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

Re: [Sartre] something to think about

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 of 19 , Feb 13 9:59 AM
      • 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 3 of 19 , Feb 13 5:09 PM
        • 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 4 of 19 , Feb 14 4:36 AM
          • 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 5 of 19 , Feb 14 10:33 AM
            • 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 6 of 19 , Feb 14 8:39 PM
              • 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 7 of 19 , Feb 16 9:53 AM
                • 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 8 of 19 , Feb 16 11:33 AM
                  • 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 9 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 10 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.