Here is an extract from the 'Historical Introduction' by Reidar
Thomte, to the Princeton edition of "The Concept of Anxiety" by Soren
Kierkegaard.

~ The psychological concern that fostered *The Concept of Anxiety*
figures in many of Kierkegaard's other works.  *Repetition* is "A
Venture in Experimenting Psychology"; the sub-title
of "'Guilty?'/'Not Guilty?'" in *Stages on Life's Way* is "An
Imaginary Psychological Construction"; the subtitle of *The Sickness
Unto Death* is "A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding
and Awakening"; and *The Concept of Anxiety* has as its subtitle, "A
Simple Psychologically Orienting Deliberation on the Dogmatic Issue
of Hereditary Sin."  These subtitles reflect the history of
Kierkegaard's personal experience and the extent to which these works
represent an analysis of his own self.

His contribution to psychological thought did not go unnoticed.  In
1881 Georg Brandes, a celebrated writer and literary critic, wrote in
a letter to Nietzsche, "In my opinion he [Kierkegaard] is one of the
most profound psychologists who ever lived."

Historically, the psychology with which Kierkegaard worked is quite
different from present-day psychological research.  His is a
phenomenology that is based on an ontological view of man, the
fundamental presupposition of which is the transcendent reality of
the individual, whose intuitively discernible character reveals the
existence of an eternal component.  Such a psychology does not blend
well with any purely empirical science and is best understood by
regarding soma, psyche and spirit as the principal determinants of
the human structure, with the first two belonging to the temporal
realm and the third to the eternal.

From the positivistic point of view, the psychology of *The Concept
of Anxiety* was attacked by the philosopher Harald Hoffding, whose
criticism was directed especially against the idea of
the "qualitative leap".  He maintained that the sciences, including
the science of psychology, are based on the assumption that there is
an unbroken continuity in the passage from possibility to actuality
and that every new state is thereby the simple consequence of a
previous state.  For Hoffding, a presuppositionless leap would
abrogate the strict continuity required in every science.  Yet this
is precisely Kierkegaard's point, namely, that the "qualitative leap"
is a category outside the scope of scientific procedures and that its
confirmation is therefore not reducible to the principles of
verification assumed by the sciences.  Kierkegaard expressed this
difference by positing not only psychosomatic dimensions in human
existence, but also a dimension of spirit, distinguishing
the "outwardness" of scientific observation from the "inwardness" of
spiritual experience.  A psychology that does not account for the
determining and transforming activity of spirit in the self-conscious
subject will not accurately reflect what grounds and generates the
quality of man's becoming.  *The Concept of Anxiety* then suggests
that the psychologist could analyze this notion and its relation to
the "qualitative leap" produced in the dialectic of freedom in order
to work toward a more adequate grasp of man's nature and the
ontological determinants that shape the human condition. ~

I hope this goes some way toward explaining that, at least to the
best of my own understanding, the "leap", for Kierkegaard is an
ontological concept, concerned with the nature of being, not of
beings, indeed concerned with the very structure of being itself, as
explored, for instance, in the work of Nikolai Hartmann.  Faith is
not explicable to those who do not live by faith, yet the ontological
presuppositions for faith may be stated and argued.  European
thinkers have been engaged in such activity for centuries.

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
>
> Here is an extract from the 'Historical Introduction' by Reidar
> Thomte, to the Princeton edition of "The Concept of Anxiety" by
Soren
> Kierkegaard.
>
> ~ The psychological concern that fostered *The Concept of Anxiety*
> figures in many of Kierkegaard's other works.  *Repetition* is "A
> Venture in Experimenting Psychology"; the sub-title
> of "'Guilty?'/'Not Guilty?'" in *Stages on Life's Way* is "An
> Imaginary Psychological Construction"; the subtitle of *The
Sickness
> Unto Death* is "A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding
> and Awakening"; and *The Concept of Anxiety* has as its
subtitle, "A
> Simple Psychologically Orienting Deliberation on the Dogmatic Issue
> of Hereditary Sin."  These subtitles reflect the history of
> Kierkegaard's personal experience and the extent to which these
works
> represent an analysis of his own self.
>
> His contribution to psychological thought did not go unnoticed.  In
> 1881 Georg Brandes, a celebrated writer and literary critic, wrote
in
> a letter to Nietzsche, "In my opinion he [Kierkegaard] is one of
the
> most profound psychologists who ever lived."
>
> Historically, the psychology with which Kierkegaard worked is quite
> different from present-day psychological research.  His is a
> phenomenology that is based on an ontological view of man, the
> fundamental presupposition of which is the transcendent reality of
> the individual, whose intuitively discernible character reveals the
> existence of an eternal component.  Such a psychology does not
blend
> well with any purely empirical science and is best understood by
> regarding soma, psyche and spirit as the principal determinants of
> the human structure, with the first two belonging to the temporal
> realm and the third to the eternal.
>
> From the positivistic point of view, the psychology of *The Concept
> of Anxiety* was attacked by the philosopher Harald Hoffding, whose
> criticism was directed especially against the idea of
> the "qualitative leap".  He maintained that the sciences, including
> the science of psychology, are based on the assumption that there
is
> an unbroken continuity in the passage from possibility to actuality
> and that every new state is thereby the simple consequence of a
> previous state.  For Hoffding, a presuppositionless leap would
> abrogate the strict continuity required in every science.  Yet this
> is precisely Kierkegaard's point, namely, that the "qualitative
leap"
> is a category outside the scope of scientific procedures and that
its
> confirmation is therefore not reducible to the principles of
> verification assumed by the sciences.  Kierkegaard expressed this
> difference by positing not only psychosomatic dimensions in human
> existence, but also a dimension of spirit, distinguishing
> the "outwardness" of scientific observation from the "inwardness"
of
> spiritual experience.  A psychology that does not account for the
> determining and transforming activity of spirit in the self-
conscious
> subject will not accurately reflect what grounds and generates the
> quality of man's becoming.  *The Concept of Anxiety* then suggests
> that the psychologist could analyze this notion and its relation to
> the "qualitative leap" produced in the dialectic of freedom in
order
> to work toward a more adequate grasp of man's nature and the
> ontological determinants that shape the human condition. ~
>
> I hope this goes some way toward explaining that, at least to the
> best of my own understanding, the "leap", for Kierkegaard is an
> ontological concept, concerned with the nature of being, not of
> beings, indeed concerned with the very structure of being itself,
as
> explored, for instance, in the work of Nikolai Hartmann.  Faith is
> not explicable to those who do not live by faith, yet the
ontological
> presuppositions for faith may be stated and argued.  European
> thinkers have been engaged in such activity for centuries.
>
> Louise
> Louise, my good friend, Your post script to the quotation was  most
well structured and appreciated. It ties into  some  ideas that are
fermenting within  me. I am tryin g to coin a term to  name what I am
thinking. I want it to relate to the latin term for  left while
keeping the nuance of self serving individualism. sinestryism.I  want
the concept to denote humanity as a species in the throes of
evolution but beyond the strict rigors of instinct. We are  beings
that want to be gods but all the same we must eat.Trapped in
competition  we can imagine  a better existance but cannot reach it.
Existentialism abounds in the remorse of beings struggling out of
beastly bloodyness. The angst seems to have overcome the philosophy
and SK proposes we  aceed to the metaphysical and engage our mystic
proclivities. My concept would see our species in a precarious
attitude of guarded decency with less brooding despair and a more
content demeanor. Thanks for reading my attempts at new organisation.
Bill

Knott wrote: I put less and less hope in what communally seems to be a
vision for what should be, than a vision for what simply seems right,
good, pleasing, faint, placid, simple, benign, and 'interesting'.

Bill wrote: My concept would see our species in a precarious attitude
of guarded decency with less brooding despair and a more content
demeanor.

Louise wrote: Faith is not explicable to those who do not live by
faith, yet the ontological presuppositions for faith may be stated and
argued.

**********

How can anyone disagree with these sensible statements?

The unpleasant aspects of our psychological temperament are difficult,
though not impossible, to overcome. I've lived by faith and without
faith, and I confess that with it I was less responsible, authentic,
and free. The spirit, psyche, or soul seem to be transitional
emotional states. How do you know their source is external or eternal?
Why not skepticism?

But I'm interested to discuss these "ontological presuppositions" that
might reconstruct in me some faith or hope for the future. How is
"being" distinct from "the being" other than as a pure abstraction? I
haven't the luxury of endless contemplation. Tick, tock . . .

Jewel

Faith? In what? Do you mean Amor Fati, in Nietzsche's sense, or some
primitive belief in a sky god?

Wil


-----Original Message-----
From: Jewel <s1syfuss_stone@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:10 pm
Subject: [existlist] Sensible existentialism?

























Knott wrote: I put less and less hope in what communally seems to be a

vision for what should be, than a vision for what simply seems right,

good, pleasing, faint, placid, simple, benign, and 'interesting'.



Bill wrote: My concept would see our species in a precarious attitude

of guarded decency with less brooding despair and a more content

demeanor.



Louise wrote: Faith is not explicable to those who do not live by

faith, yet the ontological presuppositions for faith may be stated and

argued.



**********



How can anyone disagree with these sensible statements?



The unpleasant aspects of our psychological temperament are difficult,

though not impossible, to overcome. I've lived by faith and without

faith, and I confess that with it I was less responsible, authentic,

and free. The spirit, psyche, or soul seem to be transitional

emotional states. How do you know their source is external or eternal?

Why not skepticism?



But I'm interested to discuss these "ontological presuppositions" that

might reconstruct in me some faith or hope for the future. How is

"being" distinct from "the being" other than as a pure abstraction? I

haven't the luxury of endless contemplation. Tick, tock . . .



Jewel

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

Faith? In what? Do you mean Amor Fati, in Nietzsche's sense, or some
primitive belief in a sky god?

**********

Faith in the secular sense, like trust or confidence. Anything but
this awful cynicism that grips me.

Jewel

I'm partial to cynicism, at least in some qualified sense. Diogenes is
a favored image of the philosophical enterprise for me.  If your
cynicism is justified, why pollute it with a mood, as if your moods
have anything to add to the matter! Be a cynic and feel good, extend
your best self, love the world ... whatever you want. Where's the
problem?

Wil


-----Original Message-----
From: Jewel <s1syfuss_stone@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:20 pm
Subject: [existlist] Re: Sensible existentialism?

























--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:



Faith? In what? Do you mean Amor Fati, in Nietzsche's sense, or some

primitive belief in a sky god?



**********



Faith in the secular sense, like trust or confidence. Anything but

this awful cynicism that grips me.



Jewel

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

I'm partial to cynicism, at least in some qualified sense. Diogenes is
a favored image of the philosophical enterprise for me. If your
cynicism is justified, why pollute it with a mood, as if your moods
have anything to add to the matter! Be a cynic and feel good, extend
your best self, love the world ... whatever you want. Where's the
problem?

**********

Well, no problem since you put it so sensibly. The future certainly
can deal with itself without me.

Jewel

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jewel" <s1syfuss_stone@...> wrote:
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
>
> I'm partial to cynicism, at least in some qualified sense. Diogenes
is
> a favored image of the philosophical enterprise for me. If your
> cynicism is justified, why pollute it with a mood, as if your moods
> have anything to add to the matter! Be a cynic and feel good, extend
> your best self, love the world ... whatever you want. Where's the
> problem?
>
> **********
>
> Well, no problem since you put it so sensibly. The future certainly
> can deal with itself without me.
>
> Jewel
>The damn thing will do just that!This  seems a good place for me to
interject by fulfilling a promise to keep current on global warming.
We have a new phenomenon to factor into a vast question that we
cannot as yet completely define. Solar dimming exists and seems
caused by particulate pollution which works against greenhouse gas
effect. If we cut the particulates as dictated by health issues the
greenhouse will increase by an unacceptable rate. Bye Bye Florida[and
any number of other places], we will  melt and then burn ourselves
off the planet.
  Ergo, Jewel, I am not trampling the crap out of your thread as you
seemed  convinced that your tenure on this rock is limited. If we
refuse to deal with this aforementioned  complexity we are all
goners.
  Being forgotten can feel lonely but unless your name is Zeus or
Achilles it will probably happen. It would seem if we kill ourselves
we have finally achieved FN`s pronouncement. Of course you could
always  hypothesize an alien picking up broadcasts of "700" club. At
least I won`t have to live with it. Bill

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

"Solar dimming exists and seems caused by particulate pollution which
works against greenhouse gas effect. If we cut the particulates as
dictated by health issues the greenhouse will increase by an
unacceptable rate."

**********

But isn't it true that if we decrease particulates we also decrease
the level of carbon dioxide being created? Therefore we decrease
greenhouse gases which should offset the increased solar radiation. As
you know, greenhouse gases allow sunlight to penetrate our atmosphere.
For example, soot is a particulate resulting from the burning of
fossil fuels which release carbon dioxide, which is a major greenhouse
gas. So how would decreasing a particulate such as soot increase
greenhouse gases and solar radiation?

Jewel

> Even when Voltaire is not enjoyable to read, he proves most sound.

Fatigue at the time of composition prevented me from seeing the
carelessness of this remark.  In fact, I have been engaged with reading
the novel, "Candide", for the second time, and meant only to express my
appreciation for the author's genius in this respect.  Although I will
have encountered the occasional quotation from other works, there is no
other book of his that I have read.  Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jewel" <s1syfuss_stone@...> wrote:
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@>
wrote:
>
> "Solar dimming exists and seems caused by particulate pollution
which
> works against greenhouse gas effect. If we cut the particulates as
> dictated by health issues the greenhouse will increase by an
> unacceptable rate."
>
> **********
>
> But isn't it true that if we decrease particulates we also decrease
> the level of carbon dioxide being created? Therefore we decrease
> greenhouse gases which should offset the increased solar radiation.
As
> you know, greenhouse gases allow sunlight to penetrate our
atmosphere.
> For example, soot is a particulate resulting from the burning of
> fossil fuels which release carbon dioxide, which is a major
greenhouse
> gas. So how would decreasing a particulate such as soot increase
> greenhouse gases and solar radiation?
>
> Jewel
>Jewel, The soot is hyperreflective on its solar side. A great deal
of solar energy is  returned to space.  It thus has dampned our
factor for greenhouse effect. Now if we stop  prduction of the
particulates we must calculate upward the   temperature rise. We get
hotter and  wetter much sooner than we had thought. I still do not
think this theory to be irrefutable but it is a more complete
understanding. Bill

Since all my life I have lived in England, and for more than half of
that period have felt keenly the unity of our kingdom, and the
importance of the Protestant religion, my comments are with reference
to British society.  Given the universal features of the human
condition, in spite of the differences implied by nation and class,
it would hardly be surprising if a good deal of what I have to say,
if valid, might apply, mutatis mutandis, to other societies across
the world.

If one were to imagine oneself as a kind of benign Big Brother
figure, a theorist of society, charged with observing the communal
life on this island, in the early twenty-first century, the salient
fact is a fracturing of custom and belief.  Culture and morality are
distinct, and always have been.  Good taste and virtue are not the
same.  Even excellent manners may be a cover for moral turpitude.  I
have long known this, and it is one of the factors which make me more
susceptible to spiritual influences, render me "the natural prey of
the incarnate Christ", to borrow a phrase from the poet C.H.Sisson.
Returning to the more general picture, many of the towns, cities, and
even the smaller settlements of this country exhibit a bewildering
array of communities, not by any means easy to identify outwardly.
The leaching away of any coherent sense of nation, the taboo on
linking the concept of nation with race, which constitutes its
historic meaning, and the parallel (though not necessarily connected)
enfeeblement of long-established Christian belief, has left a vacuum
into which all manner of hedonistic chaos and primitive religious
practice have flowed.  Religions, of course, may be theistic,
atheistic, humanistic, pantheistic, and the rest.  Where is the
principle for unity, for a decent respect toward the human image and
the entire panoply of creaturely life?
Complexity and habitual contact with duplicities justified by nothing
more than a supposed majority interest (really a kind of refined
lynch law) wear down so many citizens, attack health and vitality.
We are our own worst enemies, and yet some are more the enemy than
others.  Who are the criminals, and who are the cops?  How many
unwritten laws operate?
In a way, these musings represent some sort of response to Wil's
incomprehension of why anyone should believe in God.  What can words
do, in the end, except name our loves, hates, dilemmas?  God is a
very particular word, and meaningless except in context.  Truly
convinced, genuine, responsible and loving men and women with
different doctrinal positions, Roman Catholics and Anglicans, for
instance, may be said meaningfully to worship the same God.  There is
an overlapping heritage to argue or agree about, and theological
language with which to engage one another's intellects without vanity
and pretension.  Politics complicate the dialogue, however, and even
more so in the case of disagreements arising with Islam, Judaism, and
the non-Abrahamic faiths.  One of the prevalent cults in Britain
today has evolved from Socialist struggle and the feminist striving
to counter the age-old conflict between the sexes, which certainly
flourishes within socialist circles, as anywhere else. In truth the
conflict may not be resolved, only sublimated.  Christianity is
certainly not the only creed to recognise this fact, but any other
remedy lacks historical credibility.  I trust that this statement of
my opinion does not read like an attempt to proselytize, which would
be quite contrary to the spirit and rules of the list.  All
endeavours to communicate indirectly by pseudonymous philosophical
play were defeated by self-righteous zealotries and my own inability
to tolerate the pain of these assaults.  Philosophy with me is a
passion, not a romance, and in conflict with more naturalistic forces
it leads into a war that may not be won.  Louise

Whenever religion is discussed, or so it seems, the discussion always goes
onto something else: ethics and morality, nationality, identity, meaning, law,
etc. This is itself telling and begs to be unpacked, as Hegel and Nietzsche do
here and there, but my incomprehension about the belief in 'God' will not be
any better assuaged by these side issues than by shouting "boo" in a darkened
room.

My incomprehension remains: how can anyone today actually think that there is
a transcendent-yet-present super being, cosmic creator, infinite big ear and
blame-meister, and the rest of it, when it is clearly a primitive (and
primitive's) fantasy no more sophisticated or plausible than any other sky god
touted
by human ignorance down the millennia? I don't want to hear how such a belief
dovetails well with other notions and problems, like whether little Johnny
will wack off to infinity or steal the family SUV without big sky daddy watching
over him, or whether my cumulative behaviors in the bathroom will remain
absurd and lost to the ages without some cosmic noggin knowing it forever.

No, the matter is very simple. The belief in God, qua belief, is absurd, if
not irrational and insane.

Wil

In a message dated 8/7/08 4:15:17 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:


>
>
>
> Since all my life I have lived in England, and for more than half of
> that period have felt keenly the unity of our kingdom, and the
> importance of the Protestant religion, my comments are with reference
> to British society. Given the universal features of the human
> condition, in spite of the differences implied by nation and class,
> it would hardly be surprising if a good deal of what I have to say,
> if valid, might apply, mutatis mutandis, to other societies across
> the world.
>
> If one were to imagine oneself as a kind of benign Big Brother
> figure, a theorist of society, charged with observing the communal
> life on this island, in the early twenty-first century, the salient
> fact is a fracturing of custom and belief. Culture and morality are
> distinct, and always have been. Good taste and virtue are not the
> same. Even excellent manners may be a cover for moral turpitude. I
> have long known this, and it is one of the factors which make me more
> susceptible to spiritual influences, render me "the natural prey of
> the incarnate Christ", to borrow a phrase from the poet C.H.Sisson.
> Returning to the more general picture, many of the towns, cities, and
> even the smaller settlements of this country exhibit a bewildering
> array of communities, not by any means easy to identify outwardly.
> The leaching away of any coherent sense of nation, the taboo on
> linking the concept of nation with race, which constitutes its
> historic meaning, and the parallel (though not necessarily connected)
> enfeeblement of long-established Christian belief, has left a vacuum
> into which all manner of hedonistic chaos and primitive religious
> practice have flowed. Religions, of course, may be theistic,
> atheistic, humanistic, pantheistic, and the rest. Where is the
> principle for unity, for a decent respect toward the human image and
> the entire panoply of creaturely life?
> Complexity and habitual contact with duplicities justified by nothing
> more than a supposed majority interest (really a kind of refined
> lynch law) wear down so many citizens, attack health and vitality.
> We are our own worst enemies, and yet some are more the enemy than
> others. Who are the criminals, and who are the cops? How many
> unwritten laws operate?
> In a way, these musings represent some sort of response to Wil's
> incomprehension of why anyone should believe in God. What can words
> do, in the end, except name our loves, hates, dilemmas? God is a
> very particular word, and meaningless except in context. Truly
> convinced, genuine, responsible and loving men and women with
> different doctrinal positions, Roman Catholics and Anglicans, for
> instance, may be said meaningfully to worship the same God. There is
> an overlapping heritage to argue or agree about, and theological
> language with which to engage one another's intellects without vanity
> and pretension. Politics complicate the dialogue, however, and even
> more so in the case of disagreements arising with Islam, Judaism, and
> the non-Abrahamic faiths. One of the prevalent cults in Britain
> today has evolved from Socialist struggle and the feminist striving
> to counter the age-old conflict between the sexes, which certainly
> flourishes within socialist circles, as anywhere else. In truth the
> conflict may not be resolved, only sublimated. Christianity is
> certainly not the only creed to recognise this fact, but any other
> remedy lacks historical credibility. I trust that this statement of
> my opinion does not read like an attempt to proselytize, which would
> be quite contrary to the spirit and rules of the list. All
> endeavours to communicate indirectly by pseudonymous philosophical
> play were defeated by self-righteous zealotries and my own inability
> to tolerate the pain of these assaults. Philosophy with me is a
> passion, not a romance, and in conflict with more naturalistic forces
> it leads into a war that may not be won. Louise
>
>
>




**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.

(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017
)


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

The subject of religious faith, or even simply of Christian faith,
involves many other areas of intellectual discourse, not simply
metaphysics.  It cannot so easily be dismissed.  Belief in God is not
comparable to belief in any being, since God is not a being.  He is
eternal, not existing.  Only by discussing the works of Kierkegaard
am I capable of feeling any confidence that I might be able to make a
little progress in communicating with clarity, and at present I must
wait for a better state of health, before attempting such a task.

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
> Whenever religion is discussed, or so it seems, the discussion
always goes
> onto something else: ethics and morality, nationality, identity,
meaning, law,
> etc. This is itself telling and begs to be unpacked, as Hegel and
Nietzsche do
> here and there, but my incomprehension about the belief in 'God'
will not be
> any better assuaged by these side issues than by shouting "boo" in
a darkened
> room.
>
> My incomprehension remains: how can anyone today actually think
that there is
> a transcendent-yet-present super being, cosmic creator, infinite
big ear and
> blame-meister, and the rest of it, when it is clearly a primitive
(and
> primitive's) fantasy no more sophisticated or plausible than any
other sky god touted
> by human ignorance down the millennia? I don't want to hear how
such a belief
> dovetails well with other notions and problems, like whether little
Johnny
> will wack off to infinity or steal the family SUV without big sky
daddy watching
> over him, or whether my cumulative behaviors in the bathroom will
remain
> absurd and lost to the ages without some cosmic noggin knowing it
forever.
>
> No, the matter is very simple. The belief in God, qua belief, is
absurd, if
> not irrational and insane.
>
> Wil
>
> In a message dated 8/7/08 4:15:17 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Since all my life I have lived in England, and for more than half
of
> > that period have felt keenly the unity of our kingdom, and the
> > importance of the Protestant religion, my comments are with
reference
> > to British society. Given the universal features of the human
> > condition, in spite of the differences implied by nation and
class,
> > it would hardly be surprising if a good deal of what I have to
say,
> > if valid, might apply, mutatis mutandis, to other societies across
> > the world.
> >
> > If one were to imagine oneself as a kind of benign Big Brother
> > figure, a theorist of society, charged with observing the communal
> > life on this island, in the early twenty-first century, the
salient
> > fact is a fracturing of custom and belief. Culture and morality
are
> > distinct, and always have been. Good taste and virtue are not the
> > same. Even excellent manners may be a cover for moral turpitude. I
> > have long known this, and it is one of the factors which make me
more
> > susceptible to spiritual influences, render me "the natural prey
of
> > the incarnate Christ", to borrow a phrase from the poet
C.H.Sisson.
> > Returning to the more general picture, many of the towns, cities,
and
> > even the smaller settlements of this country exhibit a bewildering
> > array of communities, not by any means easy to identify outwardly.
> > The leaching away of any coherent sense of nation, the taboo on
> > linking the concept of nation with race, which constitutes its
> > historic meaning, and the parallel (though not necessarily
connected)
> > enfeeblement of long-established Christian belief, has left a
vacuum
> > into which all manner of hedonistic chaos and primitive religious
> > practice have flowed. Religions, of course, may be theistic,
> > atheistic, humanistic, pantheistic, and the rest. Where is the
> > principle for unity, for a decent respect toward the human image
and
> > the entire panoply of creaturely life?
> > Complexity and habitual contact with duplicities justified by
nothing
> > more than a supposed majority interest (really a kind of refined
> > lynch law) wear down so many citizens, attack health and vitality.
> > We are our own worst enemies, and yet some are more the enemy than
> > others. Who are the criminals, and who are the cops? How many
> > unwritten laws operate?
> > In a way, these musings represent some sort of response to Wil's
> > incomprehension of why anyone should believe in God. What can
words
> > do, in the end, except name our loves, hates, dilemmas? God is a
> > very particular word, and meaningless except in context. Truly
> > convinced, genuine, responsible and loving men and women with
> > different doctrinal positions, Roman Catholics and Anglicans, for
> > instance, may be said meaningfully to worship the same God. There
is
> > an overlapping heritage to argue or agree about, and theological
> > language with which to engage one another's intellects without
vanity
> > and pretension. Politics complicate the dialogue, however, and
even
> > more so in the case of disagreements arising with Islam, Judaism,
and
> > the non-Abrahamic faiths. One of the prevalent cults in Britain
> > today has evolved from Socialist struggle and the feminist
striving
> > to counter the age-old conflict between the sexes, which certainly
> > flourishes within socialist circles, as anywhere else. In truth
the
> > conflict may not be resolved, only sublimated. Christianity is
> > certainly not the only creed to recognise this fact, but any other
> > remedy lacks historical credibility. I trust that this statement
of
> > my opinion does not read like an attempt to proselytize, which
would
> > be quite contrary to the spirit and rules of the list. All
> > endeavours to communicate indirectly by pseudonymous philosophical
> > play were defeated by self-righteous zealotries and my own
inability
> > to tolerate the pain of these assaults. Philosophy with me is a
> > passion, not a romance, and in conflict with more naturalistic
forces
> > it leads into a war that may not be won. Louise
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
> Read reviews on AOL Autos.
>
> (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?
ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

No, it can certainly be dismissed with ease. Try it.

Personally, I cannot stand Kierkegaard. I think that he is a dishonest
fanatic. Yes, there may be a host of insights along the way of his
propaganda, but it all remains propaganda, as he himself continually
admits.

I find his writings to be, for the most part, pathetic (sorry Jim,).
Regina was right to run onto the arms of Schlegel.

Wil


-----Original Message-----
From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:12 am
Subject:  [existlist] Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth, or,
how society fails to work



The subject of religious faith, or even simply of Christian faith,

involves many other areas of intellectual discourse, not simply

metaphysics.  It cannot so easily be dismissed.  Belief in God is not

comparable to belief in any being, since God is not a being.  He is

eternal, not existing.  Only by discussing the works of Kierkegaard

am I capable of feeling any confidence that I might be able to make a

little progress in communicating with clarity, and at present I must

wait for a better state of health, before attempting such a task.



Louise



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

>

> Whenever religion is discussed, or so it seems, the discussion

always goes

> onto something else: ethics and morality, nationality, identity,

meaning, law,

> etc. This is itself telling and begs to be unpacked, as Hegel and

Nietzsche do

> here and there, but my incomprehension about the belief in 'God'

will not be

> any better assuaged by these side issues than by shouting "boo" in

a darkened

> room.

>

> My incomprehension remains: how can anyone today actually think

that there is

> a transcendent-yet-present super being, cosmic creator, infinite

big ear and

> blame-meister, and the rest of it, when it is clearly a primitive

(and

> primitive's) fantasy no more sophisticated or plausible than any

other sky god touted

> by human ignorance down the millennia? I don't want to hear how

such a belief

> dovetails well with other notions and problems, like whether little

Johnny

> will wack off to infinity or steal the family SUV without big sky

daddy watching

> over him, or whether my cumulative behaviors in the bathroom will

remain

> absurd and lost to the ages without some cosmic noggin knowing it

forever.

>

> No, the matter is very simple. The belief in God, qua belief, is

absurd, if

> not irrational and insane.

>

> Wil

>

> In a message dated 8/7/08 4:15:17 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> > Since all my life I have lived in England, and for more than half

of

> > that period have felt keenly the unity of our kingdom, and the

> > importance of the Protestant religion, my comments are with

reference

> > to British society. Given the universal features of the human

> > condition, in spite of the differences implied by nation and

class,

> > it would hardly be surprising if a good deal of what I have to

say,

> > if valid, might apply, mutatis mutandis, to other societies across

> > the world.

> >

> > If one were to imagine oneself as a kind of benign Big Brother

> > figure, a theorist of society, charged with observing the communal

> > life on this island, in the early twenty-first century, the

salient

> > fact is a fracturing of custom and belief. Culture and morality

are

> > distinct, and always have been. Good taste and virtue are not the

> > same. Even excellent manners may be a cover for moral turpitude. I

> > have long known this, and it is one of the factors which make me

more

> > susceptible to spiritual influences, render me "the natural prey

of

> > the incarnate Christ", to borrow a phrase from the poet

C.H.Sisson.

> > Returning to the more general picture, many of the towns, cities,

and

> > even the smaller settlements of this country exhibit a bewildering

> > array of communities, not by any means easy to identify outwardly.

> > The leaching away of any coherent sense of nation, the taboo on

> > linking the concept of nation with race, which constitutes its

> > historic meaning, and the parallel (though not necessarily

connected)

> > enfeeblement of long-established Christian belief, has left a

vacuum

> > into which all manner of hedonistic chaos and primitive religious

> > practice have flowed. Religions, of course, may be theistic,

> > atheistic, humanistic, pantheistic, and the rest. Where is the

> > principle for unity, for a decent respect toward the human image

and

> > the entire panoply of creaturely life?

> > Complexity and habitual contact with duplicities justified by

nothing

> > more than a supposed majority interest (really a kind of refined

> > lynch law) wear down so many citizens, attack health and vitality.

> > We are our own worst enemies, and yet some are more the enemy than

> > others. Who are the criminals, and who are the cops? How many

> > unwritten laws operate?

> > In a way, these musings represent some sort of response to Wil's

> > incomprehension of why anyone should believe in God. What can

words

> > do, in the end, except name our loves, hates, dilemmas? God is a

> > very particular word, and meaningless except in context. Truly

> > convinced, genuine, responsible and loving men and women with

> > different doctrinal positions, Roman Catholics and Anglicans, for

> > instance, may be said meaningfully to worship the same God. There

is

> > an overlapping heritage to argue or agree about, and theological

> > language with which to engage one another's intellects without

vanity

> > and pretension. Politics complicate the dialogue, however, and

even

> > more so in the case of disagreements arising with Islam, Judaism,

and

> > the non-Abrahamic faiths. One of the prevalent cults in Britain

> > today has evolved from Socialist struggle and the feminist

striving

> > to counter the age-old conflict between the sexes, which certainly

> > flourishes within socialist circles, as anywhere else. In truth

the

> > conflict may not be resolved, only sublimated. Christianity is

> > certainly not the only creed to recognise this fact, but any other

> > remedy lacks historical credibility. I trust that this statement

of

> > my opinion does not read like an attempt to proselytize, which

would

> > be quite contrary to the spirit and rules of the list. All

> > endeavours to communicate indirectly by pseudonymous philosophical

> > play were defeated by self-righteous zealotries and my own

inability

> > to tolerate the pain of these assaults. Philosophy with me is a

> > passion, not a romance, and in conflict with more naturalistic

forces

> > it leads into a war that may not be won. Louise

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> **************

> Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?

> Read reviews on AOL Autos.

>

> (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?

ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )

>

>

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

>

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

>Jewel, The soot is hyperreflective on its solar side. A great deal
of solar energy is returned to space. It thus has dampned our
factor for greenhouse effect. Now if we stop prduction of the
particulates we must calculate upward the temperature rise. We get
hotter and wetter much sooner than we had thought. I still do not
think this theory to be irrefutable but it is a more complete
understanding. Bill

**********

Thank you for the mental workout. Even though it's the right
direction, when a more complete understanding develops for many
endeavors, the existentialist saws of responsibility and freedom seem
even sharper.

Jewel

Wil,

After you have told me in the past that you will listen without
prejudice, it is difficult to credit the smug dismissal that you
offer here in place of thought.  Especially after you have only just
been handing out a lecture to ALBB on lack of intellectual
conscience.  Try reading the works first, with attention.  I find it
disgusting how many otherwise responsible thinking people have minds
polluted by attention to casual biographical detail, whether about
Regine or anyone else.  You fell into the same trap with Heidegger.
Ultimately, you are one more naive victim of worldwide censorship,
and don't know what you are talking about.  This assessment does not
invalidate my continuing respect for your philosophical learning when
you really do know your material, which is most of the time.  If I am
mistaken in any of my assumptions here, feel free to come back at
me.  You offer no evidence, no quotation, only a cheap shot at
someone else's emotional distress.

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
> No, it can certainly be dismissed with ease. Try it.
>
> Personally, I cannot stand Kierkegaard. I think that he is a
dishonest
> fanatic. Yes, there may be a host of insights along the way of his
> propaganda, but it all remains propaganda, as he himself
continually
> admits.
>
> I find his writings to be, for the most part, pathetic (sorry
Jim,).
> Regina was right to run onto the arms of Schlegel.
>
> Wil
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:12 am
> Subject:  [existlist] Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth,
or,
> how society fails to work
>
>
>
> The subject of religious faith, or even simply of Christian faith,
>
> involves many other areas of intellectual discourse, not simply
>
> metaphysics.  It cannot so easily be dismissed.  Belief in God is
not
>
> comparable to belief in any being, since God is not a being.  He is
>
> eternal, not existing.  Only by discussing the works of Kierkegaard
>
> am I capable of feeling any confidence that I might be able to make
a
>
> little progress in communicating with clarity, and at present I must
>
> wait for a better state of health, before attempting such a task.
>
>
>
> Louise
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Whenever religion is discussed, or so it seems, the discussion
>
> always goes
>
> > onto something else: ethics and morality, nationality, identity,
>
> meaning, law,
>
> > etc. This is itself telling and begs to be unpacked, as Hegel and
>
> Nietzsche do
>
> > here and there, but my incomprehension about the belief in 'God'
>
> will not be
>
> > any better assuaged by these side issues than by shouting "boo" in
>
> a darkened
>
> > room.
>
> >
>
> > My incomprehension remains: how can anyone today actually think
>
> that there is
>
> > a transcendent-yet-present super being, cosmic creator, infinite
>
> big ear and
>
> > blame-meister, and the rest of it, when it is clearly a primitive
>
> (and
>
> > primitive's) fantasy no more sophisticated or plausible than any
>
> other sky god touted
>
> > by human ignorance down the millennia? I don't want to hear how
>
> such a belief
>
> > dovetails well with other notions and problems, like whether
little
>
> Johnny
>
> > will wack off to infinity or steal the family SUV without big sky
>
> daddy watching
>
> > over him, or whether my cumulative behaviors in the bathroom will
>
> remain
>
> > absurd and lost to the ages without some cosmic noggin knowing it
>
> forever.
>
> >
>
> > No, the matter is very simple. The belief in God, qua belief, is
>
> absurd, if
>
> > not irrational and insane.
>
> >
>
> > Wil
>
> >
>
> > In a message dated 8/7/08 4:15:17 AM, hecubatoher@ writes:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Since all my life I have lived in England, and for more than
half
>
> of
>
> > > that period have felt keenly the unity of our kingdom, and the
>
> > > importance of the Protestant religion, my comments are with
>
> reference
>
> > > to British society. Given the universal features of the human
>
> > > condition, in spite of the differences implied by nation and
>
> class,
>
> > > it would hardly be surprising if a good deal of what I have to
>
> say,
>
> > > if valid, might apply, mutatis mutandis, to other societies
across
>
> > > the world.
>
> > >
>
> > > If one were to imagine oneself as a kind of benign Big Brother
>
> > > figure, a theorist of society, charged with observing the
communal
>
> > > life on this island, in the early twenty-first century, the
>
> salient
>
> > > fact is a fracturing of custom and belief. Culture and morality
>
> are
>
> > > distinct, and always have been. Good taste and virtue are not
the
>
> > > same. Even excellent manners may be a cover for moral
turpitude. I
>
> > > have long known this, and it is one of the factors which make me
>
> more
>
> > > susceptible to spiritual influences, render me "the natural prey
>
> of
>
> > > the incarnate Christ", to borrow a phrase from the poet
>
> C.H.Sisson.
>
> > > Returning to the more general picture, many of the towns,
cities,
>
> and
>
> > > even the smaller settlements of this country exhibit a
bewildering
>
> > > array of communities, not by any means easy to identify
outwardly.
>
> > > The leaching away of any coherent sense of nation, the taboo on
>
> > > linking the concept of nation with race, which constitutes its
>
> > > historic meaning, and the parallel (though not necessarily
>
> connected)
>
> > > enfeeblement of long-established Christian belief, has left a
>
> vacuum
>
> > > into which all manner of hedonistic chaos and primitive
religious
>
> > > practice have flowed. Religions, of course, may be theistic,
>
> > > atheistic, humanistic, pantheistic, and the rest. Where is the
>
> > > principle for unity, for a decent respect toward the human image
>
> and
>
> > > the entire panoply of creaturely life?
>
> > > Complexity and habitual contact with duplicities justified by
>
> nothing
>
> > > more than a supposed majority interest (really a kind of refined
>
> > > lynch law) wear down so many citizens, attack health and
vitality.
>
> > > We are our own worst enemies, and yet some are more the enemy
than
>
> > > others. Who are the criminals, and who are the cops? How many
>
> > > unwritten laws operate?
>
> > > In a way, these musings represent some sort of response to Wil's
>
> > > incomprehension of why anyone should believe in God. What can
>
> words
>
> > > do, in the end, except name our loves, hates, dilemmas? God is a
>
> > > very particular word, and meaningless except in context. Truly
>
> > > convinced, genuine, responsible and loving men and women with
>
> > > different doctrinal positions, Roman Catholics and Anglicans,
for
>
> > > instance, may be said meaningfully to worship the same God.
There
>
> is
>
> > > an overlapping heritage to argue or agree about, and theological
>
> > > language with which to engage one another's intellects without
>
> vanity
>
> > > and pretension. Politics complicate the dialogue, however, and
>
> even
>
> > > more so in the case of disagreements arising with Islam,
Judaism,
>
> and
>
> > > the non-Abrahamic faiths. One of the prevalent cults in Britain
>
> > > today has evolved from Socialist struggle and the feminist
>
> striving
>
> > > to counter the age-old conflict between the sexes, which
certainly
>
> > > flourishes within socialist circles, as anywhere else. In truth
>
> the
>
> > > conflict may not be resolved, only sublimated. Christianity is
>
> > > certainly not the only creed to recognise this fact, but any
other
>
> > > remedy lacks historical credibility. I trust that this statement
>
> of
>
> > > my opinion does not read like an attempt to proselytize, which
>
> would
>
> > > be quite contrary to the spirit and rules of the list. All
>
> > > endeavours to communicate indirectly by pseudonymous
philosophical
>
> > > play were defeated by self-righteous zealotries and my own
>
> inability
>
> > > to tolerate the pain of these assaults. Philosophy with me is a
>
> > > passion, not a romance, and in conflict with more naturalistic
>
> forces
>
> > > it leads into a war that may not be won. Louise
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > **************
>
> > Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
>
> > Read reviews on AOL Autos.
>
> >
>
> > (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?
>
> ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:

Belief in God is not comparable to belief in any being, since God is
not a being. He is eternal, not existing.

**********

No thank you. You possess an intimidating intellect and a formidable
command of the language, but this statement is an oxymoron, a brain
teaser, and a complete waste of time. The argument would be
passionate, but I have no wish to hurt your delicate sensibilities.
There are enough corpses on this battlefield of faith. I hope this is
indeed "A short episode." I'm quickly running through worthwhile
Existentialism forums.

Jewel

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
> Whenever religion is discussed, or so it seems, the discussion
always goes
> onto something else: ethics and morality, nationality, identity,
meaning, law,
> etc. This is itself telling and begs to be unpacked, as Hegel and
Nietzsche do
> here and there, but my incomprehension about the belief in 'God'
will not be
> any better assuaged by these side issues than by shouting "boo" in a
darkened
> room.
>
> My incomprehension remains: how can anyone today actually think that
there is
> a transcendent-yet-present super being, cosmic creator, infinite big
ear and
> blame-meister, and the rest of it, when it is clearly a primitive (and
> primitive's) fantasy no more sophisticated or plausible than any
other sky god touted
> by human ignorance down the millennia? I don't want to hear how such
a belief
> dovetails well with other notions and problems, like whether little
Johnny
> will wack off to infinity or steal the family SUV without big sky
daddy watching
> over him, or whether my cumulative behaviors in the bathroom will
remain
> absurd and lost to the ages without some cosmic noggin knowing it
forever.
>
> No, the matter is very simple. The belief in God, qua belief, is
absurd, if
> not irrational and insane.
>
> Wil
>
Wil, do you suppose that you have taken the strictly rational and sane
stance in proclaiming your atheism? Both theists and atheists are
persons of faith. For either view to be adhered to one is committing
the logical fallacy of "negative proof" (X is true because X can not
be proven to be false, and visa versa). Agnosticism is the only
strictly rational stance in this regard. I am interested to here
others' thoughts on this point.

Furthermore, as an adherent to a monotheistic Vedantic tradition, I
can say, at least in regards to my own practice, it is not inherently
a problem that my tradition requires some trans-rational adherence.
This is so on account of the concept of grace. How might an atheist
harmonize their deviation from reason, considering the phenomenal
world is the all-in-all?

I feel it important to note that many atheists I encounter including
many on this list seem to be narrowly reacting to only Abrahamic
traditions. Your "blame-meister.....sky god" comment illustrates the
point. It is the responsibility of any practitioner of a tradition and
all deep thinkers in general to separate the essential philosophical
propositions of a given tradition from the sociocultural baggage that
is no doubt attached to every tradition. Vedanta in particular I find
to be an incredibly rich and analytical philosophy and theology,
whereas I must agree in many ways to the negative reactions to
"western" traditions which are notably less comprehensive.

Logic and reason are not objective, they are colored by our own
desires. I absolutely do believe in objective reality, but it is not
ascertained via the whimsy of our minds. Arguably, a deity in the sky
is more rational than making a deity of one's own reasoning
capacity...at least we don't have experience of the "sky-god's"
fallibility.
Nitai

Louise,

After my recent reading to the Either/Or texts (with some skimming, I
admit), my prior estimation of K was only underscored. How many texts
do I have to read before I can make an assessment? I have read a good
dozen or so over the years. My visceral dislike has only been redoubled
each time.

As for Heidegger, friend, I began reading his works in the early 70s,
and I have read most everything, some things in the original (back when
I could). I once counted myself as a Hiedeggerian, before I came to see
him as priest in sheep's clothing. Not sure what your point here is.

Finally, please do not try to make the argument that my rejection of
racism is due to the influence of the UN or some kind of political
straightjacketing. My political orientation is the result of earnest
study and not some arty fad. I would again ask you to consider that
your own intolerance may be the result of factors of a personal nature.

Wil


-----Original Message-----
From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:22 am
Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth, or,
how society fails to work

Wil,



After you have told me in the past that you will listen without

prejudice, it is difficult to credit the smug dismissal that you

offer here in place of thought.  Especially after you have only just

been handing out a lecture to ALBB on lack of intellectual

conscience.  Try reading the works first, with attention.  I find it

disgusting how many otherwise responsible thinking people have minds

polluted by attention to casual biographical detail, whether about

Regine or anyone else.  You fell into the same trap with Heidegger.

Ultimately, you are one more naive victim of worldwide censorship,

and don't know what you are talking about.  This assessment does not

invalidate my continuing respect for your philosophical learning when

you really do know your material, which is most of the time.  If I am

mistaken in any of my assumptions here, feel free to come back at

me.  You offer no evidence, no quotation, only a cheap shot at

someone else's emotional distress.



Louise



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

>

> No, it can certainly be dismissed with ease. Try it.

>

> Personally, I cannot stand Kierkegaard. I think that he is a

dishonest

> fanatic. Yes, there may be a host of insights along the way of his

> propaganda, but it all remains propaganda, as he himself

continually

> admits.

>

> I find his writings to be, for the most part, pathetic (sorry

Jim,).

> Regina was right to run onto the arms of Schlegel.

>

> Wil

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: louise <hecubatoher@...>

> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

> Sent: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:12 am

> Subject:  [existlist] Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth,

or,

> how society fails to work

>

>

>

> The subject of religious faith, or even simply of Christian faith,

>

> involves many other areas of intellectual discourse, not simply

>

> metaphysics.  It cannot so easily be dismissed.  Belief in God is

not

>

> comparable to belief in any being, since God is not a being.  He is

>

> eternal, not existing.  Only by discussing the works of Kierkegaard

>

> am I capable of feeling any confidence that I might be able to make

a

>

> little progress in communicating with clarity, and at present I must

>

> wait for a better state of health, before attempting such a task.

>

>

>

> Louise

>

>

>

> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Whenever religion is discussed, or so it seems, the discussion

>

> always goes

>

> > onto something else: ethics and morality, nationality, identity,

>

> meaning, law,

>

> > etc. This is itself telling and begs to be unpacked, as Hegel and

>

> Nietzsche do

>

> > here and there, but my incomprehension about the belief in 'God'

>

> will not be

>

> > any better assuaged by these side issues than by shouting "boo" in

>

> a darkened

>

> > room.

>

> >

>

> > My incomprehension remains: how can anyone today actually think

>

> that there is

>

> > a transcendent-yet-present super being, cosmic creator, infinite

>

> big ear and

>

> > blame-meister, and the rest of it, when it is clearly a primitive

>

> (and

>

> > primitive's) fantasy no more sophisticated or plausible than any

>

> other sky god touted

>

> > by human ignorance down the millennia? I don't want to hear how

>

> such a belief

>

> > dovetails well with other notions and problems, like whether

little

>

> Johnny

>

> > will wack off to infinity or steal the family SUV without big sky

>

> daddy watching

>

> > over him, or whether my cumulative behaviors in the bathroom will

>

> remain

>

> > absurd and lost to the ages without some cosmic noggin knowing it

>

> forever.

>

> >

>

> > No, the matter is very simple. The belief in God, qua belief, is

>

> absurd, if

>

> > not irrational and insane.

>

> >

>

> > Wil

>

> >

>

> > In a message dated 8/7/08 4:15:17 AM, hecubatoher@ writes:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Since all my life I have lived in England, and for more than

half

>

> of

>

> > > that period have felt keenly the unity of our kingdom, and the

>

> > > importance of the Protestant religion, my comments are with

>

> reference

>

> > > to British society. Given the universal features of the human

>

> > > condition, in spite of the differences implied by nation and

>

> class,

>

> > > it would hardly be surprising if a good deal of what I have to

>

> say,

>

> > > if valid, might apply, mutatis mutandis, to other societies

across

>

> > > the world.

>

> > >

>

> > > If one were to imagine oneself as a kind of benign Big Brother

>

> > > figure, a theorist of society, charged with observing the

communal

>

> > > life on this island, in the early twenty-first century, the

>

> salient

>

> > > fact is a fracturing of custom and belief. Culture and morality

>

> are

>

> > > distinct, and always have been. Good taste and virtue are not

the

>

> > > same. Even excellent manners may be a cover for moral

turpitude. I

>

> > > have long known this, and it is one of the factors which make me

>

> more

>

> > > susceptible to spiritual influences, render me "the natural prey

>

> of

>

> > > the incarnate Christ", to borrow a phrase from the poet

>

> C.H.Sisson.

>

> > > Returning to the more general picture, many of the towns,

cities,

>

> and

>

> > > even the smaller settlements of this country exhibit a

bewildering

>

> > > array of communities, not by any means easy to identify

outwardly.

>

> > > The leaching away of any coherent sense of nation, the taboo on

>

> > > linking the concept of nation with race, which constitutes its

>

> > > historic meaning, and the parallel (though not necessarily

>

> connected)

>

> > > enfeeblement of long-established Christian belief, has left a

>

> vacuum

>

> > > into which all manner of hedonistic chaos and primitive

religious

>

> > > practice have flowed. Religions, of course, may be theistic,

>

> > > atheistic, humanistic, pantheistic, and the rest. Where is the

>

> > > principle for unity, for a decent respect toward the human image

>

> and

>

> > > the entire panoply of creaturely life?

>

> > > Complexity and habitual contact with duplicities justified by

>

> nothing

>

> > > more than a supposed majority interest (really a kind of refined

>

> > > lynch law) wear down so many citizens, attack health and

vitality.

>

> > > We are our own worst enemies, and yet some are more the enemy

than

>

> > > others. Who are the criminals, and who are the cops? How many

>

> > > unwritten laws operate?

>

> > > In a way, these musings represent some sort of response to Wil's

>

> > > incomprehension of why anyone should believe in God. What can

>

> words

>

> > > do, in the end, except name our loves, hates, dilemmas? God is a

>

> > > very particular word, and meaningless except in context. Truly

>

> > > convinced, genuine, responsible and loving men and women with

>

> > > different doctrinal positions, Roman Catholics and Anglicans,

for

>

> > > instance, may be said meaningfully to worship the same God.

There

>

> is

>

> > > an overlapping heritage to argue or agree about, and theological

>

> > > language with which to engage one another's intellects without

>

> vanity

>

> > > and pretension. Politics complicate the dialogue, however, and

>

> even

>

> > > more so in the case of disagreements arising with Islam,

Judaism,

>

> and

>

> > > the non-Abrahamic faiths. One of the prevalent cults in Britain

>

> > > today has evolved from Socialist struggle and the feminist

>

> striving

>

> > > to counter the age-old conflict between the sexes, which

certainly

>

> > > flourishes within socialist circles, as anywhere else. In truth

>

> the

>

> > > conflict may not be resolved, only sublimated. Christianity is

>

> > > certainly not the only creed to recognise this fact, but any

other

>

> > > remedy lacks historical credibility. I trust that this statement

>

> of

>

> > > my opinion does not read like an attempt to proselytize, which

>

> would

>

> > > be quite contrary to the spirit and rules of the list. All

>

> > > endeavours to communicate indirectly by pseudonymous

philosophical

>

> > > play were defeated by self-righteous zealotries and my own

>

> inability

>

> > > to tolerate the pain of these assaults. Philosophy with me is a

>

> > > passion, not a romance, and in conflict with more naturalistic

>

> forces

>

> > > it leads into a war that may not be won. Louise

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > **************

>

> > Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?

>

> > Read reviews on AOL Autos.

>

> >

>

> > (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?

>

> ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jewel" <s1syfuss_stone@...> wrote:
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
>
> Belief in God is not comparable to belief in any being, since God is
> not a being. He is eternal, not existing.
>
> **********
>
> No thank you. You possess an intimidating intellect and a formidable
> command of the language, but this statement is an oxymoron, a brain
> teaser, and a complete waste of time. The argument would be
> passionate, but I have no wish to hurt your delicate sensibilities.
> There are enough corpses on this battlefield of faith. I hope this
is
> indeed "A short episode." I'm quickly running through worthwhile
> Existentialism forums.
>
> Jewel
>

Jewel,

I am sorry that my intellect is intimidating.  It is not what I would
wish, and when it is possible to meet others face to face, I do not
generally find that their impression of me is that of a bully.  My
experience at this list has been bruising, and I continue to work at
not letting it affect my mood when posting.  You are of course free
to reject any proposal, but the one I made above is the main theme of
Kierkegaard's "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" and most relevant
to the discussion.  There are hundreds of readers here at any one
time, and I live in hope that occasionally someone might be
encouraged to become acquainted with the wonderfully warm and
intelligent personality of our Danish philosophical hero.  By that
first person plural possessive pronoun, I am rather jealously
claiming him for the continent of Europe, to which as a British
patriot with a grateful love of Continental writing, particularly
poetry, ancient and modern, I feel (unpolitically) attached.

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
> Louise,
>
> After my recent reading to the Either/Or texts (with some skimming,
I
> admit), my prior estimation of K was only underscored. How many
texts
> do I have to read before I can make an assessment? I have read a
good
> dozen or so over the years. My visceral dislike has only been
redoubled
> each time.

Ok, well, my intent is to take a look at the pseudonymous works when
a more focussed and less polemical energy is possible to me.  Even if
I do not in any way change your opinion, the attempt is worthwhile
for me.

>
> As for Heidegger, friend, I began reading his works in the early
70s,
> and I have read most everything, some things in the original (back
when
> I could). I once counted myself as a Hiedeggerian, before I came to
see
> him as priest in sheep's clothing. Not sure what your point here is.

I was only referring to your comments about Heidegger and Arendt.

>
> Finally, please do not try to make the argument that my rejection
of
> racism is due to the influence of the UN or some kind of political
> straightjacketing. My political orientation is the result of
earnest
> study and not some arty fad. I would again ask you to consider that
> your own intolerance may be the result of factors of a personal
nature.

I find this mildly outrageous.  Having battled all my adult life as a
liberal, in face of increasingly authoritarian political structures
in the Western world, your characterisation of myself as 'intolerant'
is a bit rich.  There is such a thing as violence in this world, my
friend.  I argue peaceably for free speech.  Louise

>
> Wil
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:22 am
> Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth,
or,
> how society fails to work
>
> Wil,
>
>
>
> After you have told me in the past that you will listen without
>
> prejudice, it is difficult to credit the smug dismissal that you
>
> offer here in place of thought.  Especially after you have only just
>
> been handing out a lecture to ALBB on lack of intellectual
>
> conscience.  Try reading the works first, with attention.  I find it
>
> disgusting how many otherwise responsible thinking people have minds
>
> polluted by attention to casual biographical detail, whether about
>
> Regine or anyone else.  You fell into the same trap with Heidegger.
>
> Ultimately, you are one more naive victim of worldwide censorship,
>
> and don't know what you are talking about.  This assessment does not
>
> invalidate my continuing respect for your philosophical learning
when
>
> you really do know your material, which is most of the time.  If I
am
>
> mistaken in any of my assumptions here, feel free to come back at
>
> me.  You offer no evidence, no quotation, only a cheap shot at
>
> someone else's emotional distress.
>
>
>
> Louise
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
>
> >
>
> > No, it can certainly be dismissed with ease. Try it.
>
> >
>
> > Personally, I cannot stand Kierkegaard. I think that he is a
>
> dishonest
>
> > fanatic. Yes, there may be a host of insights along the way of his
>
> > propaganda, but it all remains propaganda, as he himself
>
> continually
>
> > admits.
>
> >
>
> > I find his writings to be, for the most part, pathetic (sorry
>
> Jim,).
>
> > Regina was right to run onto the arms of Schlegel.
>
> >
>
> > Wil
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
>
> > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
>
> > Sent: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:12 am
>
> > Subject:  [existlist] Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth,
>
> or,
>
> > how society fails to work
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The subject of religious faith, or even simply of Christian faith,
>
> >
>
> > involves many other areas of intellectual discourse, not simply
>
> >
>
> > metaphysics.  It cannot so easily be dismissed.  Belief in God is
>
> not
>
> >
>
> > comparable to belief in any being, since God is not a being.  He
is
>
> >
>
> > eternal, not existing.  Only by discussing the works of
Kierkegaard
>
> >
>
> > am I capable of feeling any confidence that I might be able to
make
>
> a
>
> >
>
> > little progress in communicating with clarity, and at present I
must
>
> >
>
> > wait for a better state of health, before attempting such a task.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Louise
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Whenever religion is discussed, or so it seems, the discussion
>
> >
>
> > always goes
>
> >
>
> > > onto something else: ethics and morality, nationality, identity,
>
> >
>
> > meaning, law,
>
> >
>
> > > etc. This is itself telling and begs to be unpacked, as Hegel
and
>
> >
>
> > Nietzsche do
>
> >
>
> > > here and there, but my incomprehension about the belief in 'God'
>
> >
>
> > will not be
>
> >
>
> > > any better assuaged by these side issues than by shouting "boo"
in
>
> >
>
> > a darkened
>
> >
>
> > > room.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > My incomprehension remains: how can anyone today actually think
>
> >
>
> > that there is
>
> >
>
> > > a transcendent-yet-present super being, cosmic creator, infinite
>
> >
>
> > big ear and
>
> >
>
> > > blame-meister, and the rest of it, when it is clearly a
primitive
>
> >
>
> > (and
>
> >
>
> > > primitive's) fantasy no more sophisticated or plausible than any
>
> >
>
> > other sky god touted
>
> >
>
> > > by human ignorance down the millennia? I don't want to hear how
>
> >
>
> > such a belief
>
> >
>
> > > dovetails well with other notions and problems, like whether
>
> little
>
> >
>
> > Johnny
>
> >
>
> > > will wack off to infinity or steal the family SUV without big
sky
>
> >
>
> > daddy watching
>
> >
>
> > > over him, or whether my cumulative behaviors in the bathroom
will
>
> >
>
> > remain
>
> >
>
> > > absurd and lost to the ages without some cosmic noggin knowing
it
>
> >
>
> > forever.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > No, the matter is very simple. The belief in God, qua belief, is
>
> >
>
> > absurd, if
>
> >
>
> > > not irrational and insane.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Wil
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > In a message dated 8/7/08 4:15:17 AM, hecubatoher@ writes:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Since all my life I have lived in England, and for more than
>
> half
>
> >
>
> > of
>
> >
>
> > > > that period have felt keenly the unity of our kingdom, and the
>
> >
>
> > > > importance of the Protestant religion, my comments are with
>
> >
>
> > reference
>
> >
>
> > > > to British society. Given the universal features of the human
>
> >
>
> > > > condition, in spite of the differences implied by nation and
>
> >
>
> > class,
>
> >
>
> > > > it would hardly be surprising if a good deal of what I have to
>
> >
>
> > say,
>
> >
>
> > > > if valid, might apply, mutatis mutandis, to other societies
>
> across
>
> >
>
> > > > the world.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > If one were to imagine oneself as a kind of benign Big Brother
>
> >
>
> > > > figure, a theorist of society, charged with observing the
>
> communal
>
> >
>
> > > > life on this island, in the early twenty-first century, the
>
> >
>
> > salient
>
> >
>
> > > > fact is a fracturing of custom and belief. Culture and
morality
>
> >
>
> > are
>
> >
>
> > > > distinct, and always have been. Good taste and virtue are not
>
> the
>
> >
>
> > > > same. Even excellent manners may be a cover for moral
>
> turpitude. I
>
> >
>
> > > > have long known this, and it is one of the factors which make
me
>
> >
>
> > more
>
> >
>
> > > > susceptible to spiritual influences, render me "the natural
prey
>
> >
>
> > of
>
> >
>
> > > > the incarnate Christ", to borrow a phrase from the poet
>
> >
>
> > C.H.Sisson.
>
> >
>
> > > > Returning to the more general picture, many of the towns,
>
> cities,
>
> >
>
> > and
>
> >
>
> > > > even the smaller settlements of this country exhibit a
>
> bewildering
>
> >
>
> > > > array of communities, not by any means easy to identify
>
> outwardly.
>
> >
>
> > > > The leaching away of any coherent sense of nation, the taboo
on
>
> >
>
> > > > linking the concept of nation with race, which constitutes its
>
> >
>
> > > > historic meaning, and the parallel (though not necessarily
>
> >
>
> > connected)
>
> >
>
> > > > enfeeblement of long-established Christian belief, has left a
>
> >
>
> > vacuum
>
> >
>
> > > > into which all manner of hedonistic chaos and primitive
>
> religious
>
> >
>
> > > > practice have flowed. Religions, of course, may be theistic,
>
> >
>
> > > > atheistic, humanistic, pantheistic, and the rest. Where is the
>
> >
>
> > > > principle for unity, for a decent respect toward the human
image
>
> >
>
> > and
>
> >
>
> > > > the entire panoply of creaturely life?
>
> >
>
> > > > Complexity and habitual contact with duplicities justified by
>
> >
>
> > nothing
>
> >
>
> > > > more than a supposed majority interest (really a kind of
refined
>
> >
>
> > > > lynch law) wear down so many citizens, attack health and
>
> vitality.
>
> >
>
> > > > We are our own worst enemies, and yet some are more the enemy
>
> than
>
> >
>
> > > > others. Who are the criminals, and who are the cops? How many
>
> >
>
> > > > unwritten laws operate?
>
> >
>
> > > > In a way, these musings represent some sort of response to
Wil's
>
> >
>
> > > > incomprehension of why anyone should believe in God. What can
>
> >
>
> > words
>
> >
>
> > > > do, in the end, except name our loves, hates, dilemmas? God
is a
>
> >
>
> > > > very particular word, and meaningless except in context. Truly
>
> >
>
> > > > convinced, genuine, responsible and loving men and women with
>
> >
>
> > > > different doctrinal positions, Roman Catholics and Anglicans,
>
> for
>
> >
>
> > > > instance, may be said meaningfully to worship the same God.
>
> There
>
> >
>
> > is
>
> >
>
> > > > an overlapping heritage to argue or agree about, and
theological
>
> >
>
> > > > language with which to engage one another's intellects without
>
> >
>
> > vanity
>
> >
>
> > > > and pretension. Politics complicate the dialogue, however, and
>
> >
>
> > even
>
> >
>
> > > > more so in the case of disagreements arising with Islam,
>
> Judaism,
>
> >
>
> > and
>
> >
>
> > > > the non-Abrahamic faiths. One of the prevalent cults in
Britain
>
> >
>
> > > > today has evolved from Socialist struggle and the feminist
>
> >
>
> > striving
>
> >
>
> > > > to counter the age-old conflict between the sexes, which
>
> certainly
>
> >
>
> > > > flourishes within socialist circles, as anywhere else. In
truth
>
> >
>
> > the
>
> >
>
> > > > conflict may not be resolved, only sublimated. Christianity is
>
> >
>
> > > > certainly not the only creed to recognise this fact, but any
>
> other
>
> >
>
> > > > remedy lacks historical credibility. I trust that this
statement
>
> >
>
> > of
>
> >
>
> > > > my opinion does not read like an attempt to proselytize, which
>
> >
>
> > would
>
> >
>
> > > > be quite contrary to the spirit and rules of the list. All
>
> >
>
> > > > endeavours to communicate indirectly by pseudonymous
>
> philosophical
>
> >
>
> > > > play were defeated by self-righteous zealotries and my own
>
> >
>
> > inability
>
> >
>
> > > > to tolerate the pain of these assaults. Philosophy with me is
a
>
> >
>
> > > > passion, not a romance, and in conflict with more naturalistic
>
> >
>
> > forces
>
> >
>
> > > > it leads into a war that may not be won. Louise
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > **************
>
> >
>
> > > Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
>
> >
>
> > > Read reviews on AOL Autos.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?
>
> >
>
> > ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

Louise,

I really would rather not have gotten back into all of this, but ...
forced repatriation of races not your own is by definition intolerant.
Unless you have changed your mind recently, you are a liberal only for
and among whites like yourself. By modern standards, that won't do. The
authoritarian political structures that you have battled with, such as
they may have been, do not give you any special dispensation on this
topic. Racism is unsupportable, except within its own perspective,
which is racist. So in order to make racism philosophically coherent
and moral, you have to make the case for racism, which I would suggest
you NOT do.

Finally, your linkage of God and race is not unusual, which is one
reason why I deplore both concepts.

Wil


-----Original Message-----
From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:55 am
Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth, or,
how society fails to work

I find this mildly outrageous. Having battled all my adult life as a
liberal, in face of increasingly authoritarian political structures
in the Western world, your characterisation of myself as 'intolerant'
is a bit rich. There is such a thing as violence in this world, my
friend. I argue peaceably for free speech. Louise

Nitai

"... Both theists and atheists are persons of faith. For either view to
be adhered to one is committing the logical fallacy of "negative proof"
(X is true because X can not be proven to be false, and visa versa).
Agnosticism is the only strictly rational stance in this regard. I am
interested to here (sic) others' thoughts on this point."

Response: That mode of argument is at best facile. I do not have to
prove that six-armed gods do not exist or that cows are not former
relatives. You have to prove they do and are. It is called "the burden
of proof". Look it up.
---
"Furthermore, as an adherent to a monotheistic Vedantic tradition, I
can say, at least in regards to my own practice, it is not inherently a
problem that my tradition requires some trans-rational adherence. This
is so on account of the concept of grace. How might an atheist
harmonize their deviation from reason, considering the phenomenal world
is the all-in-all?"

Response: I reject your notions of grace and harmony.
---
"Vedanta in particular I find to be an incredibly rich and analytical
philosophy and theology... ."

Response: So what? I bet you love your mother as well. Should I, then,
love your mother too?
---
"Logic and reason are not objective, they are colored by our own
desires."

Response: Like the desire to believe in god?

Wil

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
> Nitai
>
> "... Both theists and atheists are persons of faith. For either view to
> be adhered to one is committing the logical fallacy of "negative proof"
> (X is true because X can not be proven to be false, and visa versa).
> Agnosticism is the only strictly rational stance in this regard. I am
> interested to here (sic) others' thoughts on this point."
>
> Response: That mode of argument is at best facile. I do not have to
> prove that six-armed gods do not exist or that cows are not former
> relatives. You have to prove they do and are. It is called "the burden
> of proof". Look it up.


I acknowledge that you are most likely capable of taking me in an
intellectual battle, however only one of your responses addressed the
point and/or was meaningful, additionally, you conveniently did not
address certain points. Your argument above is good and addressing
would involve in depth analysis into logical evidences of metaphysical
realities. I have no time nor do I see such an exercise as plausibly
fructifying, however there are rational arguments for theism. To
consider all theistic thinkers as idiots is, well, idiotic.

> ---
> "Furthermore, as an adherent to a monotheistic Vedantic tradition, I
> can say, at least in regards to my own practice, it is not inherently a
> problem that my tradition requires some trans-rational adherence. This
> is so on account of the concept of grace. How might an atheist
> harmonize their deviation from reason, considering the phenomenal world
> is the all-in-all?"
>
> Response: I reject your notions of grace and harmony.

Thats fine if you reject my notions but the question I posed was
neither refuted as being an illegitimate one, nor addressed in any
attempt to make the act a strictly rational one. Your rejection was
completely irrelevant.


> ---
> "Vedanta in particular I find to be an incredibly rich and analytical
> philosophy and theology... ."
>
> Response: So what? I bet you love your mother as well. Should I, then,
> love your mother too?

This is childish condescension at best. You took the single least
essential (and admittedly unnecessary) statement to the point I was
making and clipped the rest of the paragraph.

> ---
> "Logic and reason are not objective, they are colored by our own
> desires."
>
> Response: Like the desire to believe in god?
>

Again, a selective, reactionary, condescending remark that skirts the
point; but to answer: yes that is quite possibly a desire, as is not
wanting to believe in god and all the possibly attractive implications
of god-less reality. The point was that your mental capacity is not
infallible so in the least some humility and self-suspicion should be
in order. If one agrees that logic is colored by desire (not only the
logic of those they disagree with), than a *logical* next step would
be to introspect as to what one's desire truly is. This is no easy
task but theoretically, to the extent one is seeking objective truths,
objective perception and inference will develop correspondingly.

Nitai

Nitai said:  "Logic and reason are not objective, they are colored by
our own desires. I absolutely do believe in objective reality, but it
is not ascertained via the whimsy of our minds. Arguably, a deity in
the sky is more rational than making a deity of one's own reasoning
capacity...at least we don't have experience of the "sky-god's"
fallibility.

albb:  I see the discussion thread is still moving along on the
subject of God; a persistent meme that is not easily banished by the
scorn of atheist rantings.  I apologized for not knowing the source,
but Pascal said "the heart has reasons the mind knows nothing of." (I
would like to know the source if anyone knows)

In the Tameri lexicon, I found a useful definition for Subjective -
"nothing is certain, it is all opinion, bias, and prejudice":  Which
raises the issue as to why anyone, either atheist or believer could
be so glaringly confident in whether God is or is not a point of
valid concern.  I reaffirm my freedom and decision to believe in God
as a private indiviudal, but that does not mean I have checked my
brains in at the temple door.  For me, faith is hypothetic, not
factual.  I am a product of both reason and a sacred tradition;
however I am mainly interested in the direct personal experience; so
within my lived-life it becomes less and less about the language of
reason or even religious language, but more about the fluid
spontaneous interpersonal experience that Martin Buber described as
the I-thou relationship.  What occurs in the intersubjective
relationship is a very powerful event.  Existentialism is overly
preoccupied with the pity, misery and fate of the self-absorbed
individual, in a bleak dark world that defys explanation; and IMHO
less focused upon the I-thou intimacy and fulfillment of being-with-
others (mit-dasein);which is at the heart of my own happiness;
fleeting as it is.


thank you for your post

Louise said:  Wil, After you have told me in the past that you will
listen without prejudice, it is difficult to credit the smug dismissal
that you offer here in place of thought.  Especially after you have
only just been handing out a lecture to ALBB on lack of intellectual
conscience.

albb: interesting dialogue

Wil,

The least I can do is to clarify what amounts to a seriously
misleading characterisation of my position.  Christian monotheism,
which provides an intellectual framework for my subjective,
philosophical passions, demands of me that I love my neighbour as
myself.  It is a binding requirement, not a choice.  As such, it is
impossible that my liberalism constitutes a set of values only for
and among whites like myself.  To be sure, I believe that justice for
individuals is best assured within the traditional structures
afforded by national sovereignty or tribal kingship, or any other
autonomously-determined system of rule, and am not in favour of
military interventions that fail to ask basic questions about
national interest.  I think that is to the benefit of all mankind, of
whatever race.  My willingness to listen to those who advocate
repatriation on grounds of race, and to indicate my support for their
endeavours peaceably to obtain freedom of speech, is not at all to
say that I personally advocate repatriation.  I understand their
arguments to be based on the belief that only by securing homelands
exclusively for Aryan peoples may the survival of the race be
assured.  In other words, the policy of repatriation in such a
context is justified by similar argument to those employed in cases
of war - a matter of self-defence.  Now, again, personally, I have
not been convinced by any creed of biological racial imperatives.
The physical race is a substrate.  If the race abandons its cultural
heritage, I cease to feel any sense of belonging.  My own passion is
for the continuance of European civilisation, of which the UK forms a
part.  I find racism to be a daft word, like sexism, but it is part
of the vocabulary of modern discourse, and there is little point in
wishing it away.

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
> Louise,
>
> I really would rather not have gotten back into all of this,
but ...
> forced repatriation of races not your own is by definition
intolerant.
> Unless you have changed your mind recently, you are a liberal only
for
> and among whites like yourself. By modern standards, that won't do.
The
> authoritarian political structures that you have battled with, such
as
> they may have been, do not give you any special dispensation on
this
> topic. Racism is unsupportable, except within its own perspective,
> which is racist. So in order to make racism philosophically
coherent
> and moral, you have to make the case for racism, which I would
suggest
> you NOT do.
>
> Finally, your linkage of God and race is not unusual, which is one
> reason why I deplore both concepts.
>
> Wil
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:55 am
> Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth,
or,
> how society fails to work
>
> I find this mildly outrageous. Having battled all my adult life as a
> liberal, in face of increasingly authoritarian political structures
> in the Western world, your characterisation of myself
as 'intolerant'
> is a bit rich. There is such a thing as violence in this world, my
> friend. I argue peaceably for free speech. Louise
>

Louise,

First, let me remind you that the discussion was about belief in God, and
that I had warned against using side issues as proxies in its behalf. You
apparently are unable to do so. So be it.

If you have backed off from your former apparent position regarding racism,
that is fine with me. As far your Xiantiy being the fundamental reason for
'loving your neighbor', and I suppose your 'liberalism' as well, I can only add
that no such intermediary should be necessary for that position, but 'to each
her own, as the saying goes.

This appeal to free speech seems to be a strategic maneuver, and a facile one
at that, to have your cake and eat it too. As if rejecting racism is
tantamount to limiting your right to express yourself. No one here has ever
asked you
to be quiet, although I would counsel you to tread warily down that path.

You want a mono-ethnic society because you privilege 'the West'. I, too,
privilege 'the West', but being an American I know that 'being Western' (which
is
now a global discourse) has nothing to do with ethnicity. I rub elbows with
all kinds of ethnicities every day without any culture shock. Everyone loves
Voltaire and Newton, Einstein and Dickens, I assure you. And, as a special
extra,
there is more to choose from in the supermarket.

Wil

In a message dated 8/8/08 2:49:45 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:


>
>
>
> Wil,
>
> The least I can do is to clarify what amounts to a seriously
> misleading characterisation of my position. Christian monotheism,
> which provides an intellectual framework for my subjective,
> philosophical passions, demands of me that I love my neighbour as
> myself. It is a binding requirement, not a choice. As such, it is
> impossible that my liberalism constitutes a set of values only for
> and among whites like myself. To be sure, I believe that justice for
> individuals is best assured within the traditional structures
> afforded by national sovereignty or tribal kingship, or any other
> autonomously- autonomously-<wbr>determined system of rule, and a
> military interventions that fail to ask basic questions about
> national interest. I think that is to the benefit of all mankind, of
> whatever race. My willingness to listen to those who advocate
> repatriation on grounds of race, and to indicate my support for their
> endeavours peaceably to obtain freedom of speech, is not at all to
> say that I personally advocate repatriation. I understand their
> arguments to be based on the belief that only by securing homelands
> exclusively for Aryan peoples may the survival of the race be
> assured. In other words, the policy of repatriation in such a
> context is justified by similar argument to those employed in cases
> of war - a matter of self-defence. Now, again, personally, I have
> not been convinced by any creed of biological racial imperatives.
> The physical race is a substrate. If the race abandons its cultural
> heritage, I cease to feel any sense of belonging. My own passion is
> for the continuance of European civilisation, of which the UK forms a
> part. I find racism to be a daft word, like sexism, but it is part
> of the vocabulary of modern discourse, and there is little point in
> wishing it away.
>
> Louise
>
>
>




**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.

(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017
)


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

Nitai,

"...[T]here are rational arguments for theism. To consider all theistic
thinkers as idiots is, well, idiotic."

Response: Unless one is using the terms in some cosmological sense, rather
than taking "god" to mean a specific entity, a so-called "personal god", yes I
would call such a person an idiot. At any rate, a simpleton. And that goes for
the concepts of avatar and reincarnate as well.
---
[I reject your notions of grace and harmony.] "Thats fine if you reject my
notions but the question I posed was
neither refuted as being an illegitimate one, nor addressed in any
attempt to make the act a strictly rational one. Your rejection was
completely irrelevant."

Response: No it isn't irrelevant. First of all the notion of grace just begs
the question. Being an ex-Catholic, I am well aware of the slipperiness of the
concept and the affectivities that it conjures up to make the believer swoon
in the belief that he/she is receiving some special wink from 'Him' (Her, It).

The notion of harmony is actually more troublesome. It is a prejudice, even a
conceit, that the 'end' (telos, eschaton) resembles the nothingness of Being
prior to actuality. Actuality (I mean in the phenomenological or 'sentient'
sense) is thus accorded the status of error and is therefore the cause of pain
and suffering. This is really tantamount to the same rejection of the world
that one finds in the "Abrahamic" religions, and in nearly all religions, for
that matter. I am one with Nietzsche here in calling that basic view nihilism.
---
"This is childish condescension at best. You took the single least
essential (and admittedly unnecessary) statement to the point I was
making and clipped the rest of the paragraph."

Response: My point was that it is hardly a big surprise that you privilege
the religion that you were born into. How lucky you are you just happen to have
been born into the truth. Ha! What are the odds!
---
"The point was that your mental capacity is not infallible so in the least
some humility and self-suspicion should be in order."

Response: Yes, but that proviso is all the more important for those making
the larger and less plausible case of a god. God is a primitive idea.
---
"If one agrees that logic is colored by desire (not only the logic of those
they disagree with), than a *logical* next step would be to introspect as to
what one's desire truly is. This is no easy task but theoretically, to the
extent one is seeking objective truths, objective perception and inference will
develop correspondingly."

Response: It would be more accurate to say that logic is at the service of
intentionality, but intentionality is not necessarily the same thing as
falsification. Intentionality adumbrates the world. In any case, modern physics
has
provided enough theoretical apparatuses to avoid the god hypothesis altogether.
Ockham's razor is called for here. Therefore the onus is on the shoulders of
the theists to show that they have anything to add at all.

Wil



**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.

(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017
)


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