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

John Foster's essay on love and the authentic and transcendence

Expand Messages
  • Richard Radandt
    I appreciate john writing one of his long philosophical essays. I appreciate his use of Marx in the essay and his critique of psychoanalysis without ever
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I appreciate john writing one of his long philosophical essays. I appreciate his use of Marx in the essay and his critique of psychoanalysis without ever mentioning it. My attempt here's carry on a conversation. Even if i don't grasp all of john's metaphors, the style of writing is beautiful.


      From a Heidegger perspective, of the authentic, as the in its there-alone, I discover your comment of the out-itself model of interest. I'm assuming this must be the ultimate of the un authentic living in the they. This must be the fawning sycophant. I enjoy the idea of love consisting of [a] reciprocal, [b] relations, [c] compliant, and [d] individual. This leaves no room for passion and sex. Considering the love life's of Sartre, Hegel, Marx, Mao, Camus, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Nietzsche, and de Beauvoir, I discover this to be absurd, nihilist, and very ironic in a sense of humor. I can see Schiller and Goethe both laughing at us as Rilke writes about us as the they dust the sculpture in the Rodin garden in Paris.



      The possibility of love is always and not yet an interesting experience as it allows one at least in the abstraction of a relation to be vulnerable and fragile in the setting up for the fall of ironic humor in its involvement and its encounter. How in the creation by free choice in the potential possibility can there be altruism. The possibility exists without theology and ethics and owns no intention or intuition and yet altruism requires all of this. The idea the possibility contains a sacrifice on the in its there-alone and on the out-itself is a very significant comment on your observation. The sacrifice you speak of I assume isn't the care and concern of the Dasein of the existence of the there in Heidegger. The ability to be aware of sacrifice of one's labor power to the alienation of one's labor and the absence of it for joy, or play is of course a part of the falling from the authentic to the unauthentic. The problem is I'm in this there of vulnerability and I want this experience to continue I don't notice the sacrifice resulting in my anxiety, my humiliation, my degradation, and taking the gun to my head for the actual suicide of my flesh and blood. This is extreme nihilism, I realize and yet it's a possibility.



      In the sense of freedom, of creating choice, there are no limitations, obstacles or boundaries, and I don't listen to the they or to my culture in the creation of my possibilities. This is the section of my Being between life and death. All is fair and all is care and concern. That's I'm living in my future in the present and how could there be sacrifice or boundaries. In this innocence, this purity, and this right consequences are always and not yet the impossibility I consider as the absurd and the nihilistic edge. In this sense the collective consciousness and unconsciousness doesn't exist in Being in the world. In this sense, I don't need to trouble myself with the everydayness of considering if I'm Abraham, do I kill Isaac to please God.



      In creating my possibility, the idea of care and concern is always and not yet my ultimate possibility. I articulate this freedom. I interpret. I understand and it's a base of my moods from the experience of acting out the possibility. Since I'm in the there-alone, there's never a lack of care in my movement and this includes even my possibility of suicide or my murder of you. In the possibility of my flesh and blood, is the possibility to sacrifice my flesh and blood to speed along my life until its death. My life and my possibilities are finite, a sacrifice doesn't change this development, and it doesn't change the facticity I'm going to die. The atheist creates possibilities and not sacrifices, as there's nothing outside of their there-alone. The out itself as you suggest just doesn't exist for the atheist and the revolutionary who lives in the freedom of choice. The idea of sacrifice suggests some one else than me controls me and as the in its there-alone only I commit suicide or die for me.



      I like your story of the bullfighter and it's a good one. I'm not sure he does this for the love of the spectator. The spectator owns the possibility of desiring love. His attention is focusing on the fighter and no one else in the crowd. The two meet. The spectator surrenders to the fighter and it's just a relation of master and slave. The there of the there of Heidegger's facticity takes place here and not some abstract relation. The flesh and the blood are in their freedom and they not the reason of the species just continues the possibility until breakfast in the morning. The idea that there's no reflection on alternatives is a good point. The idea of the awareness comes with the use of the labor power of the bullfighter as one of both alienation of labor and labor as play or sexuality is very precise. This once again the total idea of awareness and calls into question the impossibility of the unconsciousness.



      The bullfighter owns love as an expression of his labor power and its authentic. The fact there's a crowd is incidental. I as the bullfighter fight the bull even when the stadium is empty. I allow the crowd to see me fight, as no one will pay me for my labor power unless they can witness my possibility in action. I allow this alienation of my labor power in order I can express my authentic or non-alienation of labor power. In a sense of cynicism and nihilism, I use the capitalist system to regain my authentic Being in the world. My sense of sacrifice is one of my possibilities to impose on a member of the audience to surrender their flesh and blood to me. This saves me the cost of paying for a prostitute or having to pay a wife a divorce settlement. This is how I laugh at the church and its theology and ethics. The fact I choose to do this with a bull and not with a piece of iron to make a griddle for cooking is an interesting observation. Does my choice of a bull instead of the iron demonstrate I'm more or less authentic? Do I make more or a less sacrifice in my desire to seduce the spectator. Does the fact the audience of spectators is less in one case means anything. Does the fact my chances of death are less means anything. I agree there's one of an understanding here in the Heidegger sense however stretching this to include, [a] grace, [b] agility, [c] strength, and [d] endurance in relation to the use of flesh and blood in relation to [a] fighting bulls, and [b] making a griddle out of iron in relation to love or the passion of seduction is going beyond the existential.


      I own the possibility as I make a free choice and I create the possibility and in this it's authentic for the in its there-alone. There's no altruism in the there. There's no sacrifice in the there. The authentic and the un authentic exists for the other only as long as they the they own the possibility to create a free choice of wanting me as flesh and blood in a relation of seduction of their flesh and blood. This isn't reciprocal. This isn't compliant. The other does exist in there-alone. There's no reflection here and the both us do at all times always and not yet in the inside movement of our there move our there. If you refuse me the bullfighter of my possibility there's always another in their there-alone awaiting. When there are none, I change in my sense of freedom to a new possibility. The only illusion here is the relation.



      Being in the world allows me the awareness there's no exit. There's a sense of movement from one there to the next there in my possibilities if I can act to create them. I never own the luxury of reflection as I'm living out my future and not my past. Since I live in the possibilities and not metaphors, there's no spiritual as I live in the vulnerability and the fragility of my flesh and blood and all is vulnerable and fragile and always and not yet the there-alone. My existence culminates in potential and not in passage, as my Being in the world is one of total and not a sum of additions minus subtractions. This does leave me in the absurd and the nihilist and yet there's nothing else. There's the emptiness and the nothingness of no possibilities and since this means no future all I can expect and anticipate from my flesh and blood as the in its there-alone is my death. It's always and not yet strange to me how the other as the audience never wants to encounter me in my death. My death is always open and visible and I never discover any takers.

      Copyright November 02, 2002 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@... page 1 of 1.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Richard Radandt
      I appreciate john writing one of his long philosophical essays. I appreciate his use of Marx in the essay and his critique of psychoanalysis without ever
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I appreciate john writing one of his long philosophical essays. I appreciate his use of Marx in the essay and his critique of psychoanalysis without ever mentioning it. My attempt here's carry on a conversation. Even if i don't grasp all of john's metaphors, the style of writing is beautiful.


        From a Heidegger perspective, of the authentic, as the in its there-alone, I discover your comment of the out-itself model of interest. I'm assuming this must be the ultimate of the un authentic living in the they. This must be the fawning sycophant. I enjoy the idea of love consisting of [a] reciprocal, [b] relations, [c] compliant, and [d] individual. This leaves no room for passion and sex. Considering the love life's of Sartre, Hegel, Marx, Mao, Camus, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Nietzsche, and de Beauvoir, I discover this to be absurd, nihilist, and very ironic in a sense of humor. I can see Schiller and Goethe both laughing at us as Rilke writes about us as the they dust the sculpture in the Rodin garden in Paris.



        The possibility of love is always and not yet an interesting experience as it allows one at least in the abstraction of a relation to be vulnerable and fragile in the setting up for the fall of ironic humor in its involvement and its encounter. How in the creation by free choice in the potential possibility can there be altruism. The possibility exists without theology and ethics and owns no intention or intuition and yet altruism requires all of this. The idea the possibility contains a sacrifice on the in its there-alone and on the out-itself is a very significant comment on your observation. The sacrifice you speak of I assume isn't the care and concern of the Dasein of the existence of the there in Heidegger. The ability to be aware of sacrifice of one's labor power to the alienation of one's labor and the absence of it for joy, or play is of course a part of the falling from the authentic to the unauthentic. The problem is I'm in this there of vulnerability and I want this experience to continue I don't notice the sacrifice resulting in my anxiety, my humiliation, my degradation, and taking the gun to my head for the actual suicide of my flesh and blood. This is extreme nihilism, I realize and yet it's a possibility.



        In the sense of freedom, of creating choice, there are no limitations, obstacles or boundaries, and I don't listen to the they or to my culture in the creation of my possibilities. This is the section of my Being between life and death. All is fair and all is care and concern. That's I'm living in my future in the present and how could there be sacrifice or boundaries. In this innocence, this purity, and this right consequences are always and not yet the impossibility I consider as the absurd and the nihilistic edge. In this sense the collective consciousness and unconsciousness doesn't exist in Being in the world. In this sense, I don't need to trouble myself with the everydayness of considering if I'm Abraham, do I kill Isaac to please God.



        In creating my possibility, the idea of care and concern is always and not yet my ultimate possibility. I articulate this freedom. I interpret. I understand and it's a base of my moods from the experience of acting out the possibility. Since I'm in the there-alone, there's never a lack of care in my movement and this includes even my possibility of suicide or my murder of you. In the possibility of my flesh and blood, is the possibility to sacrifice my flesh and blood to speed along my life until its death. My life and my possibilities are finite, a sacrifice doesn't change this development, and it doesn't change the facticity I'm going to die. The atheist creates possibilities and not sacrifices, as there's nothing outside of their there-alone. The out itself as you suggest just doesn't exist for the atheist and the revolutionary who lives in the freedom of choice. The idea of sacrifice suggests some one else than me controls me and as the in its there-alone only I commit suicide or die for me.



        I like your story of the bullfighter and it's a good one. I'm not sure he does this for the love of the spectator. The spectator owns the possibility of desiring love. His attention is focusing on the fighter and no one else in the crowd. The two meet. The spectator surrenders to the fighter and it's just a relation of master and slave. The there of the there of Heidegger's facticity takes place here and not some abstract relation. The flesh and the blood are in their freedom and they not the reason of the species just continues the possibility until breakfast in the morning. The idea that there's no reflection on alternatives is a good point. The idea of the awareness comes with the use of the labor power of the bullfighter as one of both alienation of labor and labor as play or sexuality is very precise. This once again the total idea of awareness and calls into question the impossibility of the unconsciousness.



        The bullfighter owns love as an expression of his labor power and its authentic. The fact there's a crowd is incidental. I as the bullfighter fight the bull even when the stadium is empty. I allow the crowd to see me fight, as no one will pay me for my labor power unless they can witness my possibility in action. I allow this alienation of my labor power in order I can express my authentic or non-alienation of labor power. In a sense of cynicism and nihilism, I use the capitalist system to regain my authentic Being in the world. My sense of sacrifice is one of my possibilities to impose on a member of the audience to surrender their flesh and blood to me. This saves me the cost of paying for a prostitute or having to pay a wife a divorce settlement. This is how I laugh at the church and its theology and ethics. The fact I choose to do this with a bull and not with a piece of iron to make a griddle for cooking is an interesting observation. Does my choice of a bull instead of the iron demonstrate I'm more or less authentic? Do I make more or a less sacrifice in my desire to seduce the spectator. Does the fact the audience of spectators is less in one case means anything. Does the fact my chances of death are less means anything. I agree there's one of an understanding here in the Heidegger sense however stretching this to include, [a] grace, [b] agility, [c] strength, and [d] endurance in relation to the use of flesh and blood in relation to [a] fighting bulls, and [b] making a griddle out of iron in relation to love or the passion of seduction is going beyond the existential.


        I own the possibility as I make a free choice and I create the possibility and in this it's authentic for the in its there-alone. There's no altruism in the there. There's no sacrifice in the there. The authentic and the un authentic exists for the other only as long as they the they own the possibility to create a free choice of wanting me as flesh and blood in a relation of seduction of their flesh and blood. This isn't reciprocal. This isn't compliant. The other does exist in there-alone. There's no reflection here and the both us do at all times always and not yet in the inside movement of our there move our there. If you refuse me the bullfighter of my possibility there's always another in their there-alone awaiting. When there are none, I change in my sense of freedom to a new possibility. The only illusion here is the relation.



        Being in the world allows me the awareness there's no exit. There's a sense of movement from one there to the next there in my possibilities if I can act to create them. I never own the luxury of reflection as I'm living out my future and not my past. Since I live in the possibilities and not metaphors, there's no spiritual as I live in the vulnerability and the fragility of my flesh and blood and all is vulnerable and fragile and always and not yet the there-alone. My existence culminates in potential and not in passage, as my Being in the world is one of total and not a sum of additions minus subtractions. This does leave me in the absurd and the nihilist and yet there's nothing else. There's the emptiness and the nothingness of no possibilities and since this means no future all I can expect and anticipate from my flesh and blood as the in its there-alone is my death. It's always and not yet strange to me how the other as the audience never wants to encounter me in my death. My death is always open and visible and I never discover any takers.

        Copyright November 02, 2002 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@... page 1 of 1.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Richard Radandt
        I appreciate john writing one of his long philosophical essays. I appreciate his use of Marx in the essay and his critique of psychoanalysis without ever
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I appreciate john writing one of his long philosophical essays. I appreciate his use of Marx in the essay and his critique of psychoanalysis without ever mentioning it. My attempt here's carry on a conversation. Even if i don't grasp all of john's metaphors, the style of writing is beautiful.


          From a Heidegger perspective, of the authentic, as the in its there-alone, I discover your comment of the out-itself model of interest. I'm assuming this must be the ultimate of the un authentic living in the they. This must be the fawning sycophant. I enjoy the idea of love consisting of [a] reciprocal, [b] relations, [c] compliant, and [d] individual. This leaves no room for passion and sex. Considering the love life's of Sartre, Hegel, Marx, Mao, Camus, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Nietzsche, and de Beauvoir, I discover this to be absurd, nihilist, and very ironic in a sense of humor. I can see Schiller and Goethe both laughing at us as Rilke writes about us as the they dust the sculpture in the Rodin garden in Paris.



          The possibility of love is always and not yet an interesting experience as it allows one at least in the abstraction of a relation to be vulnerable and fragile in the setting up for the fall of ironic humor in its involvement and its encounter. How in the creation by free choice in the potential possibility can there be altruism. The possibility exists without theology and ethics and owns no intention or intuition and yet altruism requires all of this. The idea the possibility contains a sacrifice on the in its there-alone and on the out-itself is a very significant comment on your observation. The sacrifice you speak of I assume isn't the care and concern of the Dasein of the existence of the there in Heidegger. The ability to be aware of sacrifice of one's labor power to the alienation of one's labor and the absence of it for joy, or play is of course a part of the falling from the authentic to the unauthentic. The problem is I'm in this there of vulnerability and I want this experience to continue I don't notice the sacrifice resulting in my anxiety, my humiliation, my degradation, and taking the gun to my head for the actual suicide of my flesh and blood. This is extreme nihilism, I realize and yet it's a possibility.



          In the sense of freedom, of creating choice, there are no limitations, obstacles or boundaries, and I don't listen to the they or to my culture in the creation of my possibilities. This is the section of my Being between life and death. All is fair and all is care and concern. That's I'm living in my future in the present and how could there be sacrifice or boundaries. In this innocence, this purity, and this right consequences are always and not yet the impossibility I consider as the absurd and the nihilistic edge. In this sense the collective consciousness and unconsciousness doesn't exist in Being in the world. In this sense, I don't need to trouble myself with the everydayness of considering if I'm Abraham, do I kill Isaac to please God.



          In creating my possibility, the idea of care and concern is always and not yet my ultimate possibility. I articulate this freedom. I interpret. I understand and it's a base of my moods from the experience of acting out the possibility. Since I'm in the there-alone, there's never a lack of care in my movement and this includes even my possibility of suicide or my murder of you. In the possibility of my flesh and blood, is the possibility to sacrifice my flesh and blood to speed along my life until its death. My life and my possibilities are finite, a sacrifice doesn't change this development, and it doesn't change the facticity I'm going to die. The atheist creates possibilities and not sacrifices, as there's nothing outside of their there-alone. The out itself as you suggest just doesn't exist for the atheist and the revolutionary who lives in the freedom of choice. The idea of sacrifice suggests some one else than me controls me and as the in its there-alone only I commit suicide or die for me.



          I like your story of the bullfighter and it's a good one. I'm not sure he does this for the love of the spectator. The spectator owns the possibility of desiring love. His attention is focusing on the fighter and no one else in the crowd. The two meet. The spectator surrenders to the fighter and it's just a relation of master and slave. The there of the there of Heidegger's facticity takes place here and not some abstract relation. The flesh and the blood are in their freedom and they not the reason of the species just continues the possibility until breakfast in the morning. The idea that there's no reflection on alternatives is a good point. The idea of the awareness comes with the use of the labor power of the bullfighter as one of both alienation of labor and labor as play or sexuality is very precise. This once again the total idea of awareness and calls into question the impossibility of the unconsciousness.



          The bullfighter owns love as an expression of his labor power and its authentic. The fact there's a crowd is incidental. I as the bullfighter fight the bull even when the stadium is empty. I allow the crowd to see me fight, as no one will pay me for my labor power unless they can witness my possibility in action. I allow this alienation of my labor power in order I can express my authentic or non-alienation of labor power. In a sense of cynicism and nihilism, I use the capitalist system to regain my authentic Being in the world. My sense of sacrifice is one of my possibilities to impose on a member of the audience to surrender their flesh and blood to me. This saves me the cost of paying for a prostitute or having to pay a wife a divorce settlement. This is how I laugh at the church and its theology and ethics. The fact I choose to do this with a bull and not with a piece of iron to make a griddle for cooking is an interesting observation. Does my choice of a bull instead of the iron demonstrate I'm more or less authentic? Do I make more or a less sacrifice in my desire to seduce the spectator. Does the fact the audience of spectators is less in one case means anything. Does the fact my chances of death are less means anything. I agree there's one of an understanding here in the Heidegger sense however stretching this to include, [a] grace, [b] agility, [c] strength, and [d] endurance in relation to the use of flesh and blood in relation to [a] fighting bulls, and [b] making a griddle out of iron in relation to love or the passion of seduction is going beyond the existential.


          I own the possibility as I make a free choice and I create the possibility and in this it's authentic for the in its there-alone. There's no altruism in the there. There's no sacrifice in the there. The authentic and the un authentic exists for the other only as long as they the they own the possibility to create a free choice of wanting me as flesh and blood in a relation of seduction of their flesh and blood. This isn't reciprocal. This isn't compliant. The other does exist in there-alone. There's no reflection here and the both us do at all times always and not yet in the inside movement of our there move our there. If you refuse me the bullfighter of my possibility there's always another in their there-alone awaiting. When there are none, I change in my sense of freedom to a new possibility. The only illusion here is the relation.



          Being in the world allows me the awareness there's no exit. There's a sense of movement from one there to the next there in my possibilities if I can act to create them. I never own the luxury of reflection as I'm living out my future and not my past. Since I live in the possibilities and not metaphors, there's no spiritual as I live in the vulnerability and the fragility of my flesh and blood and all is vulnerable and fragile and always and not yet the there-alone. My existence culminates in potential and not in passage, as my Being in the world is one of total and not a sum of additions minus subtractions. This does leave me in the absurd and the nihilist and yet there's nothing else. There's the emptiness and the nothingness of no possibilities and since this means no future all I can expect and anticipate from my flesh and blood as the in its there-alone is my death. It's always and not yet strange to me how the other as the audience never wants to encounter me in my death. My death is always open and visible and I never discover any takers.

          Copyright November 02, 2002 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@... page 1 of 1.



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