the authentic isn't about Freud's concepts of worth and value and it's about Being.
- If I'm responsible for Arial Sharon and you, I argue then I'm authentic. That means my possibility of indicating Sharon is guilty of genocide and omnicide in killing Palestine's is an authentic and responsible action and it's my free choice as a possibility.
In creating a possibility, or in not creating a possibility, I create a care or a concern for my flesh and blood and in this I own it and I'm responsible for it. The question is do I create value and second do I create worthy value. There's nowhere in the in its there-alone the theology and ethics you imply. You are assuming Freud's super ego actually exists inside of my or your flesh and blood and that's mechanical determinism. I create a fluid moving changing possibility and I never really know all of its results. I pick up a banana peel from the sidewalk. The next person walking down the street doesn't slip on the peel. I'm in this action denying a doctor in an emergency room a patient. I'm denying the person who left the peel a sense of excitement, as he doesn't see a person get hurt. In picking up the peel, a person who's waiting for me must wait longer. I in taking the time to pick the peel deny myself the opportunity of creating a possibility rendering me some hedonism fun. That's I'm in the alienation of my labor power in this situation instead of using my labor power for play. The idea of determining worth and value in the sense of Being in the field isn't relevant to the ontology of Being.
I own the freedom of choice to assert my possibility is resulting in value of worth and yet I can't feel it. There's also the question of the facticity of one's flesh and blood in relation to the possibilities I create. How does this affect the flesh and blood and what are the effects. Einstein works hard and develops a theory of Relativity. Does this reduce his sense of anxiety? Does this improve his intimate relations? Did they move his office closer to his car or his home closer to his office? How do I determine for him how his labor power is play and not alienating labor power of his Being in the world?
There's awareness as you suggest and yet I ask how much awareness do I need. I'm aware of the genocide and the omnicide of Ariel Sharon and yet I can't do much about it. I mention it in an article to you and you might argue why not talk about the atrocities of George Bush instead. I argue it's my free choice to say what I say and it's your free choice to say what you say. Our actions are labor power in the sense of play and not alienating labor power. It's hard to state George Bush and Ariel Sharon are doing anything more than alienating labor power. For me, genocide and omnicide are example of alienating labor power. In my awareness, I can't prevent your or my death and in this sense, there are limitations to the worth and the value of awareness. Awareness is finite. The second is I exist in my possibilities or my future and not all the awareness I own can really help me from making mistakes in choosing my possibilities. The awareness doesn't absolve me of my responsibility for my possibilities in their results.
I wish you didn't use the concept of passive receptivity. Perceiving in my flesh and blood is sense and this is always and not yet movement, touching, digesting, and breathing. These are all actions I use to capture and gain access of the world I live in achieving awareness. If this is true, and I believe it's then [a] nothing I do can be either active or passive, and [b] this isn't receptive and it's one of accepting and two of care and concern. This is true as I'm authentic and I make the decisions what I do and second I'm not in authentic as I let the they, the theology, and the ethics decide what I do as flesh and blood. To say one is passive and receptive indicates I'm not responsible.
The mine ness you talk about is for you a sense of control. I argue it's a sense of freedom of choice and not one of control. You are flesh and blood in a body as Being in the world in a there of existence. I'm not controlling anything or nothing and I'm creating possibilities of freedom. The possibility of you closing your eyes has nothing to do with [a] directional movements, or [b] control. It's all freedom of choice. Your second point is one of the interpretations of perception. My moods are coming out of my experience. My experiences are coming out of my possibilities. My possibilities are coming out of my care and concern for my flesh and blood. My flesh and blood is coming out of a facticity of Being in the world. That's perceptions and interpretations come out of Being. Being exists in the facticity of the world. It's not one of interpretation and its one of existence in the anxiety setting us up between life and death in our possibilities. My perception is the present, my interpretations come after the perception or from the perception, and this is the primordial mode of existence before interpretation, articulation and whatever.
Your story about the holiday in Japan is a story about setting yourself up to loose. I argue the individual in its there-alone own a certain sense of care and concern for its flesh and blood in living in its passions and its sufferings. A great deal of our feelings and thinking are primordial. A good deal of them is historical or repetitive. Some of them are creative freedoms of possibilities in our future. The writer of your Japan story is using the psychology of Freud or Karl Jung and their philosophy is one of [a] human resentment of the other, and [b] jealousy of the other, and [c] greed. This is all about power and control. My philosophy is one about freedom of choice. Ariel Sharon subscribes to the first philosophy and Yasser Arafat subscribes to the second of freedom of choice. No matter how many rockets, bulldozers, and tanks Sharon sends after Arafat it will be the Palestine who survives. It's not only Palestine will survive and it's they will enjoy some of their labor power in hedonism, and they will develop new possibilities. This means in your passions there are no insurmountable obstacles. Sharon has and does determine Arafat as an obstacle and yet Arafat is Sharon's best friend. Third, there's no in-itself. This is just a myth of Freud. Have a nice long talk someday with Margaret Mead. Remember she's a cookie freak and she will eat more cookies and drink more hot chocolate than you or I. I must tell you though she will pick up the tab and is a good tipper.
I know very well I'm responsible for Arial Sharon. I'm responsible for you. This doesn't prevent me from stating his actions are one of omnicide and genocide. I can't discover anyone stating the using [a] of tanks, [b] of bulldozers, and [c] of rockets with pay loads of explosives, is an indication of reaching a just and fair peace. The capitalists who manufacture these items would see this as defense, control, and power of command. I know I'm responsible for Chaing Kai Shek and yet I'm proud to state I'm responsible for Chairman Mao and the soldiers of the long march who drove Chaing Kai Shek from China. I may be responsible for Arial Sharon and yet I'm proud to state I'm responsible for Yasser Arafat. I know I'm responsible for George Bush getting and winning the election for president of the United States. I know in 2004 I will be in part responsible for him legally loosing the election for president of the United States.
Copyright November 01, 2002 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@... page 1 of 1
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]