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

thesis

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Ethics and morality will coincide once freedom of speech is restored. English Pericles ... against sentient cruelties ...
    Message 1 of 30 , Mar 1 5:47 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Ethics and morality will coincide once freedom of speech is restored.

      English Pericles
      ... against sentient cruelties ...
    • carneymh
      Do you really think there is such a thing as free speech? Or that it has ever existed such that it can ever be restored ? louise
      Message 2 of 30 , Mar 1 11:41 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Do you really think there is such a thing as "free speech?" Or that it has ever existed such that it can ever be "restored"?

        louise <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
        Ethics and morality will coincide once freedom of speech is restored.

        English Pericles
        ... against sentient cruelties ...





        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist


        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.




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • louise
        Michael, You are so delightfully earnest. I think it s relative. The degree of freedom of speech in, say, 1920s England, is something I would prefer to the
        Message 3 of 30 , Mar 1 11:45 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Michael,
          You are so delightfully earnest. I think it's relative. The degree
          of freedom of speech in, say, 1920s England, is something I would
          prefer to the contemporary emphases. So far as I know.
          Louise

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, carneymh <carneymh@y...> wrote:
          > Do you really think there is such a thing as "free speech?" Or
          that it has ever existed such that it can ever be "restored"?
          >
          > louise <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
          > Ethics and morality will coincide once freedom of speech is
          restored.
          >
          > English Pericles
          > ... against sentient cruelties ...
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
          nothing!
          >
          > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
          >
          >
          > 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.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • carneymh
          I m not familiar with the freedom of speech in England in the 1920 s. Care to elaborate or contrast that era w/ ours? I m very interested to hear it. louise
          Message 4 of 30 , Mar 1 12:00 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm not familiar with the freedom of speech in England in the 1920's. Care to elaborate or contrast that era w/ ours? I'm very interested to hear it.

            louise <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
            Michael,
            You are so delightfully earnest. I think it's relative. The degree
            of freedom of speech in, say, 1920s England, is something I would
            prefer to the contemporary emphases. So far as I know.
            Louise

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, carneymh <carneymh@y...> wrote:
            > Do you really think there is such a thing as "free speech?" Or
            that it has ever existed such that it can ever be "restored"?
            >
            > louise <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
            > Ethics and morality will coincide once freedom of speech is
            restored.
            >
            > English Pericles
            > ... against sentient cruelties ...
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
            nothing!
            >
            > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
            >
            >
            > 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.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist


            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.




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • louise
            I don t have any info to hand, and don t want to discuss purely political questions. This would be a good place to start from, though, for anyone interested
            Message 5 of 30 , Mar 1 12:16 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              I don't have any info to hand, and don't want to discuss purely
              political questions. This would be a good place to start from,
              though, for anyone interested to research, on and between the lines.

              http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p33_reed.html


              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, carneymh <carneymh@y...> wrote:
              > I'm not familiar with the freedom of speech in England in the
              1920's. Care to elaborate or contrast that era w/ ours? I'm very
              interested to hear it.
              >
              > louise <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
              > Michael,
              > You are so delightfully earnest. I think it's relative. The
              degree
              > of freedom of speech in, say, 1920s England, is something I would
              > prefer to the contemporary emphases. So far as I know.
              > Louise
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, carneymh <carneymh@y...> wrote:
              > > Do you really think there is such a thing as "free speech?" Or
              > that it has ever existed such that it can ever be "restored"?
              > >
              > > louise <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
              > > Ethics and morality will coincide once freedom of speech is
              > restored.
              > >
              > > English Pericles
              > > ... against sentient cruelties ...
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
              > nothing!
              > >
              > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
              > >
              > >
              > > 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.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
              nothing!
              >
              > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
              >
              >
              > 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.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • gina goia
              ... free speech do exist or if you think it das not,then where ar you? ... http://us.click.yahoo.com/rkgkPB/UOnJAA/Zx0JAA/ACsqlB/TM ... Send instant messages
              Message 6 of 30 , Mar 1 5:01 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- carneymh <carneymh@...> wrote:
                >
                > Do you really think there is such a thing as "free
                > speech?" Or that it has ever existed such that it
                > can ever be "restored"?
                > Do you believe in yourself,I'm sure you do!Of course
                "free speech"do exist or if you think it das not,then
                where ar you?
                > louise <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                > Ethics and morality will coincide once freedom of
                > speech is restored.
                >
                > English Pericles
                > ... against sentient cruelties ...
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated
                > to explaining nothing!
                >
                > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                >
                >
                > 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.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                > removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                > --------------------~-->
                > Has someone you know been affected by illness or
                > disease?
                > Network for Good is THE place to support health
                > awareness efforts!
                >
                http://us.click.yahoo.com/rkgkPB/UOnJAA/Zx0JAA/ACsqlB/TM
                >
                --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
                >
                >
                > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated
                > to explaining nothing!
                >
                > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >

                Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
              • gina goia
                -Probably no other provision of the Constitution has given rise to so many different views with respect to its underliyng philosophical foundations,and hence
                Message 7 of 30 , Mar 1 6:12 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  -Probably no other provision of the Constitution has given rise to
                  so many different views with respect to its underliyng philosophical
                  foundations,and hence proper interpretive framework,as has the
                  guarantee of freedom of expression,the free speech: --
                  (1) assuring individuals self-fulfillment
                  (2)promoting discovery of truth
                  (3)providing for participation in decisionmaking by all members of
                  society
                  (4)promoting social stability through discussion and compromise of
                  differences (F.Schauer,Free Speech:A Philosophical Inquiry(1982)
                  The free speech has developed in the situation of
                  frustration,injustice,abuse or discrimination.The Berkeley Free
                  Speech Movement was one of the first of the 1960's university
                  student protest that challenged authority and criticized the way
                  things were...
                  In existentialism a main concept is:"to exist is to be
                  free..." "Don't ask what has been or what is usual,or what is
                  expected of you,don't be determined by your past or by your habits
                  or by the people surrounding you,but realize that this very moment
                  is a new platform to jump into any possible direction like a
                  flea...One student of Heidegger's got sarcastic characterizing a
                  Heidegger lecture of the twenties by words"We are wildly determined-
                  if only we knew determined what to do!"...Do you? gina
                  In existlist@yahoogroups.com, carneymh <carneymh@y...> wrote:
                  > Do you really think there is such a thing as "free speech?" Or
                  that it has ever existed such that it can ever be "restored"?
                  >
                  > louise <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
                  > Ethics and morality will coincide once freedom of speech is
                  restored.
                  >
                  > English Pericles
                  > ... against sentient cruelties ...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                  nothing!
                  >
                  > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                  >
                  >
                  > 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.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • louise
                  For the existentialist, reading is always contemporary. It is necessarily in the present we respond, existing as the form we are, temporal flesh. Often the
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jul 15, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    For the existentialist, reading is always contemporary. It is
                    necessarily in the present we respond, existing as the form we are,
                    temporal flesh. Often the eighteeth, nineteenth century writers,
                    revive me from discouragement, I love the purity of spirit, even in
                    context of apparent aesthetic cynicism. The following extract is
                    taken from Soren Kierkegaard's "Either/Or - A Fragment of Life",
                    published by Victor Eremita (one of SK's pseudonymous personae).

                    ~ Vainly I strive against it. My foot slips. My life is still a
                    poet's existence. What could be more unhappy? I am predestined;
                    fate laughs at me when it suddenly shows me how everything I do to
                    resist, becomes a moment in such an existence. I can describe hope
                    so vividly that every hoping individual will acknowledge my
                    description; and yet it is a deception, for while I picture hope, I
                    think of memory.

                    There is still another proof for the existence of God, one which has
                    hitherto been overlooked. It is propounded by a servant in
                    Aristophanes' *The Knights*:

                    Demosthenes:
                    Shrines? shrines? Why surely you don't believe in the gods?
                    Nicias:
                    I do.
                    Demosthenes:
                    But what's your argument? Where's your proof?
                    Nicias:
                    Because I feel they persecute me and hate me in spite of everything
                    I try to please 'em.
                    Demosthenes:
                    Well, well. That's true; you're right about that. ~

                    From the section titled, 'Diapsalmata' [textual note explains that
                    this is a Greek word which means 'interlude', used in the Greek
                    translation of the Psalms of David, about the musical interludes
                    introduced between the different sections of the text, at the
                    performance in the synagogue.]
                    Translation by David F. Swenson and Lillian Marvin Swenson,
                    Princeton U.P. 1949.

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

                    posted by Louise
                  • two_owl_night
                    To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the Hebrew text. What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still contemporary. Where the
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
                      Hebrew text.

                      What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still contemporary.
                      Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can we
                      trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the will to
                      survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers? When the
                      chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their gods to
                      save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his" hand? Is
                      this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?

                      Mary

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > For the existentialist, reading is always contemporary. It is
                      > necessarily in the present we respond, existing as the form we are,
                      > temporal flesh. Often the eighteeth, nineteenth century writers,
                      > revive me from discouragement, I love the purity of spirit, even in
                      > context of apparent aesthetic cynicism. The following extract is
                      > taken from Soren Kierkegaard's "Either/Or - A Fragment of Life",
                      > published by Victor Eremita (one of SK's pseudonymous personae).
                      >
                      > ~ Vainly I strive against it. My foot slips. My life is still a
                      > poet's existence. What could be more unhappy? I am predestined;
                      > fate laughs at me when it suddenly shows me how everything I do to
                      > resist, becomes a moment in such an existence. I can describe hope
                      > so vividly that every hoping individual will acknowledge my
                      > description; and yet it is a deception, for while I picture hope, I
                      > think of memory.
                      >
                      > There is still another proof for the existence of God, one which
                      has
                      > hitherto been overlooked. It is propounded by a servant in
                      > Aristophanes' *The Knights*:
                      >
                      > Demosthenes:
                      > Shrines? shrines? Why surely you don't believe in the gods?
                      > Nicias:
                      > I do.
                      > Demosthenes:
                      > But what's your argument? Where's your proof?
                      > Nicias:
                      > Because I feel they persecute me and hate me in spite of everything
                      > I try to please 'em.
                      > Demosthenes:
                      > Well, well. That's true; you're right about that. ~
                      >
                      > From the section titled, 'Diapsalmata' [textual note explains that
                      > this is a Greek word which means 'interlude', used in the Greek
                      > translation of the Psalms of David, about the musical interludes
                      > introduced between the different sections of the text, at the
                      > performance in the synagogue.]
                      > Translation by David F. Swenson and Lillian Marvin Swenson,
                      > Princeton U.P. 1949.
                      >
                      > --------------
                      >
                      > posted by Louise
                      >
                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                      If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East, it appears to me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in complicity with the
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East, it appears to
                        me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in complicity with the
                        Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that the conflict can
                        be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for example. With so many
                        Christian loonies in that administration, one can only shudder. What "end
                        game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another man's ... well, you
                        get the idea.

                        Yikes.
                        WS


                        In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@... writes:


                        > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
                        > Hebrew text.
                        >
                        > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still contemporary.
                        > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can we
                        > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the will to
                        > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers? When the
                        > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their gods to
                        > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his" hand? Is
                        > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
                        >
                        > Mary
                        >



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • two_owl_night
                        Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across millenia. Those prophesies were epic
                        Message 11 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill
                          prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across
                          millenia. Those prophesies were epic poems of events already taken
                          place. They were the same ugly and beautiful hopes then as they are
                          today. It would seem that the human species can destroy its own
                          dreams. Then again, if your dream is to destroy the human
                          species . . .

                          Mary

                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                          >
                          > If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East, it
                          appears to
                          > me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in
                          complicity with the
                          > Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that the
                          conflict can
                          > be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for example.
                          With so many
                          > Christian loonies in that administration, one can only shudder.
                          What "end
                          > game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another
                          man's ... well, you
                          > get the idea.
                          >
                          > Yikes.
                          > WS
                          >
                          >
                          > In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@... writes:
                          >
                          >
                          > > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
                          > > Hebrew text.
                          > >
                          > > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still
                          contemporary.
                          > > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can we
                          > > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the will
                          to
                          > > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers? When
                          the
                          > > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their
                          gods to
                          > > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his" hand?
                          Is
                          > > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
                          > >
                          > > Mary
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • louise
                          Politicians are pragmatists. They serve the delusions of the people. It is hardly matter of Bush & Co. We are witnessing the culmination of a struggle more
                          Message 12 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Politicians are pragmatists. They serve the delusions of the
                            people. It is hardly matter of Bush & Co. We are witnessing the
                            culmination of a struggle more than two centuries old. Respect for
                            ancient faiths, regardless whether one takes seriously their claims,
                            when translated into historic or philosophic statement, represents
                            our best hope for progress. A loonie is one more religious fiction,
                            crafted, as I have attempted to explain here before, by adherents to
                            the prevailing Western cult - paternalistic humanism.

                            Louise
                            ... ever distrustful of political incursion

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "two_owl_night"
                            <two_owl_night@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill
                            > prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across
                            > millenia. Those prophesies were epic poems of events already taken
                            > place. They were the same ugly and beautiful hopes then as they
                            are
                            > today. It would seem that the human species can destroy its own
                            > dreams. Then again, if your dream is to destroy the human
                            > species . . .
                            >
                            > Mary
                            >
                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                            > >
                            > > If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East,
                            it
                            > appears to
                            > > me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in
                            > complicity with the
                            > > Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that
                            the
                            > conflict can
                            > > be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for example.
                            > With so many
                            > > Christian loonies in that administration, one can only shudder.
                            > What "end
                            > > game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another
                            > man's ... well, you
                            > > get the idea.
                            > >
                            > > Yikes.
                            > > WS
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@ writes:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
                            > > > Hebrew text.
                            > > >
                            > > > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still
                            > contemporary.
                            > > > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can
                            we
                            > > > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the
                            will
                            > to
                            > > > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers?
                            When
                            > the
                            > > > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their
                            > gods to
                            > > > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his"
                            hand?
                            > Is
                            > > > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
                            > > >
                            > > > Mary
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > >
                            >
                          • eupraxis@aol.com
                            I have no respect for ancient faiths , nor for the quietism of those who eschew politics in behalf of ancient faiths -- or any new faiths, for that matter.
                            Message 13 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I have no respect for "ancient faiths", nor for the quietism of those who
                              eschew politics in behalf of "ancient faiths" -- or any new faiths, for that
                              matter. It is easy to call any criticism that you do not care for "paternalistic"
                              without any further ado, as if that is supposed to marshal some communal
                              peeve, but it is the height of insincerity to accuse secular humanism, which has
                              fought against the paternalistic and reactionary abuses of power and influence
                              by 'religion' from its inception, of anything like paternalism. Modern feminism
                              (at least in Europe) comes directly out of that intellectual ferment.

                              The case can be made, in fact that secular humanism (and its scion,
                              existentialism, to a considerable extent) were born precisely as a defense against the
                              religious and metaphysical underpinnings of reactionary politics, which is why
                              our typical bible thumper here in the U.S. is still so shrill about its
                              influence.

                              Wil

                              In a message dated 7/16/06 11:05:19 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                              > Politicians are pragmatists. They serve the delusions of the
                              > people. It is hardly matter of Bush & Co. We are witnessing the
                              > culmination of a struggle more than two centuries old. Respect for
                              > ancient faiths, regardless whether one takes seriously their claims,
                              > when translated into historic or philosophic statement, represents
                              > our best hope for progress. A loonie is one more religious fiction,
                              > crafted, as I have attempted to explain here before, by adherents to
                              > the prevailing Western cult - paternalistic humanism.
                              >
                              > Louise
                              > ... ever distrustful of political incursion
                              >
                              > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, "two_owl_night"
                              > <two_owl_night@two> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill
                              > > prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across
                              > > millenia. Those prophesies were epic poems of events already taken
                              > > place. They were the same ugly and beautiful hopes then as they
                              > are
                              > > today. It would seem that the human species can destroy its own
                              > > dreams. Then again, if your dream is to destroy the human
                              > > species . . .
                              > >
                              > > Mary
                              > >
                              > > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@ wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East,
                              > it
                              > > appears to
                              > > > me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in
                              > > complicity with the
                              > > > Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that
                              > the
                              > > conflict can
                              > > > be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for example.
                              > > With so many
                              > > > Christian loonies in that administration, one can only shudder.
                              > > What "end
                              > > > game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another
                              > > man's ... well, you
                              > > > get the idea.
                              > > >
                              > > > Yikes.
                              > > > WS
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@ writes:
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
                              > > > > Hebrew text.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still
                              > > contemporary.
                              > > > > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can
                              > we
                              > > > > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the
                              > will
                              > > to
                              > > > > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers?
                              > When
                              > > the
                              > > > > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their
                              > > gods to
                              > > > > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his"
                              > hand?
                              > > Is
                              > > > > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Mary
                              >



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • andy_rix13@cox.net
                              I had never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine eschatology being applicable! Andy
                              Message 14 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I had never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine eschatology being applicable!

                                Andy


                                ---- two_owl_night <two_owl_night@...> wrote:
                                > Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill
                                > prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across
                                > millenia. Those prophesies were epic poems of events already taken
                                > place. They were the same ugly and beautiful hopes then as they are
                                > today. It would seem that the human species can destroy its own
                                > dreams. Then again, if your dream is to destroy the human
                                > species . . .
                                >
                                > Mary
                                >
                                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                > >
                                > > If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East, it
                                > appears to
                                > > me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in
                                > complicity with the
                                > > Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that the
                                > conflict can
                                > > be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for example.
                                > With so many
                                > > Christian loonies in that administration, one can only shudder.
                                > What "end
                                > > game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another
                                > man's ... well, you
                                > > get the idea.
                                > >
                                > > Yikes.
                                > > WS
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@... writes:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
                                > > > Hebrew text.
                                > > >
                                > > > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still
                                > contemporary.
                                > > > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can we
                                > > > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the will
                                > to
                                > > > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers? When
                                > the
                                > > > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their
                                > gods to
                                > > > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his" hand?
                                > Is
                                > > > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
                                > > >
                                > > > Mary
                                > > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • louise
                                Wil, You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my criticism easy , when it is based on hard intellectual fighting at this list for two and a
                                Message 15 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Wil,

                                  You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                                  criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual fighting at
                                  this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two and a
                                  half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and, more
                                  recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is that
                                  the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my case
                                  to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                                  there's plenty of meat in the archives.

                                  Louise

                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I have no respect for "ancient faiths", nor for the quietism of
                                  those who
                                  > eschew politics in behalf of "ancient faiths" -- or any new
                                  faiths, for that
                                  > matter. It is easy to call any criticism that you do not care
                                  for "paternalistic"
                                  > without any further ado, as if that is supposed to marshal some
                                  communal
                                  > peeve, but it is the height of insincerity to accuse secular
                                  humanism, which has
                                  > fought against the paternalistic and reactionary abuses of power
                                  and influence
                                  > by 'religion' from its inception, of anything like paternalism.
                                  Modern feminism
                                  > (at least in Europe) comes directly out of that intellectual
                                  ferment.
                                  >
                                  > The case can be made, in fact that secular humanism (and its
                                  scion,
                                  > existentialism, to a considerable extent) were born precisely as a
                                  defense against the
                                  > religious and metaphysical underpinnings of reactionary politics,
                                  which is why
                                  > our typical bible thumper here in the U.S. is still so shrill
                                  about its
                                  > influence.
                                  >
                                  > Wil
                                  >
                                  > In a message dated 7/16/06 11:05:19 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > Politicians are pragmatists. They serve the delusions of the
                                  > > people. It is hardly matter of Bush & Co. We are witnessing the
                                  > > culmination of a struggle more than two centuries old. Respect
                                  for
                                  > > ancient faiths, regardless whether one takes seriously their
                                  claims,
                                  > > when translated into historic or philosophic statement,
                                  represents
                                  > > our best hope for progress. A loonie is one more religious
                                  fiction,
                                  > > crafted, as I have attempted to explain here before, by
                                  adherents to
                                  > > the prevailing Western cult - paternalistic humanism.
                                  > >
                                  > > Louise
                                  > > ... ever distrustful of political incursion
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, "two_owl_night"
                                  > > <two_owl_night@two> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill
                                  > > > prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across
                                  > > > millenia. Those prophesies were epic poems of events already
                                  taken
                                  > > > place. They were the same ugly and beautiful hopes then as they
                                  > > are
                                  > > > today. It would seem that the human species can destroy its own
                                  > > > dreams. Then again, if your dream is to destroy the human
                                  > > > species . . .
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Mary
                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle
                                  East,
                                  > > it
                                  > > > appears to
                                  > > > > me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in
                                  > > > complicity with the
                                  > > > > Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that
                                  > > the
                                  > > > conflict can
                                  > > > > be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for
                                  example.
                                  > > > With so many
                                  > > > > Christian loonies in that administration, one can only
                                  shudder.
                                  > > > What "end
                                  > > > > game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another
                                  > > > man's ... well, you
                                  > > > > get the idea.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Yikes.
                                  > > > > WS
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@ writes:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words
                                  of the
                                  > > > > > Hebrew text.
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still
                                  > > > contemporary.
                                  > > > > > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity?
                                  Can
                                  > > we
                                  > > > > > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise
                                  the
                                  > > will
                                  > > > to
                                  > > > > > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers?
                                  > > When
                                  > > > the
                                  > > > > > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on
                                  their
                                  > > > gods to
                                  > > > > > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his"
                                  > > hand?
                                  > > > Is
                                  > > > > > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > Mary
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                • eupraxis@aol.com
                                  Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work. Wil ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work.

                                    Wil

                                    In a message dated 7/16/06 2:38:01 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                                    > Wil,
                                    >
                                    > You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                                    > criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual fighting at
                                    > this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two and a
                                    > half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and, more
                                    > recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is that
                                    > the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my case
                                    > to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                                    > there's plenty of meat in the archives.
                                    >
                                    > Louise
                                    >



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • louise
                                    What a superb example of patronising humanism :-). Jesus Christ is merciful, amused perhaps by your incomprehension. ... at ... more ... that ... case
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      What a superb example of patronising humanism :-).

                                      Jesus Christ is merciful, amused perhaps by your incomprehension.



                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work.
                                      >
                                      > Wil
                                      >
                                      > In a message dated 7/16/06 2:38:01 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > > Wil,
                                      > >
                                      > > You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                                      > > criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual fighting
                                      at
                                      > > this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two and a
                                      > > half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and,
                                      more
                                      > > recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is
                                      that
                                      > > the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my
                                      case
                                      > > to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                                      > > there's plenty of meat in the archives.
                                      > >
                                      > > Louise
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                                      What do we make of Sartre s statement that follows (from Existentialism Is a Humanism)? He seems to strongly suggest that all of our acts are socio-politically
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        What do we make of Sartre's statement that follows (from Existentialism Is a
                                        Humanism)? He seems to strongly suggest that all of our acts are
                                        socio-politically connected with the totality of humankind. Wil

                                        "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, ... states that if God does not
                                        exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a
                                        being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is
                                        man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that
                                        existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up,
                                        appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself If man, as the
                                        existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is
                                        nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he
                                        will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it.
                                        Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he
                                        wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.

                                        "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. ...Thus, existentialism's
                                        first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full
                                        responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a man is
                                        responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own
                                        individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.

                                        "...When we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us
                                        does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice he also
                                        chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be, there is not a
                                        single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man
                                        as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the
                                        same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We
                                        always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.


                                        "... Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have supposed,
                                        because it involves all mankind, if I am a workingman and choose to join a
                                        Christian trade-union rather than be a communist, and if by being a member I want
                                        to show that the best thing for man is resignation, that the kingdom of man is
                                        not of this world, I am not only involving my own case-I want to be resigned
                                        for everyone. As a result, my action has involved all humanity. ... Therefore,
                                        I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a certain
                                        image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man."


                                        In a message dated 7/16/06 5:03:37 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                                        > What a superb example of patronising humanism :-).
                                        >
                                        > Jesus Christ is merciful, amused perhaps by your incomprehension.
                                        >
                                        > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work.
                                        > >
                                        > > Wil
                                        > >
                                        > > In a message dated 7/16/06 2:38:01 PM, hecubatoher@ In a messa
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > Wil,
                                        > > >
                                        > > > You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                                        > > > criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual fighting
                                        > at
                                        > > > this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two and a
                                        > > > half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and,
                                        > more
                                        > > > recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is
                                        > that
                                        > > > the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my
                                        > case
                                        > > > to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                                        > > > there's plenty of meat in the archives.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Louise
                                        >



                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • two_owl_night
                                        Wil, This is probably the most fundamental issue for existentialism. I think Sartre diluted Nietzsche s individualism a bit when he asserts that when we choose
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Wil,

                                          This is probably the most fundamental issue for existentialism. I
                                          think Sartre diluted Nietzsche's individualism a bit when he asserts
                                          that when we choose for ourselves we must choose according to how we
                                          want others to choose, almost a restatement of the "golden rule."
                                          Sartre does seems to agree with Nietzsche and Heidegger that nothing
                                          is responsible for our existence, that we are thrown into being.

                                          "We others, who desire to restore innocence to becoming, would like
                                          to be the missionaries of a cleaner idea: that no one has given man
                                          his qualities, neither God, nor society, nor his parents and
                                          ancestors, nor he himself--that no one is to blame for him. There is
                                          no being that could be held responsible for the fact that anyone
                                          exists at all, that anyone is thus and thus, that anyone was born in
                                          certain circumstances, in a certain environment.--It is a tremendous
                                          restorative that such a being is lacking." Will to Power-765

                                          In this age of the blame-game, both within and outside of psych
                                          therapy, hasn't science offered a better explanation, that we are
                                          subject to genetic and environmental forces? There are some people
                                          who really want and/or need medication to function in. Of course, as
                                          much as we are able, we can still strive to become the individual we
                                          will. Scientific explanations somewhat clarify the existence and
                                          essence facets, but they are not complete solutions. They still
                                          remain somewhat abstract. How these facts are applied still remains a
                                          matter for the individual. Nietzsche's statement is still true, no
                                          one thing is responsible for our being. You might say we are the
                                          ongoing result of a process over which we try to assert some control.
                                          If that's at all possible, we can only be responsible for ourselves.
                                          And similar to his idea that it's not alway in our best interest to
                                          be violent with others, Nietzsche thinks acting in our own best
                                          interest encourages others to break from the herd, thereby diluting
                                          the power of the state in our lives. Religious governments are the
                                          worst oppressors because they take NO responsibility. That's just
                                          something they use to control the individual. If they make mistakes,
                                          well hell, we're all just going to a better place, right?

                                          Mary




                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > What do we make of Sartre's statement that follows (from
                                          Existentialism Is a
                                          > Humanism)? He seems to strongly suggest that all of our acts are
                                          > socio-politically connected with the totality of humankind. Wil
                                          >
                                          > "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, ... states that if
                                          God does not
                                          > exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes
                                          essence, a
                                          > being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that
                                          this being is
                                          > man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by
                                          saying that
                                          > existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man
                                          exists, turns up,
                                          > appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself If man,
                                          as the
                                          > existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at
                                          first he is
                                          > nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will
                                          have made what he
                                          > will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to
                                          conceive it.
                                          > Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also
                                          only what he
                                          > wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.
                                          >
                                          > "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. ...Thus,
                                          existentialism's
                                          > first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the
                                          full
                                          > responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a
                                          man is
                                          > responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible
                                          for his own
                                          > individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.
                                          >
                                          > "...When we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every
                                          one of us
                                          > does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice
                                          he also
                                          > chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be,
                                          there is not a
                                          > single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an
                                          image of man
                                          > as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to
                                          affirm at the
                                          > same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose
                                          evil. We
                                          > always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without
                                          being good for all.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > "... Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have
                                          supposed,
                                          > because it involves all mankind, if I am a workingman and choose to
                                          join a
                                          > Christian trade-union rather than be a communist, and if by being a
                                          member I want
                                          > to show that the best thing for man is resignation, that the
                                          kingdom of man is
                                          > not of this world, I am not only involving my own case-I want to be
                                          resigned
                                          > for everyone. As a result, my action has involved all humanity. ...
                                          Therefore,
                                          > I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a
                                          certain
                                          > image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man."
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > In a message dated 7/16/06 5:03:37 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > > What a superb example of patronising humanism :-).
                                          > >
                                          > > Jesus Christ is merciful, amused perhaps by your incomprehension.
                                          > >
                                          > > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Wil
                                          > > >
                                          > > > In a message dated 7/16/06 2:38:01 PM, hecubatoher@ In a messa
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > > Wil,
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                                          > > > > criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual
                                          fighting
                                          > > at
                                          > > > > this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two
                                          and a
                                          > > > > half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and,
                                          > > more
                                          > > > > recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is
                                          > > that
                                          > > > > the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my
                                          > > case
                                          > > > > to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                                          > > > > there's plenty of meat in the archives.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Louise
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                        • Exist List Moderator
                                          ... While I adhere to no faith, I also recognize that the numbers of believers in Islam far exceeds the number necessary to dictate political realities. As
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Jul 16, 2006, at 13:40, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                            > I have no respect for "ancient faiths", nor for the quietism of those
                                            > who
                                            > eschew politics in behalf of "ancient faiths" -- or any new faiths,
                                            > for that
                                            > matter.

                                            While I adhere to no faith, I also recognize that the numbers of
                                            believers in Islam far exceeds the number necessary to dictate
                                            political realities. As with Christianity only a millennium in the
                                            past, Islam and its sects have numbers on its side.

                                            Also, because Islam has no single leader or group of leaders, no "Pope"
                                            to unite it, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of Imams with whom to
                                            deal. Each mosque, within each sect, even has its own unique beliefs.
                                            Sunni and Shiite are only the tip of the iceberg, since each of those
                                            two major groups has sub-sects and splinter groups.

                                            A question was posed to me, and I think it illustrates a problem with a
                                            shallow reading of philosophy: Aren't the Islamic "radicals" being true
                                            to their faith, acting in an "authentic" manner based on the life of
                                            The Prophet? He spread the faith through conquest, as they are trying
                                            to do. Isn't that what Sartre praised? Acting in a purely authentic
                                            manner?

                                            Oh, goody. Yes, they are being "authentic" but when authenticity
                                            impinges on the rights and free will of others, that violates
                                            everything post Enlightenment philosophies respect. If you do not allow
                                            people to select your faith via free will and choice, how authentic can
                                            the new converts be?

                                            Religion is not going away, no matter what many early twentieth century
                                            philosophers and scientists hoped. Humans seem to have a need for faith
                                            and alliances. Political parties are no better than church
                                            congregations, with blind loyalties and a lack of intellectual
                                            consistency. People want to imagine someone, or something, has all the
                                            answers.

                                            The good thing about existentialism and most post-modern philosophies
                                            is that they question not if there are Truths but more essentially if
                                            humanity can ever understand any Truth if it even does exist.
                                            Kierkegaard believed in a Truth, as did Frankl, but neither thought a
                                            mere human could appreciate the truth -- our senses and intellect are
                                            not up to the task.

                                            Faith is an attempt to say, "I don't know the Truth, but I *imagine* it
                                            to be this Creator." Of course, that's just my view of faith.

                                            Being agnostic, I even lack the energy to be a "pure" atheist. I'd
                                            never fit into the Middle East mind-set.


                                            - C. S. Wyatt
                                            I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                            that I shall be.
                                            http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                            http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                                          • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                                            ... all gods aren t the same. some aren t even particularly demanding of loyal true belief. aija
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              > Religion is not going away, no matter what many early twentieth century
                                              > philosophers and scientists hoped. Humans seem to have a need for faith
                                              > and alliances.

                                              all gods aren't the same. some aren't even particularly demanding of
                                              loyal "true belief."

                                              aija
                                            • eupraxis@aol.com
                                              Well, I would agree with that, too. Sometimes I wonder if Diogenes the Cynic hadn t it right all along. Of course, authenticity in Heidegger s sense of the
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Well, I would agree with that, too. Sometimes I wonder if Diogenes the Cynic hadn't it right all along.

                                                Of course, authenticity in Heidegger's sense of the term (and Sartre picks it up from him) doesn't -- and could never -- mean being in alignment with any ideology or belief system of any kind. It isn't any sort of correspondence of polarities.

                                                Wil

                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: existlist1@...
                                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 9:54 AM
                                                Subject: [existlist] Middle East, was Re: Selah

                                                On Jul 16, 2006, at 13:40, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                                > I have no respect for "ancient faiths", nor for the quietism of those
                                                > who
                                                > eschew politics in behalf of "ancient faiths" -- or any new faiths,
                                                > for that
                                                > matter.

                                                While I adhere to no faith, I also recognize that the numbers of
                                                believers in Islam far exceeds the number necessary to dictate
                                                political realities. As with Christianity only a millennium in the
                                                past, Islam and its sects have numbers on its side.

                                                Also, because Islam has no single leader or group of leaders, no "Pope"
                                                to unite it, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of Imams with whom to
                                                deal. Each mosque, within each sect, even has its own unique beliefs.
                                                Sunni and Shiite are only the tip of the iceberg, since each of those
                                                two major groups has sub-sects and splinter groups.

                                                A question was posed to me, and I think it illustrates a problem with a
                                                shallow reading of philosophy: Aren't the Islamic "radicals" being true
                                                to their faith, acting in an "authentic" manner based on the life of
                                                The Prophet? He spread the faith through conquest, as they are trying
                                                to do. Isn't that what Sartre praised? Acting in a purely authentic
                                                manner?

                                                Oh, goody. Yes, they are being "authentic" but when authenticity
                                                impinges on the rights and free will of others, that violates
                                                everything post Enlightenment philosophies respect. If you do not allow
                                                people to select your faith via free will and choice, how authentic can
                                                the new converts be?

                                                Religion is not going away, no matter what many early twentieth century
                                                philosophers and scientists hoped. Humans seem to have a need for faith
                                                and alliances. Political parties are no better than church
                                                congregations, with blind loyalties and a lack of intellectual
                                                consistency. People want to imagine someone, or something, has all the
                                                answers.

                                                The good thing about existentialism and most post-modern philosophies
                                                is that they question not if there are Truths but more essentially if
                                                humanity can ever understand any Truth if it even does exist.
                                                Kierkegaard believed in a Truth, as did Frankl, but neither thought a
                                                mere human could appreciate the truth -- our senses and intellect are
                                                not up to the task.

                                                Faith is an attempt to say, "I don't know the Truth, but I *imagine* it
                                                to be this Creator." Of course, that's just my view of faith.

                                                Being agnostic, I even lack the energy to be a "pure" atheist. I'd
                                                never fit into the Middle East mind-set.

                                                - C. S. Wyatt
                                                I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                                that I shall be.
                                                http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                                http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer


                                                ________________________________________________________________________
                                                Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Exist List Moderator
                                                ... The problem with this being that both men joined political movements, often following then right off a cliff -- from the embrace of Soviet Russia and Cuba
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  On Jul 17, 2006, at 11:06, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                                  > Of course, authenticity in Heidegger's sense of the term (and Sartre
                                                  > picks it up from him) doesn't -- and could never -- mean being in
                                                  > alignment with any ideology or belief system of any kind. It isn't any
                                                  > sort of correspondence of polarities.

                                                  The problem with this being that both men joined political movements,
                                                  often following then right off a cliff -- from the embrace of Soviet
                                                  Russia and Cuba by Sartre to Heidegger's WWII alliance with the
                                                  National Socialist Party.


                                                  - C. S. Wyatt
                                                  I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                                  that I shall be.
                                                  http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                                  http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                                                • eupraxis@aol.com
                                                  Mary, Yeah, I agree with your Universalist Ethics criticism (it is more like Kant s famous maxim of the 2nd Critique than the Golden Rule, I think, since it
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Mary,

                                                    Yeah, I agree with your "Universalist Ethics" criticism (it is more like Kant's famous maxim of the 2nd Critique than the Golden Rule, I think, since it conceptualizes a totality rather than limiting itself to an individual's self-regard).

                                                    Nietzsche's life-long position (which I also agree with) is against any "metaphysical" understanding of morality, any kind of transcendence or Absolute. Still, Nietzsche does promote a philosophy of value, a transvaluation of hitherto "nihilistic" religious values, for the sake of 'something better', a higher human of some kind, which latter does invite some kind of irony (which is not lost on him). In any case, while being a champion of an individualistic approach to things, he doesn't wind up caught in an egoism (like Max Stirner) or an "objectivism" (like Rand). There is still a sense of a greater good in Nietzsche..

                                                    In any case, some political choices are not discrete, like joining a Nazi party or some such thing. One has to face the consequences of that kind of 'choice' qua choice, I would have to say.

                                                    Wil,


                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: two_owl_night@...
                                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 8:54 AM
                                                    Subject: [existlist] responsibility for essence/existence

                                                    Wil,

                                                    This is probably the most fundamental issue for existentialism. I
                                                    think Sartre diluted Nietzsche's individualism a bit when he asserts
                                                    that when we choose for ourselves we must choose according to how we
                                                    want others to choose, almost a restatement of the "golden rule."
                                                    Sartre does seems to agree with Nietzsche and Heidegger that nothing
                                                    is responsible for our existence, that we are thrown into being.

                                                    "We others, who desire to restore innocence to becoming, would like
                                                    to be the missionaries of a cleaner idea: that no one has given man
                                                    his qualities, neither God, nor society, nor his parents and
                                                    ancestors, nor he himself--that no one is to blame for him. There is
                                                    no being that could be held responsible for the fact that anyone
                                                    exists at all, that anyone is thus and thus, that anyone was born in
                                                    certain circumstances, in a certain environment.--It is a tremendous
                                                    restorative that such a being is lacking." Will to Power-765

                                                    In this age of the blame-game, both within and outside of psych
                                                    therapy, hasn't science offered a better explanation, that we are
                                                    subject to genetic and environmental forces? There are some people
                                                    who really want and/or need medication to function in. Of course, as
                                                    much as we are able, we can still strive to become the individual we
                                                    will. Scientific explanations somewhat clarify the existence and
                                                    essence facets, but they are not complete solutions. They still
                                                    remain somewhat abstract. How these facts are applied still remains a
                                                    matter for the individual. Nietzsche's statement is still true, no
                                                    one thing is responsible for our being. You might say we are the
                                                    ongoing result of a process over which we try to assert some control.
                                                    If that's at all possible, we can only be responsible for ourselves.
                                                    And similar to his idea that it's not alway in our best interest to
                                                    be violent with others, Nietzsche thinks acting in our own best
                                                    interest encourages others to break from the herd, thereby diluting
                                                    the power of the state in our lives. Religious governments are the
                                                    worst oppressors because they take NO responsibility. That's just
                                                    something they use to control the individual. If they make mistakes,
                                                    well hell, we're all just going to a better place, right?

                                                    Mary

                                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > What do we make of Sartre's statement that follows (from
                                                    Existentialism Is a
                                                    > Humanism)? He seems to strongly suggest that all of our acts are
                                                    > socio-politically connected with the totality of humankind. Wil
                                                    >
                                                    > "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, ... states that if
                                                    God does not
                                                    > exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes
                                                    essence, a
                                                    > being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that
                                                    this being is
                                                    > man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by
                                                    saying that
                                                    > existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man
                                                    exists, turns up,
                                                    > appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself If man,
                                                    as the
                                                    > existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at
                                                    first he is
                                                    > nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will
                                                    have made what he
                                                    > will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to
                                                    conceive it.
                                                    > Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also
                                                    only what he
                                                    > wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.
                                                    >
                                                    > "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. ...Thus,
                                                    existentialism's
                                                    > first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the
                                                    full
                                                    > responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a
                                                    man is
                                                    > responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible
                                                    for his own
                                                    > individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.
                                                    >
                                                    > "...When we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every
                                                    one of us
                                                    > does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice
                                                    he also
                                                    > chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be,
                                                    there is not a
                                                    > single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an
                                                    image of man
                                                    > as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to
                                                    affirm at the
                                                    > same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose
                                                    evil. We
                                                    > always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without
                                                    being good for all.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > "... Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have
                                                    supposed,
                                                    > because it involves all mankind, if I am a workingman and choose to
                                                    join a
                                                    > Christian trade-union rather than be a communist, and if by being a
                                                    member I want
                                                    > to show that the best thing for man is resignation, that the
                                                    kingdom of man is
                                                    > not of this world, I am not only involving my own case-I want to be
                                                    resigned
                                                    > for everyone. As a result, my action has involved all humanity. ...
                                                    Therefore,
                                                    > I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a
                                                    certain
                                                    > image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man."
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > In a message dated 7/16/06 5:03:37 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > > What a superb example of patronising humanism :-).
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Jesus Christ is merciful, amused perhaps by your incomprehension.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Wil
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > In a message dated 7/16/06 2:38:01 PM, hecubatoher@ In a messa
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > > Wil,
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > > You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                                                    > > > > criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual
                                                    fighting
                                                    > > at
                                                    > > > > this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two
                                                    and a
                                                    > > > > half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and,
                                                    > > more
                                                    > > > > recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is
                                                    > > that
                                                    > > > > the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my
                                                    > > case
                                                    > > > > to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                                                    > > > > there's plenty of meat in the archives.
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > > Louise
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >


                                                    ________________________________________________________________________
                                                    Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • two_owl_night
                                                    Then, of course, one discovers their mistakes, disengages and breaks alliances. Those who have been led astray or misled by philosophical idols are responsible
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Then, of course, one discovers their mistakes, disengages and breaks
                                                      alliances. Those who have been led astray or misled by philosophical
                                                      idols are responsible for what they themselves choose to assimilate.
                                                      This restores the responsible individual nihilism Nietzsche asserts.

                                                      Mary

                                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                                                      <existlist1@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > The problem with this being that both men joined political
                                                      movements,
                                                      > often following then right off a cliff -- from the embrace of
                                                      Soviet
                                                      > Russia and Cuba by Sartre to Heidegger's WWII alliance with the
                                                      > National Socialist Party.
                                                      >
                                                      > - C. S. Wyatt
                                                      >
                                                      > On Jul 17, 2006, at 11:06, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > > Of course, authenticity in Heidegger's sense of the term (and
                                                      Sartre
                                                      > > picks it up from him) doesn't -- and could never -- mean being in
                                                      > > alignment with any ideology or belief system of any kind. It
                                                      isn't any
                                                      > > sort of correspondence of polarities.
                                                    • insightboy1der
                                                      hey anyone pls helpme im doing my thesis for my bachelor s. I want a topic about atheism and its relation to media
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Jul 20, 2006
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        hey anyone pls helpme im doing my thesis for my bachelor's. I want a
                                                        topic about atheism and its relation to media
                                                      • Exist List Moderator
                                                        ... You could study the influence of Sartre and other intellectuals on the media, especially as it relates to the creation and maintenance of a secular
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Jul 21, 2006
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          On Jul 21, 2006, at 1:09, insightboy1der wrote:

                                                          > hey anyone pls helpme im doing my thesis for my bachelor's. I want a
                                                          > topic about atheism and its relation to media

                                                          You could study the influence of Sartre and other intellectuals on the
                                                          media, especially as it relates to the creation and maintenance of a
                                                          secular national identity in much of Europe. Sartre, however, also
                                                          thought "secular" would be less biases and more reasonable. That is a
                                                          myth, since everyone has beliefs -- we just transfer the passion to
                                                          another cause.

                                                          The American media has never embraced the same secularism. Just try to
                                                          replace Christmas in a story with "holidays" and watch the outcry!


                                                          - C. S. Wyatt
                                                          I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                                          that I shall be.
                                                          http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                                          http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                                                        • eupraxis@aol.com
                                                          Sartre was, of course, an avowed atheist. A personal, objective god would nullify the Satrean project in its entirety. W ... From: existlist1@tameri.com To:
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Jul 21, 2006
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Sartre was, of course, an avowed atheist. A personal, objective god would nullify the Satrean project in its entirety.

                                                            W

                                                            -----Original Message-----
                                                            From: existlist1@...
                                                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                            Sent: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:55 AM
                                                            Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: thesis

                                                            On Jul 21, 2006, at 1:09, insightboy1der wrote:

                                                            > hey anyone pls helpme im doing my thesis for my bachelor's. I want a
                                                            > topic about atheism and its relation to media

                                                            You could study the influence of Sartre and other intellectuals on the
                                                            media, especially as it relates to the creation and maintenance of a
                                                            secular national identity in much of Europe. Sartre, however, also
                                                            thought "secular" would be less biases and more reasonable. That is a
                                                            myth, since everyone has beliefs -- we just transfer the passion to
                                                            another cause.

                                                            The American media has never embraced the same secularism. Just try to
                                                            replace Christmas in a story with "holidays" and watch the outcry!

                                                            - C. S. Wyatt
                                                            I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                                            that I shall be.
                                                            http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                                            http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer


                                                            ________________________________________________________________________
                                                            Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


                                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                          • Exist List Moderator
                                                            ... The question was about a thesis based on atheism and the media. The only good example I could think of within existentialism was Sartre, though I suppose
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Jul 21, 2006
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              On Jul 21, 2006, at 12:12, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                                              > Sartre was, of course, an avowed atheist. A personal, objective god
                                                              > would nullify the Satrean project in its entirety.

                                                              The question was about a thesis based on atheism and the media. The
                                                              only good example I could think of within existentialism was Sartre,
                                                              though I suppose others in the phenomenology realm might also work. I
                                                              know Merleau-Ponty was a media critic for a time. You could certainly
                                                              expand beyond existentialism to include the thoughts of any number of
                                                              post-modern thinkers.

                                                              I know I'd look at pop-culture theory, where a number of British and
                                                              Australian scholars have written on the secular vs. non-secular nature
                                                              of media. American media cater to our national desire to be "religious"
                                                              without actually being that dedicated to anything. There was a
                                                              collection of essays on the media I read recently, I think from the
                                                              University of California, Santa Cruz, on this issue -- the "religious
                                                              language" used in the media (terms like crusade, crucifixion, savior)
                                                              to relate to the audience. My argument is that such language is not
                                                              really religiously significant to most people when they hear a news
                                                              report. Maybe there is a more subconscious connection, though?

                                                              - C. S. Wyatt
                                                              I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                                              that I shall be.
                                                              http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                                              http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.