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

Re: Existential Deviation

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.