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

Re: marking

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Albert, Existentialists have varying beliefs. This is quite separate matter, conceptually, from our various experiences in life, the stuff of biography. Two
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Albert,

      Existentialists have varying beliefs. This is quite separate
      matter, conceptually, from our various experiences in life, the
      stuff of biography. Two brothers, for instance, may pass through
      some similar experiences, yet hold quite different beliefs. If you
      believe in choice, you will always have choice. Like if you believe
      in the Christ, He will always be there for you, whether or no
      conscious awareness grants the confirmation. I don't believe in
      choice. Trinidad can speak for himself, and does, with eloquence.
      That I have never disputed. I believe in necessity. I had no
      choice about posting the message reproduced below. This does not
      mean I do not hold myself responsible whenever it drifts toward a
      boorish tone or slapdash expression. I stand by its substance,
      though.

      Louise

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert" <al_d@...> wrote:
      >
      > Louise,
      >
      > If one is responsible for one's own actions, and if as you say,
      this is a "facet" of existentialism, then you imply implicitly that
      choice is also a component of existentialism ? By component, I mean
      necessary part.
      > I'm not convinced, that if what you say is correct, that Trinidad,
      or anyone else for that matter necessarily has the choice to be
      anything different to what they are now; and what they will be, by
      means of environment tomorrow.
      >
      > Albert.
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: louise
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 9:52 PM
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: marking
      >
      >
      > Trinidad,
      >
      > My past experience with you leads me to expect that whatever
      cogent
      > argument and evidence I adduce will be selectively ignored
      according
      > to whim. Some of what you write below I find appallingly violent
      by
      > implication, and your statements about SK contradictory. You are
      > also name-dropping in a most careless way. The fact that you
      have
      > chips on both shoulders about your own race and others' beliefs
      only
      > makes impossible any dialogue with you. Constant posting about
      US
      > politics drags down the philosophical content of the list. This
      is
      > a generalised complaint, and it will be my last. You and I have
      > clashed for a long time, and now I wash my hands of all further
      > attempt to reason. From my own point of view, I don't mind what
      you
      > have to say about me. Skin has thickened now. I would prefer, of
      > course, if I don't provoke a reaction that leads anyone,
      including
      > yourself, to bring more moderation disputes to the list, but
      what is
      > choice, after all?? How may one defend oneself against charges
      from
      > those who do not believe in the duty of argument and counter-
      > argument? Value-systems vary, and my own concepts of dignity
      most
      > certainly differ from yours. One is responsible for one's own
      > speech and actions, that is one facet of existentialism. Sadness
      > and despair, however, weaken the human will, and such weakness
      is as
      > destructive a force in our civilisations as are hubristic forms
      of
      > strength.
      >
      > Louise
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > No one fractures Sartre or derides SK more than I do; but I
      think,
      > > like existentialism, they personally defy analysis. I often
      express
      > > that I agree with Dennett and Dawkins and differ very little
      in
      > view.
      > > I actually hold their view to be safe for a dialectical
      approach to
      > > meaning; something that Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger,
      > Wittgenstein,
      > > and the whole body of American analytical philosophy through
      Quine
      > > including the radical empiricists like Mill and the later
      > linguistic
      > > bent of Searle and others could never lay claim to. The
      dialectical
      > > approach is only harmless to human development when applied to
      > natural
      > > science. There is no science of "consciousness" or "spirit"
      > or "soul".
      > > Such claims are in fact simply literary phenomena and devices.
      > Rorty
      > > approaches my view but stops short of Heidegger or Lyotard in
      > actually
      > > announcing the death of metaphysics. Indeed he suggests the re-
      > joining
      > > of science and philosophy is inevitable. This is not quite at
      the
      > > limit of the natural evolutionary view and a clean
      existentialism.
      > It
      > > is my view; that it is the action of literature, indeed
      literacy
      > > itself, not philosophy, that will assimilate into a natural
      > > presentation of the human species. It will become a natural
      part of
      > > the human condition similar to a heartbeat or a breath; indeed
      > > forgotten until one skips a beat, or struggles for breath.
      Modern
      > > physics is absolutely heading the scientist into the role of
      > > participant in the phenomena being observed. In such a position
      > > dialectical analysis is moot. When Emerson refers to the
      > philosopher's
      > > garden, or even the biblical St. Paul to the cloud of
      witnesses,
      > they
      > > may not be far from future fact. If literature is a whole
      thing, a
      > > bounded phenomenon, (which may be argued dialectically: we
      could
      > not
      > > actually make a visible mark without bounds) it might not be a
      non
      > > sequitur that the whole of literature, the philospher's garden
      if
      > you
      > > will, is to become accessible naturally to the human being. In
      the
      > > past I used some software called (I think) "Pointillist" ( a
      recent
      > > post reminded me of that). The scientific basis of it was that
      the
      > > human eye assimilates and the human brain dialectically
      processes
      > > information faster than the brain can process it as literature
      > > dialectically. I'm sure the same could be said of every human
      > > empirical sense. There is no doubt that literature is a
      fixative
      > of an
      > > evolutionary plateau for the human species. The question that
      begs
      > a
      > > dialectic is: Should we boldy go, or step back. All sides
      > (religion,
      > > politics, philosophy, science, even poetry) seem to be
      > dialectically
      > > bent on boldly going. That gives me pause.
      > >
      > > Existentialism began as a repudiation of abstract rationalism.
      SK,
      > > followed most recently by Deleuze's twisted humorous turn,
      rejected
      > > the possibility that the human being will ever be satisfied by
      an
      > all
      > > embracing objective understanding of the universe deeply
      enough to
      > > outweigh one's concern for their own life. As I have said,
      this
      > utter
      > > unabashed dignifying of the individual's life and death is the
      > core of
      > > the existentialist view. I would say, and Deleuze would
      probably
      > agree
      > > that: A human being cannot evolve beyond an objective view of
      the
      > > universe without becoming an illusion (subjective) in that
      > universe.
      > > There is no all knowing. Heidegger would say that our way of
      being
      > in
      > > the world is objective activity. I would say that it is action
      that
      > > mediates our personal existence. I like to think that Sartre
      would
      > > maintain that the distance over which we experience is other
      than
      > us
      > > and other than what we are aware of as experience. Nietzche
      would
      > call
      > > it nothingness. Pinker would say that distance can only be
      other
      > > "consciousness". Tillich would say it was: "the actual
      objective
      > God
      > > beyond the human subjective characterization of God". Rorty and
      > > Dennett would both maintain it was a blank to fill in and
      becoming
      > is
      > > next - and that is the direction we are boldly going. I must
      say,
      > as
      > > an existentialist; I think it is cowardice and rejection of the
      > > unpleasant (Onfray) that drives us to gambling away our
      dignity,
      > our
      > > statement, our existential panache. We should write our balls
      or
      > > vagina off as the case may be, because it is literature that
      has
      > fixed
      > > us as what we are; and what we are is the most dignified thing
      we
      > can
      > > be. Still the existentialist cannot write dialectically without
      > > sacrificing dignity.
      > >
      > > Sartre, boringly succinct, (and Berdyaev) state that the
      freedom of
      > > the existentialist must ethically seek the freedom of other or
      not
      > be
      > > free. I say that we are all in this age unassailably free
      because
      > it
      > > was not an uninformed (absurd) choice that caused us to be.
      > Literature
      > > existed before us all in this age. We simply at this stage of
      human
      > > development could not have arguably made an uninformed choice
      to be
      > > what we are. We saw marks and meant in every way to make our
      own.
      > For
      > > the existentialist that means the ethical responsibility of
      > dignifying
      > > the life and death of the human being. It is absolutely about
      the
      > > statement of human dignity. I have warts but I am human. I am
      a
      > genius
      > > but I am human. It is the question of dignity that defines
      ethics;
      > > arisen of freedom, of choice, of individuality, and of
      solidarity -
      > > altogether. We have the same fundamental empirical capacities
      > common
      > > to the species, but those capacites are so great that our views
      > > diverge. Rockin'. We have not chosen to come to this life to
      agree
      > > (control); but rather to dignify the choice. Dialectically
      this is
      > > absurd, and conflict is other - thus Sartre's view. Thus my
      view -
      > the
      > > existentialist cannot be a philosopher because the first
      choice,
      > that
      > > was his life and death as a human being, was to not be a
      > philosopher,
      > > because that very choice was already a dialectical settlement.
      > >
      > > "Don't jump in the water;
      > > if you can't swim.
      > > Light like a feather.
      > > Heavy as lead."
      > >
      > > Trinidad Cruz
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----------
      >
      >
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date:
      6/30/2006
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Albert
      Louise, You say you do not believe in choice, but hold yourself responsible for your actions nevertheless... Please clarify. Albert. ... From: louise To:
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Louise,

        You say you do not believe in choice, but hold yourself responsible for your actions nevertheless...

        Please clarify.

        Albert.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: louise
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:50 AM
        Subject: [existlist] Re: marking


        Albert,

        Existentialists have varying beliefs. This is quite separate
        matter, conceptually, from our various experiences in life, the
        stuff of biography. Two brothers, for instance, may pass through
        some similar experiences, yet hold quite different beliefs. If you
        believe in choice, you will always have choice. Like if you believe
        in the Christ, He will always be there for you, whether or no
        conscious awareness grants the confirmation. I don't believe in
        choice. Trinidad can speak for himself, and does, with eloquence.
        That I have never disputed. I believe in necessity. I had no
        choice about posting the message reproduced below. This does not
        mean I do not hold myself responsible whenever it drifts toward a
        boorish tone or slapdash expression. I stand by its substance,
        though.

        Louise

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert" <al_d@...> wrote:
        >
        > Louise,
        >
        > If one is responsible for one's own actions, and if as you say,
        this is a "facet" of existentialism, then you imply implicitly that
        choice is also a component of existentialism ? By component, I mean
        necessary part.
        > I'm not convinced, that if what you say is correct, that Trinidad,
        or anyone else for that matter necessarily has the choice to be
        anything different to what they are now; and what they will be, by
        means of environment tomorrow.
        >
        > Albert.
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: louise
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 9:52 PM
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: marking
        >
        >
        > Trinidad,
        >
        > My past experience with you leads me to expect that whatever
        cogent
        > argument and evidence I adduce will be selectively ignored
        according
        > to whim. Some of what you write below I find appallingly violent
        by
        > implication, and your statements about SK contradictory. You are
        > also name-dropping in a most careless way. The fact that you
        have
        > chips on both shoulders about your own race and others' beliefs
        only
        > makes impossible any dialogue with you. Constant posting about
        US
        > politics drags down the philosophical content of the list. This
        is
        > a generalised complaint, and it will be my last. You and I have
        > clashed for a long time, and now I wash my hands of all further
        > attempt to reason. From my own point of view, I don't mind what
        you
        > have to say about me. Skin has thickened now. I would prefer, of
        > course, if I don't provoke a reaction that leads anyone,
        including
        > yourself, to bring more moderation disputes to the list, but
        what is
        > choice, after all?? How may one defend oneself against charges
        from
        > those who do not believe in the duty of argument and counter-
        > argument? Value-systems vary, and my own concepts of dignity
        most
        > certainly differ from yours. One is responsible for one's own
        > speech and actions, that is one facet of existentialism. Sadness
        > and despair, however, weaken the human will, and such weakness
        is as
        > destructive a force in our civilisations as are hubristic forms
        of
        > strength.
        >
        > Louise
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > No one fractures Sartre or derides SK more than I do; but I
        think,
        > > like existentialism, they personally defy analysis. I often
        express
        > > that I agree with Dennett and Dawkins and differ very little
        in
        > view.
        > > I actually hold their view to be safe for a dialectical
        approach to
        > > meaning; something that Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger,
        > Wittgenstein,
        > > and the whole body of American analytical philosophy through
        Quine
        > > including the radical empiricists like Mill and the later
        > linguistic
        > > bent of Searle and others could never lay claim to. The
        dialectical
        > > approach is only harmless to human development when applied to
        > natural
        > > science. There is no science of "consciousness" or "spirit"
        > or "soul".
        > > Such claims are in fact simply literary phenomena and devices.
        > Rorty
        > > approaches my view but stops short of Heidegger or Lyotard in
        > actually
        > > announcing the death of metaphysics. Indeed he suggests the re-
        > joining
        > > of science and philosophy is inevitable. This is not quite at
        the
        > > limit of the natural evolutionary view and a clean
        existentialism.
        > It
        > > is my view; that it is the action of literature, indeed
        literacy
        > > itself, not philosophy, that will assimilate into a natural
        > > presentation of the human species. It will become a natural
        part of
        > > the human condition similar to a heartbeat or a breath; indeed
        > > forgotten until one skips a beat, or struggles for breath.
        Modern
        > > physics is absolutely heading the scientist into the role of
        > > participant in the phenomena being observed. In such a position
        > > dialectical analysis is moot. When Emerson refers to the
        > philosopher's
        > > garden, or even the biblical St. Paul to the cloud of
        witnesses,
        > they
        > > may not be far from future fact. If literature is a whole
        thing, a
        > > bounded phenomenon, (which may be argued dialectically: we
        could
        > not
        > > actually make a visible mark without bounds) it might not be a
        non
        > > sequitur that the whole of literature, the philospher's garden
        if
        > you
        > > will, is to become accessible naturally to the human being. In
        the
        > > past I used some software called (I think) "Pointillist" ( a
        recent
        > > post reminded me of that). The scientific basis of it was that
        the
        > > human eye assimilates and the human brain dialectically
        processes
        > > information faster than the brain can process it as literature
        > > dialectically. I'm sure the same could be said of every human
        > > empirical sense. There is no doubt that literature is a
        fixative
        > of an
        > > evolutionary plateau for the human species. The question that
        begs
        > a
        > > dialectic is: Should we boldy go, or step back. All sides
        > (religion,
        > > politics, philosophy, science, even poetry) seem to be
        > dialectically
        > > bent on boldly going. That gives me pause.
        > >
        > > Existentialism began as a repudiation of abstract rationalism.
        SK,
        > > followed most recently by Deleuze's twisted humorous turn,
        rejected
        > > the possibility that the human being will ever be satisfied by
        an
        > all
        > > embracing objective understanding of the universe deeply
        enough to
        > > outweigh one's concern for their own life. As I have said,
        this
        > utter
        > > unabashed dignifying of the individual's life and death is the
        > core of
        > > the existentialist view. I would say, and Deleuze would
        probably
        > agree
        > > that: A human being cannot evolve beyond an objective view of
        the
        > > universe without becoming an illusion (subjective) in that
        > universe.
        > > There is no all knowing. Heidegger would say that our way of
        being
        > in
        > > the world is objective activity. I would say that it is action
        that
        > > mediates our personal existence. I like to think that Sartre
        would
        > > maintain that the distance over which we experience is other
        than
        > us
        > > and other than what we are aware of as experience. Nietzche
        would
        > call
        > > it nothingness. Pinker would say that distance can only be
        other
        > > "consciousness". Tillich would say it was: "the actual
        objective
        > God
        > > beyond the human subjective characterization of God". Rorty and
        > > Dennett would both maintain it was a blank to fill in and
        becoming
        > is
        > > next - and that is the direction we are boldly going. I must
        say,
        > as
        > > an existentialist; I think it is cowardice and rejection of the
        > > unpleasant (Onfray) that drives us to gambling away our
        dignity,
        > our
        > > statement, our existential panache. We should write our balls
        or
        > > vagina off as the case may be, because it is literature that
        has
        > fixed
        > > us as what we are; and what we are is the most dignified thing
        we
        > can
        > > be. Still the existentialist cannot write dialectically without
        > > sacrificing dignity.
        > >
        > > Sartre, boringly succinct, (and Berdyaev) state that the
        freedom of
        > > the existentialist must ethically seek the freedom of other or
        not
        > be
        > > free. I say that we are all in this age unassailably free
        because
        > it
        > > was not an uninformed (absurd) choice that caused us to be.
        > Literature
        > > existed before us all in this age. We simply at this stage of
        human
        > > development could not have arguably made an uninformed choice
        to be
        > > what we are. We saw marks and meant in every way to make our
        own.
        > For
        > > the existentialist that means the ethical responsibility of
        > dignifying
        > > the life and death of the human being. It is absolutely about
        the
        > > statement of human dignity. I have warts but I am human. I am
        a
        > genius
        > > but I am human. It is the question of dignity that defines
        ethics;
        > > arisen of freedom, of choice, of individuality, and of
        solidarity -
        > > altogether. We have the same fundamental empirical capacities
        > common
        > > to the species, but those capacites are so great that our views
        > > diverge. Rockin'. We have not chosen to come to this life to
        agree
        > > (control); but rather to dignify the choice. Dialectically
        this is
        > > absurd, and conflict is other - thus Sartre's view. Thus my
        view -
        > the
        > > existentialist cannot be a philosopher because the first
        choice,
        > that
        > > was his life and death as a human being, was to not be a
        > philosopher,
        > > because that very choice was already a dialectical settlement.
        > >
        > > "Don't jump in the water;
        > > if you can't swim.
        > > Light like a feather.
        > > Heavy as lead."
        > >
        > > Trinidad Cruz
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ----------------------------------------------------------
        -----------
        >
        >
        > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date:
        6/30/2006
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >






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


        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/2006


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • louise
        Albert, I have been striving to do just that [clarify what I mean by necessity] for the last two years. It is going to take time. Having received no formal
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Albert,

          I have been striving to do just that [clarify what I mean by
          necessity] for the last two years. It is going to take time.
          Having received no formal training in philosophy, I must proceed in
          rather spasmodic fashion. For me, those answers will be found in
          the works of Heidegger and Nietzsche, in the context of
          civilisations evolved at the clashing-point between Biblical ethics
          and other evaluative systems of culture (Hellenic, Arabic, Indo-
          European, etc.). That sounds rather grand and vague. If I can
          express myself more simply, in my own words, I shall do so.
          However, there is a need, for my sensibility, to 'feel at home' with
          those who read my contributions. If there be certain kinds of
          challenge, I need to provide historical quotations as a form of
          bulwark for my intellect, though always hopeful others will find
          such matter of interest.

          Louise


          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert" <al_d@...> wrote:
          >
          > Louise,
          >
          > You say you do not believe in choice, but hold yourself
          responsible for your actions nevertheless...
          >
          > Please clarify.
          >
          > Albert.
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: louise
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:50 AM
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: marking
          >
          >
          > Albert,
          >
          > Existentialists have varying beliefs. This is quite separate
          > matter, conceptually, from our various experiences in life, the
          > stuff of biography. Two brothers, for instance, may pass through
          > some similar experiences, yet hold quite different beliefs. If
          you
          > believe in choice, you will always have choice. Like if you
          believe
          > in the Christ, He will always be there for you, whether or no
          > conscious awareness grants the confirmation. I don't believe in
          > choice. Trinidad can speak for himself, and does, with
          eloquence.
          > That I have never disputed. I believe in necessity. I had no
          > choice about posting the message reproduced below. This does not
          > mean I do not hold myself responsible whenever it drifts toward
          a
          > boorish tone or slapdash expression. I stand by its substance,
          > though.
          >
          > Louise
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert" <al_d@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Louise,
          > >
          > > If one is responsible for one's own actions, and if as you
          say,
          > this is a "facet" of existentialism, then you imply implicitly
          that
          > choice is also a component of existentialism ? By component, I
          mean
          > necessary part.
          > > I'm not convinced, that if what you say is correct, that
          Trinidad,
          > or anyone else for that matter necessarily has the choice to be
          > anything different to what they are now; and what they will be,
          by
          > means of environment tomorrow.
          > >
          > > Albert.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: louise
          > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 9:52 PM
          > > Subject: [existlist] Re: marking
          > >
          > >
          > > Trinidad,
          > >
          > > My past experience with you leads me to expect that whatever
          > cogent
          > > argument and evidence I adduce will be selectively ignored
          > according
          > > to whim. Some of what you write below I find appallingly
          violent
          > by
          > > implication, and your statements about SK contradictory. You
          are
          > > also name-dropping in a most careless way. The fact that you
          > have
          > > chips on both shoulders about your own race and others'
          beliefs
          > only
          > > makes impossible any dialogue with you. Constant posting about
          > US
          > > politics drags down the philosophical content of the list.
          This
          > is
          > > a generalised complaint, and it will be my last. You and I
          have
          > > clashed for a long time, and now I wash my hands of all
          further
          > > attempt to reason. From my own point of view, I don't mind
          what
          > you
          > > have to say about me. Skin has thickened now. I would prefer,
          of
          > > course, if I don't provoke a reaction that leads anyone,
          > including
          > > yourself, to bring more moderation disputes to the list, but
          > what is
          > > choice, after all?? How may one defend oneself against charges
          > from
          > > those who do not believe in the duty of argument and counter-
          > > argument? Value-systems vary, and my own concepts of dignity
          > most
          > > certainly differ from yours. One is responsible for one's own
          > > speech and actions, that is one facet of existentialism.
          Sadness
          > > and despair, however, weaken the human will, and such weakness
          > is as
          > > destructive a force in our civilisations as are hubristic
          forms
          > of
          > > strength.
          > >
          > > Louise
          > >
          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@>
          > > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > No one fractures Sartre or derides SK more than I do; but I
          > think,
          > > > like existentialism, they personally defy analysis. I often
          > express
          > > > that I agree with Dennett and Dawkins and differ very little
          > in
          > > view.
          > > > I actually hold their view to be safe for a dialectical
          > approach to
          > > > meaning; something that Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger,
          > > Wittgenstein,
          > > > and the whole body of American analytical philosophy through
          > Quine
          > > > including the radical empiricists like Mill and the later
          > > linguistic
          > > > bent of Searle and others could never lay claim to. The
          > dialectical
          > > > approach is only harmless to human development when applied
          to
          > > natural
          > > > science. There is no science of "consciousness" or "spirit"
          > > or "soul".
          > > > Such claims are in fact simply literary phenomena and
          devices.
          > > Rorty
          > > > approaches my view but stops short of Heidegger or Lyotard
          in
          > > actually
          > > > announcing the death of metaphysics. Indeed he suggests the
          re-
          > > joining
          > > > of science and philosophy is inevitable. This is not quite
          at
          > the
          > > > limit of the natural evolutionary view and a clean
          > existentialism.
          > > It
          > > > is my view; that it is the action of literature, indeed
          > literacy
          > > > itself, not philosophy, that will assimilate into a natural
          > > > presentation of the human species. It will become a natural
          > part of
          > > > the human condition similar to a heartbeat or a breath;
          indeed
          > > > forgotten until one skips a beat, or struggles for breath.
          > Modern
          > > > physics is absolutely heading the scientist into the role of
          > > > participant in the phenomena being observed. In such a
          position
          > > > dialectical analysis is moot. When Emerson refers to the
          > > philosopher's
          > > > garden, or even the biblical St. Paul to the cloud of
          > witnesses,
          > > they
          > > > may not be far from future fact. If literature is a whole
          > thing, a
          > > > bounded phenomenon, (which may be argued dialectically: we
          > could
          > > not
          > > > actually make a visible mark without bounds) it might not be
          a
          > non
          > > > sequitur that the whole of literature, the philospher's
          garden
          > if
          > > you
          > > > will, is to become accessible naturally to the human being.
          In
          > the
          > > > past I used some software called (I think) "Pointillist" ( a
          > recent
          > > > post reminded me of that). The scientific basis of it was
          that
          > the
          > > > human eye assimilates and the human brain dialectically
          > processes
          > > > information faster than the brain can process it as
          literature
          > > > dialectically. I'm sure the same could be said of every human
          > > > empirical sense. There is no doubt that literature is a
          > fixative
          > > of an
          > > > evolutionary plateau for the human species. The question
          that
          > begs
          > > a
          > > > dialectic is: Should we boldy go, or step back. All sides
          > > (religion,
          > > > politics, philosophy, science, even poetry) seem to be
          > > dialectically
          > > > bent on boldly going. That gives me pause.
          > > >
          > > > Existentialism began as a repudiation of abstract
          rationalism.
          > SK,
          > > > followed most recently by Deleuze's twisted humorous turn,
          > rejected
          > > > the possibility that the human being will ever be satisfied
          by
          > an
          > > all
          > > > embracing objective understanding of the universe deeply
          > enough to
          > > > outweigh one's concern for their own life. As I have said,
          > this
          > > utter
          > > > unabashed dignifying of the individual's life and death is
          the
          > > core of
          > > > the existentialist view. I would say, and Deleuze would
          > probably
          > > agree
          > > > that: A human being cannot evolve beyond an objective view
          of
          > the
          > > > universe without becoming an illusion (subjective) in that
          > > universe.
          > > > There is no all knowing. Heidegger would say that our way of
          > being
          > > in
          > > > the world is objective activity. I would say that it is
          action
          > that
          > > > mediates our personal existence. I like to think that Sartre
          > would
          > > > maintain that the distance over which we experience is other
          > than
          > > us
          > > > and other than what we are aware of as experience. Nietzche
          > would
          > > call
          > > > it nothingness. Pinker would say that distance can only be
          > other
          > > > "consciousness". Tillich would say it was: "the actual
          > objective
          > > God
          > > > beyond the human subjective characterization of God". Rorty
          and
          > > > Dennett would both maintain it was a blank to fill in and
          > becoming
          > > is
          > > > next - and that is the direction we are boldly going. I must
          > say,
          > > as
          > > > an existentialist; I think it is cowardice and rejection of
          the
          > > > unpleasant (Onfray) that drives us to gambling away our
          > dignity,
          > > our
          > > > statement, our existential panache. We should write our
          balls
          > or
          > > > vagina off as the case may be, because it is literature that
          > has
          > > fixed
          > > > us as what we are; and what we are is the most dignified
          thing
          > we
          > > can
          > > > be. Still the existentialist cannot write dialectically
          without
          > > > sacrificing dignity.
          > > >
          > > > Sartre, boringly succinct, (and Berdyaev) state that the
          > freedom of
          > > > the existentialist must ethically seek the freedom of other
          or
          > not
          > > be
          > > > free. I say that we are all in this age unassailably free
          > because
          > > it
          > > > was not an uninformed (absurd) choice that caused us to be.
          > > Literature
          > > > existed before us all in this age. We simply at this stage
          of
          > human
          > > > development could not have arguably made an uninformed
          choice
          > to be
          > > > what we are. We saw marks and meant in every way to make our
          > own.
          > > For
          > > > the existentialist that means the ethical responsibility of
          > > dignifying
          > > > the life and death of the human being. It is absolutely
          about
          > the
          > > > statement of human dignity. I have warts but I am human. I
          am
          > a
          > > genius
          > > > but I am human. It is the question of dignity that defines
          > ethics;
          > > > arisen of freedom, of choice, of individuality, and of
          > solidarity -
          > > > altogether. We have the same fundamental empirical
          capacities
          > > common
          > > > to the species, but those capacites are so great that our
          views
          > > > diverge. Rockin'. We have not chosen to come to this life to
          > agree
          > > > (control); but rather to dignify the choice. Dialectically
          > this is
          > > > absurd, and conflict is other - thus Sartre's view. Thus my
          > view -
          > > the
          > > > existentialist cannot be a philosopher because the first
          > choice,
          > > that
          > > > was his life and death as a human being, was to not be a
          > > philosopher,
          > > > because that very choice was already a dialectical
          settlement.
          > > >
          > > > "Don't jump in the water;
          > > > if you can't swim.
          > > > Light like a feather.
          > > > Heavy as lead."
          > > >
          > > > Trinidad Cruz
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ----------------------------------------------------------
          > -----------
          > >
          > >
          > > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date:
          > 6/30/2006
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > -------------------------------------------------------------------
          -----------
          >
          >
          > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date:
          6/30/2006
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.