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

Re: Louise's & Susan's suspicions of Mary

Expand Messages
  • louise
    hang on - the concept of suspicion was something i borrowed from your header, and was not predicated on you, or on any definite personage, because i find it
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      hang on - the concept of suspicion was something i borrowed from
      your header, and was not predicated on you, or on any definite
      personage, because i find it takes time for the truth to emerge into
      the light.

      Susan was acting in her capacity as moderator, applying the given
      rules of the list, to her best understanding, such as are posted on
      the first day of each month. That much is firm ground, at least for
      me, since, after seven months here, I trust Susan's good faith.
      I took her application of the adverb, 'suspiciously', to indicate a
      sceptical (Socratic) attitude, in other words, not to dismiss your
      post outright as 'illegitimate' according to the parameters, but
      allowing for due explanation.
      Frankly, my head is now spinning with all this, because
      armed.etc.man has now responded fairly politically though very
      carefully and responsibly to your political question. I just have a
      bad feeling about this, because of the horrific things happening at
      the moment in that country.
      Personally, I think we should back off from the specifics, and start
      examining concepts in a more truly philosophical way. I'm really
      not sure what's happening out there among the soldiers and militia,
      and in the politicians' heads - why should anyone of us know that,
      anyway? The battle for personal psychological survival I have been
      waging in the teeth of strong opposition in recent months - not much
      of it philosophical, it seems - is not an interesting battle even to
      me, maybe to psychiatrists and humorists, but I am utterly appalled,
      when it comes down to it, that we discuss this subject, of national
      and guerrilla warfare, in the form of anyone's suspicions of anyone
      else here at sheltered existlist. I'm really missing Bill already -
      he has war in his guts, and not from any vainglorious love of it.
      Whatever anyone else wants to do, I wish to discuss fundamentals.
      Self vs. Other - remember that? Heidegger's links between the ideas
      of Heraclitus and Nietzsche, and the astonishment of reality
      revealed by Greek language. It does take time, and it takes
      continuity.

      So, Mary, I do not suspect you of anything specific at all in
      connection with discussion of the Iraq war, and for the present I do
      not want to discuss the Iraq war. The British Parliament and media
      will certainly be continuing to discuss it in detail, from what I
      can see.

      If you want to hear more from me about my recent request for a two-
      way deal between us, let's talk off-list, but personally I have no
      remaining problem. It all resolved in recent days, both in cyber-
      space and here on the streets. To escape allusiveness and arrive at
      Kierkegaardian indirection was always what I wanted.

      Louise

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Jo" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
      > Hi Louise. My tossing up of the subject was to engage upon the
      lines
      > that decisions pose dilemmas and are not so easily teased apart,
      > which is what I thought 'armedmarksmanent' was suggesting. I could
      be
      > totally wrong, as it happens quite often that I am mistaken. I
      think,
      > much like you responsed to my toss up, that solving situations
      such
      > as the strife in Iraq does involve philosophical thinking. Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...>
      wrote:
      > > Without offence, Mary, I tend to agree with Susan on this one.
      Not
      > > that I want to see any of your remarks censored, though that's
      not
      > > my decision - I merely express an opinion - but your question to
      > > armedmarksmanent was utterly starkly political, as though he
      were a
      > > statesman or a diplomat. My own response included
      facetiousness,
      > > but was serious in intent, an attempt to tease apart the verbal
      > > cliches which form a kind of bloodless version of what happens
      > > bloodily on the ground, where the vulnerable civilians even now
      are
      > > afraid in their houses and in the streets.
      > > As for free will, sex, and consequences, I just find that
      > personally
      > > the pace is a little hot at present. It was only this morning
      that
      > > I was fending off yet more juvenile sarcasm from our Georgian
      > > friend, something which does nothing for my energy levels. Hope
      to
      > > contribute something soon for this new thread, and looking
      forward
      > > to less negative posting from the occasionals and the newbies.
      > > And welcome to armedmarksmanent - your posts make a refreshing
      > > change from the aggressive newbie syndrome; you seem interested
      in
      > > thinking and discussing. Put rather simply, and with respect -
      now
      > > that's my kind of male ...
      > >
      > > Louise
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.