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

Re: [existlist] Re: Characteristics of Existence

Expand Messages
  • eduard at home
    Biggie, I don t think it is a matter of clarity , but rather of trying to push a particular point of view. If one is describing a family s attendance at a
    Message 1 of 192 , Aug 30, 2003

      I don't think it is a matter of "clarity", but rather of
      trying to push a particular point of view.

      If one is describing a family's attendance at a baseball
      game, there really isn't any issue involved. It is simply a

      However, if one is describing a family's belief in a god,
      then it tends to turn into a need to convince one's listener
      that your belief is correct. That is why this type of
      discussion gets "heated"


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "George Walton" <iambiguously@...>
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 8:23 AM
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Characteristics of Existence

      > Mary Jo,
      > Suppose a group of parents who drop off their kids at the
      same day care center become friends. Every Saturday they
      have lunch together. They talk about many things. For
      example, one day they talk about the fun times they have had
      so far raising their children. Here, they can go into great
      detail describing things that they did---a trip to Grandmas
      or Disneyworld, building things with snow or sand, games
      they play, special books they love to read to their kids
      etc. And, of course, the communication can be particularly
      clear in such exchanges. It is not likely, in other words,
      that one parent will confuse a day spent at the ocean with
      his family with a videotape of a family spending a day at
      the ocean with a family atttending a basebvall game with a
      family worshipping God in church.
      > Ah, but suppose one day the discussion revolves instead
      around the best way to raise kids. Again, they can go on and
      on regaling each other descriptively about their own
      experiences. And usually, the other parents will understand
      what they are being told. But how in the world would parents
      be clear, in turn, about why they feel they should not go to
      their child too often when she cries, or why they feel it is
      perfectly okay for their child to sleep with them, or why
      they believe it is important to introduce their child to God
      and religion or why they feel a no nonesense discipline is
      the best way to raise kids or why they feel the American
      Dream is not the right set of values to instill in kids or
      why they feel that liberal values rather than conservative
      values are what children need or why they feel that separate
      and distinct gender roles are something kids need to
      understand and to emulate. Ecetera.
      > There is, in my view, very little that is "inherently
      clear" about right or wrong human behavior. Otherwise, why,
      after thousands of years, would we as a species still be
      going back and forth [sometimes heatedly] about the same
      moral quandaries over and over and over again?
      > Biggie
    • louise
      ... to signify or represent the relationship between in my head and out in the world, postmodernism can only be understood contextually in terms of
      Message 192 of 192 , Mar 13, 2005
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, George Walton <iambiguously@y...>
        > Eduard,
        > Well, as a postmodernist might insists, "like any other word used
        to signify or represent the relationship between in my head and out
        in the world, 'postmodernism' can only be understood contextually in
        terms of particular cultures and political economies."
        > In other words, postmodernism eschews all metaphysical
        contraptions---sacred or secular. They view "reality" in brackets,
        as the manner in which different people interpret different
        circumstantial contexts. Take the word "freedom" for example.
        Mordernists thinkers [usually construed as Kant to the present]
        would attempt to wrap the definition of the word around a binary
        logo-centric ontological contraption: either/or. It was believed,
        therefore, that we could define and grasp Freedom ahistorically.
        That there was an objective, universal manner in which to encompass
        it. That freedom had nothing to do with interpretation, but could
        literally be deduced a priori by The Rational Mind.
        > Postmodernists and poststructuralists debunked that. For them,
        words like "freedom" and "justice" and "good" and "bad" and "right"
        and "wrong" were merely relative "situational interpretations" that
        flowed from the political, economic, social, cultural, and
        historical and interpersonal contexts around which their meaning
        evolved. For example, think of the American Revolutionary War. Think
        of how the monarchy in England grasped the meaning of those words
        above quite differently from most of the Colonists. Or think about
        the how the Colonists viewed the words quite apart from how the
        indigenous Indian tribes did. Or think about how Communists view the
        defintions apart from how capitalists do. Et Cetera.
        > Similarly, right now, I am writing what I think I mean and you are
        reading what you think I'm saying. That's human communication in a
        nutshell. The Modernists, however, will insists that there is an
        objective manner in which these words can be construed. The
        postmodernists, however, never stop laughing when they hear that.
        > In other words: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
        > Biggie
        > eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote:
        > Biggie,
        > What is a "postmodernist"??
        > eduard
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "George Walton" <iambiguously@y...>
        > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:30 AM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Characteristics of Existence
        > > Matt,
        > >
        > > Nothing personal, but I suspect your mind is lost because
        > it doesn't really want to be found. I see that a lot in
        > venues like this.
        > >
        > > Or maybe I'm wrong. Just out of curiosity, how would you
        > differeniate Kant from Hume from Nietzsche from Wittgenstein
        > from Heidegger from Foucault respecting human moral
        > interactions?
        > >
        > > And philosophy is, of course, everywhere. A politician can
        > be completely ignorant and uneducated like the current
        > President of the United States and he is still imbued with
        > the philosophical currents that impregnate human
        > interactions historically. Again, it's like intellectual
        > ether floating all around us. It impacts always. It's just
        > that, as some existentialists and postmodernists like to
        > point out, it is not a metaphysical presence so much as a
        > contextual one.
        > >
        > > Biggie
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > 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
        > ---------------------------------
        > Do you Yahoo!?
        > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.