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

....goes the clock or is it 'for'?

Expand Messages
  • Jim Aiden
    ... with history Perhaps I am imagining the physicality. Never is an absolute isn t it? Funny thing about typing things, a record sometimes remains.....
    Message 1 of 75 , Sep 13, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > Stupid? Never said that. Never never. You do an interesting thing
      with history >>

      Perhaps I am imagining the physicality. Never is an 'absolute'
      isn't it? Funny thing about typing things, a record sometimes
      remains..... (msg3613) >>>>"I will say only this, your description of
      'nothingness' sounds as stupid as the noon is bright.'

      ........Further explanation is coming.

      <<I guess enjoy some undying perspective that you are physically
      effecting people on the other end. However, you can't be sure if the
      reader is laughing, concerned, or toying with you.>>

      We affect each others all the time. The reasons are not nearly as
      important as the outcome. You suggest true motives are important or
      else you would not bring it up. I could not care less, because one's
      ultimate motives will forever be a mystery to me. One's observable
      actions on the other hand, and the motives 'I' can interpret or deduce
      from them, are of importance though. I deduce them from looking into
      myself and established models of human behavior. Imperfect but useful
      and close.

      ........ It's coming closer.


      << Forgive me if I find your discussions riddled with contradiction
      (beside the simple one I am about to mention). Sometimes not only
      within the same message, but same paragraph and sentence. So... you
      expect that others should look 'deeply' into your writings, while you
      do the service of skimming and dismissing for everyone else? >>

      I am not certain where I said I do such a thing as skim. Only
      suggested there is more to read if one is so inclined. Never implied
      its value. Filling in the blanks again Richard? Tsk. Tsk. Didn't you
      read my comments on interpretive versus observational statements?
      Perhaps you skimmed through it? (I've changed my mind. What a
      hypocrite I am. I'll mock you occasionally since you seem comfortable
      with it. Reevaluating, it seems that Balance of Power theory seems to
      outweigh my previous opinions at this point. I've learned something
      new.)

      ...... Closer.

      <<So your perspective makes it an absolute: explaining the
      unreasonable with reason = wrong according to JA, end of story. I
      disagree.>>

      So your perspective makes it an absolute: explaining the
      unreasonable with reason <> wrong according to RL, end of story?
      Trying to process information into nice neat packages again Richard?
      Isn't this the evil you are suggesting of me? Hypocrisy perhaps? I
      have found approximations are a valuable tool. You look too hard for
      easy immediate absolutes. As you said, 'Life is mystery'. Tough. Make
      choices. Be wrong. Create a leaning tower occasionally. It will
      topple occasionally. Is it so terrible? Perhaps you learn something
      beyond 'Life is uncertain' in the effort? Oh my G~d, maybe you are
      learning 'thoughts' from me in your efforts to communicate? I have no
      problem admitting I'm learning from you, but I acknowledge that effort
      to reality. You apparently do not and it cripples you.

      ..... It's so close I can smell it.

      <<You see I believe the universe is a perfect, but a somewhat
      complicated creation. >>
      "Then there should be no reason to change it with a new philosophy as
      you seem to suggest you want to do..."

      Not at all... change and non-change is part of that perfection. And
      everything else. It is what it is.

      ..... Yikes. What was that shadow?

      >> I don't think our brains are made of exactly the same chemicals. We
      are in disagreement on a lot of things, and so what? <<

      Actually, I think that there are very few things that we are in
      disagreement on. The only major one being, I like to construct shaky
      structures and you like to disassemble to be perfect in nothing (Just
      as say a priest might be in religion?). I recognize the facade as you
      do, but I still construct knowing full well you will disassemble.
      Doesn't that puzzle you why I would choose to when I 'know' its a
      facade? I go against my own reasoning? Doesn't make sense eh?

      ....Run for your lives!


      >> About all the emotional stuff... I have no idea what your point is.
      Feel free to clarify.<<

      Ahhhh. Finally a question of depth. What I'm trying to allude to,
      is that we are not perfect rational creatures that are devoid of
      emotion when we create our philosophical models (as you have created
      yours, albeit one of uncertainty or whatever.). You choose your model
      because it comforts you. I choose mine because it comforts me. (Do not
      equate comfort with happiness or depression. i.e. When I say I am
      comfortable 1 + 1 = 2.... it does not reflect my happiness.) You are
      content..... because you are certain of your uncertainty. I am the
      only one that argues my own hypocrisy and inconsistencies which I
      enjoy and detest when you point out (and I admire your observation
      skills). I am content in my uneasiness of my 'truths' because I
      believe I need emotion to evaluate them more clearly. Don't you yet
      see any parallel to what you would call Absurdism? You are caught up
      in semantics. Of course, I am uncertain in everything. Of course I
      like to amuse myself. (Beats torture) Is this some mystery to you? I
      think only fools are certain (I could be wrong). But is it rational or
      amusing that I should I qualify everything as 'I am uncertain and I
      like to amuse myself but here is my opinion? Gets kind of boring and
      dreary listening to the same tune over and over again doesn't it?

      You are quick to point out others appear certain, simply because
      they follow through and argue. Is it possible they are not? Can it be
      MANY others have come to these magnificent and 'deep' thoughts you
      seem to dwell on? They just chose to call their homes something
      else or perhaps not limit themselves to some cramped corner of
      truth. Some people will admit hypocrisy most will not, but I suspect
      many recognize it. But then why act like they do know? Why argue
      things that they find flaw in? Why expend the effort, if one can 'see'
      it's pointless and life is an illusion?

      Despite all the grand pronouncements of how less you are nothing,
      your 'humble' tone suggests someone that is hiding in some
      intellectual castle, away from any reality that might hurt them or
      make them feel like they are something less. Why do I believe that?
      Because you seem so preoccupied with your happiness as opposed to
      learning. Do you fear depression if you think other thoughts? You are
      like porcelain, one bad event and you will go crazy. Mental disease is
      not so desirable or glamorous you know. Despite all the 'mad genius'
      images society likes to paint (Van Gogh?), it usually ends up with
      someone heavily medicated in a nice warm room. Visiting hours are
      Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM and no one really gives
      two pennies as to your 'genius'.

      What you have not wrapped your head around is that we choose to
      exist and all the rationalizing in the world does not change the fact
      you bend to reality, reality does not bend to you. Test my
      'magnificent theories' if you like. Find an oncoming train and begin
      arguing that physicality is an illusion, that rules are your
      imagination. It would be amusing, would it not? I find the image quite
      hilarious if it were not for the loss of your life. You could quickly
      prove I am wrong, and that you are consistent. Rationalize another
      excuse for not doing it or a million other things that are
      possibilities that you so cherish. Its seems you are not so sure about
      the meaning of physicality are you? It seems you restrict your options
      doesn't it? Quite hypocritical and inconsistent I would say. I'm not
      trying to prove you 'wrong' or that I am 'right' as you seem so sure.
      I'm just to show you things from another angle. It's just very
      difficult to explain in words, but your halfway there already
      (wherever 'there' is).

      Why do you create a prison for yourself by suggesting you are
      anything, including the word nothing? When I say 'test my theories' by
      starving yourself what I am saying is 'If you are certain all is
      meaningless' why do you feed yourself. It serves no purpose. Why not
      amuse yourself by seeking death? You rationalize everything back to
      amusement, which of course is an emotion, not logic. And if you are
      uncertain of so many things, does it seem rational that you should be
      'certain' life is meaningless? So in the end you (admittedly) are
      saying nothing. Perfect eh? Only problem is you make many many grand
      assumptions, the biggest being that your reasoning is devoid of
      possibility of flaw. Given the magnitude of the variables, does it
      seem rational for a creature with our limited knowledge of the
      universe to state any reasoning is absolutely unflawed? Didn't my
      basketball analogy say something to you? Does this talk seem familiar
      to you?

      A tangent for a bit.... I'll come back to this.

      They did this study awhile ago on some death row inmates that
      checked to see activity on the frontal parental lobes of the brain.
      This is supposedly where much of emotional activity lays. It was
      discovered that there was very little activity in these sections for
      those inmates. This would imply that decision making is somewhat
      dictated by emotions. Not such a big finding. But if you think about
      it from another angle, what human is free of emotions? Last I heard
      'chuckling' is a symptom of emotion. I don't know how accurate or
      legitimate the study, but the premise still seems valid.... emotion
      flavours how we view reality.

      Most people associate this with weakness. Are our eyes weak for
      tampering with reality? Are our ears corrupted for messing with
      reality? Our sense of touch perhaps? What is it that defines weakness,
      reason and truth? Oh yes... the opinions of the masses and some shmoe
      named Richard. We cannot truly separate the intellect from our
      emotions. Part of our intellect is always tempered by those emotions.
      We see what our body allows us to sense and what we trust when OTHERS
      tell us they sense. By not trusting others beyond the confines of our
      own opinions, all we do is limit ourselves to our own pitiful views.


      Even when we are angry, and choose not to retaliate. We are not
      controlling our emotions (they are still present), we are simply
      making decisions that we believe are over the long (or short term)
      better for the self (or others). We create realities that seem so real
      (even ones of uncertainty, of nothing, of amusement, of hypocrisy)
      because unfortunately we cannot outsmart ourselves.

      Nor should we aspire to because we would have to separate ourselves
      from the universe (The last statement is long and drawn out, please
      just live with it for now. I'll get back to it later if your still
      interested.) Attempts to do so are psychological paths that only
      damage our sense of self and ability to function effectively in this
      universe, probably due to some deficiency in our brains.

      When talk about 'I' its not only because I'm particularly
      interested in 'I' but it's for the same reasons a physicist explores
      atoms to figure out how a distant black hole works. Its much more
      accessible to me. If two super advanced aliens compared us, I doubt
      they could tell any significant difference from their perspective.
      Perhaps it comforts you to believe your super-intellect, myself I
      accept my ignorance. Oh of course there are differences but in the
      cosmic scheme of things, I doubt it noticeable or important. I argue
      because I am I. You argue because you are you. I am important to I,
      because I am I. You are important to you, because you are you. It
      makes sense kinda of doesn't it? Its not about some word with a
      negative emotional quotient (selfish). Who else would look after to
      me? If someone else would, I'd feel totally comfortable looking after
      someone else.

      I'm not sure if you noticed your own writing, but you seem quite
      preoccupied with 'I' too. Perhaps I was incorrect when I suggested
      that having personal level discussions have no value. I think I just
      never met someone that could handle it because it usually degrades to
      'wasted energy' when they inevitably get upset with this 'evil'
      preoccupation. You continue to suggest you are amused, I choose to
      accept this so I continue to show the workings of 'I' beyond just
      opinions. Why? It interests me what I might learn about WE and it
      amuses me. Do those words please you? (Actually..... implying that you
      are not mocking but that I do, is a form of mockery.)

      J.Aiden (Not so different)

      Before I forget, what is my 'stupid' point? You are about to be
      infected with an idea or two you will not be able to shake whether you
      agree with them or not.


      A. Imperfect action and nonlinear (ahem... call it hypocrisy if you
      like) reasoning still create deliverables that are 'interesting', real
      and useful to life. (My poetic refrigerator magnets) Everybody is
      inconsistent, they just don't all realize it. Philosophical perfection
      is out of scope for our lives, too many unknowns for now.

      B. Contrary to the modern belief that emotions are a sign of
      weakness, I suggest emotions are a sense just as powerful and real as
      sight, sound, touch and smell. They are a tool (granted imperfect)
      towards interpreting and experiencing reality. And trying to rob
      ourselves of them for the sake of supposed pure 'intellect', is the
      rational equivalent of amputating your leg to prevent athlete's foot.
      This is how Eduard can say something is 'wrong' and I can agree with
      him (although he plays the role that I have done some indecent act). I
      think an emotional moral compass is as valid a tool as my eyesight
      when one creates observational foundations for dealing and
      interpreting reality. In a pure Existentialist-cost/benefit analysis
      universe (devoid of emotion), rationalizing about WTC victims being
      civilians, is trying to create a moral structure. Silly. What makes it
      'evil' is the pain we feel for them. And it is a valid (granted
      imperfect) tool. Perhaps nature gave us this to fill in the blanks to
      survive, where our brains fail us, because I do not think we would
      have made it this far on our 'intellect' alone.

      So how do you think your chuckling desire affects your own
      reasoning? Try suffering for bit (not kidding). Perhaps not a train,
      but a good slap to the face? See if it makes your views change subtly.
      You are too safe right now.

      C. Be a good scientist. Try and be authentic on every minute detail of
      your life. See how far that gets you before you run into trouble.
      Apply what you think you know, to 'real' life. That is the test that
      will give you the most real information. Not another boring
      hypothetical argument with some guy on the Internet or somebody
      handing out flyers trying to 'save' me.

      Ponder those bad boys if your own intellect or ego can handle them
      if it 'amuses' you enough (it may not). Of course, I can not lead your
      mind in any particular direction. You are so sure I am trying to
      enslave it, to bend you to my 'great intelligence', but perhaps I'm
      just trying to simply suggest another vantage point? Perhaps I only
      have an unusual way of doing it? Perhaps because it is an an
      unusual place to be? Of course I cannot radically change the way you
      view the universe, because I have never been able to do so to others.
      Why try? Why not? Do you enjoy your limited view so much? If so
      forgive me for my presumption that you appear curious. I am curious of
      yours. Do I sound condescending? Does it bother you when I suggest I
      bother you? Do I really think I am better than you? What does that
      word 'better' mean again? WHO CARES RICHARD. THEY'RE JUST WORDS. TAKE
      IN THE IDEAS. AS I TAKE IN YOURS. No mockery (although I mock) just
      bending to the equilibrium of a language of dominance again. Mock to
      your hearts content. I'll just mock back to balance things so we can
      communicate with less ego being involved.

      Having fun and trying to learn. I can appear quite linear if I
      choose. I choose not to with you. If you could see into my mind... you
      would see the respect I show you because I really think you really
      capable of getting some of the things I am saying which I think very
      few are patient or talented enough to bother because above all, you
      appear curious about things and are not afraid to speak what's on your
      mind. In the end you don't have to agree with me. I could be 'wrong'
      that you'll get it. I won't be offended. I could be very 'wrong' about
      even about any value to my vantage point. Why do I try? Because I do
      care but I don't knock door to door trying to convert. There's
      'nothing' absolute to convert to, only a different angle, a different
      tool.
    • Bill Harris
      Eduard, Should Garcin be concerned that history labels him as a coward---No. If the context of the play is to be accepted he is already dead and therefore has
      Message 75 of 75 , Nov 6, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Eduard, Should Garcin be concerned that history labels him as a coward---No.
        If the context of the play is to be accepted he is already dead and
        therefore has no consciousness or concern. If I were dead I would not be
        concerned and I, again have no idea if Sartre was trying to say something
        about afterlife or guilt therein. As to your comment about exist as a
        tool, I would say it is a tool that few have used and like a level may be
        necessary to complete a modern philosophy. {Mixing a few metaphores ] I
        think it gives us license to think as individuals. Today that is not seen as
        such a necessary relief from prohibition but we have all exercised the
        freedom and to my knowledge only bookdoc has been burned at the stake.
        Where is he anyway? Bill
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@...>
        To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 5:01 PM
        Subject: RE: [existlist] Epicureanism


        > I am not actually backing away from Existentialism. I think it is a good
        > tool, but it takes more than one tool to build a warm house. I am
        > surprised, however, that there doesn't seem to be very much in the way of
        > recent discussion on Epicureanism. There is a lot on Epicurean meals and
        > such, but that is not what the philosophy is about. Perhaps that is
        > something that I can contribute. Win me a Nobel prize or something.
        >
        > By the way. What did you folks think of Garcin's concern about history
        > labeling him as a coward, in the play "Huis clos". Should he be
        concerned?
        > Would you? I think that Sartre is trying to say something there.
        >
        > eduard
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Bill Harris [mailto:bhvwd@...]
        > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 12:04 PM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Epicureanism
        >
        >
        > It all evolves, there is no end but there are dead ends. I have never
        > had
        > any particular liking for the term exist----. It is just a big word that
        > confuses us all. I think what I sense in your recent postings is a
        > backing
        > away from modern thought, I have had the same misgivings with what is
        > going
        > on in the world now. I find that I have a certain depression of
        > enthusiasm
        > for engagement in current events reminescent of the VietNam era. I
        think
        > the current situation will be attributed to those with retrograde
        > philosophies and we should do our best to further that process. I might
        > find myself more absorbed with science and art until such time as it is
        > safe
        > to reject the current jingoism. George told me , however, it will be a
        > long
        > war, Bill
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        > 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/
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.