Fwd: Fwd: [Sartre] REply to enrique on real change in Being in the world
-So-called material objects only exist
when they are being perceived. Since
brain and body are material objects,
they only exist when perceived--that is,
matter itself only exists as a
perception of a conscious mind.
Therefore, there really is nothing but
mind and its perceptions. Matter does
What is your reply to that argument?
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 02:18:55 -0400
Subject: Fwd: [Sartre] REply to enrique
on real change in Being in the world
Ironically (since I was poking fun at
Descartes not all
that long ago) that the body can move
to the mind was one of Descarte's most
The body is anything but inert.
Again I say, without being yet refuted,
that the mind is a function of the
is an organ of the body; the mind is a
---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:14:34 -0700<richradandt@...>
>From: "Richard Radandt"
>Subject: [Sartre] REply to enrique onreal change in Being
in the world
>movement, touching, and
>The body isn't inert and it's in
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
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
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
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
Being. This is a mechanical
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.
>choose to be, remain,
>One does own the creative freedom to
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,
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
confronting the other with the dignity
they deserve is real
change, it's a real possibility, and
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 ofchoice
for me to choose
and for you to choose in the same
touching and breathing is what I'm
trying to establish. I
don't call this an ethic. I don't grasp
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
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
>trying to deny me the
> I don't see you in anyway or shape
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
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
richradandt@... page 1 of 1
>[Non-text portions of this message
>Buy stocks for $4href="http://mail.justice.com//jump/http://us.click.yahoo.com/4ZN8wA/4lsEAA/MVfIAA/ACsqlB/TM">http://us.click.yahoo.com/4ZN8wA/4lsEAA/MVfIAA/ACsqlB/TM</a>
>No minimums or annual fee!
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sell a Home with Ease!
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
------- End of forwarded message -------
Bill Barger--Manhattan Beach.
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
Get your FREE @... email!
- Comments interspersed...
---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 10:37:09 -0700 (PDT)in Being in the world
>Subject: Fwd: Fwd: [Sartre] REply to enrique on real change
>To: Sartre@yahoogroups.comProve it.
>-So-called material objects only exist
>when they are being perceived.
I can much more relaibly demonstrate
(which is one of the more basic mental constructions,
in any case)
>brain and body are material objects,That the mind is a function of the brain
>they only exist when perceived--that is,
>matter itself only exists as a
>perception of a conscious mind.
is overwhelmingly evident in changes to
mental function which occur as if consequent
to changes to the brain (including complete loss).
That a partially functional brain can continue
its other functions in the absence of the mind
is well-supported. That the mind functions in the
absence of (or beyond the presence of) the brain
is yet to be reliably demonstrated by science.
Surely the existence of the brain can't be
dependent upon being perceived by that
which is dependent upon the existence of another brain
which is dependent upon... etc.
>Therefore, there really is nothing butIf it doesn't exist, then why do we need to
>mind and its perceptions. Matter does
perceive it at all?
>What is your reply to that argument?I'm just getting warmed up.
The egg also came before the chicken.