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

Sterilizing Death Stars

Expand Messages
  • Mary Jo
    In the reality of catastrophic possibilities of hypernovic events, why do we seek to destroy one another? I m not talking about the bitchy moody words that
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In the reality of catastrophic possibilities of hypernovic events,
      why do we seek to destroy one another? I'm not talking about the
      bitchy moody words that cross our e-mail lips but the WMD and MEDIA
      that seek to marginalize us out of existence, out of what it means to
      be human. I tumble ass over teacups down from Cold Mountain, because
      I make the mistake of dragging the wine and the love up there with
      me. I sit up here and smell sweet and dirty humanity and remember and
      cry because it's all such a colossal tragic waste of blood and warm
      flesh. Lovers war upon each other. Even existentialists war upon each
      other with their tongue swords.

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

      Remain faithful to the earth, my brothers, with the power of your
      virtue. Let your gift-giving love and your knowledge serve the
      meaning of the earth. Thus I beg and beseech you. Do not let them fly
      away from earthly things and beat with their wings against eternal
      walls. Alas, there has always been so much virtue that has flown
      away. Lead back to the earth the virtue that flew away, as I do—back
      to the body, back to life, that it may give the earth a meaning, a
      human meaning. - Nietzsche

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

      Sartre and Camus' story of fraternal love ended badly, and on the
      intellectual level, they ended were they had begun. Camus, like the
      literary critic of the `Alger Republicain he had been, was wary of
      Sartre the thinker, while Sartre appreciated Camus as a novelist (he
      thought The Fall was superb just as he had liked The Stranger but
      thought him a poor philosopher.) Shortly before his death, without
      naming Camus, Sartre wrote a series of articles in which he
      criticized the late writer's slogan `Neither victims nor
      executioners.' For Sartre, an oppressed colonized man proves his
      humanity by killing his colonizers: `They look real fine, the
      nonviolent ones, neither victims nor executioners!' A friend believed
      that although Camus had experienced real love, 'he apparently did not
      attach any more importance to the sexual act than having a drink with
      different women. Camus loved several women right up to his death.
      Although unfaithful himself, he did not like being deceived. Charming
      and moody, sincere and theatrical, humble and arrogant, Camus wanted
      to be loved, which he often was, and to be understood, which he did
      not achieve. He spoke too much about happiness to have really been
      happy, and his unhappiness was like that of Sisyphus. He was marked
      by sufferings, and heartbreaks. Camus sought a rule for living, and
      in the public sphere he refused lies and despotism. He diagnosed
      certain evils of his time, and which reflected his era's anguishes
      and his own penchant for nihilism. As a thinker and moralist, he was
      isolated from the French mainstream, where a crude Marxism
      flourished. Camus refused politics without morality, which made
      French leftists smile as much as rightists. One cannot ignore,
      simplify, or caricature his exemplary positions, when compared with
      those of so many other writers. Nothings permits us to despise Camus,
      and there are many reasons to admire him.

      His endearing human warmth and goodness embarrass some thinkers. -
      Olivier Todd

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

      `Master thyself, then others shall thee beare'
      Pull down thy vanity
      Thou art a beaten dog beneath the hail,
      A swollen magpie in a fitful sun,
      Half black half white
      Nor knows'ou wing from tail
      Pull down thy vanity
      How mean thy hates
      Fostered in falsity,
      Pull down thy vanity,
      Rathe to destroy, niggard in charity,
      Pull down thy vanity,
      I say pull down.

      But to have done instead of not doing
      this is not vanity
      To have, with decency, knocked
      That a Blunt should open
      To have gathered form the air a live tradition
      or from a fine old eye the unconquered flame
      This is not vanity.
      Here error is all in the not done,
      all in the diffidence that faltered . . . Ezra Pound

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

      Either the melting ice caps or the landslide `ll me down (Fleetwood
      Mac) or I come down from the mountain and there was no world
      (Kerouac). I'm not melodramatic.

      Mary
    • rubster cruiser
      Even existentialists war upon each other with their tongue swords. mary jo, u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other. i cannot help but feel
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Even existentialists war upon each
        other with their tongue swords.

        mary jo,
        u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
        i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly the toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
        for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
        into the christian way of life.
        however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also pessimistic.
        both are renowned existentilists.
        this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant since the beginning of this philosophy.
        attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
        Rubster!

        Mary Jo <alcyon11@...> wrote:
        In the reality of catastrophic possibilities of hypernovic events,
        why do we seek to destroy one another? I'm not talking about the
        bitchy moody words that cross our e-mail lips but the WMD and MEDIA
        that seek to marginalize us out of existence, out of what it means to
        be human. I tumble ass over teacups down from Cold Mountain, because
        I make the mistake of dragging the wine and the love up there with
        me. I sit up here and smell sweet and dirty humanity and remember and
        cry because it's all such a colossal tragic waste of blood and warm
        flesh. Lovers war upon each other. Even existentialists war upon each
        other with their tongue swords.


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

        Remain faithful to the earth, my brothers, with the power of your
        virtue. Let your gift-giving love and your knowledge serve the
        meaning of the earth. Thus I beg and beseech you. Do not let them fly
        away from earthly things and beat with their wings against eternal
        walls. Alas, there has always been so much virtue that has flown
        away. Lead back to the earth the virtue that flew away, as I do�back
        to the body, back to life, that it may give the earth a meaning, a
        human meaning. - Nietzsche

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

        Sartre and Camus' story of fraternal love ended badly, and on the
        intellectual level, they ended were they had begun. Camus, like the
        literary critic of the `Alger Republicain he had been, was wary of
        Sartre the thinker, while Sartre appreciated Camus as a novelist (he
        thought The Fall was superb just as he had liked The Stranger but
        thought him a poor philosopher.) Shortly before his death, without
        naming Camus, Sartre wrote a series of articles in which he
        criticized the late writer's slogan `Neither victims nor
        executioners.' For Sartre, an oppressed colonized man proves his
        humanity by killing his colonizers: `They look real fine, the
        nonviolent ones, neither victims nor executioners!' A friend believed
        that although Camus had experienced real love, 'he apparently did not
        attach any more importance to the sexual act than having a drink with
        different women. Camus loved several women right up to his death.
        Although unfaithful himself, he did not like being deceived. Charming
        and moody, sincere and theatrical, humble and arrogant, Camus wanted
        to be loved, which he often was, and to be understood, which he did
        not achieve. He spoke too much about happiness to have really been
        happy, and his unhappiness was like that of Sisyphus. He was marked
        by sufferings, and heartbreaks. Camus sought a rule for living, and
        in the public sphere he refused lies and despotism. He diagnosed
        certain evils of his time, and which reflected his era's anguishes
        and his own penchant for nihilism. As a thinker and moralist, he was
        isolated from the French mainstream, where a crude Marxism
        flourished. Camus refused politics without morality, which made
        French leftists smile as much as rightists. One cannot ignore,
        simplify, or caricature his exemplary positions, when compared with
        those of so many other writers. Nothings permits us to despise Camus,
        and there are many reasons to admire him.

        His endearing human warmth and goodness embarrass some thinkers. -
        Olivier Todd

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

        `Master thyself, then others shall thee beare'
        Pull down thy vanity
        Thou art a beaten dog beneath the hail,
        A swollen magpie in a fitful sun,
        Half black half white
        Nor knows'ou wing from tail
        Pull down thy vanity
        How mean thy hates
        Fostered in falsity,
        Pull down thy vanity,
        Rathe to destroy, niggard in charity,
        Pull down thy vanity,
        I say pull down.

        But to have done instead of not doing
        this is not vanity
        To have, with decency, knocked
        That a Blunt should open
        To have gathered form the air a live tradition
        or from a fine old eye the unconquered flame
        This is not vanity.
        Here error is all in the not done,
        all in the diffidence that faltered . . . Ezra Pound

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

        Either the melting ice caps or the landslide `ll me down (Fleetwood
        Mac) or I come down from the mountain and there was no world
        (Kerouac). I'm not melodramatic.

        Mary



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


        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


        ---------------------------------
        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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mary Jo
        Rubster! Appearances can be deceiving. Atheism is fundamentally optimistic, while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic. Camus was atheistic and
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Rubster!

          Appearances can be deceiving. Atheism is fundamentally optimistic,
          while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic. Camus was atheistic
          and optimistic. Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to
          Christianity, since it betrayed its namesake. Defining and redefining
          are essentially individualized tasks. It's very difficult to be in
          the other's shoes. It's simply not possible. I can walk my path, and
          you can walk in your path, either alongside or at various
          intersections. We enter another's orbit at one time or another. It
          can be a creative or destructive event. Essentially, we're looking at
          each other across a universe. It's all phenomenology. We're observers.

          Mary Jo

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
          wrote:
          > Even existentialists war upon each
          > other with their tongue swords.
          >
          > mary jo,
          > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
          > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
          there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly the
          toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
          > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
          > into the christian way of life.
          > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
          pessimistic.
          > both are renowned existentilists.
          > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant since
          the beginning of this philosophy.
          > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
          > Rubster!
        • rubster cruiser
          Atheism is fundamentally optimistic, mary jo, i know i might be asking a personal question. but are u aetheistic.? u see, i am. and i think i am safe in saying
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Atheism is fundamentally optimistic,
            mary jo,
            i know i might be asking a personal question. but are u aetheistic.?
            u see, i am. and i think i am safe in saying that it accounts for the max negativity in me.
            of course, it is a personal outlook i suppose...
            rubster.

            Mary Jo <alcyon11@...> wrote:
            Rubster!

            Appearances can be deceiving. Atheism is fundamentally optimistic,
            while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic. Camus was atheistic
            and optimistic. Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to
            Christianity, since it betrayed its namesake. Defining and redefining
            are essentially individualized tasks. It's very difficult to be in
            the other's shoes. It's simply not possible. I can walk my path, and
            you can walk in your path, either alongside or at various
            intersections. We enter another's orbit at one time or another. It
            can be a creative or destructive event. Essentially, we're looking at
            each other across a universe. It's all phenomenology. We're observers.

            Mary Jo

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
            wrote:
            > Even existentialists war upon each
            > other with their tongue swords.
            >
            > mary jo,
            > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
            > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
            there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly the
            toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
            > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
            > into the christian way of life.
            > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
            pessimistic.
            > both are renowned existentilists.
            > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant since
            the beginning of this philosophy.
            > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
            > Rubster!




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


            Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


            ---------------------------------
            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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • louise
            ... it betrayed its namesake. This is a very complex subject, and my reading of Kierkegaard is very rusty, but I d say - he thought Christianity had already
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Mary Jo wrote:

              >Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to Christianity, since
              it betrayed its namesake.

              This is a very complex subject, and my reading of Kierkegaard is
              very rusty, but I'd say - he thought Christianity had already come
              to an end, and the only hope for its revival was an acknowledgment
              that it was indeed dead. This is what he had in common with
              Nietzsche.

              >It's very difficult to be in the other's shoes. It's simply not
              possible. I can walk my path, and you can walk in your path, either
              alongside or at various intersections. We enter another's orbit at
              one time or another. It can be a creative or destructive event.
              Essentially, we're looking at each other across a universe. It's all
              phenomenology. We're observers.

              All you church-going people, please note!!!

              on behalf of the suffering everywhere, because i'm arrogant enough
              to believe i can say that ...

              p.s. my hobby is embarrassing people.
              i love eduard - global icon.

              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
              > wrote:
              > > Even existentialists war upon each
              > > other with their tongue swords.
              > >
              > > mary jo,
              > > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
              > > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
              > there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly
              the
              > toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
              > > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
              > > into the christian way of life.
              > > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
              > pessimistic.
              > > both are renowned existentilists.
              > > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant
              since
              > the beginning of this philosophy.
              > > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
              > > Rubster!
            • rubster cruiser
              ... it betrayed its namesake. This is a very complex subject, and my reading of Kierkegaard is very rusty, but I d say - he thought Christianity had already
              Message 6 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                louise <hecubatoher@...> wrote:Mary Jo wrote:

                >Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to Christianity, since
                it betrayed its namesake.

                This is a very complex subject, and my reading of Kierkegaard is
                very rusty, but I'd say - he thought Christianity had already come
                to an end, and the only hope for its revival was an acknowledgment
                that it was indeed dead. This is what he had in common with
                Nietzsche.

                >It's very difficult to be in the other's shoes. It's simply not
                possible. I can walk my path, and you can walk in your path, either
                alongside or at various intersections. We enter another's orbit at
                one time or another. It can be a creative or destructive event.
                Essentially, we're looking at each other across a universe. It's all
                phenomenology. We're observers.

                All you church-going people, please note!!!

                on behalf of the suffering everywhere, because i'm arrogant enough
                to believe i can say that ...

                p.s. my hobby is embarrassing people.
                i love eduard - global icon.

                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
                > wrote:
                > > Even existentialists war upon each
                > > other with their tongue swords.
                > >
                > > mary jo,
                > > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
                > > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
                > there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly
                the
                > toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
                > > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
                > > into the christian way of life.
                > > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
                > pessimistic.
                > > both are renowned existentilists.
                > > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant
                since
                > the beginning of this philosophy.
                > > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
                > > Rubster!



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


                Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                ---------------------------------
                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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




                ---------------------------------
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • rubster cruiser
                sorry for the blank mails if there were any. some technical prob. anyways, this is for bill. i noticed u were critical of the admin shit in amer. but let me
                Message 7 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  sorry for the blank mails if there were any. some technical prob.
                  anyways, this is for bill.
                  i noticed u were critical of the admin shit in amer. but let me assure u america is not alone. now, i dont know if thats a consolation or further depressive.
                  in my country, there is a man called narendra modi. there is a political party called the VHP which is short for vishwa hindu parishad (roughly translated as "world hindu organization"). u see, india follows the multi party system. thats one of the reasons things are dirty here. so VHP advocates hindu fundamentalism. which means u keep women in homes in the kitchens coz they are merely cooking, offspring producing machines. u cannot kill cows(bah!) coz they are sacred(strangely it slips their notice when these same cows choke on plastic on the roads...they will just not campaign for cleanliness), u advocate the destruction of muslims, and so ans so...on and on it goes.
                  so this contemptible -------(censored language) modi single handedly caused a havoc in his state gujarat, though i suppose we must give the indian police their credit for their support of this chap...police is the worst deptt in india. modi caused the hindu and muslim riots in his state some time back.
                  u know,i was fortunate enough to come across a documentary on the riots. believe me it was not pretty. people charred, their remains, alive people trying to figure out how to put the charred remains straight so as to bury them properly, alive men and women burning, begging for food.... it shook me. i apologize if i am too graphical. forgive me. wen i had seen this i was 17 years old. hell, i didnt know humans could do this to humans.
                  u see, the cause for this utter massive and complete destruction was religion. i lost my faith quite early. this put a seal on it.
                  and the man i mentioned, modi, was brazen enough to indirectly state to the media that he was indeed the cause. he said"if the we are not granted the land for the ram temple, there will be a gujarat in every state." he was elected the next CM.
                  u see, this is my country. there is only one word for the legal system-it stinks. it stinks of the backlog, people die while their cases are on, it takes so long. the phrase "i will sue u" holds no meaning and is laughed at. and the rapes, women are raped left right and centre. the politicians stink of double standards.
                  so u are not alone. of course, i am only concentrating on the negative aspects. there are several good things. but that documentary i saw-made me cry for nites and nites.
                  so anyway, thats wat i wanted to say. i am too pessimistic to believe that thngs will change, the fundamentalism mite come down but it will never be rooted out. there will always be modis and bushes around. we have gone from barbarism to decadence without civilization. armageddon has passed us long back, we just dont see it.
                  incidentally i would also like to mention that these riots were destructive and showed that human life has no value. but the iraq prison abuse scandal shows human dignity has no value, which is worse. i was truly shocked to see those images.
                  rubster.

                  louise <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                  Mary Jo wrote:

                  >Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to Christianity, since
                  it betrayed its namesake.

                  This is a very complex subject, and my reading of Kierkegaard is
                  very rusty, but I'd say - he thought Christianity had already come
                  to an end, and the only hope for its revival was an acknowledgment
                  that it was indeed dead. This is what he had in common with
                  Nietzsche.

                  >It's very difficult to be in the other's shoes. It's simply not
                  possible. I can walk my path, and you can walk in your path, either
                  alongside or at various intersections. We enter another's orbit at
                  one time or another. It can be a creative or destructive event.
                  Essentially, we're looking at each other across a universe. It's all
                  phenomenology. We're observers.

                  All you church-going people, please note!!!

                  on behalf of the suffering everywhere, because i'm arrogant enough
                  to believe i can say that ...

                  p.s. my hobby is embarrassing people.
                  i love eduard - global icon.

                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > Even existentialists war upon each
                  > > other with their tongue swords.
                  > >
                  > > mary jo,
                  > > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
                  > > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
                  > there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly
                  the
                  > toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
                  > > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
                  > > into the christian way of life.
                  > > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
                  > pessimistic.
                  > > both are renowned existentilists.
                  > > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant
                  since
                  > the beginning of this philosophy.
                  > > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
                  > > Rubster!



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


                  Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                  ---------------------------------
                  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




                  ---------------------------------
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Bartley, Michael
                  Mary Jo, I find your statement Atheism is fundamentally optimistic, while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic very interesting, could you explain how
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mary Jo, I find your statement "Atheism is fundamentally optimistic,
                    while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic" very interesting, could you
                    explain how you came to this conclusion. It not that I agree or disagree
                    with your conclusion I want to know more. Actually it knocked my socks off!
                    Michael

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Mary Jo [mailto:alcyon11@...]
                    Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:04 AM
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [existlist] Optical Illusions

                    Rubster!

                    Appearances can be deceiving. Atheism is fundamentally optimistic,
                    while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic. Camus was atheistic
                    and optimistic. Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to
                    Christianity, since it betrayed its namesake. Defining and redefining
                    are essentially individualized tasks. It's very difficult to be in
                    the other's shoes. It's simply not possible. I can walk my path, and
                    you can walk in your path, either alongside or at various
                    intersections. We enter another's orbit at one time or another. It
                    can be a creative or destructive event. Essentially, we're looking at
                    each other across a universe. It's all phenomenology. We're observers.

                    Mary Jo

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
                    wrote:
                    > Even existentialists war upon each
                    > other with their tongue swords.
                    >
                    > mary jo,
                    > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
                    > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
                    there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly the
                    toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
                    > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
                    > into the christian way of life.
                    > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
                    pessimistic.
                    > both are renowned existentilists.
                    > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant since
                    the beginning of this philosophy.
                    > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
                    > Rubster!





                    Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                    (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • Mary Jo
                    Michael, Atheism believes in nothing except human potential. Christianity believes in the potential of an imagined god. It s pessimistic in its view of
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Michael,

                      Atheism believes in nothing except human potential. Christianity
                      believes in the potential of an imagined god. It's pessimistic in its
                      view of humanity. Atheism is courageously optimistic in its view of
                      humanity given the present state of affairs in the world.

                      Mary Jo

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bartley, Michael"
                      <michael.bartley@m...> wrote:
                      > Mary Jo, I find your statement "Atheism is fundamentally
                      optimistic,
                      > while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic" very interesting,
                      could you
                      > explain how you came to this conclusion. It not that I agree or
                      disagree
                      > with your conclusion I want to know more. Actually it knocked my
                      socks off!
                      > Michael
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Mary Jo [mailto:alcyon11@y...]
                      > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:04 AM
                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [existlist] Optical Illusions
                      >
                      > Rubster!
                      >
                      > Appearances can be deceiving. Atheism is fundamentally optimistic,
                      > while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic. Camus was
                      atheistic
                      > and optimistic. Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to
                      > Christianity, since it betrayed its namesake. Defining and
                      redefining
                      > are essentially individualized tasks. It's very difficult to be in
                      > the other's shoes. It's simply not possible. I can walk my path,
                      and
                      > you can walk in your path, either alongside or at various
                      > intersections. We enter another's orbit at one time or another. It
                      > can be a creative or destructive event. Essentially, we're looking
                      at
                      > each other across a universe. It's all phenomenology. We're
                      observers.
                      >
                      > Mary Jo
                      >
                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > Even existentialists war upon each
                      > > other with their tongue swords.
                      > >
                      > > mary jo,
                      > > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
                      > > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
                      > there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly
                      the
                      > toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
                      > > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
                      > > into the christian way of life.
                      > > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
                      > pessimistic.
                      > > both are renowned existentilists.
                      > > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant
                      since
                      > the beginning of this philosophy.
                      > > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
                      > > Rubster!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.