Hi Bill and all,

On 30 June 2010 01:28, William <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
> My last post  was rejected but it delt with the moderation of this group .
Speaking truth to power remains a tenous business so I will lay it gently
between the lines so as not to arouse >their majestys.

I find it a matter of regret that you are being silenced, especially
given that the moderators find the deluge from our resident feral
troll acceptable.

I think the regulars here have collectively been quite capable of
sorting out the wheat from the chaff. It would take all of two minutes
to start another group. Any takers?

Polly

Polly, Bill and all,

Firstly, I am wondering, was the post in question definitely rejected by the
moderator, or was it a Yahoo glitch?

Secondly, Susan has related recently, in an exchange with Wil, that her moves to
ban Dick's posts were defeated by his constantly taking up new e-mail addresses.

If Bill is being silenced, as a matter of policy, I too find that a matter for
regret.  At present, I would like to be sure of the facts, and ask the moderator
if she would like to comment.

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill and all,
>
> On 30 June 2010 01:28, William <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
> > My last post  was rejected but it delt with the moderation of this group .
Speaking truth to power remains a tenous business so I will lay it gently
between the lines so as not to arouse >their majestys.
>
> I find it a matter of regret that you are being silenced, especially
> given that the moderators find the deluge from our resident feral
> troll acceptable.
>
> I think the regulars here have collectively been quite capable of
> sorting out the wheat from the chaff. It would take all of two minutes
> to start another group. Any takers?
>
> Polly
>

Hi Mary,

On 30 June 2010 02:15, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Never fear. I believe in your right to bear arms. I'm coincidentally reading
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, a horrific tale of white scalp-hunters along
the Mexican border before the U.S. Civil War, another bloodbath. This world
isn't fully civilized, and the right to protect one's >person and property is
paramount.

Proudhon wrote in the 1840's "Property is theft". He would say that
you are arguing for the right to protect lands that were appropriated
by force and deceit.


> How could I deny the right of women in Afghanistan to protect themselves? I
think we should work towards creating societies wherein we don't need weapons.
Idealism and realism work together, yes?
>

One can only claim to own something if others can be excluded from use
of that something. Weapons are essential to maintaining the belief in
private property. Do you dare dream of common wealth?


Polly

Hi Louise,

On 30 June 2010 09:13, shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
> Polly, Bill and all,
>
> Firstly, I am wondering, was the post in question definitely rejected by the
moderator, or was it a Yahoo glitch?
>
> Secondly, Susan has related recently, in an exchange with Wil, that her moves
to ban Dick's posts were defeated by his constantly taking up new e-mail
addresses.
>
> If Bill is being silenced, as a matter of policy, I too find that a matter for
regret.  At present, I would like to be sure of the facts, and ask the moderator
if she would like to comment.
>

Yes, it is good to be sure of the facts.

I would not object to prospective members having to be approved by the
moderators first, with a trial period of one or two posts. That is
easily implementable. And Merlin Dick Pendarvis lacks the insight to
masquerade as anyone but his own miserable self once he is questioned.

Polly

Polly,

I'm arguing for the right of the indigenous peoples to have protected their
ancestral homes as well. Yes, I dare to dream that dream :)

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mary,
>
> On 30 June 2010 02:15, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
> > Bill,
> >
> > Never fear. I believe in your right to bear arms. I'm coincidentally reading
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, a horrific tale of white scalp-hunters along
the Mexican border before the U.S. Civil War, another bloodbath. This world
isn't fully civilized, and the right to protect one's >person and property is
paramount.
>
> Proudhon wrote in the 1840's "Property is theft". He would say that
> you are arguing for the right to protect lands that were appropriated
> by force and deceit.
>
>
> > How could I deny the right of women in Afghanistan to protect themselves? I
think we should work towards creating societies wherein we don't need weapons.
Idealism and realism work together, yes?
> >
>
> One can only claim to own something if others can be excluded from use
> of that something. Weapons are essential to maintaining the belief in
> private property. Do you dare dream of common wealth?
>
>
> Polly
>

Hi Mary,

On 30 June 2010 09:41, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
> Polly,
>
> I'm arguing for the right of the indigenous peoples to have protected their
ancestral homes as well. Yes, I dare to dream that dream :)
>

Me too :-) I'd also be very interested in what others may have to say.

Polly

I decided to make a start on "Adieux", Beauvoir's farewell to Sartre, and
thought these passages interesting enough to share:

~ In 1954 Roger Garaudy had said to him, "Let us both work on one and the same
character, with me explaining him according to Marxist and you according to
existentialist methods."  Sartre chose Flaubert, whom he had treated very
harshly in "What is Literature?" but who had quite won him over when he read his
correspondence.  What he found most attractive in Flaubert was his exaltation of
the imaginary above all other factors. --------------
His Maoist friends were more or less opposed to this undertaking.  They would
have preferred Sartre to write some militant treatise or a great novel designed
for the people.  But on this point he had no intention of yielding to any
pressure whatsoever.  He understood his comrades' point of view, but he did not
share it.  "If I look at the subject matter", he said, speaking of "The Family
Idiot", "I have the impression of an escape.  If, on the other hand, I look at
the method, I have a feeling of being here, in the immediate present."
Later he returned to the question in a lecture he gave in Brussels.  "For
seventeen years I have been harnessed to a work on Flaubert, a book that could
not interest the workers because it is written in a complicated and certainly
bourgeois style .... I am bound to it. That is, I am sixty-seven, I have been
working on it since I was fifty, and I used to dream about it before that ....
Insofar as I am writing about Flaubert I am an *enfant terrible* belonging to
the bourgeoisie, a subject for reclamation."
His basic idea was that at no matter what point in history and whatever the
social and political context, it was still essential to understand people and
that his study of Flaubert might be of use to that end. ~

This rings true to me, the supreme importance of method, which itself is a kind
of subject matter.

Louise

Mary and Polly,

I find that dream too utopian to dream.  It does not fit with what I am able to
imagine as an outcome that might unfold.  It is more feasible, for me, to dream
of a society in which wealth were more proportionate to the individual's
capacity to benefit self and others therewith.  I am not myself persuaded that
property is theft.  It is a form of convention, backed by power, which has a
long history.  Though I am not entirely clear whether the proposed dreaming is
about mainstream Western cultures, or purely aboriginal societies.  In the case
of the latter, it is my ignorance of those societies that inhibits the capacity
to dream, as well as a sense of impropriety, somehow.  I mean, a feeling that it
is not my dream to dream.  Or is it a dream about restitutive justice to be put
in place by Western governments?

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mary,
>
> On 30 June 2010 09:41, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
> > Polly,
> >
> > I'm arguing for the right of the indigenous peoples to have protected their
ancestral homes as well. Yes, I dare to dream that dream :)
> >
>
> Me too :-) I'd also be very interested in what others may have to say.
>
> Polly
>

Polly,

The practical problem has often been a beautiful dream turning into a Stalinist
nightmare. Did u ever read animal farm. I am not saying at some point such a
society might be feasible, but the 20th century showed us in most cases what was
originally a beautiful dream becoming a collectivist hive run by commisars. As
the pigs eventually started saying in "Animal Farm" "All animals are equal, but
some are more equal than others".Communism is one thing as an undergroujnd arty
intellectual thing, and quite another as  a state dogma. Only communist
countries have built walls to keep people in.

Peace,
Tom
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Herman
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 6:30 PM
   Subject: Re: [existlist] Property is theft



   Hi Mary,

   On 30 June 2010 02:15, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
   > Bill,
   >
   > Never fear. I believe in your right to bear arms. I'm coincidentally reading
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, a horrific tale of white scalp-hunters along
the Mexican border before the U.S. Civil War, another bloodbath. This world
isn't fully civilized, and the right to protect one's >person and property is
paramount.

   Proudhon wrote in the 1840's "Property is theft". He would say that
   you are arguing for the right to protect lands that were appropriated
   by force and deceit.

   > How could I deny the right of women in Afghanistan to protect themselves? I
think we should work towards creating societies wherein we don't need weapons.
Idealism and realism work together, yes?
   >

   One can only claim to own something if others can be excluded from use
   of that something. Weapons are essential to maintaining the belief in
   private property. Do you dare dream of common wealth?

   Polly




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

Subjective Responsibility



Yet another thing that few seem to agree upon. Why  is that?  Something
happens, so who or  what was/is responsible for it?  Joe  Blogs develops
syphilis at a young age, has a miserable life and dies at forty.  Why?
Put it down to the will of the gods?   Well, you can if you want to, but
not me. How come that he got  syphilis?  It is not caused by sunshine
or rain.



Things happen which are plainly the result of objective responsibility.
By this I mean not you. It might be the result of the actions of no
living  entity, the wind, the rain, an earthquake, whatever, or it might
have been due  to him or her or some other living critter, all of which
I am classifying here  as objective responsibility, that is to say not
you. Then there is the result of  our own actions; subjective
responsibility.   Annie Blogs is born with no legs. Hardly her fault or
doing was it. Olive  Blogs was born with severe learning difficulty, one
can hardly make her  responsible for that can one.  So on and  so forth.



But most people seem to be put together within a range which we call
`normal' and all the bits seem to be working well enough and fit
for  purpose.  The body gets them around fine,  they can think, feel,
observe, and take part in `normal' life. But nonetheless  stuff
is going to happen to them which is none of their doing at all; and too
much to warrant mentioning and giving examples of which.



Then, as opposed to this, there are the repercussions of their own
chosen  actions.  The result of such actions may  only apply to them or
they might also apply to other people and or the world  itself. Thus,
from another persons perspective the action is due to objective
responsibility – you not them. The whole shebang set up is a vast
web of causes  and effects. Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing does
not cause something.  There is no such thing, phenomenon, as nothing.
Nothing does not exist.  So, what causes this and that to  happen?



There are very few things that you and I can do which are not going to
cause effects. Cyril Blogs falls off a ladder. There was nothing wrong
with the  ladder and Cyril did not decide to fall off the ladder, he was
just careless,  slipped and fell. His good lady wife got him tucked up
in bed and went to the  drug store to pick up some bandages etc. On the
way there a drunk driver drove  up on the pavement knocked her down and
killed her.  Can it be said that she died because he was  careless on
the ladder? Had he not fallen then she would not have been in the  path
of a drunk driver right at the moment. But it was the car that knocked
her  down that was the cause of her death. But cars do not go for a ride
on their  own, and somebody was driving it – or rather not driving
it properly and with  due care and attention. Had it not been a drunk
driver but rather somebody had  had a heart attack whilst driving then
the effect would be the same but the  cause would be different. And so
it goes. What an intricate web it all is.  Believe it or not there are
some folks who say that somebody is doing all this,  and pulling all the
strings of everything that ever happens and comes to be.  What a lovely
cop-out.



However, and despite all this, and which is real enough, one also has to
add to the mix that which was caused by you (or me or him or her) due to
ones  own deliberated actions. `I am going to do this'! And one
does it. Doing that  thing cannot NOT cause effects can it. It has to
cause effects because that is  how the web of reality works.  It is all
tied together with little strings :- ) So to speak. A causal web. Some
like to  say that there is no such thing as the freedom to choose to do
this or that. And  there is not a really a thing there deciding to do
it.  So, that lets them off the hook of any  responsibility and the
whole shebang lot of it is an irrelevant farce.  And they chose to say
it :- ))) I wonder why  they eat and do anything. Where are you going on
your day off work?  And why there? And what are you going to do  there?
And why?  Is all a case of  `I want I want I want'; or is it a
case of  `this looks like it might be the best thing to do'?



How many folks give thought to their actions before doing them?  Only
they can know that. Does that thinking  take into account all the
possible ramifications of what might happen due to  that action? We
cannot know for sure as to what will happen due to the web of
possibilities, but we can contemplate the reactions and possible effects
as best  as we can each manage to do so before taking that action. What
is it that  finally makes one decide on this or that action?  What is
the arbiter of judgement prior to the  act being performed?  To what
degree is  reason and or emotion the fulcrum on the scales of judgement?
Study yourself. It  is the closet thing at hand to study. Then, when
done, work outwards. Or is it  too much trouble?



Dick Richardson





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

Never having owned property then I neither paid for it or stole it. But
I have owned some artefacts which I paid cash for.  I have owned some
pens, clothes, bikes, a few cars, and other odds and sods. There is
nothing wrong in owning some of the products of society, the problem
comes from the means of acquasition; how and why one acquires them, and
what you do with them when once acquired.  Do you want something so bad
that you are prepared to save up for it or are you going to pinch it? Do
you want to rule other peoples lives?  If so why? Is not living your own
life problem enough and fun enough?  All the little judges sitting
behind their little computers, yak yak yak, this is wrong that is wrong,
everybody is wrong, except the little judges. Get yourself right first.
Live YOUR life.  It is the only one that belongs to you.  Thinking about
getting something done is not the doing of it. Human societies do not
grow on trees, they grow from ideas being put into action. A car is the
product of the idea of a car. But you did not come up with the idea of a
tree. What ideas of yours have been put into action for the benefit of
society?  Or are you not a part of it all? Or maybe you just don't get
any ideas. Somebody once grabbed this bit of land and said it was
theirs. So, go back in time and sort them out. Or, get on with today AS
IS here and now. Instead of moaning come up with something and do it.
Anybody can moan and judge things but can they all get something done?



Dick Richardson










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

Who do you want to be like?



And what do you want to be like?



I don't know how true it is but I have often heard people say that
they  would like to be like him or her, and thus they have some kind of
icon. How  about you, have you ever wanted to be like somebody you knew
or somebody from  the past who you have read about?



I can only speak for myself, and the answer is no,  never. Never once. I
have observed many many people (not dead ones in history  for I was not
there) and in so doing I found traits in some folks which I  considered
admirable and other traits in other people which I found to be
abhorrent and repulsive. Why?  What is  judging all this?  Well, I am of
course.  What are those judgments based upon?   When I was little I did
not know what they were based upon, I had no  known criteria, it was
just gut feelings, likes and dislikes, things which  attracted me and
things which repulsed me. But when I became a young adult I  found my
criteria – ME, not the personality but the BEING, the essence of
that  being, the I AM at the root of my existence.   That become my
criteria for the judgment of all things, and it still is  and always
will be.



It is often the case, so they say, that little  boys want to be like
their father, and that takes place at a critical age of  less than four
or five. But I did no have one so that could not be the case in  my
case. Well, I did have one but he was not there, he was away fighting a
war,  so I did not really know him at all.   Those he was not a role
model for a little boy.  When I did get to know him then I liked what  I
saw for the most part, but it was too late then, for I was already set
in some  my ways and with my own criteria. As for reading books as a
little boy,  teenager, and young man, then I read about many people. But
there was not a one  of them that I wanted to be like. So I have never
had an icon or a role model.  How about you?



I cannot see anything wrong with being oneself.  For that is how we
arrive here and live it. Alone, and as to what we each are.  Moreover,
would it not be pretence and acting to try to be like somebody  else?
Would that not be a farce? Would  that not be a negation of ones own
individual and unique integrity as a human  being?  You will never find
two alike no  matter how hard and long you look. Are they all trying to
be like somebody  else?  Plainly not. But some might be.



This does not negate the inspiration derived from  other people.  On
looking at humanity one  finds much of which is inspirational, and also
much of which is the complete  opposite of this. But those feelings are
not a matter of choice, they are not an  option to have or not to have.
They just are, and they are our own system of  dynamics relating to this
or that input. They are the `where I am at' responding  to that
stimulus.  Then of course there  is the bit about ones own abilities and
potentials. I can admire the music of  Mozart without wanting to be like
Mozart (don't even like him much from what I  have read about him :-
)  Moreover, I  don't even want to write music. But I am glad that
some people do write music;  for it is a great gift to the world.



What did you want to be?  What did you want to do?  I cannot really
answer that question for  myself for I don't ever recall wanting to
be like anyone or anything. I just  wanted to get on with living life
(not somebody else's life) and doing whatever  I could do within the
encompass of what I could do and wanted to do.  But I did not know what
I could do. I did not  really know what I wanted to do.  So you  try
this and that and find out what you can do, and see if you like doing
it. I  could not write a symphony if my life depended on it. So a waste
of time trying  it.  You just know that this or that  ain't you.
And I don't even want to.  Looking back over all those years I
cannot think of anything that I ever really  wanted to do which I did
not do. I did have a bit of a want for being a  musician, but that did
not pan out. But it was no big deal really. But in all  truth there was
nothing which was a BIG WANT, a deep seated desire, that I  wanted that
did not come about. Moreover, this does not even mean having to do  the
things which one was good at. I was good at a few things, even from
childhood, but I did not want to do them, so I did not pursue them.
Maybe doing  the things which one was not good at is all part of adding
to the system :- )  Why stick with what one can already do?   Why not
move on from there and do even more? And take responsibility for  what
you do.



One day when your time is nearly up you might look  back over what you
did, and did not do when the chance was there to do it, and  cast
judgement upon those things and yourself. And if there is one person
whom  you cannot fool then it is yourself.  At  such a time there can be
three types of assessment or summing up. One is  reasonable
satisfaction, another is some regrets, and the other is remorse.
Remorse is the BIG nasty one to live with for  the remains of what time
is left. Remorse is what you DON'T want to be stuck  with.  But you
can avoid it now. You can  make remorse but you can never undo it. Worth
remembering is that one. Only one  thing obliterates remorse, and I
ain't going to tell you what it is. You find  out for yourself. Who
do you want to be like and what do you want to do?  And why?



Dick Richardson







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

Proof?



Somebody  found this on a group and passed it on to me….



[ Interesting subject of "proof". I have to
wonder, spiritually, WHAT has actually been proven without a doubt? You
can prove the existence of people, though Jesus Christ still remains
controversial. If you are to believe what is written, you can trace
history
and wars . though it has been said that the winners are the ones who
record
such things, so it is difficult to ascertain if the details haven't been
skewed in their favor, at least somewhat. Reliable texts and sources is
a
statement I would take with a grain of salt.

What do you have left then? Personal, direct experience. I do agree
wholeheartedly that knowledge can get in the way. Knowledge doesn't
always
mean intelligence, does it?  And religion and knowledge can sometimes
get in the way of experiencing "God" directly. When you experience All
That Is, there is no longer Observer and Observed . because the two are
ONE.
And is there any way one can PROVE that experience? One can share, but
never prove . aside from extraordinary acts and coincidences sometimes
labeled "divine miracles", it is difficult to prove things of a
spiritual
nature .. To other people. But direct experience is all the proof needed
for oneself.  It certainly supersedes all that blind faith or religious
dogma has to offer.  Science does a fabulous job of exploring our
Universe, labeling each little particle, explaining the birth of stars,
black holes and parallel universes . but even Science falls short of
proving
the existence of God, or being able to pinpoint where it all began with
any
certainty.

Mass consciousness . sometimes I think that is better described as mass
neurosis. LOL At least, if religion is involved, that is usually how it
plays out, does it not? My take is that the more people open their
minds,
the more of a chance we have of seeing that wave of change in mass
consciousness and "belief".

It wasn't so long ago that I spent countless hours searching for ORIGINS
and
PROOF that this tradition or that one held the truth. Chasing my tail, I
was. If you want proof of "God",  the answer is simple . look within.  ]



What ever is the writer talking about? You can only find god by looking
within and yet when you do find it there is no observer and no observed?
So, nothing is experiencing nothing in which case. How is that proof if
there is nothing experiencing anything?  No observer and no observed?
Because they have merged? How do you know that if there is no observer?
Some had best stick with fundamental religion and not make out they have
found something. For they just talk nonsense. Talk about what you do
know from experience. And for there to be experience there is required
an observer and something to observe.  You cannot play truth AND
religion.  Nor can you mix them.

Proof, in so far as it can be had, is when finding something which will
not go away and cannot be refuted or denied. Axiomatic and
Uncontradictable.

Hell, you can soon sort them out cant you.

rwr





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

It is possible to be entirely troll.  The description is not of a person in his
world, but of the way he relates to this group.  Ultimately this is a dispute
about the function of thought, what it can rightfully support or dismiss.  If
the dispute cannot be conducted with friendly warmth, or in a civil spirit, it
is just not worth it.

Louise

You forgot to add IN YOUR OPINION.  Your opinion does not make it a fact
of reality. What is a troll?  Somebody on a chat group?  You are on a
chat group.  Not only that but you seem to want the last word all the
time.  What thought can rightfully support or dismiss?  Why should
thought dismiss anything to think about?  Is that not burying ones head
in the sand?  If something cannot be conducted with friendly warmth it
is just not worth it??  You mean like a flood or an earthquake maybe?
Are you warm and friendly to everybody?  Are you a hypocrite?  Are you
the worlds wisest person?  Do you know it all?  Do you want everything
your way?




--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "shadowed_statue" <hecubatoher@...>
wrote:
>
> It is possible to be entirely troll.  The description is not of a
person in his world, but of the way he relates to this group.
Ultimately this is a dispute about the function of thought, what it can
rightfully support or dismiss.  If the dispute cannot be conducted with
friendly warmth, or in a civil spirit, it is just not worth it.
>
> Louise
>



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

In my mind, I see this brand of utopian thinking turning into a dystopian
reality.  I worked with a number of people who spent thier formative
professional years in the USSR, and they all said that when things are owned by
"everybody" in reality they are owned by "nobody" and no one takes
responsibility for their upkeep, except the bureaucracy that grows around it. 
It make the day-to-day experience of living in the USSR more like "Brazil" than
"1984." (They said imagine if you had to buy your clothing, groceries and all
other things at a place that resembled the Department of Motor Vehicles in
efficiency, pleasantness and queueing times.)






________________________________
From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 3:13:38 AM
Subject: Re: [existlist] Property is theft


Polly,

The practical problem has often been a beautiful dream turning into a Stalinist
nightmare. Did u ever read animal farm. I am not saying at some point such a
society might be feasible, but the 20th century showed us in most cases what was
originally a beautiful dream becoming a collectivist hive run by commisars. As
the pigs eventually started saying in "Animal Farm" "All animals are equal, but
some are more equal than others".Communism is one thing as an undergroujnd arty
intellectual thing, and quite another as  a state dogma. Only communist
countries have built walls to keep people in.

Peace,
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: Herman
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [existlist] Property is theft

Hi Mary,

On 30 June 2010 02:15, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Never fear. I believe in your right to bear arms. I'm coincidentally reading
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, a horrific tale of white scalp-hunters along
the Mexican border before the U.S. Civil War, another bloodbath. This world
isn't fully civilized, and the right to protect one's >person and property is
paramount.

Proudhon wrote in the 1840's "Property is theft". He would say that
you are arguing for the right to protect lands that were appropriated
by force and deceit.

> How could I deny the right of women in Afghanistan to protect themselves? I
think we should work towards creating societies wherein we don't need weapons.
Idealism and realism work together, yes?
>

One can only claim to own something if others can be excluded from use
of that something. Weapons are essential to maintaining the belief in
private property. Do you dare dream of common wealth?

Polly

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




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

It is ironic that Dick accuses others of the very things he is noted for, like
wanting the last word, being the world's wisest person , knowing it all, or
wanting everything his way.

Tom
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: dick.richardson@...
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 7:55 AM
   Subject: [existlist] Re: I was wrong




   You forgot to add IN YOUR OPINION. Your opinion does not make it a fact
   of reality. What is a troll? Somebody on a chat group? You are on a
   chat group. Not only that but you seem to want the last word all the
   time. What thought can rightfully support or dismiss? Why should
   thought dismiss anything to think about? Is that not burying ones head
   in the sand? If something cannot be conducted with friendly warmth it
   is just not worth it?? You mean like a flood or an earthquake maybe?
   Are you warm and friendly to everybody? Are you a hypocrite? Are you
   the worlds wisest person? Do you know it all? Do you want everything
   your way?

   --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "shadowed_statue" <hecubatoher@...>
   wrote:
   >
   > It is possible to be entirely troll. The description is not of a
   person in his world, but of the way he relates to this group.
   Ultimately this is a dispute about the function of thought, what it can
   rightfully support or dismiss. If the dispute cannot be conducted with
   friendly warmth, or in a civil spirit, it is just not worth it.
   >
   > Louise
   >

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





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

Louise,

A quick note regarding Sartre's fascination with autobiography. He and Beauvoir
were entering their final decades, so their legacy was important to them.
However, Simone was somewhat "flummoxed" both with the CDR and Sartre's Flaubert
dedication. Politically she was always with Sartre, but the Critique was a
philosophical turn she wasn't completely grasping. She had been a large part of
Being and Nothingness and had applied its philosophy to her own writing. This,
and largely the fact that Sartre had grown weary of her and was surrounding
himself with other advisors and assistants. He, nevertheless, was quite focused
and clear in his commitment. He answered a journalist when queried:

"Because he is the opposite of what I am. I need to rub against everything that
puts me into question. In The Words I wrote, 'I have often thought against
myself.' That sentence has never been understood . . . But in fact, that's
exactly how one should think: one should always be questioning one's own
assumption."

I relate to this and offer it as an excuse for my puzzling and confusing
behavior here at existlist. I'm only now returning to an authentic mode of
being, thanks in large part to your own integrity.

(Source: Simone de Beauvoir, A Biography, Dierdre Bair, Simon & Shuster, 1990)

Mary

Maybe. But I spoken with a great many, dozens, who have said that the
introduction of the "free market" in Russia was like a wake up call to them that
every bad thing they ever heard about "Capitalism" was more than true. Not a
single ex-Soviet era Russian that I have spoken with, and there have been and
are many around here, had any bad words for socialism itself; they all hated the
nomenklatura and the arbitrariness of power, especially on the local levels, as
well as the lack of consumer items. (Zizek writes well about his own case in the
former Yugoslavia.) Most younger Russians (and other Soviet Bloc folks) who have
recently come here have not done so for the "freedom", but rather because the
"entrepreneurs" back there reduced the society to a dog-eat-dog predatory
system. You want to see the future of the USA? Go to "free" Russia.

Wil






-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Irvine <brent.irvine@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 8:19 am
Subject: Re: [existlist] Property is theft





In my mind, I see this brand of utopian thinking turning into a dystopian
reality.  I worked with a number of people who spent thier formative
professional years in the USSR, and they all said that when things are owned by
"everybody" in reality they are owned by "nobody" and no one takes
responsibility for their upkeep, except the bureaucracy that grows around it. 
It make the day-to-day experience of living in the USSR more like "Brazil" than
"1984." (They said imagine if you had to buy your clothing, groceries and all
other things at a place that resembled the Department of Motor Vehicles in
efficiency, pleasantness and queueing times.)

________________________________
From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 3:13:38 AM
Subject: Re: [existlist] Property is theft

Polly,

The practical problem has often been a beautiful dream turning into a Stalinist
nightmare. Did u ever read animal farm. I am not saying at some point such a
society might be feasible, but the 20th century showed us in most cases what was
originally a beautiful dream becoming a collectivist hive run by commisars. As
the pigs eventually started saying in "Animal Farm" "All animals are equal, but
some are more equal than others".Communism is one thing as an undergroujnd arty
intellectual thing, and quite another as  a state dogma. Only communist
countries have built walls to keep people in.

Peace,
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: Herman
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [existlist] Property is theft

Hi Mary,

On 30 June 2010 02:15, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Never fear. I believe in your right to bear arms. I'm coincidentally reading
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, a horrific tale of white scalp-hunters along
the Mexican border before the U.S. Civil War, another bloodbath. This world
isn't fully civilized, and the right to protect one's >person and property is
paramount.

Proudhon wrote in the 1840's "Property is theft". He would say that
you are arguing for the right to protect lands that were appropriated
by force and deceit.

> How could I deny the right of women in Afghanistan to protect themselves? I
think we should work towards creating societies wherein we don't need weapons.
Idealism and realism work together, yes?
>

One can only claim to own something if others can be excluded from use
of that something. Weapons are essential to maintaining the belief in
private property. Do you dare dream of common wealth?

Polly

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

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









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

The Proof of what?



What is it that one wants proof of?  And what will comprise irrefutable
proof of  it?  One must surely know in advance as  to what it is that
one wants proof of.   "My car starts up" !  I want proof  of
that assertion. Fine, here are the keys go and start it up. If it starts
up  then there is your proof of the claim.



"The moon is made of custard and Marmite" !  OK, let us go there
and find out. Where does  everything ultimately come from ?  "The
Lud Gud made it all" !  So, what is that  exactly then, where is it
and what is it like?   "Oh, you just have to have faith in
that".  Thank you but no thanks. What am I and where  do I come from
and what am I made of?



And answers to those questions are there to be  found. "Is it
true?"  Yes it is true that  answers to those questions are there to
be found?  "Is what is found true?"  It is there to be found,
and it is axiomatic  and uncontradictable. You cannot argue with it. If
you think it can be argued  with then try it when you are there. You
will not argue with it because you  cannot argue with it. It is not
possible to argue with it.



"What is found there then?"  Me and stuff.  `What
stuff?" I don't know what stuff, just  stuff, energy stuff from
which I manifested out of.  "What made that stuff that you emanated
out  of?"  Nothing made it, it is not made by  anything, it does not
owe its existence to any prior causation.  It is always there and
unchanging, but things  emanate forth from it. I did too.  Where  do you
come from?  "What is this stuff  when you are not observing it?"
I was  observing it, how can you now something which you have not
observed. "Is this  stuff alive and conscious?"  Why don't
you try asking it. But I am alive and conscious. But it did not seem to
be alive  and conscious to me, it was just stuff, energy of some kind;
an energy with  great potential.  "What do you call this
stuff"?  I either call it STUFF or No  Thing Made. "How do you
know that it is the base of all things"?  I don't know that, but
I know it is where  LIFE comes from, for I was there when it happened.
"What else can this stuff  do?"  I don't know, wait and see.
But  right now I am more concerned with what I can do, for I am a
manifest formation  of that stuff. So, a kind of partnership really.
One which goes way back to before Time moved.  Beyond the gap in the
physical universe. I was there. Were you there?  Have you just forgotten
it maybe?  So, where do you come from then?  "So how can you prove
this then?"  One does not have to prove it for it is  proved to you.
And when it is then it is axiomatic and uncontradictable. You  cannot
argue with it, for there you are and there is the stuff.



"Where does god figure in all this?"  Who's god; what god;
what is that? I have  never met anything called god.



"What did you have for dinner yesterday?"  Salmon pees and
potatoes. "Where did all that  come from?"  The last port of
call was  the shop where my wife got it from and then cooked it.
`Can you prove it?"  Nope. But I sure did eat it and it was
good.  "I don't believe you".  Nobody asked you  to.



   rwr





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

Yes - a few of the Russians I worked with liked elements under Communism - safe
streets, not worrying a lot of financing.  Though many felt that the
Gangster-Capitalism of the mid 1990's (when most got out) was because people saw
the US TV show "Dallas" and thought that was how the free market operated.  A
few ran crossways of the authorities (hence their location in the US now) so
didn't have an overall positive experience.


I am not certain that the current Russian state of the free market is the future
of the US - similar models (fictional, or reality) have been the predicted of
the future of the US for over 100 years (and the UK before that).  I expect the
US to come out of its funk, to muddle through, fix some issues and not fix
others - and move on.  I am not sure the "winner take all" turn followed by the
"oh and we define winner on who has good political connections" model to be
relegated to the dust heap.  It may be true of Russia and China right now, but I
cannot see such an attempted-abrogation of responsibility to last.





________________________________
From: "eupraxis@..." <eupraxis@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 9:39:41 AM
Subject: Re: [existlist] Property is theft


Maybe. But I spoken with a great many, dozens, who have said that the
introduction of the "free market" in Russia was like a wake up call to them that
every bad thing they ever heard about "Capitalism" was more than true. Not a
single ex-Soviet era Russian that I have spoken with, and there have been and
are many around here, had any bad words for socialism itself; they all hated the
nomenklatura and the arbitrariness of power, especially on the local levels, as
well as the lack of consumer items. (Zizek writes well about his own case in the
former Yugoslavia.) Most younger Russians (and other Soviet Bloc folks) who have
recently come here have not done so for the "freedom", but rather because the
"entrepreneurs" back there reduced the society to a dog-eat-dog predatory
system. You want to see the future of the USA? Go to "free" Russia.

Wil

-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Irvine <brent.irvine@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 8:19 am
Subject: Re: [existlist] Property is theft

In my mind, I see this brand of utopian thinking turning into a dystopian
reality.  I worked with a number of people who spent thier formative
professional years in the USSR, and they all said that when things are owned by
"everybody" in reality they are owned by "nobody" and no one takes
responsibility for their upkeep, except the bureaucracy that grows around it. 
It make the day-to-day experience of living in the USSR more like "Brazil" than
"1984." (They said imagine if you had to buy your clothing, groceries and all
other things at a place that resembled the Department of Motor Vehicles in
efficiency, pleasantness and queueing times.)

________________________________
From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 3:13:38 AM
Subject: Re: [existlist] Property is theft

Polly,

The practical problem has often been a beautiful dream turning into a Stalinist
nightmare. Did u ever read animal farm. I am not saying at some point such a
society might be feasible, but the 20th century showed us in most cases what was
originally a beautiful dream becoming a collectivist hive run by commisars. As
the pigs eventually started saying in "Animal Farm" "All animals are equal, but
some are more equal than others".Communism is one thing as an undergroujnd arty
intellectual thing, and quite another as  a state dogma. Only communist
countries have built walls to keep people in.

Peace,
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: Herman
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [existlist] Property is theft

Hi Mary,

On 30 June 2010 02:15, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Never fear. I believe in your right to bear arms. I'm coincidentally reading
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, a horrific tale of white scalp-hunters along
the Mexican border before the U.S. Civil War, another bloodbath. This world
isn't fully civilized, and the right to protect one's >person and property is
paramount.

Proudhon wrote in the 1840's "Property is theft". He would say that
you are arguing for the right to protect lands that were appropriated
by force and deceit.

> How could I deny the right of women in Afghanistan to protect themselves? I
think we should work towards creating societies wherein we don't need weapons.
Idealism and realism work together, yes?
>

One can only claim to own something if others can be excluded from use
of that something. Weapons are essential to maintaining the belief in
private property. Do you dare dream of common wealth?

Polly

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

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

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




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

So  where does a moment come from. I like Dicks question but doubt it can be
answered. A moment, as a snapshot of everything, is an impossibility .    Its
temporality forces it on, away from what it was. It seems to mimic the position
of an electron within  an atom. You just can`t pin it down  as it resides in a
probability distrabution.
  So try to lengthen the time frame,say a minute. The problem only increases
itself with unimaginably huge factors.
  We work around this problem by mental compression. We use symbols which are by
definition only approximations. Again imprecision in the name of utility.
  If we denote process as a continuum of change we can come to a history that may
be useful. Yes,history does seem to repeat itself,sometimes. That,however, does
not explain where a moment came from or where it is going.
I think the past in some way forces a moment but there are far to many factors
operant to make a study of the phenominon of momentary change. That ,to me
,makes phenominology a sorting game and not a method of discerning facts. Which
factors do you chose to weigh and worse how many do you miss? Science  narrows
the scope of error by repitition of process but error still remains even in our
hard facts.
  It seems we come down to the fact that a part is always less complicated than
the whole. Our mind,a  part of existance, cannot encompass the whole of the
cosmos. The fact that we cannot stop time, cannot see where a moment comes from
is a sign of the finitude of the cosmos and places  its beginning and end  in
never ending question. If we look back to the big biginning we come to some sort
of unimaginable energy pulse and at the end we see only impossibly large 
numbers of possible factors. If you propose  an expansion/contraction universe 
what is your observation point,I mean did it happen at all?
  So ,troll conjectures aside, sometimes Dick asks questions I tend to ponder. In
such a fleeting existance I am repelled by demands that I own or cannot own
anything. Remember Lennon[John} only asked us to imagine. Lennon[communist}
demanded we give up our worldly goods. I`ll take the  choice that gives me the
greatest latitude,the greatest freedom of choice. Bill

"Lenin [communist} demanded we give up our worldly goods"

  No, he hadn't.

Wil




-----Original Message-----
From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 9:59 am
Subject: [existlist] Utopian confusion





So  where does a moment come from. I like Dicks question but doubt it can be
answered. A moment, as a snapshot of everything, is an impossibility .    Its
temporality forces it on, away from what it was. It seems to mimic the position
of an electron within  an atom. You just can`t pin it down  as it resides in a
probability distrabution.
  So try to lengthen the time frame,say a minute. The problem only increases
itself with unimaginably huge factors.
  We work around this problem by mental compression. We use symbols which are by
definition only approximations. Again imprecision in the name of utility.
  If we denote process as a continuum of change we can come to a history that may
be useful. Yes,history does seem to repeat itself,sometimes. That,however, does
not explain where a moment came from or where it is going.
I think the past in some way forces a moment but there are far to many factors
operant to make a study of the phenominon of momentary change. That ,to me
,makes phenominology a sorting game and not a method of discerning facts. Which
factors do you chose to weigh and worse how many do you miss? Science  narrows
the scope of error by repitition of process but error still remains even in our
hard facts.
  It seems we come down to the fact that a part is always less complicated than
the whole. Our mind,a  part of existance, cannot encompass the whole of the
cosmos. The fact that we cannot stop time, cannot see where a moment comes from
is a sign of the finitude of the cosmos and places  its beginning and end  in
never ending question. If we look back to the big biginning we come to some sort
of unimaginable energy pulse and at the end we see only impossibly large 
numbers of possible factors. If you propose  an expansion/contraction universe 
what is your observation point,I mean did it happen at all?
  So ,troll conjectures aside, sometimes Dick asks questions I tend to ponder. In
such a fleeting existance I am repelled by demands that I own or cannot own
anything. Remember Lennon[John} only asked us to imagine. Lennon[communist}
demanded we give up our worldly goods. I`ll take the  choice that gives me the
greatest latitude,the greatest freedom of choice. Bill









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

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
>
> "Lenin [communist} demanded we give up our worldly goods"
>
>  No, he hadn't.
>
> Wil
> Until when?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 9:59 am
> Subject: [existlist] Utopian confusion
>
>
>
>
>
> So  where does a moment come from. I like Dicks question but doubt it can be
answered. A moment, as a snapshot of everything, is an impossibility .    Its
temporality forces it on, away from what it was. It seems to mimic the position
of an electron within  an atom. You just can`t pin it down  as it resides in a
probability distrabution.
>  So try to lengthen the time frame,say a minute. The problem only increases
itself with unimaginably huge factors.
>  We work around this problem by mental compression. We use symbols which are
by definition only approximations. Again imprecision in the name of utility.
>  If we denote process as a continuum of change we can come to a history that
may be useful. Yes,history does seem to repeat itself,sometimes. That,however,
does not explain where a moment came from or where it is going.
> I think the past in some way forces a moment but there are far to many factors
operant to make a study of the phenominon of momentary change. That ,to me
,makes phenominology a sorting game and not a method of discerning facts. Which
factors do you chose to weigh and worse how many do you miss? Science  narrows
the scope of error by repitition of process but error still remains even in our
hard facts.
>  It seems we come down to the fact that a part is always less complicated than
the whole. Our mind,a  part of existance, cannot encompass the whole of the
cosmos. The fact that we cannot stop time, cannot see where a moment comes from
is a sign of the finitude of the cosmos and places  its beginning and end  in
never ending question. If we look back to the big biginning we come to some sort
of unimaginable energy pulse and at the end we see only impossibly large 
numbers of possible factors. If you propose  an expansion/contraction universe 
what is your observation point,I mean did it happen at all?
>  So ,troll conjectures aside, sometimes Dick asks questions I tend to ponder.
In such a fleeting existance I am repelled by demands that I own or cannot own
anything. Remember Lennon[John} only asked us to imagine. Lennon[communist}
demanded we give up our worldly goods. I`ll take the  choice that gives me the
greatest latitude,the greatest freedom of choice. Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Lenin and Lennon and the songs they sang



Never met either of them (and would not want to) but I did join the
British Communist Party for a couple of years, way back. There are many
things that go under the name of Capitalism and Free Market Enterprise
and there are many things that go under the name of Communism. And there
are many thing that go under the name of Music too :- ) As for the
little boys from Liverpool who had a rock band, well, if you call that
music I will go to foot of our stairs and eat me titfer.  Now Ralph
Vaughan William, there is music for you, and few hundred others.  Yeah
yeah yeah, she loves me yeah yeah yeah. Some music and lyrics eh :- )
But if it blows your skirt up enjoy. They seemed to be very popular in
the USA though. (does not surprise me) good luck to them. Oh by the way
they sure did not live like socialists when they made a packet of
green-backs did they :- )  I wonder why that nut case shot him though,
not very nice eh.



However, I joined it for a while to see what they were all about. They
were all older than me at the time, just a couple about my age. We used
to meet up in various pubs and sometimes in each others house. They were
a really great bunch of people down where I lived – right in the
heart and apex of capitalist wealth and luxury :- )  They were nearly
all professionals, college lecturers, local businessmen and women,
school teachers, doctors, you name it. They all knew well enough that
there was not a bat in hells chance of socialism getting voted in in
England, it just does not happen. The nearest to it was just after the
war when a leftist Labour part got in and brought forth the National
Health Service and National Parks, etc.  So they all took it as tongue
in cheek and therefore just an academic philosophical view point which
they all shared, like a pipe dream.  The guy that was in change of the
BCP in the South West used to come to my place two or three nights a
week and drink my home made beer and tried chatting my then new wife up
:- )  He looked a but like Trotsky :- ) I got him as pissed as a newt.
He is still down there doing the same thing today. He got 600 votes and
the last general election :- )  Oh dear we did have fun. The good old
days :- )



Dick Richardson







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

Another Memoir



The days of home made beer communists backgammon  divorce and teenage
queenies.



Some title eh :- )  Tis all true though. It covers about a two  year
period, way back when.



For academic purposes only I had joined the British Communist Party,
just  to see what these people were really like and what they were all
about. As I  have mentioned before they were a great bunch, mostly
professionals etc, and  they knew damn well that socialism would never
take in this country, so it was  just a pipe dream and they all knew it.
We used to meet up in various pubs and  in each others home.  One of the
other  young ones there (most were well into middle age) was the husband
of my future  wife whom I had not yet met :- )  It was  at the time when
I had decided to go, leave home, get a divorce, and set up a  place of
my own, for the two kids were now old enough and I had had enough of it
for eighteen years.



But one night, in the wee small hours,  whilst driving some geezers taxi
for him I picked up this young woman, with two  blokes, and I thought
WOW and it was a POW!   :- ) She told me that she was coming to my
Driving School. Fair enough  most people around there did. And you know,
one thing leads to another and bobs  your flipping uncle :- ) She was
after a divorce too, and only nineteen. Wow!  But her husband whom I had
met at the Communist Part meets took a bit of dim  view of it when I
told him I was going off with his wife. But all three of us  used to go
out for a meal and a drink in the evenings together, and play pool  and
snooker et all. I quite liked him, although he was not very nice to her
and  a bit of a druggie.



Anyway, we did our thing and went off to live  together in a basement
flat which she called the Hobbit Hole. It was a bit of a  hole as well,
and as damp as damp could bloody get. But we had a fantastic  kitchen
and living room. All we had was cushions which she had made and a new
Hi-Fi system which I had brought ad hoc (still got it and it's
working fine).  Both my kids used to comes around and the oldest one
came to live there with us.  Also my best friend was always there. All
the driving instructors and local  nurses used to come around for a meal
and drinks, and also all the local  communists and many chess players
from the area :- )  It was hilarious.  Then of course my daughter then
pushing  seventeen met this young guy and he and his brothers and mates
came too. Talk  about a quiet little elopement :- )



This bloody pop music used to blare out from these  kids there all day
and most of the night on my hi-fi system, Gawd it was noisy  :- )  We
also had thirteen cats there.  This was all a bit of a shock to me
really because I had been living a very  normal and respectable life :-
) But I did not mind, it was fun and something  different. One day this
kid asked me if he could marry my daughter and I said no  not bloody
likely for you are both too young. But they did, and they both came  to
live with us :- )  They are still  married and with two grown up kids :-
) I also became an advisor to a pop group  with a female singer who were
all tied in with this crowd. That was fun, and  they were quite good
too. But the best of the lot was when we were alone. But I  ain't
going to tell you about that. Leave it to your imagination.  When our
first two kids were old enough to  come to a weeding (about five and
two) we got married. We did not tell anybody.   Didn't intend to get
married but we  thought it best for the kids.   No,  mystics do not sit
around in white robes contemplating on their belly button.  They grab
the day and live it. They were good days too, as were all the rest of
them each in very different ways. The army was fun too, but that is
another  story, and many years before that one. Personally I think
mystics are a little  bit wicked. Don't you?  Write an
autobiography they say. Cant be done. Too much of it all. And who the
hell cares  anyway.  We each have to live our own  lives. Enjoy yours
and grab each moment, and memories are made on it.



Dick Richardson





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

Bill,

Lenin rarely spoke about such things, which was probably too bad. When he did,
it was usually a fairly direct citation or encapsulation from Marx or Engels,
who also never said anything like that, either. (Nor did they promise a Utopia.)
Lenin did go on and on against the dangers of  "Utopian communism" and
"Left-wing" deviations of theory, and the like, which were current in Russia and
which were quite loony, and which advocated communal ownership of everything,
and all of that. But such ideas are not serious, and have no place anywhere --
unless in an absolute emergency, I would guess, and regardless of politics.

Marx criticized Proudhon's "property is theft" as being naive and inherently
confused. If property is theft, then the person from whom was it stolen could
also not have owned it, ad infinitum, etc. He wrote a clever volume, The Poverty
of Philosophy, against Proudhon's general 'theory' of socialism and his odd take
on dialectics. I like the book, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it unless
one knows Proudhon fairly well.

The "private property" against which Marx vies is not somebody's 'stuff', but
the "means of production" (mostly), as well as social utilities and the like.
Maybe if one were a King, one would be faced with giving up one's worldly goods,
since a King owns the nation and the people in it. But the admonition is against
what we would call "corporatism".

Best,
Wil








-----Original Message-----
From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 11:07 am
Subject: [existlist] Re: Utopian confusion







--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
>
> "Lenin [communist} demanded we give up our worldly goods"
>
>  No, he hadn't.
>
> Wil
> Until when?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 9:59 am
> Subject: [existlist] Utopian confusion
>
>
>
>
>
> So  where does a moment come from. I like Dicks question but doubt it can be
answered. A moment, as a snapshot of everything, is an impossibility .    Its
temporality forces it on, away from what it was. It seems to mimic the position
of an electron within  an atom. You just can`t pin it down  as it resides in a
probability distrabution.
>  So try to lengthen the time frame,say a minute. The problem only increases
itself with unimaginably huge factors.
>  We work around this problem by mental compression. We use symbols which are
by definition only approximations. Again imprecision in the name of utility.
>  If we denote process as a continuum of change we can come to a history that
may be useful. Yes,history does seem to repeat itself,sometimes. That,however,
does not explain where a moment came from or where it is going.
> I think the past in some way forces a moment but there are far to many factors
operant to make a study of the phenominon of momentary change. That ,to me
,makes phenominology a sorting game and not a method of discerning facts. Which
factors do you chose to weigh and worse how many do you miss? Science  narrows
the scope of error by repitition of process but error still remains even in our
hard facts.
>  It seems we come down to the fact that a part is always less complicated than
the whole. Our mind,a  part of existance, cannot encompass the whole of the
cosmos. The fact that we cannot stop time, cannot see where a moment comes from
is a sign of the finitude of the cosmos and places  its beginning and end  in
never ending question. If we look back to the big biginning we come to some sort
of unimaginable energy pulse and at the end we see only impossibly large 
numbers of possible factors. If you propose  an expansion/contraction universe 
what is your observation point,I mean did it happen at all?
>  So ,troll conjectures aside, sometimes Dick asks questions I tend to ponder.
In such a fleeting existance I am repelled by demands that I own or cannot own
anything. Remember Lennon[John} only asked us to imagine. Lennon[communist}
demanded we give up our worldly goods. I`ll take the  choice that gives me the
greatest latitude,the greatest freedom of choice. Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>









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

Hi Brent and all,

On 1 July 2010 00:25, Brent Irvine <brent.irvine@...> wrote:
> Yes - a few of the Russians I worked with liked elements under Communism -
safe streets, not worrying a lot of financing.  Though many felt that the
Gangster-Capitalism of the mid 1990's (when most got out) was because people saw
the US TV show "Dallas" and thought that was how the free market operated.  A
few ran crossways of the authorities (hence their location in the US now) so
didn't have an overall positive experience.
>
>
> I am not certain that the current Russian state of the free market is the
future of the US - similar models (fictional, or reality) have been the
predicted of the future of the US for over 100 years (and the UK before that).
 I expect the US to come out of its funk, to muddle through, fix some issues and
not fix others - and move on.  I am not sure the "winner take all" turn followed
by the "oh and we define winner on who has good political connections" model to
be relegated to the dust heap.  It may be true of Russia and China right now,
but I cannot see such an attempted-abrogation of responsibility to last.
>

I too have plenty of anecdotal evidence that life in the old USSR
wasn't so bad. It is a shame we do not have a representative sample of
US residents on this list. Anyone would be tempted to believe that
life is not a day to day struggle for the average American punter.

As to todays Russian "free" market, it was born out of Yeltsin selling
off some of the state corporations in a closed market, all in order to
finance his next election campaign. Hardly an auspicious beginning.
But then again, (mis)appropriation generally is the foundation for
"free" markets.

Polly

Hi Tom,

On 30 June 2010 17:13, tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
> Polly,
>
> The practical problem has often been a beautiful dream turning into a
Stalinist nightmare. Did u ever read animal farm. I am not saying at some point
such a society might be feasible, but the 20th century showed us in most cases
what was originally a beautiful dream becoming a collectivist hive run by
commisars. As the pigs eventually started saying in "Animal Farm" "All animals
are equal, but some are more equal than others".Communism is one thing as an
undergroujnd arty intellectual thing, and quite another as  a state dogma. Only
communist countries have built walls to keep people in.
>

I would have thought that "All animals are equal, but some are more
equal than others" perfectly describes the schism between ideology and
practice in the USA. Is there anything more reprehensible than a gated
community secured by armed guards?

Polly



> Peace,
> Tom
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Herman
>  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 6:30 PM
>  Subject: Re: [existlist] Property is theft
>
>
>
>  Hi Mary,
>
>  On 30 June 2010 02:15, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>  > Bill,
>  >
>  > Never fear. I believe in your right to bear arms. I'm coincidentally
reading Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, a horrific tale of white
scalp-hunters along the Mexican border before the U.S. Civil War, another
bloodbath. This world isn't fully civilized, and the right to protect one's
>person and property is paramount.
>
>  Proudhon wrote in the 1840's "Property is theft". He would say that
>  you are arguing for the right to protect lands that were appropriated
>  by force and deceit.
>
>  > How could I deny the right of women in Afghanistan to protect themselves? I
think we should work towards creating societies wherein we don't need weapons.
Idealism and realism work together, yes?
>  >
>
>  One can only claim to own something if others can be excluded from use
>  of that something. Weapons are essential to maintaining the belief in
>  private property. Do you dare dream of common wealth?
>
>  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
>
>
>
>

Re memories of times past
[ Yes! Great fun! More, more!!! Love, Hillary ]
:- ))) That email brought quite a lot of feed-back.  I don't know,
it is bloody amazing innit, you  write about these off the beaten track
experiences which reveal parts of us  which are not too readily
accessible yet profound and most pooh-pooh it all and  laugh at it, and
yet when writing about common daily events in ones life they  want more
:- ))) I doubt very much that my normal daily life is any more
interesting than anybody else's, and some folks lives are far more
interesting.  The only biography that I can remember reading (because it
was the only one I  read) was Winni Churchill's.  I never  liked the
guy because he was a Capitalist and aristocratic bastard, but I did
like him really, he was so funny, and he had the opportunity to do a few
things.  And he smoked a cigar whilst eating his dinner :- )  And during
the war of course he did have what  it took to motivate and inspire
people – bit of a magician :- )



But as for us normal bods, well I don't know, it is all much of a
muchness isn't it. Even if I began telling a story of past times to
any of the  children or grandchildren they would all run out screaming
– boring boring  boring ! :- )   Never once, ever, have  any of them
asked to hear about anything. I used to ask my gran what it was like
living in that huge family of sailors back in the eighteen hundreds and
I was  dead interested.  Oh well !



But in one sense I tend to agree with the implication of what you are
saying, in that I find normal daily life on earth to be MORE PROFOUND
than  swanning around in that transcendent paradesium. My vote, like my
feet, are ON  THE GROUND. I guess that makes me an odd odd-ball :- )
Unlike religionists I  would not thank the forces that shape our being
for what it is going to do but  for what it has done, and not for
paradise, but for the earth and FREEDOM.  I wonder if there is another
odd odd-ball  like me around :- ) I doubt it. I keep telling them that a
day in the fields of  gold with a lover is far better than paradise.
They are both real, but one is in  the flesh, and it is fleeting, and
the other isn't.  No, let them have paradise I will have the  earth.
If there is anything `magic' in existence IT IS HERE AND NOW.
And it doesn't take money to love life and  have fun.  They
don't get it do  they.  What do you want to hear about old  mate?



Dick





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