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

Re: The Sublime Beauty of the Absurd

Expand Messages
  • Paul
    What crap. You sound like Camus trying to convince himself life is beautiful again. Sure there is nothingness and its negation - being, but by saying this sums
    Message 1 of 26 , Apr 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      What crap. You sound like Camus trying to convince himself life is
      beautiful again.

      Sure there is nothingness and its negation - being, but by saying
      this sums up the human condition you overlook the most important
      step in between.

      It's fine to make that comment generally, but as soon as you refer
      it to a specific example you see the absurdity and contradictory
      nature of human creation written all over the meaning we have given
      birth to.

      Nothingness - meaning. ok, maybe this is not absurd.

      But how about,


      Nothingness - Justice
      Nothingness - Selfish
      Nothingness - Tricycle

      You clearly need to re-read Nausea.
      There is nothing beautiful about the absurd.
      Nothing.

      Because we are hedonic and generally don't like to feel bad we will
      try and forget, or disprove, or push away this human condition of
      absurdity, but Sartre argued, that eveyr minute of eveyr day, we
      must realise that the things that we hold most dear, the things that
      we love and hate with passion and that make up OUR specific life -
      are lies - bathed inherently in contradiction - to live a life, is
      contradictory. Only from here can we approach the world honestly,
      looking it in the eye, and then maybe in some fucked up way speak
      about courage.

      paul

      P.S. I have wondered for a very long time, WHY did Sartre, feeling
      what he did about the absurd, bother to get up in the morning? The
      explanation he gives in Nausea is weak, and does nothing for the
      reader he has just crushed - why fight for social and political
      justice? i just can't understand that. In my opinion, the questions
      possed to humanity by Sartre are answered by Camus... once again,
      inadequately. In summary, there is no answer to this problem - we
      are all fucked.
    • George Walton
      decker150 wrote:
      Message 2 of 26 , Apr 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:

        <<<What we end up having to embrace is 'our' reaction. The angst of Sartre is a reaction, one that he presented as unavoidable and
        necessarily the only valid reaction. I differ with Sartre on this conclusion. Once we encounter the incomprehensible character of
        be-ing, there is another reaction, at least one as valid as angst and dread. That alternative is awe and wonder, one enough to inspire
        music, mystery, even hope>>>>

        In a world without God there is no rational way in which to distinguish right from wrong behavior; no authentic or inauthentic social, political and econonomic agenda. Everything is always relative to something else; it always comes down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems most reasonable to you [now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce their own agenda. Personally, I don't see any way in which to encompass that philosophically except with a fair degree of angst and dread. It depends, of course, on what your own unique existential/circumstantial context happens to be at the time you ponder it. If, contextually, things are going really well for you [your health is good...you have a great job and financial security...you've just fallen in love and/or are raising gifted children in a wonderfully supportive family...you have lots of freinds who love you etc etc etc] who would be surprised at what a boost that can give to your philosophical perspective. But if your life
        is in the toilet, chances are not much in the way of philosophy is going to propell you towards a more optimistic or hopeful frame of mind.


        <<<Yes, we understand that 'human meaning' is short-sighted and limited, even given to our folly and
        self-exxagerated sense of importance. Yet, even if we choose the describe Being as ultimately meaningless and ridiculous to the
        core, this need not reduce our reaction to dismal disappointment and despair.>>>

        I agree insofar as, in acknowledging that, essentially, human existence is meaningless and absurd, it allows you to distance yourself from The Absolute Truth. And to the extent you are able to do this is the extent to which your existential options increase that much more. In others words, nothing ontological or teleological ties you down [or persuades to go in just one direction]; so you a free to explore alternate directions, right? Again, it all depends on the extent to which, circumstantially, you are or are not able to act on this knowledge. If the doctor just told you the brain tumor is so far advanced you won't make it out of her office alive that narrows your options [and your hopes and dreams] doewn considerably, doesn't it? Everything is always profoundly situated---existentially. And that certainly includes your "philosophy of life". Nothing can be nailed down with any degree of finality. Only the realization that someday you will be dead and gone forever and ever.

        <<<<I differ with Sartre's conclusion, for one, is because it
        does not admit to the binary opposite which is so charcteristic of the existential situation. We have both Being and Nothingness, both
        light and dark, both life and death, one thing and it's opposite. Even the dialectic assumes this attribute or opposing forces, wherein
        one eventually either gets assimilated or defeated. And I do not imagine that life, light, hope, and wonder are going to just roll over
        and play dead. The incomprehensible character of Being-Here (the mystery of presence) does not deny abscence (the abscence of
        meaning), but only that 'there-is' its equally 'sublime' and fantastical beauty, and all it's comprehensibility bound to an even great
        incomprehensibility.>>>

        The difficulty I have with Sartre and Camus and other existentists is the extent to which they seek to dichotomize the world we encounter from day to day [in our interactions with others] into "authentic" and "inauthentic" thinking and behaving; the way in which they speak of "bad faith". What can this possible mean ultimately in a world without God? I do grasp their motivation for proposing it, sure, but I just don't think it has any philosophical weight in a world that is profoundly embedded in the unbearable lightness of being. We all end up choosing some point of view to weight our "self" down. That existentialism seems more reasonable [to me] than Christianity or Marxism or Objectivism or Whaterverism doesn't change the fact that it is just another point of view. And, in an essentially meaningless and absurd world, all such points of view are interchangable in the end.

        To truly understand what that means respecting the world around us [a world veritably awash in devastating suffering and horror] is to be brutally acquainted with anxiety and dread and despair. There is simply no getting around it. There is only figuring out a way to [realistically] deal with it.

        George




        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • decker150
        My point is that angst is but one reaction to the human condition, and not an absolute and unavoidable at that. Sartre has elevated his negation to be the
        Message 3 of 26 , Apr 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          My point is that 'angst' is but one reaction to the human condition, and not an absolute and unavoidable at that. Sartre has elevated
          his 'negation' to be the ultimate and irreducible feature of the human condition. Heidegger had already stated that Da-dein
          signified 'care' and 'solicitude'. And I understand that 'care' to be as much capable of the awfulness implied by 'angst' as well
          as the pure awe signified by 'inspiration' and the 'sublime'. The existentialist position toward angst requires atheism as its underlying
          conclusion; then, yes - you might have nothing else to say, but as you have already said-

          " there is no answer to this problem - we are all fucked."

          Well, you are - but I am not. I affirm Be-ing through courage, hope and 'leaps' into faith. And even if I did not have these, what is
          comprehensible in the reductive / analytic surely boister my confidence that human existencet can is hardly be summed up as
          absurd. The meaning I find is grounded to facticity, a facticity that discloses itself as having an order to it, a pattern. If this was not
          the case, there could be no 'studies' of anything. And I imagine that ontology would have nothing to say at all.

          Joe


          y= uythethe--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <p.cave@u...> wrote:
          > What crap. You sound like Camus trying to convince himself life is
          > beautiful again.
          >
          > Sure there is nothingness and its negation - being, but by saying
          > this sums up the human condition you overlook the most important
          > step in between.
          >
          > It's fine to make that comment generally, but as soon as you refer
          > it to a specific example you see the absurdity and contradictory
          > nature of human creation written all over the meaning we have given
          > birth to.
          >
          > Nothingness - meaning. ok, maybe this is not absurd.
          >
          > But how about,
          >
          >
          > Nothingness - Justice
          > Nothingness - Selfish
          > Nothingness - Tricycle
          >
          > You clearly need to re-read Nausea.
          > There is nothing beautiful about the absurd.
          > Nothing.
          >
          > Because we are hedonic and generally don't like to feel bad we will
          > try and forget, or disprove, or push away this human condition of
          > absurdity, but Sartre argued, that eveyr minute of eveyr day, we
          > must realise that the things that we hold most dear, the things that
          > we love and hate with passion and that make up OUR specific life -
          > are lies - bathed inherently in contradiction - to live a life, is
          > contradictory. Only from here can we approach the world honestly,
          > looking it in the eye, and then maybe in some fucked up way speak
          > about courage.
          >
          > paul
          >
          > P.S. I have wondered for a very long time, WHY did Sartre, feeling
          > what he did about the absurd, bother to get up in the morning? The
          > explanation he gives in Nausea is weak, and does nothing for the
          > reader he has just crushed - why fight for social and political
          > justice? i just can't understand that. In my opinion, the questions
          > possed to humanity by Sartre are answered by Camus... once again,
          > inadequately. In summary, there is no answer to this problem - we
          > are all fucked.
        • Elaine Phipps-Earl
          Dear ((((((((((((((George))))))))))))))), Often i write emails and no one answers. I would be extremely grateful if u could answer this one and in doing so
          Message 4 of 26 , Apr 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear ((((((((((((((George))))))))))))))),

            Often i write emails and no one answers. I would be extremely grateful if u
            could answer this one and
            in doing so continue this conversation ;))))

            U wrote > In a world without God there is no rational way in which to
            distinguish right from wrong behavior; no authentic or inauthentic social,
            political and econonomic agenda. Everything is always relative to something
            else; it always comes down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems
            most reasonable to you [now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce
            their own agenda.

            Do u see "Everything is always relative to something else; it always comes
            down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems most reasonable to you
            [now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce their own agenda"
            specifically in relation to the social-cultural systems ?

            I know Leon is "tired of this friggin group and their idle chatter about
            'real' reality, about 'existence" BUT ................ i personally cannot
            escape my own profound sense and understanding of two distinct realities ie
            a reality which "is", this reality being the sublime beauty of absolute
            order in the World and Cosmos, a Cosmos filled with meaning, where as Plato
            proclaimed, the force of good in this order moves us to be orderly and good,
            recognition of order bringing order, recognition of the good drawing us
            toward it. Then there is the reality man has, in mind, created, a
            disenchanted World and Cosmos, filled with angst, dread and ultimate chaos.

            U say :- If, contextually, things are going really well for you [your health
            is good...you have a great job and financial security...you've just fallen
            in love and/or are raising gifted children in a wonderfully supportive
            family...you have lots of freinds who love you etc etc etc] who would be
            surprised at what a boost that can give to your philosophical perspective.

            Yes, but can these be said to be part of the "real" (eternal- real in
            present/past/future) ? Any "one" of these circumstances, lets say "health"
            could change in an instant and with this change, the collectively gathered
            created images of the good are seen to fall into the abyss. If u are told u
            have four weeks to live all else seems hopeless and in chaos.

            In the following four weeks u experience the absolute tortue of angst, dread
            and chaos. However, while facing death, u also experience the outpouring of
            "love" from others BUT ........... u don't die. Instead after several weeks
            u are sent home from hospital for the weekend. Filled with a new and
            differing sense of optimism and hope u are wheeled out of the sterile world
            of the hospital and u "see" a different reality, the blueness of the sky,
            bluer than u remember, hundreds of differing colours in nature itself, and
            the sublime beauty of the world and the Cosmos.

            As the months pass, u are slowly drawn back to the other reality. Slowing
            the outpouring of "love" comes to a halt and u are back in a world governed
            by the principle "that everything is always relative to something else; it
            always comes down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems most
            reasonable to you [now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce their own
            agenda", where in confronting this reality u once again "feel" a sense of
            angst, dread and ultimate chaos.

            Having had this experience, i have no doubt that there exists two realities
            (1) a reality which "Is", this reality being the sublime beauty of absolute
            order in the World and Cosmos, a Cosmos filled with meaning, where as Plato
            proclaimed, the force of good in this order moves us to be orderly and good,
            recognition of order bringing order, recognition of the good drawing us
            toward the good and (2) A man-mind created reality which blinds the eyes,
            alters instinctual behavious which in turn renders a disenchanted World
            filled with angst, dread and ultimate chaos.

            Several years ago, long before having studied Taylor, i had written :-

            Nietzsche once said, "Men wear masks to cope with the chaos of Nature, but
            the true Master acknowledges he wears a mask and continues to play". Within
            Nature I need wear no mask, for Nature knows her own and mirrors the
            reflection of my own being, these images allowing me to touch the very core
            of "I", my soul. Chaos lies not within Nature, but rather within the mind of
            Man.

            ............................................................................
            .....
            As the Buddhist says "Nothingness is NOT Nothing". Man, in mind, has given
            his own meaning to what he now perceives as a disenchanted world, yet this
            temporally constructed meaning has created a reality of angst, dread and
            ultimate chaos. However, if man abandons this reality and its meanings, he
            may be flung into what he perceives as nothingness, yet as he gives up his
            struggle against this nothingness he experiences another reality, the
            absolute of sublime beauty, the eternal. We struggle to come into the world,
            life appears as a struggle, we struggle to avoid death, BUT.............. as
            we refuse to struggle and allow to be, we discover the eternal and it is one
            instant's experience of sublime eternal perfection that gives us hope,
            dreams and aspirations for that we may not "see", yet know to "be".

            Love & Massive Hugs
            Elaine
          • Paul
            My point is that angst is but one reaction to the human condition, and not an absolute and unavoidable at that. You can choose whatever reaction you like,
            Message 5 of 26 , Apr 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              "My point is that 'angst' is but one reaction to the human
              condition, and not an
              absolute and unavoidable at that."

              You can choose whatever reaction you like, but it will always be
              absurd.
              You can choose whatever colour you like, as long as it's black.

              He's pissed on the freedom he revealed.
              If you want to be happy and smile about it... great. how is that any
              less a deception of yourself than if you never contemplated the
              problem, or if you accepted it without a second thought?
            • decker150
              Yes, George, but I am not so sure that life is meaningless. Mainly, I think that the issue of meaning attempts to limit the primal order to a human scale,
              Message 6 of 26 , Apr 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Yes, George, but I am not so sure that life is meaningless. Mainly,
                I think that the issue of 'meaning' attempts to limit the primal
                order to a human scale, where the cogitos (thinking-in-general plus
                consciousness) is established as the center unquestioned judge.
                But, even if human beings grow silent in the face of the
                incomprehensible world, there is still a level of comprehensibility
                mentioned by Einstein. What I image is the case, and I know it is
                also a point of view, is that at the level of the incomprehensible
                (mystery) is not actually anything as ridiculous as it seems to us,
                but an extraordinary high level of non-disclosure. Repeatedness,
                scientific reductionism has uncovered, unconcealed, discovered and
                shown that we live is a knowable world. But are we not angry
                impatient seekers, trying at all cost to reduce the universe to
                Bubers I-it perspective. The fact is, we want the universe to fall
                under our scrutiny and control, we want to manipulate it, exploit
                it, turn it into a profit, name it and claim it with proprietary
                ownerism. I imagine that just beyond the edge of human
                comprehension is 'not' a mindless, pointless cosmos, but a
                patterned, primordial order, a well gathered collection, a primal
                logos; hey that's what I believe. Therefore, although this is not a
                proven, it is where my juncture with 'faith' begins, and to which I
                am dedicated to be apologist.

                Joe

                --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, George Walton <iambiguously@y...>
                wrote:
                >
                >
                > decker150 <decker150@y...> wrote:
                >
                > <<<What we end up having to embrace is 'our' reaction. The angst
                of Sartre is a reaction, one that he presented as unavoidable and
                > necessarily the only valid reaction. I differ with Sartre on this
                conclusion. Once we encounter the incomprehensible character of
                > be-ing, there is another reaction, at least one as valid as angst
                and dread. That alternative is awe and wonder, one enough to
                inspire
                > music, mystery, even hope>>>>
                >
                > In a world without God there is no rational way in which to
                distinguish right from wrong behavior; no authentic or inauthentic
                social, political and econonomic agenda. Everything is always
                relative to something else; it always comes down to 1] whatever
                particular vantage point seems most reasonable to you [now, today]
                and 2] who has the power to enforce their own agenda. Personally, I
                don't see any way in which to encompass that philosophically except
                with a fair degree of angst and dread. It depends, of course, on
                what your own unique existential/circumstantial context happens to
                be at the time you ponder it. If, contextually, things are going
                really well for you [your health is good...you have a great job and
                financial security...you've just fallen in love and/or are raising
                gifted children in a wonderfully supportive family...you have lots
                of freinds who love you etc etc etc] who would be surprised at what
                a boost that can give to your philosophical perspective. But if your
                life
                > is in the toilet, chances are not much in the way of philosophy
                is going to propell you towards a more optimistic or hopeful frame
                of mind.
                >
                >
                > <<<Yes, we understand that 'human meaning' is short-sighted and
                limited, even given to our folly and
                > self-exxagerated sense of importance. Yet, even if we choose the
                describe Being as ultimately meaningless and ridiculous to the
                > core, this need not reduce our reaction to dismal disappointment
                and despair.>>>
                >
                > I agree insofar as, in acknowledging that, essentially, human
                existence is meaningless and absurd, it allows you to distance
                yourself from The Absolute Truth. And to the extent you are able to
                do this is the extent to which your existential options increase
                that much more. In others words, nothing ontological or teleological
                ties you down [or persuades to go in just one direction]; so you a
                free to explore alternate directions, right? Again, it all depends
                on the extent to which, circumstantially, you are or are not able to
                act on this knowledge. If the doctor just told you the brain tumor
                is so far advanced you won't make it out of her office alive that
                narrows your options [and your hopes and dreams] doewn considerably,
                doesn't it? Everything is always profoundly situated---
                existentially. And that certainly includes your "philosophy of
                life". Nothing can be nailed down with any degree of finality. Only
                the realization that someday you will be dead and gone forever and
                ever.
                >
                > <<<<I differ with Sartre's conclusion, for one, is because it
                > does not admit to the binary opposite which is so charcteristic of
                the existential situation. We have both Being and Nothingness, both
                > light and dark, both life and death, one thing and it's opposite.
                Even the dialectic assumes this attribute or opposing forces,
                wherein
                > one eventually either gets assimilated or defeated. And I do not
                imagine that life, light, hope, and wonder are going to just roll
                over
                > and play dead. The incomprehensible character of Being-Here (the
                mystery of presence) does not deny abscence (the abscence of
                > meaning), but only that 'there-is' its equally 'sublime' and
                fantastical beauty, and all it's comprehensibility bound to an even
                great
                > incomprehensibility.>>>
                >
                > The difficulty I have with Sartre and Camus and other existentists
                is the extent to which they seek to dichotomize the world we
                encounter from day to day [in our interactions with others]
                into "authentic" and "inauthentic" thinking and behaving; the way in
                which they speak of "bad faith". What can this possible mean
                ultimately in a world without God? I do grasp their motivation for
                proposing it, sure, but I just don't think it has any philosophical
                weight in a world that is profoundly embedded in the unbearable
                lightness of being. We all end up choosing some point of view to
                weight our "self" down. That existentialism seems more reasonable
                [to me] than Christianity or Marxism or Objectivism or Whaterverism
                doesn't change the fact that it is just another point of view. And,
                in an essentially meaningless and absurd world, all such points of
                view are interchangable in the end.
                >
                > To truly understand what that means respecting the world around us
                [a world veritably awash in devastating suffering and horror] is to
                be brutally acquainted with anxiety and dread and despair. There is
                simply no getting around it. There is only figuring out a way to
                [realistically] deal with it.
                >
                > George
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                > Do you Yahoo!?
                > Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • decker150
                Paul, I am not sure why you give favor to absurdity, when it may as well be describe as sublime. I understand the paradox itself that the absurd presents
                Message 7 of 26 , Apr 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Paul, I am not sure why you give favor to absurdity, when it may as
                  well be describe as sublime. I understand the paradox itself that
                  the absurd presents itself as a universal interpretation, but not
                  necessarily one exclusive explanation on the interpretation path.
                  Sartre presents absurdity as a final word, in the tone of an
                  absolute, as an irreducible/singular utlimate end all. But this
                  clearly minimizes the orderliness of the universe-that-is-ordered.
                  It is this 'order' that I suspect is being under-appreciated by the
                  use of the word 'absurd'. For I see in this incomprehensible order,
                  something that brings to to an awe, not awefulness, dread and
                  angst. Sorry, but just consider me blind.

                  I group sublime and absurd together much like other binary
                  groupings. That is not to say that there is no gray area or an in-
                  between, but that toward the extremes, absurdity is just one path,
                  one side of the coin, and we need not demand any favortism toward
                  the absurd, when a state of sublime awe is clearly another path.

                  Joe

                  "Paul" <p.cave@u...> wrote:
                  > "My point is that 'angst' is but one reaction to the human
                  > condition, and not an
                  > absolute and unavoidable at that."
                  >
                  > You can choose whatever reaction you like, but it will always be
                  > absurd.
                  > You can choose whatever colour you like, as long as it's black.
                  >
                  > He's pissed on the freedom he revealed.
                  > If you want to be happy and smile about it... great. how is that
                  any
                  > less a deception of yourself than if you never contemplated the
                  > problem, or if you accepted it without a second thought?
                • George Walton
                  Elaine Phipps-Earl wrote:
                  Message 8 of 26 , Apr 2, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Elaine Phipps-Earl <lizral@...> wrote:


                    <<<Do u see "Everything is always relative to something else; it always comes
                    down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems most reasonable to you
                    [now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce their own agenda"
                    specifically in relation to the social-cultural systems>>>

                    There is no way I could ever possibly answer this such that my point of view would be more than just a particular sum of all the particular parts I happen to be thinking about now in grappling with something I presume to be a reasonable response. For me any particular human identity is always hopelessly subsumed [inextricable and inexpressibly ensnared] in dozens and dozens of conflicting existential variables/contexts. Thus my point of view will be reflective of my historical era and my culture and my acculturation as a child and the experiences I had and the people I met and the books I read and the places I have been...and the mood I am in, etc etc etc. Thus, concommitantly, there is no Right Answer to your question; there is only a particular answer [mine, here and now] that seems reasoanble to me at this point in time. Had I responded to it 10 years ago, my answer would have been very different. And I presume that, 10 years down the road, my answer to a similar question will
                    also be very much odds with this one. So, which one is the "right" one? There is no right one. there is only a point of view that may or may not seem reasonable to you---now, today.

                    <<<i personally cannot
                    escape my own profound sense and understanding of two distinct realities ie
                    a reality which "is", this reality being the sublime beauty of absolute
                    order in the World and Cosmos, a Cosmos filled with meaning, where as Plato
                    proclaimed, the force of good in this order moves us to be orderly and good,
                    recognition of order bringing order, recognition of the good drawing us
                    toward it>>>

                    The reality you speak of here has been broached by philosophers for centuries. It is the noumenal "transcendental ideal" reality that Kant spoke of. It is said to be distinct from the empirical, phenomonological reality we interact in from day to day. Such a reality may exists. I don't think it does. Or if it does and it is not assessible to human minds, it may as well not exists---for me now, today. And the bottom line is that the only way folks like Plato and Spinoza and Leibniz and Berkeley and Descartes and Kant etc have brought it into "existence" is analytically and linguistically. It is "deduced" into existence a priori. That means little to me, however. We can "analyze" and "philosophize" a lot of things into existence inside our heads. But where's the beef? Where is the hard experiential/existential evidence that would lead me to believe in such a transendental realm? There is none at all. You can go on and on about what you "feel"...about what you just know intuitively to
                    be true. If that were all it takes to make things true, however, there would be literally millions and millions of different renditions of True Reality out there, right? I have been in enough philosophy venues to recognize the manner in which folks seek to see what they believe rather than believe what they see. If there is a level of reality above and beyond the existential then I say show us that it exists such that we do not just have to take your word for it. No one has suceeded in doing that in any exchange with me. They just shower me with words that are said to be true by other words that are said to be true by yet additional words. Serial tautologies as it were.

                    <<<<Several years ago, long before having studied Taylor, i had written :-

                    Nietzsche once said, "Men wear masks to cope with the chaos of Nature, but
                    the true Master acknowledges he wears a mask and continues to play". Within
                    Nature I need wear no mask, for Nature knows her own and mirrors the
                    reflection of my own being, these images allowing me to touch the very core
                    of "I", my soul. Chaos lies not within Nature, but rather within the mind of
                    Man>>>

                    Nature is subsumed in existence. Existence is subsumed in...in what? Who really knows. All I know about Nature is that it doesn't give a rat's ass about us. A giant asteroid could be oh so slightly deflected by the gravity of Juptier such that it comes barrelling into Earth---destroying all human life in a nano second. The tiniest of chance cosmological occurances resulting in the destruction of all life on earth. What could that possibly Mean?

                    George




                    ---------------------------------
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • George Walton
                    Elaine Phipps-Earl wrote:
                    Message 9 of 26 , Apr 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Elaine Phipps-Earl <lizral@...> wrote:


                      <<<Do u see "Everything is always relative to something else; it always comes
                      down to 1] whatever particular vantage point seems most reasonable to you
                      [now, today] and 2] who has the power to enforce their own agenda"
                      specifically in relation to the social-cultural systems>>>

                      There is no way I could ever possibly answer this such that my point of view would be more than just a particular sum of all the particular parts I happen to be thinking about now in grappling with something I presume to be a reasonable response. For me any particular human identity is always hopelessly subsumed [inextricable and inexpressibly ensnared] in dozens and dozens of conflicting existential variables/contexts. Thus my point of view will be reflective of my historical era and my culture and my acculturation as a child and the experiences I had and the people I met and the books I read and the places I have been...and the mood I am in, etc etc etc. Thus, concommitantly, there is no Right Answer to your question; there is only a particular answer [mine, here and now] that seems reasoanble to me at this point in time. Had I responded to it 10 years ago, my answer would have been very different. And I presume that, 10 years down the road, my answer to a similar question will
                      also be very much odds with this one. So, which one is the "right" one? There is no right one. there is only a point of view that may or may not seem reasonable to you---now, today.

                      <<<i personally cannot
                      escape my own profound sense and understanding of two distinct realities ie
                      a reality which "is", this reality being the sublime beauty of absolute
                      order in the World and Cosmos, a Cosmos filled with meaning, where as Plato
                      proclaimed, the force of good in this order moves us to be orderly and good,
                      recognition of order bringing order, recognition of the good drawing us
                      toward it>>>

                      The reality you speak of here has been broached by philosophers for centuries. It is the noumenal "transcendental ideal" reality that Kant spoke of. It is said to be distinct from the empirical, phenomonological reality we interact in from day to day. Such a reality may exists. I don't think it does. Or if it does and it is not assessible to human minds, it may as well not exists---for me now, today. And the bottom line is that the only way folks like Plato and Spinoza and Leibniz and Berkeley and Descartes and Kant etc have brought it into "existence" is analytically and linguistically. It is "deduced" into existence a priori. That means little to me, however. We can "analyze" and "philosophize" a lot of things into existence inside our heads. But where's the beef? Where is the hard experiential/existential evidence that would lead me to believe in such a transendental realm? There is none at all. You can go on and on about what you "feel"...about what you just know intuitively to
                      be true. If that were all it takes to make things true, however, there would be literally millions and millions of different renditions of True Reality out there, right? I have been in enough philosophy venues to recognize the manner in which folks seek to see what they believe rather than believe what they see. If there is a level of reality above and beyond the existential then I say show us that it exists such that we do not just have to take your word for it. No one has suceeded in doing that in any exchange with me. They just shower me with words that are said to be true by other words that are said to be true by yet additional words. Serial tautologies as it were.

                      <<<<Several years ago, long before having studied Taylor, i had written :-

                      Nietzsche once said, "Men wear masks to cope with the chaos of Nature, but
                      the true Master acknowledges he wears a mask and continues to play". Within
                      Nature I need wear no mask, for Nature knows her own and mirrors the
                      reflection of my own being, these images allowing me to touch the very core
                      of "I", my soul. Chaos lies not within Nature, but rather within the mind of
                      Man>>>

                      Nature is subsumed in existence. Existence is subsumed in...in what? Who really knows. All I know about Nature is that it doesn't give a rat's ass about us. A giant asteroid could be oh so slightly deflected by the gravity of Juptier such that it comes barrelling into Earth---destroying all human life in a nano second. The tiniest of chance cosmological occurances resulting in the destruction of all life on earth. What could that possibly Mean?

                      George





                      ---------------------------------
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • George Walton
                      decker150 wrote:
                      Message 10 of 26 , Apr 2, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:

                        <<<Yes, George, but I am not so sure that life is meaningless. Mainly,
                        I think that the issue of 'meaning' attempts to limit the primal
                        order to a human scale, where the cogitos (thinking-in-general plus
                        consciousness) is established as the center unquestioned judge.>>>

                        The "meaning of life" can be understood in two very different ways---essentially and existentially. My point is that human existence has no essential, ontological, teleological meaning. Its meaning can only be construed realistically as existential. It flows, in other words, out of our actual existing interactions as they are necessarily composed circumstantially [as Dasein] within a particular historical and cultural context that ceaselessly evolves and changes over time. And then we die and meaning becomes literally moot for each one of us for eternity.


                        <<<But, even if human beings grow silent in the face of the
                        incomprehensible world, there is still a level of comprehensibility
                        mentioned by Einstein. What I image is the case, and I know it is
                        also a point of view, is that at the level of the incomprehensible
                        (mystery) is not actually anything as ridiculous as it seems to us,
                        but an extraordinary high level of non-disclosure. Repeatedness,
                        scientific reductionism has uncovered, unconcealed, discovered and
                        shown that we live is a knowable world. But are we not angry
                        impatient seekers, trying at all cost to reduce the universe to
                        Bubers I-it perspective. The fact is, we want the universe to fall
                        under our scrutiny and control, we want to manipulate it, exploit
                        it, turn it into a profit, name it and claim it with proprietary
                        ownerism.>>>

                        It is, however, the part that neither science nor philosophy can know anything about [essentially] that impales most folks respecting "meaning" in their life. They want to know "why am I here?", "what is the point of existence?", "is there a way to know for sure how I ought to live...how I should behave around others?"

                        No, there isn't any way to know for certain the answer to these questions, is there. So, they are filled with anxiety in the face of the unknown. In the face of impending oblivion. At least I am.

                        <<<I imagine that just beyond the edge of human
                        comprehension is 'not' a mindless, pointless cosmos, but a
                        patterned, primordial order, a well gathered collection, a primal
                        logos; hey that's what I believe. Therefore, although this is not a
                        proven, it is where my juncture with 'faith' begins, and to which I
                        am dedicated to be apologist>>>

                        But it doesn't really matter what we imagine to be true; it matters only [or far more] what we can demonstrate reasonably to actually be true. At least in exchanges like this one. And respecting that age old query regarding the "meaning of life" it turns out to be "not much at all", right?

                        George






                        ---------------------------------
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • decker150
                        George you say: t is, however, the part that neither science nor philosophy can know anything about [essentially] that impales most folks respecting
                        Message 11 of 26 , Apr 2, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          George you say: "t is, however, the part that neither science nor
                          philosophy can know anything about [essentially] that impales most
                          folks respecting "meaning" in their life. They want to know "why am I
                          here?", "what is the point of existence?", "is there a way to know for
                          sure how I ought to live...how I should behave around others?"

                          Joe: Well, I think it is fair to ask "How then should we live?"
                          Humanly speaking, socially, we need a practical straight forward
                          concensus over 'that' question. I don't think it will be up to minds
                          stuck in the absurd to decide for humanity as a whole. I don't think
                          there is 'one' answer that is universally applicable to "why am I
                          here?", although there are plenty of universal concerns . Mainly,
                          each persons future is their own project, determined by their own
                          situation and the decisions we must make. The point of one's
                          existence unfolds within this free project that is necessary for each
                          one of us; but the future is always already not-yet-here and
                          not-yet-known. Becoming me is an individual free project (within a
                          deterministic world of limits). I think we will always get into
                          trouble expecting that we can "know for sure" . . .[certainty]. I
                          rather think I 'know teneatively' and caustiously, a little bit better
                          than yesterday. I live forward in the pursuit of reshaping and
                          clarifying 'what I know', with my own internal dialectic (arguing with
                          myself) From my take, faith does not require meaning, at least not
                          any thing indepth. In the face of the incomprehensible mystery of
                          be-ing, faith comes across as Paul Tillich expressed in 'the courage
                          to be'. It is a courage in spite of the fact that our lives are
                          immersed in an all-immersing mystery; or as they say in the latin -
                          mysterium tremendum.

                          + + + + +

                          George: "But it doesn't really matter what we imagine to be true; it
                          matters only [or far more] what we can demonstrate reasonably to
                          actually be true. At least in exchanges like this one. And respecting
                          that age old query regarding the "meaning of life" it turns out to be
                          "not much at all", right?"

                          Joe: Well, I remain more theoretical than applied, so I do not
                          demonstrate in a real world way. Regardless, Da-sein is not
                          catchable, visible or testable, even though beings are to some extent.
                          Meaning is more for the intersubjectivity of human concern, toward
                          our connection to other human beings; so we speak to each other from a
                          limited perspective, comforting each others with inadequacy of mere
                          words, expressing the courage we have. Well, I do.

                          Joe
                        • George Walton
                          decker150 wrote:
                          Message 12 of 26 , Apr 3, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:

                            <<<<I think it is fair to ask "How then should we live?"
                            Humanly speaking, socially, we need a practical straight forward
                            concensus over 'that' question. I don't think it will be up to minds
                            stuck in the absurd to decide for humanity as a whole. I don't think
                            there is 'one' answer that is universally applicable to "why am I
                            here?", although there are plenty of universal concerns . Mainly,
                            each persons future is their own project, determined by their own
                            situation and the decisions we must make>>>

                            I agree, there is no one answer to the question "why am I here?". And the "universal concerns" necessarily revolve first and foremeost around sustaining one's biological existence. Only after we have garnered and then figured out a way to sustain access to food and libations and shelter and protection from enemies etc. can we grapple with other concerns like morality [respecting social issues] or aesthetic predilections or other more "practical" aspects of social interaction. Then we can consider larger "ontological" or "religious" meaning. Yet they all seem necessarily to become interwined for most of us from day to day to day. We all try to encompass some perspective that acts to glue all the existential pieces together into some overall Meaning Of Life. I just don't believe it is really possible to demonstrate one over another. It generally comes down to whatever works best for each person. But what then becomes critical for me is in grappling with what it means to be "I". How
                            does a particular human identity unfold existentially? Why do we subscribe to one set of values rather than another? How much of that is merely an aspect of acculturation? How much can be ascertained Rationally or Logically? Is this even calculable in any meaningful or realistic sense? Again, I don't think it can be. We all take our leaps in the end. And, in the end [the end being the abyss that is oblivion], any existential choice is essentially interchangable with any other choice.


                            <<<I remain more theoretical than applied, so I do not
                            demonstrate in a real world way. Regardless, Da-sein is not
                            catchable, visible or testable, even though beings are to some extent.
                            Meaning is more for the intersubjectivity of human concern, toward
                            our connection to other human beings; so we speak to each other from a
                            limited perspective, comforting each others with inadequacy of mere
                            words, expressing the courage we have. Well, I do>>>>

                            For me, the theoretical must eventually touch down and become a manifestation of praxis. It is not what words can tell us about other words that count nearly as much as whether the relationship between concepts have any significant applicabilty respecting actual human discourese down on the ground. Here it is always going to be the "intersubjective" that carries the most weight. It is how I understand the world given my own existential trajectory and experiences and relationships and how you understand the world given yours. What is there that seems to overlap? How can we come to some sort of "moderated" compromise such that we are willing to negociate our differences when it is crunch time and it is no longer just words but laws and sanctions we are considering. Here I am convinced that, once again, what really matters is not theory but the practice of political economy. In other words, what ultimately matters is not the weight of your argument...but the weight of your muscle. That
                            is the way the world has always functioned by and large. Those with the political and economic and military might are the ones who are going to [by and large] be able to enforce their own point of view and social agenda. That in my view is the human condition in a nutshell.

                            George











                            ---------------------------------
                            Do you Yahoo!?
                            Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Paul
                            ok... hold on... i was perusing KANT at my leisure, and the word sublime popped up several times. Is this some technical term with some deep and meaningful
                            Message 13 of 26 , Apr 3, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ok... hold on...

                              i was perusing KANT at my leisure, and the word sublime popped up
                              several times. Is this some technical term with some deep and
                              meaningful significance that i do not know? Or is it some DH
                              Lawrencian attempt to talk bullshit about the absurd and how fuzzy
                              it makes you feel? thanks,
                              paul
                            • cicero cortel
                              George Walton wrote: In other words, what ultimately matters is not the weight of your argument...but the weight of your muscle. That
                              Message 14 of 26 , Apr 5, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                George Walton <iambiguously@...> wrote:

                                In other words, what ultimately matters is not the weight of your argument...but the weight of your muscle. That
                                is the way the world has always functioned by and large. Those with the political and economic and military might are the ones who are going to [by and large] be able to enforce their own point of view and social agenda. That in my view is the human condition in a nutshell.


                                My reply:

                                The human condition you are refering to is the human condition of the Crusades, the Inquisition,New World Colonization,the two World WARS( Holocaust),Hiroshima, 911, the US attack of Iraq...

                                Survival of the fittest? Is this the real life? Absurd indeed? What about the Gautama,Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr.,Mahatma Gandhi, St. Francis of Assisi,and Mother Theresa?

                                These are the two opposing meanings you people are looking for. Those who claim life has no meaning are those who chose to remain uncommitted.Those who chose to be lukewarm- Kierkegaard's stage of "irony".For all his 'pessimism' Satre was very committed in the resistance.When it comes to life's meaning I'd rather stay with William James:"to remain undecided with a genuine option(life's meaning)is similar to losing the truth."


                                Cicero









                                ---------------------------------
                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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





                                ---------------------------------
                                Yahoo! Groups Links

                                To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




                                ---------------------------------
                                Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Mary Jo
                                Cicero, If you ve noticed the tenor of Biggie s posts, he is obviously being sarcastic. And what of the cult of the martyrs you ve listed? Martin would have
                                Message 15 of 26 , Apr 5, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Cicero,

                                  If you've noticed the tenor of Biggie's posts, he is obviously being
                                  sarcastic. And what of the cult of the martyrs you've listed? Martin
                                  would have lived long for his truth, as would Mother Teresa. Living
                                  is much harder than dying. I spew out Kierkegaard's irony. He may
                                  have meant to fix or end Christianity anyway. Sartre was much more
                                  than committed to the resistance. Look at his actions on behalf of
                                  the state of Israel. He risked much for his authenticity. Your quote
                                  of William James is wonderful. Hopefully, Biggie will spare us his
                                  exegesis on "what is truth?" Ethics do depend on Existentialism. It's
                                  just a matter of whose existentialism we are talking about. When we
                                  approach the black hole of nothing, we may be surprised to find it's
                                  really something after all. Biggie, I love you anyway. You still
                                  believe in life.

                                  Thanks,
                                  Mary Jo

                                  --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, cicero cortel <cicerocortel@y...>
                                  wrote:

                                  > George Walton <iambiguously@y...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > In other words, what ultimately matters is not the weight of your
                                  argument...but the weight of your muscle. That
                                  > is the way the world has always functioned by and large. Those with
                                  the political and economic and military might are the ones who are
                                  going to [by and large] be able to enforce their own point of view
                                  and social agenda. That in my view is the human condition in a
                                  nutshell.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > My reply:
                                  >
                                  > The human condition you are refering to is the human condition
                                  of the Crusades, the Inquisition,New World Colonization,the two World
                                  WARS( Holocaust),Hiroshima, 911, the US attack of Iraq...
                                  >
                                  > Survival of the fittest? Is this the real life? Absurd indeed?
                                  What about the Gautama,Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr.,Mahatma
                                  Gandhi, St. Francis of Assisi,and Mother Theresa?
                                  >
                                  > These are the two opposing meanings you people are looking for.
                                  Those who claim life has no meaning are those who chose to remain
                                  uncommitted.Those who chose to be lukewarm- Kierkegaard's stage
                                  of "irony".For all his 'pessimism' Satre was very committed in the
                                  resistance.When it comes to life's meaning I'd rather stay with
                                  William James:"to remain undecided with a genuine option(life's
                                  meaning)is similar to losing the truth."
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Cicero
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ---------------------------------
                                  > Do you Yahoo!?
                                  > Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ---------------------------------
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/
                                  >
                                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                  Service.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ---------------------------------
                                  > Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends
                                  today! Download Messenger Now
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • George Walton
                                  cicero cortel wrote:
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Apr 6, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    cicero cortel <cicerocortel@...> wrote:


                                    <<<The human condition you are refering to is the human condition of the Crusades, the Inquisition,New World Colonization,the two World WARS( Holocaust),Hiroshima, 911, the US attack of Iraq...

                                    Survival of the fittest? Is this the real life? Absurd indeed? What about the Gautama,Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr.,Mahatma Gandhi, St. Francis of Assisi,and Mother Theresa>>>

                                    Sure, individual religious figures have done their bit to make this a better world. But there are always ambiguities embedded in all crusades. For example, pick up a copy of Ruth Green's The Skeptics Guide to the Bible and you will be introduced to a Jesus Christ that is anything but the Prince of Peace. And what happened to King once he started in on exposing the very unChristian nature of the American politcal economy? As for Mother Teresa, many have exposed the fraud she was. What she did for the poor in India did absolutely nothing to stem the devastating tide of poverty, did it? Sartre, in fact, as you noted, committed himself to ridding the world of those economic and politcal forces that create the brutally exploitatiove and repressive conditions that generate the mass poverty in the first place. And it wasn't only in the "resistence" to fascism either, was it? And Christian officialdum, of course, is more likely to aid and abet the rich and powerful in their plundering of
                                    the planet...freedom loving ways that allow them to control the nations of the world. After all, in a world where 15% of the wealthiest folks gobble up over 80% of the world's resources every single day, those 15% are almost all the Good Christians, right? That, in fact, might explain why 3,000,000,000 men, women and children around the globe live on $2 a day or less. That is half the planet's entire population.


                                    <<<These are the two opposing meanings you people are looking for. Those who claim life has no meaning are those who chose to remain uncommitted.Those who chose to be lukewarm- Kierkegaard's stage of "irony".For all his 'pessimism' Satre was very committed in the resistance.When it comes to life's meaning I'd rather stay with William James:"to remain undecided with a genuine option(life's meaning)is similar to losing the truth.">>>

                                    Existentialists like Sartre do not claim there is "no meaning"....only that any meaning you ascribe to the world is profoundly situated. In other words, regarding what we call or name things...or how we define them...existence is prior to essense. But you tell me: what religious point of view has not seen things as precisely the other way around? And which way is the most dangerous to life and liberty given human history to date?

                                    As for "losing the truth"....what truth? whose truth?...and what are those who profess to embrace the truth prepared to do to defend it, to propagate it, to make sure that others embrace it in turn?

                                    Perhaps we should ask Osama bin Laden or John Ashcroft or Mel Gibson.

                                    George










                                    ---------------------------------
                                    Do you Yahoo!?
                                    Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • louise
                                    George, Fraid I don t know who John Ashcroft is - I ll have to await energies that allow me to do the necessary research. Mel Gibson (once I stopped
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Apr 6, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      George,
                                      'Fraid I don't know who John Ashcroft is - I'll have to await
                                      energies that allow me to do the necessary research. Mel Gibson
                                      (once I stopped confusing him with Mel Brooks!!) I characterised as
                                      a promoter, and I stand by that.
                                      As for Osama Bin Laden, he strikes me as a spoilt rich kid further
                                      spoilt by rich adult foreigners, and redeemed only by his courage;
                                      he has the same kind of integrity Adolf Hitler had - sticking to his
                                      guns; if he only grew up into existentialism, he would learn the
                                      paradox of cowardice and apostasy, and mercy would ensue; and mercy
                                      is the essence of Islam.
                                      Judas the Obscure


                                      --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, George Walton <iambiguously@y...>
                                      wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > cicero cortel <cicerocortel@y...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > <<<The human condition you are refering to is the human condition
                                      of the Crusades, the Inquisition,New World Colonization,the two
                                      World WARS( Holocaust),Hiroshima, 911, the US attack of Iraq...
                                      >
                                      > Survival of the fittest? Is this the real life? Absurd indeed?
                                      What about the Gautama,Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr.,Mahatma
                                      Gandhi, St. Francis of Assisi,and Mother Theresa>>>
                                      >
                                      > Sure, individual religious figures have done their bit to make
                                      this a better world. But there are always ambiguities embedded in
                                      all crusades. For example, pick up a copy of Ruth Green's The
                                      Skeptics Guide to the Bible and you will be introduced to a Jesus
                                      Christ that is anything but the Prince of Peace. And what happened
                                      to King once he started in on exposing the very unChristian nature
                                      of the American politcal economy? As for Mother Teresa, many have
                                      exposed the fraud she was. What she did for the poor in India did
                                      absolutely nothing to stem the devastating tide of poverty, did it?
                                      Sartre, in fact, as you noted, committed himself to ridding the
                                      world of those economic and politcal forces that create the brutally
                                      exploitatiove and repressive conditions that generate the mass
                                      poverty in the first place. And it wasn't only in the "resistence"
                                      to fascism either, was it? And Christian officialdum, of course, is
                                      more likely to aid and abet the rich and powerful in their
                                      plundering of
                                      > the planet...freedom loving ways that allow them to control the
                                      nations of the world. After all, in a world where 15% of the
                                      wealthiest folks gobble up over 80% of the world's resources every
                                      single day, those 15% are almost all the Good Christians, right?
                                      That, in fact, might explain why 3,000,000,000 men, women and
                                      children around the globe live on $2 a day or less. That is half the
                                      planet's entire population.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > <<<These are the two opposing meanings you people are looking for.
                                      Those who claim life has no meaning are those who chose to remain
                                      uncommitted.Those who chose to be lukewarm- Kierkegaard's stage
                                      of "irony".For all his 'pessimism' Satre was very committed in the
                                      resistance.When it comes to life's meaning I'd rather stay with
                                      William James:"to remain undecided with a genuine option(life's
                                      meaning)is similar to losing the truth.">>>
                                      >
                                      > Existentialists like Sartre do not claim there is "no
                                      meaning"....only that any meaning you ascribe to the world is
                                      profoundly situated. In other words, regarding what we call or name
                                      things...or how we define them...existence is prior to essense. But
                                      you tell me: what religious point of view has not seen things as
                                      precisely the other way around? And which way is the most dangerous
                                      to life and liberty given human history to date?
                                      >
                                      > As for "losing the truth"....what truth? whose truth?...and what
                                      are those who profess to embrace the truth prepared to do to defend
                                      it, to propagate it, to make sure that others embrace it in turn?
                                      >
                                      > Perhaps we should ask Osama bin Laden or John Ashcroft or Mel
                                      Gibson.
                                      >
                                      > George
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ---------------------------------
                                      > Do you Yahoo!?
                                      > Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Tommy Beavitt
                                      Dear Sartre members, While the quality of posts has been very good recently, with a sudden blip in membership and lots of posts, this could be a good time to
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Apr 6, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dear Sartre members,

                                        While the quality of posts has been very good recently, with a sudden
                                        blip in membership and lots of posts, this could be a good time to
                                        remind people to stay topical to Sartre and existentialism. While you
                                        can use this frame of reference to make some fairly diverse points,
                                        please do stay within this framework by referencing the body of work
                                        and terminology topical to this list.

                                        Thanks for your attention

                                        Tommy Beavitt

                                        moderator
                                      • Linda
                                        good points geroge. George Walton wrote: cicero cortel wrote:
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Apr 6, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          good points geroge.

                                          George Walton <iambiguously@...> wrote:

                                          cicero cortel <cicerocortel@...> wrote:


                                          <<<The human condition you are refering to is the human condition of the Crusades, the Inquisition,New World Colonization,the two World WARS( Holocaust),Hiroshima, 911, the US attack of Iraq...

                                          Survival of the fittest? Is this the real life? Absurd indeed? What about the Gautama,Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr.,Mahatma Gandhi, St. Francis of Assisi,and Mother Theresa>>>

                                          Sure, individual religious figures have done their bit to make this a better world. But there are always ambiguities embedded in all crusades. For example, pick up a copy of Ruth Green's The Skeptics Guide to the Bible and you will be introduced to a Jesus Christ that is anything but the Prince of Peace. And what happened to King once he started in on exposing the very unChristian nature of the American politcal economy? As for Mother Teresa, many have exposed the fraud she was. What she did for the poor in India did absolutely nothing to stem the devastating tide of poverty, did it? Sartre, in fact, as you noted, committed himself to ridding the world of those economic and politcal forces that create the brutally exploitatiove and repressive conditions that generate the mass poverty in the first place. And it wasn't only in the "resistence" to fascism either, was it? And Christian officialdum, of course, is more likely to aid and abet the rich and powerful in their plundering of
                                          the planet...freedom loving ways that allow them to control the nations of the world. After all, in a world where 15% of the wealthiest folks gobble up over 80% of the world's resources every single day, those 15% are almost all the Good Christians, right? That, in fact, might explain why 3,000,000,000 men, women and children around the globe live on $2 a day or less. That is half the planet's entire population.


                                          <<<These are the two opposing meanings you people are looking for. Those who claim life has no meaning are those who chose to remain uncommitted.Those who chose to be lukewarm- Kierkegaard's stage of "irony".For all his 'pessimism' Satre was very committed in the resistance.When it comes to life's meaning I'd rather stay with William James:"to remain undecided with a genuine option(life's meaning)is similar to losing the truth.">>>

                                          Existentialists like Sartre do not claim there is "no meaning"....only that any meaning you ascribe to the world is profoundly situated. In other words, regarding what we call or name things...or how we define them...existence is prior to essense. But you tell me: what religious point of view has not seen things as precisely the other way around? And which way is the most dangerous to life and liberty given human history to date?

                                          As for "losing the truth"....what truth? whose truth?...and what are those who profess to embrace the truth prepared to do to defend it, to propagate it, to make sure that others embrace it in turn?

                                          Perhaps we should ask Osama bin Laden or John Ashcroft or Mel Gibson.

                                          George










                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Do you Yahoo!?
                                          Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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




                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                                          To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                          Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                          "Everything happens for the first time, but in a way that is eternal."---Jorge Luis Borges


                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Do you Yahoo!?
                                          Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • cicero cortel
                                          George Walton wrote: cicero cortel wrote:
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Apr 7, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            George Walton <iambiguously@...> wrote:


                                            cicero cortel <cicerocortel@...> wrote:


                                            <<<The human condition you are refering to is the human condition of the Crusades, the Inquisition,New World Colonization,the two World WARS( Holocaust),Hiroshima, 911, the US attack of Iraq...

                                            Survival of the fittest? Is this the real life? Absurd indeed? What about the Gautama,Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr.,Mahatma Gandhi, St. Francis of Assisi,and Mother Theresa>>>

                                            Sure, individual religious figures have done their bit to make this a better world. But there are always ambiguities embedded in all crusades. For example, pick up a copy of Ruth Green's The Skeptics Guide to the Bible and you will be introduced to a Jesus Christ that is anything but the Prince of Peace. And what happened to King once he started in on exposing the very unChristian nature of the American politcal economy? As for Mother Teresa, many have exposed the fraud she was. What she did for the poor in India did absolutely nothing to stem the devastating tide of poverty, did it? Sartre, in fact, as you noted, committed himself to ridding the world of those economic and politcal forces that create the brutally exploitatiove and repressive conditions that generate the mass poverty in the first place. And it wasn't only in the "resistence" to fascism either, was it? And Christian officialdum, of course, is more likely to aid and abet the rich and powerful in their plundering of
                                            the planet...freedom loving ways that allow them to control the nations of the world. After all, in a world where 15% of the wealthiest folks gobble up over 80% of the world's resources every single day, those 15% are almost all the Good Christians, right? That, in fact, might explain why 3,000,000,000 men, women and children around the globe live on $2 a day or less. That is half the planet's entire population.


                                            <<<These are the two opposing meanings you people are looking for. Those who claim life has no meaning are those who chose to remain uncommitted.Those who chose to be lukewarm- Kierkegaard's stage of "irony".For all his 'pessimism' Satre was very committed in the resistance.When it comes to life's meaning I'd rather stay with William James:"to remain undecided with a genuine option(life's meaning)is similar to losing the truth.">>>

                                            Existentialists like Sartre do not claim there is "no meaning"....only that any meaning you ascribe to the world is profoundly situated. In other words, regarding what we call or name things...or how we define them...existence is prior to essense. But you tell me: what religious point of view has not seen things as precisely the other way around? And which way is the most dangerous to life and liberty given human history to date?

                                            As for "losing the truth"....what truth? whose truth?...and what are those who profess to embrace the truth prepared to do to defend it, to propagate it, to make sure that others embrace it in turn?

                                            Perhaps we should ask Osama bin Laden or John Ashcroft or Mel Gibson.

                                            George

                                            My Reply:

                                            It seems that in your mention of Ruth Green, Mother Theresa as a fraud, etc. you take any testimony as truth. If such is the case then there is indeed no truth as it is but only truth for you.But that is not truth to me.

                                            Since you are not a Christian, you might not know that it is un Christian for a rich man not to help the poor.

                                            If "meaning is profoundly situated," do you claim that Osama bin Laden is in the truth as
                                            Mother Theresa?

                                            cicero







                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Do you Yahoo!?
                                            Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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






                                            ---------------------------------


                                            Yahoo! Groups Links


                                            To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                            Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • cicero cortel
                                            Tommy Beavitt wrote: Dear Sartre members, While the quality of posts has been very good recently, with a sudden blip in
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Apr 7, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Tommy Beavitt <tommy@...> wrote:
                                              Dear Sartre members,

                                              While the quality of posts has been very good recently, with a sudden
                                              blip in membership and lots of posts, this could be a good time to
                                              remind people to stay topical to Sartre and existentialism. While you
                                              can use this frame of reference to make some fairly diverse points,
                                              please do stay within this framework by referencing the body of work
                                              and terminology topical to this list.

                                              Thanks for your attention

                                              Tommy Beavitt

                                              moderator



                                              Reply:

                                              Dear Moderator,

                                              I appreciate your acuity in safeguarding the framework of this topic. Please bear with us who may not agree with Sartre's philosophy. Don't you think you also need us to contradict him?




                                              ---------------------------------


                                              Yahoo! Groups Links


                                              To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                              Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • George Walton
                                              cicero cortel wrote
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Apr 8, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                cicero cortel <cicerocortel@...> wrote

                                                <<<It seems that in your mention of Ruth Green, Mother Theresa as a fraud, etc. you take any testimony as truth. If such is the case then there is indeed no truth as it is but only truth for you.But that is not truth to me>>>

                                                What is the difference between you and I----that you don't take a particular "testimony" to be the truth? No, it is that we take different testimonies to reflect different existential renditions of what appears to be true to each of us---given our own unigue trajectories from the cradle to the grave. Or are you saying that your own testimony reflects the objective and essential and universal Truth? If so, demonstrate this to be the case because I readily acknowledge my point of view is only reflective of my own unique existential experineces and how I have come to understand what they mean.

                                                Do you believe that essential truths do, in fact, exist respecting religion? Do you believe Sartre's atheism is demonstrably illogical and irrational?

                                                <<<Since you are not a Christian, you might not know that it is un Christian for a rich man not to help the poor>>>

                                                What Christians? Again, the global economy is run by Christians, right? And in just the 20th century alone these very rich and powerful Christians created an imperialistic world order such that 680,000,000 children aged 5 years and younger died in agony from starvation. And where was the loving, just and merciful Christian God when all of this was happening? Maybe planning the next earthquake or volcanic eruption or devastating drought or flood?

                                                <<<If "meaning is profoundly situated," do you claim that Osama bin Laden is in the truth as
                                                Mother Theresa?>>>

                                                From Osama bin Laden's perspective Mother Teresa was was right to embrace God, wasn't she? She just embraced the wrong God, didn't she? In fact, for hundreds of years now Christians and Moslems and Jews have been slaughtering each other over in the Holy Lands. And all over the very same God!!! All three religions, after all, embrace Moses and Abraham and Jesus in their religious and historical documents, don't they? And in a nano second God could manifest himself over there and end the butchering once and for all. He does nothing instead.

                                                And that I suspect is because there is not a snowballs chance in hell that he actually exists. Not that I can prove that, of course. And, after all, Jean Paul Sartre went to the grave and never proved it either, did he? So, of course, that must mean God exists.

                                                George



                                                ---------------------------------
                                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                                Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • George Walton
                                                cicero cortel wrote:
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Apr 8, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  cicero cortel <cicerocortel@...> wrote:

                                                  <<<Please bear with us who may not agree with Sartre's philosophy. Don't you think you also need us to contradict him?>>>

                                                  Why don't you begin contradicting him by telling us what you imagine the main points were that Sartre was making. What do you know about the man and his philsophy?

                                                  George









                                                  ---------------------------------


                                                  Yahoo! Groups Links


                                                  To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                  Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




                                                  ---------------------------------
                                                  Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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





                                                  ---------------------------------

                                                  Yahoo! Groups Links


                                                  To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                  Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                                                  ---------------------------------
                                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                                  Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

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