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

Fwd: [Sartre] REply to enrique on real change in Being in the world

Expand Messages
  • Josh@orangeboxman.com
    Ironically (since I was poking fun at Descartes not all that long ago) that the body can move without recourse to the mind was one of Descarte s most
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Ironically (since I was poking fun at Descartes not all
      that long ago) that the body can move without recourse
      to the mind was one of Descarte's most interesting
      medical discoveries.

      The body is anything but inert.

      Again I say, without being yet refuted,
      that the mind is a function of the brain, which
      is an organ of the body; the mind is a bodily function.

      ---- Original message ----
      >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:14:34 -0700
      >From: "Richard Radandt" <richradandt@...>
      >Subject: [Sartre] REply to enrique on real change in Being
      in the world
      >To: <camusdiscussionlist@yahoogroups.com>,
      <EnriqueA822@...>, <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >The body isn't inert and it's in movement, touching, and
      breathing. I visit a man in the hospital and he's just
      coming out of open-heart surgery with a five by pass valve
      operation. I touch the hair on his arm with a light stroke
      and he feels it. The trauma he's in and the drugs he's using
      would indicate he should not be experiencing this touch and
      he's. I move my lips up towards his nose, I breathe out, he
      responds to my breath, and he knows it's me. His respiratory
      system is working. He knows when I move back my face from
      his body. He can sense my movement. When he's better he may
      deny this affection and even feel a sense of embracement and
      yet my friend and his is there and he's the witness. His
      body even in this trauma is never inert.
      >
      >
      >
      >It's not one that there are some possibilities available.
      It's I own, and I create all of my possibilities. In this
      sense of possibilities, I'm never inert. I might be dead,
      but I'm not inert. The body always is and not yet in
      movement and it's in real change and not inert. The body
      isn't deciding against being inert. This is the either or
      logic of Kant and Hegel and it's false logic in dealing with
      the ontology of Being in the world. This is a mechanical
      reduction of Being down to one of determination and it rules
      out the reality and the existence of freedom of choice.
      >
      >
      >
      >Change implies something to change from isn't a true
      statement. This is once again the either or logic from Hegel
      and Kant. The body isn't an on and off switch sending
      electricity or gasoline. My body is constant movement of
      creating cells of protein in this process I mature and at
      one time I could put my whole hand around my bicep. Today I
      need two hands to cover my bicep. Change is going towards
      something. Change is my future and it's not my past. My body
      in my first example is in movement and in the second example
      it's in movement and it's never inert. The reason the body
      is never inert is it's always and not yet in the world of
      the there and it never leaves until it dies. There's no
      transcendence and it's all-immanent. This is Being is finite
      and not infinite. The infinite always is and not yet from
      the finite. In movement, I might become inert and this is
      death. One important point is not to confuse the use of the
      words motion and movement. I'm talking about movement. M!
      > otion is an old concept of Hegel, Descartes, refers to a
      moment in time, and assumes no future, and it's a judgment
      at one precise location. This defies the definition of
      Being. This is a mechanical interpretation. It's
      reductionism and this is what Sartre and Heidegger oppose in
      the Husserl view of the intention and the intuition. It's a
      very limited view of Being in the world.
      >
      >
      >
      >One does own the creative freedom to choose to be, remain,
      or stop being a racist. The problem is holding a gun to
      another is a creative freedom to choose. This is one of
      Being in the world and its finite, potential, projecting
      possibilities in movement, touching, and breathing of the in
      itself-alone and its own there. This is real change. I might
      not like this change, but it's a real change. The
      confronting the other with the dignity they deserve is real
      change, it's a real possibility, and it's movement,
      touching, and breathing. Real change as it's the creative
      freedom to choose, it can be a forced change, and this
      possibility does exist. Even in force, I'm still responsible
      for the real change as I can commit suicide and refuse to
      carry out the force. A highly altruistic human might do
      this. If ethics is the personal confrontation with the
      dignity of the other, then capitalism doesn't have a chance
      of succeeding and neither does the Catholic Church and both
      are doing quit!
      > e well. The creative freedom of choice for me to choose
      and for you to choose in the same intimate movement,
      touching and breathing is what I'm trying to establish. I
      don't call this an ethic. I don't grasp your content
      analysis of dignity. If it's the Catholic church's concept
      that doesn't accept homosexuals, no women as priests, and
      fights against abortions and wants to determine which and
      which not medical operation to allow in its hospitals I
      won't accept that definition of dignity. It's in this sense,
      I see the Catholic Church as an instrument for real change
      in promoting and insuring racism in the United States. In
      your interest in racism, I might suggest reading Richard
      Wright's book, Black Boy, and reading John Dollard's book,
      Caste and Class in a Southern Society. Both of these books
      are over 40 years old, but the information in them will
      convince you more than I can of the need to eliminate the
      racism coming from the Catholic Church and Capitalism.
      >
      > I don't see you in anyway or shape trying to deny me the
      possibility of real change. Death isn't an escape. However,
      I do witness a lot of people who once they reach about 50
      years of age try and resist reaching for their finite,
      potential, projecting possibilities and just want to slow
      down their movement, touching and breathing. I also see a
      lot of people who are about 14 years of age feeling the same
      and they are committing suicide. This is of course their own
      creative freedom of choice. Death is the end of my finite,
      potential, projecting possibilities and I ask you what else
      can be worse?
      >
      >Copyright October 2002 by Richard Radandt at
      richradandt@... page 1 of 1
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
      --------~-->
      >Buy stocks for $4
      >No minimums or annual fee!
      >http://us.click.yahoo.com/4ZN8wA/4lsEAA/MVfIAA/ACsqlB/TM
      >------------------------------------------------------------
      ---------~->
      >
      >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Bryan E. Junius
      Respectfully sir, i dont agree with you. A mind as a bodily function seems to be too general of an assumption. Can i say my mind acts like a sexual organ, thus
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 4, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Respectfully sir, i dont agree with you. A mind as a bodily function
        seems to be too general of an assumption. Can i say my mind acts like
        a sexual organ, thus making my existence pure deviant? Or hedonistic?
        Absurd don't you think?

        Hypothetically speaking, what would you think, if one day you woke up
        and realised that you were meant to be the messiah or worse, the
        antichrist to destroy a world? And started seeing things on TV and
        commercials telling you odd things that made you realise they were
        actually indirectly talking about you?????????

        comments?



        --- In Sartre@y..., <Josh@o...> wrote:
        > Ironically (since I was poking fun at Descartes not all
        > that long ago) that the body can move without recourse
        > to the mind was one of Descarte's most interesting
        > medical discoveries.
        >
        > The body is anything but inert.
        >
        > Again I say, without being yet refuted,
        > that the mind is a function of the brain, which
        > is an organ of the body; the mind is a bodily function.
        >
        > ---- Original message ----
        > >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:14:34 -0700
        > >From: "Richard Radandt" <richradandt@i...>
        > >Subject: [Sartre] REply to enrique on real change in Being
        > in the world
        > >To: <camusdiscussionlist@y...>,
        > <EnriqueA822@a...>, <Sartre@y...>
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >The body isn't inert and it's in movement, touching, and
        > breathing. I visit a man in the hospital and he's just
        > coming out of open-heart surgery with a five by pass valve
        > operation. I touch the hair on his arm with a light stroke
        > and he feels it. The trauma he's in and the drugs he's using
        > would indicate he should not be experiencing this touch and
        > he's. I move my lips up towards his nose, I breathe out, he
        > responds to my breath, and he knows it's me. His respiratory
        > system is working. He knows when I move back my face from
        > his body. He can sense my movement. When he's better he may
        > deny this affection and even feel a sense of embracement and
        > yet my friend and his is there and he's the witness. His
        > body even in this trauma is never inert.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >It's not one that there are some possibilities available.
        > It's I own, and I create all of my possibilities. In this
        > sense of possibilities, I'm never inert. I might be dead,
        > but I'm not inert. The body always is and not yet in
        > movement and it's in real change and not inert. The body
        > isn't deciding against being inert. This is the either or
        > logic of Kant and Hegel and it's false logic in dealing with
        > the ontology of Being in the world. This is a mechanical
        > reduction of Being down to one of determination and it rules
        > out the reality and the existence of freedom of choice.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >Change implies something to change from isn't a true
        > statement. This is once again the either or logic from Hegel
        > and Kant. The body isn't an on and off switch sending
        > electricity or gasoline. My body is constant movement of
        > creating cells of protein in this process I mature and at
        > one time I could put my whole hand around my bicep. Today I
        > need two hands to cover my bicep. Change is going towards
        > something. Change is my future and it's not my past. My body
        > in my first example is in movement and in the second example
        > it's in movement and it's never inert. The reason the body
        > is never inert is it's always and not yet in the world of
        > the there and it never leaves until it dies. There's no
        > transcendence and it's all-immanent. This is Being is finite
        > and not infinite. The infinite always is and not yet from
        > the finite. In movement, I might become inert and this is
        > death. One important point is not to confuse the use of the
        > words motion and movement. I'm talking about movement. M!
        > > otion is an old concept of Hegel, Descartes, refers to a
        > moment in time, and assumes no future, and it's a judgment
        > at one precise location. This defies the definition of
        > Being. This is a mechanical interpretation. It's
        > reductionism and this is what Sartre and Heidegger oppose in
        > the Husserl view of the intention and the intuition. It's a
        > very limited view of Being in the world.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >One does own the creative freedom to choose to be, remain,
        > or stop being a racist. The problem is holding a gun to
        > another is a creative freedom to choose. This is one of
        > Being in the world and its finite, potential, projecting
        > possibilities in movement, touching, and breathing of the in
        > itself-alone and its own there. This is real change. I might
        > not like this change, but it's a real change. The
        > confronting the other with the dignity they deserve is real
        > change, it's a real possibility, and it's movement,
        > touching, and breathing. Real change as it's the creative
        > freedom to choose, it can be a forced change, and this
        > possibility does exist. Even in force, I'm still responsible
        > for the real change as I can commit suicide and refuse to
        > carry out the force. A highly altruistic human might do
        > this. If ethics is the personal confrontation with the
        > dignity of the other, then capitalism doesn't have a chance
        > of succeeding and neither does the Catholic Church and both
        > are doing quit!
        > > e well. The creative freedom of choice for me to choose
        > and for you to choose in the same intimate movement,
        > touching and breathing is what I'm trying to establish. I
        > don't call this an ethic. I don't grasp your content
        > analysis of dignity. If it's the Catholic church's concept
        > that doesn't accept homosexuals, no women as priests, and
        > fights against abortions and wants to determine which and
        > which not medical operation to allow in its hospitals I
        > won't accept that definition of dignity. It's in this sense,
        > I see the Catholic Church as an instrument for real change
        > in promoting and insuring racism in the United States. In
        > your interest in racism, I might suggest reading Richard
        > Wright's book, Black Boy, and reading John Dollard's book,
        > Caste and Class in a Southern Society. Both of these books
        > are over 40 years old, but the information in them will
        > convince you more than I can of the need to eliminate the
        > racism coming from the Catholic Church and Capitalism.
        > >
        > > I don't see you in anyway or shape trying to deny me the
        > possibility of real change. Death isn't an escape. However,
        > I do witness a lot of people who once they reach about 50
        > years of age try and resist reaching for their finite,
        > potential, projecting possibilities and just want to slow
        > down their movement, touching and breathing. I also see a
        > lot of people who are about 14 years of age feeling the same
        > and they are committing suicide. This is of course their own
        > creative freedom of choice. Death is the end of my finite,
        > potential, projecting possibilities and I ask you what else
        > can be worse?
        > >
        > >Copyright October 2002 by Richard Radandt at
        > richradandt@i... page 1 of 1
        > >
        > >
        > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
        > --------~-->
        > >Buy stocks for $4
        > >No minimums or annual fee!
        > >http://us.click.yahoo.com/4ZN8wA/4lsEAA/MVfIAA/ACsqlB/TM
        > >------------------------------------------------------------
        > ---------~->
        > >
        > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@y...
        > >
        > >
        > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >
        > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.