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

Re: [existlist] Nietzsche, Hegel, and Kierkegaard

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