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

RE: [Sartre] nothingness

Expand Messages
  • Eric S
    Rahmad, Well yes, but there is also a history here. I think the two main influences are probably Hegel and Heidegger. Negation plays an important role in
    Message 1 of 19 , Dec 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Rahmad,

      Well yes, but there is also a history here.

      I think the two main influences are probably Hegel and
      Heidegger.

      Negation plays an important role in Hegel's conception
      of the historical dialectic. Through negation the
      immediate is transcended and a bridge is made to the
      absolute.

      Nothing also figures prominently in Heidegger's
      philosophy as what opposes being and the finitude of
      Dasein.

      The genius of Sartre, in my opinion, was to
      internalize Heidgegger's conception of being and, by
      doing so, relate it more closely to that of Hegel.

      Whereas Heidegger ask the question of metaphysics, why
      is the being and not rather nothing; Sartre
      effectively turns Heidegger on his head, and asks
      instead how did nothingness emerge from being?

      eric



      --- Rahmad Setiadi <rahmad@...> wrote:

      > In my opinion,
      >
      > NOTHINGNESS refers to "... the absence of Being"
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > regards,
      >
      >
      >
      > Rahmad Setiadi
      >
      > Jl. Taman Patra Raya No. 9,
      >
      > Jakarta - Indonesia 12950
      >
      > +62-815-10205613
      >
      > www.blitzmegaplex.com
      > <http://www.blitzmegaplex.com/>
      >
      > ________________________________
      >
      > From: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:Sartre@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > Of S.M.Jaffar
      > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:23 PM
      > To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [Sartre] nothingness
      >
      >
      >
      > This is where the philosophy of sartre started.Could
      > any person
      > clearly explain what does it mean.S.M.Jaffar
      >
      >
      >
      > Messages in this topic
      >
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/message/8129;_ylc=X3oDMTMzazZvbHBm
      >
      BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMjgyNQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU2ODkyMTYEbXNnSWQDODEy
      >
      OQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExOTY0Mjg5OTcEdHBjSWQDODEyOQ-->
      > (1)
      > Reply (via web post)
      >
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJvNmxkYnJhBF9TAzk3
      >
      MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMjgyNQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU2ODkyMTYEbXNnSWQDODEyOQRzZWMD
      >
      ZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExOTY0Mjg5OTc-?act=reply&messageNum=8129>
      > |
      > Start a new topic
      >
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNTkxYmljBF9TAzk3
      >
      MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMjgyNQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU2ODkyMTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDbnRw
      > YwRzdGltZQMxMTk2NDI4OTk3>
      >
      > Messages
      >
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJkMjAxNWZjBF9T
      >
      Azk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMjgyNQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU2ODkyMTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsD
      > bXNncwRzdGltZQMxMTk2NDI4OTk3> | Files
      >
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJlanFpOGNoBF9TAzk
      >
      3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMjgyNQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU2ODkyMTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDZml
      > sZXMEc3RpbWUDMTE5NjQyODk5Nw--> | Photos
      >
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZ2xkdDVnBF9TAz
      >
      k3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMjgyNQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU2ODkyMTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcG
      > hvdARzdGltZQMxMTk2NDI4OTk3> | Links
      >
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY284Y3I2BF9TAzk
      >
      3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMjgyNQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU2ODkyMTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDbGl
      > ua3MEc3RpbWUDMTE5NjQyODk5Nw--> | Database
      >
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJiOTQwbzYzBF9T
      >
      Azk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMjgyNQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU2ODkyMTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsD
      > ZGIEc3RpbWUDMTE5NjQyODk5Nw--> | Polls
      >
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMWltZ3Q3BF9TAzk
      >
      3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMjgyNQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU2ODkyMTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcG9
      > sbHMEc3RpbWUDMTE5NjQyODk5Nw--> | Members
      >
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJkY3ZraWFhBF9TA
      >
      zk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMjgyNQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU2ODkyMTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDb
      > WJycwRzdGltZQMxMTk2NDI4OTk3> | Calendar
      >
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJjMjhoaWliBF9T
      >
      Azk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMjgyNQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU2ODkyMTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsD
      > Y2FsBHN0aW1lAzExOTY0Mjg5OTc->
      >
      > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
      > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been
      > removed]
      >
      >
    • dude Lebowsky
      Hi dudes, Since I joined the group my mailbox has been inundated by a vast accumulation of nothingness, not little Swiss-cheesy negatitties - you know, those
      Message 2 of 19 , Jan 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi dudes,

        Since I joined the group my mailbox has been inundated by a vast accumulation of nothingness, not little Swiss-cheesy negatitties - you know, those islands of non-being within being - but real mindblowing nothingness... Must be a wonderful example of all you dudes out there exercising your freedom...

        Well all you useless passions, the dude has been thinking about nothingness and has come to the conclusion that old JPS was off beam with his claim that nothingness lies coiled at the heart of Being of the For-Itself variety(BFI). I reckon that this, although partly true, is far from the major part of the BFI.

        In order to convince us of his description of being-in-the-world, JPS has to get us to accept that we are riddled with these nullo-zeros that he calls negatitties.
        Now a key example is when he goes into the cafe looking for Sneaky Pete but what happens is that all these non-Petes keep jumping out at him and then scuttling away again into the background. Eurika says JPS. There you have it - little negatitties. Now if you agree with him he takes you down the road of fullblown unadulterated nothingness. So the question is, do we agree with him? Well the dude says yes and no, but mostly no.

        Of course we've probably all had a similar experience, you know waiting for your bowling partner to show and somebody comes along, you think it's him - it isn't. But hey - aren't we talking about imagination here (which, if my memory serves me, JPS had a lot to say about in a different place.!!!) But let me construct an alternative scenario.
        I'm walking round my old hometown recently - and you know, its not full of negatitties: Sneaky Pete's who I expect to be there - a suffusion of absences. No, it's full of somethings. I walk along the beach and see it as it was twenty years ago, friends swimming in the sea. I visit an old bar we used to go to. And whatdoyouknow, there's that table where we used to sit, and I see Adam telling jokes, Dave and Blair arguing, Jimmy the barman calling time. Is these not experiences that we can all identify with - moreso than the absences?
        In my experience these positive apparitions - these presences to the imaginative consiousness - are infinitely more pervasive than the absences, those non-Sneaky Petes that JPS talks about and who are so important for his case.

        Consciousness for the dude is to the largest extent made up of presences - of Somethingness.

        My question is:

        given the fact that the next move that JPS makes is to get us to try to get us to accept the existence of fullblown Nothingness,

        and given the fact that he has to get us to accept the existence of little Nothings like non-Sneaky Pete as a prerequisite before going on to Nothingness,

        and given the fact that although I have argued that although little Nothings do exist, they are insignificant in comparison to the rich array of Somethings encountered in the human world -

        doesn't JPS's case break down in the very first chapter proper???

        Time for another White Russian and a spot of bowling.

        El Dudino


        ---------------------------------
        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • bhadrashettynagaraj
        hi nobodies, we all pretend to be so very important.it is not even bullshit. all our endeavours , i mean of all philosophers and scientist , are futile
        Message 3 of 19 , Jan 8, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          hi nobodies, we all pretend to be so very important.it is not even bullshit. all our endeavours , i mean of all philosophers and scientist , are futile exercises of no consequences. if whole of man kind or even all the life on this cosmic prison cell earth gets extinguished,, still this earth orbits around as usual. nothing is lost in the cosmic sense if there is one. absolutely nothing is lost. the very question of finding meaning to this life is WRONG!. eat . fuck , drink ,defying the fear of death.nothingness gets scared if ypu do so , if it has consciousness,of which i am not sure. Beg, borrow or steal to enjoy. sensual pleasure is the only pleasant and existential reality. we shall defy all set norms for a blast leading to meaning , if any, or to maximum pleasures as long as we lost. damn searches. they give us a false sense of intelligence. TO HELL WITH ALL DISCOURSES INCLUDING THIS!>

          dude Lebowsky <lebowskydude@...> wrote: Hi dudes,

          Since I joined the group my mailbox has been inundated by a vast accumulation of nothingness, not little Swiss-cheesy negatitties - you know, those islands of non-being within being - but real mindblowing nothingness... Must be a wonderful example of all you dudes out there exercising your freedom...

          Well all you useless passions, the dude has been thinking about nothingness and has come to the conclusion that old JPS was off beam with his claim that nothingness lies coiled at the heart of Being of the For-Itself variety(BFI). I reckon that this, although partly true, is far from the major part of the BFI.

          In order to convince us of his description of being-in-the-world, JPS has to get us to accept that we are riddled with these nullo-zeros that he calls negatitties.
          Now a key example is when he goes into the cafe looking for Sneaky Pete but what happens is that all these non-Petes keep jumping out at him and then scuttling away again into the background. Eurika says JPS. There you have it - little negatitties. Now if you agree with him he takes you down the road of fullblown unadulterated nothingness. So the question is, do we agree with him? Well the dude says yes and no, but mostly no.

          Of course we've probably all had a similar experience, you know waiting for your bowling partner to show and somebody comes along, you think it's him - it isn't. But hey - aren't we talking about imagination here (which, if my memory serves me, JPS had a lot to say about in a different place.!!!) But let me construct an alternative scenario.
          I'm walking round my old hometown recently - and you know, its not full of negatitties: Sneaky Pete's who I expect to be there - a suffusion of absences. No, it's full of somethings. I walk along the beach and see it as it was twenty years ago, friends swimming in the sea. I visit an old bar we used to go to. And whatdoyouknow, there's that table where we used to sit, and I see Adam telling jokes, Dave and Blair arguing, Jimmy the barman calling time. Is these not experiences that we can all identify with - moreso than the absences?
          In my experience these positive apparitions - these presences to the imaginative consiousness - are infinitely more pervasive than the absences, those non-Sneaky Petes that JPS talks about and who are so important for his case.

          Consciousness for the dude is to the largest extent made up of presences - of Somethingness.

          My question is:

          given the fact that the next move that JPS makes is to get us to try to get us to accept the existence of fullblown Nothingness,

          and given the fact that he has to get us to accept the existence of little Nothings like non-Sneaky Pete as a prerequisite before going on to Nothingness,

          and given the fact that although I have argued that although little Nothings do exist, they are insignificant in comparison to the rich array of Somethings encountered in the human world -

          doesn't JPS's case break down in the very first chapter proper???

          Time for another White Russian and a spot of bowling.

          El Dudino

          ---------------------------------
          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

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






          ---------------------------------
          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Eric S
          Dude, You abide! I thought it was a very funny posting and it was nice to hear somebody say something interesting after months of relative silence. (I m
          Message 4 of 19 , Jan 9, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Dude,

            You abide!

            I thought it was a very funny posting and it was nice
            to hear somebody say something interesting after
            months of relative silence. (I'm ignoring rants that
            appear to have been emitted from planets beyond this
            galaxy.)

            Nothingness is one of those things, I agree, that's
            hard to justify in the existential project because as
            those coffee sipping logical positivist dudes liked to
            say, parsing on their slide rules and truth tables,
            nothing always ends up by becoming a quasi-something
            in the logical sense. About nothing there is really
            nothing we can say or what is said is logically only
            non-sense. Quoth the Ludwig dude prophet: "Whereof we
            cannot not speak, thereof we must be silent."

            Nietzsche speaks of staring in the abyss until the
            abyss looks back at you, but he doesn't really explain
            anatomically the paradox of how the nothingness of the
            abyss could come to have ocular vision in the first
            place.

            What Heidegger seems to do is to take our fear of
            death, that anxiety that one day we will all go into
            the dark, and call it nothing, the big nothing, asking
            why there is even being at all and not rather this
            nothing.

            There is something rather cosmic about Heidegger's
            concept of nothingness. A big shadowy bogeyman who
            haunts out dreams.

            Sartre, however, takes this nothing inside,
            domesticates it, turns it into a house pet, like a
            Cheshire cat who's very grin hides the void.

            I also think he was drawing on Hegel who saw in
            nothing the corrosive power of thought, the negation
            of negation, that corrosive epistemology that breaks
            with the immediate and leads us dialectically onto the
            lonely road to the Absolute during the night of the
            soul in which all cats (even Cheshires!) are black.

            As a character in one of Shaw's plays puts it, "Some
            people look at what is and ask why? I look at what
            never was and ask why not?"

            Regardless of the logical quandaries around
            nothingness, I still think that by deterritorializing
            the concept form its locus in the kingdom of death and
            merging it with Hegel in terms of both history and the
            banal quotidian, Sartre radicalizes freedom in a way
            that hasn't been done since Lucretius spoke of the
            infamous swerve in the context of atoms and the empty
            void.

            One of the things that strikes me most about the early
            Sartre, which isn't usually pointed out, is the
            emphasis he places on the imagination. Before he
            wrote B&N he wrote two books on the imagination, which
            are translated into English as "Imagination: A
            Psychological Critique" and "The Imaginary." So for
            the early Sartre, imagination is very important.

            Of course, What is the imagination if not this very
            power of nothingness that Sartre describes, that
            corrosive force that dissolves life like bad Acid. As
            the Bard Dude has put it:

            "the lunatic, the lover, and the poet
            Are of imagination all compact:
            One sees more devils than vast hell can hold,
            That is, the madman: the lover, all as frantic,
            Sees Helen's beauty in a brow of Egypt:
            The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
            Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to
            heaven;
            And as imagination bodies forth
            The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen
            Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
            A local habitation and a name."

            But the real question I wanted to ask you is this. As
            you stand in the lane, preparing to bowl a strike,
            don't you ever feel anguish that you'll just roll a
            gutter ball instead? And what is this Gutter Ball
            Angst, if not the nothingness that eats at us like a
            worm. For the gutter is the big zero on the scorecard
            of life that makes our bowling - our desire to score
            the ultimate turkey - a useless passion. A useless
            passion only slightly assuaged by the endless
            quantities of beer.

            For as the Houseman Dude puts it so profoundly,
            especially for us Atheist Dudes who, leaving the 7-11
            at night in our P.J.'s, look up at the sky and can
            only see the Big Zippo:

            "Malt does more than Milton can to justify God's ways
            to man."

            eric

            --- dude Lebowsky <lebowskydude@...> wrote:

            > Hi dudes,
            >
            > Since I joined the group my mailbox has been
            > inundated by a vast accumulation of nothingness, not
            > little Swiss-cheesy negatitties - you know, those
            > islands of non-being within being - but real
            > mindblowing nothingness... Must be a wonderful
            > example of all you dudes out there exercising your
            > freedom...
            >
            > Well all you useless passions, the dude has been
            > thinking about nothingness and has come to the
            > conclusion that old JPS was off beam with his claim
            > that nothingness lies coiled at the heart of Being
            > of the For-Itself variety(BFI). I reckon that this,
            > although partly true, is far from the major part of
            > the BFI.
            >
            > In order to convince us of his description of
            > being-in-the-world, JPS has to get us to accept that
            > we are riddled with these nullo-zeros that he calls
            > negatitties.
            > Now a key example is when he goes into the cafe
            > looking for Sneaky Pete but what happens is that all
            > these non-Petes keep jumping out at him and then
            > scuttling away again into the background. Eurika
            > says JPS. There you have it - little negatitties.
            > Now if you agree with him he takes you down the road
            > of fullblown unadulterated nothingness. So the
            > question is, do we agree with him? Well the dude
            > says yes and no, but mostly no.
            >
            > Of course we've probably all had a similar
            > experience, you know waiting for your bowling
            > partner to show and somebody comes along, you think
            > it's him - it isn't. But hey - aren't we talking
            > about imagination here (which, if my memory serves
            > me, JPS had a lot to say about in a different
            > place.!!!) But let me construct an alternative
            > scenario.
            > I'm walking round my old hometown recently - and
            > you know, its not full of negatitties: Sneaky Pete's
            > who I expect to be there - a suffusion of absences.
            > No, it's full of somethings. I walk along the beach
            > and see it as it was twenty years ago, friends
            > swimming in the sea. I visit an old bar we used to
            > go to. And whatdoyouknow, there's that table where
            > we used to sit, and I see Adam telling jokes, Dave
            > and Blair arguing, Jimmy the barman calling time. Is
            > these not experiences that we can all identify with
            > - moreso than the absences?
            > In my experience these positive apparitions -
            > these presences to the imaginative consiousness -
            > are infinitely more pervasive than the absences,
            > those non-Sneaky Petes that JPS talks about and who
            > are so important for his case.
            >
            > Consciousness for the dude is to the largest
            > extent made up of presences - of Somethingness.
            >
            > My question is:
            >
            > given the fact that the next move that JPS makes
            > is to get us to try to get us to accept the
            > existence of fullblown Nothingness,
            >
            > and given the fact that he has to get us to accept
            > the existence of little Nothings like non-Sneaky
            > Pete as a prerequisite before going on to
            > Nothingness,
            >
            > and given the fact that although I have argued
            > that although little Nothings do exist, they are
            > insignificant in comparison to the rich array of
            > Somethings encountered in the human world -
            >
            > doesn't JPS's case break down in the very first
            > chapter proper???
            >
            > Time for another White Russian and a spot of
            > bowling.
            >
            > El Dudino
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with
            > Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been
            > removed]
            >
            >
          • dude Lebowsky
            Hi Bhadi, Just as the dude predicted. Little signs of somethingness - positivity appearing Bhadi I think we re on the same wavelength man - I quote: the very
            Message 5 of 19 , Jan 9, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Bhadi,
              Just as the dude predicted. Little signs of somethingness - positivity appearing

              Bhadi I think we're on the same wavelength man - I quote:

              "the very question of finding meaning to this life is WRONG!. eat . fuck , drink ,defying the fear of death"
              Not so sure about the fear of death, but the rest is good. Sartre thought so anyway. (Little genuflection to the very strict Tommy the B who likes a mention of Sartre in every post. Been doin' my homework Tommy my man!!!)

              An Bhadi boy, I most sincerely thank you for answering all those questions I forgot to ask. It sort of gets the mental juices flowing in a very existential-marxist way. I take it you're a fan of Harold Pinter and the post moderns - dis course was better than the last course!!!!

              But in the best Jeremy Paxton manner I do have to come back to my original question. Don't you think that JPS got it wrong with the negatitties. That in fact the negatitties should be posititties - and hence his whole case breaks down before it really gets started.

              Mucho luck on your solipsistic ride on the escalator to heaven (Obscure reference to one of your early memorable posts.)

              His dudeship


              hi nobodies, we all pretend to be so very important.it is not even bullshit. all our endeavours , i mean of all philosophers and scientist , are futile exercises of no consequences. if whole of man kind or even all the life on this cosmic prison cell earth gets extinguished,, still this earth orbits around as usual. nothing is lost in the cosmic sense if there is one. absolutely nothing is lost. the very question of finding meaning to this life is WRONG!. eat . fuck , drink ,defying the fear of death.nothingness gets scared if ypu do so , if it has consciousness,of which i am not sure. Beg, borrow or steal to enjoy. sensual pleasure is the only pleasant and existential reality. we shall defy all set norms for a blast leading to meaning , if any, or to maximum pleasures as long as we lost. damn searches. they give us a false sense of intelligence. TO HELL WITH ALL DISCOURSES INCLUDING THIS!>



              ---------------------------------
              Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Elaine
              Hi (((((((((((((((((Everyone)))))))))))))))), Have been absent for a while, first while working on and completing my thesis and then having a few months rest,
              Message 6 of 19 , Jan 9, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi (((((((((((((((((Everyone)))))))))))))))),

                Have been absent for a while, first while working on and completing my thesis and
                then having a few months rest, but now it is time to get "thinking"
                again.

                On the subject of Somethingness and Nothingness - Have had a
                few days in hell with long lost relatives visiting from the UK - a Mother (54 years)
                and two twin daughters (28 years). It was rather like Sartre's "No Exit", hell accentuated
                by their "continual need" to be drunk. Their sense of "desperate need" for "something" was overwhelming.
                They had a "desperate need" to eat, fuck, be drunk and suppress their absolute "fear" of "being"
                man-less, sexually undesirable, old, unloved and unwanted. In otherwords their overwhelming "fear
                of nothingness". However, as the Budda says "Nothingness is not no-thing". While ever there is "desperate need"
                for "something or Somethingness" there is an overwhelming "Sense of Nothingness". Human beings are such strange creatures.
                The vast majority struggle to escape their "Being". They completely fail to "BE".

                Love & Massive Hugs Always
                Elaine



                ----- Original Message -----
                From: dude Lebowsky
                To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:48 AM
                Subject: Re: [Sartre] Somethingness


                Hi Bhadi,
                Just as the dude predicted. Little signs of somethingness - positivity appearing

                Bhadi I think we're on the same wavelength man - I quote:

                "the very question of finding meaning to this life is WRONG!. eat . fuck , drink ,defying the fear of death"
                Not so sure about the fear of death, but the rest is good. Sartre thought so anyway. (Little genuflection to the very strict Tommy the B who likes a mention of Sartre in every post. Been doin' my homework Tommy my man!!!)

                An Bhadi boy, I most sincerely thank you for answering all those questions I forgot to ask. It sort of gets the mental juices flowing in a very existential-marxist way. I take it you're a fan of Harold Pinter and the post moderns - dis course was better than the last course!!!!

                But in the best Jeremy Paxton manner I do have to come back to my original question. Don't you think that JPS got it wrong with the negatitties. That in fact the negatitties should be posititties - and hence his whole case breaks down before it really gets started.

                Mucho luck on your solipsistic ride on the escalator to heaven (Obscure reference to one of your early memorable posts.)

                His dudeship


                hi nobodies, we all pretend to be so very important.it is not even bullshit. all our endeavours , i mean of all philosophers and scientist , are futile exercises of no consequences. if whole of man kind or even all the life on this cosmic prison cell earth gets extinguished,, still this earth orbits around as usual. nothing is lost in the cosmic sense if there is one. absolutely nothing is lost. the very question of finding meaning to this life is WRONG!. eat . fuck , drink ,defying the fear of death.nothingness gets scared if ypu do so , if it has consciousness,of which i am not sure. Beg, borrow or steal to enjoy. sensual pleasure is the only pleasant and existential reality. we shall defy all set norms for a blast leading to meaning , if any, or to maximum pleasures as long as we lost. damn searches. they give us a false sense of intelligence. TO HELL WITH ALL DISCOURSES INCLUDING THIS!>

                ---------------------------------
                Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

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





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • sava
                Hi, been absent from discussion, too. And I think the reason is that I find it much more interesting to either read the Metaphysics of Aristotle, or blog
                Message 7 of 19 , Jan 9, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi,

                  been absent from discussion, too. And I think the
                  reason is that I find it much more interesting to
                  either read the Metaphysics of Aristotle, or blog
                  comments on the Web about the upcoming U.S. election,
                  than the posts of this group. At least those
                  non-philosophical people out there posting comments
                  are funny and very often to the point.

                  But in the light of the upcoming elections, I have
                  been thinking about Sartre's freedom, Baudrillard's
                  simulacra, and how the pollsters got it wrong with NH.

                  I know Sartre wrote once an article: Elections, pieges
                  a cons [Elections, trap for dickheads], and in French
                  it even rimes. And it is generally true. It was
                  specifically true for the last French presidential
                  elections, and I should know better than get trapped
                  like a dickhead by the U.S. media buzz. But this is
                  quite an interesting election process this time
                  around, and if I am having some fun, what the heck,
                  I'm willing to pass for a dickhead.

                  Now the thing that is bothering me is not how come
                  pollsters got it wrong with NH, but how can pollsters
                  ever get it right at all? And the puzzle is, they
                  usually do. When I first got interested in political
                  processes, I was a new-born sartrean, so to speak. I
                  firmly believed in individual freedom. And the thing
                  that amazed me the most was how some people, crunching
                  up the numbers from statistics taken from a sample
                  group of 1000 people could predict what millions of
                  others could do. First time I heard a polling
                  prediction, I thought they were certainly wrong.
                  Turned out, they were right. I wasnt yet familiar with
                  the phenomena of zip code and demographics.

                  Been thinking about Baudrillard lately. There
                  something he says I can't get it out my mind, to
                  paraphrase and translate, it goes: it is not any
                  longer the map that conforms to the terrain, it is the
                  terrain that must conform to the map.

                  Do we have the immpression like the world is getting
                  smaller and smaller? I think to a certain degree this
                  is also attributable not just to the increase of
                  communications, but also to the simulacra effect that
                  Baudrillard talks about. Finally, like in the Matrix,
                  the increase in communications may well end up in a
                  macro-simulative space-time in which we wont even have
                  to move from our chair (like Neo in the movie) to
                  travel from one place to another (and even dodge
                  bullets if need be...)

                  Seen in this perspective, then it is really a wonder
                  how the pollsters got it wrong this time around. But
                  like with my car navigational system, the wrong
                  direction may well not be attributable to a change of
                  terrain, but merely to a slight delay in updating the maps.




                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Be a better friend, newshound, and
                  know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                • Eric S
                  sava, Interesting comments about the election and Baudrillard. I ve been scratching my head over what happened in NH as well. It certainly overturned a lot of
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jan 10, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    sava,

                    Interesting comments about the election and
                    Baudrillard.

                    I've been scratching my head over what happened in NH
                    as well. It certainly overturned a lot of the
                    assumptions being made. And while I agree the media
                    over here is extremely clueless, I'm not sure this one
                    could be blamed entirely on the media. Something else
                    was going on.

                    Within the Clinton camp, her own advisors expected her
                    to lose and were busy trying to damp down expectations
                    and practice damage control. In many ways, they were
                    as surprised by the outcome as everyone else.

                    The impression I get of Baudrillard isn't so much a
                    map-territory thing, but more the sense that there's
                    only maps of maps in a kind of infinite regress. Like
                    Gertrude Stein, he believed there's no there there.

                    Certainly, you see a lot of this played out in the
                    media. I don't know if you're familiar with the Daily
                    Show or not, but one of their favorite gags when a
                    typical banal crisis occurs is to run a montage of
                    different news shows, each one repeating basically the
                    same thing over and over, like an echo chamber. This
                    can be very humorous!

                    For example, I strongly remember the past presidential
                    election, watching John Dean give his speech after
                    losing in Iowa. If you watched the entire speech in
                    context, there was a kind of excited frenzy, but
                    nothing that really that big a deal. What the media
                    did was to extract the so-called scream like a
                    isolated sound bite and then play this over and over
                    again until Dean lost both his credibility and any
                    chances he might have had to win the election. I also
                    believe this was done quite deliberately as a
                    political effort on their part because the media at
                    the time was very afraid of what Dean represented. A
                    less controllable factor.

                    For what it is worth, something similar seemed to
                    happen this time once again with Hilary's now-famous
                    tearing-up moment. The echo chamber went into high
                    gear on this one.

                    However, I also think something else is going on that
                    partially explains the disconnect between the polls
                    and the outcome.

                    Sartre talked about the Fused Group. What we are
                    seeing today, I believe, is what might be called the
                    Volatile Group. The sense of crisis has become so
                    pronounced in this country that people have become
                    very agitated and unsure of what to do. It is a little
                    like Browning motion in which the molecules radically
                    disperse and their effect is to make the entire system
                    much more indeterminate. How do you poll a blur?

                    This is combined with a growing complexification
                    within the groups themselves. Once there were
                    political parties. Now there are only splinter groups.
                    You see this especially in the Republican Party,
                    which is increasingly fragmenting among religious
                    conservatives, ideological libertarians and Wall
                    Street Corporate conservatives. We could conceivably
                    have three separate Republican candidates win in the
                    next three states.

                    This kind of volatile splintering leads the mapmaker
                    to despair. How can you ever hope to map a
                    non-Euclidean space of n dimensions taht is
                    perpetually morphing?

                    As the world complexifies and becomes more disperse
                    there are more and more maps, each of which covers
                    less and less ground. The logical outcome of this is
                    an infinity of maps, each one about nothing.

                    eric



                    --- sava <cepav0@...> wrote:

                    >
                    > Hi,
                    >
                    > been absent from discussion, too. And I think the
                    > reason is that I find it much more interesting to
                    > either read the Metaphysics of Aristotle, or blog
                    > comments on the Web about the upcoming U.S.
                    > election,
                    > than the posts of this group. At least those
                    > non-philosophical people out there posting comments
                    > are funny and very often to the point.
                    >
                    > But in the light of the upcoming elections, I have
                    > been thinking about Sartre's freedom, Baudrillard's
                    > simulacra, and how the pollsters got it wrong with
                    > NH.
                    >
                    > I know Sartre wrote once an article: Elections,
                    > pieges
                    > a cons [Elections, trap for dickheads], and in
                    > French
                    > it even rimes. And it is generally true. It was
                    > specifically true for the last French presidential
                    > elections, and I should know better than get trapped
                    > like a dickhead by the U.S. media buzz. But this is
                    > quite an interesting election process this time
                    > around, and if I am having some fun, what the heck,
                    > I'm willing to pass for a dickhead.
                    >
                    > Now the thing that is bothering me is not how come
                    > pollsters got it wrong with NH, but how can
                    > pollsters
                    > ever get it right at all? And the puzzle is, they
                    > usually do. When I first got interested in political
                    > processes, I was a new-born sartrean, so to speak. I
                    > firmly believed in individual freedom. And the thing
                    > that amazed me the most was how some people,
                    > crunching
                    > up the numbers from statistics taken from a sample
                    > group of 1000 people could predict what millions of
                    > others could do. First time I heard a polling
                    > prediction, I thought they were certainly wrong.
                    > Turned out, they were right. I wasnt yet familiar
                    > with
                    > the phenomena of zip code and demographics.
                    >
                    > Been thinking about Baudrillard lately. There
                    > something he says I can't get it out my mind, to
                    > paraphrase and translate, it goes: it is not any
                    > longer the map that conforms to the terrain, it is
                    > the
                    > terrain that must conform to the map.
                    >
                    > Do we have the immpression like the world is getting
                    > smaller and smaller? I think to a certain degree
                    > this
                    > is also attributable not just to the increase of
                    > communications, but also to the simulacra effect
                    > that
                    > Baudrillard talks about. Finally, like in the
                    > Matrix,
                    > the increase in communications may well end up in a
                    > macro-simulative space-time in which we wont even
                    > have
                    > to move from our chair (like Neo in the movie) to
                    > travel from one place to another (and even dodge
                    > bullets if need be...)
                    >
                    > Seen in this perspective, then it is really a wonder
                    > how the pollsters got it wrong this time around. But
                    > like with my car navigational system, the wrong
                    > direction may well not be attributable to a change
                    > of
                    > terrain, but merely to a slight delay in updating
                    > the maps.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                    > Be a better friend, newshound, and
                    > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                    >
                    http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • prem_amityb2000
                    ... Hi Jaffar i think that nothingness doesn t mean nothing of being but sarte want to explain the existence of nothingness he try to establish the existence
                    Message 9 of 19 , Feb 13, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "S.M.Jaffar" <jaffar_sm@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > This is where the philosophy of sartre started.Could any person
                      > clearly explain what does it mean.S.M.Jaffar

                      Hi Jaffar i think that nothingness doesn't mean nothing of being but
                      sarte want to explain the existence of nothingness
                      he try to establish the existence of nothingness as we accept the
                      existence of being in this universe.

                      According to me being and nothingnees exist simultanenously but we
                      live in being as we are the being part of the universe but nothing
                      part also exist in the nothingness.
                    • nisha tyagi
                      Being is to be perceived.For, it has phenomenal existence. No thing is to be realised.For.... To: Sartre@yahoogroups.comFrom:
                      Message 10 of 19 , Feb 13, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        'Being' is to be perceived.For, it has phenomenal existence.
                        'No''thing' is to be realised.For....


                        To: Sartre@yahoogroups.comFrom: prem_amityb2000@...: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:59:48 +0000Subject: [Sartre] Re: nothingness




                        --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "S.M.Jaffar" <jaffar_sm@...> wrote:>> This is where the philosophy of sartre started.Could any person > clearly explain what does it mean.S.M.JaffarHi Jaffar i think that nothingness doesn't mean nothing of being but sarte want to explain the existence of nothingness he try to establish the existence of nothingness as we accept the existence of being in this universe.According to me being and nothingnees exist simultanenously but we live in being as we are the being part of the universe but nothing part also exist in the nothingness.






                        _________________________________________________________________
                        Tried the new MSN Messenger? It�s cool! Download now.
                        http://messenger.msn.com/Download/Default.aspx?mkt=en-in

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • bhadrashettynagaraj
                        hi tyagi, ur mail. Beingness is phenomenal; in the sense , as I understand, it is a transformation. u r der.... u r not der...that is between these 2 points
                        Message 11 of 19 , Feb 14, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          hi tyagi, ur mail. Beingness is phenomenal; in the sense , as I understand, it is a transformation. u r der.... u r not der...that is between these 2 points what transforms is a phenomeon. we may be able 2 know r may not be as to the transformations beyond and behind these 2 points.Hence the concept of Nothingness. nothing is not No Thing. It is without a thing . thing is not a thing ...it is just a transformation. Then what is it that has been transforming?.Again it is NOTHING in its beingness. and the becomingness is nonstop. hence no beingness beyond becomingness.Ok?

                          nisha tyagi <drnishatyagi@...> wrote:
                          'Being' is to be perceived.For, it has phenomenal existence.
                          'No''thing' is to be realised.For....


                          To: Sartre@yahoogroups.comFrom: prem_amityb2000@...: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:59:48 +0000Subject: [Sartre] Re: nothingness




                          --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "S.M.Jaffar" wrote:>> This is where the philosophy of sartre started.Could any person > clearly explain what does it mean.S.M.JaffarHi Jaffar i think that nothingness doesn't mean nothing of being but sarte want to explain the existence of nothingness he try to establish the existence of nothingness as we accept the existence of being in this universe.According to me being and nothingnees exist simultanenously but we live in being as we are the being part of the universe but nothing part also exist in the nothingness.






                          _________________________________________________________________
                          Tried the new MSN Messenger? It’s cool! Download now.
                          http://messenger.msn.com/Download/Default.aspx?mkt=en-in

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



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

                          Yahoo! Groups Links






                          ---------------------------------
                          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • prem prakash
                          Hi, it is really nice to know abt concept of transformation u have mentioned,but one questioned is to be answered What is transforming What happned to this
                          Message 12 of 19 , Feb 14, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi, it is really nice to know abt concept of transformation u have
                            mentioned,but one questioned is to be answered" What is transforming"

                            What happned to this transformation when it not associate itself with
                            being and nothingness.

                            Is transformation need either of two or it the phenomenon that exist
                            without these?

                            According to me being and nothingness is part of a single object for
                            example- earth-you not able see the whole earth by standing at one point
                            but when u move u able to see other part but to see whole part is not
                            possible in the same way being and nothingness is part of each other but
                            diffcult to visualize the same from a point of undersatanding.This point
                            of undersatanding may some time contain both but not in full, so if the
                            movement is transformation then it is possible that by leaving one we
                            are getting closer of another one.

                            or we have come out from the dimension restriction to visualise the
                            being and nothingness in the whole.


                            --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, bhadrashettynagaraj
                            <nagarajbhadrashetty@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > hi tyagi, ur mail. Beingness is phenomenal; in the sense , as I
                            understand, it is a transformation. u r der.... u r not der...that is
                            between these 2 points what transforms is a phenomeon. we may be able 2
                            know r may not be as to the transformations beyond and behind these 2
                            points.Hence the concept of Nothingness. nothing is not No Thing. It is
                            without a thing . thing is not a thing ...it is just a transformation.
                            Then what is it that has been transforming?.Again it is NOTHING in its
                            beingness. and the becomingness is nonstop. hence no beingness beyond
                            becomingness.Ok?
                            >
                            > nisha tyagi drnishatyagi@... wrote:
                            > 'Being' is to be perceived.For, it has phenomenal existence.
                            > 'No''thing' is to be realised.For....
                            >
                            >
                            > To: Sartre@...: prem_amityb2000@...: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:59:48
                            +0000Subject: [Sartre] Re: nothingness
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "S.M.Jaffar" wrote:>> This is where the
                            philosophy of sartre started.Could any person > clearly explain what
                            does it mean.S.M.JaffarHi Jaffar i think that nothingness doesn't mean
                            nothing of being but sarte want to explain the existence of nothingness
                            he try to establish the existence of nothingness as we accept the
                            existence of being in this universe.According to me being and
                            nothingnees exist simultanenously but we live in being as we are the
                            being part of the universe but nothing part also exist in the
                            nothingness.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > _________________________________________________________________
                            > Tried the new MSN Messenger? It's cool! Download now.
                            > http://messenger.msn.com/Download/Default.aspx?mkt=en-in
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------
                            > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
                            it now.
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • nisha tyagi
                            IS THIS WHAT MR. NAGARAJ TRYING TO SAY? I m failing to understand the logic behind the argument proving becomingness BEINGNESS is phenomenal is transformation
                            Message 13 of 19 , Feb 14, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              IS THIS WHAT MR. NAGARAJ TRYING TO SAY?
                              I m failing to understand the logic behind the argument proving becomingness
                              BEINGNESS
                              is phenomenal
                              is transformation
                              ( may be known ) (may not be known)
                              existence nonexistence
                              u r there u r not there
                              The argument
                              beingness is phenomenal , is transformation into Becomingness (which is non stop)
                              beingness is nothingness;
                              Hence no beingness beyond becomingness

                              IS BEING AN ATTRIBUTE?


                              To: Sartre@yahoogroups.comFrom: nagarajbhadrashetty@...: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:36:48 -0800Subject: RE: [Sartre] Re: nothingness




                              hi tyagi, ur mail. Beingness is phenomenal; in the sense , as I understand, it is a transformation. u r der.... u r not der...that is between these 2 points what transforms is a phenomeon. we may be able 2 know r may not be as to the transformations beyond and behind these 2 points.Hence the concept of Nothingness. nothing is not No Thing. It is without a thing . thing is not a thing ...it is just a transformation. Then what is it that has been transforming?.Again it is NOTHING in its beingness. and the becomingness is nonstop. hence no beingness beyond becomingness.Ok? nisha tyagi <drnishatyagi@...> wrote: 'Being' is to be perceived.For, it has phenomenal existence.'No''thing' is to be realised.For....To: Sartre@yahoogroups.comFrom: prem_amityb2000@...: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:59:48 +0000Subject: [Sartre] Re: nothingness--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "S.M.Jaffar" wrote:>> This is where the philosophy of sartre started.Could any person > clearly explain what does it mean.S.M.JaffarHi Jaffar i think that nothingness doesn't mean nothing of being but sarte want to explain the existence of nothingness he try to establish the existence of nothingness as we accept the existence of being in this universe.According to me being and nothingnees exist simultanenously but we live in being as we are the being part of the universe but nothing part also exist in the nothingness. __________________________________________________________Tried the new MSN Messenger? It�s cool! Download now.http://messenger.msn.com/Download/Default.aspx?mkt=en-in[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links---------------------------------Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                              _________________________________________________________________
                              Post free property ads on Yello Classifieds now! www.yello.in
                              http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=220

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • bhadrashettynagaraj
                              yes, nisha, in my opinion Beingness is attrbute.for that series of attributions that include mass, shape,size. besides those attributes which provide
                              Message 14 of 19 , Feb 16, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                yes, nisha, in my opinion Beingness is attrbute.for that series of attributions that include mass, shape,size. besides those attributes which provide existencial affirmation or its sense of, that is attributeaof quality or qualities which are detailed in the book LILA . beyond quality there is nothing.You name any thing , living or non...it is in essence recognised by its quality.Plate is not the dish.Dish is not the food; Food is its taste by experince , if there is an experincer...or just a quality in itself by itself and not for itself.Metaphysics of quality is not just in anthropic conext...it includes all that appears to be there and not there at all beyond its quality.why we are denied this knowledge is a big question.Stomch digests food of several variety; if it start digesting itself ; it gets digested ending all Digested Digesting,digeter.it may be like Salty toy entering the sea to find its deapth.Wqell, i started to affirm your doubtfull assertion as to
                                attributes are the essnce of existence.Yes... in my understanding as of now and here.Nice attempting to make an understanding of self and behind and beyond that.Bye for now...

                                nisha tyagi <drnishatyagi@...> wrote:
                                IS THIS WHAT MR. NAGARAJ TRYING TO SAY?
                                I m failing to understand the logic behind the argument proving becomingness
                                BEINGNESS
                                is phenomenal
                                is transformation
                                ( may be known ) (may not be known)
                                existence nonexistence
                                u r there u r not there
                                The argument
                                beingness is phenomenal , is transformation into Becomingness (which is non stop)
                                beingness is nothingness;
                                Hence no beingness beyond becomingness

                                IS BEING AN ATTRIBUTE?


                                To: Sartre@yahoogroups.comFrom: nagarajbhadrashetty@...: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:36:48 -0800Subject: RE: [Sartre] Re: nothingness




                                hi tyagi, ur mail. Beingness is phenomenal; in the sense , as I understand, it is a transformation. u r der.... u r not der...that is between these 2 points what transforms is a phenomeon. we may be able 2 know r may not be as to the transformations beyond and behind these 2 points.Hence the concept of Nothingness. nothing is not No Thing. It is without a thing . thing is not a thing ...it is just a transformation. Then what is it that has been transforming?.Again it is NOTHING in its beingness. and the becomingness is nonstop. hence no beingness beyond becomingness.Ok? nisha tyagi wrote: 'Being' is to be perceived.For, it has phenomenal existence.'No''thing' is to be realised.For....To: Sartre@yahoogroups.comFrom: prem_amityb2000@...: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:59:48 +0000Subject: [Sartre] Re: nothingness--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "S.M.Jaffar" wrote:>> This is where the philosophy of sartre started.Could any person > clearly explain what does it mean.S.M.JaffarHi
                                Jaffar i think that nothingness doesn't mean nothing of being but sarte want to explain the existence of nothingness he try to establish the existence of nothingness as we accept the existence of being in this universe.According to me being and nothingnees exist simultanenously but we live in being as we are the being part of the universe but nothing part also exist in the nothingness. __________________________________________________________Tried the new MSN Messenger? It’s cool! Download now.http://messenger.msn.com/Download/Default.aspx?mkt=en-in[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links---------------------------------Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                                _________________________________________________________________
                                Post free property ads on Yello Classifieds now! www.yello.in
                                http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=220

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



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

                                Yahoo! Groups Links








                                ---------------------------------
                                Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • prem prakash
                                Hi, Is being and nothingness is attrbute or something else ok try to find out some other ground on which the answer is some what more clear. Is being is
                                Message 15 of 19 , Feb 16, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi,
                                  Is being and nothingness is attrbute or something else
                                  ok try to find out some other ground on which the answer is some what
                                  more clear.
                                  Is being is existence or nothingness not have?
                                  I think being is not an attribute because from where these attributes
                                  come from or they are self made to govern or the process of
                                  transformation create attributes which contain meaning 4 itself.
                                  Being and nothingness is something different but side of same coin.If
                                  u stand near a gr8 mountain than only guess what is behind but when u
                                  climb the peak u know waht is there but our inability or lack reason
                                  of sufficient logic to cross it and know the fact.
                                  This is why we feel that there is something but we only one weapon
                                  that is guess by different logic to climb but that logic also solidify
                                  itself so that every one climb afterthat which is lacking til now.
                                • prasun chatterjee
                                    Whatever we think we must agree that we exist. Cogito ergo sum. Our existance defines our thoughts. We may quote Dostovoyeski If I had the power not to be
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Mar 1, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                     
                                    Whatever we think we must agree that we exist. Cogito ergo sum.
                                    Our existance defines our thoughts. We may quote Dostovoyeski" If I had the power not to be born in this world, I would not have probably agreed to such an existance in these ridiculuous terms". This expression signifies a wide term.I'm an Indian, we began thinking a long ago about our true existance, we commenced to think about our importance of being in this world.Being is there, nothingness go side by side.This is an absurdity but this is the truth.



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Mollie E Owens (meowens)
                                    What do you mean when you say: Our existence defines our thoughts ? Could it possibly be the other way around assuming that we were pre-determined to have
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Mar 1, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      What do you mean when you say: "Our existence defines our thoughts"? Could it possibly be the other way around assuming that we were pre-determined to have such thoughts?
                                      ________________________________
                                      From: Sartre@yahoogroups.com [Sartre@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of prasun chatterjee [pras04@...]
                                      Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 9:43 AM
                                      To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: RE: [Sartre] Re: nothingness


                                      Whatever we think we must agree that we exist. Cogito ergo sum.
                                      Our existance defines our thoughts. We may quote Dostovoyeski" If I had the power not to be born in this world, I would not have probably agreed to such an existance in these ridiculuous terms". This expression signifies a wide term.I'm an Indian, we began thinking a long ago about our true existance, we commenced to think about our importance of being in this world.Being is there, nothingness go side by side.This is an absurdity but this is the truth.

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





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