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

...

Expand Messages
  • Amanda Lemesonoka
    Louise, you asked a good question - why am i on this list now? i thought about it for some time... i think it s a waste of time if you want to prove something
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Louise,
      you asked a good question - why am i on this list now? i thought about it for some time... i think it's a waste of time if you want to prove something to others here. cause we all have our own views and the only thing we can do is to express them, not persuade...
      but it's something very valuable if you can gain something for yourself... i have made myself to think about difeerent things here that i probably wouldn't do otherwise... and i'm also happy to read mails of people whose thoughts are different. it makes me think more...
      Amanda



      ---------------------------------
      BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • eduard at home
      Amanda, Right on. The benefit of this list is what you* yourself get out of it. It s amazing how much I have learnt, in the past few years. Participate,
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 30, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Amanda,

        Right on.

        The benefit of this list is what you* yourself get out of it. It's amazing how much I have learnt, in the past few years.

        Participate, participate, participate ...

        eduard
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Amanda Lemesonoka
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 5:18 AM
        Subject: [existlist] ...


        Louise,
        you asked a good question - why am i on this list now? i thought about it for some time... i think it's a waste of time if you want to prove something to others here. cause we all have our own views and the only thing we can do is to express them, not persuade...
        but it's something very valuable if you can gain something for yourself... i have made myself to think about difeerent things here that i probably wouldn't do otherwise... and i'm also happy to read mails of people whose thoughts are different. it makes me think more...
        Amanda



        ---------------------------------
        BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


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

        Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • louise
        Amanda, It s lovely to hear from you again. You re doing a better job than I am, I think, remaining undistracted by all those male territory wars (yawn).
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 30, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Amanda,
          It's lovely to hear from you again. You're doing a better job than
          I am, I think, remaining undistracted by all those male territory
          wars (yawn). Well, I'm maybe trying to be nonchalant...
          I'm more than twice your age, and can probably not shed much light
          on things specific to you at the moment. Above all, it's my reading
          that's made me think, rather than contacts with people; but I begin
          to appreciate the group now with a bit more perspective. I like
          that Latin phrase, mutatis mutandis, which there's no real brief
          English equivalent for. I'ld say that, mutatis mutandis (allowing,
          that is, for all that distinguishes us and our beliefs, our rational
          processes, whatever)I too wish to express my sense of things, rather
          than persuade; but there are many whom I simply do not expect to
          believe me. And I'm afraid I know why that is, and that's why I may
          be resented, by some, at times. I expected that, from the outset.
          Hope things turn out well for you, in the midst of rush. I worked
          in a busy office once...
          Louise.

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Amanda Lemesonoka <kamy_ams@y...>
          wrote:
          > Louise,
          > you asked a good question - why am i on this list now? i thought
          about it for some time... i think it's a waste of time if you want
          to prove something to others here. cause we all have our own views
          and the only thing we can do is to express them, not persuade...
          > but it's something very valuable if you can gain something for
          yourself... i have made myself to think about difeerent things here
          that i probably wouldn't do otherwise... and i'm also happy to read
          mails of people whose thoughts are different. it makes me think
          more...
          > Amanda
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and
          save £80
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          C, Okay. Fair enough. On the other hand, just what did you intend by, you are truly what Heidegger meant by the das Man self? Wil ...
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 30, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            C,

            Okay. Fair enough.

            On the other hand, just what did you intend by, "you are truly what Heidegger
            meant by the das Man self?"

            Wil

            In a message dated 10/30/07 6:56:02 PM, ccorey@... writes:

            > Wil, as for my speaking in platitudes, can you give me one
            > philosophical treatise of your own and yours only? I am interested,
            > sincerely... sincerely...<wbr>and ever since my first post you have
            > me...my slinging is simply self defense...I do not wish to argue with
            > you but you prompt me to do so...I will leave it at that...
            >
            > -c-
            >




            **************************************
            See what's new at http://www.aol.com


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • ccorey@frontiernet.net
            Wil, Really, it applies to all of us...most of our lives we are not our genuine selves, not authentic but inauthentic...not the ordinary self of Cartiesian
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 30, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Wil,

              Really, it applies to all of us...most of our lives we are not our
              genuine selves, not authentic but inauthentic...not the ordinary self
              of Cartiesian reflection...not an individual self...it is an anonymous
              self, a self defined by other people...when we describe ourselves, we
              refer to the roles we play or social categories...the das Man self is
              the social, comparative self...although it is essential to life, it is
              not our genuine self...the view goes back to Kierkegaard?s and
              Nietzsche?s attached on the ?herd mentality? of contemporary society,
              but Heidegger does not except the extremity of their rejection of
              everyday social life...I think this contrasting notion plays a huge
              role in existentialism...

              -c-

              Quoting eupraxis@...:

              > C,
              >
              > Okay. Fair enough.
              >
              > On the other hand, just what did you intend by, "you are truly what Heidegger
              > meant by the das Man self?"
              >
              > Wil
              >
              > In a message dated 10/30/07 6:56:02 PM, ccorey@... writes:
              >
              >> Wil, as for my speaking in platitudes, can you give me one
              >> philosophical treatise of your own and yours only? I am interested,
              >> sincerely... sincerely...<wbr>and ever since my first post you have
              >> me...my slinging is simply self defense...I do not wish to argue with
              >> you but you prompt me to do so...I will leave it at that...
              >>
              >> -c-
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > **************************************
              > See what's new at http://www.aol.com
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >



              CHRISTOPHER COREY (HIGH BANDWIDTH DESIGN & METAPHYSICAL RESEARCH)
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              C, Sure sounded like an insult, but I will take you at your word. W ... ************************************** See what s new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 30, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                C,

                Sure sounded like an insult, but I will take you at your word.

                W

                In a message dated 10/30/07 7:38:19 PM, ccorey@... writes:


                > Wil,
                >
                > Really, it applies to all of us...most of our lives we are not our
                > genuine selves, not authentic but inauthentic. genuine selves, not auth
                > of Cartiesian reflection.. of Cartiesian reflection..<wbr>.not an indivi
                > self, a self defined by other people...when we describe ourselves, we
                > refer to the roles we play or social categories.. refer to the roles we
                > the social, comparative self...although it is essential to life, it is
                > not our genuine self...the view goes back to Kierkegaard? not ou
                > Nietzsche?s attached on the ?herd mentality? of contemporary society,
                > but Heidegger does not except the extremity of their rejection of
                > everyday social life...I think this contrasting notion plays a huge
                > role in existentialism. r
                >
                > -c-
                >
                > Quoting eupraxis@...:
                >
                > > C,
                > >
                > > Okay. Fair enough.
                > >
                > > On the other hand, just what did you intend by, "you are truly what
                > Heidegger
                > > meant by the das Man self?"
                > >
                > > Wil
                >
                >
                >




                **************************************
                See what's new at http://www.aol.com


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • ccorey@frontiernet.net
                Wil, It was meant to be an insult but it turns out not so much so, now after brewing over it I find it true of myself and others...either way i apologize.. -c-
                Message 7 of 16 , Oct 30, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wil,

                  It was meant to be an insult but it turns out not so much so, now
                  after brewing over it I find it true of myself and others...either way
                  i apologize..

                  -c-

                  Quoting eupraxis@...:

                  > C,
                  >
                  > Sure sounded like an insult, but I will take you at your word.
                  >
                  > W
                  >
                  > In a message dated 10/30/07 7:38:19 PM, ccorey@... writes:
                  >
                  >
                  >> Wil,
                  >>
                  >> Really, it applies to all of us...most of our lives we are not our
                  >> genuine selves, not authentic but inauthentic. genuine selves, not auth
                  >> of Cartiesian reflection.. of Cartiesian reflection..<wbr>.not an indivi
                  >> self, a self defined by other people...when we describe ourselves, we
                  >> refer to the roles we play or social categories.. refer to the roles we
                  >> the social, comparative self...although it is essential to life, it is
                  >> not our genuine self...the view goes back to Kierkegaard? not ou
                  >> Nietzsche?s attached on the ?herd mentality? of contemporary society,
                  >> but Heidegger does not except the extremity of their rejection of
                  >> everyday social life...I think this contrasting notion plays a huge
                  >> role in existentialism. r
                  >>
                  >> -c-
                  >>
                  >> Quoting eupraxis@...:
                  >>
                  >> > C,
                  >> >
                  >> > Okay. Fair enough.
                  >> >
                  >> > On the other hand, just what did you intend by, "you are truly what
                  >> Heidegger
                  >> > meant by the das Man self?"
                  >> >
                  >> > Wil
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > **************************************
                  > See what's new at http://www.aol.com
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >



                  CHRISTOPHER COREY (HIGH BANDWIDTH DESIGN & METAPHYSICAL RESEARCH)
                • Herman B. Triplegood
                  Heidegger wasn t a moralist. In the existential analytic he was simply describing the things that make up a human experience. Authenticity and inauthenticity
                  Message 8 of 16 , Oct 30, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Heidegger wasn't a moralist. In the existential analytic he was
                    simply describing the things that make up a human experience.
                    Authenticity and inauthenticity are both facts about human beings.
                    Heidegger wasn't so much saying we should be authentic rather than
                    inauthenitc. Of course, we should be. But, to teach us this moral
                    lesson wasn't the real reason why he wrote Being and Time.

                    Remember, Heidegger was addressing the question of the meaning of
                    Being. That is, Heidegger was addressing this: what meaning does the
                    question of being still have for us? It was, originally, actually a
                    question about the relevance, the human relevance, of metaphysics
                    itself. Heidegger believed that the human enterprise of "doing
                    metaphysics" was in need of a reevaluation. Later on, he came to
                    believe that it had to be deconstructed -- psychoanalyzed, so to
                    speak, in order to uncover its hidden pathology.

                    Since what Heidegger was concerned about in Being and Time was a
                    human enterprise, the logical place to begin was to undertake a
                    radical re-analysis of the human experience of existence, that is, of
                    having a life; hence, the need for the existential analytic, the
                    analysis of da-sein. It is humans, after all, not animals, or rocks,
                    who attempt to do metaphysics. Why?

                    The fact that we struggle between authenticity and inauthenticity
                    turns out to be an essential part of our human nature, and it also
                    has something to do with our compulsion to do metaphysics. Somehow,
                    we feel, when we undertake to interpret our world, our experience,
                    metaphysically, we are doing something that we, as humans, ought to
                    be doing. We are engaging in the attempt to understand that
                    experience in certain characteristic ways. Heidegger plays upon the
                    word "understanding" in Being and Time, noting that it figuratively
                    means to "stand under", or to be a ground for, the meaning that this
                    experience of ours can have, or might have, or even might not have --
                    for us, that is, always for us. Heidegger's writings exhibit many
                    such puns and clever plays on the etymologies of the words that he
                    uses.

                    In any case, no doubt, where Heidegger ended up going later on in his
                    career looks a lot different from where he started in Being and Time.
                    No doubt, ethical questions have been raised about his involvement in
                    Nazi politics in the early to mid-thirties. But Heidegger was himslef
                    marginalized, as far as the academic politics was concerned. His
                    basic philosophical stance was in some respects too radical to win
                    and keep, for him, very many well connected friends, as the new
                    political order became entrenched. In some ways, Heidegger's
                    temperament, his already peculiar style of thinking, would have been
                    too antagonistic toward the new status quo.

                    Heidegger did what many "good Germans" did. He kept his nose clean,
                    avoided controversy, and paid plenty of lip service to the state. Of
                    course, the real controversy came later, when Heidegger, along with
                    many other German intellectuals, was roundly criticized for looking
                    the other way as the Nazi madness destroyed the fabric of German
                    society and much of Europe. Sure, none of this was right. But it was
                    expedient, and necessarily so. How many of us, right now, would have
                    the courage to risk imprisonment, possibly even being murdered, to
                    stand up, on principle, against such a thing? I don't know that I
                    would have that much courage. I hope that I would. But I haven't been
                    tested by that kind of extremity. We can look back, in retrospect,
                    and condemn these people for what they did not do, what they failed
                    to say, and in our moral righteousness, say, "Aha! The true colors
                    now fly!" But, many of us, I am sure, would be more acutely motivated
                    by the desire to stay out of jail and to stay alive, and to avoid bad
                    consequences for our loved ones. We put up with an awful lot when it
                    is our life and our livelihood that is on the line.

                    Maybe, in the end, Heidegger's greatest failing was that he wasn't a
                    moralist. I don't know. His involvement in Nazi politics doesn't
                    paint a very edifying picture, and somehow, we think, a philosopher,
                    of all people, ought to know better, and ought to act better. But
                    Heidegger shared this failing with many other intellectuals who stood
                    by, just like him, and did not challenge what was beginning to happen
                    in Germany in the run up to the Holocaust. What if Heidegger had
                    spoken out? If Heidegger had been a moralist, an outspoken one, like,
                    for instance, Einstein, either one of two things would have probably
                    happened to him: either, he would have become some kind of a
                    statistic, or, he would have fled, and he probably would have ended
                    up becoming an American or British citizen. Neither one of these, I
                    think, was ever an option for him.

                    Hb3g

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, ccorey@... wrote:
                    >
                    > Wil,
                    >
                    > It was meant to be an insult but it turns out not so much so, now
                    > after brewing over it I find it true of myself and others...either
                    way
                    > i apologize..
                    >
                    > -c-
                    >
                    > Quoting eupraxis@...:
                    >
                    > > C,
                    > >
                    > > Sure sounded like an insult, but I will take you at your word.
                    > >
                    > > W
                    > >
                    > > In a message dated 10/30/07 7:38:19 PM, ccorey@... writes:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >> Wil,
                    > >>
                    > >> Really, it applies to all of us...most of our lives we are not
                    our
                    > >> genuine selves, not authentic but inauthentic. genuine selves,
                    not auth
                    > >> of Cartiesian reflection.. of Cartiesian reflection..<wbr>.not
                    an indivi
                    > >> self, a self defined by other people...when we describe
                    ourselves, we
                    > >> refer to the roles we play or social categories.. refer to the
                    roles we
                    > >> the social, comparative self...although it is essential to life,
                    it is
                    > >> not our genuine self...the view goes back to Kierkegaard? not ou
                    > >> Nietzsche?s attached on the ?herd mentality? of contemporary
                    society,
                    > >> but Heidegger does not except the extremity of their rejection of
                    > >> everyday social life...I think this contrasting notion plays a
                    huge
                    > >> role in existentialism. r
                    > >>
                    > >> -c-
                    > >>
                    > >> Quoting eupraxis@...:
                    > >>
                    > >> > C,
                    > >> >
                    > >> > Okay. Fair enough.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > On the other hand, just what did you intend by, "you are truly
                    what
                    > >> Heidegger
                    > >> > meant by the das Man self?"
                    > >> >
                    > >> > Wil
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > **************************************
                    > > See what's new at http://www.aol.com
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > CHRISTOPHER COREY (HIGH BANDWIDTH DESIGN & METAPHYSICAL RESEARCH)
                    >
                  • eupraxis@aol.com
                    Hb3g, How many of us, right now, would have the courage to risk imprisonment, possibly even being murdered, to stand up, on principle, against such a thing?
                    Message 9 of 16 , Oct 30, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hb3g,

                      "How many of us, right now, would have the courage to risk imprisonment,
                      possibly even being murdered, to stand up, on principle, against such a thing?"

                      The important thing is not to allow things to get to that point. But, if a
                      true Nazi-like regime were to take over this country, with all that that
                      implies, I would indeed "stand up, on principle, against such a thing." Absolutely.
                      No question.

                      I have a very different take on Heidegger's B&T. I can only read it,
                      especially Division Two, as a reactionary conservatism. Division One follows very
                      closely, at least in the schematic layout of the subjects, the social-humanistic
                      philosophy of Dilthey. Division Two, especially V and VI, changes gears and
                      redirects the question towards the sense of history as a deep loss. You can see
                      this also in his Intro to Metaphysics (see pg 199 ff on Nazism). This appeal
                      for the recovery for lost origins smacks of Wagner and the myth of lost Nordic
                      values.

                      For a great take on this see Zizek's "A Ticklish Subject" (Verso).

                      Wil

                      In a message dated 10/30/07 9:40:46 PM, hb3g@... writes:


                      > Heidegger wasn't a moralist. In the existential analytic he was
                      > simply describing the things that make up a human experience.
                      > Authenticity and inauthenticity are both facts about human beings.
                      > Heidegger wasn't so much saying we should be authentic rather than
                      > inauthenitc. Of course, we should be. But, to teach us this moral
                      > lesson wasn't the real reason why he wrote Being and Time.
                      >
                      > Remember, Heidegger was addressing the question of the meaning of
                      > Being. That is, Heidegger was addressing this: what meaning does the
                      > question of being still have for us? It was, originally, actually a
                      > question about the relevance, the human relevance, of metaphysics
                      > itself. Heidegger believed that the human enterprise of "doing
                      > metaphysics" was in need of a reevaluation. Later on, he came to
                      > believe that it had to be deconstructed -- psychoanalyzed, so to
                      > speak, in order to uncover its hidden pathology.
                      >
                      > Since what Heidegger was concerned about in Being and Time was a
                      > human enterprise, the logical place to begin was to undertake a
                      > radical re-analysis of the human experience of existence, that is, of
                      > having a life; hence, the need for the existential analytic, the
                      > analysis of da-sein. It is humans, after all, not animals, or rocks,
                      > who attempt to do metaphysics. Why?
                      >
                      > The fact that we struggle between authenticity and inauthenticity
                      > turns out to be an essential part of our human nature, and it also
                      > has something to do with our compulsion to do metaphysics. Somehow,
                      > we feel, when we undertake to interpret our world, our experience,
                      > metaphysically, we are doing something that we, as humans, ought to
                      > be doing. We are engaging in the attempt to understand that
                      > experience in certain characteristic ways. Heidegger plays upon the
                      > word "understanding" in Being and Time, noting that it figuratively
                      > means to "stand under", or to be a ground for, the meaning that this
                      > experience of ours can have, or might have, or even might not have --
                      > for us, that is, always for us. Heidegger's writings exhibit many
                      > such puns and clever plays on the etymologies of the words that he
                      > uses.
                      >
                      > In any case, no doubt, where Heidegger ended up going later on in his
                      > career looks a lot different from where he started in Being and Time.
                      > No doubt, ethical questions have been raised about his involvement in
                      > Nazi politics in the early to mid-thirties. But Heidegger was himslef
                      > marginalized, as far as the academic politics was concerned. His
                      > basic philosophical stance was in some respects too radical to win
                      > and keep, for him, very many well connected friends, as the new
                      > political order became entrenched. In some ways, Heidegger's
                      > temperament, his already peculiar style of thinking, would have been
                      > too antagonistic toward the new status quo.
                      >
                      > Heidegger did what many "good Germans" did. He kept his nose clean,
                      > avoided controversy, and paid plenty of lip service to the state. Of
                      > course, the real controversy came later, when Heidegger, along with
                      > many other German intellectuals, was roundly criticized for looking
                      > the other way as the Nazi madness destroyed the fabric of German
                      > society and much of Europe. Sure, none of this was right. But it was
                      > expedient, and necessarily so. How many of us, right now, would have
                      > the courage to risk imprisonment, possibly even being murdered, to
                      > stand up, on principle, against such a thing? I don't know that I
                      > would have that much courage. I hope that I would. But I haven't been
                      > tested by that kind of extremity. We can look back, in retrospect,
                      > and condemn these people for what they did not do, what they failed
                      > to say, and in our moral righteousness, say, "Aha! The true colors
                      > now fly!" But, many of us, I am sure, would be more acutely motivated
                      > by the desire to stay out of jail and to stay alive, and to avoid bad
                      > consequences for our loved ones. We put up with an awful lot when it
                      > is our life and our livelihood that is on the line.
                      >
                      > Maybe, in the end, Heidegger's greatest failing was that he wasn't a
                      > moralist. I don't know. His involvement in Nazi politics doesn't
                      > paint a very edifying picture, and somehow, we think, a philosopher,
                      > of all people, ought to know better, and ought to act better. But
                      > Heidegger shared this failing with many other intellectuals who stood
                      > by, just like him, and did not challenge what was beginning to happen
                      > in Germany in the run up to the Holocaust. What if Heidegger had
                      > spoken out? If Heidegger had been a moralist, an outspoken one, like,
                      > for instance, Einstein, either one of two things would have probably
                      > happened to him: either, he would have become some kind of a
                      > statistic, or, he would have fled, and he probably would have ended
                      > up becoming an American or British citizen. Neither one of these, I
                      > think, was ever an option for him.
                      >
                      > Hb3g
                      >
                      >
                      >




                      **************************************
                      See what's new at http://www.aol.com


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Herman B. Triplegood
                      Wil: Zizek s book looks pretty interesting. There is yet another for the ever growing reading list. Hb3g ... imprisonment, ... such a thing? ... But, if a ...
                      Message 10 of 16 , Oct 30, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Wil:

                        Zizek's book looks pretty interesting. There is yet another for the
                        ever growing reading list.

                        Hb3g

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                        >
                        > Hb3g,
                        >
                        > "How many of us, right now, would have the courage to risk
                        imprisonment,
                        > possibly even being murdered, to stand up, on principle, against
                        such a thing?"
                        >
                        > The important thing is not to allow things to get to that point.
                        But, if a
                        > true Nazi-like regime were to take over this country, with all that
                        that
                        > implies, I would indeed "stand up, on principle, against such a
                        thing." Absolutely.
                        > No question.
                        >
                        > I have a very different take on Heidegger's B&T. I can only read
                        it,
                        > especially Division Two, as a reactionary conservatism. Division
                        One follows very
                        > closely, at least in the schematic layout of the subjects, the
                        social-humanistic
                        > philosophy of Dilthey. Division Two, especially V and VI, changes
                        gears and
                        > redirects the question towards the sense of history as a deep loss.
                        You can see
                        > this also in his Intro to Metaphysics (see pg 199 ff on Nazism).
                        This appeal
                        > for the recovery for lost origins smacks of Wagner and the myth of
                        lost Nordic
                        > values.
                        >
                        > For a great take on this see Zizek's "A Ticklish Subject" (Verso).
                        >
                        > Wil
                        >
                        > In a message dated 10/30/07 9:40:46 PM, hb3g@... writes:
                        >
                        >
                        > > Heidegger wasn't a moralist. In the existential analytic he was
                        > > simply describing the things that make up a human experience.
                        > > Authenticity and inauthenticity are both facts about human beings.
                        > > Heidegger wasn't so much saying we should be authentic rather than
                        > > inauthenitc. Of course, we should be. But, to teach us this moral
                        > > lesson wasn't the real reason why he wrote Being and Time.
                        > >
                        > > Remember, Heidegger was addressing the question of the meaning of
                        > > Being. That is, Heidegger was addressing this: what meaning does
                        the
                        > > question of being still have for us? It was, originally, actually
                        a
                        > > question about the relevance, the human relevance, of metaphysics
                        > > itself. Heidegger believed that the human enterprise of "doing
                        > > metaphysics" was in need of a reevaluation. Later on, he came to
                        > > believe that it had to be deconstructed -- psychoanalyzed, so to
                        > > speak, in order to uncover its hidden pathology.
                        > >
                        > > Since what Heidegger was concerned about in Being and Time was a
                        > > human enterprise, the logical place to begin was to undertake a
                        > > radical re-analysis of the human experience of existence, that
                        is, of
                        > > having a life; hence, the need for the existential analytic, the
                        > > analysis of da-sein. It is humans, after all, not animals, or
                        rocks,
                        > > who attempt to do metaphysics. Why?
                        > >
                        > > The fact that we struggle between authenticity and inauthenticity
                        > > turns out to be an essential part of our human nature, and it also
                        > > has something to do with our compulsion to do metaphysics.
                        Somehow,
                        > > we feel, when we undertake to interpret our world, our experience,
                        > > metaphysically, we are doing something that we, as humans, ought
                        to
                        > > be doing. We are engaging in the attempt to understand that
                        > > experience in certain characteristic ways. Heidegger plays upon
                        the
                        > > word "understanding" in Being and Time, noting that it
                        figuratively
                        > > means to "stand under", or to be a ground for, the meaning that
                        this
                        > > experience of ours can have, or might have, or even might not
                        have --
                        > > for us, that is, always for us. Heidegger's writings exhibit many
                        > > such puns and clever plays on the etymologies of the words that he
                        > > uses.
                        > >
                        > > In any case, no doubt, where Heidegger ended up going later on in
                        his
                        > > career looks a lot different from where he started in Being and
                        Time.
                        > > No doubt, ethical questions have been raised about his
                        involvement in
                        > > Nazi politics in the early to mid-thirties. But Heidegger was
                        himslef
                        > > marginalized, as far as the academic politics was concerned. His
                        > > basic philosophical stance was in some respects too radical to win
                        > > and keep, for him, very many well connected friends, as the new
                        > > political order became entrenched. In some ways, Heidegger's
                        > > temperament, his already peculiar style of thinking, would have
                        been
                        > > too antagonistic toward the new status quo.
                        > >
                        > > Heidegger did what many "good Germans" did. He kept his nose
                        clean,
                        > > avoided controversy, and paid plenty of lip service to the state.
                        Of
                        > > course, the real controversy came later, when Heidegger, along
                        with
                        > > many other German intellectuals, was roundly criticized for
                        looking
                        > > the other way as the Nazi madness destroyed the fabric of German
                        > > society and much of Europe. Sure, none of this was right. But it
                        was
                        > > expedient, and necessarily so. How many of us, right now, would
                        have
                        > > the courage to risk imprisonment, possibly even being murdered, to
                        > > stand up, on principle, against such a thing? I don't know that I
                        > > would have that much courage. I hope that I would. But I haven't
                        been
                        > > tested by that kind of extremity. We can look back, in retrospect,
                        > > and condemn these people for what they did not do, what they
                        failed
                        > > to say, and in our moral righteousness, say, "Aha! The true colors
                        > > now fly!" But, many of us, I am sure, would be more acutely
                        motivated
                        > > by the desire to stay out of jail and to stay alive, and to avoid
                        bad
                        > > consequences for our loved ones. We put up with an awful lot when
                        it
                        > > is our life and our livelihood that is on the line.
                        > >
                        > > Maybe, in the end, Heidegger's greatest failing was that he
                        wasn't a
                        > > moralist. I don't know. His involvement in Nazi politics doesn't
                        > > paint a very edifying picture, and somehow, we think, a
                        philosopher,
                        > > of all people, ought to know better, and ought to act better. But
                        > > Heidegger shared this failing with many other intellectuals who
                        stood
                        > > by, just like him, and did not challenge what was beginning to
                        happen
                        > > in Germany in the run up to the Holocaust. What if Heidegger had
                        > > spoken out? If Heidegger had been a moralist, an outspoken one,
                        like,
                        > > for instance, Einstein, either one of two things would have
                        probably
                        > > happened to him: either, he would have become some kind of a
                        > > statistic, or, he would have fled, and he probably would have
                        ended
                        > > up becoming an American or British citizen. Neither one of these,
                        I
                        > > think, was ever an option for him.
                        > >
                        > > Hb3g
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > **************************************
                        > See what's new at http://www.aol.com
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • ccorey@frontiernet.net
                        In existentialism, personal choices become unique without the necessity of an objective form of truth.
                        Message 11 of 16 , Oct 31, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In existentialism, personal choices become unique without the
                          necessity of an objective form of truth.
                        • Exist List Moderator
                          I would argue that we are always authentic -- which might seem to contradict existential notions until you consider the larger ramifications. We are either
                          Message 12 of 16 , Oct 31, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I would argue that we are always authentic -- which might seem to
                            contradict existential notions until you consider the larger
                            ramifications. We are either always acting in at least partial "bad
                            faith" (Sartre suggested this) or we are painfully aware of everything
                            and even our lies, deceptions, and omissions are actually "authentic"
                            in some way.

                            I choose to limit my interactions with colleagues and senior
                            professors because I understand that every interaction is potentially
                            detrimental to my dissertation defense. I'm already an "odd duck"
                            because I mix philosophy, neurology, and pedagogy. No matter what I
                            say or do, someone on my committee will be offended. (Not much of a
                            shock -- at the young age of 38 I finally realize the humanities
                            suffer from an inferiority complex and hate the fact I do quantitative
                            analysis of neurological conditions... then expand this to the
                            "philosophy" of education.)

                            Can we be in "bad faith" if we know we are acting? And when are we not
                            acting? I'm even "acting" when I convince myself to do something or
                            not do something. The way I see myself is, admittedly, not a complete
                            picture. Yet, no one else has a complete picture of me, either.
                            Knowing this, how can I be "inauthentic" and "authentic" at the same
                            time?

                            I have decided my partial understanding of the self is "authentic" as
                            long as I know it is partial. I cannot tell you what is genetic, what
                            is from my environment, and what is "pure" free will. I'm not even
                            sure there is a pure free will -- only an attempt to assert free will
                            despite the other factors shaping me. You can't escape what has made
                            you, but you can try really hard to apply a new, authentic self.

                            It's all very confusing at this hour, though. I just know that I don't
                            know what has made me who I am. I only know that I try to be as
                            reasonable as I can be, as honest with myself as possible, without
                            becoming totally disillusioned.

                            Life is actually pretty good, so why would I want to consider how
                            meaningless it is? Is that "bad faith" in some way? I don't think so.
                            I am choosing to go past the absurd to enjoy the moment, but I do not
                            deny the meaningless nature of existence.

                            Rambling too late, with not nearly enough Halloween chocolate in my
                            system.

                            - CSW
                          • eupraxis@aol.com
                            Geeze! WS ... ************************************** See what s new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Message 13 of 16 , Oct 31, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Geeze!

                              WS

                              In a message dated 10/31/07 9:35:53 PM, existlist1@... writes:


                              > I would argue that we are always authentic -- which might seem to
                              > contradict existential notions until you consider the larger
                              > ramifications. We are either always acting in at least partial "bad
                              > faith" (Sartre suggested this) or we are painfully aware of everything
                              > and even our lies, deceptions, and omissions are actually "authentic"
                              > in some way.
                              >
                              > I choose to limit my interactions with colleagues and senior
                              > professors because I understand that every interaction is potentially
                              > detrimental to my dissertation defense. I'm already an "odd duck"
                              > because I mix philosophy, neurology, and pedagogy. No matter what I
                              > say or do, someone on my committee will be offended. (Not much of a
                              > shock -- at the young age of 38 I finally realize the humanities
                              > suffer from an inferiority complex and hate the fact I do quantitative
                              > analysis of neurological conditions.. analysis of neurological c
                              > "philosophy" of education.)
                              >
                              > Can we be in "bad faith" if we know we are acting? And when are we not
                              > acting? I'm even "acting" when I convince myself to do something or
                              > not do something. The way I see myself is, admittedly, not a complete
                              > picture. Yet, no one else has a complete picture of me, either.
                              > Knowing this, how can I be "inauthentic" and "authentic" at the same
                              > time?
                              >
                              > I have decided my partial understanding of the self is "authentic" as
                              > long as I know it is partial. I cannot tell you what is genetic, what
                              > is from my environment, and what is "pure" free will. I'm not even
                              > sure there is a pure free will -- only an attempt to assert free will
                              > despite the other factors shaping me. You can't escape what has made
                              > you, but you can try really hard to apply a new, authentic self.
                              >
                              > It's all very confusing at this hour, though. I just know that I don't
                              > know what has made me who I am. I only know that I try to be as
                              > reasonable as I can be, as honest with myself as possible, without
                              > becoming totally disillusioned.
                              >
                              > Life is actually pretty good, so why would I want to consider how
                              > meaningless it is? Is that "bad faith" in some way? I don't think so.
                              > I am choosing to go past the absurd to enjoy the moment, but I do not
                              > deny the meaningless nature of existence.
                              >
                              > Rambling too late, with not nearly enough Halloween chocolate in my
                              > system.
                              >
                              > - CSW
                              >
                              >
                              >




                              **************************************
                              See what's new at http://www.aol.com


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Herman B. Triplegood
                              Yep. To be confused, at least a little bit, maybe a whole lot, is to be human. We are human, all to human. I ve been reading Nietzsche. He is right, you know,
                              Message 14 of 16 , Nov 1, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yep. To be confused, at least a little bit, maybe a whole lot, is to
                                be human. We are human, all to human. I've been reading Nietzsche. He
                                is right, you know, about the inescapability of error. Sure, we can
                                be right about some things some of the time. But, we can never be
                                totally free of error. There is always some angle we haven't looked
                                at yet. There is always some wrong assumption we don't even realize
                                we have assumed.

                                The same goes for authenticity and character.

                                I just don't get the thing about existence being meaningless. I never
                                have. The way I see it, if existence really was as meaningless as
                                some people think, then, why would existence even bother with
                                existing life into existence? HeHe! Yeah, I know, I am
                                anthropomorphizing it. So, who cares where existence came from? Who
                                cares if there is some ultimate destination or purpose to existence
                                or not? The main thing is, it seems, that wherever there is
                                existence, sooner or later, somewhere, in some form or another, there
                                is life. That isn't meaningless, even if it is donwright mysterious.

                                Hb3g

                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                                <existlist1@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I would argue that we are always authentic -- which might seem to
                                > contradict existential notions until you consider the larger
                                > ramifications. We are either always acting in at least
                                partial "bad
                                > faith" (Sartre suggested this) or we are painfully aware of
                                everything
                                > and even our lies, deceptions, and omissions are
                                actually "authentic"
                                > in some way.
                                >
                                > I choose to limit my interactions with colleagues and senior
                                > professors because I understand that every interaction is
                                potentially
                                > detrimental to my dissertation defense. I'm already an "odd duck"
                                > because I mix philosophy, neurology, and pedagogy. No matter what
                                I
                                > say or do, someone on my committee will be offended. (Not much of
                                a
                                > shock -- at the young age of 38 I finally realize the humanities
                                > suffer from an inferiority complex and hate the fact I do
                                quantitative
                                > analysis of neurological conditions... then expand this to the
                                > "philosophy" of education.)
                                >
                                > Can we be in "bad faith" if we know we are acting? And when are we
                                not
                                > acting? I'm even "acting" when I convince myself to do something
                                or
                                > not do something. The way I see myself is, admittedly, not a
                                complete
                                > picture. Yet, no one else has a complete picture of me, either.
                                > Knowing this, how can I be "inauthentic" and "authentic" at the
                                same
                                > time?
                                >
                                > I have decided my partial understanding of the self is "authentic"
                                as
                                > long as I know it is partial. I cannot tell you what is genetic,
                                what
                                > is from my environment, and what is "pure" free will. I'm not even
                                > sure there is a pure free will -- only an attempt to assert free
                                will
                                > despite the other factors shaping me. You can't escape what has
                                made
                                > you, but you can try really hard to apply a new, authentic self.
                                >
                                > It's all very confusing at this hour, though. I just know that I
                                don't
                                > know what has made me who I am. I only know that I try to be as
                                > reasonable as I can be, as honest with myself as possible, without
                                > becoming totally disillusioned.
                                >
                                > Life is actually pretty good, so why would I want to consider how
                                > meaningless it is? Is that "bad faith" in some way? I don't think
                                so.
                                > I am choosing to go past the absurd to enjoy the moment, but I do
                                not
                                > deny the meaningless nature of existence.
                                >
                                > Rambling too late, with not nearly enough Halloween chocolate in
                                my
                                > system.
                                >
                                > - CSW
                                >
                              • ccorey@frontiernet.net
                                Hb3g, you are right, if existence really was as meaningless as some people think, then, why would existence even bother with existing? People are anxious about
                                Message 15 of 16 , Nov 2, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hb3g, you are right, if existence really was as meaningless as some
                                  people think, then, why would existence even bother with existing?
                                  People are anxious about meaninglessness because they know they have
                                  the freedom to make their life mean whatever they want it to
                                  mean--which includes the freedom to make it meaningless; and people
                                  are anxious about existence because they know they have the freedom to
                                  end it. I think that this is one of the points of existentialism. If
                                  we label life meaningless it motivates us to find meaning in it. Not
                                  to loath in a sickness unto death. But to make it our job to refute
                                  this meaninglessness with ?a courage to be? or self affirmation. I
                                  think this is what our dead existential philosopher friends wanted us
                                  to do; to seek out the meaning of life or to take away it?s
                                  meaninglessness and nothingness in order to reach a state of
                                  authenticity. It?s just a simple prompt to wake up and smell the coffee.

                                  -c-


                                  Quoting "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>:

                                  > Yep. To be confused, at least a little bit, maybe a whole lot, is to
                                  > be human. We are human, all to human. I've been reading Nietzsche. He
                                  > is right, you know, about the inescapability of error. Sure, we can
                                  > be right about some things some of the time. But, we can never be
                                  > totally free of error. There is always some angle we haven't looked
                                  > at yet. There is always some wrong assumption we don't even realize
                                  > we have assumed.
                                  >
                                  > The same goes for authenticity and character.
                                  >
                                  > I just don't get the thing about existence being meaningless. I never
                                  > have. The way I see it, if existence really was as meaningless as
                                  > some people think, then, why would existence even bother with
                                  > existing life into existence? HeHe! Yeah, I know, I am
                                  > anthropomorphizing it. So, who cares where existence came from? Who
                                  > cares if there is some ultimate destination or purpose to existence
                                  > or not? The main thing is, it seems, that wherever there is
                                  > existence, sooner or later, somewhere, in some form or another, there
                                  > is life. That isn't meaningless, even if it is donwright mysterious.
                                  >
                                  > Hb3g
                                  >
                                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                                  > <existlist1@...> wrote:
                                  >>
                                  >> I would argue that we are always authentic -- which might seem to
                                  >> contradict existential notions until you consider the larger
                                  >> ramifications. We are either always acting in at least
                                  > partial "bad
                                  >> faith" (Sartre suggested this) or we are painfully aware of
                                  > everything
                                  >> and even our lies, deceptions, and omissions are
                                  > actually "authentic"
                                  >> in some way.
                                  >>
                                  >> I choose to limit my interactions with colleagues and senior
                                  >> professors because I understand that every interaction is
                                  > potentially
                                  >> detrimental to my dissertation defense. I'm already an "odd duck"
                                  >> because I mix philosophy, neurology, and pedagogy. No matter what
                                  > I
                                  >> say or do, someone on my committee will be offended. (Not much of
                                  > a
                                  >> shock -- at the young age of 38 I finally realize the humanities
                                  >> suffer from an inferiority complex and hate the fact I do
                                  > quantitative
                                  >> analysis of neurological conditions... then expand this to the
                                  >> "philosophy" of education.)
                                  >>
                                  >> Can we be in "bad faith" if we know we are acting? And when are we
                                  > not
                                  >> acting? I'm even "acting" when I convince myself to do something
                                  > or
                                  >> not do something. The way I see myself is, admittedly, not a
                                  > complete
                                  >> picture. Yet, no one else has a complete picture of me, either.
                                  >> Knowing this, how can I be "inauthentic" and "authentic" at the
                                  > same
                                  >> time?
                                  >>
                                  >> I have decided my partial understanding of the self is "authentic"
                                  > as
                                  >> long as I know it is partial. I cannot tell you what is genetic,
                                  > what
                                  >> is from my environment, and what is "pure" free will. I'm not even
                                  >> sure there is a pure free will -- only an attempt to assert free
                                  > will
                                  >> despite the other factors shaping me. You can't escape what has
                                  > made
                                  >> you, but you can try really hard to apply a new, authentic self.
                                  >>
                                  >> It's all very confusing at this hour, though. I just know that I
                                  > don't
                                  >> know what has made me who I am. I only know that I try to be as
                                  >> reasonable as I can be, as honest with myself as possible, without
                                  >> becoming totally disillusioned.
                                  >>
                                  >> Life is actually pretty good, so why would I want to consider how
                                  >> meaningless it is? Is that "bad faith" in some way? I don't think
                                  > so.
                                  >> I am choosing to go past the absurd to enjoy the moment, but I do
                                  > not
                                  >> deny the meaningless nature of existence.
                                  >>
                                  >> Rambling too late, with not nearly enough Halloween chocolate in
                                  > my
                                  >> system.
                                  >>
                                  >> - CSW
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >



                                  CHRISTOPHER COREY (HIGH BANDWIDTH DESIGN & METAPHYSICAL RESEARCH)
                                • Herman B. Triplegood
                                  Pretty well said. The only thing I might have a problem with is where you said, people are anxious about existence because they know they have the freedom to
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Nov 2, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Pretty well said. The only thing I might have a problem with is where
                                    you said, "people are anxious about existence because they know they
                                    have the freedom to end it." They have the freedom (supposedly) to
                                    end *their* existence, but not existence in general -- of course. But
                                    I am sure that is what you must have meant.

                                    When I said, "why would existence even bother with existing?" what I
                                    had in mind, there, wasn't really something like existence decides to
                                    have meaning -- of course it doesn't *decide* anything. Particular
                                    smart existents, like us, do. But just because existence in general
                                    doesn't decide anything, only particular smart existents like us do,
                                    it does not follow that it is meaningless.

                                    I have in mind, here, just the basic facts of natural order. You
                                    know: animal, vegetable, mineral, gravity, law of nature, evolution.
                                    There is alot of order in this existence thing that is supposed to
                                    be meaningless.

                                    Lastly, the jury is still out on whether or not this existence thing
                                    really will ever end, or, for that matter, had a definite beginning.
                                    Just because the cosmologists talk in terms of a Big Bang does not
                                    mean that such a Big Bang was the beginning of all existence. It was
                                    just the beginning of *this* particular existence that we have
                                    loosely called our "universe". There is plenty of theorizing going on
                                    about what came before that Big Bang. It works the same way at the
                                    other end of the process. Maybe this existence, our universe, as we
                                    know it, will end. But, in reality, that will just be a
                                    transformation of it into something else that also exists. So, in my
                                    opinion, the supposition that it will end someday is no argument for
                                    its meaningless. The eventuality of my own death, likewise, is no
                                    argument for the meaninglessness of my particular life.

                                    Hb3g

                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, ccorey@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Hb3g, you are right, if existence really was as meaningless as
                                    some
                                    > people think, then, why would existence even bother with existing?
                                    > People are anxious about meaninglessness because they know they
                                    have
                                    > the freedom to make their life mean whatever they want it to
                                    > mean--which includes the freedom to make it meaningless; and
                                    people
                                    > are anxious about existence because they know they have the freedom
                                    to
                                    > end it. I think that this is one of the points of existentialism.
                                    If
                                    > we label life meaningless it motivates us to find meaning in it.
                                    Not
                                    > to loath in a sickness unto death. But to make it our job to
                                    refute
                                    > this meaninglessness with ?a courage to be? or self affirmation. I
                                    > think this is what our dead existential philosopher friends wanted
                                    us
                                    > to do; to seek out the meaning of life or to take away it?s
                                    > meaninglessness and nothingness in order to reach a state of
                                    > authenticity. It?s just a simple prompt to wake up and smell the
                                    coffee.
                                    >
                                    > -c-
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Quoting "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>:
                                    >
                                    > > Yep. To be confused, at least a little bit, maybe a whole lot, is
                                    to
                                    > > be human. We are human, all to human. I've been reading
                                    Nietzsche. He
                                    > > is right, you know, about the inescapability of error. Sure, we
                                    can
                                    > > be right about some things some of the time. But, we can never be
                                    > > totally free of error. There is always some angle we haven't
                                    looked
                                    > > at yet. There is always some wrong assumption we don't even
                                    realize
                                    > > we have assumed.
                                    > >
                                    > > The same goes for authenticity and character.
                                    > >
                                    > > I just don't get the thing about existence being meaningless. I
                                    never
                                    > > have. The way I see it, if existence really was as meaningless as
                                    > > some people think, then, why would existence even bother with
                                    > > existing life into existence? HeHe! Yeah, I know, I am
                                    > > anthropomorphizing it. So, who cares where existence came from?
                                    Who
                                    > > cares if there is some ultimate destination or purpose to
                                    existence
                                    > > or not? The main thing is, it seems, that wherever there is
                                    > > existence, sooner or later, somewhere, in some form or another,
                                    there
                                    > > is life. That isn't meaningless, even if it is donwright
                                    mysterious.
                                    > >
                                    > > Hb3g
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                                    > > <existlist1@> wrote:
                                    > >>
                                    > >> I would argue that we are always authentic -- which might seem to
                                    > >> contradict existential notions until you consider the larger
                                    > >> ramifications. We are either always acting in at least
                                    > > partial "bad
                                    > >> faith" (Sartre suggested this) or we are painfully aware of
                                    > > everything
                                    > >> and even our lies, deceptions, and omissions are
                                    > > actually "authentic"
                                    > >> in some way.
                                    > >>
                                    > >> I choose to limit my interactions with colleagues and senior
                                    > >> professors because I understand that every interaction is
                                    > > potentially
                                    > >> detrimental to my dissertation defense. I'm already an "odd duck"
                                    > >> because I mix philosophy, neurology, and pedagogy. No matter what
                                    > > I
                                    > >> say or do, someone on my committee will be offended. (Not much of
                                    > > a
                                    > >> shock -- at the young age of 38 I finally realize the humanities
                                    > >> suffer from an inferiority complex and hate the fact I do
                                    > > quantitative
                                    > >> analysis of neurological conditions... then expand this to the
                                    > >> "philosophy" of education.)
                                    > >>
                                    > >> Can we be in "bad faith" if we know we are acting? And when are
                                    we
                                    > > not
                                    > >> acting? I'm even "acting" when I convince myself to do something
                                    > > or
                                    > >> not do something. The way I see myself is, admittedly, not a
                                    > > complete
                                    > >> picture. Yet, no one else has a complete picture of me, either.
                                    > >> Knowing this, how can I be "inauthentic" and "authentic" at the
                                    > > same
                                    > >> time?
                                    > >>
                                    > >> I have decided my partial understanding of the self
                                    is "authentic"
                                    > > as
                                    > >> long as I know it is partial. I cannot tell you what is genetic,
                                    > > what
                                    > >> is from my environment, and what is "pure" free will. I'm not
                                    even
                                    > >> sure there is a pure free will -- only an attempt to assert free
                                    > > will
                                    > >> despite the other factors shaping me. You can't escape what has
                                    > > made
                                    > >> you, but you can try really hard to apply a new, authentic self.
                                    > >>
                                    > >> It's all very confusing at this hour, though. I just know that I
                                    > > don't
                                    > >> know what has made me who I am. I only know that I try to be as
                                    > >> reasonable as I can be, as honest with myself as possible,
                                    without
                                    > >> becoming totally disillusioned.
                                    > >>
                                    > >> Life is actually pretty good, so why would I want to consider how
                                    > >> meaningless it is? Is that "bad faith" in some way? I don't think
                                    > > so.
                                    > >> I am choosing to go past the absurd to enjoy the moment, but I do
                                    > > not
                                    > >> deny the meaningless nature of existence.
                                    > >>
                                    > >> Rambling too late, with not nearly enough Halloween chocolate in
                                    > > my
                                    > >> system.
                                    > >>
                                    > >> - CSW
                                    > >>
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > CHRISTOPHER COREY (HIGH BANDWIDTH DESIGN & METAPHYSICAL RESEARCH)
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.