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

Re: peace loving existentialists

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    ... wrote: Why does legal ever enter into a existential debate? What is a law? In an essential sense it is the literary description of
    Message 1 of 49 , May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
      <existlist1@...> wrote:

      "Why does "legal" ever enter into a "existential" debate?"

      What is a law? In an essential sense it is the literary description of
      an action derived of literature. Though a law may seek to control
      ordinary natural human activity, its fundamental purpose is to conform
      humans into a body of literature: a literary view of what is natural
      for humans. Scientifically (and thus the only possibly definably
      ethical approach to such a holistic view) we are far far far from
      converting what is actually natural for human beings into a
      fundamental literary view of the human condition with an adequacy
      equal to the task of expressing even the foundation of more than a few
      laws. There are however a few things that are obvious: we need the
      species; we need the planet; for any possible hope of continuation. If
      we also then suggest that literature is at least a part of what is
      ordinary for the natural human being; we must legislate according to
      those recognizable needs to even argue at all for the ethical merit of
      a mere action, let alone a national law. Most of philosophical
      academia would argue that it seems sensible in a literary effort to
      escalate our affections for our species, and for our planet; even if
      literature itself is arguably the story. In the mud where literature
      exceeds the simple task of remembering; law is held up as order for
      the greater good. Slavery was once considered as such, as was
      proselytizing to Jesus by the sword, burning "witches", and
      McCarthyism. Most of middle America still holds to these old
      applications of the greater good esoterically; that is, engages the
      process of democracy as an active majority of the electorate intending
      out of deeply imbedded often subliminal belief to force conformity
      upon people of color, atheists, pagans, and communists. It is simply
      ridiculous for the educated man, for the hard scientist, to assume
      that such behaviors arise normally from human nature. Educated humans,
      humans aware of natural scientific necessity, can only in
      self-interest, as well as altruistically, essentially ethically for
      both self and other, seek the preservation of the species, the
      preservation of the planet. Could it be in fact, that natural, even
      uneducated men, act in that ethical view instinctively, intuitively,
      in the process of just living? Arguably yes. Literature can only ever
      be a reminder to remember, not an essential remembering. What then is
      law? In nature, in substance, in dynamic, law is literature and
      literature is law. It is the fixative of our present state of
      development.

      Does realization have the potential to exceed the bounds of
      literature? Without a doubt. Syncretism is thus unavoidable and
      inevitable. In this case it is clear then, that all law is
      esoterically based in mysticism: essentially the story of action
      within a story. It is also clear that literature is finite. It is
      syncretism itself that seems to make literature more than it is:
      something that can be applied to force conformity. It cannot force
      conformity without enlisting the power of natural means. The law in
      this sense is well armed literature acting according to a mystical
      imperative against what is naturally evolved. We are fixed by
      literature on a specific evolutionary plateau. There is no literary
      endeavor that can improve upon it. Literature itself of any kind can
      never essentially be defined as unethical. Law is entirely mystical;
      utterly outside the paradigm of ethical consideration. Common law in
      the United States since Holmes, to its credit, has patiently distanced
      itself from the necessity of mystical consensus, toward Darwin, toward
      the scientific view, toward a life necessity basis, toward naturalism,
      toward pragmatism. The general citizenry has not. All politicians
      understand this to some depth. To defend any act on the basis of any
      law is to lay claim to a mystical imperative.

      "(Law, language, truth) These things make themselves as we go. Our
      rights, wrongs, prohibitions, penalties, words, forms, idioms,
      beliefs, are so many new creations that add themselves as history
      proceeds. Far from being antecedent principles that animate the
      process, law, language, truth, are but abstract names for its
      results." William James

      It is interesting that statements such as the above are considered
      pragmatic at all these days. In fact we may only label such an idea
      "pragmatic" as long as it remains within the framework of syncretism
      it seems to be attempting to escape.(where it actually can never be
      anything but mysticism) Philosophical thought has always protested
      far to earnestly for or against absolutes. Natural science simply
      maintains that there are probably absolutes, but we can never
      absolutely hold them in any literary sense; since in itself literature
      is a fixative of limitation. Importantly both science and philosophy
      are aware that realization can exceed the bounds of literature; but
      hard science cannot validate realization outside the bounds of
      literature, since literature is its tool of validation; while
      philosophy, as "pragmatic" as it feigns to be, baroquely seeks that
      very specific kind of realization that lies outside the bounds of
      literature like a secret it can never write. Philosophy and religion
      will always exist with men unable to accept limitation, until science
      can write in the blank spaces and make literature itself a completed
      story. The problem we have faced as ordinary natural human beings
      throughout our history is: that religion and philosophy have caused
      the majority of human beings to believe that ending the story is the
      same as the completion of the story in literary terms, or in another
      sense: killing the author serves the same purpose as allowing the
      author to finish the story. Historically, we have ruthlessly murdered
      the natural Magi in a seizure of mystical expediency.

      "like a river that don't know where it's flowin'"
      Trinidad
    • Exist List Moderator
      ... While I certainly rely a lot on interviews and lexical analysis for my research, I also recognize the fact that some people are more important in the
      Message 49 of 49 , May 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On May 13, 2006, at 8:42, Aija Veldre Beldavs wrote:

        >
        > On Thu, 11 May 2006, Exist List Moderator wrote:
        >
        >> I know this goes off-topic, to an extent, but I think it is also a
        >> chance to reflect on how history is "created" by a number of factors.
        >> History is not a single thing that can be accurately captured. Like
        >> all
        >> human interactions, it is deeply flawed. We know the "truth" only
        >> because we assume our particular sources have all the information
        >> necessary.
        >
        > guess that's why i'm a folklorist/ethnographer who would like for all
        > to
        > have opportunity for voice. in spite of faulty memory and of framing
        > experience in schemas that are put down as fairy tale stereotypes and
        > such, personal experience doesn't lie on the same level as statistics
        > and narratives funded by powerful interest groups.

        While I certainly rely a lot on interviews and lexical analysis for my
        research, I also recognize the fact that "some people are more
        important" in the larger picture of history. This means we need to
        balance our studies of Hitler, Stalin, FDR, and Sir Winston with the
        experiences of soldiers and civilians -- but we must take into account
        the fact Hitler was definitely more influential than some other Germans
        as Stalin was more important than some Russians.

        Maybe "important" is a loaded word, but I don't think the semantics
        matter as much as the basic point -- we study world leaders and major
        events for a reason. They are "praxis" moments that shift cultures and
        even large sections of the globe.

        My point on the individual story causing problems:

        A single story about someone suffering from a disease can cause a
        public reaction that is not relative to the risk. Psychologists have
        long known that too much empathy is as dangerous emotionally as too
        little -- too much empathy is usually a sign of depression, often
        accompanied by compulsive disorders.

        In other words, I cannot know and care about all the suffering in the
        world, or I could not function. I can know there are problems in the
        Sudan and send money to a charity, or even petition my government to
        become involved, but I cannot emotionally deal with every single story
        of rape, torture, and starvation.

        We should record how the bulk of any society exists, which is why pop
        culture is now "standard culture" and studied extensively. We should
        never dismiss the common experience -- but the common are seldom
        responsible for the major shifts in history.

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