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

Sanity

Expand Messages
  • Mary Jo
    Louise, it s not really anyone s fault this sanity business. As Richard Dawkins so kindly put it: In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
    Message 1 of 6 , May 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Louise, it's not really anyone's fault this sanity business. As
      Richard Dawkins so kindly put it:

      In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some
      people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky,
      and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The
      universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if
      there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good,
      nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. - River Out of Eden

      And again, my K-man says in Orizaba 210 Blues - 55th Chorus:

      Someday they'll have monuments
      set up to reverend the mad
      people of today in madhouses

      As early pioneers in the knowing
      that when you lose your reason
      you attain highest perfect knowing

      Which is devoid of predicates
      such as: "I am, I will, I reason --"
      --devoid of saying: "I will do it"
      --devoid

      Devoid of insanity as well by virtue
      of no contact

      but meanwhile these deterministic
      doctors really do believe that mad
      is mad --

      And have erected a billion-dollar religion to it, called, Psycho-
      medicine,
      and ah --

      Well we'll know the sanity
      of Ard Bar

      In the morning, some time, alone

      --------------------------------

      Some crazy people aren't as insane as they are mean spiteful
      suffering saintly and full of vengeance for everyone they think has
      it better than they do in this madhouse where we can pick our own
      meds or liquor. Mary Jo
    • louise
      Mary Jo, Are you upset? And are you upset by me? I have great difficulty with all this indirect stuff, all this some people stuff. Do you think I m being
      Message 2 of 6 , May 31, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Mary Jo,

        Are you upset? And are you upset by me? I have great difficulty
        with all this indirect stuff, all this 'some people' stuff. Do you
        think I'm being spiteful? I didn't mean to be, and am sorry if
        that's how I've come across. There's no point in saying anything
        further, as this is all hypothetical. As I've probably said before,
        I can't read your mind. If you want to put something to me
        directly, do so. If not, probably better to ignore me. Perhaps
        recent stresses have blunted my sensibility, and I've been too
        candid. But it wasn't exactly nice for me to be called a 'simple
        brain-fart', or whatever.

        Louise

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Jo" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
        > Louise, it's not really anyone's fault this sanity business. As
        > Richard Dawkins so kindly put it:
        >
        > In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,
        some
        > people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky,
        > and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The
        > universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect
        if
        > there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good,
        > nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. - River Out of Eden
        >
        > And again, my K-man says in Orizaba 210 Blues - 55th Chorus:
        >
        > Someday they'll have monuments
        > set up to reverend the mad
        > people of today in madhouses
        >
        > As early pioneers in the knowing
        > that when you lose your reason
        > you attain highest perfect knowing
        >
        > Which is devoid of predicates
        > such as: "I am, I will, I reason --"
        > --devoid of saying: "I will do it"
        > --devoid
        >
        > Devoid of insanity as well by virtue
        > of no contact
        >
        > but meanwhile these deterministic
        > doctors really do believe that mad
        > is mad --
        >
        > And have erected a billion-dollar religion to it, called, Psycho-
        > medicine,
        > and ah --
        >
        > Well we'll know the sanity
        > of Ard Bar
        >
        > In the morning, some time, alone
        >
        > --------------------------------
        >
        > Some crazy people aren't as insane as they are mean spiteful
        > suffering saintly and full of vengeance for everyone they think
        has
        > it better than they do in this madhouse where we can pick our own
        > meds or liquor. Mary Jo
      • louise
        Mary Jo, Since I have at least read The Selfish Gene , and did some time ago start reading River Out of Eden , and have both on my desk right now, and have
        Message 3 of 6 , May 31, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Mary Jo,

          Since I have at least read 'The Selfish Gene', and did some time ago
          start reading 'River Out of Eden', and have both on my desk right
          now, and have also listened carefully to Richard Dawkins on radio
          and TV programmes in recent years, there might be a possibility of
          mending fences through discussion of our own layman's understanding
          of science in relation to existentialism. I do acknowledge that
          your reading here is more extensive than mine. I am extremely
          sceptical of the 'meme' theory, or analogy, but need more time to
          articulate my scepticism.

          Let me just quote here from the first chapter of 'The Selfish Gene':
          " ... it is a fallacy - incidentally a very common one - to suppose
          that genetically inherited traits are by definition fixed and
          unmodifiable. Our genes may instruct us to be selfish, but we are
          not necessarily compelled to obey them all our lives. It may just
          be more difficult to learn altruism than it would be if we were
          genetically programmed to be altruistic."

          And how does Richard Dawkins end his book, 'River Out of Eden'?
          "A statue of a naked man and woman, hands raised in a gesture of
          peace, deliberately sent on an eternal outward journey among the
          stars, the first exported fruit of the knowledge of our own life
          explosion - surely the contemplation of this might have some
          beneficial effects upon our normally parochial little
          consciousnesses; some echo of the poetic impact of Newton's statue
          in Trinity College, Cambridge, upon the admittedly giant
          consciousness of William Wordsworth:

          And from my pillow, looking forth by light
          Of moon or favouring stars, I could behold
          The antechapel where the statue stood
          Of Newton with his prism and silent face,
          The marble index of a mind for ever
          Voyaging through strange seas of Thought, alone."


          Louise
          ... in love with conciliation, if it were possible ...

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Jo" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
          > Louise, it's not really anyone's fault this sanity business. As
          > Richard Dawkins so kindly put it:
          >
          > In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,
          some
          > people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky,
          > and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The
          > universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect
          if
          > there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good,
          > nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. - River Out of Eden
          >
          > And again, my K-man says in Orizaba 210 Blues - 55th Chorus:
          >
          > Someday they'll have monuments
          > set up to reverend the mad
          > people of today in madhouses
          >
          > As early pioneers in the knowing
          > that when you lose your reason
          > you attain highest perfect knowing
          >
          > Which is devoid of predicates
          > such as: "I am, I will, I reason --"
          > --devoid of saying: "I will do it"
          > --devoid
          >
          > Devoid of insanity as well by virtue
          > of no contact
          >
          > but meanwhile these deterministic
          > doctors really do believe that mad
          > is mad --
          >
          > And have erected a billion-dollar religion to it, called, Psycho-
          > medicine,
          > and ah --
          >
          > Well we'll know the sanity
          > of Ard Bar
          >
          > In the morning, some time, alone
          >
          > --------------------------------
          >
          > Some crazy people aren't as insane as they are mean spiteful
          > suffering saintly and full of vengeance for everyone they think
          has
          > it better than they do in this madhouse where we can pick our own
          > meds or liquor. Mary Jo
        • Mary Jo
          Louise, Aint no thang. Translates as don t worry - be happy. I liked Dawkins Unweaving the Rainbow the best, full of poetry and awe for all bountiful life
          Message 4 of 6 , May 31, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Louise,

            Aint no thang. Translates as don't worry - be happy. I liked
            Dawkins' "Unweaving the Rainbow" the best, full of poetry and awe for
            all bountiful life on this planet. He's fetching, even with his
            clothes on.

            Have to tend to my road warrior. Peace out . . .

            Jo

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
            > Mary Jo,
            >
            > Since I have at least read 'The Selfish Gene', and did some time
            ago
            > start reading 'River Out of Eden', and have both on my desk right
            > now, and have also listened carefully to Richard Dawkins on radio
            > and TV programmes in recent years, there might be a possibility of
            > mending fences through discussion of our own layman's understanding
            > of science in relation to existentialism. I do acknowledge that
            > your reading here is more extensive than mine. I am extremely
            > sceptical of the 'meme' theory, or analogy, but need more time to
            > articulate my scepticism.
            >
            > Let me just quote here from the first chapter of 'The Selfish Gene':
            > " ... it is a fallacy - incidentally a very common one - to suppose
            > that genetically inherited traits are by definition fixed and
            > unmodifiable. Our genes may instruct us to be selfish, but we are
            > not necessarily compelled to obey them all our lives. It may just
            > be more difficult to learn altruism than it would be if we were
            > genetically programmed to be altruistic."
            >
            > And how does Richard Dawkins end his book, 'River Out of Eden'?
            > "A statue of a naked man and woman, hands raised in a gesture of
            > peace, deliberately sent on an eternal outward journey among the
            > stars, the first exported fruit of the knowledge of our own life
            > explosion - surely the contemplation of this might have some
            > beneficial effects upon our normally parochial little
            > consciousnesses; some echo of the poetic impact of Newton's statue
            > in Trinity College, Cambridge, upon the admittedly giant
            > consciousness of William Wordsworth:
            >
            > And from my pillow, looking forth by light
            > Of moon or favouring stars, I could behold
            > The antechapel where the statue stood
            > Of Newton with his prism and silent face,
            > The marble index of a mind for ever
            > Voyaging through strange seas of Thought, alone."
            >
            >
            > Louise
            > ... in love with conciliation, if it were possible ...
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Jo" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
            > > Louise, it's not really anyone's fault this sanity business. As
            > > Richard Dawkins so kindly put it:
            > >
            > > In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,
            > some
            > > people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get
            lucky,
            > > and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.
            The
            > > universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect
            > if
            > > there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good,
            > > nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. - River Out of Eden
            > >
            > > And again, my K-man says in Orizaba 210 Blues - 55th Chorus:
            > >
            > > Someday they'll have monuments
            > > set up to reverend the mad
            > > people of today in madhouses
            > >
            > > As early pioneers in the knowing
            > > that when you lose your reason
            > > you attain highest perfect knowing
            > >
            > > Which is devoid of predicates
            > > such as: "I am, I will, I reason --"
            > > --devoid of saying: "I will do it"
            > > --devoid
            > >
            > > Devoid of insanity as well by virtue
            > > of no contact
            > >
            > > but meanwhile these deterministic
            > > doctors really do believe that mad
            > > is mad --
            > >
            > > And have erected a billion-dollar religion to it, called, Psycho-
            > > medicine,
            > > and ah --
            > >
            > > Well we'll know the sanity
            > > of Ard Bar
            > >
            > > In the morning, some time, alone
            > >
            > > --------------------------------
            > >
            > > Some crazy people aren't as insane as they are mean spiteful
            > > suffering saintly and full of vengeance for everyone they think
            > has
            > > it better than they do in this madhouse where we can pick our own
            > > meds or liquor. Mary Jo
          • louise
            Well, what is it?? How irrational a hope might it be supposed, that philosophical clarity, about, for instance, the categories and symbolism employed in
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 9, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Well, what is it?? How irrational a hope might it be supposed, that
              philosophical clarity, about, for instance, the categories and
              symbolism employed in political and scientific discourses, could, to
              borrow Eduard's phrase, 'influence the collective'? Contemporary
              democratic system does have evangelistic features, as though the
              churches look after spiritual souls, and the politicians their
              secular equivalents. Far more than material wants are addressed by
              those who canvass for votes, and existentialist reading might indeed
              contribute to any candidate's particular hermeneutic. Can't readily
              imagine the electorate would care much, though. Philosophical
              thinking has a quite different time-scale from the requirements of
              social policy. Not only that, there are forms of philosophical
              enquiry which claim reference to eternal realities, outside of
              history altogether. I am not so convinced as Bill, that metaphysics
              is bullshit. The psychiatric controversies also complicate
              everything. Who understands the human mind?? Slowly, I get
              acquainted with my own, and the experience is different from, say,
              spending time with a friend, when two enfleshed minds walk side by
              side, and talk.

              Louise
              ... reclaiming her name
            • bhvwd
              ... that ... to ... indeed ... readily ... metaphysics
              Message 6 of 6 , Feb 9, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                >
                > Well, what is it?? How irrational a hope might it be supposed,
                that
                > philosophical clarity, about, for instance, the categories and
                > symbolism employed in political and scientific discourses, could,
                to
                > borrow Eduard's phrase, 'influence the collective'? Contemporary
                > democratic system does have evangelistic features, as though the
                > churches look after spiritual souls, and the politicians their
                > secular equivalents. Far more than material wants are addressed by
                > those who canvass for votes, and existentialist reading might
                indeed
                > contribute to any candidate's particular hermeneutic. Can't
                readily
                > imagine the electorate would care much, though. Philosophical
                > thinking has a quite different time-scale from the requirements of
                > social policy. Not only that, there are forms of philosophical
                > enquiry which claim reference to eternal realities, outside of
                > history altogether. I am not so convinced as Bill, that
                metaphysics
                > is bullshit. The psychiatric controversies also complicate
                > everything. Who understands the human mind?? Slowly, I get
                > acquainted with my own, and the experience is different from, say,
                > spending time with a friend, when two enfleshed minds walk side by
                > side, and talk.
                >
                > Louise
                > ... reclaiming her name
                >Louise, Champion! Bill
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.