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

Re: [existlist] Re: Sugar Lickers Anonymous....

Expand Messages
  • William Harris
    Bookdoc, I was confused until your last paragraph, but that cleared it up .Ill give him your answer next week and see what he says. I have been canoeing the
    Message 1 of 35 , Oct 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Bookdoc, I was confused until your last paragraph, but that cleared it up
      .Ill give him your answer next week and see what he says. I have been
      canoeing the root river for the last three days, no lap top allowed. We had
      a running philosophical discussion between a mensa, atheist genius; a
      agnostic, christian physician; and myself. I tried to explain your
      philosophy, but was a dismal failure. I attempted to apprpach through
      existentialism, which both have some knowledge of. Empiricism impressed the
      athiest and he liked the individualism of exist thought but when I suggested
      he could not trust sense knowledge he wanted no part of that. The physician,
      who is also an author, was less dogmatic. He could accept an absurd world as
      a concept, especially as something to write about. In fact he mixed it in
      with his god as a unifying principle theory, as if god understands while we
      lesser beings just cant grasp it all. I would have expected the athiest to
      entertain the concept more than the agnostic, the agnostic however liked and
      felt comfortable with the unknown. He did not mind being ungrounded. In fact
      he will try to incorporate an absurdist character in his novel. He made an
      interesting comment, he was not an athiest because he would not undergo the
      angnst associated with a rejection of god, absurdism would not subject him
      to that rigor. See all the trouble you cause Bookdoc. Thanks, Bill

      nothing@... wrote:

      > <<He wished me to ask of you if the emotional component of
      > your concept of interest is fuled by a sense of social
      > obligation.>>
      >
      > Bill? I am still not completely clear on this. I'd say no. Interest is
      > inherently self-centered, but I would suggest that the degree of
      > uncertainty plays a critical role. One cannot tell how real real is.
      > One must make an assumption that even though they cannot
      > define real, what he/she assumes as real has got to be
      > considered a 'best bet.' If one is interested in continuing the
      > current illusion, one does not step in its way (by performing cute
      > tricks such as stepping in front of a train). Inherently, there is no
      > social obligation. However, there is also no interest in
      > terminating interests of others by willful action. Murder is not
      > appropriate, but is not so much a social obligation as a result of
      > ignorance. I can't know what is right or wrong, but I can know that
      > willful disturbance of reality -- even if it is an illusion OR fiction --
      > will terminate interests.
      >
      > To make this somewhat clearer, I believe I mentioned Einstein's
      > secret wish to become a clown. Again, that is a real thought,
      > though it might be able to be claimed as illusion or fiction. In
      > other words, I cannot deny that this is a possibility and potentially
      > true even if Einstein himself were to tell me so, as he might be
      > lying about it due to embarassment. In the same way I cannot
      > deny that there might be others who exist -- even if I can't prove it
      > -- but i can logically conclude that if I were to do something to
      > terminate their interests, that would be, potentially, disinteresting
      > -- so to speak.
      >
      > I don't believe that adds up to 'fueled by social obligation.' At any
      > rate, it would be inconsistent if so, as that would suggest one
      > was positive there was a society. If there is no proof as to 'I', one
      > can hardly find motivation in society unless they decide to retain
      > the illusion of involvement within it. It would depend on your
      > illusions...
      >
      > Idon'tknowifIansweredathing
      > ---------------------------------------
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • William Harris
      Bookdoc, I was confused until your last paragraph, but that cleared it up .Ill give him your answer next week and see what he says. I have been canoeing the
      Message 35 of 35 , Oct 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Bookdoc, I was confused until your last paragraph, but that cleared it up
        .Ill give him your answer next week and see what he says. I have been
        canoeing the root river for the last three days, no lap top allowed. We had
        a running philosophical discussion between a mensa, atheist genius; a
        agnostic, christian physician; and myself. I tried to explain your
        philosophy, but was a dismal failure. I attempted to apprpach through
        existentialism, which both have some knowledge of. Empiricism impressed the
        athiest and he liked the individualism of exist thought but when I suggested
        he could not trust sense knowledge he wanted no part of that. The physician,
        who is also an author, was less dogmatic. He could accept an absurd world as
        a concept, especially as something to write about. In fact he mixed it in
        with his god as a unifying principle theory, as if god understands while we
        lesser beings just cant grasp it all. I would have expected the athiest to
        entertain the concept more than the agnostic, the agnostic however liked and
        felt comfortable with the unknown. He did not mind being ungrounded. In fact
        he will try to incorporate an absurdist character in his novel. He made an
        interesting comment, he was not an athiest because he would not undergo the
        angnst associated with a rejection of god, absurdism would not subject him
        to that rigor. See all the trouble you cause Bookdoc. Thanks, Bill

        nothing@... wrote:

        > <<He wished me to ask of you if the emotional component of
        > your concept of interest is fuled by a sense of social
        > obligation.>>
        >
        > Bill? I am still not completely clear on this. I'd say no. Interest is
        > inherently self-centered, but I would suggest that the degree of
        > uncertainty plays a critical role. One cannot tell how real real is.
        > One must make an assumption that even though they cannot
        > define real, what he/she assumes as real has got to be
        > considered a 'best bet.' If one is interested in continuing the
        > current illusion, one does not step in its way (by performing cute
        > tricks such as stepping in front of a train). Inherently, there is no
        > social obligation. However, there is also no interest in
        > terminating interests of others by willful action. Murder is not
        > appropriate, but is not so much a social obligation as a result of
        > ignorance. I can't know what is right or wrong, but I can know that
        > willful disturbance of reality -- even if it is an illusion OR fiction --
        > will terminate interests.
        >
        > To make this somewhat clearer, I believe I mentioned Einstein's
        > secret wish to become a clown. Again, that is a real thought,
        > though it might be able to be claimed as illusion or fiction. In
        > other words, I cannot deny that this is a possibility and potentially
        > true even if Einstein himself were to tell me so, as he might be
        > lying about it due to embarassment. In the same way I cannot
        > deny that there might be others who exist -- even if I can't prove it
        > -- but i can logically conclude that if I were to do something to
        > terminate their interests, that would be, potentially, disinteresting
        > -- so to speak.
        >
        > I don't believe that adds up to 'fueled by social obligation.' At any
        > rate, it would be inconsistent if so, as that would suggest one
        > was positive there was a society. If there is no proof as to 'I', one
        > can hardly find motivation in society unless they decide to retain
        > the illusion of involvement within it. It would depend on your
        > illusions...
        >
        > Idon'tknowifIansweredathing
        > ---------------------------------------
        >
        >
        > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        >
        > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.