Correction: I meant to say, It's choosing to ignore something essential about
yourself and acting contrary to that something.

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
>
> I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've turned
to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a good example of
someone choosing authentically, because he may justify according to his freedom
to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad faith is acting against your own
sense of freedom to make a different choice, a choice not based on ideology. The
zealot isn't free to deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than
questioning himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then
acting against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore
something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. I vaguely
recall that Beauvoir wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't understand
how a sadist's existential authenticity is the same as a zealot's except perhaps
their outcomes, but just because an outcome looks the same, doesn't mean their
motives were.
>
> Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
>
> You offer a good argument against killing a killer--needing to learn from it.
Why doesn't law enforcement use other technology? Perhaps it would have been
lethal to the child, since once the food and other materials enter the bunker
there's little control over who eats or handles it.
>
> Mary
> Mary, I was thinking of an aerosol agent. If you can get a wire in you can 
force in a gas. The NRA says they want mental health  actions to thwart gun
violence but they oppose CDC studies to get to the causes of gun deaths. Their
seems a culture to turn to the gun first and then the dead tell no tales. It is
a law enforcement  version of what Eduard sees as the wild west mentality. The
hot shooters in swat teams have  a lot of ego invested in gun prowess. That ego
just ratchets up the violent tensions in these kind of situations. The NRA wants
more of that, more guns, more  rounds more money for NRA , its gun and ammo
producers. They are going the way of greater profits not the greater good. Their
bone headed membership does not buy into this intellectually  they respond to
the emotion  and hype of violent confrontation. Yes it is a male thing,a bad
male thing, a juvenile male thing.When you train  someone up to hair trigger
reactions  you have created a killing machine. I do not think we need more of
those we need  different methods, early intervention  non lethal intervention.
The SEAL who was blown away by the marine  shows the very tip of the violent
culture. After all his training and  lethality there was still  a superior gun,
one of his comrades in arms. The answer is not piling on more guns,more
ammo,more body armour. Thats going the wrong way . Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
> >  Finally, they shot the child abductor as I thought they would. That has 
become the standard  modus operandi and it is hard to argue with  killing a
killer. I`m glad they got the boy out of the hole. Since they had audio and
video in the bunker why not introduce a sleep agent  so we could find out what
motovated this dingbat. If we can`t find out what drives these people we will
never be able to understand and twart them before they  start wasting people. It
has been this way since Waco. Kill them all and learn nothing. It is always the
gun that ends  any investigation. Is that the best that can be done or is it the
only thing authorities want to utilise? Bill
> >
>

I do get it.

I agree that Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
against that knowledge.

I'm just pointing out that Moussa in Mali would not be acting in bad faith,
since he IS evil.  Therefore, he acts authentically.

Your comment ... "To state that evil people are authentic is meaningless in
an existential context" ... seems to imply that only good people can be
authentic in an existential context.  Why??  If authenticity is acting
according to your knowledge of yourself, then surely this formula would
apply as well to evil people.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:39 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a good
example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify according
to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad faith is
acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different choice, a
choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to deliberate with
himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning himself. Bad faith
is knowing something about yourself and then acting against that knowledge.
It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore something essential about
yourself but then acting contrary to it. I vaguely recall that Beauvoir
wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't understand how a sadist's
existential authenticity is the same as a zealot's except perhaps their
outcomes, but just because an outcome looks the same, doesn't mean their
motives were.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> Interesting.
>
> Why is it "bad faith"??  If a sadist harms others, how can it be bad faith
> since (1) he wants to harm you, and (2) he does harm you.  It would be
> different if he doesn't want to harm you, but does so because he thinks it
> is required of him and decides some self justification.
>
> eduard

They had a conduit to the bunker.  They could have put in some sleeping gas
that acts immediately.  Like they did in Russia some years back.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:48 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Defense,drones and dingbats

You offer a good argument against killing a killer--needing to learn from
it. Why doesn't law enforcement use other technology? Perhaps it would have
been lethal to the child, since once the food and other materials enter the
bunker there's little control over who eats or handles it.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:

>  Finally, they shot the child abductor as I thought they would. That has
> become the standard  modus operandi and it is hard to argue with  killing
> a killer. I`m glad they got the boy out of the hole. Since they had audio
> and video in the bunker why not introduce a sleep agent  so we could find
> out what motovated this dingbat. If we can`t find out what drives these
> people we will never be able to understand and twart them before they
> start wasting people. It has been this way since Waco. Kill them all and
> learn nothing. It is always the gun that ends  any investigation. Is that
> the best that can be done or is it the only thing authorities want to
> utilise? Bill
>




------------------------------------

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

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

Even then the evil person is acting in an existential context.  They know
they are evil.  One cannot say that they are essentially good and are
ignoring the fact.  That is why it is impossible to deal with these people
in a rational manner.  You can't connect with their good side because they
don't have a good side, ignored or otherwise.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:00 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

Correction: I meant to say, It's choosing to ignore something essential
about yourself and acting contrary to that something.

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
>
> I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
> turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a
> good example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify
> according to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad
> faith is acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different
> choice, a choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to
> deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning
> himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
> against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore
> something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. I
> vaguely recall that Beauvoir wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't
> understand how a sadist's existential authenticity is the same as a
> zealot's except perhaps their outcomes, but just because an outcome looks
> the same, doesn't mean their motives were.
>
> Mary



------------------------------------

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

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

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> They had a conduit to the bunker.  They could have put in some sleeping gas
> that acts immediately.  Like they did in Russia some years back.
>
> eduard
> Eduard, that is exactly what  could have been done. However, flash bangs and
submachine guns are a lot more exciting. Firing a submachine gun in a small
enclosed space is wildly dangerous to any and all in the enclosure. The russians
also understand  and execute prisnors with a single shot to the back of the head
in a rubber room. In a hard surface room a round just bounces around until it
hits someone or something soft. Why we chose the Special Weapons And Tactics 
route is buried in police lore. When M16`s were the weapons of choice  there
were many training accidents. Yet we persist in  using these most violent and
dangerous of tools and tactics. We have just dared the crazies to build bunkers
and fill them with bombs and booby traps. We are just begging for gun fights and
the nut fringe responds like pavlovs dogs. No wonder the rest of the world
thinks we are fucking nuts. Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:48 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Defense,drones and dingbats
>
> You offer a good argument against killing a killer--needing to learn from
> it. Why doesn't law enforcement use other technology? Perhaps it would have
> been lethal to the child, since once the food and other materials enter the
> bunker there's little control over who eats or handles it.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
> >  Finally, they shot the child abductor as I thought they would. That has
> > become the standard  modus operandi and it is hard to argue with  killing
> > a killer. I`m glad they got the boy out of the hole. Since they had audio
> > and video in the bunker why not introduce a sleep agent  so we could find
> > out what motovated this dingbat. If we can`t find out what drives these
> > people we will never be able to understand and twart them before they
> > start wasting people. It has been this way since Waco. Kill them all and
> > learn nothing. It is always the gun that ends  any investigation. Is that
> > the best that can be done or is it the only thing authorities want to
> > utilise? Bill
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
>
> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
>

No you don't. A zealot terrorist doesn't believe he's evil. He think's he's
doing the will of his god. He's acting authentically according to his own
perceived goodness, but it's not an existential authenticity because he isn't
acting freely. You're confusing the fact that we consider him evil with the fact
that he considers himself good. Two different things.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> I do get it.
>
> I agree that Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
> against that knowledge.
>
> I'm just pointing out that Moussa in Mali would not be acting in bad faith,
> since he IS evil.  Therefore, he acts authentically.
>
> Your comment ... "To state that evil people are authentic is meaningless in
> an existential context" ... seems to imply that only good people can be
> authentic in an existential context.  Why??  If authenticity is acting
> according to your knowledge of yourself, then surely this formula would
> apply as well to evil people.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:39 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
>
> I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
> turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a good
> example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify according
> to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad faith is
> acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different choice, a
> choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to deliberate with
> himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning himself. Bad faith
> is knowing something about yourself and then acting against that knowledge.
> It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore something essential about
> yourself but then acting contrary to it. I vaguely recall that Beauvoir
> wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't understand how a sadist's
> existential authenticity is the same as a zealot's except perhaps their
> outcomes, but just because an outcome looks the same, doesn't mean their
> motives were.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > Why is it "bad faith"??  If a sadist harms others, how can it be bad faith
> > since (1) he wants to harm you, and (2) he does harm you.  It would be
> > different if he doesn't want to harm you, but does so because he thinks it
> > is required of him and decides some self justification.
> >
> > eduard
>

Only the person thinking existentially is thinking in an existentialist context.
Existentialism is a discourse formed by philosophers who put forth certain
concepts. Bad faith and authenticity is once such concept, and it only matters
to an existentialist thinker.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> Even then the evil person is acting in an existential context.  They know
> they are evil.  One cannot say that they are essentially good and are
> ignoring the fact.  That is why it is impossible to deal with these people
> in a rational manner.  You can't connect with their good side because they
> don't have a good side, ignored or otherwise.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:00 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
>
> Correction: I meant to say, It's choosing to ignore something essential
> about yourself and acting contrary to that something.
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
> >
> > I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
> > turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a
> > good example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify
> > according to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad
> > faith is acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different
> > choice, a choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to
> > deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning
> > himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
> > against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore
> > something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. I
> > vaguely recall that Beauvoir wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't
> > understand how a sadist's existential authenticity is the same as a
> > zealot's except perhaps their outcomes, but just because an outcome looks
> > the same, doesn't mean their motives were.
> >
> > Mary
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
>
> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
>

There was an episode of the TV series "Trailer park boys" where they are
trying to bring marijuana across the US-New Brunswick border.  A swat team
turns up along FBI, border patrol and whatever else there was on US side.
They had all their weapons along with appropriate acronyms on the back of
their jackets.  There was only one Canadian cop and he was drunk.  It points
out the "security and police" culture south of the border.  The problem is
that there is tons of money for this stuff.  It would have seemed ludicrous
to send down a $1's worth of gas to do the same thing.  If you can afford a
sledge hammer ... why not??

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: William
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:56 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Defense,drones and dingbats



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> They had a conduit to the bunker.  They could have put in some sleeping
> gas
> that acts immediately.  Like they did in Russia some years back.
>
> eduard
> Eduard, that is exactly what  could have been done. However, flash bangs
> and submachine guns are a lot more exciting. Firing a submachine gun in a
> small enclosed space is wildly dangerous to any and all in the enclosure.
> The russians also understand  and execute prisnors with a single shot to
> the back of the head in a rubber room. In a hard surface room a round just
> bounces around until it hits someone or something soft. Why we chose the
> Special Weapons And Tactics  route is buried in police lore. When M16`s
> were the weapons of choice  there were many training accidents. Yet we
> persist in  using these most violent and dangerous of tools and tactics.
> We have just dared the crazies to build bunkers and fill them with bombs
> and booby traps. We are just begging for gun fights and the nut fringe
> responds like pavlovs dogs. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are
> fucking nuts. Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:48 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Defense,drones and dingbats
>
> You offer a good argument against killing a killer--needing to learn from
> it. Why doesn't law enforcement use other technology? Perhaps it would
> have
> been lethal to the child, since once the food and other materials enter
> the
> bunker there's little control over who eats or handles it.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
> >  Finally, they shot the child abductor as I thought they would. That has
> > become the standard  modus operandi and it is hard to argue with
> > killing
> > a killer. I`m glad they got the boy out of the hole. Since they had
> > audio
> > and video in the bunker why not introduce a sleep agent  so we could
> > find
> > out what motovated this dingbat. If we can`t find out what drives these
> > people we will never be able to understand and twart them before they
> > start wasting people. It has been this way since Waco. Kill them all and
> > learn nothing. It is always the gun that ends  any investigation. Is
> > that
> > the best that can be done or is it the only thing authorities want to
> > utilise? Bill
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
>
> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
>




------------------------------------

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

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

Perhaps I don't.

But, how can you say that "he isn't acting freely".  Surely he must be.  He
indeed acts according to his own perceived goodness.  So if he acts in
according to what he thinks, he is then doing so in good faith.  But deeper
than that, he is accepting to go by the evil of his god because he already
is evil.  For example, his god [through sharia law] says you should cut off
a hand and foot of a thief.  He accepts this particular direction, because,
he is already inclined to harm others.  The law simply suits what he is
already inclined.  The Islamic nut doesn't have an internal conflict, in
that he knows he shouldn't harm people, but his religion is telling him to
do so.

You are accommodating the terrorist by making your own judgement of what he
thinks.  As long as he accepts a direction from outside, he is doing good.
On that basis there would be no bad faith, since everyone who is doing evil
must accept it and thus are doing what they consider as good.  The 65 year
old Dykes was acting in good faith by kidnapping that boy.  He wanted to
kidnap the boy and he did so. He is being authentic in an existential
context  ... which was my point from the beginning in regard to Moussa in
Mali, although I prefer to say he is inherently evil.  You want to say that
inherently he is good, but just happens to accept an outside direction to do
evil.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:23 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

No you don't. A zealot terrorist doesn't believe he's evil. He think's he's
doing the will of his god. He's acting authentically according to his own
perceived goodness, but it's not an existential authenticity because he
isn't acting freely. You're confusing the fact that we consider him evil
with the fact that he considers himself good. Two different things.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> I do get it.
>
> I agree that Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
> against that knowledge.
>
> I'm just pointing out that Moussa in Mali would not be acting in bad
> faith,
> since he IS evil.  Therefore, he acts authentically.
>
> Your comment ... "To state that evil people are authentic is meaningless
> in
> an existential context" ... seems to imply that only good people can be
> authentic in an existential context.  Why??  If authenticity is acting
> according to your knowledge of yourself, then surely this formula would
> apply as well to evil people.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:39 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
>
> I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
> turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a
> good
> example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify
> according
> to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad faith is
> acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different choice, a
> choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to deliberate with
> himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning himself. Bad faith
> is knowing something about yourself and then acting against that
> knowledge.
> It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore something essential about
> yourself but then acting contrary to it. I vaguely recall that Beauvoir
> wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't understand how a sadist's
> existential authenticity is the same as a zealot's except perhaps their
> outcomes, but just because an outcome looks the same, doesn't mean their
> motives were.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > Why is it "bad faith"??  If a sadist harms others, how can it be bad
> > faith
> > since (1) he wants to harm you, and (2) he does harm you.  It would be
> > different if he doesn't want to harm you, but does so because he thinks
> > it
> > is required of him and decides some self justification.
> >
> > eduard
>




------------------------------------

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

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

[You don't get it. Bad faith is acting against your own sense of freedom to
make a different
choice, a choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to
deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning
himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore
something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. ]

I don't see how a zealot who does violence against others is any different
from a sadist who does the same.  The zealot may be following direction from
his religion, but he has made that choice already.  Effectively the zealot
who does violence is a sadist who has found a particular religious direction
to be suitable for his own character.  Both are acting authentically
according to an existential context.  Both are acting according to their
perception of what is good [for them].

I don't think that one can say that a zealot isn't free to deliberate with
himself.  You are suggesting that if he had a chance to deliberate, then he
would not be a zealot.  At least not a zealot who does violence.  But people
who are such zealots are already of a type who likes violence.  The religion
only provides an avenue for doing so.  Moussa is basically evil and his
religion enables him to do violence which he enjoys.  He is acting
authentically.

eduard



-----Original Message-----
From: Mary
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:31 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

Only the person thinking existentially is thinking in an existentialist
context. Existentialism is a discourse formed by philosophers who put forth
certain concepts. Bad faith and authenticity is once such concept, and it
only matters to an existentialist thinker.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> Even then the evil person is acting in an existential context.  They know
> they are evil.  One cannot say that they are essentially good and are
> ignoring the fact.  That is why it is impossible to deal with these people
> in a rational manner.  You can't connect with their good side because they
> don't have a good side, ignored or otherwise.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:00 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
>
> Correction: I meant to say, It's choosing to ignore something essential
> about yourself and acting contrary to that something.
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
> >
> > I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
> > turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a
> > good example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify
> > according to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad
> > faith is acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different
> > choice, a choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to
> > deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning
> > himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
> > against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore
> > something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. I
> > vaguely recall that Beauvoir wrote about Sade using this argument. I
> > don't
> > understand how a sadist's existential authenticity is the same as a
> > zealot's except perhaps their outcomes, but just because an outcome
> > looks
> > the same, doesn't mean their motives were.
> >
> > Mary
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
>
> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
>




------------------------------------

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

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

Zealots are passionate but seldom wise.

Read this extract from a book I am writing.

Murad

... Although these five were the main architects of
religion, religions were also shaped and distorted by a huge number of
passionate revisionists who ardently believed that God had personally given
them a divine mission to reform or redirect their interpretations of their
faiths. It is quite astonishing how a few, sometimes unbalanced, men were to
completely alter their religions and sometimes even create completely new
religions or major schisms within established religions. 
 
One well documented fairly recent example is the
strange case of Shabbatai Zavi a scholarly young Jew who may have been
something of a manic depressive.  He
lived in Smyrna (Turkey) in the late seventeenth century. He used to suffer
fits of depression and would disappear for days until charged with fits of what
he called illumination where, what he called, a `higher power’ would direct
him
to violate many of the very strict taboos of Judaism.  He was convinced that
these `Holy Sins’ were
to lead him to a new set of holy commandments in a reformed new Judaism. He was
expelled from Smyrna in 1650, wandered for fifteen years and went to Gaza to
meet a great healer called Nathan who had proclaimed …”Thus saith the lord
Behold our savior commeth! Shabbatai Zavi is his name.” Nathan believed that
`the messiah’ had been trapped in a godless world from the beginning and would
now be freed. The news rapidly spread to many Jewish communities who began to
violate many Jewish practices, food and sexual taboos, roll on nettles, immerse
themselves in freezing water and follow other strange practices awaiting a
`Great Awakening’.
 
In 1666, confident of the lord’s protection, he
went to see the Turkish sultan and was promptly arrested and given the choice
of death or conversion to Islam. To the shock of his ardent followers he
immediately converted but said he had to do this apostatic act in order to
`descend further into the realm of impurity’ that he described as `a holy
sin’.
He however avidly studied the Muslim Sharia believing that he was also destined
to be a bridge between Judaism and Islam and bring the Jews back to their holy
land. Such trifling with deeply entrenched sacred laws caused him to be
initially exiled but, bizarre as his beliefs and actions were, Shibbatai
acquired many followers until he suddenly died in 1676. Two radical Shabbatean
sects however followed and led to a mass conversion of Jews.       
 
His extraordinary example was not very different to
numerous other `divinely inspired’ men who were to cause every religion to
split and proliferate into dozens of sects and cults. The power of divinely
inspired passion and the gullibility of their followers were truly astonishing.
In some cases these revisionists were to turn well established religions
completely on its head. Paul was the most notable example and was to completely
hijack the very well established religion of Judaism, add a few fragments from
the words of a Jew called Issa (Jesus) and create a completely new religion
that he was to call Christianity. In the early nineteenth century, an
illiterate Arab Bedouin called Abd al Wahhab was to similarly completely hijack
Islam and made it intolerant and militant.
 
Religions were not however solid edifices like some
great building. They were living traditions that grew and evolved like the
constantly spreading branches of great trees. The founders, apostles, priests
and patrons may have been their roots but religions were constantly evolving
and were to throw up numerous branches as they rose above the ground. Religions
could ignite passions among numerous leaders who were to make many new sects
and sub sects multiply with amazing speed.
 
The huge number of `heresies’ that Christianity
spawned very soon after the crucifixion best illustrates this huge explosion of
religious deviations. Some of these were:
 
Sabellianism:  Taught by
Sebellius (215 CE) in Rome, believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are
three faces of a single person, God. 
 
Docetism:  This sect founded
by bishop Serapion of Antioch (197 – 203 CE) believed that Christ was not a
real human being and did not
have a real human body. 
 
Monophysitism:  They believed that
Jesus had two separate natures in one body.  Monophysitism is still alive
in several Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects.
 
Adoptionism: They believed that
Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at his conception
and then developed a divine nature. 
 
Nestorianism:  Nestorius, the
Patriarch of Antioch (386 – 451CE) believed that Jesus had two natures of Man
and God that remained separate throughout his life and denied the idea of
virgin birth. 
 
Apollinarianism:  They believe Jesus
Christ was not a real man, but not totally divine either. 
 
Arianism:  Arius (250 -  336 CE), a priest in Alexandria believed that
Jesus Christ was a special creation by God for man's salvation. It became a
very powerful schism.
 
Socianism:  This was a version
of Arianism that says that Jesus was an extraordinary man and not a divinity. 
 
Donatism:  Named for its
leader Donatus the Great (355 CE). They were a group of extremist sects who
emphasized
asceticism.
 
Pelagianism:  Associated with
the Irish monk Pelagius who believed that original sin was not transmitted from
Adam and Eve to their children.
 
Gnosticism:  They believed in the notion of a remote, supreme
divinity, source of great depth and profundity and believed in emanations of
further divine beings that were aspects of the God.
 
Manicheanism:  This seems to have
become a separate religion that blends Christianity with Gnosticism, Mithraism,
neo-Platonism, and even many elements of Buddhism.  It gained many
followers and survived well into the middle Ages, where it influenced the large
communities of the Bogomils in the Balkans and the Cathars in southern France.
 
Bogomils: They were adoptionist
but did not consider Jesus to be a part of a trinity. They did not also they
consider Mary the mother of God. They also believed that God had two sons,
Michael and Satan and that  Satan had created the material world and
attempted to create Adam, but was unable to create a soul. 
 
Cathars:  They followed the basic
ideas of this Bogomil heresy and tried to live very simple, exemplary lives,
even
refraining from physical pleasures and meat. They believed that the God of the
Old Testament was actually Satan who was responsible for the creation of the
material world.  These were
however only the some of the hundreds of religious deviations that appeared in
the early years of Christianity. They were to continue to multiply through the
centuries and even into modern times.
 
Today though Roman Catholics are the largest
Christian community there are over five hundred different churches practicing
Catholic heresies all over the world. These include over twenty eastern
Catholics,
forty Orthodox Christians and over two hundred schools of Protestant, Lutheran
and Anglican belief. There are also reformed churches, Methodists,
Antibaptists, Pentecost’s, Quakers, Adventists, Jehovah’s witnesses, and
many
others.
 
All these sects had equally good claims to being
the true path to the message of Christ. These sects and cults however had great
difficulty in establishing themselves as they faced staunch opposition from
equally ardent devotees of other sects. It was therefore the sect that
succeeded in getting the strongest political support that were able to vanquish
their rivals in a war with the swords of soldiers rather than with the flame of
spiritual superiority.
 
These are the deviations in one just religion.
There are almost as many deviant versions of Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and all
other faiths.


________________________________
  From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 1:09 AM
Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've turned
to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a good example of
someone choosing authentically, because he may justify according to his freedom
to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad faith is acting against your own
sense of freedom to make a different choice, a choice not based on ideology. The
zealot isn't free to deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than
questioning himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then
acting against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore
something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. I vaguely
recall that Beauvoir wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't understand
how a sadist's existential authenticity is the same as a zealot's except perhaps
their outcomes, but just because an outcome looks the same, doesn't mean their
motives were.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> Interesting.
>
> Why is it "bad faith"??  If a sadist harms others, how can it be bad faith
> since (1) he wants to harm you, and (2) he does harm you.  It would be
> different if he doesn't want to harm you, but does so because he thinks it
> is required of him and decides some self justification.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:01 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
>
> You're conflating, or once again trying to reduce to the simplistic, the
> common meaning of the word authentic with existential authenticity. Zealots
> are not existentially authentic; they're not capable of bad faith, because
> they adhere to an ideology. To state that evil people are authentic is
> meaningless in an existential context.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> >
> > Religious zealots are very authentic.  They aren't borrowing from the
> > public
> > trough but are twisted all on their own.  Granted Moussa got his training
> > in
> > Saudi, but he was already twisted when he chose to go there for training
> > in
> > the first place.  It was only a matter of choosing the best place to get
> > what he already agreed with.
> >
> > eduard
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mary
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:41 PM
> > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
> >
> > The authenticity of existentialism is one of self-awareness and weighing
> > personal ideas  and values against the grain to determine if they are
> > genuinely held or simply absorbed from culture and traditions. Ideologues
> > and religious zealots are not authentic, because they rarely question
> > themselves this way. They refuse to interact with those who oppose them;
> > they're intellectually incestuous, answering their doubts with deeper
> > commitment to their ideology. This isn't what existentialism espouses.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think that one can draw a fine line between people "doing what
> > > they
> > > can" and existentialism.  I take Existentialism as a sort of philosophy
> > > for
> > > the individual.  It doesn't have an impact on a more public plain.  Yes
> > > one
> > > should authentic to oneself, but what happens when you get a real
> > > sadistic
> > > nut-case who is authentic to himself by hurting others.  If you are
> > > following the action in Mali, you will know of Mohammed Moussa who had
> > > Timbuktu his hands for the past 10 months until the French drove him
> > > out.
> > > It was he who directed the Islamic police in applying a strict Sharia
> > > law.
> > > He ordered women to be completely covered and the men to grow beards.
> > > He
> > > was also responsible for having women raped, whipping, cutting off a
> > > hand
> > > or
> > > foot or both of thieves.  You could get caught up with his "police" for
> > > whatever even that supposed.  Moussa was being authentic.
> > >
> > > eduard
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mary
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 2:32 PM
> > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
> > >
> > > Let me restate this. Any individual, whether employed in the private or
> > > the
> > > public sector, cannot be excused from doing what they can. The reason
> > > existentialism is not just 'what everybody does anyway' is because it's
> > > a
> > > call for authenticity and doing what is worth your trouble. That there
> > > are
> > > no guarantees does impact our decisions but only if we don't chose. If
> > > we
> > > don't choose, someone else chooses for us. Freedom isn't even possible
> > > if
> > > no
> > > one is authentically choosing. For example, if someone declares they're
> > > just
> > > doing their job or that money is their primary goal, you know where they
> > > stand. Reacting to inauthentic people is like shadow boxing; taking a
> > > position is the only way someone else is free to take theirs.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh eduard. Those "security people" are just doing what they can. Shit
> > > > happens. Not. This is why existentialism is more about 'what you can
> > > > do'
> > > > and how the personal intersects with the public than hindsight about
> > > > every
> > > > path is the same. What you think directly relates to how you act. If
> > > > liberty is important, then what the individual does, whether a private
> > > > citizen or a government, is important, is worth the trouble, is life
> > > > and
> > > > death for many. What's equally threatening to liberty is doing
> > > > nothing.
> > > >
> > > > Mary
> > > >
> > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean "Asperger's".
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea of chips  is disturbing.  The security people won't stop
> > > > > until
> > > > > they
> > > > > have chips in everyone.  Big threat to liberty.
> > > > >
> > > > > eduard
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: William
> > > > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 6:07 PM
> > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [existlist] The boy in the hole
> > > > >
> > > > > We got the whole nut bag treatment with this  story. Gun violence,
> > > > > veteran
> > > > > acting out, child  abduction,  murder, kidnapping and suicide. It
> > > > > appears
> > > > > the FBI rescued the child who  had Augsburgers. This  story is one
> > > > > of
> > > > > modern
> > > > > disfunctionality.  and would seem to defy any  conclusion or attempt
> > > > > at
> > > > > prevention.
> > > > > Remember Dirty Harry when the nut job  invades the school bus? I
> > > > > wonder
> > > > > if
> > > > > Dikes did?
> > > > > It may be time to put up the drones and canvass the crazies all the
> > > > > time.
> > > > > Can the  computers do that? can the democracy stand it. We may be
> > > > > able
> > > > > to
> > > > > detect a weapon and any perp with  no gun rights could be
> > > > > intradicted
> > > > > for
> > > > > cause. The cops stop him and confiscate his weapon and take him to a
> > > > > treatment holding facility. It would probably  require implanting a
> > > > > chip
> > > > > that identifies the suspect  as  a mental problem. Gun plus + chip =
> > > > > take
> > > > > down. I can see this shaping up and think it is big brother to the
> > > > > maximum
> > > > > extent. The crazies just keep pushing the envelope of evil and is
> > > > > actually
> > > > > domestic terrorism. The  methodes that work against  Islamic
> > > > > terrorism
> > > > > could  work for  this domestic scourge. I hate the thought of it
> > > > > but
> > > > > know
> > > > > it will soon be  proposed. A nut job with a gun will be taken down
> > > > > automatically and we probably already have the technology with the
> > > > > drones.
> > > > > Welcome to the brave new world. Bill
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
> > > > > nothing!
> > > > >
> > > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
> > > nothing!
> > >
> > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
> >
> > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
>
> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
>




------------------------------------

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

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



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

Questions for Merlin?



[  I know you like a questions foremat so here goes. What is your
comment on finding your ancient king. Was Shakespere right in painting
him a killer and cad? Do you have US drones in England? It has come out
that the killer drones are stationed in Saudi. The base is remote and
secret. With your countries general acceptance of cameras, would you be
bothered by more intrusive methods from above. And finally ,I see you
are about to accept same sex marriage. What do you think of that? My
state was one of the first to accept it here and we have had few
negative repurcussions. A British view is hard to find here unless you
want to listen to Richard Quest and he is a bit bombastic for me.
Thanks, Bill  ]



Now now sweet pea grim William, I don't have a king. Are you still
living in the fiftieth century lad?  It seems they dug up some ancient
bones (they are always doing that don't you know) How would I know
who it once was?  Who cares who it was?  Not me, for I still have some
skin attached to mine. But maybe not for much longer now.  Who cares!
Ppphhhttt:>!



Cameras?  They can stick a camera up my arse for all I care. I have
nothing to hide.



Same sex marriages?  HUH!  I think it is only religionists who have a
problem with homo sexuals or queers as we call them here in Albion  :- )
I have never had  ANYTHING against queers, and that is a fact. I got
accosted by some when I was a young pretty boy, just tell them no thank
you and go away. I thought the instution of Marriage was a public
commitment to one person. But quite often it produces progeny. I would
like to see two queers produce prodgeny. That'll be the day :- ))) I
am not a queer by the way; FAR from it, I like the Ladies don't you
know. I was in love with TWO, but not at the same time :- )))  I was
also married twice. One  was a  disaster and the other was bliss. Five
progeny in all (that I know of anyway). I like the idea of marriage  for
I am the perennial romantic. And it makes life easier for the kids. You
know what happens when somebody does not have a father don't you? ;-
)  Oh Ker-Riced :- ))))))  Nahh, it wasn't that Roman soldier it was
godo :- )))))))



Drones?  I could not give a shit. Now, if we all blow each other up
there would be no more rape and murder and exploitation and rivers of
tears and mountains of pain. Sounds like a good idea to me. As for
Richard the turd then I was not around in those days so I did not know
him.  Did you?  You don't spell Shakespeare like that by the way.
But I am not a fan of Shakespeare and never was.  I like FACT not
Fiction, and even though I did write a fiction novel just for a laugh.



You say I am about to accept same sex marriage. Don't you mean that
the UK is about to accept same sex marriage? Get it right!  I am not the
UK lad, I am Dick Richardson.  I don't give a monkeys fuck what the
UK do. Nor America, nor New Zealand, nor any of them.



Now, I know that you really love old Merlin here, but lad, I am
accounted for. Plus I am retired now.  Have a nice whatever. And give my
regards to Thomas Paine. He was English by the way. But I am not a fan
of his either. But I am glad  that all the pilgrims fucked off to the
USA, we don't want them here amigo.



King Richard de Merlin of Exmoor







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

eduard,

Agreed. We don't know how a zealot or sadist makes decisions. Existentialist
context is for existentialists, and there don't seem to be many left anymore.
It's pointless to argue whether anyone else is acting authentically. I don't
think anyone is inherently anything, and I'm not accommodating terrorists by
suggesting they're bound to an ideology. Are there any existentialists concepts
you agree with?

Mary

Existentialist Concepts?

[ Eduard, Agreed. We don't know how a zealot or sadist makes decisions.
Existentialist context is for existentialists, and there don't seem to be many
left anymore. It's pointless to argue whether anyone else is acting
authentically. I don't think anyone is inherently anything, and I'm not
accommodating terrorists by suggesting they're bound to an ideology. Are there
any existentialists concepts you agree with? Mary ]

Well he is certainly right on that at least, they are brainwashed by an
ideology. However, do a numbered list of what you see as being THE
Existentialists Concepts and we can go though them one at a time. I read them
all many years ago and was most amazingly unimpressed and downright bloody bored
stiff. My own existentialist outlook is only one concept – I exists so what is
it all about and what does life offer in the way of experience. I was asking
that question, in a less sophisticated way, when I was three. So, what does it
have to offer us? What have you found? I have told what I found (six books and a
hundred poems and thousands of letters and emails). Now you have a go. Or are
you like the gnostics and who say that they will not tell?

Dick Richardson

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick."  wrote:
>
> Existentialist Concepts?
>
> [ Eduard, Agreed. We don't know how a zealot or sadist makes decisions.
Existentialist context is for existentialists, and there don't seem to be many
left anymore. It's pointless to argue whether anyone else is acting
authentically. I don't think anyone is inherently anything, and I'm not
accommodating terrorists by suggesting they're bound to an ideology. Are there
any existentialists concepts you agree with? Mary ]
>
> Well he is certainly right on that at least, they are brainwashed by an
ideology. However, do a numbered list of what you see as being THE
Existentialists Concepts and we can go though them one at a time. I read them
all many years ago and was most amazingly unimpressed and downright bloody bored
stiff. My own existentialist outlook is only one concept – I exists so what is
it all about and what does life offer in the way of experience. I was asking
that question, in a less sophisticated way, when I was three. So, what does it
have to offer us? What have you found? I have told what I found (six books and a
hundred poems and thousands of letters and emails). Now you have a go. Or are
you like the gnostics and who say that they will not tell?
>
> Dick Richardson
>Dick, read the existentail primer. It is not too long and is very concise and
direct. CSW has continually updated it . You need not task us on our own site
when the whole  philosophy is well outlined by the Owner. Bill

Being authentic is not an isolated concept; it's tied to other concepts such as
freedom and responsibility. The U.S. congress has been held hostage by
ideologues, not authentic people. When I listened to Rubio question nominee
Brennan today, I was embarrassed for him. What laws govern the CIA's treatment
of suspected terrorists? Really, Mr. Rubio? Brennan almost stumbled on his most
obvious answers. Rubio seemed to have no regard for international conventions
and laws or the sovereignty of other other nations. If Brennan is ready to work
with Congress, who supposedly represent our best interests, and with the
President to lay out for the American people the process of selecting drone
targets, I have no problem with him.

Mary

I guess I agree with the existential concept of authenticity which started
all this.  Moussa in Mali is being authentic and that is the danger.  You
can discuss things with him to reach some more suitable solution.  He is
there to flog and rape women and cut the hands and feet off thieves.  It is
what he and other terrorists are at the base.  They enjoy this stuff, so
their is no turning them with pleas or whatever.  You can only turn them by
putting a bullet in their heads.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:06 AM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Existentialism in the hole

eduard,

Agreed. We don't know how a zealot or sadist makes decisions. Existentialist
context is for existentialists, and there don't seem to be many left
anymore. It's pointless to argue whether anyone else is acting
authentically. I don't think anyone is inherently anything, and I'm not
accommodating terrorists by suggesting they're bound to an ideology. Are
there any existentialists concepts you agree with?

Mary



------------------------------------

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

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

The way I see it, THE concept(s) is that you are alive and in being alive
you make choices that can result in happiness [or whatever you may wish to
call it] rather than misery.  There is no alternative to living other than
to commit suicide in which case the question of what is the concept is moot
... you are dead and not in a position to question anything.  Dead people
are ... well ... dead.  Oh, you should also make choices which are of some
help to the humanity around you, rather than to just filling some space and
using up oxygen.

If any of this matches something in Existentialism, I'm for it.

The Lady Presenter in the Monty Python movie got it right .....

"M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people,
avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in,
and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and
nations."

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: William
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:17 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Existentialist Concepts?



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick."  wrote:
>
> Existentialist Concepts?
>
> [ Eduard, Agreed. We don't know how a zealot or sadist makes decisions.
> Existentialist context is for existentialists, and there don't seem to be
> many left anymore. It's pointless to argue whether anyone else is acting
> authentically. I don't think anyone is inherently anything, and I'm not
> accommodating terrorists by suggesting they're bound to an ideology. Are
> there any existentialists concepts you agree with? Mary ]
>
> Well he is certainly right on that at least, they are brainwashed by an
> ideology. However, do a numbered list of what you see as being THE
> Existentialists Concepts and we can go though them one at a time. I read
> them all many years ago and was most amazingly unimpressed and downright
> bloody bored stiff. My own existentialist outlook is only one concept – I
> exists so what is it all about and what does life offer in the way of
> experience. I was asking that question, in a less sophisticated way, when
> I was three. So, what does it have to offer us? What have you found? I
> have told what I found (six books and a hundred poems and thousands of
> letters and emails). Now you have a go. Or are you like the gnostics and
> who say that they will not tell?
>
> Dick Richardson
>Dick, read the existentail primer. It is not too long and is very concise
>and direct. CSW has continually updated it . You need not task us on our
>own site when the whole  philosophy is well outlined by the Owner. Bill




------------------------------------

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

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

would I agree with Camus that life is absurd? Life has a purpose.
Is the cosmos meaningless, as expressed by various thinkers called
"Existentialists". I think not.
> Dick: I exist so what is it all about and what does life offer in the way of
experience.
This talk considers Sri Aurobindo's spiritual experiences.
The presentation is partly based on Dr. Debashish Banerji's recently published
book "Seven Quartets of Becoming: A Transformative Yoga Psychology based on the
Diaries of Sri Aurobindo".

Dr. Debashish Banerji is a Dean of academic affairs at the University of
philosophical research in Los Angeles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Xhzui09n8Z0&feature=endscreen

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:

> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick."  wrote:
> >
> > Existentialist Concepts?
> >
> > [ Eduard, Agreed. We don't know how a zealot or sadist makes decisions.
Existentialist context is for existentialists, and there don't seem to be many
left anymore. It's pointless to argue whether anyone else is acting
authentically. I don't think anyone is inherently anything, and I'm not
accommodating terrorists by suggesting they're bound to an ideology. Are there
any existentialists concepts you agree with? Mary ]
> >
> > Well he is certainly right on that at least, they are brainwashed by an
ideology. However, do a numbered list of what you see as being THE
Existentialists Concepts and we can go though them one at a time. I read them
all many years ago and was most amazingly unimpressed and downright bloody bored
stiff. My own existentialist outlook is only one concept – I exists so what is
it all about and what does life offer in the way of experience. I was asking
that question, in a less sophisticated way, when I was three. So, what does it
have to offer us? What have you found? I have told what I found (six books and a
hundred poems and thousands of letters and emails). Now you have a go. Or are
you like the gnostics and who say that they will not tell?
> >
> > Dick Richardson
> >Dick, read the existentail primer. It is not too long and is very concise and
direct. CSW has continually updated it . You need not task us on our own site
when the whole  philosophy is well outlined by the Owner. Bill
>

[Is the cosmos meaningless, as expressed by various thinkers called
"Existentialists". I think not. ]

If the cosmos has meaning, then what is this meaning??  And for this the
meaning should be a meaning for the individual.  What does all this mean to
me.  That is the issue.  It is pointless to say that the cosmos has meaning
if this is not a meaning for the individual.

So Debashish if you think the cosmos has meaning, please tell what is the
meaning.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: devindersingh
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 4:35 AM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Existentialist Concepts?



would I agree with Camus that life is absurd? Life has a purpose.
Is the cosmos meaningless, as expressed by various thinkers called
"Existentialists". I think not.
> Dick: I exist so what is it all about and what does life offer in the way
> of experience.
This talk considers Sri Aurobindo's spiritual experiences.
The presentation is partly based on Dr. Debashish Banerji's recently
published book "Seven Quartets of Becoming: A Transformative Yoga Psychology
based on the Diaries of Sri Aurobindo".

Dr. Debashish Banerji is a Dean of academic affairs at the University of
philosophical research in Los Angeles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Xhzui09n8Z0&feature=endscreen

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:

> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick."  wrote:
> >
> > Existentialist Concepts?
> >
> > [ Eduard, Agreed. We don't know how a zealot or sadist makes decisions.
> > Existentialist context is for existentialists, and there don't seem to
> > be many left anymore. It's pointless to argue whether anyone else is
> > acting authentically. I don't think anyone is inherently anything, and
> > I'm not accommodating terrorists by suggesting they're bound to an
> > ideology. Are there any existentialists concepts you agree with? Mary ]
> >
> > Well he is certainly right on that at least, they are brainwashed by an
> > ideology. However, do a numbered list of what you see as being THE
> > Existentialists Concepts and we can go though them one at a time. I read
> > them all many years ago and was most amazingly unimpressed and downright
> > bloody bored stiff. My own existentialist outlook is only one concept –
> > I exists so what is it all about and what does life offer in the way of
> > experience. I was asking that question, in a less sophisticated way,
> > when I was three. So, what does it have to offer us? What have you
> > found? I have told what I found (six books and a hundred poems and
> > thousands of letters and emails). Now you have a go. Or are you like the
> > gnostics and who say that they will not tell?
> >
> > Dick Richardson
> >Dick, read the existentail primer. It is not too long and is very concise
> >and direct. CSW has continually updated it . You need not task us on our
> >own site when the whole  philosophy is well outlined by the Owner. Bill
>



------------------------------------

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

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

The meaning for you Eduard is this:Each plane that emerges in the
evolution contains the seed of the following planes. So the plane of
matter which emerges first contains the seed of the planes of life and
mind. Each planes also has involved in it even higher planes, including
the planes of the spirit. The spirit is involved in all the planes that
emerge. One of the goals of life is for us to enable the spirit to
emerge in matter, life, and mind. That is one of our roles of destiny;
to release the spirit in all things.

Life is involved in Matter; Mind is involved in Life; and Supermind in
Mind. (Actually Mind is involved in Matter and Life, and Supermind in
all three.)There is a process of unfolding of one plane from the
previous plane. One plane emerges from the previous because it is
already involved there as potential; and under the right circumstances
emerges to the next highest plane. However, what really compels the
emergence of the next plane is the underlying spirit that is embedded in
each plane, pushing that plane's potential to emerge from its current
plane into the next plane. Since spirit is infinitely creative, what
emerges in the next plane is dynamically new and creative; what could
not be conceived. http://www.gurusoftware.com/GuruNet/Creation.htm
What then is the next step of your evolution Eduard?The ordinary human
consciousness is confined to one's own individual consciousness.
That is, we are directly aware of only our own thoughts, feelings and
sensations. What lie outside our personal consciousness—the
consciousness of other beings and things in the world—are
apprehended by us only indirectly, through external sense contacts,
emotional empathy or mental inference. However, the personal
consciousness of our separate individual self is part of and one with
the consciousness of the Cosmic Self. Our individual physical, vital and
mental consciousness is derived from and is a part of a universal
physical, vital and mental consciousness. But there is a wall of
Ignorance between the individual consciousness and the universal
consciousness. Consequently, the individual self feels itself to be
separate from the universe. By means of a spiritual discipline our
ordinary consciousness, which is more or less gross and dense, becomes
more subtle and is able to perceive what lies outside our individual
consciousness more directly through an inner perception. It becomes a
direct perception of consciousness all around us through our own
consciousness. Further, by a widening of the individual consciousness,
it extends itself progressively so as finally to be identified with the
consciousness of the universe, seeing oneself in everything in the
cosmos and everything in the cosmos in oneself. One is then said to have
cosmic consciousness. Thus, "When one has the cosmic consciousness,
one can feel the cosmic Self as one's own self, one can feel one with
other beings in the cosmos, one can feel all the forces of Nature as
moving in oneself, all selves as one's own self" (1972d, p.
1071).http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ipyc/ipyc-full/asdalal.php
The purpose of the creation of the cosmos is your own individual
evolution:http://www.gurusoftware.com/GuruNet/AurobindoMother/TheLifeDiv\
ine/HTML/LifeDivineIntro.htm --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com,
eduardathome  wrote:
>
> [Is the cosmos meaningless, as expressed by various thinkers called
> "Existentialists". I think not. ]
>
> If the cosmos has meaning, then what is this meaning??  And for this
the
> meaning should be a meaning for the individual.  What does all this
mean to
> me.  That is the issue.  It is pointless to say that the cosmos has
meaning
> if this is not a meaning for the individual.
>
> So Debashish if you think the cosmos has meaning, please tell what is
the
> meaning.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devindersingh
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 4:35 AM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Existentialist Concepts?
>
>
>
> would I agree with Camus that life is absurd? Life has a purpose.
> Is the cosmos meaningless, as expressed by various thinkers called
> "Existentialists". I think not.
> > Dick: I exist so what is it all about and what does life offer in
the way
> > of experience.
> This talk considers Sri Aurobindo's spiritual experiences.
> The presentation is partly based on Dr. Debashish Banerji's recently
> published book "Seven Quartets of Becoming: A Transformative Yoga
Psychology
> based on the Diaries of Sri Aurobindo".
>
> Dr. Debashish Banerji is a Dean of academic affairs at the University
of
> philosophical research in Los Angeles:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Xhzui09n8Z0&feature=endscreen
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick."  wrote:
> > >
> > > Existentialist Concepts?
> > >
> > > [ Eduard, Agreed. We don't know how a zealot or sadist makes
decisions.
> > > Existentialist context is for existentialists, and there don't
seem to
> > > be many left anymore. It's pointless to argue whether anyone else
is
> > > acting authentically. I don't think anyone is inherently anything,
and
> > > I'm not accommodating terrorists by suggesting they're bound to an
> > > ideology. Are there any existentialists concepts you agree with?
Mary ]
> > >
> > > Well he is certainly right on that at least, they are brainwashed
by an
> > > ideology. However, do a numbered list of what you see as being THE
> > > Existentialists Concepts and we can go though them one at a time.
I read
> > > them all many years ago and was most amazingly unimpressed and
downright
> > > bloody bored stiff. My own existentialist outlook is only one
concept â€"
> > > I exists so what is it all about and what does life offer in the
way of
> > > experience. I was asking that question, in a less sophisticated
way,
> > > when I was three. So, what does it have to offer us? What have you
> > > found? I have told what I found (six books and a hundred poems and
> > > thousands of letters and emails). Now you have a go. Or are you
like the
> > > gnostics and who say that they will not tell?
> > >
> > > Dick Richardson
> > >Dick, read the existentail primer. It is not too long and is very
concise
> > >and direct. CSW has continually updated it . You need not task us
on our
> > >own site when the whole  philosophy is well outlined by the Owner.
Bill



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

This is a gross misrepresentation of both Camus and the body of existentialist
thinking. Camus' logic of the absurd is not meaninglessness, and other writers
do not insist that life is without significance. They offer differing views, but
on the whole express that each person creates meaning through their choices and
actions. Just as authentic persons may choose their given culture after
thoughtful consideration, they may also accept its given meaning. However, the
freedom and responsibility to accept and/or create belongs to each person.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devindersingh"  wrote:

> would I agree with Camus that life is absurd? Life has a purpose. Is the
cosmos meaningless, as expressed by various thinkers called "Existentialists". I
think not.

The attribution of this concept is probably more attributable to nihilism which
is itself also confused with existentialism. Here too Nietzsche's philosophy, as
Camus', is arguably misrepresented as a negation of all values and left as
simply that. However this negation is not an annihilation. Rather it is more an
'alchemical' process of destruction with the intention of creation of individual
values, not the negation of all meaning.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
>
> The attribution of this concept is probably more attributable to nihilism
which is itself also confused with existentialism. Here too Nietzsche's
philosophy, as Camus', is arguably misrepresented as a negation of all values
and left as simply that. However this negation is not an annihilation. Rather it
is more an 'alchemical' process of destruction with the intention of creation of
individual values, not the negation of all meaning.
>
> Mary
>Mary, you are not going anywhere with this eastern spirtualist. All the crap
about planes and spirit and cosmic consciousness is  just bunk. You and Eduard
have it right and this guru just wants a few more followers for him to enlighten
. I certainly do not agree with him and do not wish him any success in gaining
any more followers or status. Clowns like him have poisened the world for
ages.These eastern yogi sorts try to use peace and love rather than fear  and
punishment. One is as bad as the other since they both spring  from a desire to
control others and take away their individualism  and place them in  a cosmic
consciousness . I will not speak his jargon  and hope he just floats away into a
perfumed cloud. He does not belong here even as a flat sounding board. Bill

I have simply taken from what is put out by the existlist owner in the FAQ
LINKS. He however does tell us his material does not serve as a study list for
existentialism. I can go along with your clarification though I do see there is
no unanimity about authenticity either.

It means then, my submission is a genuine existentialist idea.

Gulati

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
>
> This is a gross misrepresentation of both Camus and the body of existentialist
thinking. Camus' logic of the absurd is not meaninglessness, and other writers
do not insist that life is without significance. They offer differing views, but
on the whole express that each person creates meaning through their choices and
actions. Just as authentic persons may choose their given culture after
thoughtful consideration, they may also accept its given meaning. However, the
freedom and responsibility to accept and/or create belongs to each person.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devindersingh"  wrote:
>
> > would I agree with Camus that life is absurd? Life has a purpose. Is the
cosmos meaningless, as expressed by various thinkers called "Existentialists". I
think not.
>

Bill,
m
The foremost mistake non-existential thinkers make participating here is telling
someone what their meaning should be. I think the only thinkers who've given us
a workout were those who dwelt in nihilist or absurd perspectives.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
> >
> > The attribution of this concept is probably more attributable to nihilism
which is itself also confused with existentialism. Here too Nietzsche's
philosophy, as Camus', is arguably misrepresented as a negation of all values
and left as simply that. However this negation is not an annihilation. Rather it
is more an 'alchemical' process of destruction with the intention of creation of
individual values, not the negation of all meaning.
> >
> > Mary
> >Mary, you are not going anywhere with this eastern spirtualist. All the crap
about planes and spirit and cosmic consciousness is  just bunk. You and Eduard
have it right and this guru just wants a few more followers for him to enlighten
. I certainly do not agree with him and do not wish him any success in gaining
any more followers or status. Clowns like him have poisened the world for
ages.These eastern yogi sorts try to use peace and love rather than fear  and
punishment. One is as bad as the other since they both spring  from a desire to
control others and take away their individualism  and place them in  a cosmic
consciousness . I will not speak his jargon  and hope he just floats away into a
perfumed cloud. He does not belong here even as a flat sounding board. Bill
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
>
> Bill,
> m
> The foremost mistake non-existential thinkers make participating here is
telling someone what their meaning should be. I think the only thinkers who've
given us a workout were those who dwelt in nihilist or absurd perspectives.
>
> Mary
>Mary, This Indian guy is not one I will engage. Mystic religions  have no
interest for me.He seems very deep into the ancient versions and the updated
cosmic  apperations. Way back in my seeker days   I looked at the eastern
religions  but I was far into science and the eastern  philosophies as put
forward in Hair and the Beatles Magical Mystery Tour Were fun but  just had no
depth.
An absurdist like we entertained a few years ago  could have been seen  to run
into Camus until  you found out he  did not accept any reality including
grounded  sense knowledge. The  vast jargon of eastern mysticism  , slowly
accumulated over many centuries  can leave you talking about their topics for
the rest of your life.
Dick presented a similar problem with his unlimited hard drive potential. I`ll
talk to him about modern subjects but once the hard drive kicks in I just drop
it. I liked it when the guru  proclaimed he was making  existential statements .
He dangles many hooks but having listned to many of this sort of messanger/seers
I would suggest he get back to the banks of the  Ganges and burn some
ancestors.When I think of the millions of people who have lived lives of
mystical stupidity I recoil at what these masters of mumbo have done.So I do not
give him respect, I do the coldest thing available,I ignore him. He is like a
tnnkling bell on an elephants collar. He is nothing but the elephant can run you
over. Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
> > >
> > > The attribution of this concept is probably more attributable to nihilism
which is itself also confused with existentialism. Here too Nietzsche's
philosophy, as Camus', is arguably misrepresented as a negation of all values
and left as simply that. However this negation is not an annihilation. Rather it
is more an 'alchemical' process of destruction with the intention of creation of
individual values, not the negation of all meaning.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >Mary, you are not going anywhere with this eastern spirtualist. All the
crap about planes and spirit and cosmic consciousness is  just bunk. You and
Eduard have it right and this guru just wants a few more followers for him to
enlighten . I certainly do not agree with him and do not wish him any success in
gaining any more followers or status. Clowns like him have poisened the world
for ages.These eastern yogi sorts try to use peace and love rather than fear 
and punishment. One is as bad as the other since they both spring  from a desire
to control others and take away their individualism  and place them in  a cosmic
consciousness . I will not speak his jargon  and hope he just floats away into a
perfumed cloud. He does not belong here even as a flat sounding board. Bill
> >
>

[The purpose of the creation of the cosmos is your own individual evolution]

In brief, what you are saying is that humanity is evolving.  We already know
that ... even if one were to accept that it is an evolution towards a cosmic
consciousness.

That doesn't answer the question of what is the "meaning".  Am I here for
some particular purpose or reason??  What is there in all this for the
individual??

If the end point is to be able to link our consciousness with a cosmic
consciousness, why is this important?  If for some reason we do not reach
that point ... so what?  And who or what is monitoring our progress?


eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: devindersingh
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:49 AM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Existentialist Concepts?

The meaning for you Eduard is this:Each plane that emerges in the
evolution contains the seed of the following planes. So the plane of
matter which emerges first contains the seed of the planes of life and
mind. Each planes also has involved in it even higher planes, including
the planes of the spirit. The spirit is involved in all the planes that
emerge. One of the goals of life is for us to enable the spirit to
emerge in matter, life, and mind. That is one of our roles of destiny;
to release the spirit in all things.

Life is involved in Matter; Mind is involved in Life; and Supermind in
Mind. (Actually Mind is involved in Matter and Life, and Supermind in
all three.)There is a process of unfolding of one plane from the
previous plane. One plane emerges from the previous because it is
already involved there as potential; and under the right circumstances
emerges to the next highest plane. However, what really compels the
emergence of the next plane is the underlying spirit that is embedded in
each plane, pushing that plane's potential to emerge from its current
plane into the next plane. Since spirit is infinitely creative, what
emerges in the next plane is dynamically new and creative; what could
not be conceived. http://www.gurusoftware.com/GuruNet/Creation.htm
What then is the next step of your evolution Eduard?The ordinary human
consciousness is confined to one's own individual consciousness.
That is, we are directly aware of only our own thoughts, feelings and
sensations. What lie outside our personal consciousness—the
consciousness of other beings and things in the world—are
apprehended by us only indirectly, through external sense contacts,
emotional empathy or mental inference. However, the personal
consciousness of our separate individual self is part of and one with
the consciousness of the Cosmic Self. Our individual physical, vital and
mental consciousness is derived from and is a part of a universal
physical, vital and mental consciousness. But there is a wall of
Ignorance between the individual consciousness and the universal
consciousness. Consequently, the individual self feels itself to be
separate from the universe. By means of a spiritual discipline our
ordinary consciousness, which is more or less gross and dense, becomes
more subtle and is able to perceive what lies outside our individual
consciousness more directly through an inner perception. It becomes a
direct perception of consciousness all around us through our own
consciousness. Further, by a widening of the individual consciousness,
it extends itself progressively so as finally to be identified with the
consciousness of the universe, seeing oneself in everything in the
cosmos and everything in the cosmos in oneself. One is then said to have
cosmic consciousness. Thus, "When one has the cosmic consciousness,
one can feel the cosmic Self as one's own self, one can feel one with
other beings in the cosmos, one can feel all the forces of Nature as
moving in oneself, all selves as one's own self" (1972d, p.
1071).http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ipyc/ipyc-full/asdalal.php
The purpose of the creation of the cosmos is your own individual
evolution:http://www.gurusoftware.com/GuruNet/AurobindoMother/TheLifeDiv\
ine/HTML/LifeDivineIntro.htm --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com,
eduardathome  wrote:
>
> [Is the cosmos meaningless, as expressed by various thinkers called
> "Existentialists". I think not. ]
>
> If the cosmos has meaning, then what is this meaning??  And for this
the
> meaning should be a meaning for the individual.  What does all this
mean to
> me.  That is the issue.  It is pointless to say that the cosmos has
meaning
> if this is not a meaning for the individual.
>
> So Debashish if you think the cosmos has meaning, please tell what is
the
> meaning.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devindersingh
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 4:35 AM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Existentialist Concepts?
>
>
>
> would I agree with Camus that life is absurd? Life has a purpose.
> Is the cosmos meaningless, as expressed by various thinkers called
> "Existentialists". I think not.
> > Dick: I exist so what is it all about and what does life offer in
the way
> > of experience.
> This talk considers Sri Aurobindo's spiritual experiences.
> The presentation is partly based on Dr. Debashish Banerji's recently
> published book "Seven Quartets of Becoming: A Transformative Yoga
Psychology
> based on the Diaries of Sri Aurobindo".
>
> Dr. Debashish Banerji is a Dean of academic affairs at the University
of
> philosophical research in Los Angeles:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Xhzui09n8Z0&feature=endscreen
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick."  wrote:
> > >
> > > Existentialist Concepts?
> > >
> > > [ Eduard, Agreed. We don't know how a zealot or sadist makes
decisions.
> > > Existentialist context is for existentialists, and there don't
seem to
> > > be many left anymore. It's pointless to argue whether anyone else
is
> > > acting authentically. I don't think anyone is inherently anything,
and
> > > I'm not accommodating terrorists by suggesting they're bound to an
> > > ideology. Are there any existentialists concepts you agree with?
Mary ]
> > >
> > > Well he is certainly right on that at least, they are brainwashed
by an
> > > ideology. However, do a numbered list of what you see as being THE
> > > Existentialists Concepts and we can go though them one at a time.
I read
> > > them all many years ago and was most amazingly unimpressed and
downright
> > > bloody bored stiff. My own existentialist outlook is only one
concept â€"
> > > I exists so what is it all about and what does life offer in the
way of
> > > experience. I was asking that question, in a less sophisticated
way,
> > > when I was three. So, what does it have to offer us? What have you
> > > found? I have told what I found (six books and a hundred poems and
> > > thousands of letters and emails). Now you have a go. Or are you
like the
> > > gnostics and who say that they will not tell?
> > >
> > > Dick Richardson
> > >Dick, read the existentail primer. It is not too long and is very
concise
> > >and direct. CSW has continually updated it . You need not task us
on our
> > >own site when the whole  philosophy is well outlined by the Owner.
Bill



[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

I don't  mind listening for a while for some of this stuff.  Perhaps there's
something to learn.  Albeit, most often not.

I am always open to someone who thinks they have the "meaning" of life that
is useable by the individual.

eduard



-----Original Message-----
From: William
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 6:08 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: meaninglessness



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
>
> Bill,
> m
> The foremost mistake non-existential thinkers make participating here is
> telling someone what their meaning should be. I think the only thinkers
> who've given us a workout were those who dwelt in nihilist or absurd
> perspectives.
>
> Mary
>Mary, This Indian guy is not one I will engage. Mystic religions  have no
>interest for me.He seems very deep into the ancient versions and the
>updated cosmic  apperations. Way back in my seeker days   I looked at the
>eastern religions  but I was far into science and the eastern  philosophies
>as put forward in Hair and the Beatles Magical Mystery Tour Were fun but
>just had no depth.
An absurdist like we entertained a few years ago  could have been seen  to
run into Camus until  you found out he  did not accept any reality including
grounded  sense knowledge. The  vast jargon of eastern mysticism  , slowly
accumulated over many centuries  can leave you talking about their topics
for the rest of your life.
Dick presented a similar problem with his unlimited hard drive potential.
I`ll talk to him about modern subjects but once the hard drive kicks in I
just drop it. I liked it when the guru  proclaimed he was making
existential statements . He dangles many hooks but having listned to many of
this sort of messanger/seers I would suggest he get back to the banks of the
Ganges and burn some ancestors.When I think of the millions of people who
have lived lives of mystical stupidity I recoil at what these masters of
mumbo have done.So I do not  give him respect, I do the coldest thing
available,I ignore him. He is like a tnnkling bell on an elephants collar.
He is nothing but the elephant can run you over. Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
> > >
> > > The attribution of this concept is probably more attributable to
> > > nihilism which is itself also confused with existentialism. Here too
> > > Nietzsche's philosophy, as Camus', is arguably misrepresented as a
> > > negation of all values and left as simply that. However this negation
> > > is not an annihilation. Rather it is more an 'alchemical' process of
> > > destruction with the intention of creation of individual values, not
> > > the negation of all meaning.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >Mary, you are not going anywhere with this eastern spirtualist. All the
> > >crap about planes and spirit and cosmic consciousness is  just bunk.
> > >You and Eduard have it right and this guru just wants a few more
> > >followers for him to enlighten . I certainly do not agree with him and
> > >do not wish him any success in gaining any more followers or status.
> > >Clowns like him have poisened the world for ages.These eastern yogi
> > >sorts try to use peace and love rather than fear  and punishment. One
> > >is as bad as the other since they both spring  from a desire to control
> > >others and take away their individualism  and place them in  a cosmic
> > >consciousness . I will not speak his jargon  and hope he just floats
> > >away into a perfumed cloud. He does not belong here even as a flat
> > >sounding board. Bill
> >
>




------------------------------------

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

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