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

Re: A Positive Slant on Nothingness

Expand Messages
  • decker150
    Let us clarify the word absurd. Is it not the same as ridiculous. It is not possible for there to be any sense of the absurd at all expect within the unique
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 29, 2004
      Let us clarify the word absurd. Is it not the same as ridiculous.
      It is not possible for there to be any sense of the absurd at all
      expect within the unique reaction of a human being. The notion of
      absurdity is an internal reaction carried on and conducted through
      human cognitive perspective. There is no sense of the absurd without
      human beings thinking it. Is this 'ridulousness' separate from the
      cognitive process? If there had never been even a spec of life, the
      universe would not be absurd, for it would not be interpreted as
      anything at all, it simply would just be-there; majestically,
      wonderfully, powerfully, absurdly - these are all humanizations,
      projected interpretations all of which are equally invalidated once
      you take human interpretation out of the process, with no tipping of
      favor to the giving absurdity a superior role. Absurdity has no
      sacrosanct priviledge woven into the fabric of everything. Absurdity
      is only a humanly conceived brain-fart; that little bit of
      meaning-making that we deceptively want to assign existential forces;
      we conclude that there is no God, but that there-is universal
      absurdity. I think there is some sloppy philosophy going on here, to
      assign some human notion to the everything of nothingness. If there
      is no meaning, then there is no transhuman definition, not even
      absurdity has a place. We wonder what right we have to project human
      meaning onto the pure void, but inadvertently have no problem with
      hurling our contrived notion of 'absurdity' out over everything.
      Really?

      well, at least that how I see it.

      Joe

      --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <p.cave@u...> wrote:
      > yeah but that's not true... it's not the same as the binary
      > opposition in deconstructionism because the existential notion of
      > absurding (meaninglessness) SUPERCEDES the fact that we can create
      > who we are...
      >
      > you can choose any colour you like- as long as it's black.
      >
      > paul
      >
      >
      > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
      > > It had occured to me that the dark, dismal, negative connotation
      > of
      > > 'nothingness' shortchanges the due process of thoughtful
      > > consideration.
      > >
      > > Could there be a positive point to nothingness? Deconstructionism
      > > bought to my mind the fact that we unjustifiably assign favor
      > toward
      > > one side of the binary opposites. Good and evil, light and dark,
      > > being and nothingness. I believe that this assignment of favor
      > toward
      > > Being suggest that nothingness must neccessaily be cast in
      > disfavor.
      > > However, this favor-tipping is a matter of preference and is not
      > > grounded in the existential facts. In reality, it may be a good
      > thing
      > > to die. Oblivion may be a good thing. At least, we might
      > conclude
      > > that Being is not neccessarily proven to be the only side in this
      > > binary favor.
      > >
      > > Also, one central facit of nothingness is that the universe is
      > > supposedly devoid of meaning, that everything is meaningless or to
      > use
      > > the proper venacular...absurd. It would be supposed that a
      > > meaningless universe is on the face of it, from a human viewpoint,
      > > simply ridiculous. Why, afterall, is there anything at all.
      > Further,
      > > we easily acknowledge that the individual's life is meaningless,
      > that
      > > no cosmic or universal cause has pregiven any of us a lifescript
      > that
      > > we are to unravel. We posit that the new born is not only
      > > inexperienced, but in the lingo of 'tabula rasa', a blank slate.
      > The
      > > idea is that no individual has an inborn meaning or reason for
      > being;
      > > that meaning is enculturated.
      > >
      > > Now to the positive, it occured to me that if we reworked the
      > favor
      > > assignments, gave meaningless the value of good, and nothingness
      > as
      > > well, then we would be interpreting absurdity as a positive
      > thing. It
      > > seems that over the years of discussing absurdity with people,
      > many
      > > discussants seemed to have expressed a bit of anger over the human
      > > condition, unable to tip the favor in an opposite direction, when
      > in
      > > fact, our disfavor toward the ridiculous is merely an
      > emotionalism, an
      > > affective predisposition, and not an irrefutable fact.
      > >
      > > I believe that there is a interpretive course that explores the
      > > positive, favorable significance of these otherwise negative
      > concepts;
      > > nothingness, absurdity, and meaninglessness; if only we will try.
    • rory
      The way the word absurd was used is too generic. Let us make a distinction: reality may be absurd in the way objects hang together to form a unity we call
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 1, 2004
        The way the word 'absurd' was used is too generic. Let us make a distinction: reality may be absurd in the way objects hang together to form a unity we call 'universe' or simply 'reality'. But that there is reality or that the universe is there at all may be pure chance or not. This second type of absurdity cannot be interpretative I think.

        cicero

        decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:
        Let us clarify the word absurd. Is it not the same as ridiculous.
        It is not possible for there to be any sense of the absurd at all
        expect within the unique reaction of a human being. The notion of
        absurdity is an internal reaction carried on and conducted through
        human cognitive perspective. There is no sense of the absurd without
        human beings thinking it. Is this 'ridulousness' separate from the
        cognitive process? If there had never been even a spec of life, the
        universe would not be absurd, for it would not be interpreted as
        anything at all, it simply would just be-there; majestically,
        wonderfully, powerfully, absurdly - these are all humanizations,
        projected interpretations all of which are equally invalidated once
        you take human interpretation out of the process, with no tipping of
        favor to the giving absurdity a superior role. Absurdity has no
        sacrosanct priviledge woven into the fabric of everything. Absurdity
        is only a humanly conceived brain-fart; that little bit of
        meaning-making that we deceptively want to assign existential forces;
        we conclude that there is no God, but that there-is universal
        absurdity. I think there is some sloppy philosophy going on here, to
        assign some human notion to the everything of nothingness. If there
        is no meaning, then there is no transhuman definition, not even
        absurdity has a place. We wonder what right we have to project human
        meaning onto the pure void, but inadvertently have no problem with
        hurling our contrived notion of 'absurdity' out over everything.
        Really?

        well, at least that how I see it.

        Joe

        --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <p.cave@u...> wrote:
        > yeah but that's not true... it's not the same as the binary
        > opposition in deconstructionism because the existential notion of
        > absurding (meaninglessness) SUPERCEDES the fact that we can create
        > who we are...
        >
        > you can choose any colour you like- as long as it's black.
        >
        > paul
        >
        >
        > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
        > > It had occured to me that the dark, dismal, negative connotation
        > of
        > > 'nothingness' shortchanges the due process of thoughtful
        > > consideration.
        > >
        > > Could there be a positive point to nothingness? Deconstructionism
        > > bought to my mind the fact that we unjustifiably assign favor
        > toward
        > > one side of the binary opposites. Good and evil, light and dark,
        > > being and nothingness. I believe that this assignment of favor
        > toward
        > > Being suggest that nothingness must neccessaily be cast in
        > disfavor.
        > > However, this favor-tipping is a matter of preference and is not
        > > grounded in the existential facts. In reality, it may be a good
        > thing
        > > to die. Oblivion may be a good thing. At least, we might
        > conclude
        > > that Being is not neccessarily proven to be the only side in this
        > > binary favor.
        > >
        > > Also, one central facit of nothingness is that the universe is
        > > supposedly devoid of meaning, that everything is meaningless or to
        > use
        > > the proper venacular...absurd. It would be supposed that a
        > > meaningless universe is on the face of it, from a human viewpoint,
        > > simply ridiculous. Why, afterall, is there anything at all.
        > Further,
        > > we easily acknowledge that the individual's life is meaningless,
        > that
        > > no cosmic or universal cause has pregiven any of us a lifescript
        > that
        > > we are to unravel. We posit that the new born is not only
        > > inexperienced, but in the lingo of 'tabula rasa', a blank slate.
        > The
        > > idea is that no individual has an inborn meaning or reason for
        > being;
        > > that meaning is enculturated.
        > >
        > > Now to the positive, it occured to me that if we reworked the
        > favor
        > > assignments, gave meaningless the value of good, and nothingness
        > as
        > > well, then we would be interpreting absurdity as a positive
        > thing. It
        > > seems that over the years of discussing absurdity with people,
        > many
        > > discussants seemed to have expressed a bit of anger over the human
        > > condition, unable to tip the favor in an opposite direction, when
        > in
        > > fact, our disfavor toward the ridiculous is merely an
        > emotionalism, an
        > > affective predisposition, and not an irrefutable fact.
        > >
        > > I believe that there is a interpretive course that explores the
        > > positive, favorable significance of these otherwise negative
        > concepts;
        > > nothingness, absurdity, and meaninglessness; if only we will try.



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



        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


        ---------------------------------
        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]
      • Paul
        ha... decker... so... you want to cast off the absurd as absurd? just a tack-on to human ideas? The absurd exists via the segregation of being and nothingness;
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 3, 2004
          ha... decker... so... you want to cast off the absurd as absurd?
          just a tack-on to human ideas? The absurd exists via the segregation
          of being and nothingness; it is not attached to nothingness, nor to
          consciousness pre-reflective or for-itself... it comes about because
          of the contrast between being, nothingness and the eternal
          injustifiability or the jump. humanism has failed... failed
          miserably... it's time to embrace post modern values; not because we
          can't find the truth, but because we've found it, and it's fucked,
          and the only enduring truths are: we're stuck here together (be
          nice, hug a lot) pain hurts (minimise your pain).

          i'm sure there are a couple more truths that endure the ultimate
          regress of existentialism, karl marx's mullet perhaps (and his
          utopia) but i mean... those are the core ones. anyway... humanism is
          stupid.

          paul



          --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, rory <cicerocortel@y...> wrote:
          > The way the word 'absurd' was used is too generic. Let us make a
          distinction: reality may be absurd in the way objects hang together
          to form a unity we call 'universe' or simply 'reality'. But that
          there is reality or that the universe is there at all may be pure
          chance or not. This second type of absurdity cannot be
          interpretative I think.
          >
          > cicero
          >
          > decker150 <decker150@y...> wrote:
          > Let us clarify the word absurd. Is it not the same as
          ridiculous.
          > It is not possible for there to be any sense of the absurd at all
          > expect within the unique reaction of a human being. The notion of
          > absurdity is an internal reaction carried on and conducted through
          > human cognitive perspective. There is no sense of the absurd
          without
          > human beings thinking it. Is this 'ridulousness' separate from
          the
          > cognitive process? If there had never been even a spec of life,
          the
          > universe would not be absurd, for it would not be interpreted as
          > anything at all, it simply would just be-there; majestically,
          > wonderfully, powerfully, absurdly - these are all humanizations,
          > projected interpretations all of which are equally invalidated
          once
          > you take human interpretation out of the process, with no tipping
          of
          > favor to the giving absurdity a superior role. Absurdity has no
          > sacrosanct priviledge woven into the fabric of everything.
          Absurdity
          > is only a humanly conceived brain-fart; that little bit of
          > meaning-making that we deceptively want to assign existential
          forces;
          > we conclude that there is no God, but that there-is universal
          > absurdity. I think there is some sloppy philosophy going on here,
          to
          > assign some human notion to the everything of nothingness. If
          there
          > is no meaning, then there is no transhuman definition, not even
          > absurdity has a place. We wonder what right we have to project
          human
          > meaning onto the pure void, but inadvertently have no problem with
          > hurling our contrived notion of 'absurdity' out over everything.
          > Really?
          >
          > well, at least that how I see it.
          >
          > Joe
          >
          > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <p.cave@u...> wrote:
          > > yeah but that's not true... it's not the same as the binary
          > > opposition in deconstructionism because the existential notion
          of
          > > absurding (meaninglessness) SUPERCEDES the fact that we can
          create
          > > who we are...
          > >
          > > you can choose any colour you like- as long as it's black.
          > >
          > > paul
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "decker150" <decker150@y...>
          wrote:
          > > > It had occured to me that the dark, dismal, negative
          connotation
          > > of
          > > > 'nothingness' shortchanges the due process of thoughtful
          > > > consideration.
          > > >
          > > > Could there be a positive point to nothingness?
          Deconstructionism
          > > > bought to my mind the fact that we unjustifiably assign favor
          > > toward
          > > > one side of the binary opposites. Good and evil, light and
          dark,
          > > > being and nothingness. I believe that this assignment of
          favor
          > > toward
          > > > Being suggest that nothingness must neccessaily be cast in
          > > disfavor.
          > > > However, this favor-tipping is a matter of preference and is
          not
          > > > grounded in the existential facts. In reality, it may be a
          good
          > > thing
          > > > to die. Oblivion may be a good thing. At least, we might
          > > conclude
          > > > that Being is not neccessarily proven to be the only side in
          this
          > > > binary favor.
          > > >
          > > > Also, one central facit of nothingness is that the universe is
          > > > supposedly devoid of meaning, that everything is meaningless
          or to
          > > use
          > > > the proper venacular...absurd. It would be supposed that a
          > > > meaningless universe is on the face of it, from a human
          viewpoint,
          > > > simply ridiculous. Why, afterall, is there anything at all.
          > > Further,
          > > > we easily acknowledge that the individual's life is
          meaningless,
          > > that
          > > > no cosmic or universal cause has pregiven any of us a
          lifescript
          > > that
          > > > we are to unravel. We posit that the new born is not only
          > > > inexperienced, but in the lingo of 'tabula rasa', a blank
          slate.
          > > The
          > > > idea is that no individual has an inborn meaning or reason for
          > > being;
          > > > that meaning is enculturated.
          > > >
          > > > Now to the positive, it occured to me that if we reworked the
          > > favor
          > > > assignments, gave meaningless the value of good, and
          nothingness
          > > as
          > > > well, then we would be interpreting absurdity as a positive
          > > thing. It
          > > > seems that over the years of discussing absurdity with people,
          > > many
          > > > discussants seemed to have expressed a bit of anger over the
          human
          > > > condition, unable to tip the favor in an opposite direction,
          when
          > > in
          > > > fact, our disfavor toward the ridiculous is merely an
          > > emotionalism, an
          > > > affective predisposition, and not an irrefutable fact.
          > > >
          > > > I believe that there is a interpretive course that explores
          the
          > > > positive, favorable significance of these otherwise negative
          > > concepts;
          > > > nothingness, absurdity, and meaninglessness; if only we will
          try.
          >
          >
          >
          > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > 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]
        • Kevin
          ThEre iS nO tRuTh fOr uS tO fiNd. tHEre mAy bE thE rEal aS it ExiSTs tO tHE eYEs oF thE vOiD, bUT nO tRutH fOR ouR eYes tO seE. WhAt is SpOKeN is YoUR oWn aNd
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 21, 2004
            ThEre iS nO tRuTh fOr uS tO fiNd. tHEre mAy bE thE rEal aS it ExiSTs
            tO tHE eYEs oF thE vOiD, bUT nO tRutH fOR ouR eYes tO seE. WhAt is
            SpOKeN is YoUR oWn aNd hAS nO otHeR plAcE, fOr iT is yOuR facE thAT
            hOLds tHe truTh fOR yOU. whAteVEr iS seeN, WhaTEvEr iS "eXpeRIencEd"
            iS nOthiNg bUt yOur Own, fOr YouR BrAin iS FoOliNg yOu iNto
            BeLievIng tHat yOu acTuaLLY hAVe a hOld oN thE oBjectIve ReALiTy
            tHat iS tHe ReaL. No TRuTh For YOu, nO trUTh fOR mE... tHerE is
            EVeryThiNg ThaT We canNot SEe.
          • decker150
            ... ExiSTs ... thAT ... iS eXpeRIencEd ... Kevin, isn t it interesting at least that you present these statements as though you are correct in declaring
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 21, 2004
              --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin" <kms081@y...> wrote:
              >
              > ThEre iS nO tRuTh fOr uS tO fiNd. tHEre mAy bE thE rEal aS it
              ExiSTs
              > tO tHE eYEs oF thE vOiD, bUT nO tRutH fOR ouR eYes tO seE. WhAt is
              > SpOKeN is YoUR oWn aNd hAS nO otHeR plAcE, fOr iT is yOuR facE
              thAT
              > hOLds tHe truTh fOR yOU. whAteVEr iS seeN, WhaTEvEr
              iS "eXpeRIencEd"
              > iS nOthiNg bUt yOur Own, fOr YouR BrAin iS FoOliNg yOu iNto
              > BeLievIng tHat yOu acTuaLLY hAVe a hOld oN thE oBjectIve ReALiTy
              > tHat iS tHe ReaL. No TRuTh For YOu, nO trUTh fOR mE... tHerE is
              > EVeryThiNg ThaT We canNot SEe.

              Kevin, isn't it interesting at least that you present these
              statements as though you are correct in declaring them. It is in
              these basic statements that positions your viewpoint as if it should
              be believed. Even when you are declaring that "there is no truth".
              you are presenting a final conclusion, held forth in your assumption
              that you are correct. Is this not how we present our opinions, as
              if we are correct? It does little to demand that 'there is no
              truth', but then act as if 'you' are correct when expressing 'your
              views.

              ReSpEcTfUlLy - jOe
            • rory
              I agree Joe. Kevin should not write anything for others even to read; he should not drink or eat; he should not converse, nor express what he feels...should
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 21, 2004
                I agree Joe. "Kevin" should not write anything for others even to read; he should not drink or eat; he should not converse, nor express what he feels...should he breathe or cease breathing? He could not know...

                cicero

                decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:

                --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin" <kms081@y...> wrote:
                >
                > ThEre iS nO tRuTh fOr uS tO fiNd. tHEre mAy bE thE rEal aS it
                ExiSTs
                > tO tHE eYEs oF thE vOiD, bUT nO tRutH fOR ouR eYes tO seE. WhAt is
                > SpOKeN is YoUR oWn aNd hAS nO otHeR plAcE, fOr iT is yOuR facE
                thAT
                > hOLds tHe truTh fOR yOU. whAteVEr iS seeN, WhaTEvEr
                iS "eXpeRIencEd"
                > iS nOthiNg bUt yOur Own, fOr YouR BrAin iS FoOliNg yOu iNto
                > BeLievIng tHat yOu acTuaLLY hAVe a hOld oN thE oBjectIve ReALiTy
                > tHat iS tHe ReaL. No TRuTh For YOu, nO trUTh fOR mE... tHerE is
                > EVeryThiNg ThaT We canNot SEe.

                Kevin, isn't it interesting at least that you present these
                statements as though you are correct in declaring them. It is in
                these basic statements that positions your viewpoint as if it should
                be believed. Even when you are declaring that "there is no truth".
                you are presenting a final conclusion, held forth in your assumption
                that you are correct. Is this not how we present our opinions, as
                if we are correct? It does little to demand that 'there is no
                truth', but then act as if 'you' are correct when expressing 'your
                views.

                ReSpEcTfUlLy - jOe





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



                Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                ---------------------------------
                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]
              • Kevin
                iTs jUSt mE tHInkiNg aBouT suBjeCTiviTy vErSUs oBjecTiviTy... noT suRe hOw cOlOr-bLInd pEopLe tAke tHE wOrlD. i LIke tO aGrEE wIth sArtRe oN maNY lEvelS. wE
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 22, 2004
                  iTs jUSt mE tHInkiNg aBouT suBjeCTiviTy vErSUs oBjecTiviTy... noT
                  suRe hOw cOlOr-bLInd pEopLe tAke tHE wOrlD. i LIke tO aGrEE wIth
                  sArtRe oN maNY lEvelS. wE aRe aLL bEinGs iN thE woRld, bUt soMetImeS
                  i DoUbt mY oWN eXistEncE As i hAvE beLieVeD iT tO Be.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.