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

Meaning, Freedom & the Instrumental Complex

Expand Messages
  • decker150
    Hello to all. I see there are many well expressed post that have been provided since my last check in. I suppose that one day all these variations on insight
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello to all. I see there are many well expressed post that have
      been provided since my last check in. I suppose that one day all
      these variations on insight will suddenly jell together and I will
      arrive at a singular realization as to what existential really is.
      I'm always looking for a reduction in explaination; something like a
      sound bite or a PR tagline; 7 words or less; short and sweet and to
      the point' although I too weave many complex threads.

      Today I had the words come to me 'being alive'. I like what
      Heidiiger said about the ultimate philosophical question - which I
      believe went something like this; "Why is there anything at all?".
      I've explored Existential as though it were inexplicable. Part of
      the problem is that it is a topic that has many sub-topics and
      related branches of concern; death, freedom, being, others, etc.
      But what are the major branches in Existential?

      Hemmingway said "all stories end in death" so from an existential
      standpoint, perhaps it tries to answer basic human questions; why
      are we here? Why do we die? Are these questions truly without
      answers?

      I wonder - Joe
    • George Walton
      Joe, No, a day will not arrive when an insight will jell into a singular realization as to what existentialism is. You may as well speculate that, perhaps,
      Message 2 of 28 , Apr 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Joe,

        No, a day will not arrive when an insight will jell
        into a "singular realization" as to what
        existentialism is.

        You may as well speculate that, perhaps, one day we
        will come to a singular realization as to which foods
        taste best or whether abortion is moral or what is
        authentic behavior.

        No one knows now and no one ever will know. Why?
        Because no one CAN know. Why? Because no ones
        thinks/speaks in First Person Omniscient. All we have
        are vantage points regarding that which is, by far, of
        greatest importance to folks from day to day to day:
        how OUGHT I to think, feel and behave around others?

        The "self" is essentially a delusion. It is merely how
        a particular mind's eye pieces the contingency
        together from the cradle to the grave. We do not see
        the world the way it is...but the way we are...the way
        we think we are. So, we not only tend to objectify
        others, we tend to objectify our Self, as well. It's
        an existentially persuasive illusion....and no more.

        Biggie


        --- decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:
        > Hello to all. I see there are many well expressed
        > post that have
        > been provided since my last check in. I suppose
        > that one day all
        > these variations on insight will suddenly jell
        > together and I will
        > arrive at a singular realization as to what
        > existential really is.
        > I'm always looking for a reduction in explaination;
        > something like a
        > sound bite or a PR tagline; 7 words or less; short
        > and sweet and to
        > the point' although I too weave many complex
        > threads.
        >
        > Today I had the words come to me 'being alive'. I
        > like what
        > Heidiiger said about the ultimate philosophical
        > question - which I
        > believe went something like this; "Why is there
        > anything at all?".
        > I've explored Existential as though it were
        > inexplicable. Part of
        > the problem is that it is a topic that has many
        > sub-topics and
        > related branches of concern; death, freedom, being,
        > others, etc.
        > But what are the major branches in Existential?
        >
        > Hemmingway said "all stories end in death" so from
        > an existential
        > standpoint, perhaps it tries to answer basic human
        > questions; why
        > are we here? Why do we die? Are these questions
        > truly without
        > answers?
        >
        > I wonder - Joe
        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
        http://greetings.yahoo.com/
      • wilbro99
        Biggie, I do need for you to clear up a few things for me. I will admit up front that I am a bit slow of mind and need things spelled out for me. Are you
        Message 3 of 28 , Apr 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Biggie, I do need for you to clear up a few things for me. I will
          admit up front that I am a bit slow of mind and need things spelled
          out for me.

          Are you saying that there is no common insight that we may come upon
          that could define the 'existential' as something we all have in
          in-common ? If you say no, how do you know that such an insight can
          not be experienced? If the "self" is essentially a delusion, would
          not an insight into that be such an in-common revelation? Why could
          not that revelation then be described as the existential revelation?
          Without experiencing the ending of the delusion that is the self, how
          could the statement that the self is essentially a delusion be other
          than speculation?

          When you say that we do not see the world the way it is, but the way
          we are, how could we ever discern a distinction between the way we
          see the world and the way we do not see the world? How do we tend to
          objectify our Self? And finally, for now, when you use the term
          "existentially" in your statement that the self is an existentially
          persuasive illusion, what do you mean by that term?



          --- In Sartre@y..., George Walton <iambiguously@y...> wrote:
          > Joe,
          >
          > No, a day will not arrive when an insight will jell
          > into a "singular realization" as to what
          > existentialism is.
          >
          > You may as well speculate that, perhaps, one day we
          > will come to a singular realization as to which foods
          > taste best or whether abortion is moral or what is
          > authentic behavior.
          >
          > No one knows now and no one ever will know. Why?
          > Because no one CAN know. Why? Because no ones
          > thinks/speaks in First Person Omniscient. All we have
          > are vantage points regarding that which is, by far, of
          > greatest importance to folks from day to day to day:
          > how OUGHT I to think, feel and behave around others?
          >
          > The "self" is essentially a delusion. It is merely how
          > a particular mind's eye pieces the contingency
          > together from the cradle to the grave. We do not see
          > the world the way it is...but the way we are...the way
          > we think we are. So, we not only tend to objectify
          > others, we tend to objectify our Self, as well. It's
          > an existentially persuasive illusion....and no more.
          >
          > Biggie
          >
          >
          > --- decker150 <decker150@y...> wrote:
          > > Hello to all. I see there are many well expressed
          > > post that have
          > > been provided since my last check in. I suppose
          > > that one day all
          > > these variations on insight will suddenly jell
          > > together and I will
          > > arrive at a singular realization as to what
          > > existential really is.
          > > I'm always looking for a reduction in explaination;
          > > something like a
          > > sound bite or a PR tagline; 7 words or less; short
          > > and sweet and to
          > > the point' although I too weave many complex
          > > threads.
          > >
          > > Today I had the words come to me 'being alive'. I
          > > like what
          > > Heidiiger said about the ultimate philosophical
          > > question - which I
          > > believe went something like this; "Why is there
          > > anything at all?".
          > > I've explored Existential as though it were
          > > inexplicable. Part of
          > > the problem is that it is a topic that has many
          > > sub-topics and
          > > related branches of concern; death, freedom, being,
          > > others, etc.
          > > But what are the major branches in Existential?
          > >
          > > Hemmingway said "all stories end in death" so from
          > > an existential
          > > standpoint, perhaps it tries to answer basic human
          > > questions; why
          > > are we here? Why do we die? Are these questions
          > > truly without
          > > answers?
          > >
          > > I wonder - Joe
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          > __________________________________________________
          > Do You Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
          > http://greetings.yahoo.com/
        • George Walton
          Joe, Good questions. Think about how your sense of self unfolds: 1] you pop out of the vagina and immediately you are in the clutches of all that is other .
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Joe,

            Good questions.

            Think about how your "sense of self" unfolds:

            1] you pop out of the vagina and immediately you are
            in the clutches of all that is "other".
            2] "other" includes: historical period, culture,
            political economy, family, community, ethnicity etc.
            All completely beyond your control but powerfully
            influential in constructing your "identity".
            3] additional factors determining who you come to
            think you are include early childhood experiences and
            traumas, gender, race, social institutions, congenital
            health [both physical and mental] etc. And that is
            only pertaining to the CONSCIOUS mind. The
            subterranian cracks and crevices of the un-conscious
            mind also spins us around and around on the reality
            floor.
            4] In other words, by the time you reach adolesence,
            "I" has long since been hard-wired into your brain. In
            fact, the vast majority of the world's population will
            go to the grave barely putting a dent in it, right?

            How, for example, would you go about determining and
            then expressing Joe's philosophy separate from all
            those contingcies? What part is "just you"?

            The "self" is, indeed, essentially a delusion but,
            existentially, meaning is bursting at the seams. There
            are enough continuities embedded in the ambiguities
            embedded in the contingencies such that we can relate
            opinions and experiences and try to overlap them so
            that social interaction is facilitated. It is just
            that, regarding how we OUGHT to behave, we can only
            exchange particular vantage points. For example, is
            the death penalty moral? Some say yes and some say no.
            Most say, yes, if this....no, if that. Well, that's
            the end of it. No one can say for sure except God.
            And, given that he almost certainly does not exist, he
            doesn't say much at all, eh?

            What ultimately matters, of course, is not what we
            believe is moral, but who has the power to enforce one
            rendition over another. The law is always about power
            and power mostly revolves around those with the
            political and economic and military and police
            wherwithal to make their own rendition the most
            "pesuasive" one of all.

            Philosophy, in my view, is mostly about language.
            Logic exists to impart rules about what we can and can
            not say...at least if we expect to be understood or
            taken seriously. For example, if I say, "George Bush
            is Al Gore's twin sister if more people buy gas from
            Exxon than Shell on Sundays" you can look all those
            words up. They exist. Put together like that, however,
            and they are senseless.

            Then there is epistemology. This tells us there are
            certain logical sequences that must be adhered to
            regarding not what we say we know but how we come to
            acquire the knowledge about what we know in the first
            place. You can say that God exists, for instance, but
            that is not the same as demonstrating in a logical and
            empirical and material fashion how you secured the
            knowledge necessary to make that statement true for
            others.

            Again, if I say that, essentially, the meaning of life
            is essentially meaningless...what does that "mean"?
            Language can convey a more or less literal translation
            between "in the mind" and "out in the world" when, for
            example, mathematicians devise equations that
            engineers use to construct bridges that do not fall
            down. Regarding moral and political philosophy, on the
            other hand, philosophers have been constructing word
            bridges for centuries now encompassing what many
            assure us is either Good or Bad, Right or Wrong
            behavior.

            They all fall down. As for the philosophers
            themselves, they're all dead.

            Biggie




            --- wilbro99 <wilbro99@...> wrote:
            > Biggie, I do need for you to clear up a few things
            > for me. I will
            > admit up front that I am a bit slow of mind and need
            > things spelled
            > out for me.
            >
            > Are you saying that there is no common insight that
            > we may come upon
            > that could define the 'existential' as something we
            > all have in
            > in-common ? If you say no, how do you know that such
            > an insight can
            > not be experienced? If the "self" is essentially a
            > delusion, would
            > not an insight into that be such an in-common
            > revelation? Why could
            > not that revelation then be described as the
            > existential revelation?
            > Without experiencing the ending of the delusion that
            > is the self, how
            > could the statement that the self is essentially a
            > delusion be other
            > than speculation?
            >
            > When you say that we do not see the world the way it
            > is, but the way
            > we are, how could we ever discern a distinction
            > between the way we
            > see the world and the way we do not see the world?
            > How do we tend to
            > objectify our Self? And finally, for now, when you
            > use the term
            > "existentially" in your statement that the self is
            > an existentially
            > persuasive illusion, what do you mean by that term?
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In Sartre@y..., George Walton
            > <iambiguously@y...> wrote:
            > > Joe,
            > >
            > > No, a day will not arrive when an insight will
            > jell
            > > into a "singular realization" as to what
            > > existentialism is.
            > >
            > > You may as well speculate that, perhaps, one day
            > we
            > > will come to a singular realization as to which
            > foods
            > > taste best or whether abortion is moral or what is
            > > authentic behavior.
            > >
            > > No one knows now and no one ever will know. Why?
            > > Because no one CAN know. Why? Because no ones
            > > thinks/speaks in First Person Omniscient. All we
            > have
            > > are vantage points regarding that which is, by
            > far, of
            > > greatest importance to folks from day to day to
            > day:
            > > how OUGHT I to think, feel and behave around
            > others?
            > >
            > > The "self" is essentially a delusion. It is merely
            > how
            > > a particular mind's eye pieces the contingency
            > > together from the cradle to the grave. We do not
            > see
            > > the world the way it is...but the way we are...the
            > way
            > > we think we are. So, we not only tend to objectify
            > > others, we tend to objectify our Self, as well.
            > It's
            > > an existentially persuasive illusion....and no
            > more.
            > >
            > > Biggie
            > >
            > >
            > > --- decker150 <decker150@y...> wrote:
            > > > Hello to all. I see there are many well
            > expressed
            > > > post that have
            > > > been provided since my last check in. I suppose
            > > > that one day all
            > > > these variations on insight will suddenly jell
            > > > together and I will
            > > > arrive at a singular realization as to what
            > > > existential really is.
            > > > I'm always looking for a reduction in
            > explaination;
            > > > something like a
            > > > sound bite or a PR tagline; 7 words or less;
            > short
            > > > and sweet and to
            > > > the point' although I too weave many complex
            > > > threads.
            > > >
            > > > Today I had the words come to me 'being alive'.
            > I
            > > > like what
            > > > Heidiiger said about the ultimate philosophical
            > > > question - which I
            > > > believe went something like this; "Why is there
            > > > anything at all?".
            > > > I've explored Existential as though it were
            > > > inexplicable. Part of
            > > > the problem is that it is a topic that has many
            > > > sub-topics and
            > > > related branches of concern; death, freedom,
            > being,
            > > > others, etc.
            > > > But what are the major branches in Existential?
            > > >
            > > > Hemmingway said "all stories end in death" so
            > from
            > > > an existential
            > > > standpoint, perhaps it tries to answer basic
            > human
            > > > questions; why
            > > > are we here? Why do we die? Are these
            > questions
            > > > truly without
            > > > answers?
            > > >
            > > > I wonder - Joe
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > > __________________________________________________
            > > Do You Yahoo!?
            > > Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for
            > Easter, Passover
            > > http://greetings.yahoo.com/
            >
            >


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
            http://taxes.yahoo.com/
          • decker150
            Hi Biggie, So true what you say, it reminds me that I think I often forget that I had to grow up in the first place, go through all the experiences and changes
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Biggie,

              So true what you say, it reminds me that I think I often forget that I
              had to grow up in the first place, go through all the experiences and
              changes just to be what I am today. However, while objectify my being
              as a self, it certainly can not occur without the recognition that we
              gradually become the consciousness we are. We possessed something of
              an indigenous capability (raw capacity) but all the rest had to shape
              up along the journey of many many days and years.

              Thanks - Joe

              --- In Sartre@y..., George Walton <iambiguously@y...> wrote:
              > Joe,
              >
              > Good questions.
              >
              > Think about how your "sense of self" unfolds:
              >
              > 1] you pop out of the vagina and immediately you are
              > in the clutches of all that is "other".
              > 2] "other" includes: historical period, culture,
              > political economy, family, community, ethnicity etc.
              > All completely beyond your control but powerfully
              > influential in constructing your "identity".
              > 3] additional factors determining who you come to
              > think you are include early childhood experiences and
              > traumas, gender, race, social institutions, congenital
              > health [both physical and mental] etc. And that is
              > only pertaining to the CONSCIOUS mind. The
              > subterranian cracks and crevices of the un-conscious
              > mind also spins us around and around on the reality
              > floor.
              > 4] In other words, by the time you reach adolesence,
              > "I" has long since been hard-wired into your brain. In
              > fact, the vast majority of the world's population will
              > go to the grave barely putting a dent in it, right?
              >
              > How, for example, would you go about determining and
              > then expressing Joe's philosophy separate from all
              > those contingcies? What part is "just you"?
              >
              > The "self" is, indeed, essentially a delusion but,
              > existentially, meaning is bursting at the seams. There
              > are enough continuities embedded in the ambiguities
              > embedded in the contingencies such that we can relate
              > opinions and experiences and try to overlap them so
              > that social interaction is facilitated. It is just
              > that, regarding how we OUGHT to behave, we can only
              > exchange particular vantage points. For example, is
              > the death penalty moral? Some say yes and some say no.
              > Most say, yes, if this....no, if that. Well, that's
              > the end of it. No one can say for sure except God.
              > And, given that he almost certainly does not exist, he
              > doesn't say much at all, eh?
              >
              > What ultimately matters, of course, is not what we
              > believe is moral, but who has the power to enforce one
              > rendition over another. The law is always about power
              > and power mostly revolves around those with the
              > political and economic and military and police
              > wherwithal to make their own rendition the most
              > "pesuasive" one of all.
              >
              > Philosophy, in my view, is mostly about language.
              > Logic exists to impart rules about what we can and can
              > not say...at least if we expect to be understood or
              > taken seriously. For example, if I say, "George Bush
              > is Al Gore's twin sister if more people buy gas from
              > Exxon than Shell on Sundays" you can look all those
              > words up. They exist. Put together like that, however,
              > and they are senseless.
              >
              > Then there is epistemology. This tells us there are
              > certain logical sequences that must be adhered to
              > regarding not what we say we know but how we come to
              > acquire the knowledge about what we know in the first
              > place. You can say that God exists, for instance, but
              > that is not the same as demonstrating in a logical and
              > empirical and material fashion how you secured the
              > knowledge necessary to make that statement true for
              > others.
              >
              > Again, if I say that, essentially, the meaning of life
              > is essentially meaningless...what does that "mean"?
              > Language can convey a more or less literal translation
              > between "in the mind" and "out in the world" when, for
              > example, mathematicians devise equations that
              > engineers use to construct bridges that do not fall
              > down. Regarding moral and political philosophy, on the
              > other hand, philosophers have been constructing word
              > bridges for centuries now encompassing what many
              > assure us is either Good or Bad, Right or Wrong
              > behavior.
              >
              > They all fall down. As for the philosophers
              > themselves, they're all dead.
              >
              > Biggie
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- wilbro99 <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
              > > Biggie, I do need for you to clear up a few things
              > > for me. I will
              > > admit up front that I am a bit slow of mind and need
              > > things spelled
              > > out for me.
              > >
              > > Are you saying that there is no common insight that
              > > we may come upon
              > > that could define the 'existential' as something we
              > > all have in
              > > in-common ? If you say no, how do you know that such
              > > an insight can
              > > not be experienced? If the "self" is essentially a
              > > delusion, would
              > > not an insight into that be such an in-common
              > > revelation? Why could
              > > not that revelation then be described as the
              > > existential revelation?
              > > Without experiencing the ending of the delusion that
              > > is the self, how
              > > could the statement that the self is essentially a
              > > delusion be other
              > > than speculation?
              > >
              > > When you say that we do not see the world the way it
              > > is, but the way
              > > we are, how could we ever discern a distinction
              > > between the way we
              > > see the world and the way we do not see the world?
              > > How do we tend to
              > > objectify our Self? And finally, for now, when you
              > > use the term
              > > "existentially" in your statement that the self is
              > > an existentially
              > > persuasive illusion, what do you mean by that term?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In Sartre@y..., George Walton
              > > <iambiguously@y...> wrote:
              > > > Joe,
              > > >
              > > > No, a day will not arrive when an insight will
              > > jell
              > > > into a "singular realization" as to what
              > > > existentialism is.
              > > >
              > > > You may as well speculate that, perhaps, one day
              > > we
              > > > will come to a singular realization as to which
              > > foods
              > > > taste best or whether abortion is moral or what is
              > > > authentic behavior.
              > > >
              > > > No one knows now and no one ever will know. Why?
              > > > Because no one CAN know. Why? Because no ones
              > > > thinks/speaks in First Person Omniscient. All we
              > > have
              > > > are vantage points regarding that which is, by
              > > far, of
              > > > greatest importance to folks from day to day to
              > > day:
              > > > how OUGHT I to think, feel and behave around
              > > others?
              > > >
              > > > The "self" is essentially a delusion. It is merely
              > > how
              > > > a particular mind's eye pieces the contingency
              > > > together from the cradle to the grave. We do not
              > > see
              > > > the world the way it is...but the way we are...the
              > > way
              > > > we think we are. So, we not only tend to objectify
              > > > others, we tend to objectify our Self, as well.
              > > It's
              > > > an existentially persuasive illusion....and no
              > > more.
              > > >
              > > > Biggie
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- decker150 <decker150@y...> wrote:
              > > > > Hello to all. I see there are many well
              > > expressed
              > > > > post that have
              > > > > been provided since my last check in. I suppose
              > > > > that one day all
              > > > > these variations on insight will suddenly jell
              > > > > together and I will
              > > > > arrive at a singular realization as to what
              > > > > existential really is.
              > > > > I'm always looking for a reduction in
              > > explaination;
              > > > > something like a
              > > > > sound bite or a PR tagline; 7 words or less;
              > > short
              > > > > and sweet and to
              > > > > the point' although I too weave many complex
              > > > > threads.
              > > > >
              > > > > Today I had the words come to me 'being alive'.
              > > I
              > > > > like what
              > > > > Heidiiger said about the ultimate philosophical
              > > > > question - which I
              > > > > believe went something like this; "Why is there
              > > > > anything at all?".
              > > > > I've explored Existential as though it were
              > > > > inexplicable. Part of
              > > > > the problem is that it is a topic that has many
              > > > > sub-topics and
              > > > > related branches of concern; death, freedom,
              > > being,
              > > > > others, etc.
              > > > > But what are the major branches in Existential?
              > > > >
              > > > > Hemmingway said "all stories end in death" so
              > > from
              > > > > an existential
              > > > > standpoint, perhaps it tries to answer basic
              > > human
              > > > > questions; why
              > > > > are we here? Why do we die? Are these
              > > questions
              > > > > truly without
              > > > > answers?
              > > > >
              > > > > I wonder - Joe
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > __________________________________________________
              > > > Do You Yahoo!?
              > > > Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for
              > > Easter, Passover
              > > > http://greetings.yahoo.com/
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > __________________________________________________
              > Do You Yahoo!?
              > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
              > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.