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

Re: [existlist] Choosing Ford or BMW

Expand Messages
  • David Leon
    Eduard, ... From: yeoman To: Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:09 AM Subject: [existlist] Choosing Ford or BMW
    Message 1 of 41 , May 1, 2003

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "yeoman" <yeoman@...>
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:09 AM
      Subject: [existlist] Choosing Ford or BMW

      > Mark et al,
      > I keep asking the question within other email subjects.
      > Since no one has answered the question, I am asking again
      > within a specific email.
      > I wish to buy a car.

      Do you now?

      > The selection is down to either a
      > Ford or a BMW.

      Is it? So you dont wish to walk any farther than the house of your neighbor
      who happens to be selling a ford and beemer?

      > I have no idea of what cars cost now-a-days,
      > so lets assume that I have sufficient funds to buy either.

      Well, it mustn't much matter, since it's only your neighbor we're talking
      about. Just look at his eyes when he quotes you a price. Ponder how much you
      know, and how much you think you know, about him.

      > The statement has been made that a religious god has a
      > "dramatic and far reaching impact on our everyday individual
      > being and moment by moment existence and choices".

      Oh, ok.

      > My understanding of Existentialism is that we have freedom
      > of choice. If I recall correctly Sartre has said that we
      > are condemned to this freedom.

      Help me! I am condemned!
      Yeah, that's one side of the coin, if Sartre never thought of flipping it
      over. There might be more coins in the chest too. The one side of the one
      coin might have been enough to fascinate him for quite a while. Isn't this
      what we are all like, on whatever levels?

      > An "impact" is only an impact if in some fashion it requires
      > that I do something against my desire for action.

      Wow, holy cow. You know, I haven't physically fought much, but whenever I've
      gotten hit, I've never exactly since thought of it as requiring me to go
      against my desire for action.

      > Or that I
      > am prevented in some fashion from taking a specific action.

      Like beating down the guy that's bigger than me?? ..Maybe I can find a way.

      > Thus the question -- How does a god [any god] have an impact
      > upon my choice of car???

      Well, since, let's be honest insightful, you're albut insinuating some kind
      of fight scenario--war, tensions, or even if recreational beatdowns--then
      really, in my experience, I cant think of much that God fits into this
      stuff, in all sincerity and depth. The only more positive way to look at
      these types of scenarios of God, then, is with jokes. C'mon, let's "be
      honest and insightful".

      If you really want to know anything of your answers, though, the deeper
      stuff..then try to stop and try to ponder a bit (in this context) a non-he,
      non-she, non-it, non-force, incendiary essence to your buying of the car
      (not that you should confuse/labor yourself), just as the essence to your
      everything else. And then when you think you are thinking about the essence
      to these things, then think that all of that, anything you think of may have
      a "meaning" to it...may have an unfolding, a sort of script or..(just
      "essence", again), and that that essence, and those essences are no more
      known by you than anything else, per se. That is, this essence stuff is just
      as scientifically and logically open as anything else. (That seems to be the
      point at which people fail, even if you get them to talk about "essences",
      then they dont connect that to open ideas just like the rest of sciences -
      everything needing to be built logically.) And there you go...you've got a
      decent beginning...maybe. Just dont get too distracted by religions or
      opinions or arguments and let them replace the kind of thing I just
      described, and then maybe you'll be a little closer to being realistic with

      Notice that in the midst of all that describing, I did not bring up the idea
      of an entity, anything like a "person", or even a "source" really. That's
      not because you somehow "are not allowed" to deal with issues of an "entity"
      of "God" and ask if there could be such a thing or what that is, but it is
      because without what I described, you cant talk about God. That might sound
      silly, as if "You cant talk about God without forgetting about him." ...but
      that is pretty much correct. As long as one is concerned about 'him', or
      about ignoring him, how can you 'see' him? That might as well be as if you
      are going to conjure up a wife by thinking about her before you met her.
      Sure, we do do that, but...

      To noone in particular: "Roam in thought. Maybe you'll find a few guides.
      Just dont act TOO surpised at learning where or even what those guides might
      Then, to turn back to the topic at hand, Do you think this little proverb to
      be unfriendly to a God? ..Well, at the least, not everyone must needs have
      that conception, even if you would still try to tell me it is impossible to
      simply "enjoy" and say "God" at the same time, because at least for me, that
      all but IS my experience of God.

      Umm...well..have a day! (Wear the blue shirt tomorrow. It brings out your
    • Mark and Bev Tindall
      ... I can see why you are reluictant to answer my questions on why art is a valuable resource in Existentialism. ... If begins a conditional proposition.
      Message 41 of 41 , May 2, 2003
        eduard wrote:

        > I can see why you are reluctant to answer the
        > question.

        I can see why you are reluictant to answer my questions on why art is a valuable resource in Existentialism.

        > If I have absolute freedom [Read Chris' FAQs]

        'If' begins a conditional proposition. Chris is wrong if he says all have absolute freedom. No-one has absolute freedom. All are constrained by at least time and space.

        > As Sartre has said, it is of no importance to
        > Existentialism.

        Sartre was wrong in this area and is not the final word on anything. There are many living Existentialist philosophers who disagree with the dead Sartre.

        As Chris stated (though he is not the final word on Existentialism ...) :


        No one should ever suggest that the Christian Existentialists (notably the Catholic movement is of interest to me), are not valid topics. They are frequently credited with developing concepts of ethics within existentialism, as well as combining Democratic Socialism with the humanistic aspects of existentialism set forth by the "French Left" for too long.


        Christian Existentialism is Existentialist in nature.


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