Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Sartre] Re: [WisdomForum] THE EXISTENTIAL NEWS - Vol. 1, #2

Expand Messages
  • artsgina
    its Aesthetic
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 10, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      its Aesthetic <<<<

      what do you mean by the aesthetic sphere ? <<< gina


      -----Original Message-----
      From: wilbro99 [mailto:wilbro99@...]
      Sent: Monday, 11 February 2002 4:49 PM
      To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Sartre] Re: [WisdomForum] THE EXISTENTIAL NEWS - Vol. 1, #2


      Here is another thought. I have commented before on the differing
      views of what Kierkegaard meant by his existence spheres. Here is
      another example. Mr. Bobo, is claiming to speak from the ethical point
      of view, The B view of E/O, adding Mr. Mirsky to his point of view. In
      my discussions with them in another forum, I found nothing of B in
      anything they said. I would place them firmly in the A they place Mr.
      Lewis in. Zooink has been forwarding his dialogues with them to me and
      since neither of them speak to the leap from the esthetic sphere to
      the ethico-religious sphere, I still see nothing that would allow me
      to place them anywhere but in the esthetic sphere. That's my thought.

      --- In Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
      > Without going into a great deal of detail concerning Lewis's
      comments, it occured to me that we have seen in this discussion is
      analogous to Kierkegaard's Either/Or. Lewis, in his "Existential News"
      has presented a point of view analogous to that of A, the aesthete,
      seen in Volume I of Either/Or. What he engendered from myself, Mr.
      Mirsky and perhaps others was a commentary from the ethical point of
      view, that of B, in Volume II of Either/Or. Now, who has commented
      from the religious sphere? Gina, perhaps? Or zooink?
      >
      > Just a thought.
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Lewis Vella
      > THE EXISTENTIAL NEWS
      > 'A Philosophical(?)Week in Review'
      > Volume 1, #2
      > Hello all,
      > In lieu of the infamous X, I have, above, placed a
      > question mark following the the word 'Philosophical'.
      > For if the logic of Derrida's theory that seems to
      > question the very possibility of rational enquiry, and
      > which renders words all but meaningless, including the
      > word 'philosophical', then it stands to reason that we
      > are not here now, or ever, capable of truly doing
      > philosophy, that we are rather here just to be
      > individual bystanders perceiving sensation in a
      > invalidated world of phenomenon. But surely, you might
      > ask, there must be some deeper significance in the
      > historical process of our knowledge than to lead to
      > this -- the inevitable, dreaded abyss before us?
      > Surely, after coming this far from a bunch of food
      > gatherers, we were not meant to toss out everything
      > we've acquired to date and start all over again from
      > scratch. May it then be reasonable to say that this
      > deeper significance I presume, may be but a process of
      > a total absolute consciousness unfolding itself? And,
      > as such, is it safe to add that what we're exploring
      > here is not the philosophical question of being, but
      > rather the actual essence of being itself? I think
      > Gabriel Marcel answers this well in 'Homo Viator:
      > Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope': "It must in no
      > way be mistaken for a problem of technical philosophy,
      > with which we are not dealing here and which involves
      > the question of the very existence of a superior
      > principle of unity which guides our personal
      > development. What concerns us here is only to know
      > under what conditions I become conscious of myself as
      > a person. It must be repeated that these conditions
      > are essentially social." -- translated by Emma
      > Craufurd, Glouchester, Mass., Peter Smith, 1978, p.18.
      >
      > In so presenting our circumstance, let us now examine
      > "the ways in which being-for-themselves attempt to
      > deduce other beings-for-themselves into mere objects
      > -- beings-in-themselves -- and the ways in which
      > beings-for-themselves resist being reduced in this
      > way," (Quoted from Tommy Beavitt [sartre@yahoogr...],
      > 01/29) and how in the course of a discursive thread,
      > rooted perhaps somewhere in 'Reasoning Metaphysics:
      > 'B's Aim of Improving Standards -- Voices in My Head,
      > Maybe?' (posted in late Jan. on all lists in the
      > reception box above), did come to bud a controversial,
      > if not lethal, flower, posing the rather timely
      > question whether or not it is wiser, safer, and freer
      > to be mad and provided for that to be sane and not
      > provided for.
      >
      > Now as this sort of black rose started to bloom, a
      > swarm of invective surfaced quite rapidly around each
      > of her delicate petals, leaving behind a variegated
      > hue and cry of labels, innuendos and allegations, a
      > compendium of bittersweet offerings meandering to and
      > fro the malicious and magnificent. Voiceferous
      > cyberspace thoughts, exacerbating ridicule, marched
      > steadfast across our flashing monitors, latching on
      > then taking wing with whatever tattered remnants of
      > mind waste could be found scattered along its way:
      >
      > "You are the one who speculates about whether her hear
      > voices in his head, not me. Look to yourself for
      > pathological conditions. To quote 'I suggest [th]he[y]
      > (seeming to be perhaps conspiring pathological liars,
      > these 2 list members both) go see a psychiatrist."
      >
      > "[He has] bad faith . . . in that he seeks from others
      > what he would not provide himself."
      >
      > "[He has made] outrageous claims about society."
      >
      > "He was consciously seeking to scam the system in
      > order to avoid working."
      >
      > "[But tell me] what is your definition of 'work'?
      >
      > And so with the thread of the needle, we see for
      > ourselves now how easy it is to enter each other's
      > consciousness. What a fine mosaic of the mind we are
      > weaving here. The personalized input we are generating
      > from one another transforms the chaotic and
      > dysfunctional forces of transgression into a symphonic
      > melody of hope hoping against hope. And yet, out of
      > nowhere, there comes a need for a change of course,
      > sudden entreaties to bring it to a halt:
      >
      > "HOW DO WE BREAK IT UP? ONLY You two can..."
      >
      > But no! Can't you see? It wasn't him or me or any one
      > self at all. It is always the other, the one doing all
      > that he can to reversify the subjective with those
      > soul-stealing quotations:
      >
      > "Lewis has constructed an artificial person [Joe Blow]
      > in relation to whom he can feel superior. But this
      > 'average Joe', this cipher as he calls him only exists
      > in Lewis' mind. Real people are unique and filled with
      > what makes them interesting. Maybe if Lewis got a job
      > and had to interact with real people he would come to
      > realize what you and I both know."
      >
      > But at least I had the decency to construct a
      > hypothetical "artificial person" -- not like these
      > fine presumably employed civilized men who construct
      > their own "artificial person" out of a real man,
      > namely me.
      >
      > "And I do apologize for doing what amounts to making a
      > cyber-personality or specimen out of another human
      > being -- viz. Lewis, for the purpose of examining
      > ideas instead of using theoretical models."
      >
      > "I was being very rude to 'him' but no more so than he
      > and you were being to 'Lewis'.
      >
      > How sweet! Now that we've ripped the 'poster' boy to
      > shreds, lets all be nice. But by the sweat of our
      > brows, in the midst of all this heavy labor, is it
      > really necessary now to wash our hands like Pontius
      > Pilate. We'll only get dirty again later. It makes no
      > sense to me to want to depart from where we now stand
      > in a universal struggle, to actually wish to digress
      > after coming as far as we have? No, I say why not go
      > on as we have? For my integrity was not dealt a blow
      > by whatever was said in-between quotes. It was what
      > was implied outside the quotes that was damaging, the
      > automatic negation of a being-for-itself in good
      > faith, by the being-for-others in no, or hardly any,
      > faith at all:
      >
      > "Well it seems like from certain points of view,
      > anyone's comments may be regarded as rude by someone
      > else. In the future, I suggest that we all try to be
      > nicer to each other. And while we are being nicer,
      > lets not take thins so personally. Personalizing
      > matters only serves to injure feelings and give
      > offense where perhaps none was intended."
      >
      > So what is it that he wants here? -- that we may all
      > return 'nicely' to a faithless mechanized world of
      > ciphers?
      >
      > But to counter that type of return, there is a
      > wonderful passage by Gabriel Marcel (p. 21-22) from
      > the same volume noted above:
      >
      > "Supposing that I wish or feel bound to put a certain
      > person on his guard against someone else. I decide to
      > write him a letter to this effect. If I do not sign my
      > letter I am still as it were moving in a realm of
      > play, of pastimes, and I might readily add
      > mystification; I reserve to myself the possibility of
      > denying my action; I deliberately maintain my position
      > in a zone as it were halfway between dreams and
      > reality, where self-complacency triumph the chosen
      > land of those who, in our time, have made themselves
      > the champions of the gratuitous act. From the moment
      > that I sign my letter, on the contrary, I have taken
      > on the responsibility for it, that is to say I have
      > shouldered the consequenx=ces in advance. I have
      > created the irrevocable not only for the other person
      > but for myself. Of my free will I have brought into
      > existence new decisions which well bear upon my own
      > life with all their weight. This, of course, does not
      > exclude the possibility that it was a reprehensible,
      > perhaps even a criminal action to write the letter.
      > There is nevertheless a radical difference of quality,
      > or more exactly of weight, between this action and
      > that of writing a letter without signing it. Let us
      > repeat that I tend to establish myself as a person in
      > so far as I assume responsibility for my acts and so
      > behave as a real being (rather than a dreamer who
      > reserve the strange power of modifying dreams, without
      > having to trouble whether this modification has any
      > repercussions in the hypothetical outside world in
      > which everybody else dwells. From the same point of
      > view we might also say that I establish myself as a
      > person in so far as I really believe in the existence
      > others and allow this belief to influence my
      > conduct...."
      >
      > Copyright: 2002 Lewis Vella
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/

      To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@...

      <A
      HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+S
      artre&tag=donaldrobertson">Click here to purchase books by Jean-Paul
      Sartre -in association with Amazon (US).</A>


      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Christopher Bobo
      ... the ethico-religious sphere, I still see nothing that would allow me to place them anywhere but in the esthetic sphere. That s my thought.
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 11, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Willbro wrote:
        >>since neither of them speak to the leap from the esthetic sphere to
        the ethico-religious sphere, I still see nothing that would allow me
        to place them anywhere but in the esthetic sphere. That's my thought.<<

        Is the "ethico-religious" one sphere now? I thought they were two distinct spheres and that the ethical prepared the way for the religious. Where does Kierkegaard say that the ethical sphere requires a leap?

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: wilbro99
        Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 9:49 PM
        To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Sartre] Re: [WisdomForum] THE EXISTENTIAL NEWS - Vol. 1, #2

        Here is another thought. I have commented before on the differing
        views of what Kierkegaard meant by his existence spheres. Here is
        another example. Mr. Bobo, is claiming to speak from the ethical point
        of view, The B view of E/O, adding Mr. Mirsky to his point of view. In
        my discussions with them in another forum, I found nothing of B in
        anything they said. I would place them firmly in the A they place Mr.
        Lewis in. Zooink has been forwarding his dialogues with them to me and
        since neither of them speak to the leap from the esthetic sphere to
        the ethico-religious sphere, I still see nothing that would allow me
        to place them anywhere but in the esthetic sphere. That's my thought.

        --- In Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
        > Without going into a great deal of detail concerning Lewis's
        comments, it occured to me that we have seen in this discussion is
        analogous to Kierkegaard's Either/Or. Lewis, in his "Existential News"
        has presented a point of view analogous to that of A, the aesthete,
        seen in Volume I of Either/Or. What he engendered from myself, Mr.
        Mirsky and perhaps others was a commentary from the ethical point of
        view, that of B, in Volume II of Either/Or. Now, who has commented
        from the religious sphere? Gina, perhaps? Or zooink?
        >
        > Just a thought.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • wilbro99
        It could be that I was merely doing to you what you were doing to Lewis; however, it just so happens that I have answers to your questions. For the leap
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 11, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          It could be that I was merely doing to you what you were doing to
          Lewis; however, it just so happens that I have answers to your
          questions.

          For the leap business, please refer to Kierkegaard's _Postscript_ and
          the chapter headed "Possible/Actual Thesis by Lessing." The whole
          chapter is about the leap to the ethical. Rather than pick and choose
          quotes, I leave it to you to read it. Enjoy! It is Kierkegaard setting
          the stage (pun intended) for the subjectivity that is to follow.

          Ethico-religious? I will refer you to several of the many places K
          uses the term. Just for the fun of it, I Googled "Kierkegaard,
          ethico-religious" and got 208 hits; try it, just for the kicks.
          Kierkegaard often used the term "ethico-religious" to preface his
          religious essays. One that he did not complete was titled, "The
          Dialectic of Ethico-Religious Communication." One that he did complete
          was titled, "On Authority and Revelation: The Book on Adler; A Cycle
          of Ethico-Religious Essays."

          Now that you have raised questions of what Kierkegaard was saying, for
          myself, I would be very interested in how you arrived at your view of
          E/O as exemplifying the distinction you drew between Lewis and
          yourself. In what ways do you see what the Judge was saying comports
          with your ideas of the ethical sphere? Let me give you a start. What
          do you think the Judge was saying when he said the following?

          "Now let us compare an ethical and an aesthetic individual. The main
          difference, on which everything turns, is that the ethical individual
          is transparent to himself and does not live 'out in the blue' as does
          the aesthetic individual. From this difference everything else
          follows. The person who lives ethically has seen himself, permeates
          his whole concretion with his consciousness, does not allow vague
          thoughts to fuss around in him, nor tempting possibilities to distract
          him with their legerdemain; he himself is not like a witch's letter
          which, depending upon how you turn the pages, gives you first this
          image, then that. He knows himself." (E/O, Hannay, p. 549)


          --- In Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
          > Willbro wrote:
          > >>since neither of them speak to the leap from the esthetic sphere
          to
          > the ethico-religious sphere, I still see nothing that would allow me

          > to place them anywhere but in the esthetic sphere. That's my
          thought.<<
          >
          > Is the "ethico-religious" one sphere now? I thought they were two
          distinct spheres and that the ethical prepared the way for the
          religious. Where does Kierkegaard say that the ethical sphere
          requires a leap?
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: wilbro99
          > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 9:49 PM
          > To: Sartre@y...
          > Subject: [Sartre] Re: [WisdomForum] THE EXISTENTIAL NEWS - Vol. 1,
          #2
          >
          > Here is another thought. I have commented before on the differing
          > views of what Kierkegaard meant by his existence spheres. Here is
          > another example. Mr. Bobo, is claiming to speak from the ethical
          point
          > of view, The B view of E/O, adding Mr. Mirsky to his point of view.
          In
          > my discussions with them in another forum, I found nothing of B in
          > anything they said. I would place them firmly in the A they place
          Mr.
          > Lewis in. Zooink has been forwarding his dialogues with them to me
          and
          > since neither of them speak to the leap from the esthetic sphere to

          > the ethico-religious sphere, I still see nothing that would allow me

          > to place them anywhere but in the esthetic sphere. That's my
          thought.
          >
          > --- In Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
          > > Without going into a great deal of detail concerning Lewis's
          > comments, it occured to me that we have seen in this discussion is
          > analogous to Kierkegaard's Either/Or. Lewis, in his "Existential
          News"
          > has presented a point of view analogous to that of A, the aesthete,

          > seen in Volume I of Either/Or. What he engendered from myself, Mr.

          > Mirsky and perhaps others was a commentary from the ethical point of

          > view, that of B, in Volume II of Either/Or. Now, who has commented
          > from the religious sphere? Gina, perhaps? Or zooink?
          > >
          > > Just a thought.
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • zooink
          Willy, The quote you laid on him is too complex. Here is a quote that is easier to see through. I want now to recall the definition of the ethical I gave
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 11, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Willy, The quote you laid on him is too complex. Here is a quote that
            is easier to see through.

            "I want now to recall the definition of the ethical I gave earlier,
            that is that whereby a man comes to be what he becomes. So it wants
            not to make the individual into another but into himself; it wants not
            to do away with the aesthetic but to transfigure it. To live ethically
            it is necessary for a person to become aware of himself, so totally
            that no accidental feature escapes him." (E/O, Hannay, pp. 544-45)

            And while I am at it, here is another look at Kierkegaard's definition
            of the ethical that repeats what the above quote says. The ethical is
            essentially self-knowing. This will help James answer your question.

            "From the ethical point of view, actuality is superior to possibility.
            The ethical specifically wants to annihilate the disinterestedness of
            possibility by making existing the infinite interest. Therefore the
            ethical wants to prevent every attempt at confusion, such as, for
            example, wanting to *observe* the world and human beings ethically.
            That is, to observe ethically cannot be done, because there is only
            one ethical observing - it is self-observation." (CUP, Hong, p. 320;
            Lowrie, p. 284)


            --- In Sartre@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
            > It could be that I was merely doing to you what you were doing to
            > Lewis; however, it just so happens that I have answers to your
            > questions.
            >
            > For the leap business, please refer to Kierkegaard's _Postscript_
            and
            > the chapter headed "Possible/Actual Thesis by Lessing." The whole
            > chapter is about the leap to the ethical. Rather than pick and
            choose
            > quotes, I leave it to you to read it. Enjoy! It is Kierkegaard
            setting
            > the stage (pun intended) for the subjectivity that is to follow.
            >
            > Ethico-religious? I will refer you to several of the many places K
            > uses the term. Just for the fun of it, I Googled "Kierkegaard,
            > ethico-religious" and got 208 hits; try it, just for the kicks.
            > Kierkegaard often used the term "ethico-religious" to preface his
            > religious essays. One that he did not complete was titled, "The
            > Dialectic of Ethico-Religious Communication." One that he did
            complete
            > was titled, "On Authority and Revelation: The Book on Adler; A Cycle
            > of Ethico-Religious Essays."
            >
            > Now that you have raised questions of what Kierkegaard was saying,
            for
            > myself, I would be very interested in how you arrived at your view
            of
            > E/O as exemplifying the distinction you drew between Lewis and
            > yourself. In what ways do you see what the Judge was saying comports
            > with your ideas of the ethical sphere? Let me give you a start. What
            > do you think the Judge was saying when he said the following?
            >
            > "Now let us compare an ethical and an aesthetic individual. The main
            > difference, on which everything turns, is that the ethical
            individual
            > is transparent to himself and does not live 'out in the blue' as
            does
            > the aesthetic individual. From this difference everything else
            > follows. The person who lives ethically has seen himself, permeates
            > his whole concretion with his consciousness, does not allow vague
            > thoughts to fuss around in him, nor tempting possibilities to
            distract
            > him with their legerdemain; he himself is not like a witch's letter
            > which, depending upon how you turn the pages, gives you first this
            > image, then that. He knows himself." (E/O, Hannay, p. 549)
            >
          • Christopher Bobo
            ... From: wilbro99 Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:03 AM To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Sartre] Re: [WisdomForum] THE EXISTENTIAL NEWS - Vol. 1, #2 It
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 11, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: wilbro99
              Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:03 AM
              To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [Sartre] Re: [WisdomForum] THE EXISTENTIAL NEWS - Vol. 1, #2

              It could be that I was merely doing to you what you were doing to
              Lewis; however, it just so happens that I have answers to your
              questions.

              For the leap business, please refer to Kierkegaard's _Postscript_ and
              the chapter headed "Possible/Actual Thesis by Lessing." The whole
              chapter is about the leap to the ethical. Rather than pick and choose
              quotes, I leave it to you to read it. Enjoy! It is Kierkegaard setting
              the stage (pun intended) for the subjectivity that is to follow.

              Ethico-religious? I will refer you to several of the many places K
              uses the term. Just for the fun of it, I Googled "Kierkegaard,
              ethico-religious" and got 208 hits; try it, just for the kicks.
              Kierkegaard often used the term "ethico-religious" to preface his
              religious essays. One that he did not complete was titled, "The
              Dialectic of Ethico-Religious Communication." One that he did complete
              was titled, "On Authority and Revelation: The Book on Adler; A Cycle
              of Ethico-Religious Essays."

              Now that you have raised questions of what Kierkegaard was saying, for
              myself, I would be very interested in how you arrived at your view of
              E/O as exemplifying the distinction you drew between Lewis and
              yourself. In what ways do you see what the Judge was saying comports
              with your ideas of the ethical sphere? Let me give you a start. What
              do you think the Judge was saying when he said the following?

              "Now let us compare an ethical and an aesthetic individual. The main
              difference, on which everything turns, is that the ethical individual
              is transparent to himself and does not live 'out in the blue' as does
              the aesthetic individual. From this difference everything else
              follows. The person who lives ethically has seen himself, permeates
              his whole concretion with his consciousness, does not allow vague
              thoughts to fuss around in him, nor tempting possibilities to distract
              him with their legerdemain; he himself is not like a witch's letter
              which, depending upon how you turn the pages, gives you first this
              image, then that. He knows himself." (E/O, Hannay, p. 549)


              --- In Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
              > Willbro wrote:
              > >>since neither of them speak to the leap from the esthetic sphere
              to
              > the ethico-religious sphere, I still see nothing that would allow me

              > to place them anywhere but in the esthetic sphere. That's my
              thought.<<
              >
              > Is the "ethico-religious" one sphere now? I thought they were two
              distinct spheres and that the ethical prepared the way for the
              religious. Where does Kierkegaard say that the ethical sphere
              requires a leap?
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: wilbro99
              > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 9:49 PM
              > To: Sartre@y...
              > Subject: [Sartre] Re: [WisdomForum] THE EXISTENTIAL NEWS - Vol. 1,
              #2
              >
              > Here is another thought. I have commented before on the differing
              > views of what Kierkegaard meant by his existence spheres. Here is
              > another example. Mr. Bobo, is claiming to speak from the ethical
              point
              > of view, The B view of E/O, adding Mr. Mirsky to his point of view.
              In
              > my discussions with them in another forum, I found nothing of B in
              > anything they said. I would place them firmly in the A they place
              Mr.
              > Lewis in. Zooink has been forwarding his dialogues with them to me
              and
              > since neither of them speak to the leap from the esthetic sphere to

              > the ethico-religious sphere, I still see nothing that would allow me

              > to place them anywhere but in the esthetic sphere. That's my
              thought.
              >
              > --- In Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
              > > Without going into a great deal of detail concerning Lewis's
              > comments, it occured to me that we have seen in this discussion is
              > analogous to Kierkegaard's Either/Or. Lewis, in his "Existential
              News"
              > has presented a point of view analogous to that of A, the aesthete,

              > seen in Volume I of Either/Or. What he engendered from myself, Mr.

              > Mirsky and perhaps others was a commentary from the ethical point of

              > view, that of B, in Volume II of Either/Or. Now, who has commented
              > from the religious sphere? Gina, perhaps? Or zooink?
              > >
              > > Just a thought.
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




              Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/

              To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@...

              <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+Sartre&tag=donaldrobertson">Click here to purchase books by Jean-Paul Sartre -in association with Amazon (US).</A>


              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Christopher Bobo
              ... myself, I would be very interested in how you arrived at your view of E/O as exemplifying the distinction you drew between Lewis and yourself. In what ways
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 11, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Wilbro99 asked:
                >>Now that you have raised questions of what Kierkegaard was saying, for
                myself, I would be very interested in how you arrived at your view of
                E/O as exemplifying the distinction you drew between Lewis and
                yourself. In what ways do you see what the Judge was saying comports
                with your ideas of the ethical sphere? Let me give you a start. What
                do you think the Judge was saying when he said the following? <<

                I think the gist of what Mr Mirsky and I said about Lewis is the following. Lewis should take responsibility for his own life and actions. He should not blame others for his circumstances and condition. If he does not like his circumstances, he alone is responsible for changing them. If that means he should get a job, then he should do that. If that means Lewis should move to a different area to avoid the harsh northern winters and thereby attain the ability to live more inexpensively, then it is Lewis' responsibility to undertake such changes. If pursuing spirituality is so important to Lewis, then he should do it with honesty, authenticity and good faith. If that means he must live like a pauper and asks for alms as so many holy men have before him, then he should accept that result as the consequence of his own choices. Further, we said that Lewis should be humble and recognize that he is no better than any one else. The guy flipping burgers at McDonalds is as much deserving of respect and esteem as the Pope on the throne of the church. Recognizing the equal dignity of all people means that you cannot denigrate others as cipher-like "average Joe's." Recognizing the equal worth and moral dignity of others entails that one not exploit others for one's own gain; in short, one should not expect or insist that others support one if one is just as able mentally and physically to support oneself. These are the sum and substance of the ethical arguments advanced in response to Lewis's post.

                As for the quote:
                "Now let us compare an ethical and an aesthetic individual. The main
                difference, on which everything turns, is that the ethical individual
                is transparent to himself and does not live 'out in the blue' as does
                the aesthetic individual. From this difference everything else
                follows. The person who lives ethically has seen himself, permeates
                his whole concretion with his consciousness, does not allow vague
                thoughts to fuss around in him, nor tempting possibilities to distract
                him with their legerdemain; he himself is not like a witch's letter
                which, depending upon how you turn the pages, gives you first this
                image, then that. He knows himself." (E/O, Hannay, p. 549)

                This is exactly what Mr. Mirsky and I contended. Lewis must be honest with himself and others. He must be realistic about society and economics. No one can indulge themselves with flights of fancy while the necessity of the concrete goes unrecognized. As I said, even the birds of the field must give up their signing to scratch the ground for food. To insist on singing all day is to yield to "tempting possibilities" that destract from the "legerdemain"
                business at hand. As for "knowing himself" I suggested that Lewis seek a balance in his life--this balancing arises from self-knowledge--the knowledge that we have economic needs as well as spiritual needs, we have intellectual needs for study as much as we have emotional needs to be loved. To know oneself is to strive for a balance in all these things that make us who we are.

                If you had stayed and followed the discussion, you would have heard all of these things and more. In response to Lewis claim that to talk about him in this matter objectifies him as if he were not a real person, I can only say that making the details of his life the matter of an Existential E-Newsletter, he made himself into a character for discussion. Of course, we all know, as Tommy pointed out, we are talking about "Lewis" here not as a real person, but as a literary creation--which he himself constructed--a personae or symbol onto which we each gloom on our meanings and interpretations. I think we would all concede the reals Lewis is an individual whose essence cannot be captured in a few words posted to a variety of e-mail lists for discussion. I'm sure we all respect and care for the real Lewis, even if we moan and howl at the antics and musings of "Lewis" the literary creation, or attempt to analyse, deconstruct or interpret this personae.

                I note that altough Kierkegaard uses the term "ethico-religioius", I still have the firm impression from my studies of his work that he distinguishes between the ethical and the religious spheres. Are you saying that is mistaken?

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: wilbro99
                Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:03 AM
                To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [Sartre] Re: [WisdomForum] THE EXISTENTIAL NEWS - Vol. 1, #2

                It could be that I was merely doing to you what you were doing to
                Lewis; however, it just so happens that I have answers to your
                questions.

                For the leap business, please refer to Kierkegaard's _Postscript_ and
                the chapter headed "Possible/Actual Thesis by Lessing." The whole
                chapter is about the leap to the ethical. Rather than pick and choose
                quotes, I leave it to you to read it. Enjoy! It is Kierkegaard setting
                the stage (pun intended) for the subjectivity that is to follow.

                Ethico-religious? I will refer you to several of the many places K
                uses the term. Just for the fun of it, I Googled "Kierkegaard,
                ethico-religious" and got 208 hits; try it, just for the kicks.
                Kierkegaard often used the term "ethico-religious" to preface his
                religious essays. One that he did not complete was titled, "The
                Dialectic of Ethico-Religious Communication." One that he did complete
                was titled, "On Authority and Revelation: The Book on Adler; A Cycle
                of Ethico-Religious Essays."

                Now that you have raised questions of what Kierkegaard was saying, for
                myself, I would be very interested in how you arrived at your view of
                E/O as exemplifying the distinction you drew between Lewis and
                yourself. In what ways do you see what the Judge was saying comports
                with your ideas of the ethical sphere? Let me give you a start. What
                do you think the Judge was saying when he said the following?

                "Now let us compare an ethical and an aesthetic individual. The main
                difference, on which everything turns, is that the ethical individual
                is transparent to himself and does not live 'out in the blue' as does
                the aesthetic individual. From this difference everything else
                follows. The person who lives ethically has seen himself, permeates
                his whole concretion with his consciousness, does not allow vague
                thoughts to fuss around in him, nor tempting possibilities to distract
                him with their legerdemain; he himself is not like a witch's letter
                which, depending upon how you turn the pages, gives you first this
                image, then that. He knows himself." (E/O, Hannay, p. 549)


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • wilbro99
                ... still have the firm impression from my studies of his work that he distinguishes between the ethical and the religious spheres. Are you saying that is
                Message 7 of 11 , Feb 11, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:

                  > I note that altough Kierkegaard uses the term "ethico-religioius", I
                  still have the firm impression from my studies of his work that he
                  distinguishes between the ethical and the religious spheres. Are you
                  saying that is mistaken?

                  I trust you read that chapter of CUP and discovered the answer to your
                  first question about the leap and the ethical. I will answer your last
                  question in this post in lieu of commenting on the rest of your post
                  because it comments on the whole anyway. Your firm impression that
                  Kierkegaard distinguishes between the ethical and religious spheres is
                  correct. Now why then would he bring the two together in his religious
                  writings? Simply because there is a leap, a transition, between the
                  esthetic sphere and the ethico-religious spheres. Here is a quote that
                  makes that point. He is saying that one must first get to the ethical
                  sphere to understood the "existence-relation" between the esthetic and
                  ethical. Since the ethical is the doorway to the religious, he places
                  the two together. In his book Stages, he calls the ethical sphere the
                  transition sphere. So, anyway, there it is. I hope that clears things
                  up for you.

                  "If it were to be pointed out clearly in E/O where the discrepancy
                  lies, the book would have needed to have a religious instead of an
                  ethical orientationÂ…it is in this moment of decision that the
                  individual needs divine assistance, although it is quite correct that
                  one must first have understood the existence-relation between the
                  esthetic and the ethical to be at this point-that is, by being there
                  in passion and inwardness, one indeed becomes aware of the
                  religious-and of the leap. Furthermore, the definition of truth as
                  inwardness, that it is upbuilding, must be explicitly understood
                  before it is even religious, to say nothing of being Christianly
                  religious." (CUP, Hong, pp. 257-58; Lowrie, p. 230)
                • dnewdeath@aol.com
                  In a message dated 2/12/2002 12:32:34 AM Central Standard Time, ... Am I correct in assuming that the Three Stooges are somehow represented by the Id, Ego, and
                  Message 8 of 11 , Feb 11, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 2/12/2002 12:32:34 AM Central Standard Time,
                    wilbro99@... writes:


                    > In his book, the Three Stooges, he calls the ethical sphere the
                    > transition sphere. So, anyway, there it is. I hope that clears things
                    > up for you.
                    >
                    Am I correct in assuming that the Three Stooges are somehow represented by
                    the Id, Ego, and Super-Ego in that Frued himself assailed the intellectual
                    notion that in the best of all possible worlds Spinoza's boat was thinking
                    "Boat" "Boat" "Boat." Do we then in all actuality rely on the exponent
                    factors involved? I believed that then and I believe that now. This being the
                    case of factual Cogito and everything that follows from this one premise, it
                    is therefore logically impossible to force the issue without appealing to
                    authority. In the scheme of the pseudo we have here a great portion of
                    intellectualism that rhymes with existentialism and defeats the purpose in
                    the form of Platonic pointlessness. Love, Melinda

                    Daniel Rocco- Mortician/Investigator
                    NewDeath /o/
                    NewDeath / dnewdeath, and /o/ are Registered Trademarks (1995) of Daniel
                    Rocco-Rusk






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Lewis Vella
                    ... and actions. Never did I state that I do not wish to take responsibility. Once again, this must be the pathological liar speaking in Bobo. It seems like
                    Message 9 of 11 , Feb 12, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- Christopher Bobo <cbobo@...> wrote:
                      > Lewis should take responsibility for his own life
                      and > actions.

                      Never did I state that I do not wish to take
                      responsibility. Once again, this must be the
                      pathological liar speaking in Bobo. It seems like his
                      idea of me being responsible would be not to ask
                      questions, gag myself with a cloth maybe, and submit
                      to whomever may wish to exploit me legally. Well, we
                      all know how the 'civilized' man legally violated
                      witches during the reformation -- they burned them at
                      the stake.

                      > He should not blame others for his circumstances and
                      > condition.

                      Again he wants to gag me.

                      > If he does not like his circumstances,
                      > he alone is responsible for changing them.

                      Indeed, I am -- just as the black man, the woman, the
                      sorcerer and all of history's emancipators are.


                      > If that means he should get a job, then he should do
                      > that.

                      If that means he should roll over and play dead and
                      then we'll give him a biscuit, then he should do that.
                      Gag me with a cloth!

                      > If that means Lewis should move to a different area
                      > to avoid the harsh northern winters and thereby
                      > attain the ability to live more inexpensively, then
                      > it is Lewis' responsibility to undertake such
                      > changes.

                      If that means Lewis should forever be on the run from
                      his fellow man, then it his responsibility to run. Gag
                      me with a cloth!

                      > If pursuing spirituality is so important
                      > to Lewis, then he should do it with honesty,
                      > authenticity and good faith. If that means he must
                      > live like a pauper and asks for alms as so many holy
                      > men have before him, then he should accept that
                      > result as the consequence of his own choices.

                      Those holy men of history who asked for alms were
                      living in a different milieu all together. The beggar
                      was usually sanctioned as a sage, today he is more apt
                      to be sanctioned a disfunctional, leftover of society,
                      someone to offer pity to, or worse, to make one feel
                      appreciated for his own failings by handing him some
                      money. People do not go to this type of begger to
                      become enlightened, not by the begger himself anyway,
                      maybe by the archetypical image of this begger, but
                      not by this begger with the snot running down his
                      nose, the bottle of cheap wine, stolen Listerine,
                      cement glue, or whatever high of the day he has buried
                      in his pocket.
                      I see now, though, why Bobo would like me to take this
                      route -- for its two likely outcomes: dead of
                      pneumonia, or behind bars for vagrancy (even
                      panhandling is illegal, technically), either way,
                      you'll no longer be hearing from me on the internet,
                      and the possibility of a pathological liar or two
                      being sanctioned the most wise, respectable, honest
                      minds in cybersace will be that much easier, that is
                      to say they'll then have one less foe to deal with.

                      > Further, we said that Lewis should be humble and
                      > recognize that he is no better than any one else.
                      > The guy flipping burgers at McDonalds is as much
                      > deserving of respect and esteem as the Pope on the
                      > throne of the church.

                      I say the guy flipping hamburgers at McDonalds may be
                      more deserving of respect and esteem than even the guy
                      sitting on an institutional throne. As to the rest of
                      Bobo's comments they seem to state nothing new, but
                      the same circular rhetoric he keeps repeating. It is
                      the same story of the so-called civilized man content
                      with the status quo vs the visionary one who questions
                      authority.

                      Lewis


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                      http://greetings.yahoo.com
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.