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

RE: [existlist] Nietzsche, Hegel, and Kierkegaard

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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.