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

"Christian" existentialism

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Occasionally, mostly out of exhaustion, the ultimate goal of the fellowship (a thousand years of a world unified behind entirely Christian leaders, Vereide s
    Message 1 of 24 , Nov 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Occasionally, mostly out of exhaustion, the ultimate goal of the
      "fellowship" (a thousand years of a world unified behind entirely
      Christian leaders, Vereide's "Reich" of Jesus meant to facilitate his
      return) is not particularly terrifying to me or an immediately
      pressing problem. As a scientist this looming agenda saddens me, given
      the history of Christian reaction to scientific progress, but then I
      won't live for a thousand years, nor would I abandon scientific
      endeavor just because uneducated people hold the reigns of power. As
      an atheist I can only assess the agenda as more of the same: really
      quite stupid superstitious people lording it over other superior
      intellects. As an activist I am concerned not with the goal of the
      agenda, but rather the acts committed by weak and stupid men
      attempting to implement it, acts often violating the basic human
      rights of the victims along the way, victims often more educated, more
      intelligent, and more decent, than the agendized humans inflicting
      them. I think now, this "fellowship" has too much power, too much
      wealth, and is far too active in the world against ordinary citizens.
      As an existentialist I can only act on what seems to be. This man is
      for me a rare example of a Christian with a partial sense of what
      seems to be. His example is the finest I can find for what a modern
      American Christian should emulate. In these times, in this country, if
      you are dabbling in existentialism, and are a Christian, start with
      this man. He is the one for these days.

      Dietrich Bonhoeffer (February 4, 1906 - April 9, 1945) was a German
      Lutheran theologian and preacher who worked for the ecumene and
      strongly opposed the anti-semitic policies of Nazi Germany. He was
      eventually executed.

      Dietrich was born in Breslau, Germany (now Wroclaw, Poland) into a
      middle to upper class family, the son of a doctor. At a very young
      age, before World War I began, he decided to become a minister. His
      parents supported his decision and he started to spend a lot of time
      studying the Bible. When he was old enough he attended college and
      seminary and became a minister. He studied theology in Tübingen and in
      New York City.

      He returned to Germany in 1931, where he lectured on theology in
      Berlin and wrote several books. A strong opponent of fascism, he fled
      to London when Adolf Hitler rose to power in 1933. He returned after
      Martin Niemöller and Karl Barth formed the anti-Nazi Confessing
      Church, only to have his seminary closed down at the outbreak of World
      War II. The Gestapo also banned him from preaching. During this time,
      Bonhoffer worked closely with numerous opponents of Hitler.

      During World War II, Dietrich played a key leadership role in the
      Confessing Church, which opposed the anti-semitic policies of Adolf
      Hitler. Initially Dietrich fought to gain strong support from the
      state church against Hitler's treatment of the Jews, but after
      countless instances of refusal to take action he took the initiative
      to help start the confessing church. While the confessing church was
      not large, it represented the only Christian church in Germany that
      was in opposition to Hitler's practices.

      After he realized that diplomatic means to stop Hitler were
      impossible, he decided that assassination was the only solution. He
      joined a hidden group of high-ranking officers who were trying to have
      Hitler killed. Bonhoeffer was arrested in April 1943 after money that
      was used to help Jews escape to Switzerland was traced to him. He was
      charged with conspiracy and imprisoned for two years in Flossenbürg.
      After the unsuccessful attempt on Hitler's life on July 20, 1944,
      connections of Bonhoeffer to the conspirators were discovered, and he
      was executed by hanging just three weeks before the liberation of the
      city. His execution was carried out even though the Nazis knew that
      they were going to lose the war. They did not want the end of the war
      to save Bonhoeffer from death.They did not consider the end of the war
      the end of the Nazi agenda.

      He is considered a martyr for his faith and was later absolved of any
      crimes by the postwar German government. His books Ethics (1949) and
      Letters from Prison (1953) were published posthumously. In his
      theological writings, he states that Christianity should abandon the
      "religious premise": the need for explanation of the world or man's
      need for salvation are not central, but rather the acting in the world
      in imitation of Jesus.

      I think a modern example may be emerging in Dr. David Ray Griffin, at
      least in the sense of speaking up about what may be true. Sadly, for
      the most part, American Christians are afraid to face what they built
      together with Bush family, the "fellowship", and Jesus Christ. In a
      misguided effort to use the state to enforce and promote religion they
      have surrendered the individual power to act and be what they are -
      "Jesus's" in contrast to the state, in contrast to the world. I
      thought the "kingdom of Jesus" was not of this world. Indeed the
      existentialist Christian considers the "kingdom" to only exist in the
      individual, on an individual basis, not something to be built on earth
      by men in a group effort. Men in groups build buildings. Men in groups
      sometimes blow buildings up. Men in groups do not, cannot, build
      individual conviction and character; and for an existentialist
      Christian - men in groups can blow up an individual's body, but cannot
      blow up individual conviction and character.

      On Oct. 15th and 16th, New Yorkers filled two venues to hear the
      prominent theologian and author of two books on 9/11 give a
      presentation entitled "The Destruction of the Trade Towers: A
      Christian Theologian Speaks Out." Dr. Griffin has continued to blaze a
      trail of courage, leading where most media and elected officials have
      feared to tread. His presentation went straight to the core of one of
      the most powerful indictments of the official story, the collapse of
      the towers and WTC 7. Notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that
      recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and
      WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite
      the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin
      concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt,
      one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center
      was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."

      Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen's tapes which were
      recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by
      victim's families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported
      in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These
      sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off
      in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who
      saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.

      Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all
      indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes
      or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly without
      any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own
      footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they
      fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being
      progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns. The
      towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160 mile
      per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing fires
      gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be
      necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much less
      the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could drop
      at free-fall speed. The massive core columns--the most significant
      structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in
      the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30 foot
      sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them
      quickly before a real investigation could transpire. There was a
      volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no
      physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how so
      much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine dust.
      The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan
      shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs"
      following the path of the explosives downward. These are all facts
      that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the alternative
      media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled
      demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on the
      morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person descriptions of
      controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the
      City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release
      them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his
      earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his
      above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the three WTC buildings
      with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a hypothesis,
      but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

      In this venue I am asked to respect the Christian position in
      existentialism, often by the moderator. I am willing to do so,
      unfortunately I have yet to find any living Christians participating
      here. I am always having to pick up the stones and bring back the
      ghosts to find one. Real living Christians in America may become as
      endangered a species as bio-chemists.

      "come crucify the dread"
      Trinidad Cruz
    • trop_de_simones
      ... In this venue I am asked to respect the Christian position in existentialism, often by the moderator. I am willing to do so, unfortunately I have yet to
      Message 2 of 24 , Nov 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...> wrote:

        In this venue I am asked to respect the Christian position in
        existentialism, often by the moderator. I am willing to do so,
        unfortunately I have yet to find any living Christians participating
        here. I am always having to pick up the stones and bring back the
        ghosts to find one.

        TC,

        In this particular venue there are only dilettantes, Christian and
        Existentialist. I am disappointed, but I will get over it.

        S
      • louise
        ... participating ... Simone, That is only because cyberspace cannot contain Christians. The true believer is always a human being, whom one may recognise by
        Message 3 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "trop_de_simones"
          <trop_de_simones@y...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...>
          wrote:
          >
          > In this venue I am asked to respect the Christian position in
          > existentialism, often by the moderator. I am willing to do so,
          > unfortunately I have yet to find any living Christians
          participating
          > here. I am always having to pick up the stones and bring back the
          > ghosts to find one.
          >
          > TC,
          >
          > In this particular venue there are only dilettantes, Christian and
          > Existentialist. I am disappointed, but I will get over it.
          >
          > S
          >

          Simone,

          That is only because cyberspace cannot contain Christians. The true
          believer is always a human being, whom one may recognise 'by their
          fruits', if you care so to do. Here at the existential groups,
          there are only emanations of ourselves, who put words forth, back
          and forth. Intuition tells me whom I can trust, 'behind' the words,
          but it is not a proof. Kierkegaard's pseudonym, Climacus, points
          out [C.U.P.] that no human being can judge another's reality.
          Failure to grasp this basic fact about the teaching of the Nazarene
          rabbi has led many churches into dangerous waters.

          Louise
          ... who refuses to believe in dilettantes ...
        • joseph korba
          The point of existentialism is all we know is one we exist and we can make decisions. The ability to make decisiions is at the heart of christianity. the
          Message 4 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            The point of existentialism is all we know is one we exist and we can make decisions. The ability to make decisiions is at the heart of christianity. the decision to accept of not accept the teachings of chirist. skip

            louise <hecubatoher@...> wrote:--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "trop_de_simones"
            <trop_de_simones@y...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...>
            wrote:
            >
            > In this venue I am asked to respect the Christian position in
            > existentialism, often by the moderator. I am willing to do so,
            > unfortunately I have yet to find any living Christians
            participating
            > here. I am always having to pick up the stones and bring back the
            > ghosts to find one.
            >
            > TC,
            >
            > In this particular venue there are only dilettantes, Christian and
            > Existentialist. I am disappointed, but I will get over it.
            >
            > S
            >

            Simone,

            That is only because cyberspace cannot contain Christians. The true
            believer is always a human being, whom one may recognise 'by their
            fruits', if you care so to do. Here at the existential groups,
            there are only emanations of ourselves, who put words forth, back
            and forth. Intuition tells me whom I can trust, 'behind' the words,
            but it is not a proof. Kierkegaard's pseudonym, Climacus, points
            out [C.U.P.] that no human being can judge another's reality.
            Failure to grasp this basic fact about the teaching of the Nazarene
            rabbi has led many churches into dangerous waters.

            Louise
            ... who refuses to believe in dilettantes ...






            Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

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



            SPONSORED LINKS
            Philosophy book

            ---------------------------------
            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


            Visit your group "existlist" on the web.

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

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            ---------------------------------





            ---------------------------------
            Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Aija Veldre Beldavs
            ... imho that is also a conclusion in versions of mature philosophical reflections of other traditions that develops individually or collectively. very few
            Message 5 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > The point of existentialism is all we know is one we exist and we can
              > make decisions. The ability to make decisiions is at the heart of
              > christianity. the decision to accept of not accept the teachings of
              > chirist.

              imho that is also a conclusion in versions of mature philosophical
              reflections of other traditions that develops individually or
              collectively. very few people, if any, know different religious
              traditions with comparable sufficient depth and experience to be able to
              evaluate their comparative "worth," esp. when context is considered.

              it's easier to work with comparable concrete parts than to compare
              fuzzy bounded wholes.

              aija
            • Trinidad Cruz
              ... wrote: imho that is also a conclusion in versions of mature philosophical reflections of other traditions that develops individually or collectively.
              Message 6 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@i...>
                wrote:
                "imho that is also a conclusion in versions of mature philosophical
                reflections of other traditions that develops individually or
                collectively. very few people, if any, know different religious
                traditions with comparable sufficient depth and experience to be able
                to evaluate their comparative "worth," esp. when context is
                considered.it's easier to work with comparable concrete parts than to
                compare fuzzy bounded wholes."

                aija

                What I find interesting about internet discussion groups is that one's
                opinion becomes what one is to most readers. I could call myself any
                number of "ist" or "ian" words and the conclusion of most people would
                automatically be that I have no experience or understanding of any
                other subject matter. In this case Nolan was a bit sharper than you.
                At fourteen I was seriously considering the seminary. My experience
                and understanding of the Christian religion has been lengthy and at a
                depth most never reach, intertwined with painful personal
                relationships, and lifelong philosophical power struggles with people
                and institutions. That I am now completely an atheist is not without
                implications, and not indicative of any lack of intellectual
                discipline or experience on my part. There is America and Europe; and
                then there is the rest of the world, a different skin tone (dark), a
                different kitchen floor (dirt), a different opportunity (starving),a
                different necessity (revolution). Corporate Western Jesus is not color
                blind, but as a matter of fact quite efficiently racist and
                greedy.Leaders of color in other nations should absolutely not embrace
                American agendas, nor cow to overtures of brotherhood from the twisted
                family of western wealth and power that controls this nation
                today.Sadly, I really think that average American Christians will do
                nothing to revolt for a change in government, and will continue to
                allow this group to represent the American people and American
                Christianity on the world stage, because they are still fundamentally
                racist.American Christianity is really just a "justification" disease,
                an avoidance of existential angst.It has now overtaken a once
                enlightened idea and marches it mutated toward the ruin of the whole
                world.I doubt that it can be stopped. It is clearly, scientifically,
                now giddily aggressive, what it always was - a suicide cult.There is
                no God to rebuild the planet: or so it was written - dominion was
                given to man.

                "come crucify the dread"
                Trinidad Cruz
              • Herman B. Triplegood
                Christian existentialism, as I see it, is quite relevant because it presents us with a challenge that is existentially poignant. This challenge, put simply,
                Message 7 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Christian existentialism, as I see it, is quite relevant because it presents
                  us with a challenge that is existentially poignant. This challenge, put
                  simply, is: dare to believe. Dare to believe in the resurrection into
                  eternal life. There is no question, here, of some kind of gnosis, some kind
                  of privileged access to knowledge bequeathed to a body of adepts or
                  initiates. When Christ said that he was the resurrection and the life, he
                  was not communicating anything like a doctrine or a dogma. He was, in fact,
                  challenging his disciples, and others, to embrace this belief,
                  existentially, at a level far more basic than the level of a reasoned
                  ascertainment of matters of fact. This is the sense in which belief mattered
                  for the early Christian, it is the root and grist of the early Christian
                  faith, which, historically, over the many centuries that have since ensued,
                  has become obscured by battles over doctrine, dogma, orthodoxy, and
                  political hegemony.



                  To me this is a call to the participation in the transcendent ground of
                  Being itself, at an existential level, at the nitty gritty level of daily
                  experience. It is a call to the basic facticity, the concrete reality, of
                  this human participation in transcendence that we have for the most part
                  forgotten in these modern times of anti-transcendentalism. This direct
                  experience of the transcendental is an existential fact that, in my opinion,
                  we cannot rationally deny. This is where Christian existentialism becomes
                  most relevant to our broader discussion of existentialism itself, and to our
                  question concerning the ultimate meaning of life. It seems to me that this
                  very question, the question concerning the meaning of life, is the
                  fundamental question of existentialism. We find this meaning in life's
                  purpose.



                  The answer that Christian existentialism gives us, in response to the posing
                  of this question, is: the purpose of life is the transcendence of death.
                  Life finds its meaning in the midst of the challenge of living itself, in
                  the face of death, with all of the existential uncertainties that this
                  unique juxtaposition necessarily involves. Death is not the challenge that
                  existence presents to life. Rather, life is the challenge that existence
                  presents in the face of death. What, from this perspective, then, is death?
                  Stated most succinctly, I would think that death is basically entropy, the
                  tendency for order to break down. Death is the falling apart of order.
                  Order, then, arises out of the courage to existence, to truly live a
                  meaningful life, even in the face of certain death. Life is the open-ended
                  project of the overcoming of such disorder, in the universe, through the
                  creative evolution of order that finds its pinnacle in sentient living human
                  being capable of participation in, and disclosure of, this transcendent
                  ground, and in individual lives, inspired by the challenge to believe. There
                  can be no question, at least in my mind, that this ground is not indeed
                  divine. It is not immanent, and it is not merely human, or anthropocentric,
                  but it does require human participation in its full disclosure in the
                  immanence of the field of history where Being unfolds. Whether or not it is
                  appropriate to further characterize this transcendent ground as the
                  universal creator of order in the universe, I think, is a question we
                  cannot, at present, answer, from our limited existential perspective.



                  For further thoughts on these matters I would recommend visiting many of the
                  works of Eric Voegelin. He communicates these ideas more effectively in his
                  writings than I can here with a short post to a discussion list.



                  What is the state of mind that has such courage to live in the face of
                  death? What does it mean to have an existential faith in universal order, in
                  the face of existential chaos? I think this is what is meant, originally, in
                  the very early Christian teachings, by the word "grace." It comes from the
                  Greek, "charis" literally meaning "gift." When we are graced, we are gifted.
                  This notion of grace, and the important part it has played, especially in
                  later Protestant thinking, and nowadays, in the more grass roots varieties
                  of Christian fellowship that we see, particularly, in the United States, but
                  also in Europe, is at the core of the so-called imitation of Christ, the
                  imitatio, and its centrality to the message of Christian faith should not be
                  underestimated.



                  Hence, it is with grace, that we calmly and steadfastly model our lives
                  after the life of the Christ himself, a human manifestation of divine spirit
                  in the world, who taught that eternal life is, indeed, the birthright of all
                  human sentient beings. Blessed are the poor, those who are downtrodden,
                  whose lives are made wretched by oppression and circumstance, for they will
                  inherit this supreme gift. There are no chosen few.



                  Gautama Buddha taught that attachment to life, attachment to things, can be
                  transcended. But Jesus, one who kept himself in the company of thieves and
                  prostitutes, those who are downtrodden, who are poor in spirit, who are the
                  ultimate victims of societies that, whether deliberately or not, promote
                  their own regressive elements, one who was executed as a common criminal and
                  political subversive, he taught that death and despair, hopelessness and
                  guilt, can also be transcended by means of grace.



                  It should be noted that, in the classic hymn, Amazing Grace, where it is
                  said that grace has saved such a wretched human as this, what is not
                  deserved here, is not the grace that saves. What is not deserved is the
                  wretchedness that such grace removes. The doctrine of original sin, of
                  being, at our human core, undeserving of grace, I view to be an injection of
                  a regressive element, a Manichean heresy, into the Christian teaching, that
                  is utterly foreign to its original hopeful message of resurrection into
                  eternal life and its challenge to us to live our lives in a state of divine
                  grace.



                  Hb3g



                  _____

                  From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                  Of Aija Veldre Beldavs
                  Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:25 AM
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: "Christian" existentialism




                  > The point of existentialism is all we know is one we exist and we can
                  > make decisions. The ability to make decisiions is at the heart of
                  > christianity. the decision to accept of not accept the teachings of
                  > chirist.

                  imho that is also a conclusion in versions of mature philosophical
                  reflections of other traditions that develops individually or
                  collectively. very few people, if any, know different religious
                  traditions with comparable sufficient depth and experience to be able to
                  evaluate their comparative "worth," esp. when context is considered.

                  it's easier to work with comparable concrete parts than to compare
                  fuzzy bounded wholes.

                  aija


                  Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

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




                  _____

                  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



                  * Visit your group "existlist
                  <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.

                  * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                  * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                  <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



                  _____



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Herman B. Triplegood
                  Trinidad: I hope that my use of the term grass roots in referencing some modern Christians will not be mistaken as a reference to the current fundamentalist
                  Message 8 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Trinidad:



                    I hope that my use of the term "grass roots" in referencing some modern
                    Christians will not be mistaken as a reference to the current fundamentalist
                    movement in American Christianity today. Your post is heartfelt and very
                    much to the point. I am deeply disturbed by the movement toward radical
                    Christian fundamentalism in America today, and I fear that the political
                    hegemony that this regressive element in American culture continues to
                    achieve can ultimately spell disaster, not only for we Americans, but also,
                    most tragically, for those many downtrodden folks in the world who have not
                    been blessed with the opportunity to be born into a wealthy nation. The news
                    becomes almost excruciating to watch, not only because of the extreme levels
                    of violence that we now see playing out upon the world stage, but also
                    because of the blithe American sentiment of paranoia and racism that plays
                    us right into the hands of a geo-political disaster of our own making.



                    We live in a world, now, due to our technological capability, that makes
                    policy inspired by paranoia a phenomenon extremely dangerous to the world. I
                    hope, I pray, that sanity can, and will, prevail here in America. I am,
                    however, not very encouraged by what I see playing out day by day as the
                    rhetoric of intolerance and of preemption continues to sharpen. I fear that
                    the lessons of history are lost upon an America that is, for the most part,
                    completely a-historical in its outlook. How easily, how conveniently, we
                    forget that over two centuries of Western colonialism have exacerbated the
                    ills of that have struggled to get out from under the jack booted dictators
                    that we have propped up with our selfish and short-sighted policies of
                    economic exploitation. How easily we avoid any discussion of our genocide of
                    the Native American Indian as we point the finger of genocide at others.



                    You are right to point out the character of the so-called corporate Western
                    Jesus that prevails today in American society. We are so parochial, so like
                    the ugly American in the movie. Our pride is our downfall. Nevertheless, I
                    am here. I was born into this America, and I do love this land, and many of
                    its people, although my feelings for its politicians and social activists is
                    dubious, to say the least. I do what I can, in my own small way, to try to
                    make a difference, even if it is only a difference that I can make in my own
                    small circle of acquaintances, in the arena of a real life that only
                    partially intersects these lists. There are still good people here in
                    America, but we have lost our voice, and we have become increasingly
                    marginalized as the social-political right continues to grip, ever tighter,
                    to power, and the social agenda careens out of control.



                    America needs to return to, and revitalize, the liberal philosophy upon
                    which it was originally founded. We need to live up to our vision of equal
                    justice for all, in recognition of the fact that we no longer live in one
                    country, isolated from the rest of the world, that are not entitled to some
                    gift of manifest destiny with which to bring our social-political agenda to
                    other peoples at the end of the barrel of a gun.



                    I find it profoundly ironic that we are now engaged in the implementation of
                    democracy, by force, elsewhere in the world. I will also find it tragically
                    ironic when the point is soon reached where as many of our young soldiers
                    have died fighting in Iraq as those innocents who died on that black day in
                    September four years ago. I wonder how the Bush White House is going to
                    answer to this looming benchmark in the war.



                    Since the attacks on September 11th, 2001, the past four years have seemed,
                    to me at least, to be a psychotic frenzy of paranoid schizophrenia acted out
                    upon the political stage of American life. I had hoped that it would pass
                    after a brief knee jerk reaction, but then Iraq happened, and then the
                    revelations that the reasons to go to war there were all fabricated to serve
                    the political agenda. The real danger here in America isn't what, when, or
                    where, the next terrorist attack against us might be. The real danger is how
                    America might react to a continuing series of such attacks as the level of
                    paranoia continues to escalate.



                    The America that I now live in is unrecognizable to me. It is not the
                    America that I was born into forty seven years ago. It is not even the
                    America that I knew only four or five short years ago.



                    Hb3g



                    _____

                    From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                    Of Trinidad Cruz
                    Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 7:32 AM
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [existlist] Re: "Christian" existentialism



                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@i...>
                    wrote:
                    "imho that is also a conclusion in versions of mature philosophical
                    reflections of other traditions that develops individually or
                    collectively. very few people, if any, know different religious
                    traditions with comparable sufficient depth and experience to be able
                    to evaluate their comparative "worth," esp. when context is
                    considered.it's easier to work with comparable concrete parts than to
                    compare fuzzy bounded wholes."

                    aija

                    What I find interesting about internet discussion groups is that one's
                    opinion becomes what one is to most readers. I could call myself any
                    number of "ist" or "ian" words and the conclusion of most people would
                    automatically be that I have no experience or understanding of any
                    other subject matter. In this case Nolan was a bit sharper than you.
                    At fourteen I was seriously considering the seminary. My experience
                    and understanding of the Christian religion has been lengthy and at a
                    depth most never reach, intertwined with painful personal
                    relationships, and lifelong philosophical power struggles with people
                    and institutions. That I am now completely an atheist is not without
                    implications, and not indicative of any lack of intellectual
                    discipline or experience on my part. There is America and Europe; and
                    then there is the rest of the world, a different skin tone (dark), a
                    different kitchen floor (dirt), a different opportunity (starving),a
                    different necessity (revolution). Corporate Western Jesus is not color
                    blind, but as a matter of fact quite efficiently racist and
                    greedy.Leaders of color in other nations should absolutely not embrace
                    American agendas, nor cow to overtures of brotherhood from the twisted
                    family of western wealth and power that controls this nation
                    today.Sadly, I really think that average American Christians will do
                    nothing to revolt for a change in government, and will continue to
                    allow this group to represent the American people and American
                    Christianity on the world stage, because they are still fundamentally
                    racist.American Christianity is really just a "justification" disease,
                    an avoidance of existential angst.It has now overtaken a once
                    enlightened idea and marches it mutated toward the ruin of the whole
                    world.I doubt that it can be stopped. It is clearly, scientifically,
                    now giddily aggressive, what it always was - a suicide cult.There is
                    no God to rebuild the planet: or so it was written - dominion was
                    given to man.

                    "come crucify the dread"
                    Trinidad Cruz








                    Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

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




                    _____

                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



                    * Visit your group "existlist
                    <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.

                    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                    <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



                    _____



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • jkneilson
                    I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, despite my disagreements. Hb3g: Christian existentialism, as I see it, is quite relevant because it presents us with a
                    Message 9 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, despite my disagreements.

                      Hb3g:
                      Christian existentialism, as I see it, is quite relevant because it
                      presents us with a challenge that is existentially poignant. This
                      challenge, put simply, is: dare to believe. Dare to believe in the
                      resurrection into eternal life... When Christ said that he was the
                      resurrection and the life, he was not communicating anything like a
                      doctrine or a dogma. He was, in fact, challenging his disciples, and
                      others, to embrace this belief, existentially, at a level far more
                      basic than the level of a reasoned ascertainment of matters of fact.

                      K:
                      The challenge of Christian existentialism is poignant to those who
                      share an interpretation of early Jewish Mediterranean history, in
                      which a purportedly historical figure named Jesus taught, performed
                      miracles, and died for our sins. Subtract this interpretation and
                      the poignancy of the challenge dies with it. What's more, the
                      challenge is no more relevant than other challenges made by
                      different religions. From Buddhism and Hinduism, to Judaism and
                      Islam, to Mormonism and Scientology, religions present a very
                      similar challenge: Believe X, where X stands for an article of faith
                      that is deemed important to worshippers in that tradition. Believe
                      that Buddha was transfigured under the bodhi tree. Believe in Mosaic
                      law and God's covenant. Believe in Joseph Smith's golden plates.
                      Believe that we possess a Thetan soul. Etc. The world is filled with
                      all manner of religious beliefs, and I am under no obligation to
                      believe all of them, or any of them. The existentialist motto is (or
                      ought to be): Dare to think, dare to act, dare to be in a changing,
                      uncertain world.

                      Hb3g:
                      To me this is a call to the participation in the transcendent ground
                      of Being itself, at an existential level, at the nitty gritty level
                      of daily experience.

                      K:
                      When you say, "To me this is a call..," I believe you. But it's a
                      self-referential statement. Descartes makes a similar move in the
                      Meditations, where he says, "I cannot think of myself without God."
                      While that may be true of Descartes, it's false for a broad range of
                      thinkers across the philosophical spectrum.

                      Hb3g:
                      This direct experience of the transcendental is an existential fact
                      that, in my opinion, we cannot rationally deny.

                      K:
                      Direct experience of the transcendental is a paradox, not an
                      existential fact, and so can be rationally denied.

                      Cheers,
                      K
                    • louise
                      ... it ... a ... and ... fact. ... performed ... faith ... Mosaic ... with ... (or ... changing, ... ground ... level ... God. ... of ... Hb3g This direct
                      Message 10 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, despite my disagreements.
                        >
                        > Hb3g:
                        > Christian existentialism, as I see it, is quite relevant because
                        it
                        > presents us with a challenge that is existentially poignant. This
                        > challenge, put simply, is: dare to believe. Dare to believe in the
                        > resurrection into eternal life... When Christ said that he was the
                        > resurrection and the life, he was not communicating anything like
                        a
                        > doctrine or a dogma. He was, in fact, challenging his disciples,
                        and
                        > others, to embrace this belief, existentially, at a level far more
                        > basic than the level of a reasoned ascertainment of matters of
                        fact.
                        >
                        > K:
                        > The challenge of Christian existentialism is poignant to those who
                        > share an interpretation of early Jewish Mediterranean history, in
                        > which a purportedly historical figure named Jesus taught,
                        performed
                        > miracles, and died for our sins. Subtract this interpretation and
                        > the poignancy of the challenge dies with it. What's more, the
                        > challenge is no more relevant than other challenges made by
                        > different religions. From Buddhism and Hinduism, to Judaism and
                        > Islam, to Mormonism and Scientology, religions present a very
                        > similar challenge: Believe X, where X stands for an article of
                        faith
                        > that is deemed important to worshippers in that tradition. Believe
                        > that Buddha was transfigured under the bodhi tree. Believe in
                        Mosaic
                        > law and God's covenant. Believe in Joseph Smith's golden plates.
                        > Believe that we possess a Thetan soul. Etc. The world is filled
                        with
                        > all manner of religious beliefs, and I am under no obligation to
                        > believe all of them, or any of them. The existentialist motto is
                        (or
                        > ought to be): Dare to think, dare to act, dare to be in a
                        changing,
                        > uncertain world.
                        >
                        > Hb3g:
                        > To me this is a call to the participation in the transcendent
                        ground
                        > of Being itself, at an existential level, at the nitty gritty
                        level
                        > of daily experience.
                        >
                        > K:
                        > When you say, "To me this is a call..," I believe you. But it's a
                        > self-referential statement. Descartes makes a similar move in the
                        > Meditations, where he says, "I cannot think of myself without
                        God."
                        > While that may be true of Descartes, it's false for a broad range
                        of
                        > thinkers across the philosophical spectrum.
                        >

                        Hb3g

                        This direct experience of the transcendental is an existential fact
                        that, in my opinion, we cannot rationally deny.

                        K

                        Direct experience of the transcendental is a paradox, not an
                        existential fact, and so can be rationally denied.

                        L [Climacus]

                        Statement concerning the direct experience of the transcendental
                        will appear to the objectivist existentialist to be paradox.

                        The subjectivist existentialist will, at the very least, acknowledge
                        the logical possibility that the transcendental may be directly
                        experienced.

                        The human being who types these words knows by experience the truth
                        of what Hermann writes. That is merely a biographical statement,
                        not one I would expect to convince anyone of its subjective truth -
                        for no one else is me. Only the truth that edifies is truth for
                        you. So said my sweet lover Soren. [I am Regine].
                      • jkneilson
                        L [Climacus]: The human being who types these words knows by experience the truth of what Hermann writes. That is merely a biographical statement, not one I
                        Message 11 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          L [Climacus]:

                          The human being who types these words knows by experience the truth
                          of what Hermann writes. That is merely a biographical statement,
                          not one I would expect to convince anyone of its subjective truth -
                          for no one else is me. Only the truth that edifies is truth for
                          you. So said my sweet lover Soren. [I am Regine].

                          K:
                          "Subjectivists" are welcome to believe whatever they want. But if they
                          want to convince others of their "truth," they'll need to go
                          beyond "true for me" statements. This is an elementary point. If I
                          tried to convince you that Kierkegaard actually hated Regine, I'd be
                          off to a bad start indeed by saying it's true because it's "true for
                          me," or that it's true because I find it "edifying." [I am K]
                        • louise
                          ... they ... be ... for ... Who is K?? I hate inquisitions. I hate ignoramuses who persecute the just (that s none of your business, please ignore). Have you
                          Message 12 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...> wrote:
                            >
                            > L [Climacus]:
                            >
                            > The human being who types these words knows by experience the truth
                            > of what Hermann writes. That is merely a biographical statement,
                            > not one I would expect to convince anyone of its subjective truth -
                            > for no one else is me. Only the truth that edifies is truth for
                            > you. So said my sweet lover Soren. [I am Regine].
                            >
                            > K:
                            > "Subjectivists" are welcome to believe whatever they want. But if
                            they
                            > want to convince others of their "truth," they'll need to go
                            > beyond "true for me" statements. This is an elementary point. If I
                            > tried to convince you that Kierkegaard actually hated Regine, I'd
                            be
                            > off to a bad start indeed by saying it's true because it's "true
                            for
                            > me," or that it's true because I find it "edifying." [I am K]

                            Who is K??

                            I hate inquisitions.

                            I hate ignoramuses who persecute the just (that's none of your
                            business, please ignore).

                            Have you read "Guilty"/"Not Guilty?" A Story of Suffering, An
                            Imaginary Psychological Construction, by Frater Taciturnus, within
                            the volume, 'Stages On Life's Way [Studies by Various Persons]'??
                            This volume was compiled by Hilarius Bookbinder, not one of the
                            authors or an editor.
                            Soren Kierkegaard was the man behind this sublimity, available in
                            translation from Princeton University Press (Hong & Hong 1988).

                            In Frater Taciturnus' study, you will find the answers to all your
                            questions, if you have any. I defy you not to be moved, at any
                            rate, by the agony of love on display, in concealment.

                            Louise
                          • jkneilson
                            Louise: Who is K?? K: Apparently one who conducts inquisitions. Louise: Have you read Guilty / Not Guilty? A Story of Suffering, An Imaginary Psychological
                            Message 13 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Louise: Who is K??

                              K: Apparently one who conducts inquisitions.

                              Louise: Have you read "Guilty"/"Not Guilty?" A Story of Suffering, An
                              Imaginary Psychological Construction, by Frater Taciturnus, within the
                              volume, 'Stages On Life's Way??

                              K: Yes, I have read it, years ago, and loved it.

                              Louise: In Frater Taciturnus' study, you will find the answers to all
                              your questions, if you have any.

                              K: Now you're just teasing me, Louise. You know I have questions. But
                              I've learned to avoid them in your presence, since you're committed to
                              Iliadic dialectic and all.

                              Cheers.
                            • trop_de_simones
                              Trinidad, I recognize a formerly serious Christian when I read one. You are obviously a more patient person than me. I normally get very angry with people who
                              Message 14 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Trinidad,

                                I recognize a formerly serious Christian when I read one. You are
                                obviously a more patient person than me. I normally get very angry
                                with people who question my intent or credentials. It is most
                                unfortunate that we are not able to scrutinize the real lives of the
                                poseurs who frequent these discussion venues. My intuition never
                                fails me, but I need to follow it more often, sooner. Thank you.

                                Simone

                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...>
                                wrote:

                                > What I find interesting about internet discussion groups is that
                                one's
                                > opinion becomes what one is to most readers. I could call myself any
                                > number of "ist" or "ian" words and the conclusion of most people
                                would
                                > automatically be that I have no experience or understanding of any
                                > other subject matter. In this case Nolan was a bit sharper than you.
                                > At fourteen I was seriously considering the seminary. My experience
                                > and understanding of the Christian religion has been lengthy and at
                                a
                                > depth most never reach, intertwined with painful personal
                                > relationships, and lifelong philosophical power struggles with
                                people
                                > and institutions. That I am now completely an atheist is not without
                                > implications, and not indicative of any lack of intellectual
                                > discipline or experience on my part. There is America and Europe;
                                and
                                > then there is the rest of the world, a different skin tone (dark), a
                                > different kitchen floor (dirt), a different opportunity (starving),a
                                > different necessity (revolution). Corporate Western Jesus is not
                                color
                                > blind, but as a matter of fact quite efficiently racist and
                                > greedy.Leaders of color in other nations should absolutely not
                                embrace
                                > American agendas, nor cow to overtures of brotherhood from the
                                twisted
                                > family of western wealth and power that controls this nation
                                > today.Sadly, I really think that average American Christians will do
                                > nothing to revolt for a change in government, and will continue to
                                > allow this group to represent the American people and American
                                > Christianity on the world stage, because they are still
                                fundamentally
                                > racist.American Christianity is really just a "justification"
                                disease,
                                > an avoidance of existential angst.It has now overtaken a once
                                > enlightened idea and marches it mutated toward the ruin of the whole
                                > world.I doubt that it can be stopped. It is clearly, scientifically,
                                > now giddily aggressive, what it always was - a suicide cult.There is
                                > no God to rebuild the planet: or so it was written - dominion was
                                > given to man.
                                >
                                > "come crucify the dread"
                                > Trinidad Cruz
                                >
                              • Herman B. Triplegood
                                _____ From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jkneilson Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:17 AM To:
                                Message 15 of 24 , Nov 7, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  _____

                                  From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                  Of jkneilson
                                  Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:17 AM
                                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: [existlist] Re: "Christian" existentialism



                                  I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, despite my disagreements.

                                  Hb3g:
                                  Christian existentialism, as I see it, is quite relevant because it
                                  presents us with a challenge that is existentially poignant. This
                                  challenge, put simply, is: dare to believe. Dare to believe in the
                                  resurrection into eternal life... When Christ said that he was the
                                  resurrection and the life, he was not communicating anything like a
                                  doctrine or a dogma. He was, in fact, challenging his disciples, and
                                  others, to embrace this belief, existentially, at a level far more
                                  basic than the level of a reasoned ascertainment of matters of fact.

                                  K:
                                  The challenge of Christian existentialism is poignant to those who
                                  share an interpretation of early Jewish Mediterranean history, in
                                  which a purportedly historical figure named Jesus taught, performed
                                  miracles, and died for our sins. Subtract this interpretation and
                                  the poignancy of the challenge dies with it. What's more, the
                                  challenge is no more relevant than other challenges made by
                                  different religions. From Buddhism and Hinduism, to Judaism and
                                  Islam, to Mormonism and Scientology, religions present a very
                                  similar challenge: Believe X, where X stands for an article of faith
                                  that is deemed important to worshippers in that tradition. Believe
                                  that Buddha was transfigured under the bodhi tree. Believe in Mosaic
                                  law and God's covenant. Believe in Joseph Smith's golden plates.
                                  Believe that we possess a Thetan soul. Etc. The world is filled with
                                  all manner of religious beliefs, and I am under no obligation to
                                  believe all of them, or any of them. The existentialist motto is (or
                                  ought to be): Dare to think, dare to act, dare to be in a changing,
                                  uncertain world.



                                  [Hb3g]



                                  I believe you understand this already, however, I say anyway that I respect
                                  both your freedom to rationally decide your own beliefs, and I also
                                  acknowledge that there are many spiritual and philosophical traditions. It
                                  would be dogmatic of me to categorically assert that the Christian vision is
                                  the only way. Nevertheless, even in the midst of great diversity of
                                  tradition, creed, opinion, one cannot rationally assert a complete
                                  relativism of such values. Belief matters, and questions of faith, or trust
                                  in the rationality of existence, are lively questions, however, there ought
                                  not to be subservience to blind faith either. I agree with you that is as
                                  important to dare to think, and act, as well as to believe.


                                  Hb3g:
                                  To me this is a call to the participation in the transcendent ground
                                  of Being itself, at an existential level, at the nitty gritty level
                                  of daily experience.

                                  K:
                                  When you say, "To me this is a call..," I believe you. But it's a
                                  self-referential statement. Descartes makes a similar move in the
                                  Meditations, where he says, "I cannot think of myself without God."
                                  While that may be true of Descartes, it's false for a broad range of
                                  thinkers across the philosophical spectrum.



                                  [Hb3g]



                                  I couched this in those personal terms so as not to come across as being too
                                  dogmatic. I must admit that this is my take on the matter. It is a take,
                                  however, that is also shared by others for the various reasons that such
                                  thinkers do present. That there are also others who would disagree, is
                                  undeniable. The self-referential mode of the statement is not intended to be
                                  construed as a subjectivistic assertion of truth. I appreciate the pitfalls
                                  inherent in the "if it is true for me alone is true enough" kind of
                                  attitude, and I do believe that criteria of truth must be objectivistic,
                                  capable of being shared and communicated.



                                  Hb3g:
                                  This direct experience of the transcendental is an existential fact
                                  that, in my opinion, we cannot rationally deny.

                                  K:
                                  Direct experience of the transcendental is a paradox, not an
                                  existential fact, and so can be rationally denied.



                                  [Hb3g]



                                  We do appear to flat out disagree on this point. I would maintain that the
                                  transcendental experience is a real experience. You seem to categorize this
                                  as confusion (a paradox). But I would maintain that the paradoxical is also
                                  an existentially real experience, and it isn't necessarily as simple a thing
                                  as a mere confusion. The funny thing about a paradox is precisely that it
                                  can neither be rationally denied, nor rationally affirmed, or, that both
                                  affirmation and denial of the paradoxical situation is indeed possible. I am
                                  reminded of Kant's paralogisms of pure reason in this case. I would be
                                  interested in hearing your assessment of what it is that makes the
                                  experience of the transcendental paradoxical. Is a paradoxical situation
                                  necessarily a bad situation?



                                  What might be an example of this direct transcendental experience? I
                                  certainly do not see it as a vision or a miracle. I do not see it as an
                                  experience that would fly in the face of our reasoned expectations about the
                                  world. I think of it as being more along the lines of that moment of vision
                                  of which Heidegger speaks in his Being and Time. It is a discernment of
                                  truth where the ekstatic character of our participation in Time and Being
                                  comes to light. It is intellectual in character, not strictly emotional. It
                                  comes to us in that sense of the wonder of existence, of which Shelling
                                  speaks, for instance, when he poses the basic question of existence,
                                  rhetorically of course, asking us to consider, for a moment, how is it that
                                  there exists anything at all? A similar stepping back with a sense of wonder
                                  could also be found with respect to the phenomenon of conscious awareness
                                  itself.



                                  I guess if I had to sum up this direct experience of the transcendental in a
                                  neat phrase, I would call it that "philosophical wonder" that inspires us to
                                  a rational, noetic exegesis of our experience of the world, of our life, of
                                  living, and of our own conscious awareness of all of this.



                                  Voegelin maintains that are several kinds of transcendence in which we
                                  participate, some of which are immanent to our world. For instance, there is
                                  the transcendence of the subject into the body that we experience as a
                                  physically embodied conscious being. There is the transcendence of the
                                  subject into its world, similar to the throwness of which Heidegger speaks,
                                  which, Voegelin asserts, unfolds primarily in a field of experience that is
                                  historical in character, both in the broader historiographic sense, and in
                                  the more personal biographical sense. Then, there is the transcendence
                                  toward the ground of Being, the issue at hand for theological speculation.
                                  Poesis would be another example of such transcendence, this time, within the
                                  framework of language, where the written/spoken word conveys a direct
                                  experience, through a unique application of the language for the conveyance
                                  of an existential truth through imagery. Take, for instance, this first of
                                  two legends of creation that the late Ted Hughes offers us in his anthology;
                                  "From the Life and Songs of the Crow" published in 1970, pursuant to the
                                  suicide of his wife, Sylvia Plath:



                                  Black was the without eye

                                  Black the within tongue

                                  Black was the heart

                                  Black the liver, black the lungs

                                  Unable to suck in light

                                  Black the blood in its loud tunnel

                                  Black the bowels packed in furnace

                                  Black too the muscles

                                  Striving to pull out into the light

                                  Black the nerves, black the brain

                                  With its tombed visions

                                  Black also the soul, the huge stammer

                                  Of the cry that, swelling, could not

                                  Pronounce its sun.



                                  The passage is rife with the imagery of paradox, and it goes far beyond a
                                  mere rant over the loss of a dear lover. It touches upon a deep struggle of
                                  pessimism in the midst of light, of blackness ensconced in dazzling
                                  brilliance, and the Crow becomes a metaphor, throughout the anthology, for
                                  the dilemma of consciousness itself. It conveys an existential truth in a
                                  manner far more poignant than the prosaic and the discursive could ever
                                  achieve. There is something to be said for the contribution that poesis can
                                  make to our rational discernment of the truth of Being. There is something
                                  here revealed that carries within it, however depressing and pessimistic its
                                  occasion might be, a transcendence into the paradoxical darkness of living
                                  in the light.



                                  Hb3g



                                  Cheers,
                                  K






                                  Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

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




                                  _____

                                  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



                                  * Visit your group "existlist
                                  <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.

                                  * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                                  * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                  <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



                                  _____



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • David Ross
                                  Dear Fellow Members, I am selling a self-published work called The Flesh of Being -- Commentary on Nitzsche s Thus Spake Zaratustra. I am willing to give a
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Nov 8, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Fellow Members,

                                    I am selling a self-published work called The Flesh of
                                    Being -- Commentary on Nitzsche's Thus Spake
                                    Zaratustra. I am willing to give a complimentary copy
                                    to a reviewer who could review for the group. It is
                                    334 pages long double -- spaced. It would sell for
                                    30.00 USA Cerlox bound.

                                    yours truly
                                    D. Ross





                                    --- trop_de_simones <trop_de_simones@...> wrote:


                                    ---------------------------------
                                    Trinidad,

                                    I recognize a formerly serious Christian when I read
                                    one. You are
                                    obviously a more patient person than me. I normally
                                    get very angry
                                    with people who question my intent or credentials. It
                                    is most
                                    unfortunate that we are not able to scrutinize the
                                    real lives of the
                                    poseurs who frequent these discussion venues. My
                                    intuition never
                                    fails me, but I need to follow it more often, sooner.
                                    Thank you.

                                    Simone

                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz"
                                    <cruzprdb@w...>
                                    wrote:

                                    > What I find interesting about internet discussion
                                    groups is that
                                    one's
                                    > opinion becomes what one is to most readers. I could
                                    call myself any
                                    > number of "ist" or "ian" words and the conclusion of
                                    most people
                                    would
                                    > automatically be that I have no experience or
                                    understanding of any
                                    > other subject matter. In this case Nolan was a bit
                                    sharper than you.
                                    > At fourteen I was seriously considering the
                                    seminary. My experience
                                    > and understanding of the Christian religion has been
                                    lengthy and at
                                    a
                                    > depth most never reach, intertwined with painful
                                    personal
                                    > relationships, and lifelong philosophical power
                                    struggles with
                                    people
                                    > and institutions. That I am now completely an
                                    atheist is not without
                                    > implications, and not indicative of any lack of
                                    intellectual
                                    > discipline or experience on my part. There is
                                    America and Europe;
                                    and
                                    > then there is the rest of the world, a different
                                    skin tone (dark), a
                                    > different kitchen floor (dirt), a different
                                    opportunity (starving),a
                                    > different necessity (revolution). Corporate Western
                                    Jesus is not
                                    color
                                    > blind, but as a matter of fact quite efficiently
                                    racist and
                                    > greedy.Leaders of color in other nations should
                                    absolutely not
                                    embrace
                                    > American agendas, nor cow to overtures of
                                    brotherhood from the
                                    twisted
                                    > family of western wealth and power that controls
                                    this nation
                                    > today.Sadly, I really think that average American
                                    Christians will do
                                    > nothing to revolt for a change in government, and
                                    will continue to
                                    > allow this group to represent the American people
                                    and American
                                    > Christianity on the world stage, because they are
                                    still
                                    fundamentally
                                    > racist.American Christianity is really just a
                                    "justification"
                                    disease,
                                    > an avoidance of existential angst.It has now
                                    overtaken a once
                                    > enlightened idea and marches it mutated toward the
                                    ruin of the whole
                                    > world.I doubt that it can be stopped. It is clearly,
                                    scientifically,
                                    > now giddily aggressive, what it always was - a
                                    suicide cult.There is
                                    > no God to rebuild the planet: or so it was written -
                                    dominion was
                                    > given to man.
                                    >
                                    > "come crucify the dread"
                                    > Trinidad Cruz
                                    >






                                    Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to
                                    explaining nothing!

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



                                    SPONSORED LINKS

                                    Philosophy book

                                    ---------------------------------
                                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                                    Visit your group "existlist" on the web.

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

                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                    Terms of Service.


                                    ---------------------------------









                                    __________________________________________________________
                                    Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
                                  • louise
                                    Whoever you are, I have been too kind with you, apparently. I value irony, humour, honour, and love, and I find none of these within your message below. I am
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Nov 8, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Whoever you are, I have been too kind with you, apparently. I value
                                      irony, humour, honour, and love, and I find none of these within
                                      your message below.

                                      I am truly sorry that you do not appreciate Iliadic dialectic. We
                                      live in an age in which the gullible fool is feted, rewarded, and
                                      flattered. Not having any appreciation yet of just who you as human
                                      being, and your emanation posting here, might be, I cannot tell how
                                      you think or whether there is any chance of our conversing. I doubt
                                      it [chance of conversation], but then my impression is that time-
                                      spans may be going to change, so if there's a few hundred years
                                      going, who knows???

                                      By the way, please do not take my posts too seriously. I am a
                                      Nooist. Another concept which will elude you, thankfully.

                                      Louise


                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Louise: Who is K??
                                      >
                                      > K: Apparently one who conducts inquisitions.
                                      >
                                      > Louise: Have you read "Guilty"/"Not Guilty?" A Story of Suffering,
                                      An
                                      > Imaginary Psychological Construction, by Frater Taciturnus, within
                                      the
                                      > volume, 'Stages On Life's Way??
                                      >
                                      > K: Yes, I have read it, years ago, and loved it.
                                      >
                                      > Louise: In Frater Taciturnus' study, you will find the answers to
                                      all
                                      > your questions, if you have any.
                                      >
                                      > K: Now you're just teasing me, Louise. You know I have questions.
                                      But
                                      > I've learned to avoid them in your presence, since you're
                                      committed to
                                      > Iliadic dialectic and all.
                                      >
                                      > Cheers.
                                      >
                                    • sums_of_all
                                      There is always two sides on each story. I may not ne living in America but what heppened on Sept. 11th is out of man s ignorance and insanity. Specifically,
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Nov 8, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        There is always two sides on each story.

                                        I may not ne living in America but what heppened on Sept. 11th is out
                                        of man's ignorance and insanity. Specifically, corrupted Muslims,
                                        politicians, profiteering conglomorates, American
                                        citizens/sympathizers too afraid to face the truth.

                                        They act on rationality, not reason. They are maybe too dumb to know
                                        the very nature or meaning of thier actions. Pitiful. It is like
                                        folks of Transylvania compromising with Dracula to feed on one person
                                        each month until there is no one left to be consumed. America is
                                        being blood-sucked by Americans by means of fear and manipulation.

                                        If change is to happen, it has to be NOW before we are all totally
                                        consumed. We are now living in a post-modern world, America is no
                                        longer living in the 40's where they want to liberate everybody from
                                        the so called "Tyrany" of their native country. They need to
                                        understand that.


                                        Mike




                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <Hb3g@L...>
                                        wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Trinidad:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > I hope that my use of the term "grass roots" in referencing some
                                        modern
                                        > Christians will not be mistaken as a reference to the current
                                        fundamentalist
                                        > movement in American Christianity today. Your post is heartfelt and
                                        very
                                        > much to the point. I am deeply disturbed by the movement toward
                                        radical
                                        > Christian fundamentalism in America today, and I fear that the
                                        political
                                        > hegemony that this regressive element in American culture continues
                                        to
                                        > achieve can ultimately spell disaster, not only for we Americans,
                                        but also,
                                        > most tragically, for those many downtrodden folks in the world who
                                        have not
                                        > been blessed with the opportunity to be born into a wealthy nation.
                                        The news
                                        > becomes almost excruciating to watch, not only because of the
                                        extreme levels
                                        > of violence that we now see playing out upon the world stage, but
                                        also
                                        > because of the blithe American sentiment of paranoia and racism
                                        that plays
                                        > us right into the hands of a geo-political disaster of our own
                                        making.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > We live in a world, now, due to our technological capability, that
                                        makes
                                        > policy inspired by paranoia a phenomenon extremely dangerous to the
                                        world. I
                                        > hope, I pray, that sanity can, and will, prevail here in America. I
                                        am,
                                        > however, not very encouraged by what I see playing out day by day
                                        as the
                                        > rhetoric of intolerance and of preemption continues to sharpen. I
                                        fear that
                                        > the lessons of history are lost upon an America that is, for the
                                        most part,
                                        > completely a-historical in its outlook. How easily, how
                                        conveniently, we
                                        > forget that over two centuries of Western colonialism have
                                        exacerbated the
                                        > ills of that have struggled to get out from under the jack booted
                                        dictators
                                        > that we have propped up with our selfish and short-sighted policies
                                        of
                                        > economic exploitation. How easily we avoid any discussion of our
                                        genocide of
                                        > the Native American Indian as we point the finger of genocide at
                                        others.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > You are right to point out the character of the so-called corporate
                                        Western
                                        > Jesus that prevails today in American society. We are so parochial,
                                        so like
                                        > the ugly American in the movie. Our pride is our downfall.
                                        Nevertheless, I
                                        > am here. I was born into this America, and I do love this land, and
                                        many of
                                        > its people, although my feelings for its politicians and social
                                        activists is
                                        > dubious, to say the least. I do what I can, in my own small way, to
                                        try to
                                        > make a difference, even if it is only a difference that I can make
                                        in my own
                                        > small circle of acquaintances, in the arena of a real life that only
                                        > partially intersects these lists. There are still good people here
                                        in
                                        > America, but we have lost our voice, and we have become increasingly
                                        > marginalized as the social-political right continues to grip, ever
                                        tighter,
                                        > to power, and the social agenda careens out of control.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > America needs to return to, and revitalize, the liberal philosophy
                                        upon
                                        > which it was originally founded. We need to live up to our vision
                                        of equal
                                        > justice for all, in recognition of the fact that we no longer live
                                        in one
                                        > country, isolated from the rest of the world, that are not entitled
                                        to some
                                        > gift of manifest destiny with which to bring our social-political
                                        agenda to
                                        > other peoples at the end of the barrel of a gun.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > I find it profoundly ironic that we are now engaged in the
                                        implementation of
                                        > democracy, by force, elsewhere in the world. I will also find it
                                        tragically
                                        > ironic when the point is soon reached where as many of our young
                                        soldiers
                                        > have died fighting in Iraq as those innocents who died on that
                                        black day in
                                        > September four years ago. I wonder how the Bush White House is
                                        going to
                                        > answer to this looming benchmark in the war.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Since the attacks on September 11th, 2001, the past four years have
                                        seemed,
                                        > to me at least, to be a psychotic frenzy of paranoid schizophrenia
                                        acted out
                                        > upon the political stage of American life. I had hoped that it
                                        would pass
                                        > after a brief knee jerk reaction, but then Iraq happened, and then
                                        the
                                        > revelations that the reasons to go to war there were all fabricated
                                        to serve
                                        > the political agenda. The real danger here in America isn't what,
                                        when, or
                                        > where, the next terrorist attack against us might be. The real
                                        danger is how
                                        > America might react to a continuing series of such attacks as the
                                        level of
                                        > paranoia continues to escalate.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > The America that I now live in is unrecognizable to me. It is not
                                        the
                                        > America that I was born into forty seven years ago. It is not even
                                        the
                                        > America that I knew only four or five short years ago.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Hb3g
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > _____
                                        >
                                        > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]
                                        On Behalf
                                        > Of Trinidad Cruz
                                        > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 7:32 AM
                                        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Subject: [existlist] Re: "Christian" existentialism
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs
                                        <beldavsa@i...>
                                        > wrote:
                                        > "imho that is also a conclusion in versions of mature philosophical
                                        > reflections of other traditions that develops individually or
                                        > collectively. very few people, if any, know different religious
                                        > traditions with comparable sufficient depth and experience to be
                                        able
                                        > to evaluate their comparative "worth," esp. when context is
                                        > considered.it's easier to work with comparable concrete parts than
                                        to
                                        > compare fuzzy bounded wholes."
                                        >
                                        > aija
                                        >
                                        > What I find interesting about internet discussion groups is that
                                        one's
                                        > opinion becomes what one is to most readers. I could call myself any
                                        > number of "ist" or "ian" words and the conclusion of most people
                                        would
                                        > automatically be that I have no experience or understanding of any
                                        > other subject matter. In this case Nolan was a bit sharper than you.
                                        > At fourteen I was seriously considering the seminary. My experience
                                        > and understanding of the Christian religion has been lengthy and at
                                        a
                                        > depth most never reach, intertwined with painful personal
                                        > relationships, and lifelong philosophical power struggles with
                                        people
                                        > and institutions. That I am now completely an atheist is not without
                                        > implications, and not indicative of any lack of intellectual
                                        > discipline or experience on my part. There is America and Europe;
                                        and
                                        > then there is the rest of the world, a different skin tone (dark), a
                                        > different kitchen floor (dirt), a different opportunity (starving),a
                                        > different necessity (revolution). Corporate Western Jesus is not
                                        color
                                        > blind, but as a matter of fact quite efficiently racist and
                                        > greedy.Leaders of color in other nations should absolutely not
                                        embrace
                                        > American agendas, nor cow to overtures of brotherhood from the
                                        twisted
                                        > family of western wealth and power that controls this nation
                                        > today.Sadly, I really think that average American Christians will do
                                        > nothing to revolt for a change in government, and will continue to
                                        > allow this group to represent the American people and American
                                        > Christianity on the world stage, because they are still
                                        fundamentally
                                        > racist.American Christianity is really just a "justification"
                                        disease,
                                        > an avoidance of existential angst.It has now overtaken a once
                                        > enlightened idea and marches it mutated toward the ruin of the whole
                                        > world.I doubt that it can be stopped. It is clearly, scientifically,
                                        > now giddily aggressive, what it always was - a suicide cult.There is
                                        > no God to rebuild the planet: or so it was written - dominion was
                                        > given to man.
                                        >
                                        > "come crucify the dread"
                                        > Trinidad Cruz
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                                        nothing!
                                        >
                                        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > _____
                                        >
                                        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > * Visit your group "existlist
                                        > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.
                                        >
                                        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        > <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                        >
                                        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                        > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > _____
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                      • nolanhatley
                                        Trinidad and to whomever else existentially concerned, It s been awhile. I m intriguied to find you absorbed with the possibility of authentic Christian
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Nov 8, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Trinidad and to whomever else existentially concerned,

                                          It's been awhile. I'm intriguied to find you absorbed with the
                                          possibility of authentic Christian existence. Louise speaks the
                                          truth about cyberspace relations, and that's why I could only
                                          imagine meeting you and her in person, and engaging in some powerful
                                          dialetic and embrace. I've wandered away from this list, and truly
                                          in my soul. I wept one night about two weeks ago and crying out
                                          those infamous words of doubt mixed with faith- "My God, my God, why
                                          hast thou forsaken me?" Since then, I have discovered an
                                          existential theatre so to speak in the work of Polish theatre artist
                                          Jerry Grotowski, the "unbeliever" whose theatrical art I believe to
                                          most informed by the Bible. I have delved into the history of
                                          rock'n'roll, especially that of Led Zeppellin (Louise, I welcome
                                          insight), I have been far too keen a student of my own Seducer's
                                          Diary (Louise and all women, forgive me) and I have also discovered
                                          another German Christian absorbed by existentialism in one William
                                          Hubben. This man wrote two books in his life- "The Four Apoclapytic
                                          Horsemen" (SK, FD, FN, and Franz Kafka) as wekk as his autobiography
                                          Exiled Pilgrim, reportedly on his leaving Germany to come to America
                                          in the Reich days.

                                          Also, Trinidad, you know far more than I do, so I like Dostoevsky's
                                          imagination reveling before mine, I kiss you like Aloysha did Ivan,
                                          through cyberspace and consequentially wonder if would have the guts
                                          to do such an Anti-American cultural phenomenon in public.

                                          If only harsh critics like you had the faith, the American Christian
                                          might be possible. Shestov echoes this timeless truth time and time
                                          again from a very similar question put to Jesus himself....

                                          Is it possible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?

                                          He replied that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
                                          needle (which I hear is something like a gate into a town or
                                          something) and then of course said beautiful words of faith, "With
                                          God, all things are possible."

                                          But, on to more wandering, hoping, believing, in spite of my
                                          Doesstoevskian character,

                                          Nolan



                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...>
                                          wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Occasionally, mostly out of exhaustion, the ultimate goal of the
                                          > "fellowship" (a thousand years of a world unified behind entirely
                                          > Christian leaders, Vereide's "Reich" of Jesus meant to facilitate
                                          his
                                          > return) is not particularly terrifying to me or an immediately
                                          > pressing problem. As a scientist this looming agenda saddens me,
                                          given
                                          > the history of Christian reaction to scientific progress, but then
                                          I
                                          > won't live for a thousand years, nor would I abandon scientific
                                          > endeavor just because uneducated people hold the reigns of power.
                                          As
                                          > an atheist I can only assess the agenda as more of the same: really
                                          > quite stupid superstitious people lording it over other superior
                                          > intellects. As an activist I am concerned not with the goal of the
                                          > agenda, but rather the acts committed by weak and stupid men
                                          > attempting to implement it, acts often violating the basic human
                                          > rights of the victims along the way, victims often more educated,
                                          more
                                          > intelligent, and more decent, than the agendized humans inflicting
                                          > them. I think now, this "fellowship" has too much power, too much
                                          > wealth, and is far too active in the world against ordinary
                                          citizens.
                                          > As an existentialist I can only act on what seems to be. This man
                                          is
                                          > for me a rare example of a Christian with a partial sense of what
                                          > seems to be. His example is the finest I can find for what a modern
                                          > American Christian should emulate. In these times, in this
                                          country, if
                                          > you are dabbling in existentialism, and are a Christian, start with
                                          > this man. He is the one for these days.
                                          >
                                          > Dietrich Bonhoeffer (February 4, 1906 - April 9, 1945) was a German
                                          > Lutheran theologian and preacher who worked for the ecumene and
                                          > strongly opposed the anti-semitic policies of Nazi Germany. He was
                                          > eventually executed.
                                          >
                                          > Dietrich was born in Breslau, Germany (now Wroclaw, Poland) into a
                                          > middle to upper class family, the son of a doctor. At a very young
                                          > age, before World War I began, he decided to become a minister. His
                                          > parents supported his decision and he started to spend a lot of
                                          time
                                          > studying the Bible. When he was old enough he attended college and
                                          > seminary and became a minister. He studied theology in Tübingen
                                          and in
                                          > New York City.
                                          >
                                          > He returned to Germany in 1931, where he lectured on theology in
                                          > Berlin and wrote several books. A strong opponent of fascism, he
                                          fled
                                          > to London when Adolf Hitler rose to power in 1933. He returned
                                          after
                                          > Martin Niemöller and Karl Barth formed the anti-Nazi Confessing
                                          > Church, only to have his seminary closed down at the outbreak of
                                          World
                                          > War II. The Gestapo also banned him from preaching. During this
                                          time,
                                          > Bonhoffer worked closely with numerous opponents of Hitler.
                                          >
                                          > During World War II, Dietrich played a key leadership role in the
                                          > Confessing Church, which opposed the anti-semitic policies of Adolf
                                          > Hitler. Initially Dietrich fought to gain strong support from the
                                          > state church against Hitler's treatment of the Jews, but after
                                          > countless instances of refusal to take action he took the
                                          initiative
                                          > to help start the confessing church. While the confessing church
                                          was
                                          > not large, it represented the only Christian church in Germany that
                                          > was in opposition to Hitler's practices.
                                          >
                                          > After he realized that diplomatic means to stop Hitler were
                                          > impossible, he decided that assassination was the only solution. He
                                          > joined a hidden group of high-ranking officers who were trying to
                                          have
                                          > Hitler killed. Bonhoeffer was arrested in April 1943 after money
                                          that
                                          > was used to help Jews escape to Switzerland was traced to him. He
                                          was
                                          > charged with conspiracy and imprisoned for two years in
                                          Flossenbürg.
                                          > After the unsuccessful attempt on Hitler's life on July 20, 1944,
                                          > connections of Bonhoeffer to the conspirators were discovered, and
                                          he
                                          > was executed by hanging just three weeks before the liberation of
                                          the
                                          > city. His execution was carried out even though the Nazis knew that
                                          > they were going to lose the war. They did not want the end of the
                                          war
                                          > to save Bonhoeffer from death.They did not consider the end of the
                                          war
                                          > the end of the Nazi agenda.
                                          >
                                          > He is considered a martyr for his faith and was later absolved of
                                          any
                                          > crimes by the postwar German government. His books Ethics (1949)
                                          and
                                          > Letters from Prison (1953) were published posthumously. In his
                                          > theological writings, he states that Christianity should abandon
                                          the
                                          > "religious premise": the need for explanation of the world or man's
                                          > need for salvation are not central, but rather the acting in the
                                          world
                                          > in imitation of Jesus.
                                          >
                                          > I think a modern example may be emerging in Dr. David Ray Griffin,
                                          at
                                          > least in the sense of speaking up about what may be true. Sadly,
                                          for
                                          > the most part, American Christians are afraid to face what they
                                          built
                                          > together with Bush family, the "fellowship", and Jesus Christ. In a
                                          > misguided effort to use the state to enforce and promote religion
                                          they
                                          > have surrendered the individual power to act and be what they are -
                                          > "Jesus's" in contrast to the state, in contrast to the world. I
                                          > thought the "kingdom of Jesus" was not of this world. Indeed the
                                          > existentialist Christian considers the "kingdom" to only exist in
                                          the
                                          > individual, on an individual basis, not something to be built on
                                          earth
                                          > by men in a group effort. Men in groups build buildings. Men in
                                          groups
                                          > sometimes blow buildings up. Men in groups do not, cannot, build
                                          > individual conviction and character; and for an existentialist
                                          > Christian - men in groups can blow up an individual's body, but
                                          cannot
                                          > blow up individual conviction and character.
                                          >
                                          > On Oct. 15th and 16th, New Yorkers filled two venues to hear the
                                          > prominent theologian and author of two books on 9/11 give a
                                          > presentation entitled "The Destruction of the Trade Towers: A
                                          > Christian Theologian Speaks Out." Dr. Griffin has continued to
                                          blaze a
                                          > trail of courage, leading where most media and elected officials
                                          have
                                          > feared to tread. His presentation went straight to the core of one
                                          of
                                          > the most powerful indictments of the official story, the collapse
                                          of
                                          > the towers and WTC 7. Notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued
                                          that
                                          > recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and
                                          > WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives.
                                          Despite
                                          > the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin
                                          > concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable
                                          doubt,
                                          > one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center
                                          > was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own
                                          government."
                                          >
                                          > Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen's tapes which were
                                          > recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by
                                          > victim's families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and
                                          reported
                                          > in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses.
                                          These
                                          > sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going
                                          off
                                          > in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who
                                          > saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled
                                          demolition.
                                          >
                                          > Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all
                                          > indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by
                                          planes
                                          > or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly
                                          without
                                          > any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own
                                          > footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as
                                          they
                                          > fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was
                                          being
                                          > progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns. The
                                          > towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160
                                          mile
                                          > per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing
                                          fires
                                          > gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be
                                          > necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much
                                          less
                                          > the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could
                                          drop
                                          > at free-fall speed. The massive core columns--the most significant
                                          > structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is
                                          denied in
                                          > the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30
                                          foot
                                          > sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them
                                          > quickly before a real investigation could transpire. There was a
                                          > volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no
                                          > physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how
                                          so
                                          > much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine
                                          dust.
                                          > The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge
                                          fan
                                          > shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs"
                                          > following the path of the explosives downward. These are all facts
                                          > that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the
                                          alternative
                                          > media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled
                                          > demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on
                                          the
                                          > morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person descriptions of
                                          > controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the
                                          > City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release
                                          > them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his
                                          > earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his
                                          > above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the three WTC buildings
                                          > with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a
                                          hypothesis,
                                          > but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
                                          >
                                          > In this venue I am asked to respect the Christian position in
                                          > existentialism, often by the moderator. I am willing to do so,
                                          > unfortunately I have yet to find any living Christians
                                          participating
                                          > here. I am always having to pick up the stones and bring back the
                                          > ghosts to find one. Real living Christians in America may become as
                                          > endangered a species as bio-chemists.
                                          >
                                          > "come crucify the dread"
                                          > Trinidad Cruz
                                          >
                                        • jkneilson
                                          K: In a separate post, you wrote: What is really important ... about this model of dialectical discourse, is not what we end up achieving, in the way of
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Nov 8, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            K: In a separate post, you wrote: "What is really important ...
                                            about this model of dialectical discourse, is not what we end up
                                            achieving, in the way of certain knowledge, or noesis, at the end
                                            point of the process, but what we learn about the process of
                                            reasoning along the way." I love Socratic dialectic and have always
                                            felt that its moral dimension is more important than any noesis that
                                            results.

                                            Picking up the thread of our conversation...

                                            [Hb3g] I believe you understand this already, however, I say anyway
                                            that I respect both your freedom to rationally decide your own
                                            beliefs, and I also acknowledge that there are many spiritual and
                                            philosophical traditions.

                                            K: Thank you for the courtesy; I heartily extend it in return. I
                                            would like to add that the world's spiritual and philosophical
                                            traditions vie for our attention, and that we stand in need of
                                            accepting some while rejecting others. As Whitman says, "You shall
                                            listen to all sides and filter them from your self."

                                            [Hb3g] It would be dogmatic of me to categorically assert that the
                                            Christian vision is the only way.

                                            K: Agreed, it's not the only way. Do you assert that it is
                                            the "best" way?

                                            [Hb3g] Nevertheless, even in the midst of great diversity of
                                            tradition, creed, opinion, one cannot rationally assert a complete
                                            relativism of such values.

                                            K: I absolutely agree. Not all ideas, beliefs, and values are equal.
                                            Some are superior to others. The question is, How do we filter
                                            different religious beliefs? How do we determine which ones are
                                            worthy of assent or rejection? When you say that Christian
                                            existentialism challenges me to believe in the resurrection and
                                            eternal life, why should I adopt this belief? Should I adopt it
                                            because it's useful, or true, or beautiful, or because it satisfies
                                            a basic need rooted deep in the core of my being?

                                            [Hb3g] Belief matters, and questions of faith, or trust in the
                                            rationality of existence, are lively questions.

                                            K: Very lively questions, indeed. And how we arrive at answers to
                                            these questions is very important. Incidentally, have you read
                                            Pascal? His Wager busts, but he does say some very valuable things
                                            about belief. Belief as light, belief as guide to action, belief as
                                            supplement to reason. Etc.

                                            [Hb3g] I appreciate the pitfalls inherent in the "if it is true for
                                            me alone is true enough" kind of attitude, and I do believe that
                                            criteria of truth must be objectivistic, capable of being shared and
                                            communicated.

                                            K: So far, we agree on most points. I draw a distinction between
                                            private reasons and public ones. A public reason is capable of being
                                            shared and communicated to others while transcending the narrow
                                            confines of one's own subjectivity. If I want to convince you of the
                                            truth of the Five Pillars of Islam, it's not enough for me to say
                                            that I had a profound, revelatory experience. This may be a strong,
                                            private reason for believing, but it's certainly a weak public one.

                                            [Hb3g] We do appear to flat out disagree on this point. I would
                                            maintain that the transcendental experience is a real experience.
                                            You seem to categorize this
                                            as confusion (a paradox).

                                            K: Yes, we may disagree here. Let's see, I'm assuming that the
                                            transcendental is that which is beyond experience. Given this
                                            definition, I have to argue that transcendental experience is a
                                            paradox; it's logically impossible. But it looks like your
                                            definition is different. You say...

                                            [Hb3g] What might be an example of this direct transcendental
                                            experience? I certainly do not see it as a vision or a miracle. I do
                                            not see it as an experience that would fly in the face of our
                                            reasoned expectations about the world. I think of it as being more
                                            along the lines of that moment of vision of which Heidegger speaks
                                            in his Being and Time. It is a discernment of truth where the
                                            ekstatic character of our participation in Time and Being
                                            comes to light. It is intellectual in character, not strictly
                                            emotional. It comes to us in that sense of the wonder of existence,
                                            of which Shelling speaks, for instance, when he poses the basic
                                            question of existence, rhetorically of course, asking us to
                                            consider, for a moment, how is it that there exists anything at all?
                                            A similar stepping back with a sense of wonder could also be found
                                            with respect to the phenomenon of conscious awareness itself.

                                            K: On your view, transcendental experience is not a vision or a
                                            miracle. It doesn't violate reasoned expectations about the world.
                                            It's intellectual in character. You go on to add that transcendental
                                            experience is a kind of "philosophical wonder that inspires us to a
                                            rational, noetic exegesis of our experience of the world, of our
                                            life, of living, and of our own conscious awareness of all of this."
                                            You've so gutted the historical meaning of transcendence (i.e., that
                                            which is beyond our experience of the world) that I endorse your
                                            highly specialized use of the term. It's as congenial to the
                                            astrophysicist as it is to the ontologist. Both are intimately
                                            acquainted with philosophical wonder.

                                            Cheers,
                                            K
                                          • acenvironmentalsolutions@comcast.net
                                            Remove me from your list 30 e-mails a day is a little too much for anybobdy. Thank you, Andre Chavez ... K: In a separate post, you wrote: What is really
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Nov 8, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Remove me from your list 30 e-mails a day is a little too much for anybobdy. Thank you, Andre Chavez
                                              -------------- Original message --------------
                                              K: In a separate post, you wrote: "What is really important ...
                                              about this model of dialectical discourse, is not what we end up
                                              achieving, in the way of certain knowledge, or noesis, at the end
                                              point of the process, but what we learn about the process of
                                              reasoning along the way." I love Socratic dialectic and have always
                                              felt that its moral dimension is more important than any noesis that
                                              results.

                                              Picking up the thread of our conversation...

                                              [Hb3g] I believe you understand this already, however, I say anyway
                                              that I respect both your freedom to rationally decide your own
                                              beliefs, and I also acknowledge that there are many spiritual and
                                              philosophical traditions.

                                              K: Thank you for the courtesy; I heartily extend it in return. I
                                              would like to add that the world's spiritual and philosophical
                                              traditions vie for our attention, and that we stand in need of
                                              accepting some while rejecting others. As Whitman says, "You shall
                                              listen to all sides and filter them from your self."

                                              [Hb3g] It would be dogmatic of me to categorically assert that the
                                              Christian vision is the only way.

                                              K: Agreed, it's not the only way. Do you assert that it is
                                              the "best" way?

                                              [Hb3g] Nevertheless, even in the midst of great diversity of
                                              tradition, creed, opinion, one cannot rationally assert a complete
                                              relativism of such values.

                                              K: I absolutely agree. Not all ideas, beliefs, and values are equal.
                                              Some are superior to others. The question is, How do we filter
                                              different religious beliefs? How do we determine which ones are
                                              worthy of assent or rejection? When you say that Christian
                                              existentialism challenges me to believe in the resurrection and
                                              eternal life, why should I adopt this belief? Should I adopt it
                                              because it's useful, or true, or beautiful, or because it satisfies
                                              a basic need rooted deep in the core of my being?

                                              [Hb3g] Belief matters, and questions of faith, or trust in the
                                              rationality of existence, are lively questions.

                                              K: Very lively questions, indeed. And how we arrive at answers to
                                              these questions is very important. Incidentally, have you read
                                              Pascal? His Wager busts, but he does say some very valuable things
                                              about belief. Belief as light, belief as guide to action, belief as
                                              supplement to reason. Etc.

                                              [Hb3g] I appreciate the pitfalls inherent in the "if it is true for
                                              me alone is true enough" kind of attitude, and I do believe that
                                              criteria of truth must be objectivistic, capable of being shared and
                                              communicated.

                                              K: So far, we agree on most points. I draw a distinction between
                                              private reasons and public ones. A public reason is capable of being
                                              shared and communicated to others while transcending the narrow
                                              confines of one's own subjectivity. If I want to convince you of the
                                              truth of the Five Pillars of Islam, it's not enough for me to say
                                              that I had a profound, revelatory experience. This may be a strong,
                                              private reason for believing, but it's certainly a weak public one.

                                              [Hb3g] We do appear to flat out disagree on this point. I would
                                              maintain that the transcendental experience is a real experience.
                                              You seem to categorize this
                                              as confusion (a paradox).

                                              K: Yes, we may disagree here. Let's see, I'm assuming that the
                                              transcendental is that which is beyond experience. Given this
                                              definition, I have to argue that transcendental experience is a
                                              paradox; it's logically impossible. But it looks like your
                                              definition is different. You say...

                                              [Hb3g] What might be an example of this direct transcendental
                                              experience? I certainly do not see it as a vision or a miracle. I do
                                              not see it as an experience that would fly in the face of our
                                              reasoned expectations about the world. I think of it as being more
                                              along the lines of that moment of vision of which Heidegger speaks
                                              in his Being and Time. It is a discernment of truth where the
                                              ekstatic character of our participation in Time and Being
                                              comes to light. It is intellectual in character, not strictly
                                              emotional. It comes to us in that sense of the wonder of existence,
                                              of which Shelling speaks, for instance, when he poses the basic
                                              question of existence, rhetorically of course, asking us to
                                              consider, for a moment, how is it that there exists anything at all?
                                              A similar stepping back with a sense of wonder could also be found
                                              with respect to the phenomenon of conscious awareness itself.

                                              K: On your view, transcendental experience is not a vision or a
                                              miracle. It doesn't violate reasoned expectations about the world.
                                              It's intellectual in character. You go on to add that transcendental
                                              experience is a kind of "philosophical wonder that inspires us to a
                                              rational, noetic exegesis of our experience of the world, of our
                                              life, of living, and of our own conscious awareness of all of this."
                                              You've so gutted the historical meaning of transcendence (i.e., that
                                              which is beyond our experience of the world) that I endorse your
                                              highly specialized use of the term. It's as congenial to the
                                              astrophysicist as it is to the ontologist. Both are intimately
                                              acquainted with philosophical wonder.

                                              Cheers,
                                              K





                                              Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

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




                                              YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                                              Visit your group "existlist" on the web.

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

                                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Herman B. Triplegood
                                              I love Socratic dialectic and have always felt that its moral dimension is more important than any noesis that results. [Hb3g] Yes, it is what you learn along
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Nov 8, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I love Socratic dialectic and have always
                                                felt that its moral dimension is more important than any noesis that
                                                results.



                                                [Hb3g]



                                                Yes, it is what you learn along the way, and what you learn about how to get
                                                there that really matters. The noesis is actually in the journey toward the
                                                thesis. The midwifery is about the facilitation of that noesis, helping each
                                                other as we grope our way out of the cave and out into the light.


                                                K: Agreed, it's not the only way. Do you assert that it is
                                                the "best" way?



                                                [Hb3g]



                                                I would not make such a sweeping assertion. Let me just say that, in a
                                                certain respect, it is perhaps the most daring because it suggests the
                                                possibility of physical immortality, a state that is taken for granted in
                                                Hindu and Buddhist systems of belief, but which is not at all
                                                non-controversial. Given the everyday facts of existence that present
                                                themselves as we live our lives, there really isn't a basis for a firm
                                                belief in reincarnation in the orthodox sense in which it is presented to us
                                                by Hindu and Buddhist doctrines. This is where the notion of resurrection
                                                comes into play as a daring kind of leap for its day, and even for today.
                                                Another daring element, which was pretty much downplayed in Christian
                                                theology until the Reformation period and the rise of Protestantism, was the
                                                concept of the Holy Spirit, a transcendent force operating immanently in the
                                                world and history. This idea has continued to become more central as the
                                                rule of orthodoxy in Christian theology has continued to wane.


                                                When you say that Christian existentialism challenges me to believe in the
                                                resurrection and
                                                eternal life, why should I adopt this belief? Should I adopt it
                                                because it's useful, or true, or beautiful, or because it satisfies
                                                a basic need rooted deep in the core of my being?



                                                [Hb3g]



                                                Even though I am a technical professional with little formal academic
                                                training in philosophy, I would have to say that my orientation here is as
                                                if I were a philosopher, not a theologian, and not a believer. As a
                                                philosopher, if I really were one, this perspective would be lively to me
                                                because of its potential explanatory power.


                                                Incidentally, have you read Pascal? His Wager busts, but he does say some
                                                very valuable things
                                                about belief. Belief as light, belief as guide to action, belief as
                                                supplement to reason. Etc.



                                                [Hb3g]



                                                Yes, I am familiar with his wager argument, but have not undertaken a
                                                thorough reading of Pensees. I am not a believer, but I have recently
                                                undertaken some readings into comparative religion because theology
                                                interests me philosophically. The religions of the world talk a great deal
                                                about the transcendent ground, about the nature of Being, and of time, and
                                                these are issues that definitely interest me.


                                                K: Yes, we may disagree here. Let's see, I'm assuming that the
                                                transcendental is that which is beyond experience. Given this
                                                definition, I have to argue that transcendental experience is a
                                                paradox; it's logically impossible. But it looks like your
                                                definition is different. You say...



                                                [Hb3g]



                                                What is beyond experience is a pretty vague notion anyway. Dark matter is
                                                beyond experience, yet we have good scientific reasons for believing that it
                                                exists. Black holes are beyond normal everyday experience, yet we have all
                                                but proven that they actually do exist. The eleven dimensional physical
                                                manifold of M-theory, although still only an hypothesis, is reasonable
                                                enough to the sober minded physicists who continue to strive to unify their
                                                ontological map of the physical universe, yet clearly any dimensions beyond
                                                the three that we are familiar with in our everyday common experience are,
                                                technically speaking, beyond our immediate experience.


                                                You've so gutted the historical meaning of transcendence (i.e., that
                                                which is beyond our experience of the world) that I endorse your
                                                highly specialized use of the term. It's as congenial to the
                                                astrophysicist as it is to the ontologist. Both are intimately
                                                acquainted with philosophical wonder.



                                                [Hb3g]



                                                It could be, as Heidegger has so insistently maintained through the course
                                                of his meditations on the ontological question, that the entire metaphysical
                                                history of Western philosophy needs to be gutted. I tend to believe this.
                                                But it is not my intention to explain away the transcendence by reducing it
                                                to a psychologistic sense of wonder. The philosophical wonder is the initial
                                                impetus toward the noesis. Voegelin believed that this noesis flourished
                                                briefly in the classical transcendental philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,
                                                but has since been obscured by dogmatic theology and metaphysics. Heidegger
                                                places the point of obscuration further back into the Pre-Socratic period.



                                                *****



                                                In any case, here in the opening years of the twenty first century, we are
                                                on a completely different field of play. The physics has radically altered
                                                our concepts of physical reality and of time. I don't think that philosophy
                                                has really quite caught up with all of this, and I am expecting to see some
                                                rather astonishing philosophical work in the years ahead of us.


                                                Cheers,
                                                K





                                                Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

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




                                                _____

                                                YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



                                                * Visit your group "existlist
                                                <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.

                                                * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                                                * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                                <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



                                                _____



                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                                                this bounced earlier, maybe the server at this end... ... i am interested in folk cosmologies. the latvian daina-world or song-world might be compared to some
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Nov 9, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  this bounced earlier, maybe the server at this end...

                                                  > What is beyond experience is a pretty vague notion anyway. Dark matter
                                                  > is beyond experience, yet we have good scientific reasons for believing
                                                  > that it exists. Black holes are beyond normal everyday experience, yet
                                                  > we have all but proven that they actually do exist. The eleven
                                                  > dimensional physical manifold of M-theory, although still only an
                                                  > hypothesis, is reasonable enough to the sober minded physicists who
                                                  > continue to strive to unify their ontological map of the physical
                                                  > universe, yet clearly any dimensions beyond the three that we are
                                                  > familiar with in our everyday common experience are, technically
                                                  > speaking, beyond our immediate experience.

                                                  > It could be, as Heidegger has so insistently maintained through the
                                                  > course of his meditations on the ontological question, that the entire
                                                  > metaphysical history of Western philosophy needs to be gutted. I tend to
                                                  > believe this. But it is not my intention to explain away the
                                                  > transcendence by reducing it to a psychologistic sense of wonder. The
                                                  > philosophical wonder is the initial impetus toward the noesis. Voegelin
                                                  > believed that this noesis flourished briefly in the classical
                                                  > transcendental philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, but has since been
                                                  > obscured by dogmatic theology and metaphysics. Heidegger places the
                                                  > point of obscuration further back into the Pre-Socratic period.

                                                  i am interested in folk cosmologies. the latvian daina-world or
                                                  song-world might be compared to some period of archaic Greek (some aspect
                                                  of Homeric, pre-Socratic more likely than Platonic or post). its
                                                  cognitive roots are pre-Christian.

                                                  how much of the daina-world is indo-european is debatable (the baltic
                                                  daina-world and finnic runo/kalevala-world have connections all the way
                                                  back), and in any case the "same" concept is not necessarily interpreted
                                                  "the same" among different i-e or finno-ugric "branches" but varies by
                                                  region, place, time, and unique influence from contacts with others each
                                                  group makes uniquely.

                                                  oversimplifying, the area around the Baltic part of the northern european
                                                  world goes back to the aboriginal Mesolithic peoples who seem to have been
                                                  indo-europeanized as Finnic, Baltic, and Old Scandinavian as the result of
                                                  new peoples moving north, after that from the south Old Slavic plus other
                                                  influences thrown in as spice in continuous movement in any case resulting
                                                  in some concepts broadly common to this geographical area, but others
                                                  differing according to region. it is interesting because there are both
                                                  similarities and differences to commonly known world cosmological models.

                                                  the daina-world (analogous to such a division in other mythologies)
                                                  appears to be divided in two areas of experience, immediate labeled as
                                                  This-sun (Shi saule) and conceptual beyond direct experience That-sun
                                                  (Vinjsaule). in this conceptualization humans are also aware of two or
                                                  three types of time:

                                                  1) finite based on the duration of human or living creature time (thus,
                                                  mans mu'zin's' - my time)

                                                  2) infinite "sun time" also the time in which "water" and "stone"
                                                  participate ("not for me to live a sun time; for the water, for the stone
                                                  to live a sun time" - nedzi'vot saules mu'z'u; udenjam, akmenjam tam
                                                  dzi'vot saules mu'z'u.)

                                                  3) Beyond-the-sun (Aizsaule) - a metaworld neither This-sun nor That-sun

                                                  but This-sun is not the most immediate experience. the most immediate is
                                                  one's birth from a human finite mother. "Mother, my dear mother, you are
                                                  not my infinite time mother (mu'za mate). This-sun, this-earth, she
                                                  (singular) is my infinite time mother. (Mate, mana mila mate, ne ta mana
                                                  muza mate. Si saulite, si zemite, ta bij mana muza mate.)

                                                  the sun (Saule), appearing as mother reborn as daughter, is the primary
                                                  relevant time marker referent to the human in a shared realm with the
                                                  stars and the (male) moon). the (feminine) earth Zeme is also known as
                                                  under-sun world (Pasaule).

                                                  the sun-world and the earth-world though perceived separately are also
                                                  linked as one - "mother." the concept of a "tree" as an in-between (of
                                                  finite, infinite) concept links different worlds in many Eurasian
                                                  cosmologies, including the Baltic. there were sacred trees that were
                                                  known to have survived many generations of humans, but trees unlike water
                                                  or stone die like humans, animals, or seasonal vegetation. that's where
                                                  the two-tiered or three-tiered or multiple-tiered worlds schemas come in.

                                                  immediate, lived experience of This-sun concretely is the space one lives,
                                                  which for the pre-industrial farmer was his homestead, or the fisherman on
                                                  the Baltic Sea his village.

                                                  2) includes not only what is strange, not well understood, uncontrolable,
                                                  or of what one is barely aware. in mythology this includes the wild
                                                  surrounding the domestic space (concretely it could be the forest). it is
                                                  the locus of wild life, nature spirits some of whom may come to be
                                                  deified. since burial in pre-Christian times used to be in sacred forests
                                                  or in waters - also the realm of the dead.

                                                  on a perceptual level there is no clear division of the unfamiliar space
                                                  spatially if on earth but in the wild, above in the heavens, or below
                                                  earth in a cave or the depths of a lake or a grave. such a distinction is
                                                  made by systemizers of myth who come up with alternative self-consistent
                                                  structures. but if there are no systemizers and it is oral, then the
                                                  unfamiliar (nature and guiding spirists, the ancestors) can remain in a
                                                  dream-world that doesn't have to be logically consistent.

                                                  parallel daina-myths have the orphan girl locate her mother in the world
                                                  to which the sun travels each night, or in the forest beneath the roots of
                                                  an apple tree (a mother symbol). psychologically it is to a realm about
                                                  which one can speculate. when i sang these logically conflicting songs as
                                                  a child, the alternative songs did not originally strike me as belonging
                                                  to conflicting spatial paradigms. there are dainas that imagine
                                                  Othersunworld to be in some ways a fuzzily observable more spiritual
                                                  parallel to Thisworld, but there are also dainas that bluntly state:

                                                  s'i' sauli'te man zinama, vin'sauli'te nezinama.
                                                  (this sun is known to me, that sun is not known to me.)

                                                  aija
                                                • Herman B. Triplegood
                                                  Yes Aija, folk cosmologies are relevant to a philosophical discussion of the transcendence relation. Hb3g _____ From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Nov 9, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Yes Aija, folk cosmologies are relevant to a philosophical discussion of the
                                                    transcendence relation.



                                                    Hb3g



                                                    _____

                                                    From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                                    Of Aija Veldre Beldavs
                                                    Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 7:37 AM
                                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: "Christian" existentialism




                                                    this bounced earlier, maybe the server at this end...

                                                    > What is beyond experience is a pretty vague notion anyway. Dark matter
                                                    > is beyond experience, yet we have good scientific reasons for believing
                                                    > that it exists. Black holes are beyond normal everyday experience, yet
                                                    > we have all but proven that they actually do exist. The eleven
                                                    > dimensional physical manifold of M-theory, although still only an
                                                    > hypothesis, is reasonable enough to the sober minded physicists who
                                                    > continue to strive to unify their ontological map of the physical
                                                    > universe, yet clearly any dimensions beyond the three that we are
                                                    > familiar with in our everyday common experience are, technically
                                                    > speaking, beyond our immediate experience.

                                                    > It could be, as Heidegger has so insistently maintained through the
                                                    > course of his meditations on the ontological question, that the entire
                                                    > metaphysical history of Western philosophy needs to be gutted. I tend to
                                                    > believe this. But it is not my intention to explain away the
                                                    > transcendence by reducing it to a psychologistic sense of wonder. The
                                                    > philosophical wonder is the initial impetus toward the noesis. Voegelin
                                                    > believed that this noesis flourished briefly in the classical
                                                    > transcendental philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, but has since been
                                                    > obscured by dogmatic theology and metaphysics. Heidegger places the
                                                    > point of obscuration further back into the Pre-Socratic period.

                                                    i am interested in folk cosmologies. the latvian daina-world or
                                                    song-world might be compared to some period of archaic Greek (some aspect
                                                    of Homeric, pre-Socratic more likely than Platonic or post). its
                                                    cognitive roots are pre-Christian.

                                                    how much of the daina-world is indo-european is debatable (the baltic
                                                    daina-world and finnic runo/kalevala-world have connections all the way
                                                    back), and in any case the "same" concept is not necessarily interpreted
                                                    "the same" among different i-e or finno-ugric "branches" but varies by
                                                    region, place, time, and unique influence from contacts with others each
                                                    group makes uniquely.

                                                    oversimplifying, the area around the Baltic part of the northern european
                                                    world goes back to the aboriginal Mesolithic peoples who seem to have been
                                                    indo-europeanized as Finnic, Baltic, and Old Scandinavian as the result of
                                                    new peoples moving north, after that from the south Old Slavic plus other
                                                    influences thrown in as spice in continuous movement in any case resulting
                                                    in some concepts broadly common to this geographical area, but others
                                                    differing according to region. it is interesting because there are both
                                                    similarities and differences to commonly known world cosmological models.

                                                    the daina-world (analogous to such a division in other mythologies)
                                                    appears to be divided in two areas of experience, immediate labeled as
                                                    This-sun (Shi saule) and conceptual beyond direct experience That-sun
                                                    (Vinjsaule). in this conceptualization humans are also aware of two or
                                                    three types of time:

                                                    1) finite based on the duration of human or living creature time (thus,
                                                    mans mu'zin's' - my time)

                                                    2) infinite "sun time" also the time in which "water" and "stone"
                                                    participate ("not for me to live a sun time; for the water, for the stone
                                                    to live a sun time" - nedzi'vot saules mu'z'u; udenjam, akmenjam tam
                                                    dzi'vot saules mu'z'u.)

                                                    3) Beyond-the-sun (Aizsaule) - a metaworld neither This-sun nor That-sun

                                                    but This-sun is not the most immediate experience. the most immediate is
                                                    one's birth from a human finite mother. "Mother, my dear mother, you are
                                                    not my infinite time mother (mu'za mate). This-sun, this-earth, she
                                                    (singular) is my infinite time mother. (Mate, mana mila mate, ne ta mana
                                                    muza mate. Si saulite, si zemite, ta bij mana muza mate.)

                                                    the sun (Saule), appearing as mother reborn as daughter, is the primary
                                                    relevant time marker referent to the human in a shared realm with the
                                                    stars and the (male) moon). the (feminine) earth Zeme is also known as
                                                    under-sun world (Pasaule).

                                                    the sun-world and the earth-world though perceived separately are also
                                                    linked as one - "mother." the concept of a "tree" as an in-between (of
                                                    finite, infinite) concept links different worlds in many Eurasian
                                                    cosmologies, including the Baltic. there were sacred trees that were
                                                    known to have survived many generations of humans, but trees unlike water
                                                    or stone die like humans, animals, or seasonal vegetation. that's where
                                                    the two-tiered or three-tiered or multiple-tiered worlds schemas come in.

                                                    immediate, lived experience of This-sun concretely is the space one lives,
                                                    which for the pre-industrial farmer was his homestead, or the fisherman on
                                                    the Baltic Sea his village.

                                                    2) includes not only what is strange, not well understood, uncontrolable,
                                                    or of what one is barely aware. in mythology this includes the wild
                                                    surrounding the domestic space (concretely it could be the forest). it is
                                                    the locus of wild life, nature spirits some of whom may come to be
                                                    deified. since burial in pre-Christian times used to be in sacred forests
                                                    or in waters - also the realm of the dead.

                                                    on a perceptual level there is no clear division of the unfamiliar space
                                                    spatially if on earth but in the wild, above in the heavens, or below
                                                    earth in a cave or the depths of a lake or a grave. such a distinction is
                                                    made by systemizers of myth who come up with alternative self-consistent
                                                    structures. but if there are no systemizers and it is oral, then the
                                                    unfamiliar (nature and guiding spirists, the ancestors) can remain in a
                                                    dream-world that doesn't have to be logically consistent.

                                                    parallel daina-myths have the orphan girl locate her mother in the world
                                                    to which the sun travels each night, or in the forest beneath the roots of
                                                    an apple tree (a mother symbol). psychologically it is to a realm about
                                                    which one can speculate. when i sang these logically conflicting songs as
                                                    a child, the alternative songs did not originally strike me as belonging
                                                    to conflicting spatial paradigms. there are dainas that imagine
                                                    Othersunworld to be in some ways a fuzzily observable more spiritual
                                                    parallel to Thisworld, but there are also dainas that bluntly state:

                                                    s'i' sauli'te man zinama, vin'sauli'te nezinama.
                                                    (this sun is known to me, that sun is not known to me.)

                                                    aija


                                                    Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

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




                                                    _____

                                                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



                                                    * Visit your group "existlist
                                                    <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.

                                                    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                    existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                    <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                                                    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                                    <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



                                                    _____



                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.