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

not all beliefs are of equal value

Expand Messages
  • Aija Veldre Beldavs
    in the 1999 Dawkins - Pinkerton debate mentioned here before, i zeroed in on Dawkins s citation of G.K. Chesterton (who while not initially Catholic, ended up
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 4, 2005
      in the 1999 Dawkins - Pinkerton debate mentioned here before, i zeroed in
      on Dawkins's citation of G.K. Chesterton (who while not initially
      Catholic, ended up as a realist Christian):

      <DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing, they
      don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything.>

      i see the truth of what Chesterton is saying: better something that has
      the depth of many generations than mindless revolution that tears down but
      has nothing to put in place.

      nevertheless that has not turned me to organized religion like it did
      Chesterton (unless we're talking about preferred belief systems that are
      not necessarily seen as "religion.") no one religion is accepted as
      universal, even though any mature religion deals with universals.

      as to the "danger of cults" i don't see how you can have self selection
      and adaptation without risk & in any case probably any collective
      innovation starts out as a "deviant cult," a deviation from the norm
      whatever that happens to be. all of them different competing, sometimes &
      potentially cooperating, belief systems, often tied in to some kind of
      political and economic inheritance which gives the believer some kind of
      advantage.

      any rx to this generalization, which i hold (what are the limits of this
      belief)?:

      religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing
      those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
      violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
      symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain conditions).

      aija
    • Trinidad Cruz
      ... wrote: DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing, they don t believe in nothing, they believe in anything. In Defense of
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 4, 2005
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@i...>
        wrote:

        "DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing, they
        don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything."

        "In Defense of Orthodoxy" is the book. The classic fear of change, or
        fear of materialism argument. Humans are too stupid to be free. Negros
        can't take care of themselves. What will they do if we free them?
        Santeria, snycretism, pot smoking Jamaicans, Ethiopian saviors. What
        will women do if we give them the vote? You miss Dawkins point while
        promoting the likes of David Allan Coe with the quote.

        Coe's version: "ya gotta stand for something or you'll fall for
        anything.", or "why'd she have to go and marry that nigger?"

        In this atmosphere Camus could only propose rebellion and Sartre
        decisive action.

        "religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing
        those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
        violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
        symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain
        conditions)."

        Religion becomes dangerous categorized out of its level. When
        superstition (religion) controls national government. When religion no
        longer demonstrates against or argues against national public policy,
        and instead writes national public policy. When religion seeks not to
        criticize materialistic discourse, but rather re-write it seeking
        nationally mandated public consumption, i/e "intelligent design",
        "creationism" theories etc.in the public school system. Start a
        parochial school, it's tax free.

        Trinidad Cruz
      • Siobhan
        religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale violence against
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 4, 2005
          "religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing
          those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
          violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
          symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain
          conditions)." - aija

          One of the drums I bang very loudly is the notion that only religious
          groups, organizations or churches are a problem for the individual
          who is victimized by the morality which is founded on most
          traditional monotheistic believers. It only takes one person in your
          life who is convinced of his/her belief to make your life a living
          hell.

          Siobhan


          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@i...>
          wrote:
          >
          > in the 1999 Dawkins - Pinkerton debate mentioned here before, i
          zeroed in
          > on Dawkins's citation of G.K. Chesterton (who while not initially
          > Catholic, ended up as a realist Christian):
          >
          > <DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing,
          they
          > don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything.>
          >
          > i see the truth of what Chesterton is saying: better something
          that has
          > the depth of many generations than mindless revolution that tears
          down but
          > has nothing to put in place.
          >
          > nevertheless that has not turned me to organized religion like it
          did
          > Chesterton (unless we're talking about preferred belief systems
          that are
          > not necessarily seen as "religion.") no one religion is accepted as
          > universal, even though any mature religion deals with universals.
          >
          > as to the "danger of cults" i don't see how you can have self
          selection
          > and adaptation without risk & in any case probably any collective
          > innovation starts out as a "deviant cult," a deviation from the norm
          > whatever that happens to be. all of them different competing,
          sometimes &
          > potentially cooperating, belief systems, often tied in to some kind
          of
          > political and economic inheritance which gives the believer some
          kind of
          > advantage.
          >
          > any rx to this generalization, which i hold (what are the limits of
          this
          > belief)?:
          >
          > religions become dangerous when they are used to justify
          dehumanizing
          > those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
          > violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
          > symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain
          conditions).
          >
          > aija
        • Aija Veldre Beldavs
          ... what is the point you want me to bring out in that discussion when mostly i already agree with the stuff about consciousness not residing in genes, that
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 4, 2005
            Trinidad Cruz:

            > "DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing, they
            > don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything."

            > "In Defense of Orthodoxy" is the book. The classic fear of change, or
            > fear of materialism argument. Humans are too stupid to be free. Negros
            > can't take care of themselves. What will they do if we free them?
            > Santeria, snycretism, pot smoking Jamaicans, Ethiopian saviors. What
            > will women do if we give them the vote? You miss Dawkins point while
            > promoting the likes of David Allan Coe with the quote.

            what is the point you want me to bring out in that discussion when mostly
            i already agree with the stuff about consciousness not residing in genes,
            that cognitive processes & selfish genes don't by themselves explain
            complex behavior & selfish genes produce people who sacrifice themselves
            for their children, friends, groups, causes etc? (my semiotics minor
            mostly consisted of cogsci classes with Douglas Hofstadter).

            i don't define tradition necessarily as fear of change, not in science,
            nor in culture. when needed, rapid change occurs in both. Plains Indian
            horse culture example for culture; quantum physics in science. change and
            relative coalescions of stability (or of void if you prefer Hindu-wise),
            as probably any dual concept are inseparable & defined in terms of each
            other.

            for me -that- Chesterton quote brings up a practical rather than
            theoretical matter. rather than turning benignly to say Kierkegaarde,
            people who are violently and suddenly deprived of their support systems,
            which include their belief systems and the mechanisms of implementation of
            nice new ideas, tend to be very vulnerable and therefore are much more
            likely to be prey for short-term manipulators as opposed to long-term
            manipulators who have a deeper investment in more aspects of society, such
            as a church.

            check out just about any postcolonial area of the world, like the
            suffering of transition in Africa or the postsoviet area.

            > Coe's version: "ya gotta stand for something or you'll fall for
            > anything.", or "why'd she have to go and marry that nigger?"

            again, this isn't interesting to me because for me race is pretty much
            biologically bogus - race is historically & socially constructed. in
            spite of the fact that restrictions as to whom one might legitimately or
            preferably marry go back a long way to moieties & such (as the first
            anthropologists pointed out), groups of people have been mixing genes if
            it was at all possible from the beginnings.

            > In this atmosphere Camus could only propose rebellion and Sartre
            > decisive action.

            yeah, decisive action.... well, the only problem is that in practice real
            blood and such revolutions tend to result in bloodbaths. even if they're
            constructed by overintellecutalized idealists in their isolated vengeful
            aristocratic misery &/or with the best of intentions, they tend to be
            carried out by immature teenage hoodlums as well as assorted other kinds
            with their personal axe to grind, such as in the Cambodian revolution of
            Pol Pot, or the Great Communist Revolution, to say nothing of other
            postcolonial horror stories in Africa & so on.

            > "religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing
            > those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
            > violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
            > symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain
            > conditions)."

            > Religion becomes dangerous categorized out of its level. When
            > superstition (religion) controls national government. When religion no
            > longer demonstrates against or argues against national public policy,
            > and instead writes national public policy. When religion seeks not to
            > criticize materialistic discourse, but rather re-write it seeking
            > nationally mandated public consumption, i/e "intelligent design",
            > "creationism" theories etc.in the public school system. Start a
            > parochial school, it's tax free.

            categorized out of its level is a belief system that takes itself too
            seriously, claiming to speak for God & so on. i'm not much for
            theocracies, so you're preaching to the converted.

            i wanted to pull -that- Chesterton quote (rather than swallow Chesterton's
            religious orthodoxy) by being informed with the paradigm concepts of Kuhn
            (Structure of Scientific Revolutions). are belief systems more like
            parallel mutually exclusive constructed paradigmatic systems dealing with
            the same phenomena of the emotional meaning of existence? does parallel
            maturity occur in different belief systems? or is there a hierarchy of
            religious belief systems leading to...uh...well...pure existentialist
            philosophy of the prophets Sartre or Kierkegaarde?

            myself a liberal and not even raised a Christian, at times far off the
            deep and marginalized end, Chesterton was actually a find for me as
            someone who could even remotely make orthodoxy understandable where
            earlier my lack of understanding of orthodoxy amounted to what could be
            described as ignorance boardering on prejudice.

            anyway, if what i've said is a blind alley, how about Pinker's statement
            that "psychology of the violent encounters is strikingly similar (across
            cultures)?" agree or disagree?

            aija
          • Bob Keyes
            Must Comment. Bob... ... From: Aija Veldre Beldavs [mailto:beldavsa@indiana.edu] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:36 PM To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Subject:
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 4, 2005
              Must Comment.
              Bob...

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Aija Veldre Beldavs [mailto:beldavsa@...]
              Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:36 PM
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [existlist] Re: not all beliefs are of equal value



              Trinidad Cruz:

              > "DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing, they
              > don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything."

              > "In Defense of Orthodoxy" is the book. The classic fear of change, or
              > fear of materialism argument. Humans are too stupid to be free. Negros
              > can't take care of themselves. What will they do if we free them?
              > Santeria, snycretism, pot smoking Jamaicans, Ethiopian saviors. What
              > will women do if we give them the vote? You miss Dawkins point while
              > promoting the likes of David Allan Coe with the quote.

              what is the point you want me to bring out in that discussion when mostly
              i already agree with the stuff about consciousness not residing in genes,



              [Bob Keyes] Consciousness does reside in the Gene? Get Real ! . Without
              the Genes there would be no consciousness.
              Even a Dog is conscious. And Genes formed this mental state long before
              dogs.
              Because you cannot with your Ape-Like Brain (I am speaking for all
              Humanity here) , conceive how genes can cause this does not mean that it
              does not exist. And all we do know is Genes cause everything else, why not
              THIS !!!!
              Get Real.....It is Plausible, at the Min and Near Scientifically Logically
              Induced at the MaX.





              that cognitive processes & selfish genes don't by themselves explain
              complex behavior & selfish genes produce people who sacrifice themselves
              for their children, friends, groups, causes etc? (my semiotics minor
              mostly consisted of cogsci classes with Douglas Hofstadter).


              [Bob Keyes] Yes the Can !!! There is a plausible explanation of this
              without resorting to Mysticism.








              i don't define tradition necessarily as fear of change, not in science,
              nor in culture. when needed, rapid change occurs in both. Plains Indian
              horse culture example for culture; quantum physics in science. change and
              relative coalescions of stability (or of void if you prefer Hindu-wise),
              as probably any dual concept are inseparable & defined in terms of each
              other.


              [Bob Keyes] HUH ? I am dumb...






              for me -that- Chesterton quote brings up a practical rather than
              theoretical matter. rather than turning benignly to say Kierkegaarde,
              people who are violently and suddenly deprived of their support systems,
              which include their belief systems and the mechanisms of implementation of
              nice new ideas, tend to be very vulnerable and therefore are much more
              likely to be prey for short-term manipulators as opposed to long-term
              manipulators who have a deeper investment in more aspects of society, such
              as a church.

              check out just about any postcolonial area of the world, like the
              suffering of transition in Africa or the postsoviet area.

              > Coe's version: "ya gotta stand for something or you'll fall for
              > anything.", or "why'd she have to go and marry that nigger?"

              again, this isn't interesting to me because for me race is pretty much
              biologically bogus - race is historically & socially constructed. in
              spite of the fact that restrictions as to whom one might legitimately or
              preferably marry go back a long way to moieties & such (as the first
              anthropologists pointed out), groups of people have been mixing genes if
              it was at all possible from the beginnings.

              > In this atmosphere Camus could only propose rebellion and Sartre
              > decisive action.

              yeah, decisive action.... well, the only problem is that in practice real
              blood and such revolutions tend to result in bloodbaths. even if they're
              constructed by overintellecutalized idealists in their isolated vengeful
              aristocratic misery &/or with the best of intentions, they tend to be
              carried out by immature teenage hoodlums as well as assorted other kinds
              with their personal axe to grind, such as in the Cambodian revolution of
              Pol Pot, or the Great Communist Revolution, to say nothing of other
              postcolonial horror stories in Africa & so on.

              > "religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing
              > those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
              > violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
              > symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain
              > conditions)."

              > Religion becomes dangerous categorized out of its level. When
              > superstition (religion) controls national government. When religion no
              > longer demonstrates against or argues against national public policy,
              > and instead writes national public policy. When religion seeks not to
              > criticize materialistic discourse, but rather re-write it seeking
              > nationally mandated public consumption, i/e "intelligent design",
              > "creationism" theories etc.in the public school system. Start a
              > parochial school, it's tax free.

              categorized out of its level is a belief system that takes itself too
              seriously, claiming to speak for God & so on. i'm not much for
              theocracies, so you're preaching to the converted.

              i wanted to pull -that- Chesterton quote (rather than swallow Chesterton's
              religious orthodoxy) by being informed with the paradigm concepts of Kuhn
              (Structure of Scientific Revolutions). are belief systems more like
              parallel mutually exclusive constructed paradigmatic systems dealing with
              the same phenomena of the emotional meaning of existence? does parallel
              maturity occur in different belief systems? or is there a hierarchy of
              religious belief systems leading to...uh...well...pure existentialist
              philosophy of the prophets Sartre or Kierkegaarde?

              myself a liberal and not even raised a Christian, at times far off the
              deep and marginalized end, Chesterton was actually a find for me as
              someone who could even remotely make orthodoxy understandable where
              earlier my lack of understanding of orthodoxy amounted to what could be
              described as ignorance boardering on prejudice.

              anyway, if what i've said is a blind alley, how about Pinker's statement
              that "psychology of the violent encounters is strikingly similar (across
              cultures)?" agree or disagree?


              [Bob Keyes] First your Wish( or any fantasies as to why) to be more
              orthodox is meaningless. Second
              As to your Question, Evolutionary Speaking, I would expect base behaviors
              to be common to all Humans, especially
              if we branched only 150 K years ago... (Not counting pygmies) I would vote
              they are probably similar !!
              Bob... Comments....





              aija





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

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




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

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

              b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Knott
              ... So, I take it that your conviction and belief in this belief is exempt simply because you do not denote the belief as religion ? It would be my suggestion
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 5, 2005
                > One of the drums I bang very loudly ...
                > It only takes one person in your
                > life who is convinced of his/her belief to
                > make your life a living
                > hell.

                So, I take it that your conviction and belief in this belief is exempt
                simply because you do not denote the belief as 'religion'?

                It would be my suggestion that any belief one holds with conviction (or
                grudge) is not circumspect of potential consequences because of the
                conviction held.

                Swallow Dat
              • Siobhan
                Knott, No, my conviction isn t exempt from consequence, but perhaps it might create more authentic decisions based on the loosely tethered existential ethic
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 5, 2005
                  Knott,

                  No, my conviction isn't exempt from consequence, but perhaps it might
                  create more authentic decisions based on the loosely tethered
                  existential ethic than on the nothing of fantasy or slavery of dogma.
                  Good point though. Can't say I'd swallow it hook, line & sinker, but
                  it's been worth a taste. All convictions are equal in that they have
                  consequences, but all are not equal for the individual who
                  contemplates them. One must choose since we aren't exempt from that
                  conundrum.

                  Siobhan

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@l...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > One of the drums I bang very loudly ...
                  > > It only takes one person in your
                  > > life who is convinced of his/her belief to
                  > > make your life a living
                  > > hell.
                  >
                  > So, I take it that your conviction and belief in this belief is
                  exempt
                  > simply because you do not denote the belief as 'religion'?
                  >
                  > It would be my suggestion that any belief one holds with conviction
                  (or
                  > grudge) is not circumspect of potential consequences because of the
                  > conviction held.
                  >
                  > Swallow Dat
                • Trinidad Cruz
                  ... wrote: i don t define tradition necessarily as fear of change, not in science, nor in culture. when needed, rapid change occurs in both. Plains Indian
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 5, 2005
                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@i...>
                    wrote:

                    "i don't define tradition necessarily as fear of change, not in
                    science, nor in culture. when needed, rapid change occurs in both.
                    Plains Indian horse culture example for culture; quantum physics in
                    science. change and relative coalescions of stability (or of void if
                    you prefer Hindu-wise), as probably any dual concept are inseparable &
                    defined in terms of each other."

                    Tradition has no efficacious value toward human development over time
                    unless it is always unequivocally open to change.Since the beginning
                    of written history religion has hindered scientific development
                    period, and to posit otherwise is ridiculous in 2005.


                    "for me -that- Chesterton quote brings up a practical rather than
                    theoretical matter. rather than turning benignly to say Kierkegaarde,
                    people who are violently and suddenly deprived of their support
                    systems, which include their belief systems and the mechanisms of
                    implementation of nice new ideas, tend to be very vulnerable and
                    therefore are much more likely to be prey for short-term manipulators
                    as opposed to long-term manipulators who have a deeper investment in
                    more aspects of society, such as a church. check out just about any
                    postcolonial area of the world, like the suffering of transition in
                    Africa or the postsoviet area."

                    "yeah, decisive action.... well, the only problem is that in practice
                    real blood and such revolutions tend to result in bloodbaths. even if
                    they're constructed by overintellecutalized idealists in their
                    isolated vengeful aristocratic misery &/or with the best of
                    intentions, they tend to be carried out by immature teenage hoodlums
                    as well as assorted other kinds with their personal axe to grind, such
                    as in the Cambodian revolution of Pol Pot, or the Great Communist
                    Revolution, to say nothing of other postcolonial horror stories in
                    Africa & so on."

                    It is always young men operating in a "belief system" that are
                    motivated or impressed or drafted to fight wars for manipulative
                    political or religious agendas. We had a postcolonial horror story
                    here called the Civil War. A war at the top levels drawn largely along
                    religious lines, an atheist northern leadership, and a Christian
                    southern leadership. No one wants to fight it domestically anymore
                    because of comfort, a comfort available because of science and
                    technology. We now have an administration that believes it is
                    acceptable to export our postcolonial horror to the rest of the world.
                    We should drag him back to Appamattox.

                    "categorized out of its level is a belief system that takes itself too
                    seriously, claiming to speak for God & so on.i'm not much for
                    theocracies, so you're preaching to the converted."

                    Hardly. Religion has always attempted to categorize science as a
                    belief system. The subjective center of religious belief is available
                    only as an emotional or psychological phenomenon. To be sure the
                    belief can have and does have scientifically materialistically
                    traceable effective results on the general human race, but the source
                    is imagined. Religion is always attempting to categorize scientific
                    theory as imagination, however in science, theory is always theory and
                    never seen as anything other than a theory to be tested. The
                    subjective center of scientific theory becomes available over time
                    through new information or the theory becomes disproved. Science may
                    operate as a belief system but it assumes that the center of its
                    belief is available materialistically while religion does not."You
                    should not tempt (test) the lord your God." The material
                    unavailability of God diminishes the intellectual potential and
                    psychological and emotional development of human beings.If we are
                    going to use words like "belief system" to characterize science we
                    should at least understand the foundation of belief: our heart beats,
                    we breath air, we become aware of it. Scientific theory attempts to
                    discover how we may believe we are real using available evidence.
                    Religion provides only after the fact effect as evidence,and an
                    unavailble untestable primary cause. It is delusional.

                    "i wanted to pull -that- Chesterton quote (rather than swallow
                    Chesterton's religious orthodoxy) by being informed with the paradigm
                    concepts of Kuhn (Structure of Scientific Revolutions). are belief
                    systems more like parallel mutually exclusive constructed paradigmatic
                    systems dealing with the same phenomena of the emotional meaning of
                    existence?"

                    The emotional meaning of existence has nothing to do with physical
                    science, and in fact such an idea would be explored in psychology with
                    an attempt to find a physical cause.


                    "does parallel maturity occur in different belief systems?"

                    This is a good question, and the crux of how much genetics come into
                    play, is there psychopathic mutation, and so forth.


                    "or is there a hierarchy of religious belief systems leading
                    to...uh...well...pure existentialist philosophy of the prophets Sartre
                    or Kierkegaarde?"

                    Sartre would utterly dismiss a characterization as a
                    prophet.Kierkegaard would wallow in it.There is a great difference
                    between the two.

                    "anyway, if what i've said is a blind alley, how about Pinker's
                    statement that "psychology of the violent encounters is strikingly
                    similar (across cultures)?" agree or disagree?"

                    Not an easily arguable generalization. I'm sure lifted from Campbell
                    in the first place (warrior or hero cultures). I can only say that
                    pure materialists do not see death as a solution, and even though most
                    argue it is inevitable it is only argued as inevitable based on a
                    specific theoretical view of a cosmological past. It's science,
                    subject to change. It's hard to agree or disagree with a word like
                    similar.

                    Trinidad Cruz
                  • louise
                    Siobhan, Is a conviction really something one can contemplate and choose?? I tend to think that a conviction is a belief one is embraced by, because one is
                    Message 9 of 20 , Apr 5, 2005
                      Siobhan,

                      Is a conviction really something one can contemplate and choose?? I
                      tend to think that a conviction is a belief one is embraced by,
                      because one is convinced, and hence desirous of the embrace. This
                      is what existential ethic is, in my view: subjective desire, founded
                      on rigorous thinking about life experience and other learning. Lack
                      of desire, lack of thought, lack of rigour in thinking, lack of
                      learning, some or all of these factors can produce dogmatism.
                      Secular dogma prevails over religious, in sheer quantity, anyway, in
                      the West. At least such is my impression from our sceptred isle.
                      The 'our' does not seek to include you, nor, necessarily, any fellow-
                      Briton either. It is certainly not intended as a 'royal we'. It
                      indicates a search, for home. Great Britain is my home. I am proud
                      to be here, but distinctly horrified about the prevailing dogmas.

                      Louise


                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Siobhan" <bravegnoobee@y...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > Knott,
                      >
                      > No, my conviction isn't exempt from consequence, but perhaps it
                      might
                      > create more authentic decisions based on the loosely tethered
                      > existential ethic than on the nothing of fantasy or slavery of
                      dogma.
                      > Good point though. Can't say I'd swallow it hook, line & sinker,
                      but
                      > it's been worth a taste. All convictions are equal in that they
                      have
                      > consequences, but all are not equal for the individual who
                      > contemplates them. One must choose since we aren't exempt from
                      that
                      > conundrum.
                      >
                      > Siobhan
                      >
                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@l...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > > One of the drums I bang very loudly ...
                      > > > It only takes one person in your
                      > > > life who is convinced of his/her belief to
                      > > > make your life a living
                      > > > hell.
                      > >
                      > > So, I take it that your conviction and belief in this belief is
                      > exempt
                      > > simply because you do not denote the belief as 'religion'?
                      > >
                      > > It would be my suggestion that any belief one holds with
                      conviction
                      > (or
                      > > grudge) is not circumspect of potential consequences because of
                      the
                      > > conviction held.
                      > >
                      > > Swallow Dat
                    • Knott
                      ... Again, this seems to state that clearly your ideas are superior to others...which is perhaps self-serving. That is, you have created your own dogma (so
                      Message 10 of 20 , Apr 5, 2005
                        > No, my conviction isn't exempt from consequence,
                        > but perhaps it might
                        > create more authentic decisions based on the loosely tethered
                        > existential ethic than on the nothing of fantasy
                        > or slavery of dogma.

                        Again, this seems to state that clearly your ideas are superior to
                        others...which is perhaps self-serving. That is, you have created
                        your own dogma (so have I), loosely tethered existential ethic, based
                        on what you hope to be correct. There is no guarantee that your
                        thinking is any better than that of a group...nor worse. My
                        interpretation of the parts of existentialism that I am interested in
                        have specifically to do with the idea that I am responsible for my
                        unique perspective, perhaps to be open to refining and bettering it
                        ('bettering' difficult to define).

                        I'd suggest the trick is rather not flogging people with the limp end
                        of it. For example, I have political beliefs, but I would never try
                        to convince someone that they were correct. I discuss them almost
                        never...most people are confused enough ;-).

                        Emoticon Madness
                      • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                        ... Lawrence Britt comparing the classic fascist regimes (Hitler s Germany), (Mussolini s Italy), (Spain s Franco), (Suharto s Indonesia) & numerous Latin
                        Message 11 of 20 , Apr 6, 2005
                          > > One of the drums I bang very loudly ... > It only takes one person in
                          > your > life who is convinced of his/her belief to > make your life a
                          > living > hell.

                          > So, I take it that your conviction and belief in this belief is exempt
                          > simply because you do not denote the belief as 'religion'?

                          > It would be my suggestion that any belief one holds with conviction (or
                          > grudge) is not circumspect of potential consequences because of the
                          > conviction held.
                          > Swallow Dat

                          Lawrence Britt comparing the classic fascist regimes (Hitler's Germany),
                          (Mussolini's Italy), (Spain's Franco), (Suharto's Indonesia) & numerous
                          Latin American regimes found 14 defining characteristics common to each.
                          i find these characteristics present in many other organized,
                          institutionalized & vested interests. characteristics also of other
                          totalitarianisms, the -practice- of Communism (at least in Eurasia), or in
                          Empire. btw i would consider #1 as =(mis)use= of nationalism, rather than
                          a healthy group consciousness that doesn't expand to imperialism and is
                          benign as to neighbors with different beliefs (there are viable examples
                          of non-predatory small nations), but anyway...

                          aija
                          --------
                          1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
                          Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans,
                          symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as
                          are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

                          2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
                          Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in
                          fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain
                          cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even
                          approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long
                          incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

                          3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
                          The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
                          eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious
                          minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

                          4. Supremacy of the Military
                          Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a
                          disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is
                          neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

                          5. Rampant Sexism
                          The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively
                          male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made
                          more rigid.

                          Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is
                          represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

                          6. Controlled Mass Media
                          Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other
                          cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or
                          sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in
                          war time, is very common.

                          7. Obsession with National Security
                          Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

                          8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
                          Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the
                          nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and
                          terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets
                          of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or
                          actions.

                          9. Corporate Power is Protected
                          The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the
                          ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually
                          beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

                          10. Labor Power is Suppressed
                          Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist
                          government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely
                          suppressed.

                          11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
                          Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher
                          education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other
                          academics to be censored or even arrested. Free _expression in the arts
                          and letters is openly attacked.

                          12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
                          Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to
                          enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and
                          even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a
                          national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

                          13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
                          Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and
                          associates who appoint each other to government positions and use
                          governmental power and authority to protect their friends from
                          accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national
                          resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by
                          government leaders.

                          14. Fraudulent Elections
                          Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times
                          elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination
                          of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or
                          political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist
                          nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control
                          elections.
                          -------
                        • louise
                          Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a syllogism, so I shall
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                            Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises
                            stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a
                            syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.

                            1.
                            That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                            existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.

                            2.
                            That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                            metaphysical statement.

                            Conclusion.
                            The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                            remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.

                            Originally I expressed this in rather cryptic form by stating, "Ergo,
                            classical thinking is not dead, unless you also accept that
                            existentialism is dead."

                            My approach is basically non-academic, I would say, hence the poetic
                            descriptions that others often find impenetrable or even
                            offensive. 'Deadness' in this context indicates, from a more
                            abstract standpoint, 'non-viability'. In other words, I intended an
                            optimistic statement which asserts that the glory of Athenian
                            achievement can still be reproduced in contemporary lives, just as
                            the courageous endeavours of those inspired by, for example, Sartre
                            or Camus, are testament to how existentialism is a living tradition.
                            For me it is all somewhat a statement of faith, not in the religious
                            sense, but with the implicit acceptance that what is not cognitively
                            understood can be most vital of all.

                            Louise
                          • jimstuart51
                            Louise, I appreciate this post. Certainly your one, two, conclusion argument is a model of clarity, and faithfully reflects Livingston s interpretation of
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                              Louise,

                              I appreciate this post.

                              Certainly your "one, two, conclusion" argument is a model of clarity,
                              and faithfully reflects Livingston's interpretation of what Heidegger
                              is saying.

                              Jim




                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises
                              > stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a
                              > syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.
                              >
                              > 1.
                              > That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                              > existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.
                              >
                              > 2.
                              > That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                              > metaphysical statement.
                              >
                              > Conclusion.
                              > The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                              > remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.
                              >
                              > Originally I expressed this in rather cryptic form by
                              stating, "Ergo,
                              > classical thinking is not dead, unless you also accept that
                              > existentialism is dead."
                              >
                              > My approach is basically non-academic, I would say, hence the
                              poetic
                              > descriptions that others often find impenetrable or even
                              > offensive. 'Deadness' in this context indicates, from a more
                              > abstract standpoint, 'non-viability'. In other words, I intended
                              an
                              > optimistic statement which asserts that the glory of Athenian
                              > achievement can still be reproduced in contemporary lives, just as
                              > the courageous endeavours of those inspired by, for example, Sartre
                              > or Camus, are testament to how existentialism is a living
                              tradition.
                              > For me it is all somewhat a statement of faith, not in the
                              religious
                              > sense, but with the implicit acceptance that what is not
                              cognitively
                              > understood can be most vital of all.
                              >
                              > Louise
                              >
                            • eupraxis@aol.com
                              Louise, [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a syllogism, so I
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                                Louise,

                                [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises
                                stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a
                                syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.

                                1.
                                That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                                existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.

                                2.
                                That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                                metaphysical statement.

                                Conclusion.
                                The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                                remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.]

                                Response: 1. The Ideal is real; the mundane is a copy. In that sense, essence
                                precedes existence. This becomes a foundational premise in metaphysics as
                                espoused by Aristotle. 2. For Heidegger, Sartre remains stuck in metaphysics.
                                Sartre thought otherwise. Concl. If Heidegger is correct, Sartre remains as a
                                metaphysical thinker, but this does not mean that Sartre is Platonic. Metaphysics
                                does necessarily imply Platonism (or Aristotelianism, the formal source of
                                metaphysics, as such).
                                ---
                                Originally I expressed this in rather cryptic form by stating, "Ergo,
                                classical thinking is not dead, unless you also accept that
                                existentialism is dead."

                                Response: Classical thinking is a vague term. Are Democritus and Lucretius
                                the same as Thales, Aristotle, Zeno or Plotinus?

                                Wil



                                **************
                                Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
                                credit score.
                                (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • louise
                                ... sense, essence ... metaphysics as ... metaphysics. ... remains as a ... Platonic. Metaphysics ... source of ... Stated with great clarity. There is
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Louise,
                                  >
                                  > [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises
                                  > stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a
                                  > syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.
                                  >
                                  > 1.
                                  > That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                                  > existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.
                                  >
                                  > 2.
                                  > That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                                  > metaphysical statement.
                                  >
                                  > Conclusion.
                                  > The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                                  > remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.]
                                  >
                                  > Response: 1. The Ideal is real; the mundane is a copy. In that
                                  sense, essence
                                  > precedes existence. This becomes a foundational premise in
                                  metaphysics as
                                  > espoused by Aristotle. 2. For Heidegger, Sartre remains stuck in
                                  metaphysics.
                                  > Sartre thought otherwise. Concl. If Heidegger is correct, Sartre
                                  remains as a
                                  > metaphysical thinker, but this does not mean that Sartre is
                                  Platonic. Metaphysics
                                  > does necessarily imply Platonism (or Aristotelianism, the formal
                                  source of
                                  > metaphysics, as such).

                                  Stated with great clarity. There is nothing here with which I
                                  disagree.

                                  > ---
                                  > Originally I expressed this in rather cryptic form by
                                  stating, "Ergo,
                                  > classical thinking is not dead, unless you also accept that
                                  > existentialism is dead."
                                  >
                                  > Response: Classical thinking is a vague term. Are Democritus and
                                  Lucretius
                                  > the same as Thales, Aristotle, Zeno or Plotinus?

                                  Yes, the vagueness of the phrase, 'classical thinking', was probably
                                  prompted by an uneasy sense that I tend to espouse unfashionable
                                  causes. Bill, for instance, has from time to time reminded me
                                  that 'the present does not respect the past', and other such
                                  aphoristic nuggets. So I was defensive, as though there were no
                                  particular distinctions to be made, whereas obviously there is a huge
                                  range of thought in Classical times, Greek or Roman. Having said
                                  that, Sartre and Camus are also of the past, and they are frequently
                                  mentioned at the list. It's odd, really, that existentialism is so
                                  very difficult to pin down. A tribute, maybe, to the uniqueness of
                                  the individual human. For all who work to examine their own thinking
                                  and set their lives in the light of that thought, there is the
                                  immense possibility of discovering what is startling and new. And
                                  possibly incommunicable. Hmm, is that what I meant when adopting the
                                  pseudonym of 'Willing Worker'? It's not going to start a revolution,
                                  is it? Workers of the world - examine your lives. Existentialism is
                                  for the few, because the many are not interested. Having said that,
                                  individuality does take more forms than the examined life. The
                                  language of philosophy ranges from the hermetic to the precisely
                                  academic, but how far can it be colloquial, if at all? Louise


                                  >
                                  > Wil
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > **************
                                  > Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
                                  > credit score.
                                  > (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?
                                  ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                • jimstuart51
                                  Louise: [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a syllogism, so I
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                    Louise: [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the
                                    premises stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount
                                    to a syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.

                                    1.
                                    That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                                    existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.

                                    2.
                                    That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                                    metaphysical statement.

                                    Conclusion.
                                    The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                                    remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.]

                                    Wil: 1. The Ideal is real; the mundane is a copy. In that sense,
                                    essence precedes existence. This becomes a foundational premise in
                                    metaphysics as espoused by Aristotle. 2. For Heidegger, Sartre
                                    remains stuck in metaphysics. Sartre thought otherwise. Concl. If
                                    Heidegger is correct, Sartre remains as a metaphysical thinker, but
                                    this does not mean that Sartre is Platonic. Metaphysics does
                                    necessarily imply Platonism (or Aristotelianism, the formal source of
                                    metaphysics, as such).

                                    Jim: Wil, I guess you missed a `not' out of your last sentence.
                                    Certainly what you wrote in the preceding sentences would lead the
                                    reader to expect a `not' to be meant.

                                    Generally, I think you are both in agreement that one of the main
                                    points of Heidegger's "Letter on Humanism" was that he saw Sartre as
                                    still stuck in the old metaphysical way of thinking. I think that
                                    this is the point Louise was trying to make, and I didn't read her as
                                    saying that Sartre was Platonic in any sense. Rather both Plato and
                                    Sartre were both grounded in a `metaphysics' which was not faithful
                                    to the `truth about Being'.

                                    Here is the relevant extract from the Livingston lecture:

                                    Though he shares much with Sartre, Heidegger's aim in the Letter on
                                    Humanism is to distinguish himself from – rather than endorse –
                                    Sartre's existentialism and his associated concept of humanism. For
                                    Heidegger thinks that this concept of humanism is still within the
                                    tradition of metaphysics. Of Sartre's reversal of the traditional
                                    priority of essence over existence, Heidegger says:
                                    "…Sartre expresses the basic tent of existentialism in this way:
                                    Existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia
                                    and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which from
                                    Plato's time on has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre
                                    reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement
                                    remains a metaphysical statement. With it he stays with metaphysics
                                    in oblivion of the truth of Being." (p. 232).
                                    By contrast, Heidegger thinks his philosophy of Being can discover a
                                    still older and more original meaning for man. To this end, Heidegger
                                    rejects everything that Sartre calls "humanism" – but only in the
                                    service of the higher dignity of man. "… The highest determinations
                                    of the sense of man in humanism still do not realize the proper
                                    dignity of man .." (p. 233). This "proper dignity" can only be
                                    discovered if man is thought of – as Sartre does not think of him –
                                    in his fundamental relationship to Being and its meaning and truth.

                                    Jim
                                  • eupraxis@aol.com
                                    ... Yes, thanks. Wil ************** Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your credit score.
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                      In a message dated 1/25/09 5:34:32 AM, jjimstuart1@... writes:

                                      > Wil, I guess you missed a `not' out of your last sentence.
                                      > Certainly what you wrote in the preceding sentences would lead the
                                      > reader to expect a `not' to be meant.
                                      >

                                      Yes, thanks.

                                      Wil


                                      **************
                                      Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve
                                      your credit score.
                                      (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • louise
                                      ... premises ... sense, essence ... metaphysics as ... metaphysics. ... remains as a ... Platonic. Metaphysics ... source of ... Jim and Wil, I am puzzled.
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Louise,
                                        >
                                        > [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the
                                        premises
                                        > stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a
                                        > syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.
                                        >
                                        > 1.
                                        > That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                                        > existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.
                                        >
                                        > 2.
                                        > That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                                        > metaphysical statement.
                                        >
                                        > Conclusion.
                                        > The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                                        > remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.]
                                        >
                                        > Response: 1. The Ideal is real; the mundane is a copy. In that
                                        sense, essence
                                        > precedes existence. This becomes a foundational premise in
                                        metaphysics as
                                        > espoused by Aristotle. 2. For Heidegger, Sartre remains stuck in
                                        metaphysics.
                                        > Sartre thought otherwise. Concl. If Heidegger is correct, Sartre
                                        remains as a
                                        > metaphysical thinker, but this does not mean that Sartre is
                                        Platonic. Metaphysics
                                        > does necessarily imply Platonism (or Aristotelianism, the formal
                                        source of
                                        > metaphysics, as such).

                                        Jim and Wil,

                                        I am puzzled. Are you both asserting that the final sentence here
                                        should read, "Metaphysics does not necessarily imply Platonism (or
                                        Aristotelianism, the formal source of metaphysics, as such)?

                                        It seems to me that the statement was correct the first time round.
                                        There is metaphysical thinking, I suppose, in, for instance, the
                                        ancient Sanskrit holy texts, but this is a quite different kind of
                                        philosophical thought, surely? As far as Western philosophy is
                                        concerned, is it not true that all metaphysics can be traced back to
                                        Plato??

                                        Louise
                                      • eupraxis@aol.com
                                        Louise. As far as Western philosophy is concerned, is it not true that all metaphysics can be traced back to Plato?? Response: The formal beginning of
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                          Louise.

                                          "As far as Western philosophy is concerned, is it not true that all
                                          metaphysics can be traced back to Plato??"

                                          Response: The formal beginning of metaphysics-proper (that is, as a formal
                                          discipline) is usually put at the feet of Aristotle. But the general range of
                                          speculative philosophies go as far back as Thales.

                                          It is nevertheless fairly common to attribute many Western notions to Plato,
                                          including the subject-object dualism, or dualism itself. Plato's foot print is
                                          enormous. But it would be misleading to say that all metaphysics is therefore
                                          Platonic, or that the term "Platonic" is used always in a strict manner.

                                          Whitehead once quipped that all Western thought is involved in an ancient
                                          wrestling match between Plato and Aristotle, which would make one infer that
                                          Aristotle was un-Platonic in a significant way, for example. Or again, the
                                          Neo-"Platonists" are seen as being significantly different from the Atomists and
                                          Epicureans, etc.

                                          Plato is not completely consistent throughout the dialogues on the real/ideal
                                          thing. I do not have the time to go through all of this right now, but if
                                          memory serves me right you will see some equivocation in the Laws, for example.
                                          Aristotle contradicts himself in the Metaphysics as well, first criticizing
                                          Plato's Ideas as impossible, but then exploiting the very same concept with his
                                          discussion of the Summum Bonum and thought thinking itself.

                                          The point is that all such slogans and sayings become problematic when
                                          investigated with any sense of detail.

                                          Wil

                                          In a message dated 1/25/09 11:36:10 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                                          > Jim and Wil,
                                          >
                                          > I am puzzled. Are you both asserting that the final sentence here
                                          > should read, "Metaphysics does not necessarily imply Platonism (or
                                          > Aristotelianism, the formal source of metaphysics, as such)?
                                          >
                                          > It seems to me that the statement was correct the first time round.
                                          > There is metaphysical thinking, I suppose, in, for instance, the
                                          > ancient Sanskrit holy texts, but this is a quite different kind of
                                          > philosophical thought, surely? As far as Western philosophy is
                                          > concerned, is it not true that all metaphysics can be traced back to
                                          > Plato??
                                          >
                                          > Louise
                                          >




                                          **************
                                          Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
                                          credit score.
                                          (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.