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

Re: The Ready-To-Hand

Expand Messages
  • decker150
    Tommy said: what you haven t described is the complex interaction between all beings so that the master is also a slave and vice versa. It is not describing
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Tommy said: "what you haven't described is the complex interaction
      between all beings so that the master is also a slave and vice
      versa. It is not describing "reality" to place one being in one
      category and another being in another and suppose that to hold good
      for all time. It is putting your own instrumental-complex
      interpretation on it. I am very interested in an exploration of
      master-slave complexes. In the fields of sexuality, politics and
      industrial modes of production it is one of the most potent areas for
      study."

      Joe: Yes you are right. There is an other distinction worth adding,
      the submissive-dominate traits. As far as the master being the slave,
      this does not suggest that he has given up his position of dominance.
      Once, during college, I had this terrible submissive feeling about
      having to show up for a class, under the supervision and authority of
      a teacher I did not like. But I eventually realized the teacher had
      to show up too. It revealed the sense in which the dominance of the
      master does not exempt them from the obligatory duties to their own
      slaves. They too are under a control.

      In terms of sexual dominance and submission, there are a many
      submissives that I am sure feel surges of power over their dominant
      partners. There is probably compulsion in both master and slave; they
      fortify each other's compulsions, into an inter-subjective trap; into
      a mutal or cross-reification. I mean, who needs who the most, the
      slave who needs to be told what to do, or the master who has to
      maintain a habitual fetish to control, both slaves to their own
      unique kind of control drama. These strike me as dysfunctional
      inter-relationships where neither stand on their own feet. Neither
      are healthy minded Where is it at that we are to be or must be foiled
      together in the care and influence of another. Isn't that a little
      bit like not growing up? This being-in-the-world-for-others as a
      submissive or as a dominant are things we acquiese to, in an immature
      / deferential project or expressing our freedom when we are yet not
      fully able to be free. Well, yes, a boy says to his sir, I am yours,
      but if enough time passes, maybe the submissive game gets old and the
      boy finds out that in reality, he's smarter and more independent than
      his sir, and finally endeavor towards a fuller sense of his
      own freedom; beyond his former mental, emotional and
      sexual habit-structure. But then again, maybe not.

      Regarding the ready-in-order-to-use; Annie Lenox said in one of her
      songs "some people want to be abused, some want to be abused." And I
      say, these are the fetished souls, trapped in their own self-imposed
      dramas.

      Joe
    • Tommy Beavitt
      ... Joe, I certainly agree with your point about compulsion and intersubjectivity in master-slave relationships. But I would question your suggestion that they
      Message 2 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        At 9:24 pm +0000 5/8/02, decker150 wrote:
        >There is probably compulsion in both master and slave; they
        >fortify each other's compulsions, into an inter-subjective trap; into
        >a mutal or cross-reification. I mean, who needs who the most, the
        >slave who needs to be told what to do, or the master who has to
        >maintain a habitual fetish to control, both slaves to their own
        >unique kind of control drama. These strike me as dysfunctional
        >inter-relationships where neither stand on their own feet. Neither
        >are healthy minded

        Joe,

        I certainly agree with your point about compulsion and
        intersubjectivity in master-slave relationships. But I would question
        your suggestion that they are necessarily dysfunctional or unhealthy.
        In fact, my experience of relationships, both those of a sexual
        nature and those of a more prosaic disposition such as eg. neighbour
        or business associate, leads me to believe that there are elements of
        the master-slave complex within all of them.

        To begin to investigate the extent to which this is true by
        constructing roles and rituals that delineate both the master and the
        slave aspect to the relationship is, I believe, both functional and
        healthy.

        What would not be so healthy would be to deny the fact that there is
        any trace of master or slave in the relationship, ie. to assert
        complete independence.

        Of course relationships are dissoluble and when a relationship is
        non-existent there is no master or slave. But there remain other
        relationships to be entered into, each with its own peculiar
        master-slave aspects.

        Tommy
      • HOOVER460@aol.com
        Tommy: There are elements of power in all social relationships; however, to talk of a master/slave aspect in relations with neighbors and business associates
        Message 3 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Tommy: There are elements of power in all social relationships; however, to
          talk of a master/slave aspect in relations with neighbors and business
          associates seems to me be obscuring the real nature of those relationships.
          Mike


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Tommy Beavitt
          ... Which is...? Tommy
          Message 4 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:26 am -0400 6/8/02, HOOVER460@... wrote:
            >to
            >talk of a master/slave aspect in relations with neighbors and business
            >associates seems to me be obscuring the real nature of those relationships.

            Which is...?

            Tommy
          • Christopher Bobo
            Mutual advantage? Reciprocal gratification? ... From: Tommy Beavitt Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 7:40 AM To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re:
            Message 5 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Mutual advantage?
              Reciprocal gratification?
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Tommy Beavitt
              Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 7:40 AM
              To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: The Ready-To-Hand

              At 10:26 am -0400 6/8/02, HOOVER460@... wrote:
              >to
              >talk of a master/slave aspect in relations with neighbors and business
              >associates seems to me be obscuring the real nature of those relationships.

              Which is...?

              Tommy


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • HOOVER460@aol.com
              relationships vary. The are negotiated. One neighbor, for instance, and I don t talk much but we wave at each other. We have talked but find little in common:
              Message 6 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                relationships vary. The are negotiated. One neighbor, for instance, and I
                don't talk much but we wave at each other. We have talked but find little in
                common: a friendly wave and that's it. Neither of us has power over the other
                and neither seems to care much one way or the other. It does seem though
                that if one of us asked for help, esp. in an emergency of some sort it would
                be given, at least until the immediate emergency was over. It seems, to me,
                to refer to master/slave aspects of this relationship a real "reach". Now if
                I have a lot of "emergency" in which my neighbor comes to my assistance, then
                I would become obligated to some extent. The norm of reciprocity would kick
                in and I would try to do something for him in return so that our relationship
                would be "even" once again. If I failed to do something for my neighbor, he
                might come to see himself as "one up" on me and as having some power in the
                relationship. Our relationship would still be far from a master/slave
                relationship.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • HOOVER460@aol.com
                Relationships are negotiated. My neighbor and I have a rather distant relationship. We have talked but not much. We wave at each other. If there was an
                Message 7 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Relationships are negotiated. My neighbor and I have a rather distant
                  relationship. We have talked but not much. We wave at each other. If there
                  was an emergency and I need him he would come to my aid, I think, and I would
                  do the same. Otherwise, we dont really have much of a relationship. If I
                  asked his help, he would give it. then the "norm of reciprocity" would kick
                  in and I would feel obligated to do something for him in return. Until I
                  reciprocated, I would feel that he might think he is better than me (have
                  power relative to me), but this is far from a master/slave relationship.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Tommy Beavitt
                  ... Fair enough, but don t both of these contain elements of the master-slave relationship within them? For example, in the reciprocal gratification example a
                  Message 8 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 7:53 am -0700 6/8/02, Christopher Bobo wrote:
                    >Mutual advantage?
                    >Reciprocal gratification?

                    Fair enough, but don't both of these contain elements of the
                    master-slave relationship within them? For example, in the reciprocal
                    gratification example a man may receive gratification by being tied
                    up and whipped while a woman may obtain it from tying up a man and
                    whipping him. There are certainly elements of master-slave here. Or
                    in a retail transaction in a restaurant, a waitress may approach a
                    table asking if 'Sir' would like coffee. The restaurant goer will
                    consider whether a coffee would indeed be pleasing, decide that it
                    would and off will scurry the waitress to do his bidding. There are
                    also elements of master-slave here, I think.

                    Slavery as a permanent state of relationship between one party (a
                    master/owner) and another party (a slave) has rightly been outlawed
                    in most countries that we regard as civilised.

                    But this is not because it is immoral for one person to serve
                    another. It is because we agree that there are many facets to our
                    relationships with one another and it is immoral to claim that there
                    is anything inherent about our condition, that we may be permanently
                    fixed by the Look of the Other, like a butterfly on a collector's
                    board. We may put ourselves in the position of serving another - even
                    to the extent that that service may be considered painful or
                    degrading - but we can also remove ourselves from this relationship,
                    terminate the relationship.

                    Perhaps the disagreement on this subject is caused by a different
                    interpretation of the terms "master" and "slave". We should refer to
                    Sartre here and enquire whether he used the terms and what they might
                    be interpreted to mean to him. Unfortunately I can't remember if he
                    did and haven't got my books with me here at the moment. Certainly
                    the terms were used by Foucault who I regard as one of the chief
                    mantle-carriers of the Continental philosphy movement - of which
                    Sartre was the chief examplar until his death in the 1980.

                    To digress somewhat, has anyone read the absolutely fascinating and
                    very germane account by Edward Said of his meeting with Sartre,
                    Foucault and others in Paris in 1979? Strongly recommended, and may
                    provide us with a topical way of debating the interminable
                    Israel-Palestine question on this list.

                    Check out http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n11/said2211.htm

                    Tommy
                  • decker150
                    Right, and I think that we often fail to approach the aspect of relationships from an emancipatory standpoint, that I am here to live and enjoy my own life,
                    Message 9 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Right, and I think that we often fail to approach the aspect of
                      relationships from an emancipatory standpoint, that I am here to live
                      and enjoy my own life, not merely yanked around by someone elses
                      power and agenda. There is a sense in which culture becomes kind of
                      like a game, with a set of rules, and when you are on the loosing
                      side, you feel down, and if you don't know how to play the game,
                      depressed. But when you're on the winning side, you feel better about
                      that, especially if you know how to play the game. When I am in a
                      relationship where someone is trying to control me, I can either take
                      it too seriously or I can take it as a dynamic in which I intend to
                      play as the winner. So, I win not by controlling the other as an
                      instrument of my will, but I win, when the other makes their own
                      assessment of their own goals and in a spirit of cooperation
                      authentically becomes my equal, as fully functioning as myself.
                      Egalitarianism.

                      To me, this is more enlightened than to be drug along under the spell
                      of a fetished view by some other, where they are interpreting and
                      seeing me their submissive, subordinate, slave, employee, captive or
                      whatever.

                      Freedom means to arise to the level of a playfulness, with regard to
                      me own possibilities, and not having someone else, yanking my chain,
                      prodding, pushing, manipulating, or crushing my spirit.

                      The emanicipatory end result is that I pull my own chain, motivate
                      myself to my own possibilities, which respectfully hopes for the same
                      power in my other.

                      What strikes me as unhealthy, is the person who see's themself as a
                      instrument or anothers power, and not their own, that they are merely
                      exploited as the submissive. Likewise, to only see yourself as the
                      powerful one. But I think people like to pretend as part of the game,
                      no?

                      As Sartre said, every mind is in competition with every other mind.
                      But, the game is also to be cooperative; and human relations, within
                      context of culture and society is a game of rules. Max Weber wrote
                      about the charismatic who could both abide by those rules and
                      transcend them at the same time. The concept is freedom within form.
                      And this also makes me think about an ecstatic/rhapsodic/joyful
                      speech under the restraint of a linguistic conformity. Too often, we
                      think we have a language, but really, it is more like the language has
                      us. The person who has mastered the word, is able to pull their own
                      strings in a spirit of freedoms playfulness.

                      Joe

                      --- In Sartre@y..., Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
                      > At 9:24 pm +0000 5/8/02, decker150 wrote:
                      > >There is probably compulsion in both master and slave; they
                      > >fortify each other's compulsions, into an inter-subjective trap;
                      into
                      > >a mutal or cross-reification. I mean, who needs who the most, the
                      > >slave who needs to be told what to do, or the master who has to
                      > >maintain a habitual fetish to control, both slaves to their own
                      > >unique kind of control drama. These strike me as dysfunctional
                      > >inter-relationships where neither stand on their own feet. Neither
                      > >are healthy minded
                      >
                      > Joe,
                      >
                      > I certainly agree with your point about compulsion and
                      > intersubjectivity in master-slave relationships. But I would
                      question
                      > your suggestion that they are necessarily dysfunctional or
                      unhealthy.
                      > In fact, my experience of relationships, both those of a sexual
                      > nature and those of a more prosaic disposition such as eg. neighbour
                      > or business associate, leads me to believe that there are elements
                      of
                      > the master-slave complex within all of them.
                      >
                      > To begin to investigate the extent to which this is true by
                      > constructing roles and rituals that delineate both the master and
                      the
                      > slave aspect to the relationship is, I believe, both functional and
                      > healthy.
                      >
                      > What would not be so healthy would be to deny the fact that there is
                      > any trace of master or slave in the relationship, ie. to assert
                      > complete independence.
                      >
                      > Of course relationships are dissoluble and when a relationship is
                      > non-existent there is no master or slave. But there remain other
                      > relationships to be entered into, each with its own peculiar
                      > master-slave aspects.
                      >
                      > Tommy
                    • jngenet@aol.com
                      I wonder, if, as the fall is about to arrive for us all, and the profoundly ironically named Labor Day approaches if we are not all put in the mood of
                      Message 10 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I wonder, if, as the fall is about to arrive for us all, and the profoundly
                        ironically named Labor Day approaches if we are not all put in the mood of
                        wondering about slaves and masters in all our relationships.
                        Upon receiving a call yesterday relieving me of my employment, I felt as if
                        the Master had left the room for good- at least that Master- and that I was
                        free to scrape around for what control over my own life was left.
                        While talking, some years ago, to a woman about Kierkegaard and Sartre and
                        explaining as best I could the differences re: God, her husband came home
                        unexpectedly. A Master had returned and given the compromised situation she
                        and I were in, albeit accompanied by philosophical discussion, we both became
                        immediately slaves in fear of the lash. I had been one-upped. So can we all
                        be, masters or slaves. As I tried to sneak away, he caught me by surprise
                        and handed my a beer, telling me to sit. While I didn't want the beer or the
                        chair, I obeyed on both counts.
                        With a slightly evasive look, he asked me if I knew what it was to work for a
                        living. However evasive his look, his voice dripped with contempt. I have
                        often wondered if Sartre knew what it was to work for a living (my voice here
                        not dripping with contempt at all).
                        We love others and, if we are lucky, find one or two others capable of loving
                        in return without any real condition: accepting us, totally, as we are. It's
                        rare for us because such ability is rare. For that love, we are all slaves or
                        masters, whichever is called from us by the Other.

                        Anon




                        Blessed are those who know how to love each other

















                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • HOOVER460@aol.com
                        Good point about love. Int. in this regard,some sociological research indicates that men are hit more by romantic love than women. The reason for this seem
                        Message 11 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Good point about love. Int. in this regard,some sociological research
                          indicates that men are "hit" more by romantic love than women. The reason for
                          this seem to be that women in our culture are more rationality oriented to
                          determine if the man is in love with her and, of course, has "prospects."
                          Women have not had same opportunities and freedom to fend for themselves and
                          this may account for difference which is contrary to popular opinion that
                          women are more afflicted with romantic love.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • HOOVER460@aol.com
                          I m thinking that the master-slave relation was discussed in detail by Hegel. There does seem to be a dialectic in that the slave learns a lot of practical
                          Message 12 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I'm thinking that the master-slave relation was discussed in detail by Hegel.
                            There does seem to be a dialectic in that the slave learns a lot of practical
                            things that in the long run (maybe too long) can be translated into power and
                            some of the masters' power atropy.


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Elaine
                            ... in, albeit accompanied by philosophical discussion, we both became immediately slaves in fear of the lash. I had been one-upped. So can we all be, masters
                            Message 13 of 22 , Aug 7, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >A Master had returned and given the compromised situation she and I were
                              in, albeit accompanied by philosophical discussion, we both became
                              immediately slaves in fear of the lash. I had been one-upped. So can we all
                              be, masters or slaves. As I tried to sneak away, he caught me by surprise
                              and handed my a beer, telling me to sit. While I didn't want the beer or
                              the chair, I obeyed on both counts.

                              We become the slave through our own delusionary sense of guilt, fear and
                              anxiety. Society has conditioned us to abide by strict codes of acceptable
                              behaviour/thinking, hence acceptance of the other is defined by their
                              abiding conformity to behave and think in accordance with the collective. It
                              is not the conforming that renders us the slave, but rather the guilt, fear
                              and anxiety attached to the need to comform to acquire acceptance.

                              Laing defines those that surrender the authenticity of self, suffer from
                              "false" guilt and those who strive for authenticity suffer from "true"
                              guilt, where the schiz patient experiences an indifference. I can understand
                              why the one who surrenders could be seen to suffer "false guilt" afterall
                              they have conformed. However, i cannot understand why someone who strives to
                              become authentic would suffer "true" guilt, other than a sense of guilt in
                              association with the desire not to conform. Either way the individual is a
                              victim of their own guilt.

                              Yesterday i wrote these notes while studying from "The Crucible of
                              Experience" :-

                              Each and every individual seeks self-confirmation from others. However, with
                              an absence of trust and assurity, genuine self-disclosure is impossible.
                              With an absence of mutual confirmation, comes an absence of relatedness
                              where individuals establish "counterfeit" associations, projecting the
                              images of "false" selves or imaginary identities. In this manner, the
                              association is one of mutual "pretence" or "collusion" to withdraw from the
                              issue of self-disclosure. This collusion, Laing suggested, was a
                              social-interpersonal event, an unspoken, unconscious agreement between
                              oneself and others (p.46).

                              Laing further suggested that collusive relationships could be sustained
                              while the objectives of each individual were not in conflict with the other
                              and while the evidence of a counterfeit association remained hidden within
                              the unconscious mind.

                              Hence, "collusion" appears as a social-collective unconscious agreement
                              supporting self deception, as a means of self-preservation within an
                              otherwise chaotic existence.

                              However, while caught within this web of self-deception, the individual can
                              never achieve an ultimate sense of authenticity, as in a fulfillment of the
                              truly authentic self and the potentiality in Being. Rather, the individual
                              becomes the victim of their own need for self-preservation, where pretence
                              and self-deception bind them to a shared delusion in which they are not only
                              unable to experience a meaningful expression of self and a meaningful
                              relationship, as in Thou-I with others, but are unable to come to "know" the
                              self that "is".

                              Just a thought after typing this out. Ok thinking of the double bind, as in
                              the conflict between linguistic and behavioural communication. Words can
                              lie, express untruths or delude, but body language appears to express the
                              unspoken or hidden from within unconsciousness. Words without experience are
                              meaningless, one must come from a standpoint of experience, have a sense of
                              relatedness to give linguistic expression meaning, where body language
                              protrays the innate nature of Being human. Therefore, perhaps it is
                              patterns of behaviour and the transference of interpersonal images that
                              allows one to come to know the self.


                              > We love others and, if we are lucky, find one or two others capable of
                              loving in return without any real condition: accepting us, totally, as we
                              are. It's
                              rare for us because such ability is rare. For that love, we are all slaves
                              or masters, whichever is called from us by the Other.

                              Our inability to express pure love appears as a result of attributing
                              meaning, definitions, judgements, values to the concept of love. If someone
                              love me they must show, treat, behave in such a manner. Consequently, even
                              the expression of love is held in a bind of conformity where one experiences
                              guilt, fear and anxiety.

                              Love & Hugs
                              Elaine
                            • praxistence@aol.com
                              Man is not a commodity? Man can make himself into a commodity: see first 40 or so pages of Sartre s Critique of Dialectical Reason II, an intense examination
                              Message 14 of 22 , Aug 12, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Man is not a commodity? Man can make himself into a commodity: see first 40
                                or so pages of Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason II, an intense
                                examination of boxing.


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • praxistence@aol.com
                                Relationships not only negotiated (thru language?) but also mediated by material circumstances & each other s experience (unpleasant neighborly experiences,
                                Message 15 of 22 , Aug 12, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Relationships not only negotiated (thru language?) but also mediated by
                                  material circumstances & each other's experience (unpleasant neighborly
                                  experiences, like endless borrowing cups of sugar).


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Elaine
                                  ... It would be extremely interesting to know whether the relationships of the deaf and bumb are longer lasting than those relationships bound by linguistic
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Aug 12, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > Relationships not only negotiated (thru language?)

                                    It would be extremely interesting to know whether the relationships of the
                                    deaf and bumb are longer lasting than those relationships bound by
                                    linguistic
                                    ability.

                                    Love & Hugs
                                    Elaine
                                  • HOOVER460@aol.com
                                    I know one teacher at a school for the deaf. It is her opinion that the deaf often have unrealistic expectations about careers and relationships. this would
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Aug 12, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I know one teacher at a school for the deaf. It is her opinion that the deaf
                                      often have unrealistic expectations about careers and relationships. this
                                      would make an interesting study.


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • HOOVER460@aol.com
                                      Josh: Very good point! I am SOMEBODY! .... Ultimately, as Sartre, emphasized to comes down to action but the feel good mentality types have got it all
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Aug 13, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Josh: Very good point! I am SOMEBODY! .... Ultimately, as Sartre,
                                        emphasized to comes down to action but the feel good mentality types have got
                                        it all turned around and have ruined education everywhere. A teacher who has
                                        any sort of standards but is not always "making students feel good about
                                        themselves" is out. Meanwhile, students come to believe, since the teacher
                                        (in order to survive) gives them a good grade without requiring anything,
                                        that they know something, like how to write a complete sentence. Mike


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • praxistence@aol.com
                                        Deaf consider signing a linguistic ability. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Aug 20, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Deaf consider signing a linguistic ability.


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • HOOVER460@aol.com
                                          signing is a language for sure, and just a complex as any other. deaf people also read! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Aug 20, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            signing is a language for sure, and just a complex as any other. deaf people
                                            also read!


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