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

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

Expand Messages
  • barger@justice.com
    Josh:-So-called material objects only exist when they are being perceived. Since brain and body are material objects, they only exist when perceived--that
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Josh:

      -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
      not exist.

      What is your reply to that argument?

      Barger

      From: <Josh@...>
      Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 02:18:55 -0400
      Subject: Fwd: [Sartre] REply to enrique
      on real change in Being in the world
      To: Sartre@yahoogroups.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
      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!
      ><a
      href="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>
      >------------------------------------------------------------
      ---------~->
      >
      >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
      Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject
      to
      <a
      href="http://mail.justice.com//jump/http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms</a>/
      >
      >

      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
      Sponsor ---------------------~-->
      Sell a Home with Ease!
      <a
      href="http://mail.justice.com//jump/http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/ACsqlB/TM">http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/ACsqlB/TM</a>
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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


      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      <a
      href="http://mail.justice.com//jump/http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms</a>/

      ------- End of forwarded message -------

      Bill Barger--Manhattan Beach.
      _________________________________________________
      FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
      http://www.FindLaw.com
      Get your FREE @... email!
      http://mail.Justice.com
    • Josh@orangeboxman.com
      Comments interspersed... ... in Being in the world ... Prove it. I can much more relaibly demonstrate object permanence (which is one of the more basic mental
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Comments interspersed...

        ---- Original message ----
        >Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 10:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
        >From: barger@...
        >Subject: Fwd: Fwd: [Sartre] REply to enrique on real change
        in Being in the world
        >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >Josh:
        >
        >-So-called material objects only exist
        >when they are being perceived.

        Prove it.
        I can much more relaibly demonstrate
        object permanence
        (which is one of the more basic mental constructions,
        in any case)

        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.

        That the mind is a function of the brain
        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.

        Can it?

        How so?

        >Therefore, there really is nothing but
        >mind and its perceptions. Matter does
        >not exist.

        If it doesn't exist, then why do we need to
        perceive it at all?

        >What is your reply to that argument?

        I'm just getting warmed up.

        The egg also came before the chicken.

        Round 2?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.