the best of both America and Europe to merge in time.
I
> read a study today that revealed racist attitudes actually run
deeper
> in Europe. So, we would trade one form of bigotry for another?
>
> The US, Canada, and other nations of the Americas, have an
interesting
> religious heritage. In the Central and Southern Americas, I suppose
the
> Catholic Church has left quite the residue of morality, but I am
not
> sure. (Also, a taste of Catholic cruelty and persecution of native
> residents.)
>
> Canada is less fanatical than the U.S., but surveys do reveal a
> stricter morality than in Europe. I wonder why this is, since I
lack a
> knowledge of Canadian history.
>
> So, we're stuck being Puritanical. That's our history. Evolution
will
> occur.
>
> - CSW
>