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

Re: marking

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.