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

Existentialism / Bad Faith

Expand Messages
  • C. S. Wyatt <existlist1@tameri.com>
    I have been pondering the entire religion / Nooism problem faced by the mailing list and the current climate. I admit that I cannot and do not read every
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003
      I have been pondering the entire religion / Nooism "problem" faced by
      the mailing list and the current climate. I admit that I cannot and
      do not read every posting -- simply too busy with the bookstore
      fiasco and planning what is next. However, I'm going to suggest
      something:

      1. Nooism or whatever -- Frankl, Heidegger, Husserl...

      Frankl pondered giving lectures he doubted, logically, he would ever
      deliver. He did this to survive death camps and the misery of World
      War II. Intentional Bad Faith is a concept Frankl and May explore.

      Bad Faith, which is a part of understanding Sartre, is not possible
      according to Frankl. We all know we we lie to ourselves or even bet
      against the odds. "Hope is Bad Faith," is one version of this
      statement.

      Hiedegger and Husserl enter this debate only because I recently
      finished reading a book that compared their views of consciousness
      and being. Husserl did not think you could lie to yourself, because
      for him whatever you thought was as good as reality. Heidegger was
      less certain of this stance.

      H&H (and Hegel, so H&H&H?) influenced Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, so
      they are valid starting points for such discussions.

      Anyway, if a religion recognizes as its basis that it is Bad Faith,
      it seems to fit into Existential Psychotherapy or Logotherapy. It is
      something worth pondering in that light.

      2. Shared readings and discussions are fine. The Yahoo Groups page
      supports live chat, too, if anyone wants. The clients are Java, so
      anyone can use the chat rooms.

      3. Just because Hegel influenced Sartre, or Dostoevsky had a few
      existential moments in character, that does not make either
      an "existentialist" -- but they are still important.

      I think it is wrong to exclude discussion of Phenomenology, German
      Idealism, or any other philosophy if that discussion relates to how
      Continental Philosophies influenced each other and shaped
      existentialism.

      Just be sure your posts and the thread of discussion keep
      existentialism as a reference point from time-to-time.

      4. RELAX people. Get a glass of wine, eat some nice food, forget the
      world sucks for a moment and be nice to each other.

      Anyway... my two-cents.
    • eduard
      Chris, In previous posts, I have said that in my opinion Existentialism is not complete. It provides a philosophy for the way we approach the world, but not
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003
        Chris,

        In previous posts, I have said that in my opinion Existentialism is not complete. It provides a philosophy for the way we approach the world, but not what to do once we are there.

        I have a passion for studying religion. It is my belief that religion is the fundamental "tool" in the human tool box for survival. A lot can be said against religion, but not that it hasn't benefited humanity through providing a social adhesiveness.

        In any case, religion of itself is not counter to Existentialism, since many Existentialist have had a religious belief system.

        However, if you were to take Existentialism and extend it towards religion, then one might well ask [as I have] what that religion might be like. If we are to make choices to make our world, then follows logically that we can make choices to produce our own religion. In this fashion, Nooism came out of Existentialism. Nooism is Existentialism in action.

        Nooism is not "bad faith". It would be bad faith if we were to convince ourselves of something that has no basis in reality. Nooism simply states that if you wish to have a religion, then there should be a realisation that this is a fantasy. The issue of whether there is a God or not, is besides the point. What we are really doing in praying and such, is to satisfy our own needs. Thus the functionality of God is more important than the God itself.

        My purpose in creating Nooism is to develop something that is psychologically satisfying. If I were to say that Nooism is somehow real, then it would indeed be bad faith. Yet even though I keep repeating that it is simply a fantasy, people are somehow hung up on the perception that somehow I am doing otherwise. That we should strive to "keep our neurons happy", is Existentialist. We are to make our own world ... Nooism just points out what we are actually trying to accomplish in doing so.

        eduard
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: C. S. Wyatt <existlist1@...>
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:38 AM
        Subject: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad Faith


        I have been pondering the entire religion / Nooism "problem" faced by
        the mailing list and the current climate. I admit that I cannot and
        do not read every posting -- simply too busy with the bookstore
        fiasco and planning what is next. However, I'm going to suggest
        something:

        1. Nooism or whatever -- Frankl, Heidegger, Husserl...

        Frankl pondered giving lectures he doubted, logically, he would ever
        deliver. He did this to survive death camps and the misery of World
        War II. Intentional Bad Faith is a concept Frankl and May explore.

        Bad Faith, which is a part of understanding Sartre, is not possible
        according to Frankl. We all know we we lie to ourselves or even bet
        against the odds. "Hope is Bad Faith," is one version of this
        statement.

        Hiedegger and Husserl enter this debate only because I recently
        finished reading a book that compared their views of consciousness
        and being. Husserl did not think you could lie to yourself, because
        for him whatever you thought was as good as reality. Heidegger was
        less certain of this stance.

        H&H (and Hegel, so H&H&H?) influenced Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, so
        they are valid starting points for such discussions.

        Anyway, if a religion recognizes as its basis that it is Bad Faith,
        it seems to fit into Existential Psychotherapy or Logotherapy. It is
        something worth pondering in that light.

        2. Shared readings and discussions are fine. The Yahoo Groups page
        supports live chat, too, if anyone wants. The clients are Java, so
        anyone can use the chat rooms.

        3. Just because Hegel influenced Sartre, or Dostoevsky had a few
        existential moments in character, that does not make either
        an "existentialist" -- but they are still important.

        I think it is wrong to exclude discussion of Phenomenology, German
        Idealism, or any other philosophy if that discussion relates to how
        Continental Philosophies influenced each other and shaped
        existentialism.

        Just be sure your posts and the thread of discussion keep
        existentialism as a reference point from time-to-time.

        4. RELAX people. Get a glass of wine, eat some nice food, forget the
        world sucks for a moment and be nice to each other.

        Anyway... my two-cents.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Leon
        Eduard, Was thinking it seems as if you want the supposed placidity of Eastern ways, but the order of Western thought to make up for the quick subjective
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003
          Eduard,

          Was thinking it seems as if you want the supposed placidity of Eastern ways,
          but the order of Western thought to make up for the quick subjective temper
          or fighting that results from the placidity or "way" ideas.

          To one degree that's ingenious, to another it's just generalized how I said
          it, so what does it mean we can actually DO?

          Might I propose the question, whether it will mean anything to you at this
          point, What if there were discoveries which brought those desires even more
          into fruition than devising your own world in which to discover?

          Dave

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "eduard" <yeoman@...>
          To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:18 AM
          Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad Faith


          > Chris,
          >
          > In previous posts, I have said that in my opinion Existentialism is not
          complete. It provides a philosophy for the way we approach the world, but
          not what to do once we are there.
          >
          > I have a passion for studying religion. It is my belief that religion is
          the fundamental "tool" in the human tool box for survival. A lot can be
          said against religion, but not that it hasn't benefited humanity through
          providing a social adhesiveness.
          >
          > In any case, religion of itself is not counter to Existentialism, since
          many Existentialist have had a religious belief system.
          >
          > However, if you were to take Existentialism and extend it towards
          religion, then one might well ask [as I have] what that religion might be
          like. If we are to make choices to make our world, then follows logically
          that we can make choices to produce our own religion. In this fashion,
          Nooism came out of Existentialism. Nooism is Existentialism in action.
          >
          > Nooism is not "bad faith". It would be bad faith if we were to convince
          ourselves of something that has no basis in reality. Nooism simply states
          that if you wish to have a religion, then there should be a realisation that
          this is a fantasy. The issue of whether there is a God or not, is besides t
          he point. What we are really doing in praying and such, is to satisfy our
          own needs. Thus the functionality of God is more important than the God
          itself.
          >
          > My purpose in creating Nooism is to develop something that is
          psychologically satisfying. If I were to say that Nooism is somehow real,
          then it would indeed be bad faith. Yet even though I keep repeating that it
          is simply a fantasy, people are somehow hung up on the perception that
          somehow I am doing otherwise. That we should strive to "keep our neurons
          happy", is Existentialist. We are to make our own world ... Nooism just
          points out what we are actually trying to accomplish in doing so.
          >
          > eduard
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: C. S. Wyatt <existlist1@...>
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:38 AM
          > Subject: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad Faith
          >
          >
          > I have been pondering the entire religion / Nooism "problem" faced by
          > the mailing list and the current climate. I admit that I cannot and
          > do not read every posting -- simply too busy with the bookstore
          > fiasco and planning what is next. However, I'm going to suggest
          > something:
          >
          > 1. Nooism or whatever -- Frankl, Heidegger, Husserl...
          >
          > Frankl pondered giving lectures he doubted, logically, he would ever
          > deliver. He did this to survive death camps and the misery of World
          > War II. Intentional Bad Faith is a concept Frankl and May explore.
          >
          > Bad Faith, which is a part of understanding Sartre, is not possible
          > according to Frankl. We all know we we lie to ourselves or even bet
          > against the odds. "Hope is Bad Faith," is one version of this
          > statement.
          >
          > Hiedegger and Husserl enter this debate only because I recently
          > finished reading a book that compared their views of consciousness
          > and being. Husserl did not think you could lie to yourself, because
          > for him whatever you thought was as good as reality. Heidegger was
          > less certain of this stance.
          >
          > H&H (and Hegel, so H&H&H?) influenced Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, so
          > they are valid starting points for such discussions.
          >
          > Anyway, if a religion recognizes as its basis that it is Bad Faith,
          > it seems to fit into Existential Psychotherapy or Logotherapy. It is
          > something worth pondering in that light.
          >
          > 2. Shared readings and discussions are fine. The Yahoo Groups page
          > supports live chat, too, if anyone wants. The clients are Java, so
          > anyone can use the chat rooms.
          >
          > 3. Just because Hegel influenced Sartre, or Dostoevsky had a few
          > existential moments in character, that does not make either
          > an "existentialist" -- but they are still important.
          >
          > I think it is wrong to exclude discussion of Phenomenology, German
          > Idealism, or any other philosophy if that discussion relates to how
          > Continental Philosophies influenced each other and shaped
          > existentialism.
          >
          > Just be sure your posts and the thread of discussion keep
          > existentialism as a reference point from time-to-time.
          >
          > 4. RELAX people. Get a glass of wine, eat some nice food, forget the
          > world sucks for a moment and be nice to each other.
          >
          > Anyway... my two-cents.
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
          > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
          >
          > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
          > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
        • eduard
          Dave, There are plenty of placid thinking in the West. Epicurus was one. I think that a lot of what Jesus was saying comes in this line. I am not sure of
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003
            Dave,

            There are plenty of placid thinking in the West. Epicurus was one. I think that a lot of what Jesus was saying comes in this line.

            I am not sure of what you mean by "we can actually DO?".

            I am not sure of what you mean by "brought those desires into fruition". The desires that we have in our brains are simply inclinations. There is a range of things that we might indulge in to obtain satisfaction. The key is to be aware that everything that we think we see in the outside world, is only a matter of interpretation. The reverse is also true ... that interpretation creates our outside world.

            eduard
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: David Leon
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:56 AM
            Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad Faith


            Eduard,

            Was thinking it seems as if you want the supposed placidity of Eastern ways,
            but the order of Western thought to make up for the quick subjective temper
            or fighting that results from the placidity or "way" ideas.

            To one degree that's ingenious, to another it's just generalized how I said
            it, so what does it mean we can actually DO?

            Might I propose the question, whether it will mean anything to you at this
            point, What if there were discoveries which brought those desires even more
            into fruition than devising your own world in which to discover?

            Dave


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Leon
            ... From: eduard To: Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism /
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "eduard" <yeoman@...>
              To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:16 AM
              Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad Faith


              > Dave,
              >
              > There are plenty of placid thinking in the West. Epicurus was one. I
              think that a lot of what Jesus was saying comes in this line.
              >

              No, I was referring to a difference between a sort of just a "way" and then
              an "order". Things more Eastern smack of "ways" in which many times
              reactions are just taken as they are, and the focus isn't put so much on a
              "reason" for which a ruler or just a common man is doing something. A ruler
              reactes a certain way and a given man observing simply says "that is not
              just" or "that is just". It is no so much "why?" but instead about the "way"
              in which you will be, not the "reasons" for which you will be.

              In the western way, a man can possibly "feel" more as if he is the products
              of his lines of thought, his reasons - as if that is his very essence at
              times. But more Easterly, a man is how he 'moves'; he is not
              [returning to finish this message]
              ..he is not what he concludes.


              > I am not sure of what you mean by "we can actually DO?".
              >

              In other words, what does it say about practice. I was contrasting how your
              ingenuity was working with how I generalized my perception of your
              motivation as not such a practical or working thing at that moment of
              thought, or that way of expressing it.

              > I am not sure of what you mean by "brought those desires into fruition".
              > The desires that we have in our brains are simply inclinations.

              Brought my perception of your desires, human desires, into
              "fruition"--bearing fruit--so that they actually came, or the fuition came,
              from things that would moreso happen "to you" or would be understanding of
              things objective to you in that sense, as if "happening to you" instead of
              just your having "your world" or "taking charge" to the extent of, well,
              ultimately the extent of your having conceived yourself in the first place,
              which is an invalid line of thought or argument, but...that's really more
              theological argument, now that I've thought of that phrasing, which I dont
              know is something you are prepared for or having a taste for right now.

              > There is a
              range of things that we might indulge in to obtain satisfaction. The key is
              to be aware that everything that we think we see in the outside world, is
              only a matter of interpretation. The reverse is also true ... that
              interpretation creates our outside world.
              >

              I suppose again, this may be a little too theologically leaning for you to
              conceive of right now, but it's really like the deeper (not just in some
              overbearing authoritarian doctrine, but internally) more lasting or
              classical argument of "Knew you yourself in your mother's womb?" and "Had
              you formed and fashioned yourself?" and even a nice cliche "Where were you
              when the world's were made?".

              Dave



              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: David Leon
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:56 AM
              > Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad Faith
              >
              >
              > Eduard,
              >
              > Was thinking it seems as if you want the supposed placidity of Eastern
              ways,
              > but the order of Western thought to make up for the quick subjective
              temper
              > or fighting that results from the placidity or "way" ideas.
              >
              > To one degree that's ingenious, to another it's just generalized how I
              said
              > it, so what does it mean we can actually DO?
              >
              > Might I propose the question, whether it will mean anything to you at
              this
              > point, What if there were discoveries which brought those desires even
              more
              > into fruition than devising your own world in which to discover?
              >
              > Dave
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > ADVERTISEMENT
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
              > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
              >
              > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
              > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              >
            • eduard
              Dave,
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003
                Dave,

                <<< No, I was referring to a difference between a sort of just a "way" and then
                an "order". Things more Eastern smack of "ways" in which many times
                reactions are just taken as they are, and the focus isn't put so much on a
                "reason" for which a ruler or just a common man is doing something. A ruler
                reactes a certain way and a given man observing simply says "that is not
                just" or "that is just". It is no so much "why?" but instead about the "way"
                in which you will be, not the "reasons" for which you will be.

                In the western way, a man can possibly "feel" more as if he is the products
                of his lines of thought, his reasons - as if that is his very essence at
                times. But more Easterly, a man is how he 'moves'; he is not
                [returning to finish this message]
                ..he is not what he concludes. >>>

                My answer is still the same. I know what you mean; in that one should seek to be one with the Tao and that sort of thing. I was pointing out that there are similarities in some Western thought.

                <<< In other words, what does it say about practice. I was contrasting how your
                ingenuity was working with how I generalized my perception of your
                motivation as not such a practical or working thing at that moment of
                thought, or that way of expressing it. >>>

                With all due respect, i still dont know what you are getting at.

                <<< Brought my perception of your desires, human desires, into
                "fruition"--bearing fruit--so that they actually came, or the fuition came,
                from things that would moreso happen "to you" or would be understanding of
                things objective to you in that sense, as if "happening to you" instead of
                just your having "your world" or "taking charge" to the extent of, well,
                ultimately the extent of your having conceived yourself in the first place,
                which is an invalid line of thought or argument, but...that's really more
                theological argument, now that I've thought of that phrasing, which I dont
                know is something you are prepared for or having a taste for right now. >>>

                You lost me ....

                <<< I suppose again, this may be a little too theologically leaning for you to
                conceive of right now, but it's really like the deeper (not just in some
                overbearing authoritarian doctrine, but internally) more lasting or
                classical argument of "Knew you yourself in your mother's womb?" and "Had
                you formed and fashioned yourself?" and even a nice cliche "Where were you
                when the world's were made?". >>>

                I was napping at the time.

                eduard


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David Leon
                Nevermind maybe. I phrase things too many ways requiring imagination to put things in different orders to pull it apart. You have to imagine me speaking what s
                Message 7 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003
                  Nevermind maybe. I phrase things too many ways requiring imagination to put
                  things in different orders to pull it apart. You have to imagine me speaking
                  what's written and it gets hairy...to Charles for instance, who on the
                  limited that I know, I would imagine losing interest after the second word a
                  lot of times. It only begins to be interesting to the philologist or
                  linguist or grammarian, and I suppose it gets uninteresting to you. It's
                  sometimes a mind for a mythological, fantastical, story-telling mind.
                  literary and all that jazz. I couldn't demand you to be what you aren't.

                  Dave

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "eduard" <yeoman@...>
                  To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:09 PM
                  Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad Faith


                  > Dave,
                  >
                  > <<< No, I was referring to a difference between a sort of just a "way" and
                  then
                  > an "order". Things more Eastern smack of "ways" in which many times
                  > reactions are just taken as they are, and the focus isn't put so much on a
                  > "reason" for which a ruler or just a common man is doing something. A
                  ruler
                  > reactes a certain way and a given man observing simply says "that is not
                  > just" or "that is just". It is no so much "why?" but instead about the
                  "way"
                  > in which you will be, not the "reasons" for which you will be.
                  >
                  > In the western way, a man can possibly "feel" more as if he is the
                  products
                  > of his lines of thought, his reasons - as if that is his very essence at
                  > times. But more Easterly, a man is how he 'moves'; he is not
                  > [returning to finish this message]
                  > ..he is not what he concludes. >>>
                  >
                  > My answer is still the same. I know what you mean; in that one should
                  seek to be one with the Tao and that sort of thing. I was pointing out that
                  there are similarities in some Western thought.
                  >
                  > <<< In other words, what does it say about practice. I was contrasting how
                  your
                  > ingenuity was working with how I generalized my perception of your
                  > motivation as not such a practical or working thing at that moment of
                  > thought, or that way of expressing it. >>>
                  >
                  > With all due respect, i still dont know what you are getting at.
                  >
                  > <<< Brought my perception of your desires, human desires, into
                  > "fruition"--bearing fruit--so that they actually came, or the fuition
                  came,
                  > from things that would moreso happen "to you" or would be understanding of
                  > things objective to you in that sense, as if "happening to you" instead of
                  > just your having "your world" or "taking charge" to the extent of, well,
                  > ultimately the extent of your having conceived yourself in the first
                  place,
                  > which is an invalid line of thought or argument, but...that's really more
                  > theological argument, now that I've thought of that phrasing, which I dont
                  > know is something you are prepared for or having a taste for right now.
                  >>>
                  >
                  > You lost me ....
                  >
                  > <<< I suppose again, this may be a little too theologically leaning for
                  you to
                  > conceive of right now, but it's really like the deeper (not just in some
                  > overbearing authoritarian doctrine, but internally) more lasting or
                  > classical argument of "Knew you yourself in your mother's womb?" and "Had
                  > you formed and fashioned yourself?" and even a nice cliche "Where were you
                  > when the world's were made?". >>>
                  >
                  > I was napping at the time.
                  >
                  > eduard
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                  > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                  >
                  > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                  > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  >
                • eduard
                  Dave, You could try breaking up your thoughts and focusing on one at a time ... without making side comments on your own comments. It s not that I am
                  Message 8 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003
                    Dave,

                    You could try breaking up your thoughts and focusing on one at a time ... without making side comments on your own comments. It's not that I am uninterested. I am very much interested in what you wish to say. But then you need to write down to my simplistic level ... someone once said I was a 10 year old ....

                    eduard

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: David Leon
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:25 PM
                    Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad Faith


                    Nevermind maybe. I phrase things too many ways requiring imagination to put
                    things in different orders to pull it apart. You have to imagine me speaking
                    what's written and it gets hairy...to Charles for instance, who on the
                    limited that I know, I would imagine losing interest after the second word a
                    lot of times. It only begins to be interesting to the philologist or
                    linguist or grammarian, and I suppose it gets uninteresting to you. It's
                    sometimes a mind for a mythological, fantastical, story-telling mind.
                    literary and all that jazz. I couldn't demand you to be what you aren't.

                    Dave


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Charles
                    Dave, All I have right now is imagination and I will always have it; it is what keeps me alive. Interest, on the other hand, I have lost after so many years of
                    Message 9 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003
                      Dave,

                      All I have right now is imagination and I
                      will always have it; it is what keeps me
                      alive. Interest, on the other hand, I have
                      lost after so many years of pondering into
                      the same eternal questions of philosophy (I
                      only mean 'interest' in philosophy). My
                      personal position is one of indifference and
                      contempt and scorn for what I don't
                      understand. In other words, it is like is not
                      fun anymore. The acceptability of my view
                      depends not only on the remaining objections
                      but also on whether I can find a reasonable
                      and positive evidence in its favor. Where I
                      can't catch the connection is on how you set
                      yourself apart.

                      Charles


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: David Leon
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:25 PM
                      Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad
                      Faith


                      Nevermind maybe. I phrase things too many
                      ways requiring imagination to put
                      things in different orders to pull it apart.
                      You have to imagine me speaking
                      what's written and it gets hairy...to Charles
                      for instance, who on the
                      limited that I know, I would imagine losing
                      interest after the second word a
                      lot of times. It only begins to be
                      interesting to the philologist or
                      linguist or grammarian, and I suppose it gets
                      uninteresting to you. It's
                      sometimes a mind for a mythological,
                      fantastical, story-telling mind.
                      literary and all that jazz. I couldn't demand
                      you to be what you aren't.

                      Dave

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "eduard" <yeoman@...>
                      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:09 PM
                      Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad
                      Faith


                      > Dave,
                      >
                      > <<< No, I was referring to a difference
                      between a sort of just a "way" and
                      then
                      > an "order". Things more Eastern smack of
                      "ways" in which many times
                      > reactions are just taken as they are, and
                      the focus isn't put so much on a
                      > "reason" for which a ruler or just a common
                      man is doing something. A
                      ruler
                      > reactes a certain way and a given man
                      observing simply says "that is not
                      > just" or "that is just". It is no so much
                      "why?" but instead about the
                      "way"
                      > in which you will be, not the "reasons" for
                      which you will be.
                      >
                      > In the western way, a man can possibly
                      "feel" more as if he is the
                      products
                      > of his lines of thought, his reasons - as
                      if that is his very essence at
                      > times. But more Easterly, a man is how he
                      'moves'; he is not
                      > [returning to finish this message]
                      > ..he is not what he concludes. >>>
                      >
                      > My answer is still the same. I know what
                      you mean; in that one should
                      seek to be one with the Tao and that sort of
                      thing. I was pointing out that
                      there are similarities in some Western
                      thought.
                      >
                      > <<< In other words, what does it say about
                      practice. I was contrasting how
                      your
                      > ingenuity was working with how I
                      generalized my perception of your
                      > motivation as not such a practical or
                      working thing at that moment of
                      > thought, or that way of expressing it. >>>
                      >
                      > With all due respect, i still dont know
                      what you are getting at.
                      >
                      > <<< Brought my perception of your desires,
                      human desires, into
                      > "fruition"--bearing fruit--so that they
                      actually came, or the fuition
                      came,
                      > from things that would moreso happen "to
                      you" or would be understanding of
                      > things objective to you in that sense, as
                      if "happening to you" instead of
                      > just your having "your world" or "taking
                      charge" to the extent of, well,
                      > ultimately the extent of your having
                      conceived yourself in the first
                      place,
                      > which is an invalid line of thought or
                      argument, but...that's really more
                      > theological argument, now that I've thought
                      of that phrasing, which I dont
                      > know is something you are prepared for or
                      having a taste for right now.
                      >>>
                      >
                      > You lost me ....
                      >
                      > <<< I suppose again, this may be a little
                      too theologically leaning for
                      you to
                      > conceive of right now, but it's really like
                      the deeper (not just in some
                      > overbearing authoritarian doctrine, but
                      internally) more lasting or
                      > classical argument of "Knew you yourself in
                      your mother's womb?" and "Had
                      > you formed and fashioned yourself?" and
                      even a nice cliche "Where were you
                      > when the world's were made?". >>>
                      >
                      > I was napping at the time.
                      >
                      > eduard
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have
                      been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      > ADVERTISEMENT
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Our Home:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                      > (Includes community book list, chat, and
                      more.)
                      >
                      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an
                      email to:
                      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                      Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      >

                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      ADVERTISEMENT




                      Our Home:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                      (Includes community book list, chat, and
                      more.)

                      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email
                      to:
                      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • eduard
                      Charles, Would it not follow that your task is to find new questions .... ?? eduard ... From: Charles To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February
                      Message 10 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003
                        Charles,

                        Would it not follow that your task is to find new questions .... ??

                        eduard
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Charles
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:13 PM
                        Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad Faith


                        Dave,

                        All I have right now is imagination and I
                        will always have it; it is what keeps me
                        alive. Interest, on the other hand, I have
                        lost after so many years of pondering into
                        the same eternal questions of philosophy (I
                        only mean 'interest' in philosophy). My
                        personal position is one of indifference and
                        contempt and scorn for what I don't
                        understand. In other words, it is like is not
                        fun anymore. The acceptability of my view
                        depends not only on the remaining objections
                        but also on whether I can find a reasonable
                        and positive evidence in its favor. Where I
                        can't catch the connection is on how you set
                        yourself apart.

                        Charles


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Mark Tindall
                        ... The real quote was that one needed a reading age of a ten year old to comprehend the material written on the list. That is much different to your
                        Message 11 of 14 , Feb 28, 2003
                          Eduard wrote:

                          > But then you need to write down to my simplistic level ...
                          > someone once said I was a 10 year old ....

                          The real quote was that one needed a reading age of a ten year old to
                          comprehend the material written on the list. That is much different to your
                          chronological age.


                          Mark
                        • David Leon
                          Eduard, I m gonna combine messages to reply to, in this thread.. ... From: eduard To: Sent: Thursday,
                          Message 12 of 14 , Mar 1, 2003
                            Eduard,
                            I'm gonna combine messages to reply to, in this thread..


                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "eduard" <yeoman@...>
                            To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:35 PM
                            Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad Faith


                            > Dave,
                            >
                            > You could try breaking up your thoughts and focusing on one at a time ...
                            without making side comments on your own comments. It's not that I am
                            uninterested. I am very much interested in what you wish to say. But then
                            you need to write down to my simplistic level ... someone once said I was a
                            10 year old ....
                            >
                            > eduard

                            That's fine. But I'm also getting a bit stretched, starting to think I
                            really cant write that much about many different topics. As far as I can
                            tell, if anything I'm "going to" be a little busier in the near enough
                            future, anyway. Personnel that anywhere nearly compare to covering my job at
                            my unit in the army, are going to be leaving, at least by about mid-month.
                            There's going to be one higher ranking person and me, and one or two sort of
                            support personnel left to help us, for a little while, at our location.
                            Meanwhile, I may concurrently be starting at least one college course soon,
                            humorously enough...while I'm the only more technical guy left. Not a
                            particularly bad thing, but one thing is I need to "take care" of my
                            allergies, but I dunno what's really going to come of that next week - if I
                            can get anywhere. Otherwise I'll be left feeling like crap for longer
                            periods out of my weeks, and so on, with the building(s) I have to work in
                            especially. Irritability, spotty time, brain freezes, and a general whacked
                            out appearance sometimes. Because/And there's just the whole stress of
                            unknowns with longer days and possible weekends, free time being a little
                            more unsure and the fact that I'm part of an organization which is now about
                            more deployed than not, etc. Forgive me if it feels a little bit good to
                            relate this to the effects on my writing and discussing, or just see it in
                            writing.

                            In one sense, why I'm really "here" at this point, and why I'm typing this
                            message, I dunno. I'm just kinda going until I somehow know a little better
                            what's going on for me overall, if I can get some capacity back and whatever
                            else.


                            [more as follows:]

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "eduard" <yeoman@...>
                            To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:09 PM
                            Subject: Re: [existlist] Existentialism / Bad Faith


                            [snipped]
                            >
                            > I know what you mean; in that one should seek to be one with the Tao and
                            that sort of thing. I was pointing out that there are similarities in some
                            Western thought.
                            >

                            Of course "fine". But I just mean like the whole feeling of cultures in like
                            at least China or maybe India...there's just like this different focus and
                            history. Not that "western" thought doesn't care about being in touch with
                            like a Tao, but I just mean not just in strict thought but just in the whole
                            feeling for the 'east'. It's like a different kind of interaction between
                            people..there. In general a person really doesn't pattern out their
                            thoughts. It's maybe not just a western thing but more a central thing.

                            [more snipped]

                            >
                            > <<< I suppose again, this may be a little too theologically leaning for
                            you to
                            > conceive of right now, but it's really like the deeper (not just in some
                            > overbearing authoritarian doctrine, but internally) more lasting or
                            > classical argument of "Knew you yourself in your mother's womb?" and "Had
                            > you formed and fashioned yourself?" and even a nice cliche "Where were you
                            > when the world's were made?". >>>
                            >
                            > I was napping at the time.
                            >

                            Dave
                          • eduard
                            Dave, ... focusing on one at a time ... ... comments. It s not that I am ... you wish to say. But then ... stretched, starting to think I ... topics. As far
                            Message 13 of 14 , Mar 1, 2003
                              Dave,

                              > > You could try breaking up your thoughts and
                              focusing on one at a time ...
                              > without making side comments on your own
                              comments. It's not that I am
                              > uninterested. I am very much interested in what
                              you wish to say. But then
                              > you need to write down to my simplistic level
                              ... someone once said I was a
                              > 10 year old ....
                              > >
                              > > eduard
                              >
                              > That's fine. But I'm also getting a bit
                              stretched, starting to think I
                              > really cant write that much about many different
                              topics. As far as I can
                              > tell, if anything I'm "going to" be a little
                              busier in the near enough
                              > future, anyway. Personnel that anywhere nearly
                              compare to covering my job at
                              > my unit in the army, are going to be leaving, at
                              least by about mid-month.
                              > There's going to be one higher ranking person
                              and me, and one or two sort of
                              > support personnel left to help us, for a little
                              while, at our location.
                              > Meanwhile, I may concurrently be starting at
                              least one college course soon,
                              > humorously enough...while I'm the only more
                              technical guy left. Not a
                              > particularly bad thing, but one thing is I need
                              to "take care" of my
                              > allergies, but I dunno what's really going to
                              come of that next week - if I
                              > can get anywhere. Otherwise I'll be left feeling
                              like crap for longer
                              > periods out of my weeks, and so on, with the
                              building(s) I have to work in
                              > especially. Irritability, spotty time, brain
                              freezes, and a general whacked
                              > out appearance sometimes. Because/And there's
                              just the whole stress of
                              > unknowns with longer days and possible weekends,
                              free time being a little
                              > more unsure and the fact that I'm part of an
                              organization which is now about
                              > more deployed than not, etc. Forgive me if it
                              feels a little bit good to
                              > relate this to the effects on my writing and
                              discussing, or just see it in
                              > writing.

                              ---> My meaning was that it may be easier if you
                              broke up your paragraphs into smaller paragraphs,
                              so that it is a bit easier to read ....


                              > In one sense, why I'm really "here" at this
                              point, and why I'm typing this
                              > message, I dunno. I'm just kinda going until I
                              somehow know a little better
                              > what's going on for me overall, if I can get
                              some capacity back and whatever
                              > else.

                              ---> An admirable quest ... good luck with it

                              eduard
                            • David Leon
                              Eduard, ... I know. And I on the other hand meant that I m getting stretched a little thinner with concerns I have (about unkowns, futures), that for me it s a
                              Message 14 of 14 , Mar 1, 2003
                                Eduard,

                                >
                                > ---> My meaning was that it may be easier if you
                                > broke up your paragraphs into smaller paragraphs,
                                > so that it is a bit easier to read ....
                                >

                                I know. And I on the other hand meant that I'm getting stretched a little
                                thinner with concerns I have (about unkowns, futures), that for me it's a
                                connected thing for not having "the time" inside my mind to calmly devote to
                                what I might be writing or how I could break it up. I'm already finding
                                myself hardly being able to reply much less think about it. There is too
                                much on my mind. Hence why I wrote what's below.

                                >
                                > > In one sense, why I'm really "here" at this
                                > point, and why I'm typing this
                                > > message, I dunno. I'm just kinda going until I
                                > somehow know a little better
                                > > what's going on for me overall, if I can get
                                > some capacity back and whatever
                                > > else.
                                >
                                > ---> An admirable quest ... good luck with it
                                >

                                It's just sort of an immediate thing. Patience and all that. To me that
                                kinda IS science and philosophy: patience and how to deal with waiting.
                                That's the whole problem that makes us squirm and ponder things:
                                frustrations and things that are far away yet in our very hearts. Why? What
                                really? That's at least the christian view.

                                Dave
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.