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

Re: not all beliefs are of equal value

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , Apr 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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 2 of 20 , Apr 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        "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 3 of 20 , Apr 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 20 , Apr 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 20 , Apr 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > 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 6 of 20 , Apr 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 20 , Apr 5, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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 8 of 20 , Apr 5, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 20 , Apr 5, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > 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 10 of 20 , Apr 6, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > > 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 11 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- 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 15 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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 17 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- 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 18 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        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.