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

Re: "Christian" existentialism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 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.

            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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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.