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

Re: [existlist] Life - better and for worse?

Expand Messages
  • dave minogue
    Eduard, i think you should re-read the second paragraph again, specificly the second last sentence, the last sentence was a reference to presocratic thought
    Message 1 of 40 , Jul 28, 2005
      Eduard, i think you should re-read the second paragraph again, specificly
      the second last sentence, the last sentence was a reference to
      presocratic thought and how the universe is in constant flux. also i
      still stand by what i said, although you are right, society has become
      largely homogenised however that just means the distance is longer to

      Personally i believe war is just as tough, saying goodbye to your family
      for what may be the last time ever is presumably tough, no matter what
      centuary race sex continent your derived from. this "war on terror"
      phrase that is uttered like a menacing echo throughout politics and the
      media is really used to take attention from real issues such as pollution
      and over fishing etc. they are long term problems and the fact is
      terrorism is a short term problem-broadly speaking, also dealing with
      issues such as pollution isnt as economically viable as deconstructing a
      middle eastern country's political powers.

      However i whole heartidly agree with you that urban sprawl and conditions
      are a major contributory factor in many social problems ranging from
      pollution to crime to mental illness and its something that needs
      attention but to say we have less room to manoeuver is a defeatist
      attitude and the fact is we have the facilities and education, more so
      than ever in fact, to make a change in such areas but we lack the people
      power and political will.

      Ps i read bobs post about this and i was horrified, some other guy back
      in the 40's made a similar mistake when reading nietzsche. if his post
      was meant as a joke, well it fell like a lead feather as far as i'm
      concerned. One of the best things about not being able to step into the
      same river twice is that we cant make the same mistakes twice, unless we
      want to ...


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "eduard at home"
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Life - better or worse?
      Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:30:19 -0400

      Well to start off I will answer your question about point that war*
      was previously simpler.

      Personally I think that war was [as I said ... for North Americans
      ... although it would probably hold for others] simpler. For the
      post part the lines were clearly cut. The bad guys and the good
      guys; the ones with the black hats and the ones with the white hats.
      This is not to suggest that war is acceptable, but only that it has a
      certain stability in the mind. Basically you knew clearly who you
      were fighting. But it's not the same in today's world. The nice kid
      in the seat next to you might be preparing to push the button and
      blow himself and you to kingdom come.

      I would agree that statistically, the likelihood is remote. However,
      with respect to mind, statistics are of less importance than
      feelings. In the new war, there is a sense of chaos which one is
      powerless to control. And it is that sense of powerlessness which
      leads to stress.

      Now as to the world changing and "less room to manoeuvre", I was not
      speaking of 2500 years ago, but of 30 to 50 years ago. Sure you can
      more easily leave your wife, but what I am speaking about is society
      itself. We have less room to manoeuvre because we are already at
      high level of pollution and population. The oceans have largely been
      fished out. We have less places where we can put our garbage. It
      used to be that you could escape the city by moving out to the
      suburbs, but now the suburbs themselves are overcrowded and have
      their own set of problems.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: dave minogue
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:43 PM
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Life - better or worse?

      its amazing how niave some people can be and as a society we persist
      being niave as time goes by but constantly in more stupid ways.
      you are not at war when you get on a train and you do not have to
      about people with packsacks. when you consider how many times its
      happened to you in the past, how many times its happened to your
      and family, extended social networks and then do some maths i'm sure
      you'll find that statistically you'll be safe for some time. also
      because several people in the world are out to cause havock doesnt
      they have an endless supply of finacial support, suicide bombers or
      packsacks to do so. regretibly its happened on several ocasions (in
      west...which makes it instantly worse....right?) however it doesnt
      everyday because believe it or not most people have some intelligence
      are able to deciefer right from wrong and when they are in doubt they
      have the ever holy hollywood and teen dramas to reference for

      what bothers me is that many people look at the world as if it is in
      class of crisis, which may be partly true but its not entirely the
      for instance on certain parts of the year on grafton st in dublin
      is in ireland people) 1,000,000 people take to the street and go
      their business in relative harmony. i'm sure it happens all over the
      world too. millions of people live in big bustling cities and while
      may be high its still in the majority. what i'm trying to say is that
      while people do stuff that is not of a moral standard to which you
      yourself to, does not mean we should judge the whole. sure life has
      changed and the challenges we face are no where near that of those of
      great grandparents but what did you expect? its been 2500 years since
      learned you cant step into the same river twice.

      i dont quite get what you mean by "we have less room to manoeuver".
      have perhaps even more oportunities to change our life than ever
      70 years ago could you leave your wife if she was doing every tom
      and harry on the street? could you say goodbye to your husband just
      because he hit you? was it ok to have a child out of wedlock? could
      marry a black chick? dont even start about less manoeuverbility. if i
      wanted to emigrate to any country in the world (bar THE amercia) i
      do so with relative ease and be there within a month and most likely
      housed too. if you cant change with such an ease just means the road
      is that more difficult but its not impossible- unless restrictions
      made by yourself in which case the only thing that would be stopping
      would be you.

      dont be so foolish as to say war was ever simpler, its quite
      disrespectful. i'd like to know what your last comment meant because
      completly flew over my head.

      i think one of the most amazing things about humanity is that we are
      to adapt to change at an unprecentated rate not seen anywhere else in
      animal kingdom, however as time goes by we now live at a larger scale
      where one voice is only heard when backed with substatial amount of
      money.i believe and i also think its fair to say that the majority of
      people live for co-operate machines as far as that goes life sucks
      because at the end of the day those people mean very little to
      those who live for the pursuit of knowledge live in a world of
      that dissappoints but has its moments and then theres those blessed
      who live with the third eye closed and smile in their sleep. i think
      of the most important ways to live is to realise that just because we
      do something, doesnt nessicarily mean we should and if we live by
      we can always stand tall at the end of this farse and say "if i lead
      myself astray, at least it was me who lead the way"

      ps sorry for the spelling mistakes, i never really take that too
      seriously anyway

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

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining

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



      * Visit your group "existlist" on the web.

      * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of


      For the largest FREE email in Ireland (25MB) and 20MB of online file storage space - Visit http://www.campus.ie

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Exist List Moderator
      ... I do not misunderstand at all. What I do understand is that the dazed and confused tend not to vote, which is their choice. I thank them for not voting.
      Message 40 of 40 , Aug 1, 2005
        On Aug 01, 2005, at 5:57, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

        > current situation of ionized statehood from our democracy. The point
        > is one may not speak of disenfranchisement and lay claim a libertarian
        > stance as the vote is the only tool other than anarchy to keep a
        > democratic state out of individual affairs and truly allowing
        > individually sanctioned free market capitalism.I think you
        > misunderstand the purpose of the vote to the libertarian.

        I do not misunderstand at all. What I do understand is that the dazed
        and confused tend not to vote, which is their choice. I thank them for
        not voting.

        They voluntarily surrender their privileges and rights, as no one
        forces them to ignore absentee voting or taking a few hours to go to
        the polls. In effect, those of us most concerned with issues are the
        most likely to vote.

        What troubles me is that so many ignorance votes are manipulates with
        single-issue advertisements. Still, that is their right to be stupid.

        More importantly, allowing everyone to vote, but not mandating the
        vote, means politicians have to care more about those of us paying
        attention. I'm all for that. Just as a company has to pay attention to
        actual customers or the most likely new customers.

        But yes, I think the public has no clue what is in the Bill of Rights
        or the Constitution. They are ignorant by choice -- so they would
        choose to lose their rights, in my mind. If we do not check to see if
        people understand the basic laws, they then through a fit when an
        unconstitutional law is overturned.

        I have long favored "pre-screening" of ballot issues in California, so
        the public wouldn't be disappointed after an initiative is ruled
        invalid by the courts. Just block the unconstitutional laws from
        appearing in the first place.

        - C. S. Wyatt
        I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
        that I shall be.
        http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
        http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.