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

commercials

Expand Messages
  • cribprdb
    Louise you are like commercials on television - informative, but full of information nobody is interested in at the time. This TV channel, this list, has more
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Louise you are like commercials on television - informative, but
      full of information nobody is interested in at the time. This TV
      channel, this list, has more of your commercials than any relative
      substance for anyone seeking information about existentialism and
      philosophy. I'd ask you to argue philosophical points, but I
      honestly don't think you are up to the challenge. It is in the end
      the moderators and list owners choice to allow your babbling, but it
      is my opinion that that is unfortunate for others seeking
      information about existentialism or philosophy. It is not about
      censorship, but rather effective informative debate and good
      manners, neither of which you exhibit any tendency towards. I do not
      feel that I need to defend my position however since my posts
      reflect my intelligence and resonably reflect my education - when it
      is possible to do so here. You will not drive me away from here, and
      I will not put up with your SPAM. There are others on this list
      besides yourself, and some of them are interested in existentialism
      and philosophy. It is not a lack of compassion that leaves me
      disinterested in providing a therapeutic outlet for you here. You
      are English, and have a computer, and a husband, and I believe that
      it is within your means to seek therapy elsewhere. My private e-mail
      is available. You never complain to me privately. Most of my private
      e-mail is from people encouraging me to be intolerant of you. You
      are a SPAMMER and a disservice to others here. Stop replying and
      post new threads instead, and stay out of my discussions on this
      list. Stay out of my discussions on this list.

      On the issue of sexism - who are you to discuss philosophical
      direction with young men? What is it you hope to tell them? What war
      have you fought in? What jail have you been in? What bar have you
      passed out in? How many times have you been beat up? What cause have
      you defended? How many third shift jobs in the steel mill have you
      worked without sleep just to feed your kids? How many times have you
      poisoned yourself on the job, or took life threatening risks just to
      keep your job and food on the table? Cats? Men did not make this
      world what it is. It is absurd to argue so. We were mostly thrust
      into it by our love of women and children. If men had made this
      world there would be a river of beer, and a lake of scotch
      somewhere, and all women would fall on their back with their legs in
      the air upon the approach of a man, and tobacco would not kill you.
      This world was a joint effort of men and women. Sexism is a
      sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in an existential
      venue, and it is not the cause of the world's problems. Men and
      women cannot ever understand each other without understanding the
      foundation of life itself.

      Take care to your henhouse my dear - this little red rooster's on
      the prowl.

      light like a feather, heavy as lead
      Trinidad
    • louise
      you think it is I who need therapy??? i ve already told you i m happy not to reply. still am. ... it ... not ... it ... and ... existentialism ... that ...
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        you think it is I who need therapy???
        i've already told you i'm happy not to reply. still am.



        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...> wrote:
        > Louise you are like commercials on television - informative, but
        > full of information nobody is interested in at the time. This TV
        > channel, this list, has more of your commercials than any relative
        > substance for anyone seeking information about existentialism and
        > philosophy. I'd ask you to argue philosophical points, but I
        > honestly don't think you are up to the challenge. It is in the end
        > the moderators and list owners choice to allow your babbling, but
        it
        > is my opinion that that is unfortunate for others seeking
        > information about existentialism or philosophy. It is not about
        > censorship, but rather effective informative debate and good
        > manners, neither of which you exhibit any tendency towards. I do
        not
        > feel that I need to defend my position however since my posts
        > reflect my intelligence and resonably reflect my education - when
        it
        > is possible to do so here. You will not drive me away from here,
        and
        > I will not put up with your SPAM. There are others on this list
        > besides yourself, and some of them are interested in
        existentialism
        > and philosophy. It is not a lack of compassion that leaves me
        > disinterested in providing a therapeutic outlet for you here. You
        > are English, and have a computer, and a husband, and I believe
        that
        > it is within your means to seek therapy elsewhere. My private e-
        mail
        > is available. You never complain to me privately. Most of my
        private
        > e-mail is from people encouraging me to be intolerant of you. You
        > are a SPAMMER and a disservice to others here. Stop replying and
        > post new threads instead, and stay out of my discussions on this
        > list. Stay out of my discussions on this list.
        >
        > On the issue of sexism - who are you to discuss philosophical
        > direction with young men? What is it you hope to tell them? What
        war
        > have you fought in? What jail have you been in? What bar have you
        > passed out in? How many times have you been beat up? What cause
        have
        > you defended? How many third shift jobs in the steel mill have you
        > worked without sleep just to feed your kids? How many times have
        you
        > poisoned yourself on the job, or took life threatening risks just
        to
        > keep your job and food on the table? Cats? Men did not make this
        > world what it is. It is absurd to argue so. We were mostly thrust
        > into it by our love of women and children. If men had made this
        > world there would be a river of beer, and a lake of scotch
        > somewhere, and all women would fall on their back with their legs
        in
        > the air upon the approach of a man, and tobacco would not kill
        you.
        > This world was a joint effort of men and women. Sexism is a
        > sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in an existential
        > venue, and it is not the cause of the world's problems. Men and
        > women cannot ever understand each other without understanding the
        > foundation of life itself.
        >
        > Take care to your henhouse my dear - this little red rooster's on
        > the prowl.
        >
        > light like a feather, heavy as lead
        > Trinidad
      • Tom Hickcox
        ... [balance snipped] Well said. When I find a person s posts to be intolerably tedious as I do in this case, I put the person on kill-file and never see their
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          At 10:34 4/2/2004 , Trinidad wrote:

          >Louise you are like commercials on television - informative, but
          >full of information nobody is interested in at the time. This TV
          >channel, this list, has more of your commercials than any relative
          >substance for anyone seeking information about existentialism and
          >philosophy. I'd ask you to argue philosophical points, but I
          >honestly don't think you are up to the challenge. It is in the end
          >the moderators and list owners choice to allow your babbling, but it
          >is my opinion that that is unfortunate for others seeking
          >information about existentialism or philosophy. It is not about
          >censorship, but rather effective informative debate and good
          >manners, neither of which you exhibit any tendency towards.

          [balance snipped]

          Well said.

          When I find a person's posts to be intolerably tedious as I do in this
          case, I put the person on kill-file and never see their
          rants/lamentations. It is a really convenient thing to do.

          I have been a member of the list for several years, lurking for the most
          part, and I would note that over the past few months existentialism has
          hardly been discussed at all, rather the list has become group therapy for
          some nuts. That is just my opinion.

          Back to lurking.

          Tommy
        • bjunius30
          The Existential choices we make I am unsure and uncertain at any point of time of how I am controlling my being when I walk into a swanky little bar. The non-
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            The Existential choices we make


            I am unsure and uncertain at any point of time of how I am
            controlling my being when I walk into a swanky little bar. The non-
            being of disassociation. The idea that we are just there to be there.
            To be or not be as Jean Paul Sartre declared as he postulated over
            sublime predispositions at his table, and being ignored by the waiter
            in the cafe that he normally attended. A cup at a arms length of a
            distance, and yet, I still do not know if it will ever be filled! The
            idea of Heidegger in the sense we are in the confines of inner
            mortality struggling for our deaths to be recognized and awarded in
            the afterlife where there is no grandeur for pride or pity. The other
            of other are the same as seeing one's self through a great looking
            glass, a force to be reckoned with where no sense of spirituality has
            been obtained, but the suffering we all congratulate as our innermost
            gold locket, chained to the bloody feet of Jesus Christ is simply
            that real for us. A mode of thought.
            What can existentialism tell us? Reality is the model of appearance
            but not hardly a real surface we can lean upon. A metaphysical mode
            of wanting and where wanting becomes the desire we assume in our
            society as the transparent free market enterprise. It gives us the
            sense of purpose that we can do what we want, but we are limited
            really by what we should do. Sometimes doing nothing, in the sense of
            Buddhist philosophy, makes perfect sense for those who want to
            understand free will. When Adam & Eve were simply iconic
            representations of how temptation and the modes of desire carried us
            away from the simplicity that free will once was. Sometimes the world
            seems cluttered with antimonies of reason. The complexities grow out
            of social collective biases forming the foundations of mythological
            inceptions that take prescence in our every day lives. The clutter of
            humanity feeling itselves around in the darkness grasping to what
            little light they can obtain in the ideas and prayers of a better
            hope and future for the sake of mankind. For the sake of their
            children's children. Simply the stages are set. The lights are
            dimmed. And the show begins.

            With Frank Kafka's "Metamorphosis", we all wake up to be insects,
            doing our time in the colony. A conforming of virtues, but still
            existence allows our modesty to outgrow us over time. The movement at
            high volume but of very little distance relative in the model of
            appearances. Did you ever see a movie, and ever wondered to yourself,
            wow, that is me in that film! I am in that film! However, physically
            you are not, but given the situations of our world and our social
            reality -- the constructual realism, things can be taken over from
            individual lifes and be made accessible for the world to see. And
            simply as the example, we can all be made into film stars,
            celebrities, politicians, collegiate professors, or even secret
            agents. With most existential philosophy today existing in the
            classroom or in ivy league universities around the world, I have
            considered most of the classics of our time to be poppy-cock. Every
            philosophy we know of today has had its grand moment in time and
            equally only one piece of the puzzle to a 10 million pieced Jigsaw
            puzzle. And sincerely, I have always doubted and criticised most
            professors who argued in behalf of human morality, or of moral duty,
            a Kantian anal theory, or even a virtuous Hegelian dialectic, or
            Nietsche aphorisms. There are no such things other than that faith in
            human struggle has allowed itself to be heard in the voices of
            civilization through music, art and poetry. The aesthetical idea that
            perhaps one day life will cease to exist but virtue and beauty will
            always be this forever formless commodity we aspire to. A platonic
            excuse for the universe as if the universe necessarily needed one.
            Living in countries, I have seen such ideas pass by me, and have seen
            such vulgarity. And at some expense, despite my opinions have seen
            the ultimate chord of beauty in knowing some sort of truth about how
            existence in us lives. Does God allow such necessary things into our
            lives? And could It even allow itself to understand such things
            without giving up innocence?!
            Though existentialism never considers such proof due to other-worldly
            attributes, I have always been fascinated by such ideas from an
            existential view-point of my own accord, but not hoping in way to
            consiliate the thought that God has a deterministic stance in all of
            this. However, knowing as a child, I was once taught that Jesus
            Christ was our lord and saviour, an all reverent messiah. Even from
            His birth Jesus supposedly knew that He was destined for greater
            purpose and a great demand that would ultimately lead to his
            unconditional sacrifice for the world of Man. If such things were
            known even then, I considered another view of how a new coming, or
            new enlightment would follow. And perhaps a new child in this century
            must be born of the same quality as Jesus had been given and that He
            or she must also figure out that His/Her purpose from conception was
            indeed divine. This certain problem of identifying an existential
            metaphysics from a book of pure historical revelations, lead me to
            question as to how a child of being in the world obtained ultimate
            knowledge. And who would necessarily take Him/Her as the personified
            creation of Jesus Christ himself?
            In these days and age, there is hardly a person who will come up to
            someone and say, " I am the New Messiah," and "I am what the book
            foretold. Follow me."
            Most people would just laugh at the fact and carry on in their merry
            old way. This is devout religion for you and for those who look into
            the stars for miracles to happen, when any given moment in the life
            of a child is a miracle in-itself. An unpredictable absolute beauty
            we can always be sure of.
            During my own travels around the world, I had emulated certain ideas
            of old philosophers, and tried to imagine if those ideas were of any
            quality. Of any fortitude against new social issues. They did not
            pass my test, and I dismissed them one by one, finding some common
            fault with all of them, that were always as described by intellectual
            students, as pure genius and pertinent to how we think and live. I
            contrarily disagreed with most of it --even the genius thing -- as it
            made no sense to rhetorical logic.
            The London Society of Philosophers try to make me out as being too
            naive and much too critical, and once said I did not get all the
            facts from classical examples, perusable in today's modern, and over-
            rated text books. I simply told them those things were much too
            vulgar efforts in a display of wit. And there were very few that I
            conceded could pass new debate in current models of social reasoning
            and dialectics.
            Sitting in bars where conversation permeated the air over trivial
            talk, I idealized that not-being in the existential sense meant that
            I could have no control over where I was at. And looking at my cup as
            I had sipped it tenderly thought, modes of being were always in the
            phase of not being. The Not I. I wasn't the waiter who served me. I
            wasn't the cup that I sipped from. I wasn't the conversation in the
            room. I wasn't the door to the entrance as people walked in noticing
            my deep transcendental thought. I was like the stirring of some
            fluid. The stirring swirl.

            I realized at some point in my period of study that beauty was a
            namesake. Ugliness and beauty could easily be transmogrified, and
            that even the most beautiful creature on the face of the earth could
            be shaped into ugliness. And in rising above beyond all aesthetical
            characteristics that constructed the idea itself became this logical
            postivism obscurity which I think even Wittegstein could of had
            problems with. This only seemed to conclude some of my hypotheses
            about what formless voids out there existed in the metaphysical plane
            as Plato once annotated, pointing his hand to the sky, his pupil,
            Aristotle, disagreeing and pointing his finger to the ground. Beauty
            and like all relations of the word became transhumanistic --plopping
            a human brain into an artifical machine.
            The example of Jesus Christ during his life seemed to fit this idea
            perfectly, as everyone seemed to look upon him in awe. A beauty that
            surpassed the mere human perception. A charisma that made Pharoahs
            tremble at his feet.

            In the words of Buddha, why does Man suffer so much? And why is there
            suffering? These things seem to contribute to why we should
            understand compassion in order to know one's suffering. And that all
            Men's fate are tied in with the Gods and so the cycle goes.

            In the representation of what we are. Existence has no precedence
            over essence. This was the easy way out for Jean Paul Sartre to
            proclaim as he did not believe in divine nature and considered
            himself very much an atheist. To me though, it seemed silly that such
            a person would relish in the system built out of nothing ideas in
            order to exorcise those ideas that were nothing;God being the premise
            to this awkward system of thought. And funnilly, I would think
            everyone would pick up on the idea, and tell an atheist, to actually
            prove ATHEISM since it believes in nothing!


            I will write more later.


            regards,


            Bryan Evan Junius, M.A, Ph.D






            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...> wrote:
            > Louise you are like commercials on television - informative, but
            > full of information nobody is interested in at the time. This TV
            > channel, this list, has more of your commercials than any relative
            > substance for anyone seeking information about existentialism and
            > philosophy. I'd ask you to argue philosophical points, but I
            > honestly don't think you are up to the challenge. It is in the end
            > the moderators and list owners choice to allow your babbling, but
            it
            > is my opinion that that is unfortunate for others seeking
            > information about existentialism or philosophy. It is not about
            > censorship, but rather effective informative debate and good
            > manners, neither of which you exhibit any tendency towards. I do
            not
            > feel that I need to defend my position however since my posts
            > reflect my intelligence and resonably reflect my education - when
            it
            > is possible to do so here. You will not drive me away from here,
            and
            > I will not put up with your SPAM. There are others on this list
            > besides yourself, and some of them are interested in existentialism
            > and philosophy. It is not a lack of compassion that leaves me
            > disinterested in providing a therapeutic outlet for you here. You
            > are English, and have a computer, and a husband, and I believe that
            > it is within your means to seek therapy elsewhere. My private e-
            mail
            > is available. You never complain to me privately. Most of my
            private
            > e-mail is from people encouraging me to be intolerant of you. You
            > are a SPAMMER and a disservice to others here. Stop replying and
            > post new threads instead, and stay out of my discussions on this
            > list. Stay out of my discussions on this list.
            >
            > On the issue of sexism - who are you to discuss philosophical
            > direction with young men? What is it you hope to tell them? What
            war
            > have you fought in? What jail have you been in? What bar have you
            > passed out in? How many times have you been beat up? What cause
            have
            > you defended? How many third shift jobs in the steel mill have you
            > worked without sleep just to feed your kids? How many times have
            you
            > poisoned yourself on the job, or took life threatening risks just
            to
            > keep your job and food on the table? Cats? Men did not make this
            > world what it is. It is absurd to argue so. We were mostly thrust
            > into it by our love of women and children. If men had made this
            > world there would be a river of beer, and a lake of scotch
            > somewhere, and all women would fall on their back with their legs
            in
            > the air upon the approach of a man, and tobacco would not kill you.
            > This world was a joint effort of men and women. Sexism is a
            > sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in an existential
            > venue, and it is not the cause of the world's problems. Men and
            > women cannot ever understand each other without understanding the
            > foundation of life itself.
            >
            > Take care to your henhouse my dear - this little red rooster's on
            > the prowl.
            >
            > light like a feather, heavy as lead
            > Trinidad
          • Amy
            Hi Trinidad, Sexism is a sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in an existential venue, and it is not the cause of the world s problems. Men and
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Trinidad,

              "Sexism is a sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in an
              existential venue, and it is not the cause of the world's problems.
              Men and women cannot ever understand each other without understanding
              the foundation of life itself."

              I would beg to differ with you on this point. Sexism has to do with
              ethics, and ethics has to do with values, and defining values is very
              philosophical. Aristotle, a long time ago made a philosophical
              statement that women were men that had not developed enough in the
              womb. His point being that they are less than/incomplete men. And
              Aristotle has had a tremendious impact on philosophy, because, he has
              had a tremendous impact on the way the world appears to us. Lets not
              beat each other up about it, but lets not denie that for some people
              gender relations and the inequality of these relations is a
              philosophical issue.

              Thank-you..

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...> wrote:
              > Louise you are like commercials on television - informative, but
              > full of information nobody is interested in at the time. This TV
              > channel, this list, has more of your commercials than any relative
              > substance for anyone seeking information about existentialism and
              > philosophy. I'd ask you to argue philosophical points, but I
              > honestly don't think you are up to the challenge. It is in the end
              > the moderators and list owners choice to allow your babbling, but
              it
              > is my opinion that that is unfortunate for others seeking
              > information about existentialism or philosophy. It is not about
              > censorship, but rather effective informative debate and good
              > manners, neither of which you exhibit any tendency towards. I do
              not
              > feel that I need to defend my position however since my posts
              > reflect my intelligence and resonably reflect my education - when
              it
              > is possible to do so here. You will not drive me away from here,
              and
              > I will not put up with your SPAM. There are others on this list
              > besides yourself, and some of them are interested in existentialism
              > and philosophy. It is not a lack of compassion that leaves me
              > disinterested in providing a therapeutic outlet for you here. You
              > are English, and have a computer, and a husband, and I believe that
              > it is within your means to seek therapy elsewhere. My private e-
              mail
              > is available. You never complain to me privately. Most of my
              private
              > e-mail is from people encouraging me to be intolerant of you. You
              > are a SPAMMER and a disservice to others here. Stop replying and
              > post new threads instead, and stay out of my discussions on this
              > list. Stay out of my discussions on this list.
              >
              > On the issue of sexism - who are you to discuss philosophical
              > direction with young men? What is it you hope to tell them? What
              war
              > have you fought in? What jail have you been in? What bar have you
              > passed out in? How many times have you been beat up? What cause
              have
              > you defended? How many third shift jobs in the steel mill have you
              > worked without sleep just to feed your kids? How many times have
              you
              > poisoned yourself on the job, or took life threatening risks just
              to
              > keep your job and food on the table? Cats? Men did not make this
              > world what it is. It is absurd to argue so. We were mostly thrust
              > into it by our love of women and children. If men had made this
              > world there would be a river of beer, and a lake of scotch
              > somewhere, and all women would fall on their back with their legs
              in
              > the air upon the approach of a man, and tobacco would not kill you.
              > This world was a joint effort of men and women. Sexism is a
              > sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in an existential
              > venue, and it is not the cause of the world's problems. Men and
              > women cannot ever understand each other without understanding the
              > foundation of life itself.
              >
              > Take care to your henhouse my dear - this little red rooster's on
              > the prowl.
              >
              > light like a feather, heavy as lead
              > Trinidad
            • Mary Jo
              Hi Amy, I have to agree with you on this one, and it seems Trinidad himself agrees with you in his rather paradoxical wording. You forgot to include this
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Amy,

                I have to agree with you on this one, and it seems Trinidad himself
                agrees with you in his rather paradoxical wording. You forgot to
                include this sentence: <This world was a joint effort of men and
                women.> I'm sure it must have been his passion in responding, and
                maybe he can elucidate; but didn't he really say that men and women
                together made the world the way it is, precisely because they don't
                have a sound philosophical explanation for the differences between
                and similarity of men and women. Foundational truth leads to
                existential truth leads to ethics leads to rivers of beer, lakes of
                scotch and women who don't withhold sex, but based upon a mutual
                understanding of what it means to be men or women, find the higher
                ground of cooperation and ecstasy. That could be contagious.

                So, all things being equal I can-and-can't find fault with Trinidad's
                statement:

                <Men did not make this world what it is. It is absurd to argue so. We
                were mostly thrust into it by our love of women and children. If men
                had made this world there would be a river of beer, and a lake of
                scotch somewhere, and all women would fall on their back with their
                legs in the air upon the approach of a man, and tobacco would not
                kill you. This world was a joint effort of men and women. Sexism is a
                sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in an existential
                venue, and it is not the cause of the world's problems. Men and
                women cannot ever understand each other without understanding the
                foundation of life itself.>

                As a woman, I am thrust into this world the way it is and hope to
                make it a better place, if only for myself and anyone who wants
                to "communicate" with me. If anyone wants to emulate/hate me, they
                can. All I ask is that they don't call me the Great Satan or the
                Whore of Babylon. I can't stop them of course, well not at least
                until I have total and absolute power, you know, like men have. It's
                that old can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em - don't you know? I do
                love 'em. If they love me because I'm a woman, it's all good.

                Mary Jo

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Amy" <loconito442@y...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Hi Trinidad,
                >
                > "Sexism is a sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in an
                > existential venue, and it is not the cause of the world's problems.
                > Men and women cannot ever understand each other without
                understanding
                > the foundation of life itself."
                >
                > I would beg to differ with you on this point. Sexism has to do with
                > ethics, and ethics has to do with values, and defining values is
                very
                > philosophical. Aristotle, a long time ago made a philosophical
                > statement that women were men that had not developed enough in the
                > womb. His point being that they are less than/incomplete men. And
                > Aristotle has had a tremendious impact on philosophy, because, he
                has
                > had a tremendous impact on the way the world appears to us. Lets
                not
                > beat each other up about it, but lets not denie that for some
                people
                > gender relations and the inequality of these relations is a
                > philosophical issue.
                >
                > Thank-you..
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...> wrote:
                > > Louise you are like commercials on television - informative, but
                > > full of information nobody is interested in at the time. This TV
                > > channel, this list, has more of your commercials than any
                relative
                > > substance for anyone seeking information about existentialism and
                > > philosophy. I'd ask you to argue philosophical points, but I
                > > honestly don't think you are up to the challenge. It is in the
                end
                > > the moderators and list owners choice to allow your babbling, but
                > it
                > > is my opinion that that is unfortunate for others seeking
                > > information about existentialism or philosophy. It is not about
                > > censorship, but rather effective informative debate and good
                > > manners, neither of which you exhibit any tendency towards. I do
                > not
                > > feel that I need to defend my position however since my posts
                > > reflect my intelligence and resonably reflect my education - when
                > it
                > > is possible to do so here. You will not drive me away from here,
                > and
                > > I will not put up with your SPAM. There are others on this list
                > > besides yourself, and some of them are interested in
                existentialism
                > > and philosophy. It is not a lack of compassion that leaves me
                > > disinterested in providing a therapeutic outlet for you here. You
                > > are English, and have a computer, and a husband, and I believe
                that
                > > it is within your means to seek therapy elsewhere. My private e-
                > mail
                > > is available. You never complain to me privately. Most of my
                > private
                > > e-mail is from people encouraging me to be intolerant of you. You
                > > are a SPAMMER and a disservice to others here. Stop replying and
                > > post new threads instead, and stay out of my discussions on this
                > > list. Stay out of my discussions on this list.
                > >
                > > On the issue of sexism - who are you to discuss philosophical
                > > direction with young men? What is it you hope to tell them? What
                > war
                > > have you fought in? What jail have you been in? What bar have you
                > > passed out in? How many times have you been beat up? What cause
                > have
                > > you defended? How many third shift jobs in the steel mill have
                you
                > > worked without sleep just to feed your kids? How many times have
                > you
                > > poisoned yourself on the job, or took life threatening risks just
                > to
                > > keep your job and food on the table? Cats? Men did not make this
                > > world what it is. It is absurd to argue so. We were mostly thrust
                > > into it by our love of women and children. If men had made this
                > > world there would be a river of beer, and a lake of scotch
                > > somewhere, and all women would fall on their back with their legs
                > in
                > > the air upon the approach of a man, and tobacco would not kill
                you.
                > > This world was a joint effort of men and women. Sexism is a
                > > sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in an
                existential
                > > venue, and it is not the cause of the world's problems. Men and
                > > women cannot ever understand each other without understanding the
                > > foundation of life itself.
                > >
                > > Take care to your henhouse my dear - this little red rooster's on
                > > the prowl.
                > >
                > > light like a feather, heavy as lead
                > > Trinidad
              • Amy
                Hi Mary Jo, I agree with you on the point that Foundational truth leads to ... forth a bit in my opinions about what was being said when I read the post, and
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Mary Jo,

                  I agree with you on the point that "Foundational truth leads to
                  > existential truth leads to ethics" ect... And I did waver back and
                  forth a bit in my opinions about what was being said when I read the
                  post, and I do think that Trinidad was merely stateing "the way that
                  it is"(sujective statement of course). Women absolutly reinforce the
                  way that the world is just as much as men -- I'm with you on that.
                  My only point of contention with Trinidad's statement is with the
                  statement that sexism is not a philosophical issue. Other than that I
                  think Trinidad is right on the money.

                  Thanks Mary Jo! And Trinidad!

                  Amy

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Jo" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
                  > Hi Amy,
                  >
                  > I have to agree with you on this one, and it seems Trinidad himself
                  > agrees with you in his rather paradoxical wording. You forgot to
                  > include this sentence: <This world was a joint effort of men and
                  > women.> I'm sure it must have been his passion in responding, and
                  > maybe he can elucidate; but didn't he really say that men and women
                  > together made the world the way it is, precisely because they don't
                  > have a sound philosophical explanation for the differences between
                  > and similarity of men and women. Foundational truth leads to
                  > existential truth leads to ethics leads to rivers of beer, lakes of
                  > scotch and women who don't withhold sex, but based upon a mutual
                  > understanding of what it means to be men or women, find the higher
                  > ground of cooperation and ecstasy. That could be contagious.
                  >
                  > So, all things being equal I can-and-can't find fault with
                  Trinidad's
                  > statement:
                  >
                  > <Men did not make this world what it is. It is absurd to argue so.
                  We
                  > were mostly thrust into it by our love of women and children. If
                  men
                  > had made this world there would be a river of beer, and a lake of
                  > scotch somewhere, and all women would fall on their back with their
                  > legs in the air upon the approach of a man, and tobacco would not
                  > kill you. This world was a joint effort of men and women. Sexism is
                  a
                  > sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in an existential
                  > venue, and it is not the cause of the world's problems. Men and
                  > women cannot ever understand each other without understanding the
                  > foundation of life itself.>
                  >
                  > As a woman, I am thrust into this world the way it is and hope to
                  > make it a better place, if only for myself and anyone who wants
                  > to "communicate" with me. If anyone wants to emulate/hate me, they
                  > can. All I ask is that they don't call me the Great Satan or the
                  > Whore of Babylon. I can't stop them of course, well not at least
                  > until I have total and absolute power, you know, like men have.
                  It's
                  > that old can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em - don't you know? I do
                  > love 'em. If they love me because I'm a woman, it's all good.
                  >
                  > Mary Jo
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Amy" <loconito442@y...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Hi Trinidad,
                  > >
                  > > "Sexism is a sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in
                  an
                  > > existential venue, and it is not the cause of the world's
                  problems.
                  > > Men and women cannot ever understand each other without
                  > understanding
                  > > the foundation of life itself."
                  > >
                  > > I would beg to differ with you on this point. Sexism has to do
                  with
                  > > ethics, and ethics has to do with values, and defining values is
                  > very
                  > > philosophical. Aristotle, a long time ago made a philosophical
                  > > statement that women were men that had not developed enough in
                  the
                  > > womb. His point being that they are less than/incomplete men.
                  And
                  > > Aristotle has had a tremendious impact on philosophy, because, he
                  > has
                  > > had a tremendous impact on the way the world appears to us. Lets
                  > not
                  > > beat each other up about it, but lets not denie that for some
                  > people
                  > > gender relations and the inequality of these relations is a
                  > > philosophical issue.
                  > >
                  > > Thank-you..
                  > >
                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...>
                  wrote:
                  > > > Louise you are like commercials on television - informative,
                  but
                  > > > full of information nobody is interested in at the time. This
                  TV
                  > > > channel, this list, has more of your commercials than any
                  > relative
                  > > > substance for anyone seeking information about existentialism
                  and
                  > > > philosophy. I'd ask you to argue philosophical points, but I
                  > > > honestly don't think you are up to the challenge. It is in the
                  > end
                  > > > the moderators and list owners choice to allow your babbling,
                  but
                  > > it
                  > > > is my opinion that that is unfortunate for others seeking
                  > > > information about existentialism or philosophy. It is not about
                  > > > censorship, but rather effective informative debate and good
                  > > > manners, neither of which you exhibit any tendency towards. I
                  do
                  > > not
                  > > > feel that I need to defend my position however since my posts
                  > > > reflect my intelligence and resonably reflect my education -
                  when
                  > > it
                  > > > is possible to do so here. You will not drive me away from
                  here,
                  > > and
                  > > > I will not put up with your SPAM. There are others on this list
                  > > > besides yourself, and some of them are interested in
                  > existentialism
                  > > > and philosophy. It is not a lack of compassion that leaves me
                  > > > disinterested in providing a therapeutic outlet for you here.
                  You
                  > > > are English, and have a computer, and a husband, and I believe
                  > that
                  > > > it is within your means to seek therapy elsewhere. My private e-
                  > > mail
                  > > > is available. You never complain to me privately. Most of my
                  > > private
                  > > > e-mail is from people encouraging me to be intolerant of you.
                  You
                  > > > are a SPAMMER and a disservice to others here. Stop replying
                  and
                  > > > post new threads instead, and stay out of my discussions on
                  this
                  > > > list. Stay out of my discussions on this list.
                  > > >
                  > > > On the issue of sexism - who are you to discuss philosophical
                  > > > direction with young men? What is it you hope to tell them?
                  What
                  > > war
                  > > > have you fought in? What jail have you been in? What bar have
                  you
                  > > > passed out in? How many times have you been beat up? What cause
                  > > have
                  > > > you defended? How many third shift jobs in the steel mill have
                  > you
                  > > > worked without sleep just to feed your kids? How many times
                  have
                  > > you
                  > > > poisoned yourself on the job, or took life threatening risks
                  just
                  > > to
                  > > > keep your job and food on the table? Cats? Men did not make
                  this
                  > > > world what it is. It is absurd to argue so. We were mostly
                  thrust
                  > > > into it by our love of women and children. If men had made this
                  > > > world there would be a river of beer, and a lake of scotch
                  > > > somewhere, and all women would fall on their back with their
                  legs
                  > > in
                  > > > the air upon the approach of a man, and tobacco would not kill
                  > you.
                  > > > This world was a joint effort of men and women. Sexism is a
                  > > > sociological issue but not a philosophical issue in an
                  > existential
                  > > > venue, and it is not the cause of the world's problems. Men and
                  > > > women cannot ever understand each other without understanding
                  the
                  > > > foundation of life itself.
                  > > >
                  > > > Take care to your henhouse my dear - this little red rooster's
                  on
                  > > > the prowl.
                  > > >
                  > > > light like a feather, heavy as lead
                  > > > Trinidad
                • louise
                  TH, You play in yellow, I take it, if you ve twigged yet. If you re not in the UK, visit. You d learn. Lou ... it ... this ... the most ... existentialism
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 4, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    TH,
                    You play in yellow, I take it, if you've twigged yet. If you're not
                    in the UK, visit. You'd learn.
                    Lou

                    In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Tom Hickcox <cometkazie1@c...> wrote:
                    > At 10:34 4/2/2004 , Trinidad wrote:
                    >
                    > >Louise you are like commercials on television - informative, but
                    > >full of information nobody is interested in at the time. This TV
                    > >channel, this list, has more of your commercials than any relative
                    > >substance for anyone seeking information about existentialism and
                    > >philosophy. I'd ask you to argue philosophical points, but I
                    > >honestly don't think you are up to the challenge. It is in the end
                    > >the moderators and list owners choice to allow your babbling, but
                    it
                    > >is my opinion that that is unfortunate for others seeking
                    > >information about existentialism or philosophy. It is not about
                    > >censorship, but rather effective informative debate and good
                    > >manners, neither of which you exhibit any tendency towards.
                    >
                    > [balance snipped]
                    >
                    > Well said.
                    >
                    > When I find a person's posts to be intolerably tedious as I do in
                    this
                    > case, I put the person on kill-file and never see their
                    > rants/lamentations. It is a really convenient thing to do.
                    >
                    > I have been a member of the list for several years, lurking for
                    the most
                    > part, and I would note that over the past few months
                    existentialism has
                    > hardly been discussed at all, rather the list has become group
                    therapy for
                    > some nuts. That is just my opinion.
                    >
                    > Back to lurking.
                    >
                    > Tommy
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.