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

Existential Deviation

Expand Messages
  • neurom9999
    Dear Een, Thank you for clarifying your viewpoint and existential position regarding ethical requirements. The issue for me was the idea of having an ethical
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 28, 2004
      Dear Een,

      Thank you for clarifying your viewpoint and existential
      position regarding ethical requirements. The issue for me was the
      idea of having an ethical absolute externally imposed upon me and my
      existence, simply because it has been appropriated as truth by
      another. Your diatribe on the abstract vs. the concrete, and the
      objective vs. the subjective has sufficiently allayed any concerns in
      that area.

      I, too, drink from the fountain of subjectivity. My quest is my
      quest, and I'm not inclined to proselytize. Far too much time in my
      existence has been spent extricating myself from the consequences of
      having my life defined by the objections of the Other.

      Now to the question of O.W.'s suicide. Was it a rash act in a moment
      of turmoil? Did he act out of deep, inward conclusions? Did he
      merely accept the inevitable (death is waiting for us all)? Or, was
      he thrown off course by incorporating a negative self-definition,
      instigated by others?


      ----Dennis
    • Een Enkelte
      ... myself from the consequences of having my life defined by the objections of the Other.---- Dear Dennis, Was my last a proselytising diatribe? Was I, by
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 29, 2004
        ----Far too much time in my existence has been spent extricating
        myself from the consequences of having my life defined by the
        objections of the Other.----


        Dear Dennis,

        Was my last a proselytising diatribe? Was I, by means of objections,
        defining your quest?

        Should I now try to defend my actions?

        Curious! Would I be defending my actions only in order to extricate
        myself from the consequences of having my life defined by the
        objections of the Other?

        Ah! But then I would only, once again, be creating the need for you
        to extricate yourself from the consequences of having your life
        defined by the objections of the Other?

        I do not know how to appropriate your complaints. Certainly, my first
        task is to hide from myself the accustory tone. But then what? When I
        pass over the tone to the content, what do I find?

        "I am not happy. I am not happy with what you said; that you said it,
        how you said it. I am not happy with what others have said and done
        either!"

        What I find is autobiography.

        On this point we should not misunderstand on another: You certainly
        have my sympathy.

        For my part, I consider that self-authorised dogmatists are a
        constant pain in the arse, and not just because of the miserable
        droning they produce. The invariably violent nature of their actions
        is what shows that it is the fruit of their objectivity, since
        objectivity is the unwillingness to be in the wrong. Since the
        objectivist is unwilling to be a self that is in the wrong, he is
        unwilling to recognise himself (he is objective). An objectivist may
        be willing to leave it at this: That he is not in the wrong, since he
        has no self, ie he will remove the problem by removing all trace of
        passion and become entirely objective. But what if he wants more;
        what if he wants more than not to be in the wrong, but wants to be in
        the right? In this case, he is not willing to do away with his
        passion AND he is not willing to be in the wrong. Well then his
        passion is right, and authorises him to be in the right! Yet, there
        remains a question for him: If he is to be in the right, who must
        change? Ah yes! If reality indicates to this objectivist that he is
        in the wrong, then reality must change. It is we who must change (we
        objects); on behalf of the self-authorised dogmatist!

        If I understand you rightly, then you have suffered at the hands of
        just such a one.

        There does, however, remain the question as to whether you consider
        me to be such a one - eg Is all of the above more than just
        objections from which you will have to extricate yourself?

        Since I do not wish that you should have to extricate yourself from
        any more of my objections, I will only refer you to my previous
        postings. If you can find a trace of self-authorised dogmatism, you
        would be doing me a service by pointing it out.

        I do not understand your objection to what I have written; which is
        simply to say that I cannot yet know if you want me to be replying to
        your mails at all...


        Sincerely,

        Een Enkelte.
      • Arvind Sood
        Dear Een, Is it not my right to be wrong? Better still, I might be enjoying it. So what is good about being right any way? Cheers. Arvind Soodf ... myself from
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 29, 2004
          Dear Een,
          Is it not my right to be wrong? Better still, I might be enjoying it. So what is good about being right any way?
          Cheers.
          Arvind Soodf

          Een Enkelte <eenenkelte@...> wrote:
          ----Far too much time in my existence has been spent extricating
          myself from the consequences of having my life defined by the
          objections of the Other.----


          Dear Dennis,

          Was my last a proselytising diatribe? Was I, by means of objections,
          defining your quest?

          Should I now try to defend my actions?

          Curious! Would I be defending my actions only in order to extricate
          myself from the consequences of having my life defined by the
          objections of the Other?

          Ah! But then I would only, once again, be creating the need for you
          to extricate yourself from the consequences of having your life
          defined by the objections of the Other?

          I do not know how to appropriate your complaints. Certainly, my first
          task is to hide from myself the accustory tone. But then what? When I
          pass over the tone to the content, what do I find?

          "I am not happy. I am not happy with what you said; that you said it,
          how you said it. I am not happy with what others have said and done
          either!"

          What I find is autobiography.

          On this point we should not misunderstand on another: You certainly
          have my sympathy.

          For my part, I consider that self-authorised dogmatists are a
          constant pain in the arse, and not just because of the miserable
          droning they produce. The invariably violent nature of their actions
          is what shows that it is the fruit of their objectivity, since
          objectivity is the unwillingness to be in the wrong. Since the
          objectivist is unwilling to be a self that is in the wrong, he is
          unwilling to recognise himself (he is objective). An objectivist may
          be willing to leave it at this: That he is not in the wrong, since he
          has no self, ie he will remove the problem by removing all trace of
          passion and become entirely objective. But what if he wants more;
          what if he wants more than not to be in the wrong, but wants to be in
          the right? In this case, he is not willing to do away with his
          passion AND he is not willing to be in the wrong. Well then his
          passion is right, and authorises him to be in the right! Yet, there
          remains a question for him: If he is to be in the right, who must
          change? Ah yes! If reality indicates to this objectivist that he is
          in the wrong, then reality must change. It is we who must change (we
          objects); on behalf of the self-authorised dogmatist!

          If I understand you rightly, then you have suffered at the hands of
          just such a one.

          There does, however, remain the question as to whether you consider
          me to be such a one - eg Is all of the above more than just
          objections from which you will have to extricate yourself?

          Since I do not wish that you should have to extricate yourself from
          any more of my objections, I will only refer you to my previous
          postings. If you can find a trace of self-authorised dogmatism, you
          would be doing me a service by pointing it out.

          I do not understand your objection to what I have written; which is
          simply to say that I cannot yet know if you want me to be replying to
          your mails at all...


          Sincerely,

          Een Enkelte.












          Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


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

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

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

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



          Arvind Sood


          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • neurom9999
          Dear Een, Become defensive? Not on my account, please. I ve never asked you to defend your existential position. We are having a discussion in a group
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 31, 2004
            Dear Een,

            Become defensive? Not on my account, please. I've never asked you
            to defend your existential position. We are having a discussion in a
            group devoted to existential issues. You have suggested that,
            perhaps, we are not talking about the same things in the same way. I
            agree that that's a very good possibility. To me, it is far too soon
            to make the determination, but it may be that we have two totally
            different world views. I don't find anything wrong with that, and I
            don't establish agreement as a pre-condition of dialogue.

            I really did feel your clarification of your viewpoint was helpful to
            my understanding. In reaction to your early postings, I had been
            wondering whether your "point" was that all individuals were obliged
            to embrace an ethical requirement that you had discovered. Your
            subsequent clarifications did dispel that impression--for me.

            It seems to me that you have been the one inclined to attach
            pejorative labels to the expressions of others, and to threaten to
            stop talking to anyone whose viewpoint or orientation differs from
            yours. To me, there are as many reality tunnels as there are
            possibilities. I have no say in your thoughts, feelings, and
            behavior. I rather like Husserl's notion that "Truth is one, but
            every philosopher walks toward it by his own path."

            Consider the paradox that, perhaps, the greatest philosopher of the
            20th Century has been cast in the image of a Hippie, Luddite, Nazi
            Mystic. (No, not Timothy Leary--I'm referring to Heidegger). Now,
            on the supposition that Sartre was none of the above, isn't it
            amazing that, even in the face of Heidegger's vehement denunciation
            of Sartre's existential position, Sartre, nevertheless, continued to
            acknowledge the debt he owed to Heidegger's ideas and influence,
            despite their differing perspectives?

            I probably don't understand what the word "autobiography" means to
            you. In my understanding of the word, I don't find any aversive
            connotations, and, I really can't see how one can discuss one's
            existential position and experience without being autobiographical.

            What I embrace today may very well be modified tomorrow, but the only
            external influence that I embrace with open arms is persuasion.




            ----Dennis




            --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "Een Enkelte"
            <eenenkelte@y...> wrote:
            > ----Far too much time in my existence has been spent extricating
            > myself from the consequences of having my life defined by the
            > objections of the Other.----
            >
            >
            > Dear Dennis,
            >
            > Was my last a proselytising diatribe? Was I, by means of
            objections,
            > defining your quest?
            >
            > Should I now try to defend my actions?
            >
            > Curious! Would I be defending my actions only in order to extricate
            > myself from the consequences of having my life defined by the
            > objections of the Other?
            >
            > Ah! But then I would only, once again, be creating the need for you
            > to extricate yourself from the consequences of having your life
            > defined by the objections of the Other?
            >
            > I do not know how to appropriate your complaints. Certainly, my
            first
            > task is to hide from myself the accustory tone. But then what? When
            I
            > pass over the tone to the content, what do I find?
            >
            > "I am not happy. I am not happy with what you said; that you said
            it,
            > how you said it. I am not happy with what others have said and done
            > either!"
            >
            > What I find is autobiography.
            >
            > On this point we should not misunderstand on another: You certainly
            > have my sympathy.
            >
            > For my part, I consider that self-authorised dogmatists are a
            > constant pain in the arse, and not just because of the miserable
            > droning they produce. The invariably violent nature of their
            actions
            > is what shows that it is the fruit of their objectivity, since
            > objectivity is the unwillingness to be in the wrong. Since the
            > objectivist is unwilling to be a self that is in the wrong, he is
            > unwilling to recognise himself (he is objective). An objectivist
            may
            > be willing to leave it at this: That he is not in the wrong, since
            he
            > has no self, ie he will remove the problem by removing all trace of
            > passion and become entirely objective. But what if he wants more;
            > what if he wants more than not to be in the wrong, but wants to be
            in
            > the right? In this case, he is not willing to do away with his
            > passion AND he is not willing to be in the wrong. Well then his
            > passion is right, and authorises him to be in the right! Yet, there
            > remains a question for him: If he is to be in the right, who must
            > change? Ah yes! If reality indicates to this objectivist that he is
            > in the wrong, then reality must change. It is we who must change
            (we
            > objects); on behalf of the self-authorised dogmatist!
            >
            > If I understand you rightly, then you have suffered at the hands of
            > just such a one.
            >
            > There does, however, remain the question as to whether you consider
            > me to be such a one - eg Is all of the above more than just
            > objections from which you will have to extricate yourself?
            >
            > Since I do not wish that you should have to extricate yourself from
            > any more of my objections, I will only refer you to my previous
            > postings. If you can find a trace of self-authorised dogmatism, you
            > would be doing me a service by pointing it out.
            >
            > I do not understand your objection to what I have written; which is
            > simply to say that I cannot yet know if you want me to be replying
            to
            > your mails at all...
            >
            >
            > Sincerely,
            >
            > Een Enkelte.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.