While he was twisting,slowly after his recent rant there was a moment when  some

mercy crept into mind. Luckily I did not push the send button.A much more

important event in the world of letters has taken place ,JD Sallinger died. I

will let some scholar fill in the ties between JD and the writers workshop. I

spent a year with a workshop professor and it makes this mickey mouse game just

a turkey shoot.

  I read "Catcher in the Rye' very early on. I do not remember the story line,I

remember it as an attitude changer. Before the book I  was angry but thought I

was wrong, after the book I began to see my own perspective in a better light.

That was what the workshop demanded. Put your ideas out there and take the

blows. There are all kinds of arm chair quarterbacks out there who sit on their

spotless thrones and cherry pick as an ego boost. Like Obama says if you want to

keep your numbers up,do nothing. Thinking,it is about thinking ,not copying

others work. Sallanger and  Vonnigut wrote in that slashing style which caused

emotional growth. They could make you detest yourself for being so duped by the

staid mediocracy of accepted situations.

  Now I think TC has accused Mary of being Louise. Or Louise being Mary. Where

did he get that and how is such a rumor resolved? I know Mary likes Camus and

Louise hates the French existentialists. The straw man has been a literary

device for a long time. People do it because they can. Some ideas may be so

dangerous that a straw man cover becomes  the only option. I am sure the numb

nuts that memorise lists can give us numerous examples of such cover. I will

take a covered idea before I can respect a lifting. Lifting an entire persona is

an artistic achievement. This title,which I think I authored seems most apt but

then again we must suspect anything that might pose change. Bill

Bill, I'm flattered that anyone would think I am Louise, because her erudition

is exemplary and her integrity fearsome. I recently admitted via a member

profile "memo" that I've had several pseudonyms over nearly seven years, I have

never talked to myself here, at least not until recently which prompted the

confession. I don't do guile very well. Trinidad is a persona but not mine. I am

only Mary, playing with ideas, keeping the absurd in its place.



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

>

> While he was twisting,slowly after his recent rant there was a moment when 

some mercy crept into mind. Luckily I did not push the send button.A much more

important event in the world of letters has taken place ,JD Sallinger died. I

will let some scholar fill in the ties between JD and the writers workshop. I

spent a year with a workshop professor and it makes this mickey mouse game just

a turkey shoot.

>  I read "Catcher in the Rye' very early on. I do not remember the story line,I

remember it as an attitude changer. Before the book I  was angry but thought I

was wrong, after the book I began to see my own perspective in a better light.

That was what the workshop demanded. Put your ideas out there and take the

blows. There are all kinds of arm chair quarterbacks out there who sit on their

spotless thrones and cherry pick as an ego boost. Like Obama says if you want to

keep your numbers up,do nothing. Thinking,it is about thinking ,not copying

others work. Sallanger and  Vonnigut wrote in that slashing style which caused

emotional growth. They could make you detest yourself for being so duped by the

staid mediocracy of accepted situations.

>  Now I think TC has accused Mary of being Louise. Or Louise being Mary. Where

did he get that and how is such a rumor resolved? I know Mary likes Camus and

Louise hates the French existentialists. The straw man has been a literary

device for a long time. People do it because they can. Some ideas may be so

dangerous that a straw man cover becomes  the only option. I am sure the numb

nuts that memorise lists can give us numerous examples of such cover. I will

take a covered idea before I can respect a lifting. Lifting an entire persona is

an artistic achievement. This title,which I think I authored seems most apt but

then again we must suspect anything that might pose change. Bill

>

Mary, it seemed a huge stretch but  if I remember the very early Mary she

arrived as an artist. TC has been a starving revolutionary on the streets of

Chicago.I always smell FBI whan TC or Wil get going about Marx or Castro or any

of pink platoon.

  My war was the cold war and the gloved hand was always operating and was

usually most illusive. I developed suspicians that were triggered automatically

in the presance of seemingly innocuous  presentations.I hope they take it off

line as they run risks perhaps for others when  they take that tac. It seems

both have been burned before but neither may be who they present. Cyber

uncertainty rages on. Bill



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:

>

> Bill, I'm flattered that anyone would think I am Louise, because her erudition

is exemplary and her integrity fearsome. I recently admitted via a member

profile "memo" that I've had several pseudonyms over nearly seven years, I have

never talked to myself here, at least not until recently which prompted the

confession. I don't do guile very well. Trinidad is a persona but not mine. I am

only Mary, playing with ideas, keeping the absurd in its place.

>

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

> >

> > While he was twisting,slowly after his recent rant there was a moment when 

some mercy crept into mind. Luckily I did not push the send button.A much more

important event in the world of letters has taken place ,JD Sallinger died. I

will let some scholar fill in the ties between JD and the writers workshop. I

spent a year with a workshop professor and it makes this mickey mouse game just

a turkey shoot.

> >  I read "Catcher in the Rye' very early on. I do not remember the story

line,I remember it as an attitude changer. Before the book I  was angry but

thought I was wrong, after the book I began to see my own perspective in a

better light. That was what the workshop demanded. Put your ideas out there and

take the blows. There are all kinds of arm chair quarterbacks out there who sit

on their spotless thrones and cherry pick as an ego boost. Like Obama says if

you want to keep your numbers up,do nothing. Thinking,it is about thinking ,not

copying others work. Sallanger and  Vonnigut wrote in that slashing style which

caused emotional growth. They could make you detest yourself for being so duped

by the staid mediocracy of accepted situations.

> >  Now I think TC has accused Mary of being Louise. Or Louise being Mary.

Where did he get that and how is such a rumor resolved? I know Mary likes Camus

and Louise hates the French existentialists. The straw man has been a literary

device for a long time. People do it because they can. Some ideas may be so

dangerous that a straw man cover becomes  the only option. I am sure the numb

nuts that memorise lists can give us numerous examples of such cover. I will

take a covered idea before I can respect a lifting. Lifting an entire persona is

an artistic achievement. This title,which I think I authored seems most apt but

then again we must suspect anything that might pose change. Bill

> >

>

I just want moose and squirrel.



Wil aka Boris







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

Adjust your reading glasses. I never said you were Lou, only that I was unaware

after being absent that you had two personnas here. Lou has had several, but you

had more than one as well so I became confused. Gee I'm sorry. I would have

worded my post differently had I thought the Ramona person was you. If you want

to drive nails in I think you should just have at it. I'll use the damn hammer

on myself if you prefer.



Finally you are wrong to be so taken with Aronson's or whatever the hell it is

biography of Sartre. Read Cohen. Go against the grain. Nobody screwed up Sartre

more than Levy at the end, but maybe you think that's your new calling to do for

me? I don't think you get Sartre at all as a matter of fact. He was often

entirely a performance artist and he didn't want to be possessed as an icon by

other ideas, he wanted to be the icon outside of lesser ideas, the only

exception communism. Don't tell me what to do or what I can say or write. Go

ahead and judge me, and even punish me, but don't you dare try to infringe on my

literary freedom or discredit me in some game of jaded distemper. Don't you

dare.



tc



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:

>

> Bill, I'm flattered that anyone would think I am Louise, because her erudition

is exemplary and her integrity fearsome. I recently admitted via a member

profile "memo" that I've had several pseudonyms over nearly seven years, I have

never talked to myself here, at least not until recently which prompted the

confession. I don't do guile very well. Trinidad is a persona but not mine. I am

only Mary, playing with ideas, keeping the absurd in its place.

>

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

> >

> > While he was twisting,slowly after his recent rant there was a moment when 

some mercy crept into mind. Luckily I did not push the send button.A much more

important event in the world of letters has taken place ,JD Sallinger died. I

will let some scholar fill in the ties between JD and the writers workshop. I

spent a year with a workshop professor and it makes this mickey mouse game just

a turkey shoot.

> >  I read "Catcher in the Rye' very early on. I do not remember the story

line,I remember it as an attitude changer. Before the book I  was angry but

thought I was wrong, after the book I began to see my own perspective in a

better light. That was what the workshop demanded. Put your ideas out there and

take the blows. There are all kinds of arm chair quarterbacks out there who sit

on their spotless thrones and cherry pick as an ego boost. Like Obama says if

you want to keep your numbers up,do nothing. Thinking,it is about thinking ,not

copying others work. Sallanger and  Vonnigut wrote in that slashing style which

caused emotional growth. They could make you detest yourself for being so duped

by the staid mediocracy of accepted situations.

> >  Now I think TC has accused Mary of being Louise. Or Louise being Mary.

Where did he get that and how is such a rumor resolved? I know Mary likes Camus

and Louise hates the French existentialists. The straw man has been a literary

device for a long time. People do it because they can. Some ideas may be so

dangerous that a straw man cover becomes  the only option. I am sure the numb

nuts that memorise lists can give us numerous examples of such cover. I will

take a covered idea before I can respect a lifting. Lifting an entire persona is

an artistic achievement. This title,which I think I authored seems most apt but

then again we must suspect anything that might pose change. Bill

> >

>

louise,



Is there a software application available to help open this file?



Mary

Mary,

I didn't click that link figuring it was from something bad (phishing) that took

control of Louise's email program.



h.



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:

>

> louise,

>

> Is there a software application available to help open this file?

>

> Mary

>

Thanks, h. I keep forgetting the pitfalls of public unmonitored groups.



I hope louise still reads here occasionally and discovers the theft.



Mary



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "existlist" <hermitcrab65@...> wrote:

>

> Mary,

> I didn't click that link figuring it was from something bad (phishing) that

took control of Louise's email program.

>

> h.

>

> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:

> >

> > louise,

> >

> > Is there a software application available to help open this file?

> >

> > Mary

> >

>

Bill,



It is not at all true, that I hate the French existentialists.  There was only a

general distrust, quite without hate, of French intellectual thought.  My

empiricist instincts have not proved strong enough, in the event, to carry me

through the storms in recent years, and I begin to learn some new perceptions,

from Jean-Paul, especially about the nature of the Other, which I used to

suspect was mere philosophical jargon.



So my prejudices have not turned out as benignly as I thought.  There need be

adequate understanding and trust, between persons of differing perspectives, for

prejudice to remain good-humoured and fruitful.  Somehow this truth never found

the right expression in my life and writing.  I did not succeed in communicating

certain elements of my thought, because I failed to understand what was lacking

in my perceptions.  And yet, for all that, your own imaginative responses to

mine as to others' posts bring to my attention interpretations I could not find

for myself.  Something for which I am thankful.  Hoping that your hard-won

existential narratives

are going to re-appear here before too long.



Louise

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

>

> While he was twisting,slowly after his recent rant there was a moment when 

some mercy crept into mind. Luckily I did not push the send button.A much more

important event in the world of letters has taken place ,JD Sallinger died. I

will let some scholar fill in the ties between JD and the writers workshop. I

spent a year with a workshop professor and it makes this mickey mouse game just

a turkey shoot.

>  I read "Catcher in the Rye' very early on. I do not remember the story line,I

remember it as an attitude changer. Before the book I  was angry but thought I

was wrong, after the book I began to see my own perspective in a better light.

That was what the workshop demanded. Put your ideas out there and take the

blows. There are all kinds of arm chair quarterbacks out there who sit on their

spotless thrones and cherry pick as an ego boost. Like Obama says if you want to

keep your numbers up,do nothing. Thinking,it is about thinking ,not copying

others work. Sallanger and  Vonnigut wrote in that slashing style which caused

emotional growth. They could make you detest yourself for being so duped by the

staid mediocracy of accepted situations.

>  Now I think TC has accused Mary of being Louise. Or Louise being Mary. Where

did he get that and how is such a rumor resolved? I know Mary likes Camus and

Louise hates the French existentialists. The straw man has been a literary

device for a long time. People do it because they can. Some ideas may be so

dangerous that a straw man cover becomes  the only option. I am sure the numb

nuts that memorise lists can give us numerous examples of such cover. I will

take a covered idea before I can respect a lifting. Lifting an entire persona is

an artistic achievement. This title,which I think I authored seems most apt but

then again we must suspect anything that might pose change. Bill

>

Hi Louise,



On 7 February 2010 08:52, fleeting_return <hecubatoher@...> wrote:

> Bill,

>

> It is not at all true, that I hate the French existentialists.  There was only

a general distrust, quite without hate, of French intellectual thought.  My

empiricist instincts have not proved strong enough, in the event, to carry me

through the storms in recent years, and I begin to learn some new perceptions,

from Jean-Paul, especially about the nature of the Other, which I used to

suspect was mere philosophical jargon.

>

> So my prejudices have not turned out as benignly as I thought.  There need be

adequate understanding and trust, between persons of differing perspectives, for

prejudice to remain good-humoured and fruitful.  Somehow this truth never found

the right expression in my life and writing.  I did not succeed in communicating

certain elements of my thought, because I failed to understand what was lacking

in my perceptions.  And yet, for all that, your own imaginative responses to

mine as to others' posts bring to my attention interpretations I could not find

for myself.  Something for which I am thankful.  Hoping that your hard-won

existential narratives

> are going to re-appear here before too long.

>



You do not have to be consistent.



You do not have to be anything.



You question Wil re his position on the murder of the children of the

last Csar & Csarina.



You defend Bill, who would have Tim Leary shot.



I cannot glean anything from that, apart from that perhaps personal

like and dislike plays a role.



Polly

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Louise,

>

> On 7 February 2010 08:52, fleeting_return <hecubatoher@...> wrote:

> > Bill,

> >

> > It is not at all true, that I hate the French existentialists.  There was

only a general distrust, quite without hate, of French intellectual thought.  My

empiricist instincts have not proved strong enough, in the event, to carry me

through the storms in recent years, and I begin to learn some new perceptions,

from Jean-Paul, especially about the nature of the Other, which I used to

suspect was mere philosophical jargon.

> >

> > So my prejudices have not turned out as benignly as I thought.  There need

be adequate understanding and trust, between persons of differing perspectives,

for prejudice to remain good-humoured and fruitful.  Somehow this truth never

found the right expression in my life and writing.  I did not succeed in

communicating certain elements of my thought, because I failed to understand

what was lacking in my perceptions.  And yet, for all that, your own imaginative

responses to mine as to others' posts bring to my attention interpretations I

could not find for myself.  Something for which I am thankful.  Hoping that your

hard-won existential narratives

> > are going to re-appear here before too long.

> >

>

> You do not have to be consistent.



No, I do not have to be consistent, but I should like to be authentic.



>

> You do not have to be anything.

>

> You question Wil re his position on the murder of the children of

> the last Csar & Csarina.



Yes, I think this was an irrational response, owing to my being upset at Wil's

charge against Bill that he was indulging homicidal fantasies.  When I was

arguing, some time ago, for peaceable democratic process, I was much upset by

Wil's jokes and bloody fantasies dredged from the French Revolution, and so on. 

Anyway, none of this seems a philosophic and measured response to conversation

here, so I would rather bow out of the conversation.



>

> You defend Bill, who would have Tim Leary shot.



I haven't defended his position about shooting Tim Leary.



>

> I cannot glean anything from that, apart from that perhaps personal

> like and dislike plays a role.



No, I don't think in this instance there is any differential.  As I say, other

irrational factors.  Hence an inauthentic response.  A painful conclusion to

which your feedback, Polly, helps me.



>

> Polly

>

Hi Louise,



On 8 February 2010 07:41, fleeting_return <hecubatoher@...> wrote:

> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:

>>

>> You do not have to be consistent.

>

> No, I do not have to be consistent, but I should like to be authentic.

>

>>

>> You do not have to be anything.

>>

>> You question Wil re his position on the murder of the children of

>> the last Csar & Csarina.

>

> Yes, I think this was an irrational response, owing to my being upset at Wil's

charge against Bill that he was indulging homicidal fantasies.  When I was

arguing, some time ago, for peaceable democratic process, I was much upset by

Wil's jokes and bloody fantasies dredged from the French Revolution, and so on.

 Anyway, none of this seems a philosophic and measured response to conversation

here, so I would rather bow out of the conversation.

>



Thanks for your reply, Louise.



I would prefer a conversation with you over no conversation with you,

anytime. And, like you, I hope Bill becomes an active participant

again real soon.



Cheers





Polly

Louise, I quite obviously had problems with authenticity, hence the need for

pseudonyms. Perhaps it's fear of disagreement and conflict. I've not been able

to thoroughly determine if understanding others undermines my own thoughts and

emotions, or I actually don't have any of my own. How can I be authentic if I

keep changing my mind? Mary



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



No, I do not have to be consistent, but I should like to be authentic.

Hi Mary, Tom and all,



On 9 February 2010 02:56, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

> Louise, I quite obviously had problems with authenticity, hence the need for

pseudonyms. Perhaps it's fear of disagreement and conflict. I've not been able

to thoroughly determine if understanding others undermines my own thoughts and

emotions, or I actually don't have any of my own. How can I be authentic if I

keep changing my mind?



Like Tom, I see authenticity as a work in progress. My own take on it

is that one has become an authentic person when the same core values

are on display, no matter what situation. This would be in contrast

with an opportunistic mindset. I think it comes back to how one sees

the boundary between self / other, and whether one believes it is

possible to outsmart the system and have or be a value while denying

that for others.



Reaching authenticity is not easy, I don't know many contemporary

examples of authentic people, Gandhi comes to mind, and Mandela. I

don't think that being a leader and authentic necessarily go hand in

hand, it's just that authentic people are unshakeable in their

understanding and resolve. (that doesn't mean that unshakeable people

are necessarily authentic, there is that certain unshakeable,

unfounded faith in oneself a la George W that lacks all insight into

itself). Still, when more than 50% vote for you, that's where things

are at. Just like South Africa can replace a Mandela with a Zuma, who

has 20 kids, 4 wives, and still finds it necessary to find more women

to mount.



Polly

  Polly,



This would be your own definition of authenticity? It wouldn't be anything like

Heidegger's or anything like what Sartre talks about.



Wil





-----Original Message-----

From: Herman <hhofmeister@...>

To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Mon, Feb 8, 2010 4:21 pm

Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: extopical tutorial











Hi Mary, Tom and all,



On 9 February 2010 02:56, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

> Louise, I quite obviously had problems with authenticity, hence the need for

pseudonyms. Perhaps it's fear of disagreement and conflict. I've not been able

to thoroughly determine if understanding others undermines my own thoughts and

emotions, or I actually don't have any of my own. How can I be authentic if I

keep changing my mind?



Like Tom, I see authenticity as a work in progress. My own take on it

is that one has become an authentic person when the same core values

are on display, no matter what situation. This would be in contrast

with an opportunistic mindset. I think it comes back to how one sees

the boundary between self / other, and whether one believes it is

possible to outsmart the system and have or be a value while denying

that for others.



Reaching authenticity is not easy, I don't know many contemporary

examples of authentic people, Gandhi comes to mind, and Mandela. I

don't think that being a leader and authentic necessarily go hand in

hand, it's just that authentic people are unshakeable in their

understanding and resolve. (that doesn't mean that unshakeable people

are necessarily authentic, there is that certain unshakeable,

unfounded faith in oneself a la George W that lacks all insight into

itself). Still, when more than 50% vote for you, that's where things

are at. Just like South Africa can replace a Mandela with a Zuma, who

has 20 kids, 4 wives, and still finds it necessary to find more women

to mount.



Polly

















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

Hi Wil,



On 9 February 2010 09:55,  <eupraxis@...> wrote:

>

>  Polly,

>

> This would be your own definition of authenticity? It wouldn't be anything

like Heidegger's or anything like what Sartre talks about.

>

>



I guess mine is an extension of Sartre's version. It recognises that

being for others and being for self become identical when one stops

lying about oneself.



Polly









  Wil

>

>

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

> From: Herman <hhofmeister@...>

> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

> Sent: Mon, Feb 8, 2010 4:21 pm

> Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: extopical tutorial

>

>

>

>

>

> Hi Mary, Tom and all,

>

> On 9 February 2010 02:56, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

>> Louise, I quite obviously had problems with authenticity, hence the need for

pseudonyms. Perhaps it's fear of disagreement and conflict. I've not been able

to thoroughly determine if understanding others undermines my own thoughts and

emotions, or I actually don't have any of my own. How can I be authentic if I

keep changing my mind?

>

> Like Tom, I see authenticity as a work in progress. My own take on it

> is that one has become an authentic person when the same core values

> are on display, no matter what situation. This would be in contrast

> with an opportunistic mindset. I think it comes back to how one sees

> the boundary between self / other, and whether one believes it is

> possible to outsmart the system and have or be a value while denying

> that for others.

>

> Reaching authenticity is not easy, I don't know many contemporary

> examples of authentic people, Gandhi comes to mind, and Mandela. I

> don't think that being a leader and authentic necessarily go hand in

> hand, it's just that authentic people are unshakeable in their

> understanding and resolve. (that doesn't mean that unshakeable people

> are necessarily authentic, there is that certain unshakeable,

> unfounded faith in oneself a la George W that lacks all insight into

> itself). Still, when more than 50% vote for you, that's where things

> are at. Just like South Africa can replace a Mandela with a Zuma, who

> has 20 kids, 4 wives, and still finds it necessary to find more women

> to mount.

>

> Polly

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

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

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

>

> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

Mary,



I don't believe that you changing your mind necesarily involves you not being

authentic. Here is one of the definitions of authentic I found online  : true to

one's own personality, spirit, or character.From that framework, your views are

authentic expressions of yourself at different times. Several  things can be 

involved in changes of mind. One is the acquisition of new facts or

experiences;we move into different roles,and different values within the psche

may emerge to  become the more dominant. George Soros prides himself on his

ability to admit mistakes and apply appropriate correctives. He says that is the

key to his financial success. One of his primary ideas is the concept of

fallibility, which assumes that our ideas about reality will probablynot  match

reality 100%, but hopefully we can progressivly move closer both as individuals

and society.And as for values, the Bhagavad Gita potrayed the leading character,

Arjuna, torn between two loyalties as two armies prepare to fight. The book is

the discource Arjuna has with Krishna, his universal self, concerning this.



Anyway, changing is usually indicative of growing;whereas views that are

unchanged after many years often indicates being stuck.



Peace,

Tom



   ----- Original Message -----

   From: Mary

   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

   Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:56 AM

   Subject: [existlist] Re: extopical tutorial







   Louise, I quite obviously had problems with authenticity, hence the need for

pseudonyms. Perhaps it's fear of disagreement and conflict. I've not been able

to thoroughly determine if understanding others undermines my own thoughts and

emotions, or I actually don't have any of my own. How can I be authentic if I

keep changing my mind? Mary



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



   No, I do not have to be consistent, but I should like to be authentic.











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