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

Re: [Sartre] Re: existential, education, teaching, angst

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Beavitt
    Hello Keti, I wonder if you understand how these groups work? When you join an email discussion forum all messages you send to the forum get sent to all other
    Message 1 of 17 , Jul 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Keti,

      I wonder if you understand how these groups work? When you join an
      email discussion forum all messages you send to the forum get sent to
      all other members of the forum and you also receive all messages that
      all others send. As you can imagine, this means that sometimes you
      find yourself receiving all sorts of communication that isn't
      necessarily what you signed up to receive.

      The job of the moderator (me) is to try and make sure members remain
      on topic, so that messages on the Sartre group are about Sartre, not
      somebody's love life etc. (very interesting to them, not so
      interesting to others). Every so often I but in and tell people off
      for not being on topic.

      I was wondering about this thread: you are right in pointing out that
      it is starting to wander off topic.

      Ok guys! Knock this one on the head please!

      Tommy

      >Hello,
      >My name is Keti and I was just wondering if you could
      >tell me why am I receiving your e-mails?
      >There are based on the Sartre group but I have a
      >difficulty following your mails to me. I do read
      >Sartre but I don't understand why you keep on sending
      >me e-mails.
      >If you would be so kind to find the time to write me
      >back and explain this to me. I don't want to block
      >your access to my e-mail for no reason.
      >
      >
      >
      >Sincerely
      >
      > Keti.--- decker150
      ><decker150@...> wrote:
      >
      ><HR>
      ><html><body>
      >
      >
      ><tt>
      >I understand what you're trying to say, but still it
      >does not convince <BR>
      >me of anything.  You may do better to stop
      >accusing and directed you <BR>
      >efforts more towards reasons that are more
      >convincing.  You do evoke <BR>
      >emotion in me, neither effective nor positive.<BR>
      ><BR>
      >Your points seems to be blind to certain obvious
      >issues.  I'll give <BR>
      >you just one instance.  You write about the
      >anti-communist and <BR>
      >anti-homosexual, but seem to know nothing of the
      >persecution of <BR>
      >homosexuals under communist states.  You seem to
      >suggest that to be a <BR>
      >communist somehow ideologically supports
      >homosexuality.  <BR>
      ><<<<please?>>>>> 
      >Perhaps the communist, what's left of them, are also
      ><BR>
      >anti-homosexual.  Does that not occur to you?<BR>
      ><BR>
      >You make foolish statements my friend.  I am the
      >capitalist you're <BR>
      >talking about, But I had a gay brother who I loved and
      >supported.  So <BR>
      >your generalizations and frail accusations come
      >falling apart.<BR>
      ><BR>
      >You are not convincing.<BR>
      ><BR>
      >Learning is about (1) recognition, (2) scrutinization
      >(which 'implies' <BR>
      >application)  (3) experimentation and (4)
      >demonstration (enables a <BR>
      >person to 'apply' knowledge)  It runs in a series
      >of step.  First <BR>
      >things first.  You are far too concerned about
      >the 'applied', before <BR>
      >you are concerned about the 'theoretical' implied.<BR>
      ><BR>
      >As far as communism is concerned, it's very essence is
      >'unfreedom'.  <BR>
      >It exalts the horde above the projecting possibility
      >that is in the <BR>
      >individual alone that you claim to be so endeared
      >to.  If you believe <BR>
      >so much in 'freedom' as you claim to, you should know
      >that communism <BR>
      >exalts and glories the collective.  Communism is
      >submission.  You must <BR>
      >think as you're taught to think, have your writings
      >and literature <BR>
      >subjected to spys, forcing and pressing the individual
      >into some <BR>
      >trumped-up uniform state of consciousness dictated for
      >you by an elite <BR>
      >military and political bosses.<BR>
      ><BR>
      >You have know idea what freedom is, you're projecting
      >possibilities <BR>
      >would be crushed under the demands of your politcal
      >superior.<BR>
      ><BR>
      >Joe<BR>
      ><BR>
      ></tt>
      >
      ><br>
      >
      ><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
      >
      ><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
      ><tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
      ><td align=center><font size="-1"
      >color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
      ></tr>
      ><tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
      ><td align=center width=470><a
      >href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=229641.2166546.3626727.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705689216:HM/A=1142330/R=0/*http://promo.yahoo.com/debtscape/">
      ><img
      >src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/de/debtscape/dt_58_468x60north.gif"
      >width="468" height= "60" border= "0" > </a></td>
      ></tr>
      ></table>
      >
      ><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
      >
      >
      ><br>
      ><tt>
      >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
      >Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <BR>
      ></tt>
      ><br>
      >
      ><br>
      ><tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
      >href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
      >of Service</a>.</tt>
      ></br>
      >
      ></body></html>
      >
      >
      >
      >=====
      >Ain't no sunshine when moonshine is gone!!!
      >
      >______________________________________________________________________
      >Post your ad for free now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
      >
      >
      >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • decker150
      Hello Keti, I am sorry that no one has responded to you. I am not the moderator of this group. Apparently, you or someone else has signed up to this Sartre
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Keti,

        I am sorry that no one has responded to you. I am not the
        moderator of this group. Apparently, you or someone else has signed
        up to this Sartre discussion group in the past. Perhaps a friend?

        You will notice a 'Edit My membership' button in the upper right hand
        corner. Please explore there. However, if you do not have the
        original password, it may not allow you to edit it. It is
        misfortunate that you are getting these emails when you do not wish to
        receive them. Try to awaken the moderator of this group.

        Joe

        --- In Sartre@y..., keti karagovska <moonshine_kk@y...> wrote:
        > Hello,
        > My name is Keti and I was just wondering if you could
        > tell me why am I receiving your e-mails?
        > There are based on the Sartre group but I have a
        > difficulty following your mails to me. I do read
        > Sartre but I don't understand why you keep on sending
        > me e-mails.
        > If you would be so kind to find the time to write me
        > back and explain this to me. I don't want to block
        > your access to my e-mail for no reason.
        >
        >
        >
        > Sincerely
        >
        Keti.
      • decker150
        Tommy, It seems that Keti wants to be removed from the list, but does not know how to achieve that goal. She says I don t understand why you keep on sending
        Message 3 of 17 , Jul 9, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Tommy, It seems that Keti wants to be removed from the list, but does
          not know how to achieve that goal. She says "I don't understand why
          you keep on sending me e-mails."

          So let's help her get off the list.

          Joe

          --- In Sartre@y..., Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
          > Hello Keti,
          >
          > I wonder if you understand how these groups work? When you join an
          > email discussion forum all messages you send to the forum get sent
          to
          > all other members of the forum and you also receive all messages
          that
          > all others send. As you can imagine, this means that sometimes you
          > find yourself receiving all sorts of communication that isn't
          > necessarily what you signed up to receive.
          >
          > The job of the moderator (me) is to try and make sure members remain
          > on topic, so that messages on the Sartre group are about Sartre, not
          > somebody's love life etc. (very interesting to them, not so
          > interesting to others). Every so often I but in and tell people off
          > for not being on topic.
          >
          > I was wondering about this thread: you are right in pointing out
          that
          > it is starting to wander off topic.
          >
          > Ok guys! Knock this one on the head please!
          >
          > Tommy
          >
          > >Hello,
          > >My name is Keti and I was just wondering if you could
          > >tell me why am I receiving your e-mails?
          > >There are based on the Sartre group but I have a
          > >difficulty following your mails to me. I do read
          > >Sartre but I don't understand why you keep on sending
          > >me e-mails.
          > >If you would be so kind to find the time to write me
          > >back and explain this to me. I don't want to block
          > >your access to my e-mail for no reason.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >Sincerely
          > >
          > > Keti.--- decker150
          > ><decker150@y...> wrote:
          > >
          > ><HR>
          > ><html><body>
          > >
          > >
          > ><tt>
          > >I understand what you're trying to say, but still it
          > >does not convince <BR>
          > >me of anything.  You may do better to stop
          > >accusing and directed you <BR>
          > >efforts more towards reasons that are more
          > >convincing.  You do evoke <BR>
          > >emotion in me, neither effective nor positive.<BR>
          > ><BR>
          > >Your points seems to be blind to certain obvious
          > >issues.  I'll give <BR>
          > >you just one instance.  You write about the
          > >anti-communist and <BR>
          > >anti-homosexual, but seem to know nothing of the
          > >persecution of <BR>
          > >homosexuals under communist states.  You seem to
          > >suggest that to be a <BR>
          > >communist somehow ideologically supports
          > >homosexuality.  <BR>
          > ><<<<please?>>>>> 
          > >Perhaps the communist, what's left of them, are also
          > ><BR>
          > >anti-homosexual.  Does that not occur to you?<BR>
          > ><BR>
          > >You make foolish statements my friend.  I am the
          > >capitalist you're <BR>
          > >talking about, But I had a gay brother who I loved and
          > >supported.  So <BR>
          > >your generalizations and frail accusations come
          > >falling apart.<BR>
          > ><BR>
          > >You are not convincing.<BR>
          > ><BR>
          > >Learning is about (1) recognition, (2) scrutinization
          > >(which 'implies' <BR>
          > >application)  (3) experimentation and (4)
          > >demonstration (enables a <BR>
          > >person to 'apply' knowledge)  It runs in a series
          > >of step.  First <BR>
          > >things first.  You are far too concerned about
          > >the 'applied', before <BR>
          > >you are concerned about the 'theoretical' implied.<BR>
          > ><BR>
          > >As far as communism is concerned, it's very essence is
          > >'unfreedom'.  <BR>
          > >It exalts the horde above the projecting possibility
          > >that is in the <BR>
          > >individual alone that you claim to be so endeared
          > >to.  If you believe <BR>
          > >so much in 'freedom' as you claim to, you should know
          > >that communism <BR>
          > >exalts and glories the collective.  Communism is
          > >submission.  You must <BR>
          > >think as you're taught to think, have your writings
          > >and literature <BR>
          > >subjected to spys, forcing and pressing the individual
          > >into some <BR>
          > >trumped-up uniform state of consciousness dictated for
          > >you by an elite <BR>
          > >military and political bosses.<BR>
          > ><BR>
          > >You have know idea what freedom is, you're projecting
          > >possibilities <BR>
          > >would be crushed under the demands of your politcal
          > >superior.<BR>
          > ><BR>
          > >Joe<BR>
          > ><BR>
          > ></tt>
          > >
          > ><br>
          > >
          > ><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
          > >
          > ><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
          > ><tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
          > ><td align=center><font size="-1"
          > >color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
          > ></tr>
          > ><tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
          > ><td align=center width=470><a
          >
          >href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=229641.2166546.3626727.1829184/D=egroupwe
          b/S=1705689216:HM/A=1142330/R=0/*http://promo.yahoo.com/debtscape/">
          > ><img
          >
          >src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/de/debtscape/dt_58_468x60nor
          th.gif"
          > >width="468" height= "60" border= "0" > </a></td>
          > ></tr>
          > ></table>
          > >
          > ><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
          > >
          > >
          > ><br>
          > ><tt>
          > >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
          > >Sartre-unsubscribe@y... <BR>
          > ></tt>
          > ><br>
          > >
          > ><br>
          > ><tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
          > >href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
          > >of Service</a>.</tt>
          > ></br>
          > >
          > ></body></html>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >=====
          > >Ain't no sunshine when moonshine is gone!!!
          > >
          >
          >_____________________________________________________________________
          _
          > >Post your ad for free now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
          > >
          > >
          > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@y...
          > >
          > >
          > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • daniel_needles
          Hello, What is the Existentialist view of Zombies -- physical but unaware creatures? (Reference: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/zombies.html Thanks,
          Message 4 of 17 , Jul 10, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello,
            What is the Existentialist view of "Zombies" -- physical but
            unaware creatures? (Reference:
            http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/zombies.html

            Thanks,
            Daniel
          • Christopher Rowland
            My dear Richard Many thanks and congratulations. Not only have you persuaded me to withdraw from this rather fruitless dance with the deluded but upon spying
            Message 5 of 17 , Jul 11, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              My dear Richard
              Many thanks and congratulations. Not only have you persuaded me to withdraw from this rather
              fruitless dance with the deluded but upon spying your copyright disclaimer you have made me laugh
              more than anyone else this week. The idea that absolutely anybody with even the remotest semblance
              of a learned critical faculty would willingly wish to reproduce the turgid, vacuous bile that you so
              gleefully copyright is priceless, absolutely priceless. Nice one. Your swollen sense of
              self-importance is only matched is size by the chip on your shoulder. What is it, insecurity, or
              inadequacy. Or a subtle confluence of the two. Let me know, I'm genuinely interested. Much as it
              pains me to even warrant your ill-considered tirade with a response (its sort of like playing
              football, yes that's football, you know the game that you play with your feet. No, I suppose not,
              with my four year old nephew,) some of it is so comical I cannot let it pass. Allow me to be brief.
              "Sartre never did incite people" apart from the OAS who he clearly incited to make several
              assassination attempts in the early 1960's, one of which he was extremely fortunate to emerge
              unscathed from . ( You see, my dear chap, that when you make facile generalisations, you run the
              risk of looking a bit of a twat when they can be refuted with such ease.)

              You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with our queen and the Church of England. I'm not sure if
              you have delighted us with your presence before but you seem to be wallowing under a few childish
              misnomers. Allow me
              1) This is not a theocracy. We are a secular state. Your comparison of England to Israel is almost
              as funny as the copyright hilarity. The queen and the church of England are virtually redundant in
              terms of the social and psychological orientation of this country. The main reason we keep her
              around is that her presence is guaranteed to induce about a million and one camera sporting, plaid
              wearing, clinically obese, pig shit thick yanks to the shores to spend the bloated GDP that you
              build up by bullying and raping the rest of the world.(Yes I know we had the empire back in the day,
              a perennial scar on the history of the entire continent but need I go further than Kyoto?) I don't
              personally agree with it but it keeps those people who sell Union Jack hats in business, wouldn't
              you say? And while we are on the subject don't you chaps get up every morning at school and pledge
              allegiance to the flag, and god, and whoever else you are told to stand up and mindlessly revere.
              And who is it that the nations trust is placed in on your currency? Or did this escape you when you
              were compiling your glib diatribe.
              2) You talk about balls, or rather my evident lack of them in light of the fact that I haven't
              overthrown the monarchy yet. Interesting in light of your illustrious team leader. This is a
              nation that happily allows it self to be governed and, more importantly, represented globally , by a
              semi-illiterate cowboy, steadfastly incapable of independent free thought and speech, who is only
              allowed to appear on television with the hand of his carefully selected cabinet up his arse, and
              whose main reason for being elected to office was that he looked better in a flight jacket that Al
              Gore. . Its strange that you should devote so much of your rage to a redundant State decoration who
              plays not part in the government of the country, in light of the above. If your balls are so much
              more bigger than mine why is baby 'dubya' still running around on his toddler leash. If the queens
              continued existence is proof of my bad faith, what does the seemingly endless incumbency of Georgy
              boy do for 250 million of you

              A small world of advice, If I may be so imprudent. If you are hoping that what you can learn from
              your local library philosophy section is going to compensate for your glaring lack of social skills,
              paranoid inadequacy and willingness to write polemic without engaging your brain you are in for a
              long, hard slog. Enjoy. I shall continue to be happy in the misery you attribute to me, you keep
              saluting the flag. You silly, disillusioned wanker.

              Oh yeah while I'm here, to all of those interested in Joe Deckers 'What was it', I'm not sure what
              it was but I know what it is and its called fucking plagiarism. This narrative has been written for
              over 60 years ago now and its called La Nausee. Some silly tool even wrote to him to tell him how
              profound and brilliant and so like Sartre it was. What I'm sure she meant she meant to say was how
              much like an diluted meaningless Sartrean pastiche it was.




              -----Original Message-----
              From: Richard Radandt [mailto:richradandt@...]
              Sent: 08 July 2002 04:47
              To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com; decker150; Christopher Rowland
              Subject: [Sartre] existential, education, teaching, angst


              Dear Decker, Rowland, and group
              I'm of concern on how you view education, and teaching. I argue it's not one of information and it's
              the application of information in order to live Being in the world. It's the ability to research and
              experiment through the use of flesh and blood to bring from a primordial existence into the use of
              the in itself-alone. It has nothing to do with in inspiration as it, inspiration, is no more or no
              less than betrayal, deception, and deceit of the in itself-alone to serve the class interests of
              capitalism through the exploitation of labor powers, and the body and flesh of Being in the world.
              99.5% of teachers support the capitalist system. Sartre never did incite people. He merely expresses
              the existence of the working class during the period of his life. He talks about in several cases
              what many people choose to be silent. I receive no inspiration from reading Sartre's life. I
              discover in many cases a tragic feeling for him. His decision not to stay or seek the Lyceum or
              teach! er position in my words makes me hink and feel of high regards for him. Yes, I do see the
              idea of a cult as of course absurd. I can go into a bath in Japan, China, Mexico, Germany and
              several other places and we can discuss Sartre and even grasp the hate people might have about the
              United States and George Bush. It will bring around a common affinity between their care and concern
              and my care and concern. Sartre seems to offer a sense of courage and confidence to come to an open
              clearing and air our issues and create in a responsible sense new potential, projecting
              possibilities we can share not just as the in itself-alone and in many cases as a small, abstract
              group. Yes, I would move your definition into your own words of, "examining of existence." I change
              your noun examination into examining, as this is the existential use of it. To use examination is to
              fall into the Hegel and Carl Jung camp and this degrades, humiliates and insults the idea of Being
              in the wo! rld.

              The use of anxiety in United States philosophy occurs as we have gotten rid of a state religion, our
              house of lords, our class system, and our queen. In England, you haven't had the courage and the
              confidence to do it. To quote Sartre, you still live in bad faith and don't want to face the
              existing awareness of the harm you do to one's potential, projecting possibilities in a search of a
              responsible choice of freedom. Now in the United States exist some pretty nasty events. I'm not sure
              we do reduce philosophy to angst. In the United States, the anti-communists, the anti-homosexuals,
              and the pro marriage and the family, and the anti-atheists namely the followers of Carl Jung and
              Carl Rogers do a good job of reducing existentialism to shit.

              Being a philosopher, I feel requires a sense of bluntness and arrogance and not politeness. If you
              grasp the dread in Kierkegaard, how is it you don't overthrow the Queen of England through the power
              of your political system? I mean your country supports George Bush in the overthrow of the president
              of Venezuela, and the government of Afghanistan. Why not the queen? If you really grasp dread, you
              would own the balls to do this. Your government supports the overthrow of Iraq in favor of a
              constitutional monarchy of Kuwait. This is politeness on your part.

              The importance of Heidegger and anxiety is he's the first to tell us the resting of our comments on
              the theories of Husserl and other psychologists in regards to, "Intention, and intuition." Leads us
              nowhere. He's yelling at the top of his lungs we must get theology and ethics out of philosophy and
              out of Being in the world. Your country still has the Church of England and won't get out of the
              closet. Japan and Japanese philosophy in keeping their emperor falls into the same trap. The state
              of Israel is a religious state and falls into the same trap. The Vatican a religious state falls in
              the same trap. The problem is you aren't leading us into the future until you clean up your
              political and social acts in England. If Sartre is correct, and we are responsible for our actions
              we need to get England to get rid of its church, its queen, its class system, and most of its
              philosophers. If you ecstatic, I'm happy for you. You are living in misery. You are living in bad !
              faith and denying it.

              Copyright July 2002 by Richradandt@... page one of one.



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


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


              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of
              Service.



              ----------

              This message is intended for the use of the addressee
              only and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you
              have received it in error please notify the sender and destroy it.
              You may not use it or copy it to anyone else.

              E-mail is not a secure communications medium.
              Please be aware of this when replying.

              Although East Sussex County Council has taken steps to ensure
              that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free, we can take
              no responsibility if a virus is actually present and you are advised to
              ensure that the appropriate checks are made.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • decker150
              Wow, Christopher (?) I hope you feel better now. Joe PS, I love your country. And I am glad that you are such an original thinker, so much better than I.
              Message 6 of 17 , Jul 11, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Wow, Christopher (?) I hope you feel better now.

                Joe

                PS, I love your country. And I am glad that you are such an original
                thinker, so much better than I. And for the record,I don't think I
                was plagerizing Sartre as much as I was Maslow, Colin Wilson, Victor
                Frankle, all who represent a more optimistic existentialism.

                Thanks.
              • Josh@orangeboxman.com
                Gentlemen, I must admit that, as a newcomer here who knows precious little about philosophy, I m refreshed by all the unexpected animosity. No. I m NOT joking.
                Message 7 of 17 , Jul 11, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Gentlemen,

                  I must admit that, as a newcomer here who knows
                  precious little about philosophy, I'm refreshed
                  by all the unexpected animosity. No. I'm NOT joking.

                  I'm not here to wave any flags.
                  I just want to point out that the loss of American
                  colonies to the Crown (and vice versa) probably had
                  a lot less to do with simple class dynamics or
                  "courage" or whatever, and more to do with the
                  different set of conditions under which
                  north american residents lived, as compared to their
                  allegedly consanguinous counterparts (of WHATEVER class)
                  over the pond.

                  If I was told correctly, the heart of the matter
                  was taxation without representation.
                  The same condition exists here again, and has existed
                  well before 20 January 2001. Only this time, the taxed
                  can not rebel mostly because they have yet to be born.
                  I submit that the basic purpose for which my ancestors
                  did so much shooting way back when is now lost.
                  The 2000 election was just one more indicator.
                  In this case, the Crown represents (?)a default sovereignty.

                  You should both be discussing this matter as countrymen.
                  It's a REFORM issue!

                  The good news about the non-signature of the Kyoto Accord
                  (other than the fact that GWB should really have no say
                  in the matter at some point) is that if the ice caps melt,
                  Florida will flood and won't be hanging chad again after
                  that.

                  Overstated?

                  You decide.

                  Josh B. (with no copyright... this time)
                • Tommy Beavitt
                  Everyone, Please take this discussion off list or make a new one on which UK versus USA discussions are topical. Thanks Tommy moderator
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jul 11, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Everyone,

                    Please take this discussion off list or make a new one on which UK
                    versus USA discussions are topical.

                    Thanks

                    Tommy
                    moderator
                  • daniel_needles
                    Let me try this again ... Existentialism embraces diverse doctrines but centers on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe. Its focus is
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jul 11, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Let me try this again ...

                      Existentialism embraces diverse doctrines but centers on analysis of
                      individual existence in an unfathomable universe. Its focus is on
                      experience. The concept of a Zombie, someone or thing that does not
                      experience but meerly functions, jepardizes this basic assumption.
                      Has anyone thought about this?

                      Thanks,
                      Daniel

                      --- In Sartre@y..., "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...> wrote:
                      > Hello,
                      > What is the Existentialist view of "Zombies" -- physical but
                      > unaware creatures? (Reference:
                      > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/zombies.html
                      >
                      > Thanks,
                      > Daniel
                    • Josh@orangeboxman.com
                      I m pretty darned new at this, but I m not certain how useful it is to assume we can really make a clear distinction between experience and function . Since
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jul 11, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I'm pretty darned new at this, but I'm not certain
                        how useful it is to assume we can really make a clear
                        distinction between "experience" and "function".
                        Since zombies (depending on definition) may not
                        actually exist, the question of whether they would
                        function or experience seems to me to be a rather
                        ironic point of
                        departure for an existential discussion.

                        Not that Sartre is necessarily the final word on
                        existence, but even as he uses existence, it is
                        something that even a seat on a subway car can have.
                        Assuming that a zombie is as real as a seat on a
                        subway car, surely it must be more prone to experience
                        than is such a seat (?).

                        If one uses experience as a criterion of existence,
                        I don't see how existence can apply to what are
                        called inanimate objects, but not to quasi-biological
                        systems the behaviors of which may approach, approximate
                        or at least hint at things implicit in the word "experience".

                        I suppose, if I want to, I can define subway car seats
                        as experiencing the ongoing realization of their inention
                        to be what they are and do what they do, as contrasted
                        with the erratic behavior of humans who merely function
                        or fail to function in the propagation of their genes.

                        I submit that the zombie question differs from this
                        in degree, rather than type. In some sense, any organism
                        that lacks the capacity to propagate genes is "dead yet
                        alive"; the so called "undecideable" zombie.

                        If there's a need here to provoke greater examination
                        of terms like "experience" and "function", I think
                        the introduction, I think the zombie idea is a great
                        way to show how cloudy things already are.

                        Thanks!

                        Josh B.
                      • decker150
                        Hi Daniel. No I had not thought about that. Since zombies are hypothetical, wouldn t the whole exercise in consideration just lead to spectulation? What do
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jul 11, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Daniel. No I had not thought about that. Since zombies are
                          hypothetical, wouldn't the whole exercise in consideration just lead
                          to spectulation? What do you see is important about zombies? It
                          would seem that zombies (fictionals) would act more like spastic
                          beings, robotic programs without consciousness. I wonder about the
                          same things only in terms of nonsentient beings, say a broadleaf weed.

                          Joe

                          --- In Sartre@y..., "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...> wrote:
                          > Let me try this again ...
                          >
                          > Existentialism embraces diverse doctrines but centers on analysis of
                          > individual existence in an unfathomable universe. Its focus is on
                          > experience. The concept of a Zombie, someone or thing that does not
                          > experience but meerly functions, jepardizes this basic assumption.
                          > Has anyone thought about this?
                          >
                          > Thanks,
                          > Daniel
                          >
                          > --- In Sartre@y..., "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...> wrote:
                          > > Hello,
                          > > What is the Existentialist view of "Zombies" -- physical but
                          > > unaware creatures? (Reference:
                          > > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/zombies.html
                          > >
                          > > Thanks,
                          > > Daniel
                        • decker150
                          Today, you re zombie idea came alive in my mind. Although a literal zombie is less than likely, I did see a metaphorical application. Namely, that as a
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jul 16, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Today, you're zombie idea came alive in my mind. Although a
                            literal zombie is less than likely, I did see a metaphorical
                            application. Namely, that as a zombie exist as a mindless being,
                            supposedly created by voodoo or witchcraft, a figurative comparrison
                            might be the kind of people who are lifeless drones of the everyday
                            culture, going through life in a transelike / thoughtless and
                            non-reflective manner, absorbed in their dull daily routines, living
                            mechanistically. That is the only way I can see that the zombie
                            concept applies itself to existentialism. The implication is that the
                            self-reflective person is "alive and aware".

                            I also thought about the 'borg' idea. It is one thing to be around
                            the borg, being fully aware of what it does, and the poor beings who
                            has been assimilated by it. Perhaps the culture we live in is like
                            the borg. So many people have been assimiliated that they do not even
                            realize what they have lost.

                            I had read someone was who had expressed an idea about a
                            "technological trance." The idea intrigues me still today. The jest
                            of the idea is that in someway, somehow, our views of reality are
                            retricted. There are a host of phrases in our language that express
                            this: superficial people, narrow-mindedness, herd mentality and so
                            forth. The 'peak experience' implies, at least for me, a way out of
                            that syndrome. Existentialism at least suggest that in the search to
                            understand 'being', we come to understand something fundamental about
                            ourself, our own experience. It promotes the self-reflective project.
                            The Being-for-itself becoming conscious of itself as being. Sartre
                            said that "consciousness is always consciousness of something." The
                            'something' becomes consciousness of itself.

                            Someone else had written the phrase "everyday consciousness is a
                            liar". I have been trying to understand the condition of
                            mass-mindeness and conformity. This might be phrased in existential
                            terms as, the being-for-itself unable to be fully itself do to the
                            condition of unfreedom that confines it. The zombie suggest a kind of
                            mindless slave automoton, merely going through the motions, moving but
                            not mental alert or alive. To become fully alive, fully aware, able
                            to break out of the patterns that bind an individual to an unhealthy
                            mental pattern. (Human development) raised to its highest importance.

                            Joe
                            --- In Sartre@y..., "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...> wrote:
                            > Let me try this again ...
                            >
                            > Existentialism embraces diverse doctrines but centers on analysis of
                            > individual existence in an unfathomable universe. Its focus is on
                            > experience. The concept of a Zombie, someone or thing that does not
                            > experience but meerly functions, jepardizes this basic assumption.
                            > Has anyone thought about this?
                            >
                            > Thanks,
                            > Daniel
                            >
                            > --- In Sartre@y..., "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...> wrote:
                            > > Hello,
                            > > What is the Existentialist view of "Zombies" -- physical but
                            > > unaware creatures? (Reference:
                            > > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/zombies.html
                            > >
                            > > Thanks,
                            > > Daniel
                          • daniel_needles
                            Joe, IMHO the centeral theme of Satre Existentialism seems to revolve around Descarte s I doubt therefore I am. In this realm only the subjective experience
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jul 16, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Joe,
                              IMHO the centeral theme of Satre Existentialism seems to revolve
                              around Descarte's I doubt therefore I am. In this realm only the
                              subjective experience can be trusted in an unknowable universe.
                              Zombies which have no subjective experience cannot relate to
                              Existentialism. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/zombies.html
                              refers to the Voodoo Zombies, Hollywood Zombies, as well as some
                              others. Examples can include an advanced computer program such as
                              shown in the movie terminator or the matrix. By objective extentions
                              there appears no reason to believe based on current theories that
                              these entities are subjective. They may process the color red but
                              they do not feel it. My belief is that subjective experience must be
                              tied into the fabric of reality at a lower level. Speaking of which
                              have you had time to look over what I sent you?

                              Thanks,
                              Daniel

                              --- In Sartre@y..., "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
                              > Today, you're zombie idea came alive in my mind. Although a
                              > literal zombie is less than likely, I did see a metaphorical
                              > application. Namely, that as a zombie exist as a mindless being,
                              > supposedly created by voodoo or witchcraft, a figurative
                              comparrison
                              > might be the kind of people who are lifeless drones of the everyday
                              > culture, going through life in a transelike / thoughtless and
                              > non-reflective manner, absorbed in their dull daily routines,
                              living
                              > mechanistically. That is the only way I can see that the zombie
                              > concept applies itself to existentialism. The implication is that
                              the
                              > self-reflective person is "alive and aware".
                              >
                              > I also thought about the 'borg' idea. It is one thing to be around
                              > the borg, being fully aware of what it does, and the poor beings
                              who
                              > has been assimilated by it. Perhaps the culture we live in is like
                              > the borg. So many people have been assimiliated that they do not
                              even
                              > realize what they have lost.
                              >
                              > I had read someone was who had expressed an idea about a
                              > "technological trance." The idea intrigues me still today. The
                              jest
                              > of the idea is that in someway, somehow, our views of reality are
                              > retricted. There are a host of phrases in our language that
                              express
                              > this: superficial people, narrow-mindedness, herd mentality and so
                              > forth. The 'peak experience' implies, at least for me, a way out
                              of
                              > that syndrome. Existentialism at least suggest that in the search
                              to
                              > understand 'being', we come to understand something fundamental
                              about
                              > ourself, our own experience. It promotes the self-reflective
                              project.
                              > The Being-for-itself becoming conscious of itself as being.
                              Sartre
                              > said that "consciousness is always consciousness of something."
                              The
                              > 'something' becomes consciousness of itself.
                              >
                              > Someone else had written the phrase "everyday consciousness is a
                              > liar". I have been trying to understand the condition of
                              > mass-mindeness and conformity. This might be phrased in existential
                              > terms as, the being-for-itself unable to be fully itself do to the
                              > condition of unfreedom that confines it. The zombie suggest a kind
                              of
                              > mindless slave automoton, merely going through the motions, moving
                              but
                              > not mental alert or alive. To become fully alive, fully aware,
                              able
                              > to break out of the patterns that bind an individual to an
                              unhealthy
                              > mental pattern. (Human development) raised to its highest
                              importance.
                              >
                              > Joe
                              > --- In Sartre@y..., "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...> wrote:
                              > > Let me try this again ...
                              > >
                              > > Existentialism embraces diverse doctrines but centers on analysis
                              of
                              > > individual existence in an unfathomable universe. Its focus is on
                              > > experience. The concept of a Zombie, someone or thing that does
                              not
                              > > experience but meerly functions, jepardizes this basic
                              assumption.
                              > > Has anyone thought about this?
                              > >
                              > > Thanks,
                              > > Daniel
                              > >
                              > > --- In Sartre@y..., "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...> wrote:
                              > > > Hello,
                              > > > What is the Existentialist view of "Zombies" -- physical but
                              > > > unaware creatures? (Reference:
                              > > > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/zombies.html
                              > > >
                              > > > Thanks,
                              > > > Daniel
                            • praxistence@aol.com
                              Sartre said in the documentary Sartre: By Himself that Descartes I think therefore I am was always his basic philosophical dictum. (Ironically, on camera he
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jul 20, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Sartre said in the documentary Sartre: By Himself that Descartes' I think
                                therefore I am was always his basic philosophical dictum. (Ironically, on
                                camera he actually says I am therefore I think & then laughs & corrects
                                himself.)


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.