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

Re: [existlist] Nietzsche, Hegel, and Kierkegaard

Expand Messages
  • Anubis1130@aol.com
    Hello Eduard: Yeah I see what you said in both the emails, the transcendental god does work, some hate the transcendental god like Nietzsche, Kirkegaard needed
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Eduard:

      Yeah I see what you said in both the emails, the transcendental god does
      work, some hate the transcendental god like Nietzsche, Kirkegaard needed him
      for an authentic existence. Some questions though, in your opinion how many
      Christians are Hegelian, I see books comparing Hegel to Hermeticism,
      followers of Eastern thought like him, but not that much Christians, I have
      even seen Christian sites that bash him, Schelling and Fichte for the
      immanent god. The idea of man as god trying to realize himself is pagan, I
      would agree with Kirkegaard on that. Also I believe Barth of whom I read
      very little wanted to make god and man as antithetical. I never perceive of
      Christianity as an immanentism, to me Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all
      have the transcendental lord, and everything boils down to creator vs
      created. What is your opinion on this?

      Now you study Taoism, that interests me. Where for Western metaphysics(Old
      Greek), there was some state of the Spirit or Mind that had to be realized,
      even in the Indian, one could state the Shaivist and Shakttist tradition as a
      progressive phenomology. I have heard that Taoism doesn't take this
      approach, it is not seen a s a sort of progressive phenomology as in the
      Shavist, Shaktiist, Hermetic, and Hegelian approach, but rather as the most
      authentic form of existence. So for Taoism you don't take the approach of
      the moralist religions or the ones in which you try to realize some form of
      the absolute spirit, but one in which your realize your true state of Being.
      It would be more on the lines of Heidegger rather than Hegel.

      -Mark

      In a message dated 8/31/2001 4:19:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
      yeoman@... writes:


      > hi Mark,
      >
      > You paint a dark picture. I understand where you
      > are coming from, but I don't think anyone started
      > off with the intention of "creating a vast abyss
      > between God and man", or putting man's dignity
      > somewhere that it needs be brought back. I should
      > think that there was simply a progressive
      > evolution towards things that "work". The same
      > goes for Jesus being a "saviour"; it simply made
      > sense at the time and place. Albeit the concept
      > may not necessarily work in today's world.
      >
      > Whether the transcendental god must die is still
      > open to question. There has been some movement
      > towards pagan religions and the like. I myself am
      > inclined towards Daoism, but there is always this
      > feeling that there has to be some kind of concrete
      > god to which to brings one's problems. The way I
      > see it, there will always be a need for a
      > transcendental god. Perhaps the one at present
      > has to be changed to meet the new conditions of
      > our society.
      >
      > eduard
      >




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Eduard Alf
      hi Mark, you are well beyond me on this. I only dabble at this stage and you lose me with words like phenomology , unless you mean phenomenology . Anyway,
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        hi Mark,

        you are well beyond me on this. I only dabble at
        this stage and you lose me with words like
        "phenomology", unless you mean "phenomenology".

        Anyway, Christianity is so large that it includes
        all sorts of beliefs. A lot of it was modified in
        contact with the pagans, such that you have things
        like Christmas which is an occasion in the pagan
        calendar, rather than the true birthdate of
        Christ. By the way I take paganism as worship of
        god in nature and not an effort of man trying to
        realise himself; which perhaps may be the same
        thing depending upon how you do your
        interpretation.

        I could say that Christianity is a belief of an
        external god who returns to the site of his
        creation [earth] in order to redeem the objects of
        his creation [namely mankind] though means of a
        Christ. Salvation through Christ becomes central
        focus of the religion. Beyond that I should think
        that anything goes. I understand that Thomas
        Merton [1915 - 1968] was informed of mysticism of
        the east, but having only scanned some of his
        books, I am not sure if he viewed god as immanent,
        or simply described this as another system of
        belief.

        It would not surprise me if some Christians did
        indeed see god and perhaps even Christ as
        immanent. In todays world, you think a lot of
        things without fear of the stake. But to answer
        your question; yes, Christianity and the others
        you mentioned could be seen as creator vs.
        created.

        As to Daoism, I don't see this as a belief system
        leading to a realisation of a true self. I see it
        simply as a means by which I can have a better
        understanding of my world and how to live in it.
        For example, it has helped me to get through a
        particularly trying time this year. In a way,
        Daoism provides me with words and images that I do
        not obtain elsewhere. Daoism is not a religion
        [although it does have a religious side in China]
        and is more of a philosophy. Like all
        philosophies, it may appear elsewhere in a
        different guise.

        I would tend to agree with Bookdoc in that it is
        perhaps incorrect to go by labels, as to say that
        something is in line with "Heidegger" or "Hegel".
        I am not that familiar with these philosophers, to
        say that anything is in line with their thinking.
        In the end I don't think that anyone is striving
        after anything other than to be "comfortable" with
        themselves and their situation. Sometimes this
        leads to things like Christianity, at others as
        Daoism. It is those who are the organizers of the
        religion, or shall I say, "management", who create
        and enforce the dogma.

        eduard



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Anubis1130@...
        [mailto:Anubis1130@...]
        Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 4:09 AM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Nietzsche, Hegel, and
        Kierkegaard


        Hello Eduard:

        Yeah I see what you said in both the emails, the
        transcendental god does
        work, some hate the transcendental god like
        Nietzsche, Kirkegaard needed him
        for an authentic existence. Some questions
        though, in your opinion how many
        Christians are Hegelian, I see books comparing
        Hegel to Hermeticism,
        followers of Eastern thought like him, but not
        that much Christians, I have
        even seen Christian sites that bash him, Schelling
        and Fichte for the
        immanent god. The idea of man as god trying to
        realize himself is pagan, I
        would agree with Kirkegaard on that. Also I
        believe Barth of whom I read
        very little wanted to make god and man as
        antithetical. I never perceive of
        Christianity as an immanentism, to me Judaism,
        Islam, and Christianity all
        have the transcendental lord, and everything boils
        down to creator vs
        created. What is your opinion on this?

        Now you study Taoism, that interests me. Where
        for Western metaphysics(Old
        Greek), there was some state of the Spirit or Mind
        that had to be realized,
        even in the Indian, one could state the Shaivist
        and Shakttist tradition as a
        progressive phenomology. I have heard that Taoism
        doesn't take this
        approach, it is not seen a s a sort of progressive
        phenomology as in the
        Shavist, Shaktiist, Hermetic, and Hegelian
        approach, but rather as the most
        authentic form of existence. So for Taoism you
        don't take the approach of
        the moralist religions or the ones in which you
        try to realize some form of
        the absolute spirit, but one in which your realize
        your true state of Being.
        It would be more on the lines of Heidegger rather
        than Hegel.

        -Mark

        In a message dated 8/31/2001 4:19:05 PM Central
        Daylight Time,
        yeoman@... writes:


        > hi Mark,
        >
        > You paint a dark picture. I understand where
        you
        > are coming from, but I don't think anyone
        started
        > off with the intention of "creating a vast abyss
        > between God and man", or putting man's dignity
        > somewhere that it needs be brought back. I
        should
        > think that there was simply a progressive
        > evolution towards things that "work". The same
        > goes for Jesus being a "saviour"; it simply made
        > sense at the time and place. Albeit the concept
        > may not necessarily work in today's world.
        >
        > Whether the transcendental god must die is still
        > open to question. There has been some movement
        > towards pagan religions and the like. I myself
        am
        > inclined towards Daoism, but there is always
        this
        > feeling that there has to be some kind of
        concrete
        > god to which to brings one's problems. The way
        I
        > see it, there will always be a need for a
        > transcendental god. Perhaps the one at present
        > has to be changed to meet the new conditions of
        > our society.
        >
        > eduard
        >




        [Non-text portions of this message have been
        removed]


        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

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

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

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Anubis1130@aol.com
        In a message dated 9/2/2001 9:31:11 AM Central Daylight Time, ... Hello Eduard: Yeah my mistake for misspelling it, sorry. I guess my main pont of Taoism is
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 9/2/2001 9:31:11 AM Central Daylight Time,
          yeoman@... writes:


          > hi Mark,
          >
          > you are well beyond me on this. I only dabble at
          > this stage and you lose me with words like
          > "phenomology", unless you mean "phenomenology".
          >

          Hello Eduard:

          Yeah my mistake for misspelling it, sorry.

          I guess my main pont of Taoism is that unlike the Greek systems in which the
          goal was to reach some outstanding state of Being, the goal of Taoism is to
          live by the Tao, it is a more passive and calm approach, the goal is actually
          the most natural state of Being. It is hard to explain.

          -Mark


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Eduard Alf
          or as they say, to return to the uncarved block eduard ... From: Anubis1130@aol.com [mailto:Anubis1130@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 4:49 PM To:
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            or as they say, to return to the "uncarved block"

            eduard

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Anubis1130@...
            [mailto:Anubis1130@...]
            Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 4:49 PM
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [existlist] Nietzsche, Hegel, and
            Kierkegaard


            In a message dated 9/2/2001 9:31:11 AM Central
            Daylight Time,
            yeoman@... writes:


            > hi Mark,
            >
            > you are well beyond me on this. I only dabble
            at
            > this stage and you lose me with words like
            > "phenomology", unless you mean "phenomenology".
            >

            Hello Eduard:

            Yeah my mistake for misspelling it, sorry.

            I guess my main pont of Taoism is that unlike the
            Greek systems in which the
            goal was to reach some outstanding state of Being,
            the goal of Taoism is to
            live by the Tao, it is a more passive and calm
            approach, the goal is actually
            the most natural state of Being. It is hard to
            explain.

            -Mark


            [Non-text portions of this message have been
            removed]


            ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

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

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

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          • Diana
            ... read the ideas, ingest them, and know how your conclusions and perspectives have been improved or strengthened by having read them? My interpretation of
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 3, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              >> Is it more important to know what philosopher xyz thought, or to
              read the ideas, ingest them, and know how your conclusions and
              perspectives have been improved or strengthened by having read them?>>

              My interpretation of what you are saying is that reading philosophy
              is like reading a poem. You take from the text that which appeals to
              you. While reading it you explore your own world.

              So there's no point in trying to understand the original author? It
              still seems to me that such an attempt is not entirely artificial and
              useless. I may never understand that person completely, but the very
              attempt takes me deeper.
            • nothing@theabsurd.com
              ...
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 3, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@y..., "Diana" <da-sein@e...> wrote:
                << So there's no point in trying to understand the original author?
                It still seems to me that such an attempt is not entirely artificial
                and useless. I may never understand that person completely, but
                the very attempt takes me deeper.>>

                It would seem to me that attempting to understand a
                multi-faceted einstien in a clown-suit type personality might --
                might, mind you -- lead no closer to the meaning of the words
                than the words themselves. Understand that coming from my
                perspective (if I can make anything whatso-ever clear), you are
                creating a fictional account of the person whom you consider to
                be author anyway from what you do and don't know (in absurd,
                that would be don't and don't, but who's counting?). using this
                backdrop to understand the wording as to what you think the
                perspective might be could indeed compound errors even if
                trying to understand the author were the imperative (and I am not
                convinced that it is).

                I do believe this is similarly stated in deconstructive theory, but I
                understand it as: If you are to place the author and the author's
                meaning above the words and what you derive from them (the
                latter of which to me is far more interesting), you are putting your
                intellect lower than the author's -- or at least in comparison to. I
                feel that would only lead to the academic tit-for-tat (which is
                popular, but to me, useless) where you compare your thought to
                the authors and declair it right/wrong; in the reading I like to do
                there is much less disrespect -- or potential disrespect -- of the
                ideas, and no need to develop a heirarchy. In essence, the ideas
                become yours as you understand them, and to me that is much
                more involving -- and interesting. I am not much for history (in
                fact, I don't believe in it); the historical idea of attribution becomes
                a bit meaningless.

                On the other hand, I didn't mean to say that someone else needs
                to read the way I do (though doubtless it came out that way). I
                just think that there is no way for me to know another personality
                when mine changes so as per my discovery (and heap all my
                other absurd ideas in the mess -- and you get a mess). I could
                see how the exercise of creating a construct of the author
                mentally may be valuable to some. However, I could never
                consider my conclusions valid.

                Read like poetry? Perhaps. I think that won't fly with many though
                because of some attribute or perspective attached to these
                things that are called poems. I might simply suggest that it is
                just read -- that the unfolding of ideas is the thing that I watch for
                not unlike a movie. It allows for broader interpretations...and
                popcorn.

                What kind of fool am I
                -----------------------------
              • gamine22@aol.com
                In a message dated 9/3/01 3:55:29 PM, da-sein@excite.com writes:
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 3, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 9/3/01 3:55:29 PM, da-sein@... writes:

                  << So there's no point in trying to understand the original author? It
                  still seems to me that such an attempt is not entirely artificial and
                  useless. I may never understand that person completely, but the very
                  attempt takes me deeper.
                  >>

                  in understanding the original author, you can also gain a deeper perspective
                  or gain facts that embellish your original thoughts on the author's work. you
                  can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight.

                  dubstar
                • nothing@theabsurd.com
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 3, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    << you can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight. >>

                    Following that to a logical conclusion, there would never be any
                    original thought. I would hope this is not the case.

                    Quite often I learn either by writing or discussing. If I feel I gain
                    something from my own meditations, are you suggesting I am deceiving
                    myself? (I can't really argue the point that I wouldn't be anyway.)
                    Limiting it to gain only from another source sort-a saps the internal
                    mechanism, eh?

                    Going nowhere.
                    ---------
                  • gamine22@aol.com
                    In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@theabsurd.com writes:
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@... writes:

                      << Quite often I learn either by writing or discussing. If I feel I gain
                      something from my own meditations, are you suggesting I am deceiving
                      myself? (I can't really argue the point that I wouldn't be anyway.)
                      Limiting it to gain only from another source sort-a saps the internal
                      mechanism, eh? >>

                      surely you can gain from yourself as well as gain from others. just because
                      you have some added depth from another's perspective does not mean that you
                      cannot speculate or develop upon your own ideas at the same time. i suppose i
                      did not make my statement clear enough. there is always original thought, it
                      cannot be helped. yet, suppose you read a poem plus an additional author's
                      interpretation. not only would you gain the added insight of the author, but
                      you would also retain your own first impressions and then further developed
                      thoughts upon reading the addtional interpretation.

                      consequently, one can gain from another's knowledge by choosing to oppose it.
                      for example, take the knowledge of hitler. entire civilizations are
                      benefitted by the knowledge that genicide is not and will not be tolerated.
                      the knowledge of hitler, his theories, and his added insight on those
                      theories all help us to understand and further see the wrong in his actions
                      and visions.

                      without the knowledge of others we could all certainly think and move forward
                      in life. we would be able to function normally and discover theories of our
                      own. yet, with the knowledge of others our own knowledge only expands,
                      picking and choosing what we accept, reject, and feel indifference too. the
                      thoughts of others build within us character and intellect, compounded with
                      our own original foundations.

                      dubstar
                    • gamine22@aol.com
                      In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@theabsurd.com writes:
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@... writes:

                        << << you can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight. >> >>

                        the only in that sentence was not meant to single out other people's
                        knowledge as the only source of insight. it was meant to say that your
                        intellect cannot be detracted from by other's insight. i suppose i should
                        have said the knowledge and insight of others can only add to your own
                        knowledge.
                      • William Harris
                        I like pop music. More than once I have misunderstood lyrics and relagated a meaning to the song which was quite innapproiate. Yet I like my meaning so I will
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I like pop music. More than once I have misunderstood lyrics and relagated a
                          meaning to the song which was quite innapproiate. Yet I like my meaning so I
                          will keep it, after all, Its only rock and roll. Bill

                          gamine22@... wrote:

                          > In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@... writes:
                          >
                          > << << you can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight. >> >>
                          >
                          > the only in that sentence was not meant to single out other people's
                          > knowledge as the only source of insight. it was meant to say that your
                          > intellect cannot be detracted from by other's insight. i suppose i should
                          > have said the knowledge and insight of others can only add to your own
                          > knowledge.
                          >
                          >
                          > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                          > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                          >
                          > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                          > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • Diana
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            << ... you are creating a fictional account of the person whom you
                            consider to be author anyway from what you do and don't know (in
                            absurd, that would be don't and don't, but who's counting?) >>

                            I understand that I can never know if my account of that person is
                            valid. Though creating such an account is part of my experience when
                            I read the text.

                            But I like what I take to be the essence of what you are saying. I
                            think that preserving some of the mystery of the author's personality
                            is the greatest tribute you could pay to that person – instead of
                            subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own,
                            classifying him to a particular type of personality etc.


                            To everyone: I'll be away from the list for the next few months –
                            need to get into some urgent things. Have fun all of you here
                            meanwhile. I look forward to being with you again at a later time.

                            Love,
                            Diana
                          • nothing@theabsurd.com
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              << I think that preserving some of the mystery of the author's
                              personality is the greatest tribute you could pay to that person –
                              instead of subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your
                              own, classifying him to a particular type of personality etc.>>

                              While I wasn't thinking specifically of 'mystery' that is a fair
                              description. You can't claim to know every thought and inuendo
                              of an author noo matter how well studied...and there is nothing
                              wrong with the author jumping out of character to relate a point --
                              yet failing because it is not consistent. The author will always be
                              mysterious, no matter who claims to have the answer, key or
                              blueprint.

                              mystery me...
                              ------------------
                            • james tan
                              in psychiatric practice, it is done quite a lot of the time, i.e. to subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own, classifying him to a
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                in psychiatric practice, it is done quite a lot of the time, i.e. to
                                "subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own,
                                classifying him to a particular type of personality etc." we do it by
                                looking for evidences in the person's behavioural & cognitive patterns.
                                depending on context, sometimes it does serve a function for assessment
                                purposes. it may not be very nice according to diana, but it is done in such
                                professional setting. of course, the issue is not about 'paying tribute to
                                the person' as in the context of the authorship. it is a different ball game
                                altogether.

                                james.






                                From: "Diana" <da-sein@...>
                                Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [existlist] Re: bow wow....the dog never shuts up.
                                Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 23:32:15 -0000

                                << ... you are creating a fictional account of the person whom you
                                consider to be author anyway from what you do and don't know (in
                                absurd, that would be don't and don't, but who's counting?) >>

                                I understand that I can never know if my account of that person is
                                valid. Though creating such an account is part of my experience when
                                I read the text.

                                But I like what I take to be the essence of what you are saying. I
                                think that preserving some of the mystery of the author's personality
                                is the greatest tribute you could pay to that person � instead of
                                subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own,
                                classifying him to a particular type of personality etc.


                                To everyone: I'll be away from the list for the next few months �
                                need to get into some urgent things. Have fun all of you here
                                meanwhile. I look forward to being with you again at a later time.

                                Love,
                                Diana




                                _________________________________________________________________
                                Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                              • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  <<we do it by looking for evidences in the person's behavioural &
                                  cognitive patterns. >>

                                  Not to play with your profession (as I quite play with my own,
                                  mind you), but is it not an assumption that you come to know a
                                  person and perspective at all even in clinical study? Or have you
                                  mapped out some sort of exacting science of mind?

                                  curious, plus.
                                  -------------------
                                • Eduard Alf
                                  I have been following this discussion and this has really gotten to the point of absurdity. a person publishes a particular point of view [e.g. all cats are
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I have been following this discussion and this has
                                    really gotten to the point of absurdity.

                                    a person publishes a particular point of view
                                    [e.g. all cats are black at night]. So what if
                                    you cant know every thought and innuendo of the
                                    author. Perhaps he/she likes to drink pasteurized
                                    milk. Or perhaps he/she is secretly the clown at
                                    MacDonald's. You are broadening this out to the
                                    point where it makes no sense. If an author says
                                    something in print then that is what is of
                                    importance. You can even label it such as Mr.
                                    Smith's "Law of Cat Colour in the Night".

                                    Now we are into "preserving some of the mystery of
                                    the author's personality". Why even get into
                                    this? Yes, perhaps Mr. Smith has a particular
                                    inclination towards cats, and this may be
                                    something that we wish to know, in order to assess
                                    the basis his proposing the law, and our own
                                    inclination to accept or reject it. All of that
                                    is valid and is part of the manner in which one
                                    might take into consideration an author's
                                    pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect
                                    to the author is going too far.

                                    eduard

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: nothing@...
                                    [mailto:nothing@...]
                                    Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:12 PM
                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up...


                                    << I think that preserving some of the mystery of
                                    the author's
                                    personality is the greatest tribute you could pay
                                    to that person –
                                    instead of subjecting him to a description and
                                    evaluation of your
                                    own, classifying him to a particular type of
                                    personality etc.>>

                                    While I wasn't thinking specifically of 'mystery'
                                    that is a fair
                                    description. You can't claim to know every thought
                                    and inuendo
                                    of an author noo matter how well studied...and
                                    there is nothing
                                    wrong with the author jumping out of character to
                                    relate a point --
                                    yet failing because it is not consistent. The
                                    author will always be
                                    mysterious, no matter who claims to have the
                                    answer, key or
                                    blueprint.

                                    mystery me...
                                    ------------------


                                    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

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

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

                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  • james tan
                                    hi nothing (are u the one who is previously known as bookdoc?), to answer your question, yes, it is an assumption or perspective. but 1) there have to be some
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      hi nothing (are u the one who is previously known as bookdoc?),

                                      to answer your question, yes, it is an assumption or perspective.

                                      but 1) there have to be some assumptions to do any work 2) if those
                                      assumptions u base your work keep producing reliable results, u just have
                                      more faith in those assumptions, until such times when the assumptions do
                                      not work in some new or special cases, then u just admit the limitation of
                                      those assumptions. but that doesn't mean those assumptions are entirely
                                      useless.

                                      well, well, this is not related to the existential, i suppose?! just to
                                      satisfy your curiousity.

                                      james.




                                      From: nothing@...
                                      Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [existlist] Re: shuts up.
                                      Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 04:04:13 -0000

                                      <<we do it by looking for evidences in the person's behavioural &
                                      cognitive patterns. >>

                                      Not to play with your profession (as I quite play with my own,
                                      mind you), but is it not an assumption that you come to know a
                                      person and perspective at all even in clinical study? Or have you
                                      mapped out some sort of exacting science of mind?

                                      curious, plus.
                                      -------------------



                                      _________________________________________________________________
                                      Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                                    • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                      Dear Sir Duard simplifier extraordinaire, It always seems to,
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

                                        <<I have been following this discussion and this has really
                                        gotten to the point of absurdity.>>

                                        It always seems to, to me...

                                        << So what if you cant know every thought and innuendo of the
                                        author...If an author says something in print then that is what is
                                        of importance... All of that is valid and is part of the manner in
                                        which one might take into consideration an author's
                                        pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect to the author
                                        is going too far.>>

                                        If you can't know every thought and innuendo, some of the
                                        author's meaning is necessarily hidden or 'mysterious.' As
                                        words are perhaps sometimes adequate -- yet more often
                                        inexact vehicles of meaning (we have examined this before in
                                        color -- where you said red was red, but I pointed out that red is
                                        not inate, it is a measure which someone -- or some group of
                                        someones -- decided on, and which there can be variance from
                                        in experience. Of course none of that set you wavering). And
                                        further, meaning...is it entirely the author's, or is it flecked with
                                        hints of other things the author has read and experienced and/or
                                        heard -- whether directly attributable or not? And then might word
                                        choice be affected, at times containing the author's meaning,
                                        and at others containing internal referants -- which perhaps even
                                        the author may be unaware? (And I will do us all the favor of not
                                        getting into genetic transfer of thought, experience and idea.)

                                        Quite honestly I wish I could take everything as cut and dried and
                                        hang it all neatly on my clothes-line. But to pretend I know what
                                        the author meant is pretentious -- even if I do a very long study of
                                        his work, life, etc.. The only thing I can think I know is what I think
                                        I am reading, and how my experience reflects on my
                                        interpretation of what it seems to me the author was doing, and
                                        even that may be pushing it (depending on how absurd you want
                                        to get). and in the long run, what of the thing which the author
                                        meant? Perhaps the writing has meaning for me which is far
                                        more interesting than whatever the intent was (if either of those
                                        can be defined). Should I shun what I think and seek out the idea
                                        of the author which I can never attain? And should I attain it
                                        (though I think it impossible) there I have grabbed the flag on the
                                        mountain, and no one cares, knows, agrees or even
                                        acknowledges...so the purpose is exactly what? Why is the
                                        author important at all?

                                        I can't help but reduce it to the absurd...It just happens.

                                        Reduxio
                                        -----------
                                      • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          << 1) there have to be some assumptions to do any work ... until
                                          such times when the assumptions do not work in some new or
                                          special cases, then u just admit the limitation of those
                                          assumptions. but that doesn't mean those assumptions are
                                          entirely useless ... well, well, this is not related to the existential, i
                                          suppose?! >>

                                          I think it is related.

                                          If one tries not to make assumptions, where does that lead?

                                          ------------------------
                                        • Eduard Alf
                                          If you can t know every thought and innuendo, some of the author s meaning is necessarily hidden or mysterious. that is true, but as james implied, there is
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            "If you can't know every thought and innuendo,
                                            some of the author's meaning is necessarily hidden
                                            or 'mysterious."

                                            that is true, but as james implied, there is point
                                            at which you have to get off the pot and deal with
                                            what the author actually said, rather than to try
                                            to delve forever into the multitude of layers of
                                            the "mysterious". I do not suggest that there can
                                            not be a further level of understanding, to either
                                            accept, reject, or amend the statement. But this
                                            reduction to absurdity does not provide any
                                            benefit to the discussion.

                                            As you say "I can't help but reduce it to the
                                            absurd...It just happens." I am finding this not
                                            only frustrating but quite pointless.

                                            eduard



                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: nothing@...
                                            [mailto:nothing@...]
                                            Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:51 AM
                                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up, and
                                            can see and hear no
                                            more...


                                            Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

                                            <<I have been following this discussion and this
                                            has really
                                            gotten to the point of absurdity.>>

                                            It always seems to, to me...

                                            << So what if you cant know every thought and
                                            innuendo of the
                                            author...If an author says something in print then
                                            that is what is
                                            of importance... All of that is valid and is part
                                            of the manner in
                                            which one might take into consideration an
                                            author's
                                            pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect
                                            to the author
                                            is going too far.>>

                                            If you can't know every thought and innuendo, some
                                            of the
                                            author's meaning is necessarily hidden or
                                            'mysterious.' As
                                            words are perhaps sometimes adequate -- yet more
                                            often
                                            inexact vehicles of meaning (we have examined this
                                            before in
                                            color -- where you said red was red, but I pointed
                                            out that red is
                                            not inate, it is a measure which someone -- or
                                            some group of
                                            someones -- decided on, and which there can be
                                            variance from
                                            in experience. Of course none of that set you
                                            wavering). And
                                            further, meaning...is it entirely the author's, or
                                            is it flecked with
                                            hints of other things the author has read and
                                            experienced and/or
                                            heard -- whether directly attributable or not? And
                                            then might word
                                            choice be affected, at times containing the
                                            author's meaning,
                                            and at others containing internal referants --
                                            which perhaps even
                                            the author may be unaware? (And I will do us all
                                            the favor of not
                                            getting into genetic transfer of thought,
                                            experience and idea.)

                                            Quite honestly I wish I could take everything as
                                            cut and dried and
                                            hang it all neatly on my clothes-line. But to
                                            pretend I know what
                                            the author meant is pretentious -- even if I do a
                                            very long study of
                                            his work, life, etc.. The only thing I can think I
                                            know is what I think
                                            I am reading, and how my experience reflects on my
                                            interpretation of what it seems to me the author
                                            was doing, and
                                            even that may be pushing it (depending on how
                                            absurd you want
                                            to get). and in the long run, what of the thing
                                            which the author
                                            meant? Perhaps the writing has meaning for me
                                            which is far
                                            more interesting than whatever the intent was (if
                                            either of those
                                            can be defined). Should I shun what I think and
                                            seek out the idea
                                            of the author which I can never attain? And should
                                            I attain it
                                            (though I think it impossible) there I have
                                            grabbed the flag on the
                                            mountain, and no one cares, knows, agrees or even
                                            acknowledges...so the purpose is exactly what? Why
                                            is the
                                            author important at all?

                                            I can't help but reduce it to the absurd...It just
                                            happens.

                                            Reduxio
                                            -----------


                                            ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

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

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

                                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                          • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              << that is true, but as james implied, there is point at which you
                                              have to get off the pot and deal with what the author actually said
                                              >>

                                              I am sorry but I don't believe it is true that what the author intends
                                              makes any difference. And to some extent, the reader would not
                                              be required to 'deal' with anything. One would assume that be
                                              the act of reading one is involving themselves with words only --
                                              NOT that they give a hoot what the author intends.

                                              << But this reduction to absurdity does not provide any benefit to
                                              the discussion...As you say "I can't help but reduce it to the
                                              absurd...It just happens." I am finding this not only frustrating but
                                              quite pointless.>>

                                              So I am asked to follow the 'Duard-o-meter to the magical land of
                                              benefit? I must say, I am also not convinced that there can be a
                                              benefit to discussion. I'm afraid I am attached to the hip of
                                              frivolity, or that I cannot judge benefit. If you could explain to me
                                              just once what 'beneficial' is and how one goes about having a
                                              'productive' discussion, I would be grateful, because then I can
                                              achieve better things.

                                              I suppose saying that my intended contributions are pointless is
                                              somehow a benefit? And I suppose i should see your
                                              suggestion as beneficial and flag my own, logically, as
                                              detriment? And the suggestion is that my repeatedly absurd
                                              posts are nothing but pests on the flystrip as it were? And
                                              everyone who utters here utters for purpose -- as such great
                                              musings about ducks and mountains I have heard that seem to
                                              this limp chimp to have no tangent to the discussion at all?
                                              Forgive me for responding ... it obviously was and is
                                              inconsiderate. I should type to myself and not post as I can never
                                              gauge the worth before I do, and I would assume, as I am
                                              unable to do so, I should assume the restraint will be more
                                              healthy than endulgence -- and therefore not saying anything at
                                              all would be the greater benefit?

                                              Sounds absurd to me...shutting up benefits the discussion? If
                                              we all shut up, what a wonderful discussion we would have as
                                              we might all benefit the more — another scoop of benefit for
                                              every mouth that closes! The less we say, the better the
                                              discussion?!

                                              Please clarify, as I do not have your wealth of vision.

                                              clueless in blindness and hock
                                              -------------------------------------------
                                            • james tan
                                              have not been following this tread closely, but let me just throw in my two cents worth. of course it is not meant to be factual , only my interpretation, & i
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                have not been following this tread closely, but let me just throw in my two
                                                cents worth. of course it is not meant to be 'factual', only my
                                                interpretation, & i can't seems to see anything beyond my own perception or
                                                interpretation, & i've no way to guarantee my perception is the same as
                                                'reality'. as for reader reading a text by an author: as for scientific
                                                reading, it is paramount that clarity of meaning is maintained at all time,
                                                so that any disagreement is only a disagreement of the hypothesis, & not on
                                                what does the hypothesis says. before one can reject or fail to reject any
                                                hypothesis, it is assumed that one knows what the hypothesis is saying in
                                                the first place. aspects of the hypothesis is operationalized & measurable
                                                (a number can be attached to it). there is no ambiguity of meaning here. as
                                                for literary reading, things are not so clear cut, i think. some authors are
                                                pretty straightforward, such as charles dicken, but some are very ambiguous,
                                                such as kafka. as for me, i am always puzzled by what kafka was 'really'
                                                trying to say, & end up as confused as the characters inside his novels,
                                                such as "the trial", "the castle", etc. there are social critique novel,
                                                such as dickens, orwell or jane austen, existentialist novelist such as
                                                camus & dostoyevski, phenomenologist such as sartre, etc, etc, but i can
                                                never quite put my finger on kafka. kafka's mystery did not shut up, & most
                                                probably will never; there is a mysterious horizons he seemed compelled to
                                                search, but never quite get it, & like the land surveyor (in "the castle")
                                                tried to measure, hence comprehend, the horizons of truth. there is a
                                                certain richness in the possibilities to interpret his works, so that it
                                                allows various perspectives on it. in the end, whether eduard or nothing
                                                read it, both are legitimate in their interpretation, because quite apart
                                                from the key chosen to read it or just because of the very choice that the
                                                interpretation makes, it reveals itself to be the secret way of bringing an
                                                author close to one's inner world. his texts challenges the readers to
                                                understand it on a level that goes beyond the simple & immediate reading.
                                                kafka speaks in parables & metaphors, if only because any attempts to
                                                describe it directly is bound to fail. words block our paths. truth changes
                                                into deceit just as soon as one tries to interpret it rationally, to put
                                                into a objective framework. truth is subjectivity. illusion is thick. the
                                                problem comes when one attempts to impose the paradigm of science onto
                                                everything else, but it doesn't work because reality is much richer than
                                                what that framework allows. man need models, frameworks, or paradigm to
                                                understand the world or reality, & although they are useful in certain
                                                respects, they are inherently limited, & it is ridiculous & blind to make
                                                sweeping judgment about reality based on those models. if one is not blind,
                                                one always admits one's strength together with one's limitation. there are
                                                no facts, only interpretations, to quote nietzsche. this goes for text
                                                reading as well, especially one like kafka.

                                                james.




                                                From: "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@...>
                                                Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                                Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up, and can see and hear no
                                                more...
                                                Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:12:20 -0400

                                                "If you can't know every thought and innuendo,
                                                some of the author's meaning is necessarily hidden
                                                or 'mysterious."

                                                that is true, but as james implied, there is point
                                                at which you have to get off the pot and deal with
                                                what the author actually said, rather than to try
                                                to delve forever into the multitude of layers of
                                                the "mysterious". I do not suggest that there can
                                                not be a further level of understanding, to either
                                                accept, reject, or amend the statement. But this
                                                reduction to absurdity does not provide any
                                                benefit to the discussion.

                                                As you say "I can't help but reduce it to the
                                                absurd...It just happens." I am finding this not
                                                only frustrating but quite pointless.

                                                eduard



                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: nothing@...
                                                [mailto:nothing@...]
                                                Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:51 AM
                                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                Subject: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up, and
                                                can see and hear no
                                                more...


                                                Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

                                                <<I have been following this discussion and this
                                                has really
                                                gotten to the point of absurdity.>>

                                                It always seems to, to me...

                                                << So what if you cant know every thought and
                                                innuendo of the
                                                author...If an author says something in print then
                                                that is what is
                                                of importance... All of that is valid and is part
                                                of the manner in
                                                which one might take into consideration an
                                                author's
                                                pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect
                                                to the author
                                                is going too far.>>

                                                If you can't know every thought and innuendo, some
                                                of the
                                                author's meaning is necessarily hidden or
                                                'mysterious.' As
                                                words are perhaps sometimes adequate -- yet more
                                                often
                                                inexact vehicles of meaning (we have examined this
                                                before in
                                                color -- where you said red was red, but I pointed
                                                out that red is
                                                not inate, it is a measure which someone -- or
                                                some group of
                                                someones -- decided on, and which there can be
                                                variance from
                                                in experience. Of course none of that set you
                                                wavering). And
                                                further, meaning...is it entirely the author's, or
                                                is it flecked with
                                                hints of other things the author has read and
                                                experienced and/or
                                                heard -- whether directly attributable or not? And
                                                then might word
                                                choice be affected, at times containing the
                                                author's meaning,
                                                and at others containing internal referants --
                                                which perhaps even
                                                the author may be unaware? (And I will do us all
                                                the favor of not
                                                getting into genetic transfer of thought,
                                                experience and idea.)

                                                Quite honestly I wish I could take everything as
                                                cut and dried and
                                                hang it all neatly on my clothes-line. But to
                                                pretend I know what
                                                the author meant is pretentious -- even if I do a
                                                very long study of
                                                his work, life, etc.. The only thing I can think I
                                                know is what I think
                                                I am reading, and how my experience reflects on my
                                                interpretation of what it seems to me the author
                                                was doing, and
                                                even that may be pushing it (depending on how
                                                absurd you want
                                                to get). and in the long run, what of the thing
                                                which the author
                                                meant? Perhaps the writing has meaning for me
                                                which is far
                                                more interesting than whatever the intent was (if
                                                either of those
                                                can be defined). Should I shun what I think and
                                                seek out the idea
                                                of the author which I can never attain? And should
                                                I attain it
                                                (though I think it impossible) there I have
                                                grabbed the flag on the
                                                mountain, and no one cares, knows, agrees or even
                                                acknowledges...so the purpose is exactly what? Why
                                                is the
                                                author important at all?

                                                I can't help but reduce it to the absurd...It just
                                                happens.

                                                Reduxio
                                                -----------


                                                ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

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

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

                                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                                                _________________________________________________________________
                                                Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                                              • Eduard Alf
                                                hi james, the fact is what the author puts forth as his/her opinion. You may wish to make an interpretation of
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  hi james,

                                                  << there are no facts, only interpretations>>

                                                  the "fact" is what the author puts forth as
                                                  his/her opinion. You may wish to make an
                                                  interpretation of this opinion or accept/reject it
                                                  outright. But ultimately, one has to come the
                                                  point of recognizing that this opinion is
                                                  something which is attached to the author. It is
                                                  the author's opinion and on that basis can be
                                                  taken to be a "fact". The discussion had gotten
                                                  off onto a tangent, in trying to focus upon some
                                                  "mystery" behind the fact or perhaps some yet
                                                  unknown characteristic of the author which may
                                                  help us to understand this "fact".

                                                  I do not disagree with the idea that one should
                                                  get to know the author. This may indeed be
                                                  beneficial understanding facts/opinions that may
                                                  be stated in the form of parables. But the
                                                  tangent that we got on, was that there could never
                                                  be an understanding, because instead we would be
                                                  too busy trying to find out more and more about
                                                  the mystery. This leads to absurdity.

                                                  eduard
                                                • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                                  ... I find this a claustrophobic situation, limiting, and horrifically disinteresting. If this were made law, I would never read again. ... I do. I don t see
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Sep 6, 2001
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    > the "fact" is what the author puts forth as
                                                    > his/her opinion. You may wish to make an
                                                    > interpretation of this opinion or accept/reject it
                                                    > outright. But ultimately, one has to come the
                                                    > point of recognizing that this opinion is
                                                    > something which is attached to the author. >>

                                                    I find this a claustrophobic situation, limiting, and horrifically
                                                    disinteresting. If this were made law, I would never read again.

                                                    > I do not disagree with the idea that one should
                                                    > get to know the author. >>

                                                    I do. I don't see the point or benefit. Except in satisfying an
                                                    interest or curiosity -- if you have it.

                                                    > But the tangent that we got on, was that there could never
                                                    > be an understanding, because instead we would be
                                                    > too busy trying to find out more and more about
                                                    > the mystery. This leads to absurdity.

                                                    There is nothing wrong with admitting to the impossible.

                                                    What I think many fail with and why they continually search to
                                                    something else is that they find their perspective and interest not
                                                    good enough and not well justified on its own. For some reason
                                                    it needs validation. Validation can be saught by capturing what
                                                    the author meant as that is the ultimate is it not? I suggest it isn't.
                                                    And I suggest I can add far more to a work without the limitation
                                                    of the author as 'god' having devine right over meaning.

                                                    I think the need for security in 'vision' is what forces so many to
                                                    find an umbrella...and there consistently miss the joys of the
                                                    rain.

                                                    unthinking.
                                                    ---------------
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.