--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
>
> "I feel like its all been done" "Jet airliner " Steve Miller. This group may
have said what it has to say about existentialism.
> It has long been my thought that existentialism  evolves from moment to moment
as does reality. Now science tells us what is real, it changes but the base of
science is very stable. Science  informs  existentialism  of what is real.
Morals and ethics are  human opinions that often err and often change. Shria law
for instance should change because it is primitive and stupid. That is why FN
threw away morals especially when they were proposed as the word of god.
> The moral responsibilities you lay on me are just not accepted because they
are arbitrary and  the behavours of the herd. I am not responsible for the herd
and could not change its behavour if I  wished to try.
>  This morning I read that a vatican commision is demanding the UN revamp world
monitary  matters in favor of  greater justice for the heard. I wonder if they
will accept a devaluation of vatican treasures in the revaluation. That is
morals in action, just do not gore my ox.
> Grubbing about and  fighting for survival is a part of the cosmos and in the
end we all lose. Posturing morally or ethically  is gamesmanship but little
else. We may have exhausted  the psudo existential posturing of this  stiltified
time but it will change and someone will figure out how existentialism fits in.
The philosophy of change  has merit but in gridlock  it seems a static universe.
We know it is not ,it is expanding,faster. Bill
>

Bill,

Feelin' Alright by Traffic is running through my head. Meaning comes through
daily, non-grandiose struggles within ourselves not necessarily against but
through others. I'm recently affected by Doris Lessing's "The Golden Notebook"
and Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life"; both outstanding and strongly
existentialist. Since existentialist themes permeate the arts, Susan's
willingness to allow book chatter in lieu of philosophy texts, might encourage
participation. Even Zizek uses popular culture to illuminate difficult concepts
but existentialism is easier and more slippery than other formal philosophies.

Nothing is ever really settled, because the principles uncovered through science
and philosophy are interpreted personally which is as you say existentialist.
There's no avoiding moral questions. The sense of duty to oneself is a moral
position. Whether to use violence is a moral question. So yes, feelings and
opinions will constantly change over time. And if philosophy has appeared on the
radar, it means thought can be a neutral tool for creating examined, meaningful
lives if we choose this for ourselves.

That you and I represent at least two different reactions to the same knowledge,
affirms the tenets of existentialism, the speculative nature of science, and the
inherent frustrations and danger of politics. I see an ethical state as
practical and flourishing, while you see it as weak and derived from archaic
religions. I note in physics a dialectical dynamic, while you focus on particles
and mechanism. In biology, I acknowledge nurture and destruction, but you
emphasize struggle and annihilation over fostering and encouragement.

It's been a contentious, satisfying, and for me, necessary ride. Thanks for your
testy but polite engagement. Everyone's authenticity has restored my own.

Mary

I have just emerged victorious from a tech battle. I thought my Dell was stste
of the art but the Geek Squad dude said it was eight years old and needed a new
brain box. So I ordered the tower and elected to keep the peripherals. Melding
the new with old seemed a formidible task and as I searched the big box for the
instruction manuel I feared I had made a mistake. The  manuel was only four
pages with few graphs or pictures. The old computer had a wireless mouse and  a
full sound system with woofer and several  smaller speakers. The old tower
supported a wireless intra office network with modem and router. it was a
spagetti work of tangled cables  and breaker bars. I felt totally overwhelmed.
The first direction was impossible as the old computer had no such connector. I
went maggot and empirical and started  trial and error match ups of the
connectors. When everything was plugged in I turned it on and it actually came
on. It asked me to pass word it and I did. Then it said it could not go on the
net because the ethernet cable was not plugged in. I searched through the ball
of wires and found the unplugged connection. I plugged it in and the internet
came up on my wireless equiptment. I am freeking amased!I have no formal
training with hardware or software but Dell had preloaded solutions even a lout
like me could not mess up. That machine knew what it wanted to do and made me do
it. I did not have to load drivers, I did not need to insert disks, It was all
in there already. That is truly progress  and I am impressed. That a computer
illeterate can assemble and run these systems  is to me an engineering wonder.
Thanks Dell you have reaffirmed my trust in american tech and I feel I have a
new lease on tech life. As I downloaded my favorites  I actually felt a pride in
the power of my civilisation and its problem solving abilities. That the new
technology can drag along an old  unsophistacated fellow player really impresses
me. I am still counted, I am still a player. Science and technology joined with
an existential free spirit can still produce. The damn thing works! Bill

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
> >
> > "I feel like its all been done" "Jet airliner " Steve Miller. This group may
have said what it has to say about existentialism.
> > It has long been my thought that existentialism  evolves from moment to
moment as does reality. Now science tells us what is real, it changes but the
base of science is very stable. Science  informs  existentialism  of what is
real. Morals and ethics are  human opinions that often err and often change.
Shria law for instance should change because it is primitive and stupid. That is
why FN threw away morals especially when they were proposed as the word of god.
> > The moral responsibilities you lay on me are just not accepted because they
are arbitrary and  the behavours of the herd. I am not responsible for the herd
and could not change its behavour if I  wished to try.
> >  This morning I read that a vatican commision is demanding the UN revamp
world monitary  matters in favor of  greater justice for the heard. I wonder if
they will accept a devaluation of vatican treasures in the revaluation. That is
morals in action, just do not gore my ox.
> > Grubbing about and  fighting for survival is a part of the cosmos and in the
end we all lose. Posturing morally or ethically  is gamesmanship but little
else. We may have exhausted  the psudo existential posturing of this  stiltified
time but it will change and someone will figure out how existentialism fits in.
The philosophy of change  has merit but in gridlock  it seems a static universe.
We know it is not ,it is expanding,faster. Bill
> >
>
> Bill,
>
> Feelin' Alright by Traffic is running through my head. Meaning comes through
daily, non-grandiose struggles within ourselves not necessarily against but
through others. I'm recently affected by Doris Lessing's "The Golden Notebook"
and Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life"; both outstanding and strongly
existentialist. Since existentialist themes permeate the arts, Susan's
willingness to allow book chatter in lieu of philosophy texts, might encourage
participation. Even Zizek uses popular culture to illuminate difficult concepts
but existentialism is easier and more slippery than other formal philosophies.
>
> Nothing is ever really settled, because the principles uncovered through
science and philosophy are interpreted personally which is as you say
existentialist. There's no avoiding moral questions. The sense of duty to
oneself is a moral position. Whether to use violence is a moral question. So
yes, feelings and opinions will constantly change over time. And if philosophy
has appeared on the radar, it means thought can be a neutral tool for creating
examined, meaningful lives if we choose this for ourselves.
>
> That you and I represent at least two different reactions to the same
knowledge, affirms the tenets of existentialism, the speculative nature of
science, and the inherent frustrations and danger of politics. I see an ethical
state as practical and flourishing, while you see it as weak and derived from
archaic religions. I note in physics a dialectical dynamic, while you focus on
particles and mechanism. In biology, I acknowledge nurture and destruction, but
you emphasize struggle and annihilation over fostering and encouragement.
>
> It's been a contentious, satisfying, and for me, necessary ride. Thanks for
your testy but polite engagement. Everyone's authenticity has restored my own.
>
> Mary
>
Mary, The YMCA motto,"Not if you win or lose ,but how you play the game" runs
counter to FN`s "That which does not kill me makes me stronger". It could be
explained by the  intensity  levels of the people considered. Testy, OK, thats
better than  being called a masoginist. I have always shook hands  with an
opponent,win or lose.
When wrestling with a problem I  have a time warp. Time flies as my mind races
to find a solution. It is as if my mind goes into overdrive and I know adrenalin
is at work. It is as if I am alive by half as much,again. I like that existance
and look for it when normal beats me down. I think it to be hormones and that
assures me I am an animal not some sort of spirtual being. Now I could stop and
just brand the  behavour as emotional  but that is inaccurate and hits short of
what is actually known. For me to brand you as an emotional female would be 
just as  simplistic and you would be correct in thinking me a backward boor.
That you generate different catecholemines in different quantities would be more
the truth. Since I do not feel your hormones and you do not feel mine  ,asking
for  consensus seems more than what is possible. You cannot walk a mile in
anybody elses shoes and I do not try or ask anyone else to attempt such  an
impossibility. Such things are played out in results and are recorded in the
genes of the survivors. In that sense losers  do not matter,they just die with
their genome. Your commitment to reproduction makes you  a big winner as your
genes are in the future of more people than most but that is species  related
and not personal. We just went beyond 7 billion humans and the problems that
number entail will be for  younger folks to confront. Since many of them are
ignorant and poor and the top 1% take more and more it would  seem the conflict
of the future comes into focus. Im for the winners acting like grateous victors
and confronting the congestion with generosity and reproductive technology.
Those who continue on the present course for narrow motives are wrong and
against their own species. Such people come as close to a concept of sinners as
I can imagine. Bill

Which Zizek book would you recommend a beginner?


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

Welcome to the Desert of the Real.


  Wil



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rix <andyrix13@...>
To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 26, 2011 9:45 pm
Subject: [existlist] Re: Winding out





Which Zizek book would you recommend a beginner?

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









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

Bill,

Glad you like your new computer. (But why do we all continue to post under the
subject "Winding out," when far from winding out (or down) the board seems alive
and kicking?) Like all new tools or equipment, to know is to do, and our
achieving an unthinking or casual mastery of a thing -- be it car, hammer or
computer -- is gist for thought about Being. Heidegger would say that in
deploying a thing we understand it. It becomes meaningful, a part of our ongoing
world of meanings, references and relations. What he called a thing
ready-to-hand. But let it break (or crash) and there's the rub. What was useful,
ready, meaningful (or what some might call taken-for granted) is now but
present-at-hand, an occasion for diappointment and  frustration, but so too an
occasion for reflection on Being.

Irvin

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
>
> I have just emerged victorious from a tech battle. I thought my Dell was stste
of the art but the Geek Squad dude said it was eight years old and needed a new
brain box. So I ordered the tower and elected to keep the peripherals. Melding
the new with old seemed a formidible task and as I searched the big box for the
instruction manuel I feared I had made a mistake. The  manuel was only four
pages with few graphs or pictures. The old computer had a wireless mouse and  a
full sound system with woofer and several  smaller speakers. The old tower
supported a wireless intra office network with modem and router. it was a
spagetti work of tangled cables  and breaker bars. I felt totally overwhelmed.
The first direction was impossible as the old computer had no such connector. I
went maggot and empirical and started  trial and error match ups of the
connectors. When everything was plugged in I turned it on and it actually came
on. It asked me to pass word it and I did. Then it said it could not go on the
net because the ethernet cable was not plugged in. I searched through the ball
of wires and found the unplugged connection. I plugged it in and the internet
came up on my wireless equiptment. I am freeking amased!I have no formal
training with hardware or software but Dell had preloaded solutions even a lout
like me could not mess up. That machine knew what it wanted to do and made me do
it. I did not have to load drivers, I did not need to insert disks, It was all
in there already. That is truly progress  and I am impressed. That a computer
illeterate can assemble and run these systems  is to me an engineering wonder.
Thanks Dell you have reaffirmed my trust in american tech and I feel I have a
new lease on tech life. As I downloaded my favorites  I actually felt a pride in
the power of my civilisation and its problem solving abilities. That the new
technology can drag along an old  unsophistacated fellow player really impresses
me. I am still counted, I am still a player. Science and technology joined with
an existential free spirit can still produce. The damn thing works! Bill
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Glad you like your new computer. (But why do we all continue to post under the
subject "Winding out," when far from winding out (or down) the board seems alive
and kicking?) Like all new tools or equipment, to know is to do, and our
achieving an unthinking or casual mastery of a thing -- be it car, hammer or
computer -- is gist for thought about Being. Heidegger would say that in
deploying a thing we understand it. It becomes meaningful, a part of our ongoing
world of meanings, references and relations. What he called a thing
ready-to-hand. But let it break (or crash) and there's the rub. What was useful,
ready, meaningful (or what some might call taken-for granted) is now but
present-at-hand, an occasion for diappointment and  frustration, but so too an
occasion for reflection on Being.
>
> Irvin
> Irvin, I have read that when life was consuumed with survival  concerns there
was little or no thought of being or philosophy. Without written language only
verbal records could transfer ideas to the next generation. Amoung our seven
billion fellow travelors few care to think of being  as many are fighting to
retain it. I would ask you  to relate time to being. I consider stasis to be an
impossibility and the passage of time to be the record of escape from the past.
Hubble has thrust us into the realisation of  a dynamic, expanding universe. At
the big bang all was energy and we all know that mass and energy are
interrelated . It would seem that an all energy beginning cosmos is evolving
into a more mass inclusive  cosmos.  Super novi and energy spewing black holes 
are reversing this process but  increasing expansion leads to  a colder more
separate  number of galaxies. As energy consuuming beings we would seem to
mirror the cosmos in general. All that we do in using our energies for thought
and respiration  are useless and lost in our outward thrust into the cold. This
is the new scientific nihilism and I find it fascinating. How could FN have 
known of this  and how did Heidegger arrive at the huge nihilism of National
Socialism? I know most on this list reject nihilism but I see it as the terminal
point  that may or may not explode into  a new energy explosion. Wanting stasis,
working for harmony  might just be against the thrust of time and cosmic
evolution. What do you think? Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
> >
> > I have just emerged victorious from a tech battle. I thought my Dell was
stste of the art but the Geek Squad dude said it was eight years old and needed
a new brain box. So I ordered the tower and elected to keep the peripherals.
Melding the new with old seemed a formidible task and as I searched the big box
for the instruction manuel I feared I had made a mistake. The  manuel was only
four pages with few graphs or pictures. The old computer had a wireless mouse
and  a full sound system with woofer and several  smaller speakers. The old
tower supported a wireless intra office network with modem and router. it was a
spagetti work of tangled cables  and breaker bars. I felt totally overwhelmed.
The first direction was impossible as the old computer had no such connector. I
went maggot and empirical and started  trial and error match ups of the
connectors. When everything was plugged in I turned it on and it actually came
on. It asked me to pass word it and I did. Then it said it could not go on the
net because the ethernet cable was not plugged in. I searched through the ball
of wires and found the unplugged connection. I plugged it in and the internet
came up on my wireless equiptment. I am freeking amased!I have no formal
training with hardware or software but Dell had preloaded solutions even a lout
like me could not mess up. That machine knew what it wanted to do and made me do
it. I did not have to load drivers, I did not need to insert disks, It was all
in there already. That is truly progress  and I am impressed. That a computer
illeterate can assemble and run these systems  is to me an engineering wonder.
Thanks Dell you have reaffirmed my trust in american tech and I feel I have a
new lease on tech life. As I downloaded my favorites  I actually felt a pride in
the power of my civilisation and its problem solving abilities. That the new
technology can drag along an old  unsophistacated fellow player really impresses
me. I am still counted, I am still a player. Science and technology joined with
an existential free spirit can still produce. The damn thing works! Bill
> >
>

Bill,

I don't think that "nihilism" as popularly perceived and condemned is what
Nietzsche or Heidegger are about, but rather a concern over the ossification of
thought. Truth is an historic and dynamic process, or what the Greeks called
aletheia or unconcealment. Only recently, Einstein's thought was called into
question by new discoveries about the speed of light. Such unconcealment
wouldn't be had were we hostage to an ossified metaphysics deifying Einstein's
conclusions. Nor should schools of science -- the study of beings -- be confused
with the Being of beings. Nor, by way of analogy, should artifacts or heirlooms
born of sentiment or history be reduced to their molecules. As Heidegger noted,
there would be beings without us, but no aletheia or unconcealment.

Irvin

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
>
>
> > Irvin, I have read that when life was consuumed with survival  concerns
there was little or no thought of being or philosophy. Without written language
only verbal records could transfer ideas to the next generation. Amoung our
seven billion fellow travelors few care to think of being  as many are fighting
to retain it. I would ask you  to relate time to being. I consider stasis to be
an impossibility and the passage of time to be the record of escape from the
past. Hubble has thrust us into the realisation of  a dynamic, expanding
universe. At the big bang all was energy and we all know that mass and energy
are interrelated . It would seem that an all energy beginning cosmos is evolving
into a more mass inclusive  cosmos.  Super novi and energy spewing black holes 
are reversing this process but  increasing expansion leads to  a colder more
separate  number of galaxies. As energy consuuming beings we would seem to
mirror the cosmos in general. All that we do in using our energies for thought
and respiration  are useless and lost in our outward thrust into the cold. This
is the new scientific nihilism and I find it fascinating. How could FN have 
known of this  and how did Heidegger arrive at the huge nihilism of National
Socialism? I know most on this list reject nihilism but I see it as the terminal
point  that may or may not explode into  a new energy explosion. Wanting stasis,
working for harmony  might just be against the thrust of time and cosmic
evolution. What do you think? Bill

The number of posts are far down,thus  the winding down. I considered the future
of the cosmos,thus the winding out. I agree there will be progress beyond
Einstein, that stasis is impossible and so I am no sidewinder. It seems a
reevaluation of the neutrino  super speeders has lessened  confidence in
anything going faster than light. CERN is backing off the claim .
I have always  seen nihilism as a effect of the refusal to recognise  god.
Belief had been inculcated most deeply in mankind and its deflation  threw a
great many into  a sort of philosophical paralysis. The  luke warm protestants
on this list have not recovered yet  and they pine for their rocked ribbed
security.  Sorry sons of the parsonage, its is gone forever. They are like the
sons of marx, they just can`t accept that communism is dead. So we end up
athiest  with a protestant hangover  that leaves us with these agnostic whiners.
Christian burial and veneration of spirtual objects remain  for the clod heads
but the non competative waste of such weak witchcraft will wear them and the
practical believers out.
  I plan to enjoy the process  and will revel in handing out candy,tonight to the
little pagans. They get the good candy from  me. Bill

One interprets the destructive and creative forces of the cosmos personally, so
I have no problem attributing meaning to cosmic phenomena. Philosophically this
was developed as mind or process or dynamic, not a god-like entity, and found
throughout Hegel's demanding work which prefigured quantum mechanics (causal
interpretation).

You are saying, because the universe is winding out, it's eventual demise gives
a specific meaning and/or value to our lives, that struggle is or should be our
dynamic with others. Some see dissonance and harmony resolving into one another
as a dynamic of constant change. I don't think Existentialism favors one
particular perspective.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
>
> The number of posts are far down,thus  the winding down. I considered the
future of the cosmos,thus the winding out. I agree there will be progress beyond
Einstein, that stasis is impossible and so I am no sidewinder. It seems a
reevaluation of the neutrino  super speeders has lessened  confidence in
anything going faster than light. CERN is backing off the claim .
> I have always  seen nihilism as a effect of the refusal to recognise  god.
Belief had been inculcated most deeply in mankind and its deflation  threw a
great many into  a sort of philosophical paralysis. The  luke warm protestants
on this list have not recovered yet  and they pine for their rocked ribbed
security.  Sorry sons of the parsonage, its is gone forever. They are like the
sons of marx, they just can`t accept that communism is dead. So we end up
athiest  with a protestant hangover  that leaves us with these agnostic whiners.
Christian burial and veneration of spirtual objects remain  for the clod heads
but the non competative waste of such weak witchcraft will wear them and the
practical believers out.
>  I plan to enjoy the process  and will revel in handing out candy,tonight to
the little pagans. They get the good candy from  me. Bill
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> One interprets the destructive and creative forces of the cosmos personally,
so I have no problem attributing meaning to cosmic phenomena. Philosophically
this was developed as mind or process or dynamic, not a god-like entity, and
found throughout Hegel's demanding work which prefigured quantum mechanics
(causal interpretation).
>
> You are saying, because the universe is winding out, it's eventual demise
gives a specific meaning and/or value to our lives, that struggle is or should
be our dynamic with others. Some see dissonance and harmony resolving into one
another as a dynamic of constant change. I don't think Existentialism favors one
particular perspective.
>
> Mary
> Mary, I think it  negates the spirtual,metaphysical  nature of life. As to the
interpersonal  interactions of individual humans I think it has no direct
effects. If your life and your sets of situations set you to kindness and
brotherhood than to be authentic that is where you should follow. If your life
is great struggle with little kindness  it would seem  that you might find 
traditional charity to be less the path to follow.
I would point you to "The Rum Diaries" a film about the legendary Hunter
Thompson. The glossey high life may be a dangerous facade that sends you down
the false path toward a veneer of materialism. Set in Puerto Rico it contrasts 
the  life of the people of the Carribean with the  glitter of the developers who
prey on them. It is most topical with the  Wall Street demonstrations and the
endless financial scandals. With the help of some acid, Hunter Thompson found
his literary voice and became a noted writer. The most  improbable happenstance
can set one on a new  path. No creed holds anyone unless they let it and to say
a philosophy prohibits change seems to me to be false.
So I agree with you that existentialism has no hold over ethical or moral
stances. Existentialism askes you to find the truth  and  act in a manner that
conforms with your findings. I can`t wait to get back to the Carribean and see
christians  and vodoo masters and soldiers of fortune and cheap crooks  rub
shoulders and drink rum. Who is right or wrong, who is happy?You just don`t see
the contrasts here in farmer,insurance man land. Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
> >
> > The number of posts are far down,thus  the winding down. I considered the
future of the cosmos,thus the winding out. I agree there will be progress beyond
Einstein, that stasis is impossible and so I am no sidewinder. It seems a
reevaluation of the neutrino  super speeders has lessened  confidence in
anything going faster than light. CERN is backing off the claim .
> > I have always  seen nihilism as a effect of the refusal to recognise  god.
Belief had been inculcated most deeply in mankind and its deflation  threw a
great many into  a sort of philosophical paralysis. The  luke warm protestants
on this list have not recovered yet  and they pine for their rocked ribbed
security.  Sorry sons of the parsonage, its is gone forever. They are like the
sons of marx, they just can`t accept that communism is dead. So we end up
athiest  with a protestant hangover  that leaves us with these agnostic whiners.
Christian burial and veneration of spirtual objects remain  for the clod heads
but the non competative waste of such weak witchcraft will wear them and the
practical believers out.
> >  I plan to enjoy the process  and will revel in handing out candy,tonight to
the little pagans. They get the good candy from  me. Bill
> >
>

Bill,

It would be terribly dishonest of kind people to deny they struggle with others
or for contentious people to deny their softer moments. As you say, we have
proclivities, but nobody is strictly one dimensional. If so, pure kindness is as
monstrous as pure cruelty as Lautreamont skillfully demonstrated in his only two
works.

Though I'm not beyond objectifying Mr. Depp, I think Thompson helped blur the
boundary between counter-culture and bourgeoisie, probably not his intent, but
certainly not conducive to any real political progress.

It's peculiar how distinction often becomes commonplace and boring, almost herd
like. That, or people have more in common than they think they do. The not so
greats are easily imitated while the truly great are still being deciphered.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
>
> The number of posts are far down,thus  the winding down. I considered the
future of the cosmos,thus the winding out. I agree there will be progress beyond
Einstein, that stasis is impossible and so I am no sidewinder. It seems a
reevaluation of the neutrino  super speeders has lessened  confidence in
anything going faster than light. CERN is backing off the claim .
> I have always  seen nihilism as a effect of the refusal to recognise  god.
Belief had been inculcated most deeply in mankind and its deflation  threw a
great many into  a sort of philosophical paralysis. The  luke warm protestants
on this list have not recovered yet  and they pine for their rocked ribbed
security.  Sorry sons of the parsonage, its is gone forever. They are like the
sons of marx, they just can`t accept that communism is dead. So we end up
athiest  with a protestant hangover  that leaves us with these agnostic whiners.
Christian burial and veneration of spirtual objects remain  for the clod heads
but the non competative waste of such weak witchcraft will wear them and the
practical believers out.
>  I plan to enjoy the process  and will revel in handing out candy,tonight to
the little pagans. They get the good candy from  me. Bill
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> It would be terribly dishonest of kind people to deny they struggle with
others or for contentious people to deny their softer moments. As you say, we
have proclivities, but nobody is strictly one dimensional. If so, pure kindness
is as monstrous as pure cruelty as Lautreamont skillfully demonstrated in his
only two works.
>
> Though I'm not beyond objectifying Mr. Depp, I think Thompson helped blur the
boundary between counter-culture and bourgeoisie, probably not his intent, but
certainly not conducive to any real political progress.
>
> It's peculiar how distinction often becomes commonplace and boring, almost
herd like. That, or people have more in common than they think they do. The not
so greats are easily imitated while the truly great are still being deciphered.
>
> Mary
> Mary, I would ask, in your association with JPS ,if you found undecifered
greatness or just obfuscation and over verbosity. The longer I live the less
greatness I observe. Fn had the seminal ideas of modernism and since I view
modernism as the last great philosophical leap forward FN becomes great. Now
Sartre, or Heidegger or Alan Greenspan,well no,not great. Einstien is a great
but Linus Pauling  or Neils Bohr  just  do not make it. Picasso excites feelings
in me but they are just feelings while Da Vince had  drawings but most of the
machines did not work and were never built.
  Now Hunter Thompson wrote two books of note but great, I think not.
Small,segmental ideas have pushed the species  onward but the seminal papers of
Einstein or the concept of rational atheism by Fn have changed the course of
history. I think the changes have to be positive so even though Hitler changed
history there is no greatness in going madly off course. Celebrating the
segmental ideas has its dangers  as reversals are common in all fields besides
science. Was Steve Jobs great ? No,not for me I have never owned one of his
machines  in fact the whole silicone revolution was more about combining  past
machines than about building genius  inventions.
I do not know if combining  counter culture ideas with bourgous values has any
value. Much of the counter culture was as  insipid as the middle class  sameness
it tried to replace. I do not find Jane Fonda or Westmorland  to be great. If
Obams wrests  the nation from unrestrained capitalism he can be great if what he
replaces it with is better. If all he causes is chaos  he come closer to Hitler
than Jefferson.
Last night I saw Steve Miller and I would go as far to say he is a great rock
and roller but what has rock and roll really done ? Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
> >
> > The number of posts are far down,thus  the winding down. I considered the
future of the cosmos,thus the winding out. I agree there will be progress beyond
Einstein, that stasis is impossible and so I am no sidewinder. It seems a
reevaluation of the neutrino  super speeders has lessened  confidence in
anything going faster than light. CERN is backing off the claim .
> > I have always  seen nihilism as a effect of the refusal to recognise  god.
Belief had been inculcated most deeply in mankind and its deflation  threw a
great many into  a sort of philosophical paralysis. The  luke warm protestants
on this list have not recovered yet  and they pine for their rocked ribbed
security.  Sorry sons of the parsonage, its is gone forever. They are like the
sons of marx, they just can`t accept that communism is dead. So we end up
athiest  with a protestant hangover  that leaves us with these agnostic whiners.
Christian burial and veneration of spirtual objects remain  for the clod heads
but the non competative waste of such weak witchcraft will wear them and the
practical believers out.
> >  I plan to enjoy the process  and will revel in handing out candy,tonight to
the little pagans. They get the good candy from  me. Bill
> >
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > It would be terribly dishonest of kind people to deny they struggle with
others or for contentious people to deny their softer moments. As you say, we
have proclivities, but nobody is strictly one dimensional. If so, pure kindness
is as monstrous as pure cruelty as Lautreamont skillfully demonstrated in his
only two works.
> >
> > Though I'm not beyond objectifying Mr. Depp, I think Thompson helped blur
the boundary between counter-culture and bourgeoisie, probably not his intent,
but certainly not conducive to any real political progress.
> >
> > It's peculiar how distinction often becomes commonplace and boring, almost
herd like. That, or people have more in common than they think they do. The not
so greats are easily imitated while the truly great are still being deciphered.
> >
> > Mary
> > Mary, I would ask, in your association with JPS ,if you found undecifered
greatness or just obfuscation and over verbosity.

Bill,

Hegel is unsurpassed, so no, JPS was not great. Einstein was and thought Bohmian
Mechanics held great promise, but hidden variables are out of fashion, as is
philosophy.  "Music hath charms" is sufficient because as Irvin reminds us, some
things are simply not reducible to molecules. Feelings and thought are
hopelessly entangled.

Mary

The longer I live the less greatness I observe. Fn had the seminal ideas of
modernism and since I view modernism as the last great philosophical leap
forward FN becomes great. Now Sartre, or Heidegger or Alan Greenspan,well no,not
great. Einstien is a great but Linus Pauling  or Neils Bohr  just  do not make
it. Picasso excites feelings in me but they are just feelings while Da Vince had
drawings but most of the machines did not work and were never built.
>  Now Hunter Thompson wrote two books of note but great, I think not.
Small,segmental ideas have pushed the species  onward but the seminal papers of
Einstein or the concept of rational atheism by Fn have changed the course of
history. I think the changes have to be positive so even though Hitler changed
history there is no greatness in going madly off course. Celebrating the
segmental ideas has its dangers  as reversals are common in all fields besides
science. Was Steve Jobs great ? No,not for me I have never owned one of his
machines  in fact the whole silicone revolution was more about combining  past
machines than about building genius  inventions.
> I do not know if combining  counter culture ideas with bourgous values has any
value. Much of the counter culture was as  insipid as the middle class  sameness
it tried to replace. I do not find Jane Fonda or Westmorland  to be great. If
Obams wrests  the nation from unrestrained capitalism he can be great if what he
replaces it with is better. If all he causes is chaos  he come closer to Hitler
than Jefferson.
> Last night I saw Steve Miller and I would go as far to say he is a great rock
and roller but what has rock and roll really done ? Bill
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The number of posts are far down,thus  the winding down. I considered the
future of the cosmos,thus the winding out. I agree there will be progress beyond
Einstein, that stasis is impossible and so I am no sidewinder. It seems a
reevaluation of the neutrino  super speeders has lessened  confidence in
anything going faster than light. CERN is backing off the claim .
> > > I have always  seen nihilism as a effect of the refusal to recognise  god.
Belief had been inculcated most deeply in mankind and its deflation  threw a
great many into  a sort of philosophical paralysis. The  luke warm protestants
on this list have not recovered yet  and they pine for their rocked ribbed
security.  Sorry sons of the parsonage, its is gone forever. They are like the
sons of marx, they just can`t accept that communism is dead. So we end up
athiest  with a protestant hangover  that leaves us with these agnostic whiners.
Christian burial and veneration of spirtual objects remain  for the clod heads
but the non competative waste of such weak witchcraft will wear them and the
practical believers out.
> > >  I plan to enjoy the process  and will revel in handing out candy,tonight
to the little pagans. They get the good candy from  me. Bill
> > >
> >
>

Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel  is the last,
great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of German
Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked Husserel. I
think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based  theocracys. Then FN
reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would Hegel allow quantum
physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological constant  was more
conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it seems the idea 
deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not get to use the
Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are missing.
I am contemplating the Israeli leak of an attack on Iran. Fareed  Zacaria just
doesn`t get it  and he fears the idea. A threat of the use of nuclear weapons is
rare and I know the Saudi King fears  US withdrawl and  the rise of Iran. Do
Arabs hate Persians enough to join the Jews in bombing them. I doubt  they could
stop with just the nuclear sites  and would have to try and overthrow the
theocracy. Will the Ayaitolla be the next  body we see being kicked around in
the street?I know Bush and the republicans could be enticed to try such a
decapitation. I am sure the revolutionary guard would try to enlist the whole
Shiite populations to full jahaad. I do not find the options  acceptable but
Israel holds the big stick and it is their asses on the line. Hegel would have
no way to even think about such a situation. He did not have any idea of nuclear
fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein? Bill

Bill,

Modern science seems to be catching up to Hegel. Hegel thought Newtonian-like
cosmology to be hampered by a pseudo-objective understanding. So do I. Hegel was
the last great systematic thinker, but as I am not all that big on "systems",
that is not much of a draw for me. And, besides, I am not given to "great"
ideas. For me, Hegel is the prime philosopher of freedom, radical freedom --
even cosmic freedom.

Husserl had a real dislike for Hegelianism, and so he missed the solution to his
enigma of separation (subject/object). That's not to say that he hadn't made
real strides for thought. He did get a tad mystical in his late period (eternal
monads, etc.), but ... hey. I like his work on time consciousness.

Wil


-----Original Message-----
From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Nov 4, 2011 2:21 pm
Subject: [existlist] no sidewinder





Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel  is the last,
great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of German
Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked Husserel. I
think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based  theocracys. Then FN
reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would Hegel allow quantum
physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological constant  was more
conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it seems the idea 
deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not get to use the
Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are missing.
I am contemplating the Israeli leak of an attack on Iran. Fareed  Zacaria just
doesn`t get it  and he fears the idea. A threat of the use of nuclear weapons is
rare and I know the Saudi King fears  US withdrawl and  the rise of Iran. Do
Arabs hate Persians enough to join the Jews in bombing them. I doubt  they could
stop with just the nuclear sites  and would have to try and overthrow the
theocracy. Will the Ayaitolla be the next  body we see being kicked around in
the street?I know Bush and the republicans could be enticed to try such a
decapitation. I am sure the revolutionary guard would try to enlist the whole
Shiite populations to full jahaad. I do not find the options  acceptable but
Israel holds the big stick and it is their asses on the line. Hegel would have
no way to even think about such a situation. He did not have any idea of nuclear
fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein? Bill










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

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
>
> Bill,
>
> Modern science seems to be catching up to Hegel. Hegel thought Newtonian-like
cosmology to be hampered by a pseudo-objective understanding. So do I. Hegel was
the last great systematic thinker, but as I am not all that big on "systems",
that is not much of a draw for me. And, besides, I am not given to "great"
ideas. For me, Hegel is the prime philosopher of freedom, radical freedom --
even cosmic freedom.
>
> Husserl had a real dislike for Hegelianism, and so he missed the solution to
his enigma of separation (subject/object). That's not to say that he hadn't made
real strides for thought. He did get a tad mystical in his late period (eternal
monads, etc.), but ... hey. I like his work on time consciousness.
>
> Wil
> Wil, thank you for the reply,when you speak of Hegel I know I am getting the
best information. Would you agree that Neutonian physics were the last chance
for science to exhibit common sense empiricism? By that I mean that the physics
looked like the world we lived in. Did Hegel have some preintuition as to the
coming of a completely  new and radical physics. Could his strong mathamatics
background have given him a theoretic look into  the hard to believe world of
sub atomics and light speed? It was there in his time but no one had had the
kind of incisive mind to slash into general and special relativity . That you
appreciate the more freedom loving  applications of his philosophy is a supeise
to me. I hope you elaborate on  that  facit of his work. We could use a champion
of freedom in these oppressive times. Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
> To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, Nov 4, 2011 2:21 pm
> Subject: [existlist] no sidewinder
>
>
>
>
>
> Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel  is the last,
great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of German
Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked Husserel. I
think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based  theocracys. Then FN
reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would Hegel allow quantum
physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological constant  was more
conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it seems the idea 
deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not get to use the
Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are missing.
> I am contemplating the Israeli leak of an attack on Iran. Fareed  Zacaria just
doesn`t get it  and he fears the idea. A threat of the use of nuclear weapons is
rare and I know the Saudi King fears  US withdrawl and  the rise of Iran. Do
Arabs hate Persians enough to join the Jews in bombing them. I doubt  they could
stop with just the nuclear sites  and would have to try and overthrow the
theocracy. Will the Ayaitolla be the next  body we see being kicked around in
the street?I know Bush and the republicans could be enticed to try such a
decapitation. I am sure the revolutionary guard would try to enlist the whole
Shiite populations to full jahaad. I do not find the options  acceptable but
Israel holds the big stick and it is their asses on the line. Hegel would have
no way to even think about such a situation. He did not have any idea of nuclear
fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein? Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
>
> Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel  is the last,
great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of German
Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked Husserel. I
think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based  theocracys. Then FN
reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would Hegel allow quantum
physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological constant  was more
conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it seems the idea 
deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not get to use the
Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are missing[...]Hegel
would have no way to even think about such a situation. He did not have any idea
of nuclear fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein? Bill
>
Bill,

Here's a book review addressing differences between Hegel and Nietzsche,
possibly interesting whether or not one agrees with the author's and reviewer's
opinions. Hopefully Wil has interest and time for further comments. If nothing
else there are references to other texts about this.

http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/86/172

Nietzsche somewhat ironically precipitated the nihilist crisis he predicted to
the same degree Hegel's thought prefigured the inevitable integration of
relativity and nonlocality by describing the dialectical dynamic of thought.
There are startling implications for the suggestion that subject and object are
one another.

I'm impressed by Hegel's astounding demonstration of what Bohm called thinking
about thought. I place Einstein among the greats, because when approaching the
known limits of scientific thought, he found a way to think uncommonly. When
thought reaches a limit, there's no way through or around except with more
thought. Einstein has had far more impact, yet the problems he foresaw now
require philosophy not more technology.

Who can measure mind or predict its path? All thought can do is trace where it's
been as it moves. No one wills or causes it. Thought thinks `itself'. I second
the elegance Einstein apprehended, Nietzsche reveled in, and Hegel conceptually
organized.

Everything is thought. Not so obvious . . . until you think about it.

Mary

Bill,

It is interesting that the two inventors of the calculus, Newton and Leibniz,
were empiricist and rationalist, respectively. Of course, Newton was also an
alchemist and an occultist of sorts. The picture of the cosmos that we call
Newtonian, in any case, is one that Hegel certainly rejected as incomplete and
one-sided. But I think Newton would have thought so too, although for very
different reasons. But I did not have that in mind, earlier.

Physics within the last few decades has more or less confirmed that what we
commonly understand as real is only apparently so, while at the same time this
apparent reality is the one we insist on as our local reality where we have to
live. But below the Planck numbers, contemporary physics is faced with
describing a subtending reality that has no space or time, no objects, nothing
to see, nothing to describe. The manifest world that we know is thus one that is
constructing and deconstructing according to conditions that entail because
nothing entails its except a rational necessity -- rational as knowable by our
own rational mind, likewise reflecting the logic of ontology.

This open system is its freedom, if one that finds itself in its very
difficulties.

Wil





-----Original Message-----
From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Nov 5, 2011 12:11 pm
Subject: [existlist] Re: no sidewinder







--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
>
> Bill,
>
> Modern science seems to be catching up to Hegel. Hegel thought Newtonian-like
cosmology to be hampered by a pseudo-objective understanding. So do I. Hegel was
the last great systematic thinker, but as I am not all that big on "systems",
that is not much of a draw for me. And, besides, I am not given to "great"
ideas. For me, Hegel is the prime philosopher of freedom, radical freedom --
even cosmic freedom.
>
> Husserl had a real dislike for Hegelianism, and so he missed the solution to
his enigma of separation (subject/object). That's not to say that he hadn't made
real strides for thought. He did get a tad mystical in his late period (eternal
monads, etc.), but ... hey. I like his work on time consciousness.
>
> Wil
> Wil, thank you for the reply,when you speak of Hegel I know I am getting the
best information. Would you agree that Neutonian physics were the last chance
for science to exhibit common sense empiricism? By that I mean that the physics
looked like the world we lived in. Did Hegel have some preintuition as to the
coming of a completely  new and radical physics. Could his strong mathamatics
background have given him a theoretic look into  the hard to believe world of
sub atomics and light speed? It was there in his time but no one had had the
kind of incisive mind to slash into general and special relativity . That you
appreciate the more freedom loving  applications of his philosophy is a supeise
to me. I hope you elaborate on  that  facit of his work. We could use a champion
of freedom in these oppressive times. Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
> To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, Nov 4, 2011 2:21 pm
> Subject: [existlist] no sidewinder
>
>
>
>
>
> Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel  is the last,
great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of German
Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked Husserel. I
think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based  theocracys. Then FN
reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would Hegel allow quantum
physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological constant  was more
conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it seems the idea 
deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not get to use the
Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are missing.
> I am contemplating the Israeli leak of an attack on Iran. Fareed  Zacaria just
doesn`t get it  and he fears the idea. A threat of the use of nuclear weapons is
rare and I know the Saudi King fears  US withdrawl and  the rise of Iran. Do
Arabs hate Persians enough to join the Jews in bombing them. I doubt  they could
stop with just the nuclear sites  and would have to try and overthrow the
theocracy. Will the Ayaitolla be the next  body we see being kicked around in
the street?I know Bush and the republicans could be enticed to try such a
decapitation. I am sure the revolutionary guard would try to enlist the whole
Shiite populations to full jahaad. I do not find the options  acceptable but
Israel holds the big stick and it is their asses on the line. Hegel would have
no way to even think about such a situation. He did not have any idea of nuclear
fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein? Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>









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

Mary,

That book looks interesting. I have it in my Kindle wish list. Odd that no
review has been written for it there.

I have enjoyed your posts in that other list. The hostility that you see there
has been going on for a while ( a few years!). It first began in a series of
very heated exchanges between Bob, and others, and myself (and much later on,
Alan). I have given up on it now, for the most part. It just goes around and
around, and then begins again as if nothing had been said. It gets so heated
that I found myself obsessing on it to my detriment. So, I let it all go.

I like Bob's book. It is well worth the read, But his more recent exaggerated
and theological rendering of true infinity is, I think, not in keeping with the
whole point of Hegel's philosophy which seeks to go beyond any hint of
personality in the Absolute. Etc.

Wil



-----Original Message-----
From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Nov 6, 2011 1:08 pm
Subject: [existlist] Re: no sidewinder





--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
>
> Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel  is the last,
great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of German
Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked Husserel. I
think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based  theocracys. Then FN
reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would Hegel allow quantum
physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological constant  was more
conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it seems the idea 
deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not get to use the
Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are missing[...]Hegel
would have no way to even think about such a situation. He did not have any idea
of nuclear fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein? Bill
>
Bill,

Here's a book review addressing differences between Hegel and Nietzsche,
possibly interesting whether or not one agrees with the author's and reviewer's
opinions. Hopefully Wil has interest and time for further comments. If nothing
else there are references to other texts about this.

http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/86/172

Nietzsche somewhat ironically precipitated the nihilist crisis he predicted to
the same degree Hegel's thought prefigured the inevitable integration of
relativity and nonlocality by describing the dialectical dynamic of thought.
There are startling implications for the suggestion that subject and object are
one another.

I'm impressed by Hegel's astounding demonstration of what Bohm called thinking
about thought. I place Einstein among the greats, because when approaching the
known limits of scientific thought, he found a way to think uncommonly. When
thought reaches a limit, there's no way through or around except with more
thought. Einstein has had far more impact, yet the problems he foresaw now
require philosophy not more technology.

Who can measure mind or predict its path? All thought can do is trace where it's
been as it moves. No one wills or causes it. Thought thinks `itself'. I second
the elegance Einstein apprehended, Nietzsche reveled in, and Hegel conceptually
organized.

Everything is thought. Not so obvious . . . until you think about it.

Mary









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

Wil,

I can understand your frustrations! What motivates me to wrestle with Hegel is
this very concern. The "...exaggerated and theological rendering of true
infinity is, I think, not in keeping with the whole point of Hegel's philosophy
which seeks to go beyond any hint of personality in the Absolute." and how it
hinders the speculative in both science and philosophy.

Thanks,
Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
> Mary,
>
> That book looks interesting. I have it in my Kindle wish list. Odd that no
review has been written for it there.
>
> I have enjoyed your posts in that other list. The hostility that you see there
has been going on for a while ( a few years!). It first began in a series of
very heated exchanges between Bob, and others, and myself (and much later on,
Alan). I have given up on it now, for the most part. It just goes around and
around, and then begins again as if nothing had been said. It gets so heated
that I found myself obsessing on it to my detriment. So, I let it all go.
>
> I like Bob's book. It is well worth the read, But his more recent exaggerated
and theological rendering of true infinity is, I think, not in keeping with the
whole point of Hegel's philosophy which seeks to go beyond any hint of
personality in the Absolute. Etc.
>
> Wil
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
> To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, Nov 6, 2011 1:08 pm
> Subject: [existlist] Re: no sidewinder
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
> >
> > Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel  is the
last, great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of
German Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked
Husserel. I think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based 
theocracys. Then FN reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would
Hegel allow quantum physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological
constant  was more conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it
seems the idea  deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not
get to use the Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are
missing[...]Hegel would have no way to even think about such a situation. He did
not have any idea of nuclear fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein?
Bill
> >
> Bill,
>
> Here's a book review addressing differences between Hegel and Nietzsche,
possibly interesting whether or not one agrees with the author's and reviewer's
opinions. Hopefully Wil has interest and time for further comments. If nothing
else there are references to other texts about this.
>
> http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/86/172
>
> Nietzsche somewhat ironically precipitated the nihilist crisis he predicted to
the same degree Hegel's thought prefigured the inevitable integration of
relativity and nonlocality by describing the dialectical dynamic of thought.
There are startling implications for the suggestion that subject and object are
one another.
>
> I'm impressed by Hegel's astounding demonstration of what Bohm called thinking
about thought. I place Einstein among the greats, because when approaching the
known limits of scientific thought, he found a way to think uncommonly. When
thought reaches a limit, there's no way through or around except with more
thought. Einstein has had far more impact, yet the problems he foresaw now
require philosophy not more technology.
>
> Who can measure mind or predict its path? All thought can do is trace where
it's been as it moves. No one wills or causes it. Thought thinks `itself'. I
second the elegance Einstein apprehended, Nietzsche reveled in, and Hegel
conceptually organized.
>
> Everything is thought. Not so obvious . . . until you think about it.
>
> Mary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> It is interesting that the two inventors of the calculus, Newton and Leibniz,
were empiricist and rationalist, respectively. Of course, Newton was also an
alchemist and an occultist of sorts. The picture of the cosmos that we call
Newtonian, in any case, is one that Hegel certainly rejected as incomplete and
one-sided. But I think Newton would have thought so too, although for very
different reasons. But I did not have that in mind, earlier.
>
> Physics within the last few decades has more or less confirmed that what we
commonly understand as real is only apparently so, while at the same time this
apparent reality is the one we insist on as our local reality where we have to
live. But below the Planck numbers, contemporary physics is faced with
describing a subtending reality that has no space or time, no objects, nothing
to see, nothing to describe. The manifest world that we know is thus one that is
constructing and deconstructing according to conditions that entail because
nothing entails its except a rational necessity -- rational as knowable by our
own rational mind, likewise reflecting the logic of ontology.
>
> This open system is its freedom, if one that finds itself in its very
difficulties.
>
> Wil
> Wil and Mary, a few comments. I was ignorant of the age of Hegel. That he saw
Napolian was a real shock to me. I  mean Husserel died in 1939 so they were in
no way contemporaries. I do not accuse you of saying such but it was a most
suprising anachronism to me. I mean
  Hagel was in the age of horse calvery and could have had little to learn from
the coming explosion in science and technology. I see the continuum of problems
that science has  caused for philosophy since the time of Galleleo. I might
agree with you that what science deals with is not the business of philosophy.
When science seems illogical it does not violate  logic, it steps outside  logic
and describes phenomina  that were unknown in the former philosophic  sphere.
Early on I  thought the Bohr model of the atom was badly flawed. When more
complex models  incorporated the dualism of the electron I knew that standard
logic was violated and  the world of quantum physics  would operate  within
different parameters. Poor Hagel was so far before any quantum physics or Hubble
cosmology  that I see him as operating in another age. I think, that cosmology 
has shattered  the  logic of the old theocracys , it has reset the temporal
framework of reality and suprisingly made it more precise. So we come from the
world of Hagel with  set logic, set in mathematics to a  neather world  set in
vague probabilities and then back to a world with a set beginning and an end
which seems traditionally logical. In these epocpcs of thought  transference of
specific  sets of ideas  is all but restricted. So for me to ask either of you
to bring Hegel  up to date is an unfair and impossible task. I do think it is
possible to  relate  Fn  or  Sartre to modern physics and cosmology. They did
not say much about future science but I do not think their writings refute  the
new ideas in any substantive way. Bill
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
> To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sat, Nov 5, 2011 12:11 pm
> Subject: [existlist] Re: no sidewinder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > Modern science seems to be catching up to Hegel. Hegel thought
Newtonian-like cosmology to be hampered by a pseudo-objective understanding. So
do I. Hegel was the last great systematic thinker, but as I am not all that big
on "systems", that is not much of a draw for me. And, besides, I am not given to
"great" ideas. For me, Hegel is the prime philosopher of freedom, radical
freedom -- even cosmic freedom.
> >
> > Husserl had a real dislike for Hegelianism, and so he missed the solution to
his enigma of separation (subject/object). That's not to say that he hadn't made
real strides for thought. He did get a tad mystical in his late period (eternal
monads, etc.), but ... hey. I like his work on time consciousness.
> >
> > Wil
> > Wil, thank you for the reply,when you speak of Hegel I know I am getting the
best information. Would you agree that Neutonian physics were the last chance
for science to exhibit common sense empiricism? By that I mean that the physics
looked like the world we lived in. Did Hegel have some preintuition as to the
coming of a completely  new and radical physics. Could his strong mathamatics
background have given him a theoretic look into  the hard to believe world of
sub atomics and light speed? It was there in his time but no one had had the
kind of incisive mind to slash into general and special relativity . That you
appreciate the more freedom loving  applications of his philosophy is a supeise
to me. I hope you elaborate on  that  facit of his work. We could use a champion
of freedom in these oppressive times. Bill
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William <v.valleywestdental@>
> > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Fri, Nov 4, 2011 2:21 pm
> > Subject: [existlist] no sidewinder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel  is the
last, great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of
German Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked
Husserel. I think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based 
theocracys. Then FN reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would
Hegel allow quantum physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological
constant  was more conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it
seems the idea  deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not
get to use the Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are
missing.
> > I am contemplating the Israeli leak of an attack on Iran. Fareed  Zacaria
just doesn`t get it  and he fears the idea. A threat of the use of nuclear
weapons is rare and I know the Saudi King fears  US withdrawl and  the rise of
Iran. Do Arabs hate Persians enough to join the Jews in bombing them. I doubt 
they could stop with just the nuclear sites  and would have to try and overthrow
the theocracy. Will the Ayaitolla be the next  body we see being kicked around
in the street?I know Bush and the republicans could be enticed to try such a
decapitation. I am sure the revolutionary guard would try to enlist the whole
Shiite populations to full jahaad. I do not find the options  acceptable but
Israel holds the big stick and it is their asses on the line. Hegel would have
no way to even think about such a situation. He did not have any idea of nuclear
fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein? Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Bill,

When Wil wrote...

"Physics within the last few decades has more or less confirmed that what we
commonly understand as real is only apparently so, while at the same time this
apparent reality is the one we insist on as our local reality where we have to
live. But below the Planck numbers, contemporary physics is faced with
describing a subtending reality that has no space or time, no objects, nothing
to see, nothing to describe. The manifest world that we know is thus one that is
constructing and deconstructing according to conditions that entail because
nothing entails its except a rational necessity -- rational as knowable by our
own rational mind, likewise reflecting the logic of ontology.

This open system is its freedom, if one that finds itself in its very
difficulties."

... he made the link between Hegel and modern physics. Hegel gave primacy to
reason, not its practical application for weapons of mass destruction, but its
description and dynamic relationship with science itself. Nietzsche and Sartre
had opposing concepts of freedom, and if they had looked at the same scientific
facts would have interpreted them completely differently, applying them to their
political preferences. With Hegel thought is absolute.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> When Wil wrote...
>
> "Physics within the last few decades has more or less confirmed that what we
commonly understand as real is only apparently so, while at the same time this
apparent reality is the one we insist on as our local reality where we have to
live. But below the Planck numbers, contemporary physics is faced with
describing a subtending reality that has no space or time, no objects, nothing
to see, nothing to describe. The manifest world that we know is thus one that is
constructing and deconstructing according to conditions that entail because
nothing entails its except a rational necessity -- rational as knowable by our
own rational mind, likewise reflecting the logic of ontology.
>
> This open system is its freedom, if one that finds itself in its very
difficulties."
>
> ... he made the link between Hegel and modern physics. Hegel gave primacy to
reason, not its practical application for weapons of mass destruction, but its
description and dynamic relationship with science itself. Nietzsche and Sartre
had opposing concepts of freedom, and if they had looked at the same scientific
facts would have interpreted them completely differently, applying them to their
political preferences. With Hegel thought is absolute.
>
> Mary
>
Mary, The open system  seems a system that was based on numbers that fail to
explain much of what we see and use today. It may feel good to have a past
master explain  a world that existed  in a napoleanic mind but the real world
marches on. I would like a fine tuned logical universe but  science shows us a
violent and often contradictory cosmos. If you simply forget all that has been
learned,all we have built and destroyed then Hegel could be your man. It seems
he gives you the freedom to live in a time suspended box of logical , self
assumed walls. Logic breaks down at relative speeds and masses and those
conditions exist in this universe. If you can live with the contradictions
science has presented left unanswered and rely on thought as absolute then you
rely on unproven  and arbitrary set of assumptions  that may or may not resemble
proven expermental reality. I do not  fault Hegel for building systems that
worked in his time but  many many things have been learned and much has changed
since the French revolution and Napolionic wars. Indeed much has changed since
JPS lived and wrote. I think that philosophy  is in many ways an anachronism and
the philosophy you  long for to be a holy grail  that will remain unfound.
Thinking about thinking  becomes more a mantra than a search for knowledge while
looking into ones lap  takes you closer and closer to eastern  cyclical
thinking. Is nervaqnah perfect, is the system more perfect the more simple it is
constructed. The knowledge base is hundreds of times bigger than  in 1800. That
is thoughts that have multiplied and they just will not fit nicely in hegalian
boxes. So I do not accept Hegels modernity and consider him ancient and nearly
useless in the modern world.I do agree that JPS  is also outmoded and politics 
may have taken away any philosophy  in his writings. The post WW2 environment
needed political order much more than it needed philosophical musings. I
actually see the world as more ordered than in the times of Hegel or JPS. If
philosophy returns to systems and navel gazing it will again fail to lead and
will slip further into obscurity. Bill

OK I reject the name existentialist. It is pretentious, pedantic and holds
little meaning. Continentilist is even worse. Few besides acedemics have any
idea what it means so I do not want to be called one. Athiest is vastly negative
and leads to endless contention. I want to be a modernist and that is what I
call myself. A modernist does not become dated. Thinking about the problems that
beset manking and then writing about the situations  makes me a modernist. When
I quit thinking and writing I will cease my modernism. After I am dead I will
cease my modernism and will become a dead thinker. That is why I cannot accept
Hegel as a modernist. He may be a great thinker but he is not and has not been
anything modern since his death. Now if you wish to read him as a great thinker 
do so by all means. He is however not a modernist and if he is all you read then
neither are you.
Modernism is endlessly involved and horribly exposed. The search engines are a
boon to the modernist and the computer disseminates modern thoughts  at a speed
I could not imagine twenty years ago. A modernist can talk about old concepts
but he can not live in a past reverie. Unless you can speak intelligently of the
present world you are not a modernist. Ergo,Hegel non est modernist. Bill

Abstract:

"Why do most positions in philosophy tend toward just two basic ideas? For the
last 100 years philosophers have either been fanatic supporters of science even
to the point of arguing philosophy away, (Quine,) or obliquely associating
sciences complicity with the horrors of the twentieth century (Heidegger,
Sartre, Foucault). Even Alain Badiou, who promotes the philosophical benefits of
mathematics, draws a line at endorsing the natural sciences. Very few
philosophers manage to do serious philosophical reflection on the sciences while
avoiding unnecessary and uninspired reductive and or accusatory work. Slavoj
Zizek is the rare exception for those who desire to escape the current thought
crippling dichotomy that seems to run rampant. The forthcoming paper will
discuss Badiou in order to understand how his anti-naturalism is unproductive
and counter to his revolutionary project. Badiou provides a useful focal point
for understanding a long held bias towards the sciences. Zizek however overcomes
the problems correlated with anti-naturalism by reading science through the lens
of a psychoanalytic inspired collaboration of German Idealism. For Zizek, the
natural sciences confirm the insights of Kant, Schelling and Hegel instead of
foregoing them as "armchair thinking." Our reading of Zizek will show that these
ideas are far from being relics of an unenlightened era, represent a serious and
provocative answer to facile distinctions that seek to support one discipline at
the expense of the other."

Link to the entire paper here

http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/view/299

Mary

A couple of thoughts about today. Gridlock is  force feeding some aspects of the
news and causing reporters to over hype many minor stories.
In the markets the broakers are spreading rumors to cause buy or sell orders.
With 20% bonus cuts they will try to chern themselves back to previous levels.
There are statutes to limit this but the Wall Street bunch were never much for
the rules. I actually think the market will correct this as people will quit 
investing in equities. Look at gold and see where the trust  lies.
  The worrysome  reality is that Iran is threatening street wars if Isreal
attacks them. It is being sparcly reported but  direct threats by soverign
states will be noticed. The street wars will be in the US. I do not know how
they plan to do this but    like Zizak just put it out there and see if anyone
will eat it. It is like a Chicken Pox lollipop, suck on it and maby you will get
the Pox. I know Hillary is watching the Iatollas and messing with Hillary is not
like  fooling with Condy Rice.
  The latest little boy rapes now spreads to the pedophile jocks. Locker room
rumors are always there but this seems real  and some people need to due some
time. It`s a long way from Happy Valley to Singsing. So sad to end careers in
such a way. I hope the victims are remembered. Im off to check the wild
gyrations in the market, remember Turn Turn Turn, try Churn ,churn churn. Bill

It will be interesting to see how a high level acedemic institution handles a
criminal morals situation. Certainly the catholic curch has so miserably failed
a similar test that a great many people  discard them as any moral force.
I do not like the  self important stances by  universitys or the character
building claims by football programs. Blatant self righteousness  seems a
product of correctness and there is still plenty of that around campus. If I
remember right ,no one here voted for correctness.
Can the acedemics govern themselves better than the bishops did? I really
dislike bloated acedemic egos but think they will do better than the bishops. In
a way it becomes a contest between philosophy and religion. Which makes better
decisions when the heads are on the block. So far the student generation has
flunked ,caring more for a football coach than civil law or victims rights.The
catholic church has put it all behind then and are changing the latin in the
mass. New missles, more revinue. Bill

Hope you get this on time, I made a trip to Edinburgh, Scotland and had my bag
stolen from me with my passport and personal effects therein. The embassy has
just issued me a temporary passport but I have to pay for a ticket and settle
hotel bills. I've made contact with my bank but it would take me 3-5 working
days to access funds in my account from Edinburgh. Please I need you to lend me
some money to sort my self out of this predicament, I will pay back as soon as I
return.

You can reach me via email, my phone was stolen as well.

I await your response...

Lewis

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

A I told you before, I have contacted our local DA about your scam.  Has he not
reached you  Old Fart



-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis Vella <lewisvella@...>
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
Sent: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 8:04 am
Subject: [existlist] Hi




Hope you get this on time, I made a trip to Edinburgh, Scotland and had my bag
stolen from me with my passport and personal effects therein. The embassy has
just issued me a temporary passport but I have to pay for a ticket and settle
hotel bills. I've made contact with my bank but it would take me 3-5 working
days to access funds in my account from Edinburgh. Please I need you to lend me
some money to sort my self out of this predicament, I will pay back as soon as I
return.

You can reach me via email, my phone was stolen as well.

I await your response...

Lewis

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







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